EPA-450/3-89-023C
Hazardous Waste TSDF -
Background Information for
Proposed RCRA Air Emission
Standards
Volume III - Appendices G - L
Emission Standards Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
June 1991
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
Recommendation for use. . Copies of this report are available
•Hirouah the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental
Projection" ^geScy, Research Triangle Park ^'^'RovafRoad
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield VA 22161.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Figures
Tables
Abbreviations and Conversion Factors,
(Bound separately in Volume I)
Chapter
1.0 Introduction
Regulatory Authority and Standards Development
Industry Description and Air Emissions
Control Technologies
Control Strategies.
National Organic Emissions and Health Risk Impacts,
National Control Costs
Economic Impacts
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Appendix
A Evolution of Proposed Standards
B Index to Environmental Impact Considerations,
C Emission Models and Emission Estimates
(Bound separately in Volume II)
D Source Assessment Model ,
E Estimating Health Effects..
F Test Data ,
vn
ix
xii
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
A-l
B-l
C-l
D-l
E-l
F-l
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Appendix
Page
Emission Measurement and Continuous Monitoring G-l
G.I Emission Measurement Methods G-3
G.I.I Sampling G-3
G.I.2 Analytical Approach G-5
G.2 Monitoring Systems and Devices G-13
G.3 Emission Test Method G-13
Suppression and Add-on Control Device Cost Estimates
and Suppression Control Efficiency Estimates H-3
H.I Suppression Efficiency Estimates H-3
H.I.I Tank Cover H-3
H.I.2 Surface Impoundment Floating
Membrane Cover H-18
H.I.3 Container Submerged Loading H-22
H.I.4 Dumpster Cover H-34
H.2 Suppression and Add-On Control Device
Cost Estimates H-36
H.2.1 Individual Model Unit Control Device
Cost Estimates H-36
H.2.2 Weighted Cost Factors H-39
H.3 References H-41
Cost Table Attachments to Appendix H
Part A—Individual Model Unit Control Device
Cost Tables H-43
Part B—Weighted Cost Factor Tables H-185
Supporting Documents for the Economic
Impact Analysis • • 1-3
I.I Summary of the Hazardous Waste Management
Industry, Compliance Costs, and Emissions 1-3
1.2 Regulatory Impacts on Storage-Only Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities 1-9
1.3 Partial Equilibrium Multimarket Model for the
Hazardous Waste Management Industry 1-9
1.4 Workers Estimated to Be Employed in TSDF 1-17
1.5 References 1-19
Exposure Assessment for Maximum Risk and Noncancer
Health Effects J-3
0.1 TSDF Emission Models J-7
J.I.I Long-Term Emission Models J-7
J.I.2 Short-Term Emission Models J-8
J.2 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Selected for Detailed Analysis J-8
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Appendix
Page
J.2.1 Rationale for Selection of Facilities J-9
3.2.2 Description of Site 1 J-10
J.2.3 Description of Site 2 J-28
J.3 Long-Term TSDF Emission Control Strategies J-43
J.3.1 Long-Term Control Options J-45
J.3.2 Estimates of Annual Average Emissions
and Maximum Risk. J-45
J.4 Short-Term Controls j-50
J.5 Dispersion Modeling for Chronic Health
Effects Assessment j-50
J.5.1 Description of the Atmospheric
Dispersion Model j-53
J.5.2 Normalized Concentrations j-55
J.5.3 Dispersion Model Application J-57
J.5.4 Estimation of Average Annual Ambient
Concentration j-63
J.6 Dispersion Modeling for Acute Health Effects
Assessment j-67
J.6.1 Short-Term Modeling Approach j-68
J.6.2 Short-Term Model Application j-71
J.7 References J-72
Secondary Air and Cross-Media Impact Estimates ' K-3
K.I Control Option Environmental and Energy Impacts K-3
K.2 Estimation Procedure K-5
K.3 Definition of Control Device Operating Conditions K-6
K.4 Development of Estimation Factors K-9
K.5 Results K-9
K.6 References K-15
90-Day Tanks and Container Impacts L-3
L.I Estimation Procedure L-4
L.2 Estimation Factors L-5
L.3 Nationwide 90-Day Tanks and Containers
Waste Quantity L-8
L.4 Results L-10
L.5 References.,, L-14
-------
-------
FIGURES
Number
J-l
J-2
J-3
J-4
J-5
J-6
Detailed facility analysis plot plan of Site 1 J-12
Detailed facility analysis: treatment, storage,
and disposal facility, Site 1 flow diagram J-13
Detailed facility analysis plot plan of Site 2 J-29
Site 2 flow diagram - J-30
Receptor network for Site 1 j_64
Receptor network for Site 2. j-65
VI 1
-------
-------
TABLES
Number
Page
H-l Model Unit Parameters Used to Calculate Tank
Cover Suppression Efficiency H-5
H-2 Waste Compositions and Properties Used to
Calculate Tank Cover Suppression Efficiency H-6
H-3 Cover Suppression Efficiency for TSDF Storage
and Treatment Tanks H-9
H-4 Tank Cover Suppression Efficiency Estimate
Calculation Example H-10
H-5 Input Values for Floating Membrane Cover Control
Efficiency Estimates H-23
H-6 Storage Surface Impoundment Floating Membrane
Cover Control Efficiency H-24
H-7 Quiescent Treatment Surface Impoundment Floating
Membrane Cover Control Efficiency H-26
H-8 Storage Surface Impoundment Floating Membrane
Cover Control Efficiency H-28
H-9 Quiescent Treatment Surface Impoundment Floating
Membrane Cover Control Efficiency H-30
H-10 Summary of Floating Membrane Cover Control
Efficiency Estimates H-32
H-ll Suppression Factors for Petroleum Liquid
Container Loading Emission Model H-35
1-1 Hazardous Waste Management Services:
Summary Statistics 1-4
1-2 Compliance Costs of Control Options, $106/yr 1-5
1-3 Capital Costs of Control Options, $106/yr 1-6
1-4 Organic Air Emissions of Regulatory Options,
10^ Mg: Summary Statistics 1-7
1-5 Number of Facilities Affected by Control Options 1-8
1-6 Volume of Waste Managed: Storage-Only Facilities
by Sector, 1986 1-10
1-7 Compliance Costs of Control Options: Storage-
Only Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, SlO^/yr 1-11
1-8 Capital Costs of Control Options: Storage-Only
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, $106/yr 1-12
1-9 Number of Storage-Only Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities Affected, by Control Option 1-13
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
Page
1-10 Compliance Costs as Percent of Storage Costs:
Storage-Only Hazardous Waste Management Facilities 1-14
1-11 Organic Emissions for Control Options: Storage-
Only Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, 10^ Mg/yr 1-15
1-12 Estimated Number of Workers in Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities 1-18
J-l Physical Properties of Organic Surrogates Used in the
Detailed Facility Analyses J-6
0-2 Detailed Facility Analysis: Short-Term and Continuous
Process Flow Rates Within TSDF Site 1 J-14
J-3 Detailed Facility Analysis: Contents of Each Waste
Mixture Managed at TSDF Site 1 J-15
J-4 Detailed Facility Analysis: Waste Characterization
by Constituent of Concern for TSDF Site 1 J-16
J-5 Detailed Facility Analysis: Average Concentrations
of Surrogates in Waste.Stream Mixtures at TSDF Site 1 J-21
0-6 Detailed Facility Analysis: Definition of Variables
Used in Short-Term TSDF Emission Equations J-22
J-7 Detailed Facility Analysis: Short-Term and Continuous
Process Flow Rates Within TSDF Site 2 J-31
J-8 Detailed Facility Analysis: Contents of Each Waste
Mixture Managed at TSDF Site 2 J-32
J-9 Detailed Facility Analysis: Waste Characterization
by Constituent of Concern for TSDF Site 2 J-34
0-10 Detailed Facility Analysis: Average Concentrations
of Surrogates in Waste Stream Mixtures at TSDF Site 2 J-37
J-ll Detailed Facility Analysis: TSDF Site 1 Controls J-46
J-12 Detailed Facility Analysis: TSDF Site 2 Controls J-48
J-13 Summary of Modeling Results for Site 1 J-51
0-14 Source Characterization for Site 1 J-58
0-15 Source Characterization for Site 2 0-60
0-16 Options Used in ISCLT Model Applications 0-66
0-17 Options Used in ISCST Model Applications 0-73
0-18 Summary of Results for Acute Health Effects Modeling
Analysis of Site 1 ' 0-74
0-19 Summary of Results for Acute Health Effects Modeling
Analysis of Site 2 0-76
K-l General TSDF Control Device Operating Conditions
Used for Environmental and Energy Impact Estimates K-7
K-2 Boundary TSDF Control Device Operating Conditions
Used for Environmental and Energy Impact Estimates K-10
K-3 TSDF Control Device Operation Factors Used for
Environmental and Energy Impact Estimates K-ll
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
Page
K-4 TSDF Control Device Operation Emission Factors
and Waste Generation Rates Used for Environmental
and Energy Impact Estimates K-12
K-5 Summary of Nationwide Environmental and Energy
Impact Estimates for Hazardous Waste TSDF Control
Options: Lower Boundary Estimate K-13
K-6 Summary of Nationwide Environmental and Energy
Impact Estimates for Hazardous Waste TSDF Control
Options: Upper Boundary Estimate K-14
L-l 90-Day Tanks and Containers Organic Emission Factors L-6
L-2 90-Day Tanks and Containers Control Cost Estimation
Factors L-7
L-3 Estimated Nationwide 90-Day Tanks and Containers .
Waste Quantities L-ll
L-4 90-Day Tanks and Containers Organic Emission Estimates L-12
L-5 90-Day Tanks and Containers Control Cost Estimates L-13
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVERSION FACTORS
The EPA policy is to express all measurements in Agency documents in
the International System of Units (SI). Listed below are abbreviations
and conversion factors for equivalents of these units.
Abbreviations
L - liters
kg - kilograms
Mg - megagrams
m - meters
cm - centimeters
kPa - kilopascals
ha - hectares
rad - radians
kW - kilowatts
Conversion Factor
liter X 0.26 = gallons
gallons X 3.79 = liters
kilograms X 2.203 = pounds
pounds X 0.454 = kilograms
megagram XI = metric tons
megagram X 1.1 = short tons
short tons X 0.907 = megagrams
meters X 3.28 = feet
centimeters X 0.396 = inches
kilopascals X 0.01 = bars
bars X 100 = kilopascals
kilopascals X 0.0099 = atmospheres
atmospheres X 101 = kilopascals
kilopascals X 0.145 = pound per
square inch
pound per square inch X 6.90 =
kilopascals
hectares X 2.471 = acres
acres X 0.40469 = hectares
radians X 0.1592 = revolutions
revolutions X 6.281 = radians
kilowatts X 1.341 = horsepower
horsepower X 0.7457 = kilowatts
Frequently used measurements in this document are:
0.21
5.7
30
76
800
1.83
m3
m3
210 L
5,700 L
30,000 L
m3 ~ 76,000 L
m3 ~ 800,000 L
kg 02/kW/h
kW/28.3 m3
55 gal
1,500 gal
8,000 gal
~ 20,000 gal
~ 210,000 gal
3 Ib 02/hp/h
1.341 hp/10-3 ft3
kPa«m3/g»mol ~ 0.0099 atm»m3/g»mol
xn
-------
APPENDIX G
EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING
-------
-------
' APPENDIX G
EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING
G.I EMISSION MEASUREMENT METHODS
G. 1.1 Sampling
The purpose of the volatile organic (VO) test method is to gain an
understanding of the VO emission potential of a particular waste. The accu-
racy of any analytical result becomes irrelevant if the sample is not
representative of the total waste. A representative sample is defined as a
small amount of waste that has the same VO per unit weight as the average of
a much larger amount of waste. Included in the test method will be guidance
in proper sampling and storage techniques to obtain a representative sample
while minimizing VO loss during sample collection.
The primary emphasis to date has been in identifying proper procedures
for sampling liquid wastes from a pipe. This is anticipated to represent
the majority of the regulatory need. The following discussion provides in-
sight into the current status of this aspect of the VO test method develop-
ment.
There are two problems with sampling from a pipe:
(1) The first is nonhomogeneity of the waste. A sample of a non-
homogeneous waste extracted from a wall tap would probably be
biased. Turbulent flow creates a mixing action that will homog-
enize single-phase waste, but may not be enough to disperse and
homogenize a multiphase waste.
(2) The second problem is that VO can volatilize during sample col-
lection. The U.S. EPA has investigated VO loss from the
handling, storage, and transfer of synthetic waste and has found
significant losses for compounds with low solubility and high
volatility. This investigation indicates a need to provide
guidance in the test method to minimize this potential VO loss.
Two types of sampling systems were considered to minimize these
potential problems. These are discussed below.
A closed loop sampling system was considered because of its ability to
sample representatively. The entire waste stream is diverted to a bypass
G-3
-------
loop. After purging the bypass loop with the waste, the waste is directed
back through the waste line and the bypass loop is removed by a series of
valves with the sample sealed inside. The sample container is essentially a
length of pipe capped at both ends. Because an entire cross section of the
waste stream is collected, the problem of nonhomogeneity of the waste stream
is eliminated. The closed loop sampler does not leave a messy sampling site
or expose the waste sample to the air; thus, VO loss is minimized. The
sample loop can be shipped in ice to a lab for VO analysis. The closed loop
sampling system works for the on-site tester but creates a problem for the
lab. The lab must mix and aliquot a representative subsample while
restricting VO loss. The actual sample container would also have to be
designed to withstand potential extremes in pressure and temperature and to
minimize back pressure during sample collection.
The second system considered was installation of a static mixer with
the sample collected from a wall tap down stream of the mixer. This ar-
rangement offers the tester more flexibility in the type of sample container
used. A literature search has shown that properly designed static mixers
are capable of dispersing and mixing an oily phase or a solid slurry into an
aqueous phase. The static mixer can be installed in the sample line or in a
bypass line. The cost of the mixers range from $500 to $5000, depending on
materials and size. Once the phases are fully dispersed and homogenized, a
tap sample is representative of the waste. Another advantage to this
approach over using the closed loop sampler is that the sample containers
can be less sophisticated, inexpensive, and more reliable. However, there
is now exposure to the atmosphere during collection, so that precautions are
needed to minimize VO losses.
The sampling protocol recommends a properly designed static mixer with
the sample extracted from a wall tap after the mixer as the preferred method
for sampling for VO. Guidance on what constitutes a properly designed
static mixer and the acceptable location of the wall tap will be provided in
the test method. To minimize VO loss during sample collection, the method
will require the sample to be cooled to less than 4 °C (40 °F) with a stain-
less steel cooling coil in an ice bath. After exiting the cooling coil, the
waste will flow through a Teflon® tube to the bottom of a chilled sampling
G-4
-------
container. If the VO test method is a headspace analysis, the sample col-
lection container will also be the container used in the analysis, and there
would be no transfer of sample. If the VO test method requires the sample
to be transferred to another container, then the volume of the sampling con-
tainer will be defined as the volume needed for the analysis, and homoge-
nizing and subsampling the sample in the lab will not be necessary. This
also means that the sample can be stored-with no headspace.
G.I.2 Analytical Approach
The analytical approach chosen to measure volatile emissions from waste
was to develop a two-part method. First, the VO would be separated from the
waste, then the VO would be measured by a suitable measurement technique.
The separation step has two purposes:
(1). By choosing a separation process based on the waste components
vapor pressure, the separation step can be used to define the
waste's volatile fraction. By investigating different volatile
separation techniques and varying the physical parameters of the
chosen technique, the separation's removal efficiency might be
matched or correlated with the emission potential from a variety
of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDF).
(2). Once the waste's volatile fraction has been separated, analyzing
for organic constituents in the volatile fraction is much
easier. Analysis of whole waste samples is difficult because of
interfering components and unfavorable physical characteristics.
The separated volatile fraction can be analyzed as either a
vapor in a carrier gas, condensed as a pure compound, mixed with
a carrier solvent, or adsorbed on a solid adsorbent. Any of
these sample matrices would be free from a majority of the ana-
lytical difficulties encountered with whole waste.
Because the final decision as to whether to monitor for specific com-
pounds, total organics, or a combination of both had not been made, several
measurement techniques were considered. If it was decided that only
individual compounds were to be monitored, then the solid waste methods in
SW-846 would provide validated methods for Appendix IX compounds. These
methods could be applied directly to the waste or adapted to analyze the
separated volatile fraction.
Three different techniques have been investigated to provide a total
organic analysis of the separated volatile fraction. The first technique
collects the volatile fraction in or on a suitable media, such as a Tedlar®
G-5
-------
bag or charcoal adsorbent for organic vapors and water or organic solvent
for condensed organics. The collected fraction is then analyzed first by a
commercially available total organic carbon analyzer, and then by a commer-
cially available total halogen analyzer. The amount of carbon as methane
and halogen as chlorine are added to approximate the total organic in the
volatile fraction.
The second technique is to analyze the separated fraction immediately
after the separation thereby eliminating the collection step. This substan-
tially improves the method's precision and provides immediate results. The
organic vapor separated from the waste is thermally oxidized to C02, HC1,
HF, and HBr. The haloacids are removed in an aqueous impinger, and the C02
is reduced to Cfy and analyzed continuously with a flame ionization detector
(FID) to determine the total carbon removed from the waste. The halogens
collected in the impinger are measured after the test by ion chromatography.
Again, the amount of carbon and halogen are added to approximate the total
organic in the volatile fraction.
The third technique is to use the FID directly without the oxidation/
reduction steps to determine the total carbon removed from the waste and to
use a Hall electrolytic conductivity detector (HECD) to continuously measure
the removed halogens. This method eliminates the complicated
oxidation/reduction step and increases the sensitivity of the halogen
measurement and provides a real time signal for the halogen determination.
G.I.2.1. Evaluation Approach
The four proposed separation techniques were evaluated in the following
general manner. Six waste types were identified as representing a typical
range of waste handled by TSDF. These waste types were single-phase dilute
aqueous waste, multiphase aqueous waste, aqueous sludge waste, organic
sludge waste, organic waste, and solid waste. Six synthetic wastes were
prepared to represent the six waste types.
Each synthetic waste contained varying concentrations of nine organic
compounds chosen to represent different chemical classes with a range of
physical characteristics. Two chlorinated compounds were chosen: methylene
chloride, a chloroalkane with a very high vapor pressure, and chlorobenzene,
a halogenated aromatic compound with a much lower vapor pressure. Three
G-6
-------
hydrocarbons were chosen: isooctane, an alkane with a high vapor pressure;
toluene, an aromatic with a lower vapor pressure; and naphthalene, a
polynuclear aromatic with a low vapor pressure. Three oxygenated hydro-
carbons were chosen: 2-butanone, a ketone with a high vapor pressure; 1-
butanol, an alcohol with a high vapor pressure; and phenol, an aromatic
alcohol with a low vapor pressure. One nitrogen-containing organic compound
was chosen: pyridine, an aromatic amine with a medium vapor pressure. The
actual volatilities and relative volatilities of these compounds depend on
the waste matrix and the environmental conditions.
The four separation techniques were evaluated under a variety of
operating conditions. These conditions include batch steam distillation
with a distillate volume varying from 1 percent to 40 percent of the total
waste volume (1 to 40 percent boil over); elevated temperature purge and trap
(ETPT) at 25 °C and 90 °C with purge volumes varying from 8 to 49 times the
waste volume; equilibrium headspace at 25 °C, 50 °C, 75 °C, and 90 °C; and
organic matrix heated purge (OMHP) at purge times of 10, 20, 30, and 40 min,
,at flow rates of 0.35, 3, 6, and 12 L/min, at temperatures of 50 °C, 75 °C,
and 100 °C, and with dioctyl phthalate (OOP) and polyethylene glycol as the
purging matrix. Each of the six synthetic wastes was tested under each set
of conditions in triplicate except for the OMHP test where only duplicate
measurements were made.
The percent recovery for each compound from each waste was determined
as a function of some physical parameter of the technique's operating condi-
tions. Percent recovery is defined as the fraction of the initial amount of
a compound added to a waste recovered in the distillate, charcoal traps, or
headspace after separation from the waste. The variable parameter was one
that controlled the degree of severity of the separation process. For
example, temperature was varied for headspace analysis, a combination of
temperature and purge volume was varied for ETPT, volume of distillate or
boilover was varied for batch steam distillation, and purge times, tempera-
tures, and volumes were varied for OMHP. Because a recovery profile showing
the amount recovered versus the variable parameter was generated for each
technique's set of operating conditions, a matching of the recovery from a
specific technique and set of operating conditions with the predicted
volatile emissions from a source category or type could be attempted at a
later date.
G-7
-------
G.I.2.2 Separation Technique Evaluation
The batch steam distillation evaluation consisted of distilling 250 to
500 ml of synthetic waste or waste plus water, with water being added if the
waste matrix were not aqueous. Condensate fractions were collected at dif-
ferent points during the distillation. The waste's pH was initially made
basic and then acidic after 20 percent of the sample had been removed. In
addition to the condensate fractions, the vapors leaving the distillation
apparatus were collected in a Tedlar bag, and the condenser was rinsed with
solvent to remove solids and adsorbed organics. The condensates, bag, and
glassware samples were analyzed and the results were combined at the comple-
tion of each test. Whenever possible, a sample of the pot residue was col-
lected and analyzed to determine the amount of the nine compounds remaining.
For the ETPT technique approximately 7 ml of waste was suspended in 18
ml of water. The waste was buffered at a pH of 8 and purged for 10 min at
25 °C and a flow rate of 20 mL/min. The organics removed were trapped on
charcoal-adsorbent traps. The temperature was then raised to 90 °C, and the
waste was purged for another 10 min. Finally, the waste was purged for an
additional 40 min, for a total purge time of 60 min. The adsorbent traps
were changed after each purge step, extracted with a mixture of carbon di-
sulfide and acetone, and analyzed.
For the headspace analysis, 10 g of synthetic waste was added to a 4-oz
(115-mL) glass jar sealed with a Teflon-coated septum. The jar was placed
in a constant temperature bath and allowed to equilibrate for 1 h. A sample
of the headspace was then removed and analyzed. A separate sample was
prepared for each temperature. For two waste types, the waste remaining in
the glass jar after the test, was collected and analyzed to measure the
amount of the 9 compounds remaining.
For the OMHP evaluation, lOg of each synthetic waste sample was
suspended in 100 ml of OOP. The volatile organics were stripped from this
mixture with nitrogen at a flow rate of 11 L/min. The volatiles were
removed from the gas stream in primary and secondary charcoal adsorption
traps, which contained 4.0 and 2.0 g of activated charcoal, respectively.
The purge times were 10, 20, 30, and 40 min. Separate samples were purged
for each purge time. The trapped organics were extracted from the charcoal
6-8
-------
with a 25% solution of acetone in carbon disulfide. A sample of the OOP was
collected and analyzed to measure the amount of the nine compounds remaining
after completion of each test.
Further tests were conducted with the OMHP to determine the effect of
purging temperature and volume. All of the synthetic waste types were not
used for this study. Instead, three organic compounds dissolved in water
were evaluated individually at each experimental condition. The three
compounds were methylene chloride, toluene, and phenol. These compounds
represented a wide range of volatility and polarity. These samples were
purged at flow rates varying from 0.35 L/min to 12 L/min and temperatures
varying from 50 °C to 100 °C. All the samples were purged for 30 minutes.
Once purged from the matrix, the gas stream was split and directed to a
flame ionization detector (FID) and an electrolytic conductivity detector
(ELCD) where the carbon and halogen contents of the volatiles were measured.
An additional group of compounds including methanol, methyl ethyl ketone,
m-xylene, chlorobenzene, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane was tested at 6 L/min
and 75 °C.
At the conclusion of the purging parameter tests, the effect of the
dispersing matrix was also evaluated. As in the previous tests, individual
organic compounds dissolved in water were tested in various purging
matrices. The purging matrices were OOP, OOP and water in a 50/50 mixture,
polyethylene glycol (PEG), and PEG and water in a 50/50 mixture. The
compounds tested included methylene chloride, toluene, phenol, methanol,
methyl ethyl ketone, rn-xylene, chlorobenzene, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.
All samples were purged at a flow rate of 6 L/min at 75 °C for 30 minutes.
After testing each technique, it was confirmed that the recoveries var-
ied widely between techniques, varied predictably with separation param-
eters, and varied with compound class. It appears that some of the vari-
ability in recoveries was due to sample handling and analysis losses during
the study. As a result, there is a difference between recovery and removal
efficiencies. Because similar care was taken to minimize sample handling
and analysis losses during the study, this variability is considered
inherent to the separation techniques.
The highest recoveries in all cases were achieved with steam distilla-
tion. As one would expect, recoveries increased with the amount of
G-9
-------
distillate boiled over. For most waste types, the bulk of the organic
compound was recovered before 10 percent boilover. The water-soluble
compounds with the lowest vapor pressures (phenol and pyridine) were the
only compounds still being recovered in significant amounts after 10
percent boilover.
The OMHP achieved slightly lower recoveries than the steam distilla-
tion. Overall, recovery of the nine compounds was independent of the waste
matrix tested. Recovery of naphthalene and phenol from the OOP was always
very low, with only 30 to 50 percent of these compounds being effectively
removed. However, the recovery of naphthalene from the 50/50 PEG and water
was significantly higher.
The ETPT technique obtained the third highest recoveries. Very little
of the water-soluble, polar, compounds were recovered at 25 °C. Increasing
the temperature to 90 °C drastically increased the recovery for water solu-
ble compounds 2-butanone, 1-butanol, and pyridine. Phenol was never
recovered to any extent with this technique. The nonpolar compounds showed
no significant improvement in recoveries after an initial 30 min. purge at
25 °C or after 10 min at 90 °C; Naphthalene's recovery was generally low
(especially in organic waste).
The headspace analysis obtained the lowest overall recoveries during
the evaluations. An increase in recovery was found for all waste between
the 25 °C, 50 °C, and 75 °C headspace analysis; however, most of the waste
results showed little or no increase in recovery between 75 °C and 90 °C.
In general, the recoveries for the organic waste were 5 to 10 times lower
than for the other waste types. Like the ETPT data, the water-soluble
compounds were not recovered at 25 °C. Recovery of phenol was very low
for most of the waste types even at 90 °C.
The general trend found between waste types for the ETPT, headspace,
and steam distillation techniques was that the organic matrix waste retarded
the removal of the nonpolar compounds and required more severe separation
parameters to remove the same percentage as in an aqueous waste. Recovery
of polar compounds from an organic matrix was slightly higher than from an
aqueous matrix. For the steam distillation, recoveries were higher for the
solid matrix than for all other waste forms, except for the multiphase
waste. Although the multiphase liquid waste gave the highest overall
6-10
-------
recoveries for both the steam distillation and the headspace techniques, it
gave the second to the lowest recoveries for the ETPT technique. The
headspace recoveries for a solid waste were lower than for the aqueous waste
and higher than for the organic waste. For the ETPT evaluation, the lowest
recoveries were found for the solid waste. The OMHP did not follow any of
these trends as the recoveries were found to be independent of the waste
form tested. Apparently, the suspension of a waste form in an organic
medium makes all wastes behave as organic phase waste.
Several general trends were also found for compound classes during all
the technique evaluations. The compounds with lowest solubility were the
first to be removed. Thus, the nonpolar compounds were generally the
easiest to recover because most of the waste types either contained water or
were mixed with water before testing except the OMHP. Vapor pressure
appeared to have little influence, with naphthalene being recovered more
easily than methylene chloride for many wastes. In organic waste, however,
a direct'relationship existed between vapor pressure and removal efficiency
for nonpolar compounds. Of all the polar compounds, the two compounds known
to dissociate appreciably in water (phenol and pyridine) were the most dif-,
ficult to recover. Recoveries for all the polar compounds increased in or-
ganic waste types compared to the aqueous waste types.
Repeatability for each technique was evaluated by testing each
synthetic waste in triplicate. By using the relative standard deviation
(RSD) of the percent recovery for each compound at each point in a test, an
estimate of the laboratory variability was made. The RSD of the final
recoveries for the steam distillation ranged from 10 percent to 25 percent,
with the greatest RSD found for the dilute aqueous waste where
concentrations were the lowest. The variability for recoveries of
individual compounds at points during the distillation were slightly higher
than the variability at the 40 percent boilover.
Variability of the OMHP recoveries ranged from 8 to 25 percent RSD and
were generally about equal to the steam distillation. The greatest RSD was
found for the solid waste where problems with sample loss were encountered
in transfering a dry solid material into the OMHP apparatus.
Variability of the ETPT recoveries was greater than that for steam
distillation, with a range of 5 to 55 percent RSD for recoveries at 90 °C
G-ll
-------
after a 60-min purge time. Unlike the variability of steam distillation,
variability of the intermediate recoveries for the ETPT technique were lower
than the variability of the recoveries after a 60-min purge at 90 °C, and
the waste form with the highest concentration (multiphase aqueous waste)
showed the greatest variability in recoveries. Even so, the compounds with
the lowest recoveries consistently had the highest variabilities.
The variability of the headspace technique was dependant on the percent
recovery detected. Variability for two thirds of the recoveries was below 20
percent RSD; however, the variability ranged from less than 1 percent to
over 170 percent RSDi Recoveries for the test at 25 °C and the solid waste
showed the greatest variability because of the low recoveries found for this
test temperature and waste type. The polar compounds showed the highest
variability, which again is a result of the low recoveries found for the
compounds using the headspace technique.
G.I.2.3 Measurement Technique Evaluation
Several approaches to the measurement of the VO once it is removed from
the waste were investigated. The measurement methods were evaluated using
the OMHP separation method. One approach was to collect the purged material
on a charcoal trap which was then weighed. The limit of detection required
for the regulatory purposes was well below those achievable with a gravimet-
ric determination. As a result several instrumental methods were
investigated which included oxidation of the organic compounds to carbon di-
oxide (C02) and haloacids followed by reduction of the C02 to methane
(ox/red) before being measured by an FID and collection of the haloacids in
a water solution followed by measurement with an ion chromatograph. An al-
ternate procedure was to measure the organic compound directly with an FID
for organic carbon and simultaneously with a Hall electrolytic conductivity
detector (HECD) for halogens.
Because the ox/red technique does not distinguish between organic and
inorganic carbon, a C0£ subtraction technique was also examined. The C02
subtraction technique involved collecting a sample of the purge stream
before it was oxidized in a Tedlar bag. The bag sample was analyzed for C02
concentration by using a non methane organic analyzer as described in EPA
Method 25.
G-12
-------
A synthetic waste evaluation of the ox/red technique with the C02 sub-
traction technique was performed in triplicate with an aqueous waste
consisting of about 600 ppm VO and about the same level of volatile C02
(using sodium bicarbonate solution). The study revealed that C02 measured
by the Method 25 was as large or larger than the C02 generated during the
ox/red process. Due to variability in both the measurement and the ox/red
steps, subtraction of the large C02 value from the ox/red values did not
provide meaningful results. From this evaluation, it was determined that
the ox/red technique was too complicated to provide reliable results and the
potential C02 interference was too large.
Oxidation of the purged organic halides to form halide acids which were
analyzed by ion chromatography was evaluated. Detection limits were found
to be too high to detect the levels proposed for the regulation.
Direct FID/HECD detection was evaluated using two synthetic waste
types: a dilute aqueous and a high level organic. Synthetic waste
evaluations resulted in average recoveries of VOC in the expected range
(about 70 - 80 percent). Recoveries of halogen ranged from 55 percent for
the organic waste to 88 percent for the aqueous waste. To ensure that inor-
ganic carbon would not act as an interference, a synthetic waste containing
about 600 ppm VO and about the same level of volatile C02 (using sodium
bicarbonate solution) was evaluated. Inorganic carbon (C02) was found to
have no effect on organic carbon recoveries. Several compounds were eval-
uated for use as a calibration standard for the HECD. A compound (1,1-
dichloroethylene) having an intermediate response factor in the range of
those tested was chosen.
G.2 MONITORING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES
Because of the wide variability and inconsistency of both the physical
and chemical characteristics of most waste process streams, no continuous
monitors for VO are likely to be available. Continuous monitors available
to monitor proper operation and maintenance of control systems will be
discussed after identification of potential control systems.
G.3 EMISSION TEST METHOD
The organic matrix heated purge (OMHP) method with direct FID/HECD is
recommended as the compliance test method. The advantages of this method
over the others evaluated are listed below:
6-13
-------
• Better recovery efficiency than headspace and ETPT.
• Less complex and labor intensive than steam distillation with
about the same recovery efficiency.
• Better repeatability than steam distillation and ETPT.
• Automation of some aspects of operation possible.
• Recovery efficiencies are, for the most part, independent of the
waste form tested.
The basic principle of operation of the OMHP method is to suspend the
waste in a dispersing matrix, 50/50 PEG and water, and purge it with a high
flow rate (6 L/min) at an elevated temperature (about 75 °C) for 30 minutes.
An analytical slip-stream of the purge stream is split to a flame ionization
detector (FID) for organic carbon detection and an electrolytic conductivity
detector (ECD) for organic halogen detection. The total organic carbon mass
(detected as mg of methane) and the total organic halogen mass (detected as
mg of chlorine) are added together to obtain a total volatile organic value.
•G-14
-------
APPENDIX H
SUPPRESSION AND ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICE
COST ESTIMATES AND SUPPRESSION
CONTROL EFFICIENCY ESTIMATES
-------
-------
APPENDIX H
SUPPRESSION AND ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICE COST ESTIMATES
AND SUPPRESSION CONTROL EFFICIENCY ESTIMATES
The purpose of this appendix is to supplement the information pre-
sented in Chapters 4;0 through 7.0 by providing detailed descriptions of
the assumptions made and calculations performed to estimate the capital and
annual costs for each individual control device type selected for the
different control options. Also, calculations are presented to estimate
the organic air emission suppression efficiency for cover type and
container loading controls applicable to hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF) emission sources. This appendix
uses the model unit nomenclature defined in Appendix C.
H.I SUPPRESSION EFFICIENCY ESTIMATES
Direct measurement of emission control efficiency is not practical for
certain types of suppression controls applicable to TSDF emission sources
because of the large areas that must be enclosed to obtain accurate
results. Consequently, empirical emission correlations for petroleum
liquids, theoretical chemistry models, and laboratory test data were
adapted to estimating organic air emission reduction efficiency for the
following types of TSDF suppression controls:
• Tank cover
• Surface impoundment floating membrane cover
• Container submerged loading
• Dumpster cover.
H.I.I Tank Cover
The efficiency of covers in suppressing organic air emissions from
TSDF storage and quiescent treatment tanks was estimated for two tank cover
types: (1) fixed-roof installed on an open-top (i.e., uncovered) tank, and
(2) internal floating roof installed in a covered tank.
H-3
-------
The basic approach used to estimate fixed-roof suppression efficiency
consisted of performing calculations using standard tank emission models to
determine the difference in emissions from identically sized fixed-roof and
open-top tanks containing the same waste material. The same approach with
the appropriate tank emission models was also used for internal floating
roofs. Open-top tank emissions were estimated using the emission model
described in Appendix C, Section C.I.1.1.1. Fixed-roof and internal
floating roof tank emissions were estimated using the emission models
described in Section 4.3 of the EPA document, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors (AP-42).1
The tank parameters (e.g.,, volume, diameter, throughput) necessary for
the emission calculations were selected from the TSDF model tank
definitions presented in Appendix C, Table C-l. Model unit S02I was
selected to represent TSDF storage tanks, and model unit T01B was selected
to represent TSDF quiescent treatment tanks. Table H-l lists the selected
model unit tank parameters.
Individual suppression efficiency values were calculated for the five
model waste categories defined for liquid wastes (refer to Appendix C,
Section C.2.2). The waste compositions and characteristics (e.g., vapor
pressure, liquid density) used for the emission calculations are presented
in Table H-2.
To examine the sensitivity of suppression efficiency to the selection
of chemical constituent content, fixed-roof suppression efficiencies were
computed for three different waste compositions in each waste category
(Compositions A, B, and C listed in Table H-2). The three fixed-roof
suppression efficiency values were then averaged to obtain the overall
fixed-roof suppression efficiency for the waste category. Based on the
evaluation of these results, it was concluded that suppression efficiency
for a particular waste category is relatively insensitive to the three
compositions. Therefore, the internal floating roof suppression
efficiencies were computed for only Composition A in each waste category.
The calculation results are summarized in Table H-3. Table H-4
presents a detailed example calculation of the suppression efficiency for a
fixed-roof and an internal floating roof installed in a 76 m3 (20,000 gal)
storage tank containing an organic liquid waste.
H-4
-------
TABLE H-1. MODEL UNIT PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE TANK COVER SUPPRESSION EFFICIENCY
Tank Parameter
a—-"rr-!rsgg===aasi3g
Throughput (cubic meters per year)
Surface Area (square meters)
Depth (meters)
Volume (cubic meters)
Turnovers per year
Ambient Temperature (C)
Windspeed (meter/sec)
TSDF Mot
Storage Tank
S02I
3,300
26
2.7
76
'
44
•
25
4.5
fel Unit
Quiescent
Treatment Tank
T01B
28,000
26
2.7
76
365
"
25
4.5
"
H-5
-------
TABLE H-2. WASTE COMPOSITIONS AND PROPERTIES USED TO CALCULATE TANK COVER SUPPRESSION EFFICIENCY
Waste Composition A
TSDF
Model Waste
Category
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Waste Composition
Constituent
Dlbutylphthalate
1-Hexano I
Chloroform
Water
Inorganic Solids
Benzene
Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2 Dichlorobenzene
Water
Inorganic Solids
Ethyl Chloride
Benzene
Water
Inorganic Solids
Benzene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Inorganic Solids
Content
10 X
2.5 X
2.5X
65 X
20 X
25 X
25 X
25 X
25 X
20 X
20 X
59 X
1 X
2,500 ppm
1f500ppm
99.6%
0%
30 X
30%
39 %
1 X
Average
Vanor
VQ|J
-------
TABLE H-2 (continued)
Waste Composition B
TSDF
Modal Waste
Category
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Waste Conposition
Constituent
Dibutylphthalate
1-Hexanol
Chloroform
Water
Inorganic Solids
Benzene
Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2 Dichlorobenzene
Water
Inorganic Solids
Ethyl Chloride
Benzene
Water
Inorganic Solids
Benzene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Inorganic Solids
Content
10 X
0.3%
0.3 X
69.4 X
20 X
10 %
10 %
10 X
70 X
5 %
5X
89 X
1 X
250 ppfli
150 ppm
99.96 X
0 X
10 X
10 X
79 X
1 X
Average
Vapor
Molecular
Weight
(Ib/lb-mole)
18.6
78.7
'
,
25.1
-
18.2
78.5
Average
Liquid
Density
(Ib/gal)
10.2
14.7
8.8
Average
Vapor
Pressure
(psia)
0.46
0.46
0.49
I
I
8.3
8.9
0.46
0.23
(continued)
H-7
-------
TABLE H-2 (concluded)
Waste Composition C .
! ! Waste Composition
TSDF '
IwUI
Model Waste
Category
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
i
t
!
Constituent
Dlbutylphthalate
1-Hexanol
Chlorofora
Water
Inorganic Solids
Benzene
Dlchlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2 Dlchlorobenzene
Water
Inorganic Solids
Ethyl Chloride
Benzene
Water
Inorganic Solids
Benzene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Inorganic Solids
Content
10 X
1 X
1 X
68 X
20 X
SOX
20 X
20X
10 X
35X
35X
29 X
1 X
1 ,000 ppra
750 ppm
99.83 X
OX
SOX
30 X
19 X
1 X
Average
Vanor
VG}JUI
Molecular
Weight
(Ib/lb-fflole)
19.9
78.4
80.5
-
18.7
78.2
!
Average
Mould
Im 1 ^U 1 U
Density
(Ib/gal)
10.3
9.5
10.8
8.3
8.4
Average |
Uannr
YQ|sUI
Pressure
(PS la)
0.46
1.22
0.90
0.47
1.10
H-8
-------
TABLE H-3. COVER SUPPRESSION EFFICIENCY FOR TSDF STORAGE AND TREATMENT TANKS
TSDF
Tank Type
Storage
Tar*
Quiescent
Treatment
Tank
TSDF Model
Waste Category
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Tank Cover Suppression Efficiency
A
Fixed
Roof
(a)
98.7 X
99.92
90.0 %
86.4%
99.9 X
98.2 X
99.02
90.0 X
93.5 X .
99.2 X
B
Internal
Floating Roof
-------
TABLE H-4. TANK COVER SUPPRESSION EFFICIENCY
ESTIMATE CALCULATION EXAMPLE
INPUT PARAMETERS
Waste Parameters;
1. Waste form Organic liquid
2. Mv: Average vapor molecular weight (Ib/lb-mole) 78.256
3. Wj: Average liquid density (Ib/gal) 8.674
4. P: Vapor pressure @ storage temperature (psia) 0.682
5. Kc: Product factor: 1 for all organic liquids 1
(for both fixed-roof and internal floating roof losses)
Tank Parameters;
1. C: Tank volume (gal) 20,000
2. D: Tank diameter (ft) 19
3. Th; Annual throughput/tank (gal) 880,000
(bbl/yr) .. 20,952
Fixed-Roof Tank Parameters
1. H: Vapor space height (ft) 4.50
2. T: Average ambient temperature change (°F) ... 20
3. N: No. of turnovers/year 44
4. Kn: Turnover factor (dimensionless) 0.8485
5. Fp; Paint factor (dimensionless) 1
6. Cfc: Small tank adjust factor (dimensionless) 0.8622
Internal Floating Roof Parameters
1. Withdrawal loss, Lw
C: Product withdrawal shell clingage factor 0.0015
Waste type Light rust Dense rust Gunite lined
All organics 0.0015 0.0075 0.015
:~(continued)
H-10
-------
TABLE H-4 (continued)
Effective column diameter (ft)
- Enter actual value: (column perimeter [(ft)/*-)
-1.1 for 9 inch x 7 inch built-up columns
-0.7 for 8 inch diameter pipe columns
-1.0 if no construction details are known
Nc: Number of columns (dimensionless)
(for column supported fixed-roof only)
Tank Diameter N
0< D <= 85
85< D <=100
100< D <=120
120< D <=135
135< D <=150
Jlc
1
6
7
8
9
Tank Diameter
150< D
170< D
190< D
220< D
235< D
<=
<=
<=
<=
<=
170
190
220
235
270
NC
16
19
22
31
37
2. Deck seam loss, Lj
Sd deck seam length factor (ft/ft2) 0.2
Sd = L seam/ A deck
L : total length of deck seams (ft)
A : area of deck (ft2) = ir d2/4
Sri for typical deck constructions;
Continuous sheet construction Sd
5 ft wide 0.20
6 ft wide 0.17
7 ft wide 0.14
Panel construction Id
5 x 7.5 ft rectangular 0.33
5 x 12 ft rectangular 0.28
A value of 0.2 can be assumed to represent the most common
bolted decks currently in use.
K
-------
TABLE H-4 (continued)
3. Rim seal losses, Lr
Ks: Seal-related factors
For welded tank:
Liquid-mounted resilient seal
Primary seal only
With rim-mounted secondary seal
Vapor-mounted resilient seal
Primary seal only
With rim-mounted secondary seal
n: Seal-related windspeed exponent (dimensionless)
V: Average windspeed at tank site (mi/h)
3
1.6
6.7
2.5
sss) . .
0
0
0
0
2.5
0
16
4. Deck fitting loss, Lf
Ff: Total deck fitting loss
171.13
No. fittings, Deck fitting loss,
Nf Kf (Ib-mole/yr)
1. Access hatch
Bolted cover, gasketed
Unbolted cover, gasketed
Unbolted cover, ungasketed
2. Automatic gauge float well
Bolted cover, gasketed
Unbolted cover, gasketed
Unbolted cover, ungasketed
3. Column well .1
-33 built-up column-sliding cover, gasketed
-47 built-up column-sliding cover, ungasketed
-10 pipe column-flexible fabric sleeve seal
-19 pipe column-sliding cover, gasketed
-32 pipe column-sliding cover, ungasketed
1.6
11
25
5.1
15
28
4. Ladder well
-56 sliding cover
-76 sliding cover
5. Roof leg or hanger well
-7.9 adjustable
-0 fixed
1
7.5
1.6
5.1
33
56
7.9
(continued)
H-12
-------
TABLE H-4 (continued)
6. Sample pipe or well 1 12
-12 sample well-slit fabric seal, 10% open area
-44 slotted pipe-sliding cover, gasketed
-57 slotted pipe-sliding cover, ungasketed
7. Stub drain 2.89 1.2
-1.2 one-in. diameter drain
-0 if tank has welded, contact internal floating deck
8. Vacuum breaker 1
-0.7 weighted mechanical actuation, gasketed
-0.9 weighted mechanical actuation, ungasketed
0.7
Q : Product average throughput (bbl/yr)
.20,952.38
P*: Vapor pressure function (dimensionless) 0.011870
2. EMISSIONS FOR FIXED-ROOF TANKS
Total fixed-roof tank emissions are the sum of breathing loss and
working losses. Total losses may be written as:
where
= total loss (Ib/yr)
= fixed-roof working loss (Ib/yr)
= fixed-roof breathing loss (Ib/yr)
(Eq. 1)
WORKING LOSS
Lw = 2.40E-5 Mv P Th Kn Kc
where
Lw = working loss (Ib/yr)
Mv = average vapor molecular weight (Ib/lb-mole)
P = true vapor pressure at bulk liquid temperature (psia)
Th = annual throughput (gal/yr)
Kn = turnover factor
Kc = product factor
(Eq. 2)
thus
= 2.40E-5 x 78.26 x 0.682 x 880,000 x 0.8485 x 1
= 956.40 Ib/yr
= 0.4338 Mg/yr
(continued)
H-13
-------
TABLE H-4 (continued)
BREATHING LOSS
Lb - 2.26E-2 Mv (__p__)0.68 D1.73 H0.51 T0.5 F Cfa Kc (Eq. 3)
pa - p
where
Lb - breathing loss (Ib/yr)
Mv= average vapor molecular weight (Ib/lb-mole)
P = true vapor pressure at bulk liquid temperature (psia)
Pa = average atmospheric pressure at tank location (psia)
(assume 14.7)
D ~ tank diameter (ft)
H = average vapor space height (ft)
T = average ambient diurnal temperature change (oF)
Fp = paint factor (dimensionless)
C = adjustment factor for small diameter tanks
Kc = product factor (dimensionless)
thus
= 2.26E-2 x 78.26 x ( 0.682
x (19)1-73 x (4.5)0-51
14.7-0.682
x (20)0.5 x i x 0.8622 x 1
- 306.45 Ib/yr
= 0.139 Mg/yr
Total fixed-roof emissions are: Lt = Lw + Lb
= 0.4338 + 0.139
= 0.5728 Mg/yr
Control Efficiency of Fixed-roof Tank
The uncontrolled emissions calculations from the 76 m^ open tank with 44
turnovers/year are 514 Mg/yr and that from a fixed-roof tank under the same
conditions are 0.5728 Mg/yr. The control efficiency for fixed-roof tank is
estimated as:
% Control = Lopen - Lfixed x 100 %
Lopen
= (514 - 0.5728) x 100 %
514
= 99.9 %
(continued)
H-14
-------
TABLE H-4 (continued)
3. EMISSIONS FOR INTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS
Total floating roof tank emissions are the sum of rim seal, withdrawal,
deck fitting, and deck seam losses. Total losses may be written as:
Lt = Lw + Lr + Lf + Ld (Eq. 4)
where
Lt = total loss (Ib/yr)
Lw = withdrawal loss
Lr = rim seal loss
Lf = deck fitting loss
L
-------
TABLE H-4 (continued)
Lr = Ks (Vn)P* D Mv Kc
(Eq. 6)
where
Lr = rim seal loss (Ib/yr)
Ks = seal factor
V = average windspeed at tank site (mi/hr)
n - seal-related windspeed exponent
P* = vapor pressure function (dimensionless)
D = tank diameter (ft)
Mv = average vapor molecular weight (Ib/lb-mole)
Kc = product factor (dimensionless)
thus
Lr = Ks (V)n P* D Mv Kc
= 2.5 x 1 x 0.01187 x 19 x 78.26 x 1
= 44.125 Ib/yr
= 0.02001 Mg/yr
Deck Fitting Loss
Fitting losses from internal floating roof tanks can be estimated
by the following equation:
Lf = Ff P Mv Kc
where
Lf = the fitting losss in pounds per year
Ff = total deck fitting loss factor (Ib-mole/yr)
P i MV» Kc = as defined for Equation 6
(Eq. 7)
thus
Lf = Ff P* Mv Kc
= 171.13 x 0.01187 x 78.26 x 1
= 158.97 Ib/yr
= 0.07210 Mg/yr
(continued)
H-16
-------
TABLE H-4 (continued)
Deck Seam Loss
Sd (D2) P* Mv Kc
(Eq. 8)
where
Ld = deck seam losses (Ib/yr)
K(j = deck seam loss per unit seam length factor (mole/ft)
Sd =^deck seam length factor (ft/ft2)
D, P*, Mv, Kc = as defined for Equation 6
thus
Ld = Kd Sd (D2) P* Mv Kc
= 0.34 x 0.2 x 361 x 0.01187 x 78.26 x 1
= 22.804 Ib/yr
= 0.01034 Mg/yr
Total standing losses, Mg/yr/tank
Ls = Lr + Lf + Ld
= 0.02001 + 0.07210 + 0.01034
= 0.10245 Mg/yr
Total emissions, Mg/yr/tank = Ls + Lw
= 0.10245 + 0.00644
= 0.10889 Mg/yr
Control Efficiency of Internal Floating Roof Tank
The control efficiency for the internal floating roof can be estimated as:
% Control = Lt - L^ x 100 %
k
= (0.5728 - 0.10245) x 100 %
0.5728
= 82%
H-17
-------
H.I.2 Surface Impoundment Floating Membrane Cover
The effectiveness of using a floating membrane cover for organic
emission control is a function of the amount of leakage from the cover
seams and fittings as well as the losses from permeation of the membrane
material by the volatile organic compounds contained in the waste. No
organic emission source testing of a floating membrane cover has been per-
formed. However, current floating membrane covers applications (described
in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.4) demonstrate that leakage from cover seams and
fittings can be reduced to very low levels by using a membrane material
with adequate thickness, installing proper seals on cover fittings and
vents, and following good installation practices to ensure the seams are
properly welded and to prevent tearing or puncturing the membrane material.
Consequently, for a properly installed floating membrane cover, the organic
emission control effectiveness would be primarily determined by the permea-
bility of the cover to the specific organic constituents contained in the
waste managed in the surface impoundment.
Limited data are available in open literature about organic permeabil-
ity rates for synthetic membrane materials expected to be used to fabricate
floating membrane covers. Consequently, to estimate the organic emission
control effectiveness of a floating membrane cover applied to a TSDF sur-
face impoundment, a mathematical model was developed. This model is based
on theoretical mass transfer relationships applied to a simplified organic
material balance for a surface impoundment using a floating membrane cover.
The organics material balance for a surface impoundment at equilibrium
is modeled by:
Organics
in waste
influent
Organics
in waste
effluent
Organics
emissions
to air
The material balance assumes no biodegradation of organics occurs in
the surface impoundment. The organics emissions to the air are determined
by assuming that all of the emissions result from the permeation of organ-
ics through the floating membrane cover material (i.e., no losses due to
cover seam or fitting leaks). Therefore, the air emissions of a specific
organic constituent in the waste are determined by the relationship:
H-18
-------
E = (P-A)/X
(H-l)
where:
E = Organic constituent air emissions (g/s)
P = Permeability of organic through membrane material (g/m-s)
A = Surface area of floating membrane cover (m^)
X = Thickness of membrane material (m).
Measured permeability data for the model waste organic constituents in
floating membrane cover materials are not available. However, permeability
can be expressed as the product of the solubility (S) and diffusion coeffi-
cient (D) for the organic constituent in the membrane material.
P = D-S
Substituting Equation H-2 into Equation H-l:
E = (D-S-A)/X .
(H-2)
(H-3)
Solubility can be expressed as a function of the equilibrium concen-
tration (C0) of the organic in the waste and the partitioning coefficient
(Keq) between the waste and the membrane:
S -
Substituting Equation H-4 into H-3:
(H-4)
E = (D-Keq-C0-A)/X .
(H-5)
Using Equation H-5, the surface impoundment organics material balance
is expressed by the equation:
Kin = Q-Co + (D-Keq-C0-A)/X
(H-6)
H-19
-------
where:
Q = Waste flow through the impoundment (L/s),
C-jn = Concentration of organic in waste influent (g/m^),
Co s Equilibrium concentration of organic in waste (g/m^),
D = Diffusion coefficient for organic in membrane (m2/s),
Keq = Partitioning coefficient between waste and membrane (unitless),
A - Surface area of floating membrane cover (m2),
X = Thickness of membrane material (m).
An eight-step procedure was followed to estimate the control effi-
ciency of applying a floating membrane cover to each storage surface
impoundment and quiescent treatment surface impoundment defined in Appen-
dix C. Each step is summarized below:
1. Select floating membrane cover material type and thickness (X).
2.
3.
4.
7.
Obtain chemical property data for each of the organic constitu-
ents in the model waste.
Obtain model unit surface area (A) and waste throughput (Q)
values from Appendix C, Table C-l.
Calculate equilibrium concentration (Co) of each organic consti-
tuent in the model waste by rearranging Equation (H-6):
Co =
CinQ
[Q + (D-Keq-A)/X]
Calculate the annual emissions of each organic constituent for
controlled surface impoundment model unit (i.e., unit with float-
ing membrane cover) using Equation (H-5) and assuming the surface
impoundment is in continuous operation 24 hours per day and 365
days per year:
E = {(D-Keq-C0'A)/X}-(60 s/min)-(60 min/hr)-(24 hr/d)
•(365 d/yr)
Add individual emissions from each organic constituent calculated
in Step 5 to obtain total annual controlled organic emissions
from model.
Obtain the total annual emissions from uncontrolled surface
impoundment model unit (i.e., unit not using floating membrane
cover) from Appendix C.^Table C-6.
H-20
-------
8. Calculate floating membrane cover organic control efficiency:
Control efficiency = (1 - EC/EU) • 100
where:
Ec = Total annual controlled organic emissions, Mg/yr
[Step 6] ,
Eu = Total annual uncontrolled organic emissions, Mg/yr
[Step 7].
The estimation procedure described above is believed to provide a
reasonable order-of-magnitude estimate of the organic emissions control
effectiveness that would be achieved by applying a floating membrane cover
to a T5DF surface impoundment. However, the mode.l is based on simplifying
assumptions that should be considered in evaluating the results. First,
the model assumes that the contents of the covered surface impoundment are
well mixed. This assumption is reasonable for an uncovered surface
impoundment because of mixing provided by the wind moving the liquid sur-
face. In contrast, these mixing patterns will not likely exist in an
actual covered surface impoundment. Instead, a concentration gradient will
occur in a liquid managed in the covered surface impoundment with lower
concentrations at the surface and higher concentrations as the depth
increases. The effect of this assumption is to overestimate the emissions
through the cover and, consequently, understate the control efficiency.
Second, the model assumes no leakage (i.e., emissions) occurs from the
floating membrane cover fittings and seams. Although very low leakage
rates are expected with good design and installation practices, no data are
available to quantify the leakage rate. The effect of this assumption may
be to underestimate the emissions from a floating membrane cover and, con-
sequently, overstate the control efficiency.
As described in Appendix C, model units and model wastes were defined
for analyses to evaluate organic emission control technologies. Estimates
of floating membrane cover organic control efficiency were calculated for
each of the storage and quiescent treatment surface impoundment model units
listed in Appendix C, Table C-l. The requirement that the floating
H-21
-------
membrane cover contact the waste surface would prevent the cover from being
applied to aerated/agitated surface impoundments. For each model unit, the
floating membrane cover organic emission control efficiency was estimated
for the dilute aqueous and two-phase aqueous/organic model waste composi-
tions listed in Appendix C, Table C-5. Estimates were not calculated for
the aqueous sludge/slurry model waste because this type of waste is not
normally placed in surface impoundments. The other model waste types are
not expected to be managed in a surface impoundment.
The model waste organic constituent chemical properties used for the
estimates are presented in Table H-5. The relevant surface impoundment
model unit parameters from Appendix C, Table C-l are also summarized in
Table H-5.
The floating membrane cover material selected for the calculations is
high density polyethylene (HOPE). This material was selected because HOPE
has been used extensively to fabricate floating membrane covers. This
material is commercially available in standard thicknesses up to 2.5 mm.
The calculations of organic emission control efficiencies for a 1-mrn
(40-mil) HOPE floating membrane cover are presented in Tables H-6 and H-7.
The calculations of organic emission control efficiencies for a 2.5-mm
(100-mil) HOPE floating membrane cover are presented in Tables H-8 and H-9.
Table H-10 summarizes the floating membrane cover organic control
efficiencies for both model wastes and all model units. The results
presented in Tables H-10 show that the floating membrane cover control
efficiency for both model waste types and surface impoundment types can
vary depending on the organic constituents in the waste, the period of time
the waste remains in the surface impoundment, and the thickness of the
material. A control efficiency value of 85 percent was selected from Table
H-10 for the nationwide control option impact analyses. This value
reflects the overall organic emission control efficiency average estimated
for a 2.5-mm HOPE floating membrane cover.
H.I.3 Container Submerged Loading
Organic air emissions generated during waste loading operations are
the primary source of evaporative emissions from waste containers (e.g.,
H-22
-------
Table H-5. INPUT VALUES FOR FLOATING MEMBRANE COVER CONTROL EFFICIENCY ESTIMATES
MODEL WASTE PARAMETERS
Model Waste
Organic
Constituent
Ethyl chloride
Benzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
Molecular
Weight
(g/mole)
65
78
119
147
Density
(g/cc)
0.92
0.88
1.49
1.30
Solubility
In Water
Ong/i)
5,740
1,780
7,840
145
Molecular
Density
(giDol/cc)
0.0143
0.0113
0.0125
0.0088
-
Dlffuslvlty
Coefficient
[D]
(B2/S)
1.4E-11
9.0E-12
1.1E-11
5.6E-12
Partitioning
Coefficient
[Keq]
(unit less)
25
54
15
270
MODEL UNIT PARAMETERS
Storage
Surface Impoundment
Model Unit
Identification Coda
S04A
S04B
S04C
S04D
S04E
S04F
Surface
Area
[ A ]
(n2)
300
300
1,500
1,500
9,000
9,000
Waste
Throughput
[ Q ]
(l/s)
3.1
0.31
1.6
0.78
3.8
2.1
Quiescent Treatment
Surface Impoundment
Model Unit
Identification Code
T02A
T02B
T02C
T02D
T02E
T02F
Surface
Area
[A]
(m2)
300
300
1,500
1,500
9,000
9,000
Waste
Throughput
[Q]
(l/s)
6.3
0.63
1.6
3.1
19
9.6
H-23
-------
Table H-6. STORAGE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT FLOATING MEMBRANE COVER CONTROL EFFICIENCY
I
! Model Waste
i
i
! DILUTE AQUEOUS
I
! Ethyl chloride
! Benzene
!
i
1 2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
! Chlorofora
i 1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
Inlet
Concentration
(g/D
2.5
1.5
7.8
0.15
Equilibrium Concentration In Water (g/l)
HPDE membrane thickness - 40 nil
.
S04A (a)
2.42
1.43
7.68
0.13
S04B
1.87
1.03
6.74
0.06
S04C
1.89
1.03
6.77
0.06
S04D ! S04E ! S04F
,1.50
0.78
5.94
0.04
1.38
0.70
5.63
! 0.03
1.01
0.49
4.60
0.02
: :
i Model Waste
j
! DILUTE AQUEOUS
! Ethyl chloride
! Benzene
t
1
t
1 2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
! Chlorofora
! 1,2-Olchlorobenzene
Inlet
P^T^notf"^^* Irtfi
wjncentraL lufi
(g/D
2.5
1.5
7.8
0.15
Organic Era iss ions with Floating Membrane Cover (Mg/yr)
HPDE membrane thickness - 40 al I
-
S04A (a)
8
6
12
2
S04B
6
5
10
1
S04C
31
23
'
52
4
S04D
24
18
45
3
S04E
_1_1*.UJ1U1J1111I1J
134
95
, 258
14
S04F,
98
66
211
9
(See notes at end of table)
(continued)
H-24
-------
Table H-6. STORAGE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT FLOATING MEMBRANE COVER CONTROL EFFICIENCY (concluded)
Model Waste
-
.
DILUTE AQUEOUS
Control lied Emissions (Mg/yr) (b)
Uncontrolled Emissions (Mg/yr) (c)
Control Efficiency (d)
2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
Control lied Emissions (Mg/yr) (b)
Uncontrolled Emissions (Mg/yr) (c)
Control Efficiency (d)
Floating Membrane Cover Organic Emission Control Efficiency
HPOE membrane thickness - 40 al 1
S04A (a)
14
114
87%
14
191
93%
-
S04B
-
11
32
67%
11
38
63%
S04C
-
'
54
159
66%
.
58
183
69%
S04D
.
42
157
73%
48
93
48%
S04E j S04F
229
446
49%
272
464
41%
165
253
35%
219
262
16%
(a) Surface Impoundment model unit Identification code. Refer to Appendix C, Table C-1.
(b) Estimated annual organic emissions for surface Impoundment model unit with floating membrane cover
(c) Estimated annual organic emissions for surface Impoundment model unit without floating membrane cover, refer to
Appendix C, Table C-6.
(d) Control efficiency of floating membrane cover calculated using following equation:
CONTROL EFFICIENCY - ( 1 -
[Controlled Emissions]
[Uncontrolled Emissions]
) x 100
H-25
-------
Table H-7. QUIESCENT TREATMENT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT FLOATING MEMBRANE COVER CONTROL EFFICIENCY
1
1
i Model Waste
i
i
i
! DILUTE AQUEOUS
i Ethyl chloride
j Benzene
i
i
i
i
i 2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
j Chlorofon
i 1,2-Olchlorobenzene
*
Inlet
Pfw^onti^at* Inn
uonc6n u at i on
(g/D
2.5
1.5
7.8
0.15
Equilibrium Concentration In Water (g/l)
HPDE membrane thickness - 40 •! I
ILI____M[T- -„•••_-
T02A (a) ! T02B
2.46
1.47
7.74
0.14
2.15
1.22
7.24
0.09
T02C
1.89
1.03
6.77
0.06
T02D
2.14
1.22
7.23
0.09
T02E i T02F
I ft
-------
Table H-7. QUIESCENT TREATMENT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT FLOATING MEkBRANE COVER CONTROL EFFICIENCY (concluded)
1
Model Waste
DILUTE AQUEOUS
Control lied Era Iss Ions (Mg/yr) (b)
Uncontrolled Emissions (Mg/yr) (c)
Control Efficiency (d)
2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
Control lied Emissions (Mg/yr) (b)
Uncontrolled Emissions (Mg/yr) (c)
Control Efficiency (d)
Floating Membrane Cover Organic Emission Control Efficiency
HPDE membrane thickness - 40 al 1
T02A (a)
15
135
895!
14
265
952
T02B
12
53
763!
'
12
65
81*
T02C
- 54
700
925!
.
56
1,320
965!
T02D
-
-
62
269
77*
•
.
61
326
81%
T02E
374
1,710
78%
369
2,040
82%
T02F
324
990
67%
337
1,120
70%
(a) Surface Impoundment model unit Identification code. Refer to Appendix C, Table C-1.
(b) Estimated annual organic enIssIons for surface Impoundment model unit with floating membrane cover
(c) Estimated annual organic emissions for surface Impoundment model unit without floating membrane cover, refer to
Appendix C, Table C-6.
(d) Control efficiency of floating membrane cover calculated using following equation:
CONTROL EFFICIENCY =• ( 1 -
[Controlled Emissions]
[Uncontro11 ed Em issions]
) x 100
H-27
-------
Table H-8. STORAGE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT FLOATING MEMBRANE COVER CONTROL- EFFICIENCY
Model Waste
DILUTE AQUEOUS
Ethyl chloride
Benzene
2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
Chlorofon
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
Inlet
P/w»or»^f*at* Inn
Lonccnua t i on
(g/D
2.5
1.5
7.8
0.15
Equilibrium concentration in water ig/i;
WDE Btembrane thickness - 100 »i I
---..... -
S04A (a)
2.47
1.47
7.75
0.14
S04B
2.21
1.27
7.34
0.10
S04C
2.21
1.27
7.35
0.10
S040 | S04E
1.98
1.10
6.93
0.07
1.88
1.03
6.76
0.06
S04F
1.57
0.82
6.10
0.04
Model Waste
DILUTE AQUEOUS
Ethyl chloride
Benzene
2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
Chlorofora
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
Inlet
Concentrat 1 on
(g/D
2.5
1.5
7.8
0.15
Organic Emissions with Floating Membrane Cover (Mg/yr)
HPDE membrane thickness - 100 ill
S04A (a)
3
3
5
1
S04B
3
2
*J
1
S04C
14
11
22
3
S04D
13
10
21
S04E
-
73
56
124
2 ! 10
S04F
61
45
112
7
(See notes at end of table)
(continued)
> H-28
-------
Table H-8. STORAGE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT FLOATING MEMBRANE COVER CONTROL EFFICIENCY (concluded)
Model Waste
"
DILUTE AQUEOUS
'
Control lied Emissions (Mg/yr) (b)
Uncontrolled Emissions (Mg/yr) (c)
Control Efficiency (d)
2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
Control lied Emissions (Mg/yr) (b)
Uncontrolled Emissions (Mg/yr) (c)
Control Efficiency (d)
Floating Membrane Cover Organic Emission Control Efficiency
HPDE membrane thickness - 100 nil
S04A (a) ! S04B
i
I
6 : 5
114 ! 32
95X | 84X
i
i
6 i 5
191 ! 36
97X ! 86X
S04C
26
159
84X
.
25
183
86X
S04D
23
157
86X
23
93
75X
S04E
-
129
446
71X
134
464
71X
S04F
106
253
58X
119
262
55%
(a) Surface Impoundment model unit identification code. Refer to Appendix C, Table C-1.
(b) Estimated annual organic emissions for surface Impoundment model unit with floating membrane cover
(c) Estimated annual organic emissions for surface Impoundment model unit without floating membrane cover.
Appendix C, Table C-6.
(d) Control efficiency of floating membrane cover calculated using following equation:
refer to
CONTROL EFFICIENCY - ( 1 -
[Controlled Emissions]
[Uncontrolled Emissions]
) x 100
H-29
-------
Table H-9. QUIESCENT TREATMENT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT FLOATING MEMBRANE COVER CONTROL EFFICIENCY
Modal Waste
DILUTE AQUEOUS
Ethyl chloride
Benzene
2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
Chloroform
1,2-DIchlorobenzene
Inlet
Concentration
(g/l)
2.5
1.5
7.8
0.15
Equilibrium Concentration In Water (g/l)
HPDE membrane thickness - 100 IB 1 1
T02A (a)
2.48
1.49
7.78
0.15
T02B
2.35
1.37
7.57
0.12
T02C
2.21
1.27
_
7.35
0.10
T02D
•
2.34
1.37
7.56
0.12
,
T02E ! T02F
2.35
1.38
7.57
0.12
2.21
1.27
7.35
0.10
!
! Modal Waste
I
I
i
! DILUTE AQUEOUS
} Ethyl chloride
{ Benzene
i
i
! 2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
i Chlorofom
! 1,2-DIchlorobenzene
Inlet
(g/D
2.5
1 *w
7.8
0.15
Organic Emissions with Floating Membrane Cover (Mg/yr)
HPDE membrane thickness - 100 mil
T02A (a)
3
3
5
1
T02B
3
2
5
1
T02C
.
14
11
22
3
T02D
15
12
23
3
T02E
91
74
139
20
T02F
86
69
135
16
(See notes at end of table)
(continued)
H-30
-------
Table H-9. QUIESCENT TREATMENT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT FLOATING MEMBRANE COVER CONTROL EFFICIENCY (concluded)
.
Model Waste
DILUTE AQUEOUS
Control lied Emissions (Mg/yr) (b)
Uncontrolled Emissions (Mg/yr) (c)
Control Efficiency (d)
2-PHASE AQUEOUS/ORGANIC
Control lied Emissions (Mg/yr) (b)
Uncontrolled Emissions (Mg/yr) (c)
Control Efficiency (d)
Floating Membrane Cover Organic Emission Control Efficiency
HPDE membrane thickness « 100 ail
T02A (a) i T02B
6
135
962
6
265
98%
6
53
902
"
5
65
922
T02C
26
700
962
25
1,320
983!
T02D
28
269
90%
•
26
326
922
T02E
166
1,710
902
158
2,040
922
T02F
155
990
842
151
1,120
872
(a) Surface impoundment model unit Identification code. Refer to Appendix C, Table C-1.
(b) Estimated annual organic emissions for surface impoundment model unit with floating membrane cover
(c) Estimated annual organic emissions for surface impoundment model unit without floating membrane cover, refer to
Appendix C, Table C-6.
(d) Control efficiency of floating membrane cover calculated using following equation:
CONTROL EFFICIENCY - ( 1 -
[Controlled Emissions]
[Uncontrolled Emissions]
) x 100
H-31
-------
Table H-10. SUMMARY OF FLOATING MEMBRANE COVER CONTROL EFFICIENCY ESTIMATES
! Model Waste
i
!
I
!
j Dilute Aqueous
i
i
I 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
1
!
i
!
! Dilute Aqueous
!
I 2-Phasa Aqueous/Organic
Estimated 40 all HOPE Floating Membrane Cover Organic Emission
Control Efficiency
Storage Surface Impoundment ( Table H-6 )
S04A (a)
875!
932
T02A (a)
892
95%
S04B
67%
692
S04C !
66% !
:
692 !
, Quiescent Treatment Surface
T02B
763!
81%
T02C !
92% !
i
96% i
! Overall Average FIc
S04D
73%
48%
Impoundment (
T02D
775!
815!
S04E |
49% !
!
41% :
; Table H-7 )
T02E !
78% !
82% :
at Ing Membrane Cover Control
S04F
355!
165!
T02F
675!
705!
Average
63%
56%
Average
80%
84%
Efficiency- 70.7%
i Model Waste
!
i ,
i
i
i
1
! Dilute Aqueous
1
\ 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
1
i
i
!
i
i
{ Dilute Aqueous
i
i
j 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
! .
Estimated 100 all HOPE Floating Membrane Cover Organic Emission
Control Efficiency
Storage Surface Impoundment ( Table H-8 )
-
S04A (a)
95%
97%
i S04B ! S04C
! 84% ! 84%
: :
! 88% i 86%
S04D ! S04E !
86% i 71% |
i i
75% ! 71% ',
S04F
58%
55%
Quiescent Treatment Surface Impoundment ( Table H-9 )
T02A (a)
96%
98%
! T02B i T02C
i 90% i 96%
i i
i i
! 92% ! 98%
T02D | T02E i
90% ! 90% i
i !
92% | 92% |
T02F
84%
87%
Average
.
80%
78%
Average
91%
93%
Overall Average Floating Membrane Cover Control Efficiency
85.5%
(a) Surface iBpoundaent node I unit Identification code.
H-32
-------
tank trucks and drums). Emissions occur when waste liquids transferred
into a container displace an equal volume of air saturated or nearly
saturated with organics from inside the container to the ambient air. The
quantity of organic air emissions is a function of the loading method and
whether the container is clean before loading.
For splash loading, the influent pipe dispensing the waste is lowered
only partially into the container. Consequently, the waste flows from the
end of the pipe above the liquid level in the tank or drum. Significant
turbulence and vapor-liquid contact occur during splash loading, which
results in high levels of vapor generation and loss. Control of loading
emissions can be accomplished by using submerged loading. During submerged
loading, the influent pipe opening is located below the liquid surface
level, which decreases turbulence and evaporation and eliminates liquid
entrainment.
The quantity of emissions is also affected by the condition of the
container prior to loading. If the container is clean when loaded, only
the vapors generated by the loading operation are emitted. However, if the
container contains residue vapors from a previous waste load, then
additional emissions will also be released when the container is filled.
To estimate the efficiency of submerged loading in suppressing organic
air emissions, an emission model derived for estimating emissions from
loading petroleum liquids into tank trucks, tank cars, and marine vessels
was used. A complete description of the model is presented in the EPA
document, Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
(TSDF) - Air Emission Models.2 The loading model is as follows:
where
k
M
P*
T
S
L|_ = 12.46 SMP*
T
Loading loss (Ib per 1,000 gal of liquid loaded)
Molecular weight of vapors (Ib/lb mole)
True vapor pressure of liquid loaded (psia)
Bulk temperature of liquid loaded (R)
Saturation factor (dimensionless).
(H-7)
H-33
-------
The emission model contains a saturation factor (S) that varies
according to whether the loading is splash or submerged. The saturation
factors for different types of loading operations are presented in Table
H-ll. By examining the equation, it can be seen that the estimated emis-
sions will vary proportionally with the saturation factor. Therefore, the
efficiency of using submerged loading compared to splash loading can be
determined from the ratio of the saturation factors for each loading opera-
tion.
The selection of S factors was made on the basis of the type of
container and whether the container is in dedicated service (not cleaned
between uses) or cleaned with each use. Both conditions occur in TSDF
operations; however, it is assumed that cleaned containers are more preva-
lent. Using the S factors"for cleaned containers, the efficiency for
submerged loading of tank trucks is calculated:
Splash loading: S = 1.45
Submerged loading: S = 0.5
Suppression efficiency = [1 - (0.5/1.45)] x 100 = 65%.
The same equation and factors used for tank trucks are assumed for
drums because the loading principles are similar, and no equation has been
developed specifically for small containers such as drums.
H.I.4 Dumpster Cover
Dumpsters are one type of container used at TSDF to store hazardous
waste. Covers applied to dumpsters suppress evaporative losses of organics
from wastes placed in the container by limiting the area through which
emissions may escape the container. The suppression efficiency estimate
for dumpster covers is based on computing the reduction in the dumpster
open-top surface. The assumptions are: (1) the cover is impermeable to
organic compounds (e.g., a steel cover); ,(2) the cover is kept closed at
all times except when adding waste or when inspection is necessary; and (3)
entry points for adding waste (e.g., conveyor discharge) are enclosed and
sealed.
H-34
-------
TABLE H-ll. SUPPRESSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUID
CONTAINER LOADING EMISSION MODEL3
Cargo carrier
Mode of operation
Suppression factor (F)
Tank trucks and
tank rail cars
Marine vessels^
Submerged loading of a
clean cargo tank
Splash loading of a
clean cargo tank
Submerged loading of
cargo tank in normal
dedicated service
Splash loading of cargo
tank in normal dedicated
service
Submerged loading of cargo
tank in dedicated vapor
balance service
Splash loading of cargo
tank in dedicated vapor
balance service
Submerged loading of ships
Submerged loading of barges
Reference 3.
^Applicable to petroleum liquids other than gasoline.
0.5
1.45
0.6
1.45
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.5
H-35
-------
The dumpster model unit S01C is defined to have dimensions of:
Width = 1.5 m (5 ft)
Height = 1.2 m (4 ft)
• Length = 1.9 m (6 ft).
When a cover is installed on the dumpster, it is assumed that the
cover is fitted so that the clearance between the top of the dumpster and
the cover at all points around the perimeter is less than 4 mm (about
1/6 in.)- Assuming that the emission reduction is proportional to the
reduction in area available for emissions to escape, the organic air
emission suppression efficiency for the dumpster cover is calculated as:
• Open-top dumpster: Open area =1.5mxl.9m= 2.85 m2
• Covered dumpster: Open area = [(2 x 1.5m) + (2+ 1.9m)] x
0.004 m = 0.027 m2
• Suppression efficiency = [1 - (0.027 m2/2.85 m2)] x 100 = 99%.
H.2 SUPPRESSION AND ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICE COST ESTIMATES
This section presents the assumptions made and calculations performed
to estimate the capital and annual costs of using suppression and add-on
controls for the individual model units and to compute weighted cost
factors for estimating nationwide control option costs.
H.2.1 Individual Model Unit Control Device Cost Estimates
Suppression and add-on control cost estimates were prepared for model
TSDF waste management units using standard cost engineering procedures and
practices. The same model units defined for the TSDF organic air emission
analyses were used for the control cost analyses. A complete description
of all of the model TSDF waste management units is presented in Appendix C.
Control cost values were estimated for two basic cost categories: (1)
total capital investment, and (2) total annual cost. Total capital
investment represents the total original cost of the installed control
device. Total annual cost represents the total payment required each year
to repay the capital investment for the control device as well as to pay
for the control device operating and maintenance expenses.
H.2.1.1 Approach. The cost estimation approach consists of the
following 12 steps. The level of detail required for each step varies
depending on the type of suppression or add-on control.
H-36
-------
1. Define the control device configuration and specify a size and
construction material for each major control device equipment component.
2. Compute the base costs for the major equipment components by applying
standard cost formulas or vendor price information to the equipment
specifications selected in Step 1.
3. Add the equipment component base costs together to obtain the Base
Equipment Cost (BEC).
4. Multiply the BEC value by appropriate auxiliary equipment, sales tax,
and freight cost factors selected from cost estimation reference
documents.
5. Add the individual-auxiliary equipment, sales tax, and freight costs
together with the BEC value to obtain the Purchased Equipment Cost
(PEC).
6. Multiply the PEC value by appropriate installation component cost
factors selected from cost estimation reference documents.
7. Add the individual installation component costs together with the PEC
value to obtain the Total Capital Investment (TCI) value.
8. Compute the utility consumption, labor hours, and material quantities
required to operate the control device for 1 year.
9. Multiply the utility, labor, and material quantities by appropriate,
nationwide average prices and rates to estimate the control device
direct operating expenses.
10. Multiply the labor costs and TCI value by appropriate overhead,
administration, property tax, and insurance cost factors selected from
cost estimation reference documents to estimate the control device
indirect operating expenses.
1.1. Multiply the TCI value by the capital recovery factor corresponding to
the typical control device service life to obtain the capital recovery
cost.
12. Add the control device direct and indirect operating expenses together
with the capital recovery cost to obtain the Total Annual Cost (TAC).
A more extensive description of the individual steps is avail-able in
the two primary references used to develop this cost estimation approach:
EAB Control Cost Document, 3rd Edition^ (a guidance manual on air emission
control cost estimating prepared by the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
H-37
-------
and Standards [OAQPS] Economic Analysis Branch [EAB]; and Plant Design and
Economics for Chemical Engineers5 (a widely used college-level textbook).
H.2.1.2 Cost Factors. The cost factors used for estimating the TCI
and TAG component costs were selected from values recommended in cost
estimation reference documents or developed for a suppression or add-on
control type using information specifically compiled for this task. A
common set of values for utility rates, labor wages, overhead rate, tax
rates, and interest rate was used for all of the cost estimates. All costs
are expressed in January 1986 dollars.
H.2.1.2.1 Equipment cost factors. Equipment cost factors for
suppression and carbon canister controls were developed using vendor price
information obtained for specific control device applications. Fixed-bed
carbon adsorption cost factors were obtained from the EAB Control Cost
Manual.6 When necessary, additional cost factors for auxiliary equipment
such as piping and various installation activities were obtained from Means
Construction Cost Data.7 Cost factors for freight charges and sales tax
were selected to reflect typical rates in effect throughout the United
States.
H.2.1.2.2 Utility rate cost factors. Rates for electricity, steam,
and cooling water were selected to represent current nationwide utility
rate trends for industrial users adjusted to a January 1986 dollar basis.
The following rates were used for all of the suppression and add-on control
cost estimates:
Electricity^
Process Steam^
4.63 «7kWh
$7.19/Mg of steam
($3.26/1,000 Ib of steam)
• Cooling Water*0 4
(15 jf/1,000 gal).
H.2.1.2.3 Labor wage cost factors. Three labor categories are used for
the cost estimates: operating labor, maintenance labor, and supervisory
labor. The wage rates paid in these categories varies depending the degree of
skill the work requires, geographic location, and other factors. An operating
* <•
labor base wage rate of $12.00/h was selected based on guidance from
H-38
-------
The maintenance labor rate was set at $13.20 to reflect the typical 10 percent
wage rate premium paid for the more skilled personnel.12 To account for
supervisory labor cost, a representative cost factor of 15 percent of the
total operating labor cost was used.13
H.2.1.2.4 Indirect operating expense cost factors. Overhead cost was
estimated using the standard practice recommended in Reference 14. An average
60 percent overhead cost factor was multiplied by the sum of all labor costs
plus maintenance material costs. Property tax, insurance, and administrative
costs were factored from the control device total capital investment value.
The cost factors standard in all OAQPS cost analyses were used: property tax
(1 percent), insurance (1 percent), and administrative (2 percent).15 For
simplicity, these three cost factors were combined into a single factor value
of 4 percent.
H.2.1.2.5 Interest rate cost factor. A real interest rate of 10 percent
was used for all of the control device cost estimates. This value is used in
most OAQPS cost analyses and is consistent with current EAB guidelines and the
Office of Management and Budget recommendation for use in regulatory
analyses. lf>
H.2.1.3 Calculations. The individual model unit control device cost
calculations for each TSDF emission source and control device combination are
presented in the Part A Attachment in a tabular format.
H.2.2 Weighted Cost Factors
Based on the results of the control cost estimates for individual TSDF
emission sources, a set of weighted cost factors was developed for use with
other TSDF industry data to estimate the nationwide costs of implementing
alternative TSDF organic air emission control strategies. For each TSDF
emission source and control device combination, cost factors were derived that
relate the control device total capital investment (TCI) and annual operating
cost (AOC) to the quantity of waste managed by the TSDF emission source.
These cost factors were then used in the TSDF organic air emission control
option analyses described in Appendix D.
A TSDF organic air emission control strategy ideally would be estimated by
adding the results of the individual control cost estimates prepared for the
actual emission sources at every TSDF site in the United States. Unfortu-
nately, the detailed source data (e.g., process unit types, equipment sizes,
H-39
-------
waste compositions, facility operating practices) needed to perform this type
of analysis are not readily available for many TSDF sites. The only
information consistently available for TSDF sites nationwide is the annual
waste throughput for the major TSDF emission source categories. Therefore,
the approach selected was to develop control cost factors that could be
multiplied by the TSDF waste throughput data to obtain nationwide control cost
estimates for different TSDF organic air emissions control strategies.
The detailed control cost estimates prepared for model TSDF waste
management units were used as the basis for the control cost factors. To
relate the model unit sizes to the actual TSDF waste management unit size
distribution in the United States, statistical data were used from the
National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators, and Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in 1981 (Westat Survey) prepared for
the EPA Office of Solid Waste.17
The calculations performed to derive the nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for each TSDF emission source category are presented in the Part B
Attachment as a series of tables at the end of this appendix. The calculation
procedure followed for each TSDF emission source category and control strategy
combination consists of following six steps.
1. Obtain applicable Westat Survey data for TSDF emission source
category.
2. Develop model unit nationwide distribution factors relating the
model unit sizes to the actual waste management unit size
distribution throughout the United States.
3. Obtain TCI and AOC values for the appropriate control device
types defined for a particular control strategy from detailed
control cost estimates prepared for each model unit in the TSDF
emission source category.
4. Compute TCI and AOC cost per megagram (Mg) of waste managed for
each model unit.
5. Multiply the nationwide distribution factor times each cost
factor to obtain weighted cost factors for each model unit.
6. Add the individual weighted cost factors to obtain nationwide TCI
and AOC cost factors for the TSDF emission source category.
The weighted cost factor calculations for each TSDF emission source
category are presented in a tabular format in the Part B attachment.
H-40
-------
H.3 REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, AP-42, 3rd ed., Supplement 12, Section 4.3. Storage
of Organic Liquids. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, September 1985. p. 4.3-1 to 4.3-35.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)--Air Emission Models. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Publication No. EPA 450/3-87-026. December 1987. p. 7-1 to 7-5.
3. Reference 2, Table 7-1, p. 73.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd
Edition. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA 450/5-87-001. February 1987.
5. Peters, M. S.,'and K. D. Timmerhaus. Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers, 3rd Edition. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
1980.
6. Reference 5.
7. Mahoney, W., editor-in-chief, Means Construction Cost Data. R. S.
Means Company, Inc., Kingston, Massachusetts. 1986.
8. Memorandum from Kong, E., Research Triangle Institute, to Thorneloe,
S., EPA. Revised energy and steam costs. May 19, 1987.
9. Reference 8.
10. Reference 5, p. 4-29.
11. Reference 5, p. 2-26 and 2-27.
12. Reference 5, p. 2-27.
13. Reference 5, p. 2-27.
14. Reference 6, p. 203.
15. Reference 5, p. 2-31.
16. Reference 5, p. 2-13.
17. Westat, Inc. National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators and
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in
1981. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste. Washington, DC. April 1984.
H-41
-------
H-42
-------
COST TABLE ATTACHMENTS TO
APPENDIX H:
PART A—INDIVIDUAL MODEL UNIT
CONTROL DEVICE COST TABLES
H-43
-------
H-44
-------
INDIVIDUAL MODEL UNIT CONTROL DEVICE COST TABLES
The individual model unit cost tables are presented for one model TSDF
waste management unit in each of the TSDF emission source categories
evaluated as part of the TSDF organic air emission control option analyses.
For the TSDF emission source categories in which more than one size of
model unit was defined, the identical assumptions and calculation
procedures were used to estimate the control costs for the other model
units in the source category. Cost estimates for applicable suppression
and add-on controls were prepared for the following TSDF emission source
categories:
• Container storage
• Tank storage
• Surface impoundment storage
• Tank treatment
• Surface impoundment treatment
• Waste fixation
• Tank truck loading.
Each TSDF emission source and control device combination is assigned
an index number. A uniform format has been adopted to present the cost
estimate calculations. In general, the table grouping for each TSDF
emission source and control device combination consists of the following
five elements:
• Introduction. A brief paragraph introduces the tables by
describing the model waste management unit selected for the
detailed cost analysis. Also, any special cost estimating
assumptions applicable to the model unit are described.
« Table 1 - Base Equipment Cost. This table lists the estimated
costs for the major control device equipment components. The
equipment size and construction materials used for the cost
estimate are described.
• Table 2 - Total Capital Investment. This table lists the control
device purchased equipment and installation cost components. The
cost factors used for the cost estimate are identified.
H-45
-------
• Table 3 - Total Annual Cost. This table lists the control device
direct and indirect annual cost components. The utility, labor
hour, and material quantities used to estimate the appropriate
direct annual cost components are listed.
• References. The sources for the cost factors referenced in the
tables are presented.
When appropriate for a TSDF emission source and control device
combination, the format was abbreviated to avoid needless repetition of
cost tables. The estimated control device cost component values presented
in all of the cost tables are rounded to the nearest $10 increment. An
index to the cost tables is presented on the following page to aid the
reader in locating a particular TSDF emission source and control device
combination.
H-46
-------
INDEX FOR INDIVIDUAL MODEL UNIT CONTROL DEVICE COST TABLES
Index Number Page
3.2.1 Container Storage: Dumpster Cover H-48
3.2.2 Tank Storage
3.2.2.1 Fixed-Roof for Open-Top Tank H-51
3.2.2.2 Internal Floating Roof
3.2.2.2.1 Covered Tank H-55
3.2.2.2.2 Open-top Tank Modified with Fixed-Roof H-59
3.2.2.3 Vent to Existing Combustion Device
3.2.2.3.1 Covered Tank H-63
3.2.2.3.2 Open-top Tank Modified with Fixed-Roof H-66
3.2.2.4 Carbon Canister
3.2.2.4.1 Covered Tank H-68
3.2.2.4.2 Open-top Tank Modified with Fixed-Roof H-75
3.2.3 Wastepile Storage H-80
3.2.4 Surface Impoundment Storage
3.2.4.1 Floating Membrane H-81
3.2.4.2 Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
3.2.4.2.1 Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste H-85
3.2.4.2.2 Dilute Aqueous Waste H-91
3.2.4.2.3 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste H-97
3.2.5 Tank Treatment
3.2.5.1 Fixed-Roof for Open-top Tank
3.2.5.1.1 Quiescent Treatment Tank H-103
3.2.5.1.2 Aerated Treatment Tank H-107
3.2.5.2 Internal Floating Roof
3.2.5.2.1 Quiescent Covered Tank H-lll
3.2.5.2.2 Quiescent Open-top Tank Modified
with Fixed-Roof H-115
3.2.5.3 Vent to Existing Combustion Device
3.2.5.3.1 Quiescent Covered Tank H-119
3.2.5.3.2 Quiescent Open-top Tank Modified
with Fixed-Roof H-122
3.2.5.4 Carbon Canister
3.2.5.4.1 Quiescent Covered Tank H-124
3.2.5.4.2 Quiescent Open-top Tank Modified
with Fixed-Roof H-131
3.2.5.5 Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
3.2.5.5.1 Aerated Covered Tank H-136
3.2.5.5.2 Aerated Open-top Tank Modified
with Fixed-Roof H-143
3.2.6 Surface Impoundment Treatment
3.2.6.1 Floating Membrane for Quiescent Impoundment H-145
3.2.6.2 Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Impoundment
3.2.6.2.1 Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste H-149
3.2.6.2.2 Dilute Aqueous Waste H-155
3.2.6.2.3 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste H-161
3.2.7 Waste Fixation
3.2.7.1 Existing Mechanical Mixer H-167
3.2.7.2 Fixation Pit H-171
3.2.8 Landfill H-179
3.2.9 Submerged Tank Truck Loading H-180
H-47
-------
3.2.1 CONTAINER STORAGE: Duapster Cover
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
Installing and using a cover on a roll-off type dumpster [Model Unit S01C]. The dumpster has a capacity
of 3 cubic neters (108 cubic feet).
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Cover (b)
TOTAL BASE
Equipment
Component
EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
! Equipment
i Size
i
! 1.5 IX 1.9 a
! (5 ft X 6 ft)
i Construction !
! Material !
! i
i Steel |
i i
i i
Cost (a) !
!
i
$150 :
I
$150 j
Reference
Ref 1
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All sales tax, freight, and Installation costs are Included In the vendor price quote.
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Bass Equipment Cost (BEC)
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Cost
Factor
Table 1
BEC
(b)
(b)
Capital
Cost (a)
$150
$150
$0
$0
Cost Factor
Reference
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
$150
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All sales tax, freight, and Installation costs are Included In the base equipment costs.
H-48
-------
3.2.1 CONTAINER STORAGE: Dunpster Cover (continued)
Tab 18 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost Cost | Annual Annual
Component Factor Consumption Cost (a)
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
"
Utilities none $0
.
Maintenance Labor (MLC) $13.20/hr 1 hr (b) $10
"
Maintenance Materials (MMC) 100X x MLC $10
,
,
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC) $20
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS |
Overhead 605! x (MLC+MMC) $10
Taxes, Insurance, & Acfenin. Costs 4% x TCI $10
-
-
Capital Recovery (CR) 105! 9 10 yr (c) i $20
!
. ..
—
Total Indirect Amual Cost (1C) $40
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) $0
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG) DC+IC-RC $60
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) TAC-CR $40
ANNUAL WASTE TmOUGhPUT (AWT) Mg/yr (d)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry 16
Organic-Containing Solid 24
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) TAC/AWT
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry $3.65
Organic-Containing Solid $2.55
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 2
Ref 3
Ref 3
Ref 4
.
.
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated labor required Is 1 hour per year for cover inspection and adjustment.
(c) Estimated service life based on expected useful life of materials of construction.
(d) Waste throughput calculated assuming a1.9mx1.5mx1.2m durapster and 2 turnovers per year.
H-49
-------
3.2.1 CONTAINER STORAGE: Dunpster Cover (continued)
REFERENCES
1. Howard, B., Materials Handling Systems. Confirmation of 1986 Cost of dumpster lids.
Telephone Conversation with M. Branscrome, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC,
March 1989.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-27.
3. Reference 2, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
4. Reference 2, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
H-50
-------
3.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: Fixed Roof for Open-Top Tank
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
a modification to an open-top treatment tank [Model Unit S02I] by enclosing the entire tank with a fixed roof
The tank volume Is 76 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet) and a
height of 2.7 meters (9 feet). The liquid waste throughput is based on 44 turnovers per year.
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Fixed-roof
•
Pressure Relief Valve (b)
.
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
26.4 sq. meters
(284 ft)
7.6 en dia.
(3 in dla.)
Construction
Material
Aluminum
Stainless
Steel
Cost (a)
$10,640
•
$800
$11,440
Reference
Ref 1,2
Ref 3
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Pressure re Ilef valves can be set to respond to pressures ranging from 2 to 90 kPa (0.3 to 13 psla). The
valve is a stainless steel, piston type valve with a flat faced 7.6 cm (3 In) flange Inlet and a Teflon
diaphragm.
H-51
-------
3.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: Fixed Roof for Open-Top Tank (continued)
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Basa Equipment Cost (EEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Tax & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
.
Engineering, Construction, Field
Expenses & Fees (d)
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost | Capital
Factor ! Cost (a)
Table 1 $11,440
$0
8* x BEC $920
$12,360
:
(c) !
$0
20% X PEC $2,470
$2,470
$14,830
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 4
Ref 2
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Direct Installation costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(d) Indirect Installation costs for Installing the fixed roof were estimated by the vendor
to be approximately 20% of the roof purchase cost.
H-52
-------
3.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: Fixed Roof for Open-Top Tank (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Maintenance Labor (MLC) •
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
.
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
-.
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
Cost
Factor
$13.20/hr
1002 x MLC
,
60% X (MLC+MMC)
-
4X X TCI
105! i 20 yr (c)
.
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
Annual
Consumption
none
12 hr (b)
.
•
-
Annual
Cost (a)
0
1
$160
$160
,
$320
'
$190
$590
$1,740
$2,520
$0
$2,840
$1,100
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
(cont inued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated labor required for inspection/maintenance of tank roof is 1 hour per month.
(c) Estimated service life based on expected useful life of materials of construction.
H-53
-------
3.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: Fixed Roof for Open-Top Tank (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AHT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Cost
Factor
TAC/AWT
•
Annual
Consumption
Mg/yr
4,095
3,920
3,852
3,325
3,245
Annual
Cost (a)
I_JUUI»UI>:M::*XII— ILJ.U
$0.69
$0.72
$0.74
$0.85
$0.88
Cost Factor
Reference
(a) January 1988 dollars
REFERENCES
1. Roberts, J., TEMCOR, Inc. Retrofit costs for aluminum fixed roofs for tanks. Telephone conversation with
R. Chessln, Research Triangle institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 11, 1987.
2. Anderson, R., Conservatek, Inc., Conroe, Texas. Aluminum dome tank cover costs. Letter to R. Chessln,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 15, 1987.
3. Johnson, H. L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. VOC Abateitent for Small Solvent Storage Tanks.
MsBorandura, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1985.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
5. Reference 4, pp. 2-27.
6. Reference 4, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
7. Reference 4, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
H-54
-------
3.2.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: Internal Floating Roof for Covered Tank
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
modification to an existing covered storage tank [Model Unit S02D] by placing an internal floating roof
Inside the tank. The tank volume is 76 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet)
and a height of 2.7 meters (9 feet). The liquid waste throughput is based on 44 turnovers per year.
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Internal Floating Roof (b,c)
(incl. vapor-mounted wl per seal)
Secondary Seal (c,d)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
5.8 m dia.
(19 ft dia.)
18.2 a
(60ft)
Construction
Material
Aluminum
Cost (a)
$7,760
$1,860
$9,620
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 1
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Cost was estimated using the following cost factor:
Internal Floating Roof Cost = 1162.4 x [tank diameter In meters] + 1021.5
(c) All sales tax, freight, and Installation costs Included In base equipment cost.
(d) Cost of secondary seal is estimated to be $102 per linear meter of tank circumference.
H-55
-------
3.2.2.2.1 TAKK STORAGE: Internal Floating Roof for Covered Tank (continued)
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost Cos
Coaponent Fact
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC) Tab
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Tax & Freight (c)
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
it Capital
:or Cost (a)
e 1 $9,620
$0
$0
$9,620
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS | j
! (d) !
«._«. - -
Total Direct Installation Cost
$0
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS j j
! (d) !
Total Indirect Installation Cost
Retrofitting | 5% x
Cleaning and degassing (e) i
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
$0
PEC | $480
! $1,280
$11,380
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 2
Ref 2
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Sales tax and freight costs for internal floating roof included in base equipment costs.
(d) Direct and Indirect installation costs included in the base equipment costs.
(e) Cleaning and degassing of tank required before installation personnel can enter tank.
H-56
-------
3.2.2.2.1 TM STORAGE: Internal Floating Roof for Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost Cost
Component Factor
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Maintenance Labor (MLC) ~ $13.20/hr
Maintenance Materials (MMC) 100X x MLC
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead 60X x (MLC+MMC)
Taxes, Insurance, & Adraln. Costs 4X x TCI
Capital Recovery (CR)
Internal Floating Roof 10% 6 20 yr (o)
Secondary Sea! 10% % 10 yr (c)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) j
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC) | DC+IC-RC
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) | TAC-CR
Annual Annual
Consumption Cost (a)
none 0
52 hr (b) $690
! $690
$1,380
$830
$460
.
$910
$300
$2,500
! ! $0
: : $3,880
! ! $2,670
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 3
Ref 4
Ref 4
Ref 5
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated labor required for inspect Ton/maintenance of tank roof system Is 1 hour per week.
(c) Estimated service life based on values used for volatile organic liquid storage tank NSPS regulatory
analysis (Reference 6).
H-57
-------
3.2.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: internal Floating Roof for Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Pnase Aqueous/Organic .
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Cost
Factor
•
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
Mg/yr
4,095
3,920
3,852
3,325
3,245
Annual
Cost (a)
$0.95
$0.99
$1.01
$1.17
$1.20
Cost Factor
Reference
(a) January 1986 dollars
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage Tanks - Background Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-81-003a. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1984, pp. 8-4.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage In Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks. EPA-450/3-84-005. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1984, pp. 5-2 through 5-6.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-27.
4. Reference 3, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
5. Reference 3, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
•"•• V
6. Reference 1, pp. 8-19.
H-58
-------
3.2.2.2.2 TANK STORAGE: Internal Floating Roof for Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for a
two-step modification to an open-top storage tank [Model Unit S02I]: (1) placing an internal floating roof
Inside the tank walls, and then (2) enclosing the entire tank with a fixed roof. For the cost estimation,
the assumption is made that both modifications to the tank are made at the same time so that the
internal floating roof system can be installed Inside the open-top tank before enclosing the tank with a
fixed roof. This approach saves the retrofit, tank cleaning, and tank degassing costs required to install
an internal floating roof inside an existing covered tank (refer to Section 3.2.2.2.1, Table 2). The
tank volume is 76 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet) and a height
of 2.7 aieters (9 feet). The liquid waste throughput is based on 44 turnovers per year.
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Internal Floating Roof (b,c)
(incl. vapor-mounted wiper seal)
Secondary Seal (c,d)
Fixed-roof (FRC)
Pressure Relief Valve (PRVC) (e)
-L—-,r&aum_i_ )1T.nm.^_
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
5.8 H dia.
(19 ft dia.)
18.2 a
(60 ft)
26.4 sq. meters
(284 sq.ft)
7.6 cm dia.
(3 in dia.)
Construction
Material
Aluminum
Aluminum
Stainless
Steel
Cost (a)
$7,760
$1,860
$10,640
$800
$21,060
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 2,3
Ref 4
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Cost was estimated using the following cost factor:
internal Floating Roof Cost = 1162.4 x [tank diameter in meters] + 1021.5
(c) All sales tax, freight, and Installation costs included in base equipment costs.
(d) Cost of secondary seal is estimated to be $102 per linear meter of tank circumference.
(e) Pressure rellef valves can be set to respond to pressures ranging from 2 to 90 kPa (0.3 to 13 psia). The
valve Is a stainless steel, piston type valve with a flat faced 7.6 en (3 in) flange Inlet and a Teflon
diaphragm.
H-59
-------
3.2.2.2.2 TANK STORAGE: Internal Floating Roof for Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
'
Sales Tax & Freight (c)
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS (e)
Engineering, Construction, Field
Expenses & Fees
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
Table 1
8X x (FRC+PRVC)
(d)
203! X (FRC+PRVC)
Capital
Cost (a)
$21,060
$0
$920
$21,980
$0
$2,480
$2,480
$24,460
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 3
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Sales tax and freight costs for Internal floating roof Included in base equipment costs.
(d) Direct Installation costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(e) Indirect Installation costs for Installing the fixed roof were estimated by the vendor
to be approximately 20X of the roof purchase cost. Indirect Installation costs for the
Internal floating roof Included In the base equipment costs.
H-60
-------
3.2.2.2.2 TANK-STORAGE: Internal Floating Roof for Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
.
Capital Recovery (CR)
Internal Floating Roof
Secondary Seal
Fixed Roof
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) '
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC) ,
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) j
Cost
Factor
$13.20/hr
100% x MLC
602 x (MLC+MMC)
45! X TCI
10% 8 20 yr (c)
10% % 10 yr (c)
10% e 20 yr (d) j
i
i
DC+IC-RC !
TAC-CR j
Annual
Consumption
none
52 hr (b)
i
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$690
$690
'$1,380
$830
$980
$910
$300
$1,740
$4,760
$0
$6,140
$3,190
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 7
Ref 8
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated labor required for inspection/maintenance of both tank roofs Is 1 hour per week.
(c) Estimated service life based on values used for volatile organic liquid storage tank NSPS regulatory
analysis (Reference 9).
(d) Estimated service life based on expected useful life of materials of construction.
H-61
-------
3.2.2.2.2 TANK STORAGE: Internal Floating Roof for Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic .
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Cost
Factor
,
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
Mg/yr
4,095
3,920
3,852
3,325
3,245
Annual
Cost (a)
LL
$1.50
$1.57
$1.59
$1.85
$1 .89
Cost Factor
Reference
!
(a) January 1988 dollars
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage Tanks - Background Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-81-003a. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, duly 1984, pp. 8-4.
2. Roberts, J., TEMCOR, Inc. Retrofit costs for aluminum fixed roofs for tanks. Telephone conversation with
R. Chessln, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, June 11, 1987.
3. Anderson, R., Conservatek, Inc., Conroe, Texas. Aluminum dome tank cover costs. Letter to R. Chessln,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 15, 1987.
4. Johnson, W. L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Memorandum, VOC Abatement for Small Solvent
Storage Tanks, Office of Air Quality Planning arid Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1985.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
6. Reference 5, pp. 2-27.
7. Reference 5, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
8. Reference 5, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
9. Reference 1, pp. 8-19.
H-62
-------
3.2.2.3.1 TANK STORAGE: Vent to Existing Combustion Device for Covered Tank
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and amual costs for venting
an existing covered storage tank [Model Unit S02D] to an existing on-slte combustion device such as a boi ler
or incinerator. The tank volume Is 76 cubicmeters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet)
and a height of 2.7 meters (9 feet). The liquid waste throughput Is based on 44 turnovers per year.
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Vent Piping (b)
(5.1 cm (2 in) dia. Schedule 40)
Flame Arrestor (c)
(5.1 cm (2 In) diameter)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
61 n length
(200 ft)
1 required
Construction
Material
Galvanized
Steel
Cost (a)
$730
$100
$830
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 2
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Cost of pipe is $12.00 per linear meter of pipe ($3.65/ft).
(c) Cost of a flame arrester is $100.
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Sales Tax & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
INSTALLATION COSTS
Direct Installation Costs
Indirect Installation Costs
Tota I I nsta 1 1 at I on Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
Table 1
8X xBEC
'•
$8.34/m of pipe length.
20% x PEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$830
$70
$900
$510
$180
..
$690
$1,590
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 3
Ref 1
Ref 4
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-63
-------
3.2.2.3.1 TANK STORAGE: Vent to Existing Combustion Device for Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT AKNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Adraln. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AHT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Cost
Factor
$13.20/hr
1005! x MLC
60% x (MLC+MMC)
45! X TCI
10% e 10 yr (c)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
none
1 hr (b)
i
Mg/yr
4,095
3,920
3,852
3,325
3,245
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$10
$10
$20
$10
$60
$260
$330
$0
$330
$70
$0.08
$0.08
$0.09
$0.10
$0.10
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated labor required for Inspection/maintenance of pipe vent system Is 1 hour per year.
(c) Estimated service life based on expected useful life of materials of construction.
H-64
-------
3.2.2.3.1 TANK STORAGE: Vent to Existing Combustion Device for Covered Tank (continued)
REFERENCES
1. Mahoney, W., editor-in-chief, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Company, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1986, pp. 40.
2. HOYT Corporation. Cost for flame arresters. Telephone conversation with A. Gitelraan,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 9, 1986.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
4. Anderson, R., Conservatek, Inc., Conroe, Texas. Aluminum dome tank costs. Letter to R. Chess in,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 15, 1987.
5. Reference 3, pp. 2-27.
6. Reference 3, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
7. Reference 3, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
H-65
-------
3.2.2.3.2 TANK STORAGE: Vent to Existing Combustion Device for Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof
The following table presents the calculation of total capital and annual costs for a two-step
eodlfIcatlon to an open-top storage tank [Model Unit S02I]: 1) enclosing the tank with a fixed roof, and
then 2) venting the tank to an existing on-site combustion device such as a boiler or incinerator.
The total capital and annual costs calculated In Section 3.2.2.1 (fixed roof for open-top tank)
and Section 3.2.2.3.1 (vent to existing combustion device for covered tank) are added In the table
to obtain the total cost for Implementing the codifications. The tank volume is 76 cubic meters
(20,000 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet) and a height of 2.7 meters (9 feet).
The liquid waste throughput is based on 44 turnovers per year.
Table 1. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS
Cost Cost Component
Component Reference Cost (a)
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
•
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 1 $11,440
Pipe Vent System Sec. 3.2.2.3.1, Table 1 $830
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 2 $14,830
Pipe Vent System j Sec. 3.2.2.3.1, Table 2 $1,590
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
.
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3 $2,840
Pipe Vent System | Sec. 3.2.2.3.1, Table 3 $330
Total Annual Cost (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST i
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3 $1,100
Pipe Vent System Sec. 3.2.2.3.1, Table 3 $70
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
Total
Cost (a)
$12,270
$16,420
$3,170
$1,170
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-66
-------
3.2.2.3.2 TANK STORAGE: Vent to Existing Combustion Device for Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (cont.)
Table 1. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL HASTE TmOUWUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Cost
Reference
TAC/AWT
'
Annual
Throughput
4,095 Mg/yr
3,920 Mg/yr
3,852 Mg/yr
3,325 Mg/yr
3,245 Mg/yr
Total
Cost (a)
.
. $0.77
$0.81
$0.82
$0.95
$0.98
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-67
-------
3.2.2.4.1 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Covered Tank
The following series of seven tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
venting an existing covered storage tank [Model Unit S02D] to a carbon canister control device. The tank
volume Is 76 cubic asters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet) and a height of 2.7 meters
(9 feet). The liquid waste throughput Is based on 44 turnovers per year. Costs were calculated based on the
assumption that 2 canisters are used at start-up and the liquid pump rate Is 757 llters/mln (200 gal/mim).
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Carbon Canisters (b)
Vent Piping (c)
(7.6 ca (3 In) dla. Schedule 40)
Plane Arresters (d)
(7.6 ca (3 In) diameter)
Equipment
Size
2 required
18 m length
(60 ft)
2 required
Construction
Material
"
Galvanized
Steel
Cost (a)
$990
$400
$200
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 2
Ref 3
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
$1,590
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Cost of carbon canister Is $495
(c) Cost of pipe Is $22.10 per linear meter of pipe ($6.74/ft).
(d) Cost of a flame arrester Is $100. One flame arrester required for each carbon canister.
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Sales Tax & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
INSTALLATION COSTS
Direct and Direct Installation
Total Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
(a) January 1986 dollars
Cost
Factor
Table 1
SXxBEC
203! x PEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$1,590
$130
$1,720
$340
$340
$2,060
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 4
Ref 5
H-68
-------
3.2.2.4.1 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3a. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Haste
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Replacement Carbon Canisters
Canister Disposal
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) |
Cost
Factor
12.00/hr
15X x OLC
$13.20/hr
100% x MLC
$495/canister
$72/canlster (e)
•
60% X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4X X TCI
10X 9 10 yr (f)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
Annual
Consumption
none
122 hr (b)
16 hr (c)
8 canisters (d)
8 canisters
!
4,095Mg/yr |
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$1,460
$220
$210
$210
$3,960
$580
$6,640
$1,260
$80
$340
"
$1,680
$0
$8,320
$7,980
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
TAC/AWT
$2.03
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated operating labor required Is 10 minutes per day per canister.
(c) Estimated maintenance labor required is 2 hour to replace a canister.
(d) Number of replacement canisters calculated by assuming 1) a canister collects 95% of the organic emissions
vented from the tank (0.12 Mg/yr), and 2) working capacity of each canister is 15.6 kg of organics.
(e) Estimated cost for collection and disposal by a commercial waste management company.
(f) Estimated service life of permanent system components based on typical carbon canister system lifetime
recommended in EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 10).
H-69
-------
3.2.2.4.1 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3b. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for Organic Sludge/Slurry Waste
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Replacement Carbon Canisters
Canister Disposal
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, i Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg)
Cost
Factor
12.00/hr
15X x OLC
$13.20/hr
1 0C« x MLC
$495/canlster
$72/canlster (e)
605! X (QLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4X X TCI
10* e 10 yr (f)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
none
122 hr (b)
136 hr (c)
•
68 canisters (d)
68 canisters
3,919 Mg/yr
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$1,460
$220
$1,800
$1,800
$33,660
$4,900
$43,840
$3,170
$80
$340
$3,590
$0
, $47,430
j $47,090
,
: $12.10
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated operating labor required is 10 nimutes per day per canister.
(c) Estimated maintenance labor required Is 2 hour to replace a canister.
(d) Number of replacement canisters calculated by assuming 1) a canister collects 95% of the organic emissions
vented fro* the tank (1.12 Mg/yr), and 2) working capacity of each canister is 15.6 kg of organics.
(e) Estimated cost for collection and disposal by a commercial waste management company.
(f) Estlaated service life of permanent system components based on typical carbon canister system lifetime
recommended In EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 10).
H-70
-------
3.2.2.4.1 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3c. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste
Cost.
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Replacement Carbon Canisters
Canister Disposal
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE ThROUGFPUT (AWT)
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Cost
Factor
12.00/hr
15% x OLC
$13.20/hr
1002 x MLC
$495/canlster
$72/canister (e)
'
60% x (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
-
4% X TCI
10% € 10 yr (f )
i
i
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR ,
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
.
none
122 hr (b)
110 hr (c)
55 canisters (d)
55 canisters
3,851 Mg/yr
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$1,460
$220
$1,450
$1,450
$27,230
$3,960
$35,770
$2,750
$80
$340
$3,170
$0
$38,940
$38,600
$10.11
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated operating labor required is 10 minutes per day per canister.
(c) Estimated maintenance labor required Is 2 hour to replace a canister.
(d) Number of replacement canisters calculated by assuming 1) a canister collects 95% of the organic emissions
vented from the tank (0.89 Mg/yr), and 2) working capacity of each canister is 15.6 kg of organics.
(e) Estimated cost for collection and disposal by a commercial waste management company.
(f) Estimated service life of permanent system components based on typical carbon canister system lifetime
recommended in EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 10).
H-71
-------
3.2.2.4.1 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3d. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for Dilute Aqueous Waste
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Replacement Carbon Canisters
Canister Disposal
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Adrain. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUWUT (AWT)
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Cost
Factor
12.00/hr
15X X OLC
$13.20/hr
lOOXx MLC
$495/canister
$72/canister (e)
BOX X (OLC+SLC+MLC4WC)
4X X TCI
10% 8 10 yr (f)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
none
122 hr (b)
260 hr (c)
130 canister (d)
130 canisters
-
3,324 Mg/yr
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$1,460
$220
$3,430
$3,430
$64,350
$9,360
$82,250
$5,120
$80
$340
$5,540
$0
$87,790
$87,450
$26.41
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estlaated operating labor required Is 10 ralmutes per day per canister.
(c) Estimated maintenance labor required Is 2 hour to replace a canister.
(d) Number of replacement canisters calculated by assuming 1) a canister collects 95% of the organic emissions
vented from the tank (2.12 Mg/yr), and 2) working capacity of each canister Is 15.6 kg of organlcs.
(e) Estimated cost for collection and disposal by a commercial waste management company.
(f) Estimated service life of permanent system components based on typical carbon canister system lifetime
recommended in EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 10). '
H-72
-------
3.2.2.4.1 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3e. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for Organic Liquid Waste
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Replacement Carbon Canisters
Canister Disposal
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
-
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Cost
Factor
12.00/hr
15X x OLC
$13.20/hr
100XXMLC
$495/canlster
$72/canlster (e)
605! x (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4% X TCI
10X 0 10 yr (f)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
Annual
Consumption
none
122 hr (b)
54 hours (c)
27 canisters (d)
27 canisters
1
1
1
1
! 3,245 Mg/yr
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$1,460
$220
$710
$710
$13,370
$1,940
$18,410
•
$1,860
$80
$340
$2,280
! $0
i $20,690
! $20,350
i
i
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
TAC/AWT
$6.38
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated operating labor required is 10 minutes per day per canister.
(c) Estimated maintenance labor required is 2 hour to replace a canister.
(d) Number of replacement canisters calculated by assuming 1) a canister collects 95% of the organic emissions
vented from the tank (0.44 Mg/yr), and 2) working capacity of each canister Is 15.6 kg of organics.
(e) Estimated cost for collection and disposal by a commercial waste management company.
(f) Estimated service life of permanent system components based on typical carbon canister system lifetime
recommended in EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 10).
H-73
-------
3.2.2.4.1 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Covered Tank (continued)
REFERENCES
1. Oakes, D.. HOYT Corporation. Carbon canisters and carbon regeneration. Telephone
conversation with A. Gltelraan, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC,
February 27, 1986.
2. Mahoney, W., editor-ln-chlef, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Company, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1986, pp. 107, 169, 258, and 313.
3. HOYT Corporation. Cost for flaw arresters. Telephone conversation with A. Gltelraan,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 9, 1986.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
5. Reference 4, pp. 4-26 and 4-28.
6. Reference 4, pp. 2-27.
7. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute. Cost estimates for generic carbon canister adsorption.
Meaorandia to S. Thorneloe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
8. Reference 4, pp. 4-33.
9. Reference 4, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
10. Reference 4, pp. 4-34.
H-74
-------
3.2.2.4.2 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof
The following series of five tables presents the calculation of total capital and annual costs for
a two-step modification to an open-top storage tank [Model Unit S02I]: 1) enclosing the tank with
a fixed roof, and then 2) venting the tank to a carbon canister. The total capital and annual costs
calculated In Section 3.2.2.1 (fixed roof for open-top tank) and Section 3.2.2.4.1 (carbon canister
for covered tank) are added in the tables to obtain the total cost for implementing the modifications.
The tank volume Is 76 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet) and a height
of 2.7 meters (9 feet). The liquid waste throughput Is based on 44 turnovers per year.
Table 1a. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste
Cost ! Cost Component
Component Reference Cost (a)
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 1 $11,440
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 1 $1,590
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 2 $14,830
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 2 $2,060
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST j
i
Fixed Roof | Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3 $2,840
i
i
Carbon Canister i Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 3a $8,320
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3 $1,100
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 3a $7,980
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) i 4,095 Mg/yr
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) { TAC/AWT j
Total
, Cost (a)
$13,030
1
$16,890
-
$11,160
$9,080
$2.73
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-75
-------
3.2.2.4.2 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 1b. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for Organic Sludge/Slurry Waste
Cost Cost Component
Component Reference Cost (a)
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 1 $11,440
Carbon Canister , Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 1 $1,590
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT |
i
Fixed Roof i Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 2 $14,830
i
i
Carbon Canister j Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 2 $2,060
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST j
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3 ! $2,840
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 3b ! $47,430
Total Annual Cost (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST j
Fixed Roof i Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3 $1,100
Carbon Canister ! Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 3b $47,090
Annual Operating Cost (AX)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) ! j 3,919 Mg/yr
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) | TAC/AWT i
Total
Cost (a)
'
$13,030
$16,890
$50,270
$48,190
$12.83
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-76
-------
3.2.2.4.2 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Open-Top Tank Modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 1o. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste
Cost
Component
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
.
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Cost
Reference
Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 1
•
Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, TableJ
Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 2
Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 2
Component
Cost (a)
$11,440
$1,590
!
$14,830
$2,060
Total
Cost (a)
$13,030
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3
Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 3c
$2,840
$38,940
$16,890
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3
Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 3c
$1,100
$38,600 j
$41,780
Annual Operating Cost (AX)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHHJT (AWT)
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
(a) January 1986 dollars
! 3,852 Mg/yr |
TAC/AWT
$39,700
$10.85
H-77
-------
3.2.2.4.2 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 1d. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for Dilute Aqueous Waste
Cost
Component
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Total Base Equlpaent Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Total Annual Cost (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Cost Component
Reference Cost (a)
Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 1 $11,440
Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 1 $1,590
Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 2 $14,830
Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 2 | $2,060
! !
! !
i Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3 | $2,840
! !
! Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 3d ! $87,790
Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3 $1,100
Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 3d $87,450
*
! i 3,324 Mg/yr
! TAC/AWT i
Total
Cost (a)
.
•
$13,030
$16,890
$90,630
$88,550
$27.27
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-78
-------
3.2.2.4.2 TANK STORAGE: Carbon Canister for Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 1e. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for Organic Liquid Waste
Cost i Cost
Component ! Reference
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 1
Carbon Canister , j Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 1
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 2
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 2
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 3e
Total Annual Cost (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST j
I
I
Fixed Roof | Sec. 3.2.2.1, Table 3
i
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.2.4.1, Table 3e
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) |
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) j TAC/AWT
Component
Cost (a)
$1.1,440
$1,590
$14,830
$2,060
"
$2,840
$20,690
$1,100
$20,350
! 3,245 Mg/yr
i
i
Total
Cost (a)
$13,030
$16,890
$23,530
.
$21,450
$7.25
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-79
-------
3.2.3 WASREPILE STORAGE
(THIS CATEGORY HAS NOT SELECTED FOR THE CONTROL OPTION ANALYSES )
H-80
-------
3.2.4.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Floating Membrane
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
installing and using a floating membrane on a surface storage Impoundment [Model Unit S04C]. The
impoundment volume is 2,700 cubic meters (712,400 gallons) with a surface area of 1,500 square meters
(16,200 square feet) and a depth of 1.8 meters (6 feet). The Impoundment retention time is 20 days.
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Membrane (b,c)
Evacuation System (d)
Pump
Piping
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
30 a x 50 ra
(100 ft X 164 ft)
373 watts, 397 I/rain
(1/2 hp, 105 gpm)
5 en dla., 15 D
(2 In dia, 50 ft)
Construction
Material
High density
polyethylene
•
-
Bronze
SDR 15
polyethylene
Cost (a)
$30,110
$420
$30
.
$30,560
Reference
Ref 1,2
Ref 3
Ref 4
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Vendor price quote (Reference 1) for floating synthetic membrane was $30 per square meter
installed. The equipment cost was determined by multiplying the vendor price quote times a materials
cost fraction of 67% obtained from Means Construction Cost Data 1986 (Reference 2).
(c) Includes cost for anchor hardware.
(d) Evacuation system is necessary to remove rainwater that collects on the membrane.
H-81
-------
3.2.4.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Floating Membrane (continued)
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b) •
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations & Supports (c)
Electrical
Site Preparation (e)
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fes
Startup and Testing
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
Table 1
83! x BEC
\
$67 per 8)3 concrete
($50 per yds concrete)
(d)
$69/n ($21/ft)
8.5X X PEC
16. 5X X PEC
8.5% X PEC
2XXPEC
3XXPEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$30,560
$0
$2,440
$33,000
$50
$200
$11,040
$11,290
$2,810
$5,450
$2,810
$660
$990
$12,720
$57,010
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 1
Ref 2
Ref 2
.,
Ref 2
Ref 8
Ref 8
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included in the base equipment costs.
(c) Concrete pad for the pump Is 1.5 x 3.7 x 0.15 meter (5 x 12 x 0.5 ft)
(d) Punp aotor connection ($80), safety switch ($90), and wiring ($30)
(e) Cost to prepare Impoundment perimeter for installation of floating membrane.
H-82
-------
3.2.4.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Floating Membrane (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
Cost
Factor
$0.0463/kHh
$13.20/hr
100% x MLC
60% X (MLC+MMC)
4% x TCI
10% e 10 yr (d)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
Annual
Consumption
300 kHh (b)
148 hr (c)
•
.
-
Annual
Cost (a)
$10
$1,950
"
$1,950
$3,910
.
$1,170
$2,280
$9,280
$12,730
$0
$16,640
$7,360
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 10
Ref 11
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Pump operation will depend on amount of local rainfall at TSDF site. Cost based on an average
pump operation of 2 hours per day, and an assumed pump motor efficiency of 90%.
(c) Labor required for periodic Inspection of floating membrane (1 hour per week) and evacuation
system maintenance (8 hours per month). All labor hours charged as maintenance hours.
(d) Estimated service life of floating membrane based on vendor information.
H-83
-------
3.2.4.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Floating Membrane (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
2-Phasa Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Cost
Factor
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
Mg/yr
49,140
49,140
49,140
Annual
Cost (a)
$0.34
$0.34
$0.34
Cost Factor
Reference
(a) January 1988 dollars
REFERENCES
1. U. Matheson, Girdle Linings, Inc.. Telephone conversation with R. Chess In, Research Triangle
Institute, July 14, 1986.
2. Mahoney, W.D., editor-in-chief, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Co, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1986, p. 137 (7.1.140.180).
3. Reference 2, p. 148 (5.2.54.718).
4. Reference 2, p. 74 (15.1.49.738).
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
6. Reference 2, p. 74 (3.3.12.001).
7. Reference 2, p. 301, 306, 307.
8. Vatavuk, W.M. and Never!I, R.B., Part II Factors for Estimating Capital and Operating Costs,
Chenlcal Engineering, November 3, 1980, pp. 157 - 162.
9. Reference 5, pp. 2-27.
10. Reference 5, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
11. Reference 5, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
H-84
-------
3.2.4.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste
The following series of five tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
Installing and using a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system on a surface storage impoundment [Model Unit S04C]
storing an aqueous sludge/slurry waste. The control system requires complete enclosure of the impoundment
surface using an air-supported structure. This is an anchored, flexible membrane dome that is Inflated
using a large fan. The exhaust vent of the dome Is connected to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber. The
impoundment volume is 2,700 cubic meters (712,400 gallons) with a surface area of 1,500 square meters
(16,200 square feet) and a depth of 1.8 meters (6 feet). The Impoundment retention time is 20 days.
Table 1a. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Air-Supported Structure
Equipment
Component
Dome Structure (b)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
,
31 a x 51 n
(102 ft X 168 ft)
-
Construction
Material
Tedlar/
Plastic
Cost (a)
$70,030
$70,030
Reference
Ref 1
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dome structure Includes seams, tension cables, primary and auxiliary Inflation system, air lock,
personnel doors, liner, and instrumentation.
(c) Size Includes 0.5 meter (1.7 feet) border on each side of the dome structure.
H-85
-------
3.2.4.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste (continued)
Table 1b. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Equipment
Component
Fixed-bed Adsorber Vessels
(dual-bed horizontal system)
Granulated Activated Carbon
Other Process Equipment (d)
•
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (EEC)
Equipment
Size
(b)
11,050 kg (c)
(24,360 Ib)
(e)
Construction
Material
304 Stainless
Steel
Carbon
.
Cost (a)
l
$35,520
$43,870
$30,960
$110,350
Reference
Ref 2
Ref 2,3
Ref 4
(a) January 1988 dollars
(b) Dual fixed-bed carbon adsorber design. Adsorber vessel specifications:
Airflow rate - 233 normal cubic meters per ainute (8,225 acfm)
Adsorber Vessel Diameter »
Adsorber Vessel Length •
Adsorber Vessel Surface Area
3.4 meters
3.7 meters
58.5 sq. meters
11.2 feet
12.3 feet
630 sq. feet
(c) Quantity and cost of carbon determined using the estimation procedure recommended in the
EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 1). Cost of carbon is $3.97/kg ($1.80/lb).
(d) Fan, punps, condenser, decanter, ductwork, Instrumentation, and internal piping.
(e) Total cost for this equipment determined by multiplying the sum of the adsorber vessel and carbon
cost by 0.39 as recommended In the EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 3).
H-86
-------
3.2.4.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Haste (continued)
Table 2a. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Air-Supported Structure
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Taxes & Freight
Cost
Factor
Table 1a
8% x BEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$70,030
$0
$5,600
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC) $75,630
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Erection and Handling 2.1% x PEC $1,590
Electrical 2% x PEC $1,510
S I te Preparat ion (c) $1 1 , 300
Total Direct Installation Cost $14,400
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS j
Indirect Installation Costs 15% x PEC ', $11,340
Total Indirect Installation Cost $11,340
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported Structure $101,370
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 1
(a) January 1986 do Ilars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Estimated site preparation cost Is the cost for trenching the done structure perimeter of
164 meters (538 feet) and using a cost factor of $68.90 per linear meter ($21/ft) obtained
from Reference 1.
H-87
-------
3.2.4.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste (continued)
Table 2b. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equlpnent Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Hand! Ing
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation i
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up
Perforaance Test
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
Cost
Factor
Table 1b
SXxBEC
8X x PEC
14X X PEC
4X x PEC
2XXPEC
1X x PEC
1X X PEC
(c)
103! X PEC
5X X PEC
103! X PEC
23! X PEC
13! X PEC
33JXPEC
Total Capital Investment for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) for Control
Structure (Table 2a)
System
Capital
Cost (a)
$110,350
$0
$8,830
$119,180
$9,530
$16,690
$4,770
$2,380
$1,190
$1,190
$500
$36,250
$11,920
$5,960
$11,920
$2,380
$1,190
$3,580
$36,950
$192,380
$101,370
$293,750
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
.
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included in base equipment costs.
(c) Area around an existing surface Impoundment is assumed to be already cleared and leveled.
A notainal site preparation cost of $500 is assumed.
H-88
-------
3.2.4.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Steam
Cooling Water
Labor
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
.
Carbon Replacement (d)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR) (e)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) '
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
Cost
Factor
$0.0463/k«h
$0.00719Ag of steam
$0.04/cubic neter
$12.00/hr
15X x OLC
$13.20/hr
1002 x MLC
$0.84Ag of carbon
60% X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4% X TCI
10% e 10 yr (f)
1
1
DC+IC-RC |
TAC-CR |
Annual
Consumption
185,715 kHh (b)
2,258,000 kg (b)
211,000 m3 (b)
550 hr (c)
646 hr (c)
Annual
Cost (a)
$8,600
$16,240
$8,440
$6,600
$990
$8,530
$8,530
$12,820
$70,750
$14,790
$11,750
$40,100
$66,640
$0
$137,390
$97,290
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 12
'
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber utility consumption determined using the estimation procedures recommended in
the EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 7). Air-supported structure fan electricity demand estimated
to be 173 kWh/day, 365 day/year.
(c) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber labor hours determined using the labor hour factors recommended In the
EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 8) and assuming workers are on-slte 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Additional maintenance labor for air-supported structure estimated to be 8 hours per month.
(d) Carbon needs to be replaced once every 5 years. This cost represents 20% of the cost required to
replace the carbon In the fifth year of operation.
(e) CR based on TCI for air-supported structure plus TCI for carbon adsorber less the Initial carbon cost.
(f) Estimated service life based on typical carbon adsorber system lifetime recommended In the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 12).
H-89
-------
3.2.4.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost
Cooponent
ANNUAL WASTE TffiOUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE* ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
! Cost
i Factor
i
i
i TAC/AWT
i
i Annual ,
! Consumption i
! Mg/yr i
i 49,140 !
i i
i i
; i
Annual i Cost Factor
Cost (a) ! Reference
i
i
i
i
i
$2.80 i
(a) January 1988 dollars
REFERENCES
1. Mahoney, W., editor-ln-chlef, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Co, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1986, pp. 241 (13.1,5.130-155).
2. U.S. Envlronnenta! Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 4-16 to 4-23.
3. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute, Cost estimates for generic fixed-bed carbon adsorption.
Attachment to Memorandum to S. Thorneloe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
4. Reference 2, pp. 4-23 and 4-24.
5. Reference 2, pp. 2-22.
6. Reference 2, pp. 4-25.
7. Reference 2, pp. 4-28 to 4-32.
8. Reference 2, pp. 4-33 and 4-34.
9. Reference 2, pp. 2-27.
10. Reference 2, pp. 4-32 and 4-33.
11. Reference 2, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
12. Reference 2, pp. 4-34 and 4-35.
H-9.0
-------
3.2.4.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste
The following series of five tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
Installing and using a fixed-bed carbon adsorber systen on a surface storage impoundment [Model Unit S04C]
storing an dilute aqueous waste. The control system requires complete enclosure of the impoundment
surface using an air-supported structure. This Is an anchored, flexible membrane dome that is Inflated
using a large fan. The exhaust vent of ths dome Is connected to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber. The
Impoundment volume is 2,700 cubic meters (712,400 gallons) with a surface area of 1,500 square meters
(16,200 square feet) and a depth of 1.8 meters (6 feet). The Impoundment retention time is 20 days.
Table 1a. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Air-Supported Structure
Equipment
Component
Dome Structure (b)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
31 n x 51 n
(102 ft x 168 ft)
i Construction
! Material
! Tedlar/
! Plastic
1
1
Cost (a)
$70,030
$70,030
Reference
Ref 1
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dome structure includes seams, tension cables, primary and auxiliary inflation system, air lock,
personnel doors, liner, and instrumentation.
(c) Size includes 0.5 meter (1.7 feet) border on each side of the dome structure.
H-91
-------
3.2.4.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste (continued)
Table 1b. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Equipment
Component
Fixed-bed Adsorber Vessels
(dual-bed horizontal system)
Granulated Activated Carbon
Other Process Equipment (d)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (EEC)
Equipment
Size
(b)
5,509 kg (c)
(12,145 Ib)
(e)
Construction
Material
304 Stainless
Steel
Carbon
Cost (a)
$34,080
$21,860
$21,820
$77,760
Reference
Ref 2
Ref 2,3
Ref 4
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dual fixed-bed carbon adsorber design. Adsorber vessel specifications:
Airflow rate - 233 normal cubic asters per minute (8,225 acfm)
Adsorber Vessel Diameter =
Adsorber Vessel Length »
Adsorber Vessel Surface Area
1.7 meters
9.2 meters
54.4 sq. meters
5.6 feet
30.3 feet
585 sq. feet
(o) Quantity and cost of carbon determined using the estimation procedure recommended in the
EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 1). Cost of carbon is $3.97/kg ($1.80/lb).
(d) Fan, pumps, condenser, decanter, ductwork, instrumentation, and internal piping.
(e) Total cost for this equipment determined by multiplying the sum of the adsorber vessel and carbon
cost by 0.39 as recommended In the EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 3).
H-92
-------
3.2.4.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste (continued)
Table 2a. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Air-Supported Structure
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b) .
Sales Taxes & Freight
Cost
Factor
Table 1a
SSxBEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$70,030
$0
$5,600
, •
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC) $75,630
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS |
i
Erection and Hand 1 Ing 2.1X x PEC ! $1,590
Electrical 2X x PEC ! $1,510
Site Preparation (c) i $11,300
Total Direct Installation Cost $14,400
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Indirect Installation Costs 15% x PEC $11,340
Total Indirect Installation Cost $11,340
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported Structure $101,370
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 1
- -
"
Ref 1
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Estimated site preparation cost is.the cost for trenching the dome structure perimeter of
164 meters (538 feet) and using a cost factor of $68.90 per linear meter ($21/ft) obtained
from Reference 1.
H-93
-------
3.2.4.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste (continued)
Table 2b. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxl 1 lary Equipment (b) .
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up
Performance Test
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
Cost
Factor
Table 1b
8X x BEC
8X x PEC
14X x PEC
43! X PEC
2XXPEC
1X x PEC
1X x PEC
(c)
10* X PEC
5X x PEC
10X X PEC
2XXPEC
IX X PEC
35! X PEC
Total Capital Investment for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) for Control
Structure (Table 2a)
System
Capital
Cost (a)
$77,760
$0
$6,220
$83,980
$6,720
$11,760
$3,360
$1,680
$840
$840
$500
$25,700
$8,400
$4,200
$8,400
$1,680
$840
$2,520
$26,040
$135,720
$101,370
$237,090
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In base equipment costs.
(c) Area around an existing surface Impoundment Is assumed to be already cleared and leveled.
A noilnal site preparation cost of $500 Is assumed.
H-94
-------
3.2.4.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Steam
Coo ling Water
Labor
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Carbon Replacement (d)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR) (e)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
Cost
Factor
$0.0463/kWh
$0.0071 9 Ag of steam
$0.04/cublc nieter
$12.00/hr
152 x OLC
$13.20/hr
100X x MLC
$0.84/kg of carbon
60% X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4% X TCI
10% * 10 yr (f)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
Annual
Consumption
117,292 kWh (b)
523,000 kg (b)
48,770 m3 (b)
550 hr (c)
646 hr (c)
Annual
Cost (a)
$5,430
$3,760
$1,950
$6,600
$930
$8,530
$8,530
$6,390
$42,180
•
$14,790
$9,480
$34,740
$59,010
$0
$101,190
$66,450
BSS=~S BB=3SSS=
Cost Factor
Reference
•
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 12
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber utility consumption determined using the estimation procedures recommended In
the EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 7). Air-supported structure fan electricity demand estimated
to be 173 kWh/day, 365 day/year.
(c) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber labor hours determined using the labor hour factors recommended in the
EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 8) and assuming workers are on-site 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Additional maintenance labor for air-supported structure estimated to be 8 hours per month.
(d) Carbon needs to be replaced once every 5 years. This cost represents 20% of the cost required to
replace the carbon in the fifth year of operation.
(e) CR based on TCI for air-supported structure plus TCI for carbon adsorber less the initial carbon cost.
(f) Estimated service life based on typical carbon adsorber system lifetime recommended in the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 12).
H-95
-------
3.2.4.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Dilute Aqueous Waste
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Dilute Aqueous Waste
Cost
Factor
TAC/AWT
i Annual |
! Consumption !
! Mg/yr !
i 49,140 !
i i
i i
i i
Annual
Cost (a)
$2.06
i Cost Factor
! Reference
i
|
(a) January 1988 dollars
REFERENCES
1. Mahoney, W., editor-In-chief, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Co, Inc.,
Kingston. Massachusetts, 1986, pp. 241 (13.1.5.130-155).
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 4-16 to 4-23.
3. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute, Cost estimates for generic fixed-bed carbon adsorption.
Attachment to Memorandum to S. Thorneloe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
4. Reference 2, pp. 4-23 and 4-24.
5. Reference 2, pp. 2-22.
6. Reference 2, pp. 4-25.
7. Reference 2, pp. 4-28 to 4-32.
8. Reference 2, pp. 4-33 and 4-34.
9. Reference 2, pp. 2-27.
10. Reference 2, pp. 4-32 and 4-33.
11. Reference 2, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
12. Reference 2, pp. 4-34 and 4-35.
H-96
-------
3.2.4.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste
The following series of five tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
Installing and using a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system on a surface storage impoundment [Model Unit S04C]
storing a 2-phase aqueous/organic waste. The control system requires conplete enclosure of the Impoundment
surface using an air-supported structure: This is an anchored, flexible membrane dome that is Inflated
using a large fan. The exhaust vent of the dome Is connected to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber. The
impoundment volume is 2,700 cubic meters (712,400 gallons) with a surface area of 1,500 square meters
(16,200 square feet) and'a depth of 1.8 meters (6 feet). The Impoundment retention time is 20 days.
Table 1a. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Air-Supported Structure
Equipment
Component
Dome Structure (b)
.
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
31 a x 51 ra
(102 ft X 168 ft)
Construction
Material
Tedlar/
Plastic
j Cost (a)
! $70,030
!
$70,030
Reference
Ref 1
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dome structure includes seams, tension cables, primary and auxiliary inflation system, air lock,
personnel doors, liner, and instrumentation.
(c) Size includes 0.5 meter (1.7 feet) border on each side of the dome structure.
H-97
-------
3.2.4.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Haste (continued)
Table 1b. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Equipment
Component
Fixed-bed Adsorber Vessels
(dual-bed horizontal system)
Granulated Activated Carbon
Other Process Equipment (d)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
(b)
5,509 kg (c)
(12,145 Ib)
(e)
Construction
Material
304 Stainless
Steel
Carbon
Cost (a)
$34,080
$21,860
'
$21,820
$77,760
Reference
Ref 2
Ref 2,3 '
Ref 4
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dual fixed-bed carbon adsorber design. Adsorber vessel specifications:
Airflow rate - 233 normal cubic meters per iinute (8,225 acfm)
Adsorber Vessel Diameter =
Adsorber Vessel Length =
Adsorber Vessel Surface Area
1.7 meters
9.2 meters
54.4 sq. meters
5.6 feet
30.3 feet
585 sq. feet
(c) Quantity and cost of carbon determined using the estimation procedure recommended in the
EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 1). Cost of carbon Is $3.97/kg ($1.80/1b).
(d) Fan, puraps, condenser, decanter, ductwork, Instrumentation, and internal piping.
(e) Total cost for this equipment determined by multiplying the sum of the adsorber vessel and carbon
cost by 0.39 as recommended In the EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 3).
H-98
-------
3.2.4.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste (continued)
Table 2a. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Air-Supported Structure
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost
-------
3.2.4.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDIENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste (continued)
Table 2b. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxl 1 lary Equipment (b)
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up
Performance Test
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
Cost
Factor
Table 1b
8Xx BEC
8X x PEC
14X X PEC
4X x PEC
2XXPEC
IX X PEC
1X X PEC
(o)
10X X PEC
5X X PEC
10X X PEC
2XX PEC
1X X PEC
3XXPEC
Total Capital Investment for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) for Control
Structure (Table 2a)
System
Capital
Cost (a)
$77,760
$0
$6.220
$83,980
$6,720
$11,760
$3,360
$1,680
$840
$840
$500
$25,700
$8,400
$4,200
$8,400
$1,680
$840
$2,520
$26,040
$135,720
$101,370
$237,090
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
(a) January 1986 dollars '
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included in base equipment costs.
(c) Area around an existing surface Impoundment Is assumed to be already cleared and leveled.
A nominal site preparation cost of $500 Is assumed.
H-100
-------
3.2.4.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Steam
Cooling Water
Labor
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Carbon Replacement (d)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR) (e)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) j
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) |
Cost
Factor
•
$0.0463AWh
$0.00719/kg of steara
$0.04/cublc meter
$12.00/hr
15X x OLC
$13.20/hr
100X x MLC
$0.84/kg of carbon
60% x (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4% X TCI
10% e 10 yr (f)
1
DC+IC-RC !
TAC-CR |
Annual
Consumption
117,357 kWh (b)
635,000 kg (b)
59,380 m3 (b)
550 hr (c)
646 hr (c)
'
Annual
Cost (a)
$5,430
$4,570
$2,380
$6,600
$990
$8,530
$8,530
$6,390
$43,420
$14,790
$9,480
$34,740
$59,010
$0
$102,430
$67,690
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 12
g==aas=L_! SB=:±==
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber utility consumption determined using the estimation procedures recommended in
the EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 7). Air-supported structure fan electricity demand estimated
to be 173 kWh/day, 365 day/year.
(c) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber labor hours determined using the labor hour factors recommended in the
EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 8) and assuming workers are on-site 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Additional maintenance labor for air-supported structure estimated to be 8 hours per month.
(d) Carbon needs to be replaced once every 5 years. This cost represents 20% of the cost required to
replace the carbon in the fifth year of operation.
(e) CR based on TCI for air-supported structure plus TCI for carbon adsorber less the initial carbon cost.
(f) Estimated service life based on typical carbon adsorber system lifetime recommended In the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 12). •
H-101
-------
3.2.4.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost i
Component j
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) i
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste !
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) i
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste i
Cost
Factor
TAC/AWT
i Annual !
! Consumption !
! Mg/yr i
! 49,140 !
: :
Annual
Cost (a)
$2.08
Cost Factor
Reference
(a) January 1986 dollars
REFERENCES
1. Mahoney. W., editor-ln-chlef, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Co, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1986, pp. 241 (13.1.5.130-155).
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 4-16 to 4-23.
3. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute, Cost estimates for generic fixed-bed carbon adsorption.
Attachment to Memorandum to S. Thorneloe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
4. Reference 2, pp. 4-23 and 4-24.
5. Reference 2, pp. 2-22.
6. Reference 2, pp. 4-25.
7. Reference 2, pp. 4-28 to 4-32.
8. Reference 2, pp. 4-33 and 4-34.
9. Reference 2, pp. 2-27.
10. Reference 2, pp. 4-32 and 4-33.
11. Reference 2, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
12. Reference 2, pp. 4-34 and 4-35.
H-102
-------
3.2.5.1.1 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed Roof for Quiescent Open-Top Tank
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
a modification to a quiescent open-top treatment tank [Model Unit T01B] by enclosing the tank
with a fixed roof. The tank volume Is 76 cubic aeters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters
(19 feet) and a height of 2.7 neters (9 feet). The Iiquld waste throughput is based on 365 turnovers
per year (retention tine is 24 hours).
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Fixed Roof
Pressure Re I
1
ief Valve (b)
Equipment
Size
26.4 sq. meters
(284 ft)
7.6 ca dia.
(3 in dla.)
Construction
Material
Aluminum
Stainless
Steel
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Cost (a)
.
$10,640
$800
$11,440
Reference
Ref 1,2
Ref 3
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Pressure relief valves can be set to respond to pressures ranging from 2 to 90 kPa (0.3 to 13 psla). The
valve Is a stainless steel, piston type valve with a flat faced 7.6 cm (3 In) flange Inlet and a Teflon
diaphragm.
H-103
-------
3.2.5.1.1 TANK TREATMEKT: Fixed Roof for Quiescent Open-Top Tank (continued)
Table 2.-TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equlpnent (b)
Sales Tax & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
i
Engineering, Construction, Field i
Expenses & Fees (d) |
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
Table 1
SXxBEC
(c)
20XXPEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$11,440
$0
$920
$12,360
$0
$2,470
$2,470
$14,830
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 4
Ref 2
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Direct Installation costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(d) Indirect Installation costs for Installing the fixed roof were estimated by the vendor
to be approximately 20% of the roof purchase cost.
H-104
-------
3.2.5.1.1 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed Roof for Quiescent Open-Top Tank (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost Cost
Component Factor
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Maintenance Labor (MLC) $13.20/hr
Maintenance Materials (MMC) 100X x MLC
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS i
Overhead 60* x (MLC+MMC)
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs 4% x TCI
Capital Recovery (CR) 105! a 20 yr (c)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG) DC+IC-RC
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) TAC-CR
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) | TAC/AWT
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry |
Organic Sludge/Slurry |
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic |
Dilute Aqueous j
Organic Liquid ;
Annual
Consumpt Ion
none
12 hr (b)
Mg/yr
27,700
27,700
27,700
27,700
27,700
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$160
$160
$320
! $190
i
1
! $590
i
! $1,740
$2,520
$0
$2,840
$1,100
,
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
•
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated labor required for inspection/maintenance of tank roof Is 1 hour per month.
(c) Estimated service life based on expected useful life of materials of construction.
H-105
-------
3.2.5.1.1 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed Roof for Quiescent Open-Top Tank (continued)
REFERENCES
1. Roberts, J., TEMCOR, Inc. Retrofit costs for aluminum fixed roofs for tanks. Telephone conversation with
R. Chess In, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 12, 1987.
2. Anderson, R., Conservatek, Inc., Conroe, Texas. Aluminum dome tank cover costs. Letter to R. Chessin,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 15, 1987.
3. Johnson, W. L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. VX Abatement for Small Solvent Storage Tanks.
Mesorandua, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1985.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
5. Reference 4, pp. 2-27.
6. Reference 4, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
7. Reference 4, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
.H-106
-------
3.2.5.1.2 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed Roof for Aerated Open-Top Tank
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
a modification to an aerated open-top treatment tank [Model Unit T01S] by enclosing the tank
with a fixed roof. The tank volume Is 108 cubic aeters (28,500 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters
(19 feet) and a height of 4.0 meters (13 feet). The liquid waste throughput Is based on 2,190 turnovers
per year (4 hour retention time). Although the tank aeration Is assumed to be provided by an existing
diffused air system, costs were obtained for a dome-shaped roof design In order to provide sufficient
clearance to accommodate a surface mounted aerator.
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Fixed Roc
Pressure
TOTAL BASE
Equipment
Component
f
Relief Valve (b)
EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
27 sq. meters
(290 ft)
7.6 ca dia.
(3 in dla.)
Construction
Material
Aluniinun
•
Stainless
Steel
Cost (a)
$11,500
$800
$12,300
Reference
Ref 1,2
Ref 3
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Pressure rellef valves can be set to respond to pressures ranging from 2 to 90 kPa (0.3 to 13 psia) The
valve is a stainless steel, piston type valve with a flat faced 7.6 cm (3 in) flange inlet and a Teflon
diaphragm.
H-107
-------
3.2.5.1.2 TANK TREATKENT: Fixed Roof for Aerated Open-Top Tank (continued)
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxl I lary Equipment (b) .
Sales Tax & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering, Construction, Field
Expenses & Fees (d)
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
Table 1
"
82 X BEC
(c)
20XX PEC
Capital
Cost (a)
;
$12,300
$0
$980
$13,280
$0
$2,660
$2,660
$15,940
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 4
Ref 2
(a) January 1988 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Direct Installation costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(d) Indirect Installation costs for Installing the fixed roof were estimated by the vendor
to be approxlraately 20X of the roof purchase cost.
H-108
-------
3.2.5.1.2 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed Roof for Aerated Open-Top Tat* (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Adraln. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AX)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Cost
Factor
$13.20/hr
100XXMLC
60X X (MLC+MMC)
« X TCI
10% i 20 yr (c)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
.
TAC/AVTT
i
'
Annual
Consumption
none
12 hr (b)
Mg/yr
236,500
236,500
236,500
236,500
236,500
! Annual
Cost (a)
"
0
$160
$160
$320
$190
$640
$1,870
$2,700
$0
$3,020
$1,150
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 6
-
Ref 7
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated labor required for Inspection/maintenance of tank roof is 1 hour per month.
(c) Estimated service life based on expected useful life of materials of construction.
H-109
-------
3.2.5.1.2 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed Roof for Aerated Open-Top Tank (continued)
REFERENCES
1. Roberts, J., TEMCOR, Inc. Retrofit costs for aluralnun fixed roofs for tanks. Telephone conversation with
R. Chessln, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, June 12, 1987.
2. Anderson, R., Conservatek, Inc., Conroe. Texas. Aluminum done tank cover costs. Letter to R. Chess in,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 15, 1987.
3. Johnson, W. L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. VOC Abatement for Small Solvent Storage Tanks.
Msaorandia, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1985.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
5. Reference 4, pp. 2-27.
6. Reference 4, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
7. Reference 4, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
H-110
-------
3.2.5.2.1 TANK TREATMENT: Internal Floating Roof for Quiescent Covered Tank
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
modification to an existing covered quiescent treatment tank [Model Unit T01E] by placing an Internal
floating roof Inside the tank. The tank volume Is 76 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of
5.8 meters (19 feet) and a height of 2.7 meters (9 feet). The IIquid waste throughput is based on
365 turnovers per year (retention time Is 24 hours).
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment |
Component |
Internal Floating Roof (b,c) i
(Incl. vapor-mounted wiper seal) i
Secondary Seal (o,d) j
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
5.8 n dla.
(19 ft dla.)
18.2 n
(60ft)
Construction
Material
Aluminum
Cost (a)
$7,760
$1,860
$9,620
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 1
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Cost was estimated using the following cost factor:
Internal Floating Roof Cost - 1162.4 x [tank diameter In meters] + 1021.5
(c) All sales tax, freight, and Installation costs Included in base equipment cost.
(d) Cost of secondary seal Is estimated to be $102 per linear meter of tank circumference.
H-lll
-------
3.2.5.2.1 TANK TREATMENT: Internal Floating Roof for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (EEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Tax & Freight (c)
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Total Indirect Installation Cost
Retrofitting
Cleaning and degassing (e)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost Capital
Factor Cost (a)
Table 1 $9,620
•
$0
: $o
$9,620
!
(d) i
-
$0
!
(d) !
$0
5XXPEC j $480
! $1,280
$11,380
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 2
Ref 2
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Sales tax and freight costs for Internal floating roof Included in base equipment costs.
(d) Direct and Indirect Installation costs Included in the base equipment costs.
(e) Cleaning and degassing of tank required before Installation personnel can enter tank.
H-112
-------
3.2.5.2.1 TANK TREATMENT: Internal Floating Roof for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
'
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Internal Floating Roof
Secondary Seal
Cost
Factor
$13.20/hr
100XXMLC
BOX x (MLC+MMC)
4X x TCI
10X « 20 yr (c)
103! 8 10 yr (c)
Annual
Consumption
none
52 hr (b)
1
'
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$690
$690
$1,380
$830
$460
$910
$300
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 3
Ref 4
Ref 4
Ref 5
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) j j
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG) } DC+IC-RC i
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) | TAC-CR |
$2,500 !
! $0 !
! $3,880 !
i $2,670 i
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated labor required for Inspection/maintenance of tank roof systera is 1 hour per week.
(c) Estimated service life based on values used for volatile organic liquid storage tank NSPS regulatory
analysis (Reference 6).
H-113
-------
3.2.5.2.1 TANK TREATMENT: Internal Floating Roof for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (ANT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic .
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Cost
Factor
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
Mg/yr
27,700
27,700
27,700
27,700
27,700
Annual
Cost (a)
$0.14
$0.14
$0.14
$0.14
$0.14
Cost Factor
Reference
(a) January 1986 dollars
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage Tanks - Background Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-81-003a. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1984, pp. 8-4.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage In Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks. EPA-450/3-84-005. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1984, pp. 5-2 through 5-6.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-27.
4. Reference 3, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
5. Reference 3, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
6. Reference 1, pp. 8-19.
H-114
-------
3.2.5.2.2 TANK TREATMENT: Internal Floating Roof for Quiescent Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for a
two-step modification to a quiescent open-top treatment tank [Model Unit T01B]: (1) placing an Internal
floating roof Inside the tank walls, and then (2) enclosing the entire tank with a fixed roof. For the cost
estimation, the assumption Is made that both modifications to the tank are Bade at the sane time so that the
internal floating roof systea can be Installed Inside the open-top tank before enclosing the tank with a
fixed roof. This approach saves the retrofit, tank cleaning, and tank degassing costs required to InstalI
an Internal floating roof Inside an existing quiescent covered tank (refer to Section 3.2.5.2.1, Table 2).
The tank volume Is 76 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet) and a height
of 2.7 aeters (9 feet). The liquid waste throughput Is based on 365 turnovers per year (retention time Is
24 hours).
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Internal floating roof (b.c)
(incl. vapor-mounted wiper seal)
Secondary Seal (c.d)
Fixed-roof (FRC)
Pressure Relief Valve (PRVC) (e)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (EEC)
Equipment
Size
5.8 • dia.
(19 ft dla.)
18.2 •
(60 ft)
26.4 sq. meters
(284 sq.ft)
7.6 en dla.
(3 India.)
Construction
Material
Aluminum
Aluminum
Stainless Steel
Cost (a)
$7,760
$1,860
$10,640
$800
$21,060
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 2,3
'
Ref 4
-
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Cost was estimated using the following cost factor:
Internal Floating Roof Cost = 1162.4 x [tank diameter in meters] + 1021.5
(c) All sales tax, freight, and installation costs Included in base equipment costs.
(d) Cost of secondary seal is estimated to be $102 per linear meter of tank circumference.
(e) Pressure relief valves can be set to respond to pressures ranging from 2 to 90 kPa (0.3 to 13 psia). The
valve is a stainless steel, piston type valve with a flat faced 7.6 on (3 in) flange inlet and a Teflon
diaphragm.
H-115
-------
3.2.5.2.2 TANK TREATMENT: Internal Floating Roof for Quiescent Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTKENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxl 1 lary Equipment (b) •
Sales Tax & Freight (c)
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Total Direct Installation Cost
IfCIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS (e)
Engineering, Construction, Field
Expenses & Fees
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost j Capital
Factor i Cost (a)
|
|
Table 1 ! $21,060
: $o
8% X (FRC+PRVC) i $920
$21,980
!
(d) !
$0
i
i
205! X (FRC+PRVC) | $2,480
i
i
$2,480
$24,460
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 3
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Sales tax and freight costs for Internal floating roof Included in base equipment costs.
(d) Direct Installation costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(e) Indirect Installation costs for installing the fixed roof were estimated by the vendor
to be approximately 20X of the roof purchase cost. Indirect Installation costs for the
Internal floating roof Included In the base equipment costs.
H-116
-------
3.2.5.2.2 TANK TREATMENT: Internal Floating Roof for Quiescent Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Ado In. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Internal Floating Roof
Secondary Seal
Fixed Roof
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
Cost
Factor
$13.20/hr
100% X MLC
'
BOX x (MLC+MMC)
•
4* x TCI
1C* % 20 yr (c)
10X • 10 yr (c)
10X e 20 yr (d)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
Annual
Consumption
none
52 hr (b)
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$690
$690
$1,380
$830
$980
$910
$300
$1,740
$4,760
$0
$6,140
$3,190
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 7
Ref 8
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated labor required for inspection/maintenance of both tank roofs is 1 hour per week.
(c) Estimated service life based on values used for volatile organic liquid storage tank NSPS regulatory
analysis (Reference 9).
(d) Estimated service life based on expected useful life of materials of construction.
H-117
-------
3.2.5.2.2 TANK TREATMEKT: Internal Floating Roof for Quiescent Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Cost
Factor
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
Mg/yr
27,700
27,700
27,700
27,700
27,700
Annual
Cost (a)
$0.22
$0.22
$0.22
$0.22
$0.22
Cost Factor
Reference
•
(a) January 1986 dollars
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage Tanks - Background Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-81-003a. Off Ice of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1984, pp. 8-4.
2. Roberts, J., TEHCOR, Inc. Retrofit costs for aluminum fixed roofs for tanks. Telephone conversation with
R. Chessln, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 12, 1987.
3. Anderson, R., Conservatek, Inc., Conroe, Texas. Aluminum done tank cover costs. Letter to R. Chessln,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 15, 1987.
4. Johnson, W. L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. VOC Abatement for Small Solvent Storage Tanks.
Mennrandus, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1985.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
6. Reference 5, pp. 2-27.
7. Reference 5, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
8. Reference 5, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
9. Reference 1, pp. 8-19.
H-118
-------
3.2.5.3.1 TANK TREATMENT: Vent to Existing Combustion Device for Quiescent Covered Tank
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for venting
an existing quiescent covered treatment tank [Model Unit T01E] to an existing on-site combustion device such
as a boiler or Incinerator. The tank volune is 76 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of
5.8 meters (19 feet) and a height of 2.7 meters (9 feet). The liquid waste throughput Is based on 365
turnovers per year (retention time is 24 hours).
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Vent Piping (b)
(5.1 cm (2 in) dia. Schedule 40)
Flame Arrester (c)
(5.1 cm (2 In) diameter)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
61 a length
(200 ft)
1 required
! Construction
! Material
i
! Galvanized
! Steel
i
i
. !
Cost (a)
$730
$100
$830
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 2
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Cost of pipe Is $12.00 per linear meter of pipe ($3.65/ft).
(c) Cost of a flame arrester Is $100.
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
"
Sales Tax & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
INSTALLATION COSTS
D i rect I nsta 1 1 at I on Costs
Indirect Installation Costs
Total Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
-
.
Table 1
8* xBEC
$8.3Via of pipe length
20X X PEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$830
$70
$900
$510
$180
$690
$1,590
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 3
Ref 1
Ref 4
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-119
-------
3.2.5.3.1 TANK TREATMENT: Vent to Existing Coabustion Device for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Maintenance Labor (HLC)
Maintenance Materials (MHC)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Ada In. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Cost
Factor
$13.20/hr
i 1002 x MLC
60X X (MLC+MMC)
4XXTCI
! 1C* 8 10 yr (c)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
TAC/AWT
i Annual
! Consumption
none
1 hr (b)
Mg/yr
27,700
27,700
27,700
27,700
27,700
.
! Annual
Cost (a)
0
$10
I $10
$20
! $10
i
! $60
i
$260
$330
$0
$330
$70
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estlnated labor required for inspect Ion/ma Intenance of pipe vent system is 1 hour per year.
(c) Estlsiated service life based on expected useful life of materials of construction.
H-120
-------
3.2.5.3.1 TANK TREATMENT: Vent to Existing Combustion Device for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
REFERENCES
1. Mahoney, VI., editor-In-chief, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Company, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1986, pp. 40.
2. HOYT Corporation. Cost for flame arrestors. Telephone conversation with A. Gltelraan,
Research Triangle-Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 9, 1986.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
4. Anderson, R., Conservatek, Inc., Conroe, Texas. Aluminun done tank costs. Letter to R. Chessin,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 15, 1987.
5. Reference 3, pp. 2-27.
6. Reference 3, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
7. Reference 3, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
H-121
-------
3.2.5.3.2 TANK TREATMENT: Vent to Existing Combustion Device for Quiescent Open-Top Tank Biodlf led with a Fixed Roof
The following table presents the calculation of total capital and annual costs for a two-step
BodlfIcatlon to a quiescent open-top treatment tank [Model Unit T01B]: 1) enclosing the tank with a fixed roof,
and then 2) venting the tank to an existing on-slte combustion device such as a boiler or incinerator.
The total capital and annual costs calculated In Section 3.2.5.1.1 (fixed roof for quiescent open-top tank)
and Section 3.2.5.3.1 (vent to existing cotabustlon device for quiescent covered tank) are added In the table
to obtain the total cost for Inclement Ing the aodlfIcatlons. The tank volume Is 76 cubic meters
(20,000 gallons) with a dlaaeter of 5.8 ieters (19 feet) and a height of 2.7 meters (9 feet).
The liquid waste throughput Is based on 365 turnovers per year (retention time Is 24 hours).
Table 1. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS
Cost Cost J Component
Component Reference j . Cost (a)
BASE EQUIPMENT COST j
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 1 $11,440
i
Pipe Vent Systea Sec. 3.2.5.3.1, Table 1 ! $830
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 2 $14,830
Pipe Vent Systea Sec. 3.2.5.3.1, Table 2 $1,590
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST j
i
Fixed Roof i Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3 $2,840
i
•i
Pipe Vent Systea | Sec. 3.2.5.3.1, Table 3 $330
Total Annual Cost (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST |
Internal Floating Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3 $1,100
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.3.1, Table 3 $70
Annual Operating Cost (AX)
Total
Cost (a)
$12,270
$16,420
$3,170
$1,170
(a) January 1986 dollars
(continued)
H-122
-------
3.2.5.3.2 TANK TREATMENT: Vent to Existing Combustion Device for Quiescent Open-Top Tank nodifled with Fixed Roof (cont.)
Table 1. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
.2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Organic Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Cost
Reference
'
TAC/AWT
Annual
Throughput
Mg/yr
27,700
27,700
27,700
27,700
27,700
Total
Cost (a)
$0.11
$0.11
$0.11
$0.11
$0.11
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-123
-------
3.2.5.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Covered Tank
The following series of seven tables presents the calculation of capital and amual costs for venting
an existing quiescent covered treatment tank [Model Unit T01E] to a carbon canister control device. The tank
volume Is 76 cubic deters (20,000 gallons) with a diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet) and a height of 2.7 meters
(9 feet). The liquid waste throughput Is based on 44 turnovers per year. Costs were calculated based on the
assumption that 2 canisters are used at start-up and the liquid pump rate Is 757 llters/mln (200 gal/mlm).
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Carbon Canister (b)
Vent Piping (c)
(7.6 ca (3 In) dia. Schedule 40)
Flame Arrester (d)
(7.6 ca (3 In) dlaneter)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (EEC)
Equipment
Size
2 required
18 a length
(60ft)
2 required
Construction
Material
Galvanized
Steel
Cost (a)
$990
$400
$200
$1,590
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 2
Ref 3
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Cost of carbon canister is $495
(c) Cost of pipe Is $22.10 per linear meter of pipe ($6.74/ft).
(d) Cost of a flame arrestor is $100. One flame arrester required for each carbon canister.
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (EEC)
Sales Tax & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
INSTALLATION COSTS
Direct and Direct Installation
Total Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost ,
Factor
Table 1
SXxBEC
20% x PEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$1,590
$130
$1,720
$340
$340
$2,060
Cost Factor
Reference
, Ref 4
Ref 5
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-124
-------
3.2.5.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3a. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
-
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Replacement Carbon Canisters
Canister Disposal
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE TfflOUGfPUT (AWT)
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Cost
Factor
12.00/hr
15% x OLC
$13.20/hr
100* x MLC
-
$495/canister
$72/canister (e)
60% X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
'
4% X TCI
10% 9 10 yr (f)
-
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
t
, TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
none
122 hr (b)
.
30 hr (c)
15 canisters (d)
15 canisters
-
i
i
27,700 Mg/yr
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$1,460
$220
$400
$400
$7,430
$1,080
$10,990
$1,490
$80
$340
$1,910
! $0
! $12,900
! $12,560
t
i
i $0.47
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated operating labor required is 10 aiautes per day per canister.
(c) Estimated maintenance labor required is 2 hour to replace a canister.
(d) Number of replacement canisters calculated by assuming 1) a canister collects 95% of the organic emissions
vented from the tank (0.24 Mg/yr), and 2) working capacity of each canister Is 15.6 kg of organics.
(e) Estimated cost for collection and disposal by a commercial waste management company.
(f) Estimated service life of permanent system components based on typical carbon canister system lifetime
recommended in EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 10).
H-125
-------
3.2.5.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3b. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for Organic Sludge/Slurry Waste .
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Operating Labor (OLC)
Sipervlsory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Replacement Carbon Canisters
Canister Disposal
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) j
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC) |
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) j
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) j
Cost
Factor
12.00/hr
15% x OLC
$13.20/hr
1 002 x MLC
$495/canister
$72/canlster (e)
60% X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4% x TCI
10% 9 10 yr (f)
!
DC+IC-RC j
TAC-CR !
Mg/yr i
Annual
Consumption
none
122 hr (b)
'
172 hr (c)
86 canisters (d)
86 canisters
!
!
27,700 Mg/yr i
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$1,460
$220
$2,270
$2,270
$42,570
$6,190
$54,980
~
$3,730
$80
$340
$4,150
$0
$59,130
$58,790
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg)
TAC/AHT
$2.13
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated operating labor required is 10 minutes per day per canister.
(c) Estimated maintenance labor required is 2 hour to replace a canister.
(d) Nimber of replacement canisters calculated by assuming 1) a canister collects 95% of the organic emissions
vented from the tank (1.4 Mg/yr), and 2) working capacity of each canister is 15.6 kg of organics.
(e) Estimated cost for collection and disposal by-a commercial waste management company.
(f) Estimated service life of permanent systeia components based on typical carbon canister system lifetime
recommended in EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 10).
H-126
-------
3.2.5.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3c. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Replacement Carbon Canisters
Canister Disposal
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
•
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
"
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Cost
Factor
12.00/hr
15X x OLC
$13.20/hr
1 002 x MLC
$495/canlster
_
$72/canlster (e)
60X x (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4X X TCI
10% e 10 yr (f )
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
Mg/yr
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
none
122 hr (b)
236 hr (c)
118 canister (d)
118 canisters
.
27,700 Mg/yr
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$1,460
$220
$3,120
$3,120
$58,410
$8,500
$74,830
$4,750
$80
$340
$5,170
$0
$80,000
$79,660
$2.89
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated operating labor required is 10 mimutes per day per canister.
(c) Estimated maintenance labor required is 2 hour to replace a canister.
(d) Number of replacement canisters calculated by assuming 1) a canister collects 95% of the organic emissions
vented from the tank (1.94 Mg/yr), and 2) working capacity of each canister Is 15.6 kg of organics.
(e) Estimated cost for collection and disposal by a commercial waste management company.
(f) Estimated service life of permanent system components based on typical carbon canister system lifetime
recommended in EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 10).
H-127
-------
3.2.5.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3d. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for Dilute Aqueous Waste
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Replacement Carbon Canisters
Canister Disposal
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) ,
' Cost
Factor
12.00/hr
15X x OLC
$13.20/hr
100* x MLC
$495/canlster
$72/canlster (e)
60X X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4% x TCI
10X e 10 yr (f)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
Mg/yr
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
none
122 hr"(b)
562 hr (c)
281 canister (d)
281 canisters
27,700 Mg/yr
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$1,460
$220
$7,420
$7,420
$139,100
.
$20,230
$175,850
$9,910
$80
$340
$10,330
$0
$186,180
$185,840
$6.72
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estlaated operating labor required is 10 minutes per day per canister.
(c) Estliated salntenance labor required Is 2 hour to rep Iace"a canister.
(d) Number of replacement canisters calculated by assuming 1) a canister collects 95% of the organic emissions
vented froa the tank (4.6 Mg/yr), and 2) working capacity of each canister is 15.6 kg of organics.
(e) Estimated cost for collection and disposal by a commercial waste management company.
(f) Estimated service life of permanent system components based on typical carbon canister system lifetime
recommended In EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 10).
H-128
-------
3.2.5.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3e. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for Organic Liquid Haste
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Operating Labor (OLC)
.
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
•
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
•
Replacement Carbon Canisters
Canister Disposal
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AHT)
Cost
Factor
_
-
12.00/hr
15X x OLC
$13.20/hr
100X x MLC
$495/canlster
$72/canlster (e)
60% X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4XXTCI
10% 8 10 yr (f )
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
Mg/yr
Annual
Consumption
none
122 hr (b)
146 hours (c)
73 canisters (d)
73 canisters
'
•
27,700 Mg/yr
Annual
Cost (a)
0
$1,460
$220
$1,930
$1,930
$36,140
$5,260
$46,940
$3,320
$80
$340
$3,740
$0
-TWMflfllM»»M«- TT»»
$50,680
$50,340
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 8-
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg)
TAC/AHT
$1.83 |
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated operating labor required is 10 minutes per day per canister.
(c) Estimated maintenance labor required is.2 hour to replace a canister.
(d) Number of replacement canisters calculated by assuning 1) a canister collects 95% of the organic emissions
vented from the tank (1.2 Mg/yr), and 2) working capacity of each canister Is 15.6 kg of organlcs.
(e) Estimated cost for collection and disposal by a commercial waste management company.
(f) Estimated service life of permanent system components based on typical carbon canister system lifetime
recommended In EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 10).
. H-129
-------
3.2.5.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Covered Tank (continued)
REFERENCES
1. Oakes, D., HOYT Corporation. Carbon canisters and carbon regeneration. Telephone
conversation with A. Gltelman. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC,
February 27, 1986.
2. Mahoney, W.. editor-in-chief, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Company, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1988, pp. 107, 169, 258, and 313.
3. HOYT Corporation. Cost for flame arresters. Telephone conversation with A. Gltelman,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 9, 1986.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001 a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
5. Reference 4, pp. 4-26 and 4-28.
6. Reference 4, pp. 2-27.
7. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute. Cost estimates for generic carbon canister adsorption.
Menorandun to S. Thorns I oe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
8. Reference 4, pp. 4-33.
9. Reference 4, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
10. Reference 4, pp. 4-35.
H-130
-------
3.2.5.4.2 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof
The following series of five tables presents the calculation of total capital and annual costs for
a two-step modification to a quiescent open-top treatment tank [Model Unit T01B]: 1) enclosing the tank
with a fixed roof, and then 2) venting the tank to a carbon canister. The total capital and annual costs
calculated in Section 3.2.5.1.1 (fixed roof for open-top tank) and Section 3.2.5.4.1 (carbon canister
for covered tank) are added in the tables to obtain the total cost for Implementing the modifications.
The tank volume Is 76 cubic meters (20,000 gal Ions) with a diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet) and a height
of 2.7 meters (9 feet). The waste throughput Is based on 365 turnovers per year (retention time Is 24 hours).
Table 1a. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry waste
Cost Cost Component
Component Reference Cost (a)
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 1 $11,440
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 1 $1,590
Total Base Equipment Cost (EEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT | |
! !
Fixed Roof j Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 2 ,' $14,830
Carbon Canister j Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 2 | $2,060
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3 $2,840
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 3a $12,900
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3 $1,100
Carbon Canister j Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 3a $12,560
Annual Operating Cost (AX)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) j j 27,700 Mg/yr
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg) j TAC/AWT j
(a) January 1986 dollars
Total
Cost (a)
$13,030
$16,890
1
$15,740
$13,660
$0.57
H-131
-------
3.2.5.4.2 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 1b. TOTAL CAPITAL'AND ANNUAL COSTS for Organic Sludge/Slurry Waste
Cost Cost | Component
Component Reference ! Cost (a)
BASE EQUIPMENT COST !
i
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 1 i $11,440
Carbon Canister . Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 1 \ $1,590
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT i
:
Fixed Roof j Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 2 $14,830
i
i
Carbon Canister ! Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 2 $2,060
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3 $2,840
Carbon Canister i Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 3b $59,130
Total Annual Cost (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Fixed Roof | Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3 $1,100
Carbon Canister ! Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 3b $58,790
Annual Operating Cost (AX)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) ! i 27,700 Mg/yr
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) | TAC/AWT i
Total
Cost (a)
$13,030
•
$16,890
$61,970
$59,890
$2.24
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-132
-------
3.2.5.4.2 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 1c. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste
Cost ! Cost Component
Component | Reference Cost (a)
BASE EQUIPMENT COST |
Fixed Roof , J See. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 1 $11,440
Carbon Canister i Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 1 $1,590
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 2 $14,830
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 2 | $2,060
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3 $2,840
"
.
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 3c $80,000
Total
Cost (a)
$13,030
$16,890
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST {
!
Fixed Roof | Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3
Carbon Canister | Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 3c
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) |
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) j TAC/AWT '
$1,100
$79,660
27,700 Mg/yr
$82,840
$80,760
$2.99
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-133
-------
3.2.5.4.2 TANK TREATMENT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 1d. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for Dilute Aqueous Waste
Cost
Component
Cost
Reference
Component
Cost (a)
Total
Cost (a)
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
I Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 1
i
! Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 1
$11,440
$1,590
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 2
Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 2
$14,830
$2,060
$13,030
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3 i $2,840
Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 3d i $186,180
$16,890
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Fixed Roof
Carbon Canister
Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3
Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 3d
$1,100
$185,840
$189,020
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
(a) January 1986 dollars
| 27,700 Mg/yr
TAC/AWT
$186,940
$6.82
H-134
-------
TKwraEACTMEHT: Carbon Canister for Quiescent Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 1e. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for Organic Liquid Waste
Cost Cost Component
Component Reference Cost (a)
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 1 $11,440
Carbon Canister ', Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 1 $1,590
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 2 $14,830
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, table 2 $2,060
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Fixed Roof Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3 $2,840
Carbon Canister Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 3e $50,680
Total Annual Cost (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST j j
! !
Fixed Roof | Sec. 3.2.5.1.1, Table 3 | $1,100
: i
Carbon Canister j Sec. 3.2.5.4.1, Table 3e | $50,340
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE ThKOUGWUT (AWT) ! j 27,700 Mg/yr
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) | TAC/AWT [
Total
Cost (a)
$13,030
$16,890
$53,520
$51,440
$1.93
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-135
-------
3.2.5.5.1 TANK TREATMEHT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Covered Tank
The following series of six tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
venting an existing aerated covered treatment tank to a fixed-bed carbon control device [no model unit
Identification code Is assigned to this source]. The tank volume is 108 cubic meters (28,500 gallons) with
a diameter of 5.8 eaters (19 feet) and a height of 4.0 neters (13 feet). The Iiquld waste throughput is
based on 2,190 turnovers per year (retention tine Is 4 hours).
Table 1a. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste
Equipment
Component
Fixed-bed Adsorber Vessels
(dual horizontal bed system)
Granulated Activated Carbon
Other Process Equipment (d)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (EEC)
Equipment
Size
(b)
917 kg (c)
(2,020 Ib)
(e)
Construction
Material
304 Stainless
Steel
Carbon
Cost (a)
$27,070
•
$3,640
$11,980
i
$42,690
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 1,2
Ref 3
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dual fixed-bed carbon adsorber design. Adsorber vessel specifications:
Airflow rate - 14.2 normal cubic meters per a Inute (500 acfm)
Adsorber Vessel Diameter =
Adsorber Vessel Length -
Adsorber Vessel Surface Area
3.1 meters
0.4 meters
19.1 sq. meters
10.3 feet
1.3 feet
206 sq. feet
(c) Quantity and cost of carbon determined using the estimation procedure recommended in the
EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 1). Cost of carbon Is $3.97/kg ($1.80/lb).
(d) Fan, pimps, condenser, decanter, ductwork, instrumentation, and internal piping.
(e) Total cost for this equipment determined by multiplying the sum of the adsorber vessel and carbon
cost by 0.39 as recommended In the EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 3).
H-136
-------
3.2.5.5.1 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Covered Tank (continued)
Table 2a. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTKENT for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up
Performance Test
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
Table 1a
SXxBEC
8X x PEC
14X X PEC
4% X PEC
23! x PEC
1X x PEC
1X x PEC
(0)
10X x PEC
5X x PEC
10X x PEC
2X x PEC
1X X PEC
SXxPEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$42,690
$0
$3,420
,
$46,110
$3,690
$6,460
$1,840
$920
$460
$460
$500
$14,330
$4,610
$2,310
$4,610
$920
$460
$1,380
$14,290
$74,730
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 4
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs included In base equipment costs.
(c) Area around an existing treatment tank Is assumed to be already cleared and leveled.
A nominal site prepartlon cost of $500 is assumed.
H-137
-------
3.2.5.5.1 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Covered Tar* (continued)
Table 3a. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Steal
Cooling Water
Labor
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Carbon Replacement (d)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Adraln. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR) (e)
Total Indirect Amual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Cost
Factor
$0.0463/kWh
$0.00719/kg of steam
$0.04/cublc aeter
$12.00/hr
15X x OLC
$13.20/hr
100ZXMLC
$0.84/kg of carbon
60% X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4% X TCI
10% % 10 yr (f)
DC+IC-RC
, TAC-CR
1 TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
4,428 kWh (b)
433,000 kg (b)
40,000 0)3 (b)
550 hr (c)
550 hr (o)
•
1
i
i
i 235,250 Mg/yr
!
Annual
Cost (a)
$210
$3,110
$1,600
$6,600
$990
$7,260
$7,260
$1,060
$28,090
$13,270
$2,990
$11,520
$27,780
$0
$55,870
$44,350
$0.24
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 8
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 10
Ref 11
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Annual utility consumption determined using procedures recommended in EAB Cost Control Manual (Ref. 6).
(o) Annual labor hours determined using the labor hour factors recommended In the EAB Control Cost Manual
(Reference 7) and assuming workers are on-slte 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
(d) Carbon needs to be replaced once every 5 years. This cost represents 20% of the cost required to
replace the carbon in the fifth year of operation.
(e) Capital Recovery Cost based on TCI for fixed-bed carbon adsorber less the initial carbon cost.
(f) Estimated service life based on typical carbon adsorber system lifetime recommended in the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 11).
H-138
-------
3.2.5.5.1 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Covered Tank (continued)
Table 1b. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Dilute Aqueous Waste
Equipment
Component
Fixed-bed Adsorber Vessels
(dual horizontal bed system)
Granulated Activated Carbon
Other Process Equipment (d)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
(b)
3,,538 kg (c)
(7,801 Ib)
(6)
Construction
Material
-
.
304 Stainless
Steel
Carbon
•
-
Cost (a)
•
$27,440
$14,050
-
$16,180
$57,670
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 1,2
Ref 3
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dual fixed-bed carbon adsorber design. Adsorber vessel specifications:
Airflow rate - 87 normal cubic meters (3,065 acfra)
Adsorber Vessel Diameter - 3.0 meters
Adsorber Vessel Length - 1.7 meters
Adsorber Vessel Surface Area - 29.5 sq. meters
9.7 feet
5.6 feet
317 sq. feet
(c) Quantity and cost of carbon determined using the estimation procedure recommeded in the
EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 1). Cost of carbon is $3.97/kg ($1.80/lb).
(d) Fan, pumps, condenser, decanter, ductwork, Instrumentation, and Internal piping.
(e) Total cost for this equipment determined by multiplying the sum of the adsorber vessel and carbon
cost by 0.39 as recommended in the EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 3).
H-139
-------
3.2.5.5.1 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Covered Tank (continued)
Table 2b. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Dilute Aqueous Waste
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
.Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Hand I ing
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up
Perforiance Test
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
Table 1b
82 X BEC
82 x PEC
14X x PEC
« X PEC
2XXPEC
1X X PEC
1X X PEC
(c)
1C* x PEC
5X x PEC
10X X PEC
2XXPEC
1X X PEC
3XXPEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$57,670
$0
$4,610
$62,280
$3,690
$6,460
$1,840
$920
$460
$460
$500
$14,330
!
i
I
$4,610
$2,310
$4,610
$920
$460
$1,380
$14,290
• $90,900
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 4
'
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In base equipment costs.
(c) Area around an existing treatment tank Is assumed to be already cleared and leveled.
A nominal site prepartlon cost of $500 Is assumed.
H-140
-------
3.2.5.5.1 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Covered Tank (continued)
Table 3b. TOTAL ANNUAL COST for Dilute Aqueous Waste
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Steam
Coo ling Water
Labor
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Carbon Replacement (d)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR) (e)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC) ,
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE TmOUGHPUT (AWT) ,
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
Cost
Factor
$0.0463/klti
$0.00719/kg of steam
$0.04/cublc meter
$12.00/hr
15% x OLC
$13.20/hr
100XXMLC
$0.84/kg of carbon
602 X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4% X TCI
103! % 10 yr (f)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
37,149 kWh (b)
2,892,000 kg (b)
270,000 m3 (b)
550 hr (c)
550 hr (c)
235,250 Mg/yr
Annual
Cost (a)
$1,720
$20,790
$10,800
'
$6,600
$990
$7,260
$7,260
$4,110
$59,530
$13,270
• -
. $3,640
$12,320
$29,230
$0
$88,760
$76,440
$0.38
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 8
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 10
Ref 11
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Annual utility consumption determined using procedures recommeded In the EAB Cost Control Manual (Ref. 6)
(c) Annual labor hours determined using the labor hour factors recommended in the EAB Control Cost Manual
(Reference 7) and assuming workers are on-site 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
(d) Carbon needs to be replaced once every 5 years. This cost represents 20% of the cost required to
replace the carbon in the fifth year of operation.
(e) Capital Recovery Cost based on TCI for fixed-bed carbon adsorber less the initial carbon cost.
(f) Estimated service life based on typical carbon adsorber system lifetime recommeded in the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 11).
H-141
-------
3.2.5.5.1 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Covered Tar* (continued)
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 4-16 to 4-23.
2. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute, Cost estimates for generic fixed-bed carbon adsorption.
Attaehaent to Meanrandua to S. Thorneloe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
3. Reference 1, pp. 4-23 and 4-24.
4. Reference 1, pp. 2-22.
5. Reference 1, pp. 4-25.
6. Reference 1, pp. 4-28 to 4-32.
7. Reference 1, pp. 4-33 and 4-34.
8. Reference 1, pp. 2-27.
9. Reference 1, pp. 4-32 and 4-33.
10. Reference 1, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
11. Reference 1, pp. 4-34 and 4-35.
H-142
-------
3.2.5.5.2 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Open-Top Tank modified with a Fixed Roof
The following series of two tables presents the calculation of total capital and annual costs for a -
two-step modification to an aerated open-top treatment tank [Model Unit T01BJ: 1) enclosing the tank with a
fixed roof, and then 2) venting the tank to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system. The total capital and annual
costs calculated In Section 3.2.5.1.2 (fixed roof for aerated open-top tank) and Section 3.2.5.5.1 (fixed-bed
carbon adsorber for covered tank) are added In the tables to obtain the total cost for Implementing the controls
The tank volume fs 108 cubic meters (28,500 gallons) with a.diameter of 5.8 meters (19 feet) and a height
of 4.0 meters (13 feet). The waste throughput Is based on 2,190 turnovers per year (retention time Is 4 hours).
Table 1a. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Haste
Cost
Component
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Fixed Roof
Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof
Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Fixed Roof
Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Fixed Roof
Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) |
Cost Component
Reference cost (a)
Sec. 3.2.5.1.2, Table 1 $12,300
Sec. 3.2.5.5.1, Table 1a $42,690
Sec. 3.2.5.1.2, Table 2 $15,940
Sec. 3.2.5.5.1, Table 2a $74,730
i
i
i
Sec. 3.2.5.1.2, Table 3 i $3,020
Sec. 3.2.5.5.1, Table 3a | $55,870
.
Sec. 3.2.5.1.2, Table 3 $1,150
Sec. 3.2.5.5.1, Table 3a $43,350
! 235,250 Mg/yr
Total
Cost (a)
$54,990
a=s=ggj-B— — -.—a-. --ai-^g
$90,670
$58,890
$44,500
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
(a) January 1986 dollars
TAC/AWT
$0.25
H-143
-------
3.2.5.5.2 TANK TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Open-Top Tank inodlfled with a Fixed Roof (continued)
Table 1b. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS for Dilute Aqueous Waste
Cost
Component
BASE EQUIPMENT COST
•
Fixed Roof
Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber •
Total Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Fixed Roof
Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Cost
Reference
Sec. 3.2.5.1.2, Table 1
Sec. 3.2.5.5.1, Table 1b
Sec. 3.2.5.1.2, Table 2
Sec. 3.2.5.5.1, Table 2b
Component
Cost (a)
$12,300
$57,670
•
$15,940
$90,900
Total
Cost (a)
$69,970
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Fixed Roof
Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Sec. 3.2.5.1.2, Table 3
Sec. 3.2.5.5.1, Table 3b
Total Annual Cost (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Fixed Roof
Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Sec. 3.2.5.1.2, Table 3
Sec. 3.2.5.5.1, Table 3b
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
$3,020
$88,760
$1,150
$76,440
ANNUAL WASTE TTOOUGH'UT (AWT)
! 235,250 Mg/yr
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg)
TAC/AWT
$106,840
(a) January 1986 dollars
$91,780
$77,590
$0.39
H-144
-------
3.2.6.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Floating Membrane for Quiescent Impoundment
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
Installing and using a floating membrane on a quiescent surface treatment impoundment [Model Unit T02D].
The impoundment volume Is 2,700 cubic meters (712,400 gallons) with a surface area of 1,500 square meters
(16,200 square feet) and a depth of 1.8 meters (6 feet). The impoundment retention time Is 10 days.
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Membrane (b,c)
Evacuat Ion System (d)
Pump
Piping
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
30 a x 50 a
(100 ft x 164 ft) -
373 watts, 397 I/rain
(1/2 hp, 105 gpm)
5 ca dia., 15 m
(2 In dia, 50 ft)
Construction
Material
High density
polyethylene
Bronze
SDR 15
polyethylene
Cost (a)
$30,110
$420
$30
$30,560
Reference
Ref 1,2
Ref 3
Ref 4
(a) January 1988 dollars
(b) Vendor price quote (Reference 1) for floating synthetic membrane was $30 per square meter
installed. The equipment cost was determined by multiplying the vendor price quote times a materials
cost fraction of 67X obtained from Means Construction Cost Data 1986 (Reference 2).
(c) Includes cost for anchor hardware.
(d) Evacuation system Is necessary to remove rainwater that collects on the membrane.
H-145
-------
3.2.6.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATKENT: Floating Membrane for Quiescent Impoundment (continued)
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations & Supports (c)
Electrical
Site Preparation (e)
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Startup and Testing
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost Capital
Factor Cost (a)
Table 1 $30,560
$0
82 X BEC $2,440
$33,000
•
$67 per »3 concrete $50
($50 per yd3 concrete)
(d) $200
$69/i ($21/ft) $11,040
$11,290
8.5% x PEC $2,810
16.5X X PEC $5,450
8.5X X PEC $2,810
22 X PEC $660
32 x PEC $990
$12,720
$57,010
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 7
Ref 1
Ref 2
Ref 2
Ref 2
Ref 8
Ref 8
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Concrete pad for the pump Is 1.5 x 3.7 x 0.15 meter (5 x 12 x 0.5 ft)
(d) Pump Botor connection ($80), safety switch ($90), and wiring ($30)
(e) Cost to prepare Impoundment perimeter for Installation of floating membrane.
H-146
-------
3.2.6.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Floating Membrane for Quiescent Impoundment (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
! Cost Annual
! Factor Consumption
!
!
! $0.0463/kHh 300 kWh (b)
i
i
! $13.2Q/hr 148 hr (c)
! 100X x MLC
!
60% X (MLC+MMC)
4X X TCI
10* 9 10 yr (d)
i i
i i
! DC+1C-RC !
! TAC-CR !
Annual
Cost (a)
.
$10
$1,950
$1,950
$3,910
'
$1,170
$2,280
$9,280
$12,730
$0
$16,640
$7,360
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 10
Ref 11
.
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Pump operation Hi 11 depend on amount of local ralnfalI at TSDF site. Cost based on an average
pump operation of 2 hours per day, and an assumed pump motor efficiency of 90%.
(c) Labor required for periodic inspection of floating membrane (1 hour per week) and evacuation
system maintenance (8 hours per month). All labor hours charged as maintenance hours.
(d) Estimated service life of floating membrane based on vendor Information.
H-147
-------
3.2.6.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Floating Membrane for Quiescent Impoundment (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHHJT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic
Dilute Aqueous
Cost i Annual
Factor i Consumption
! Mg/yr
! 98,595
! 98,595
! 98,595
TAC/AHT i
!
!
!
Annual
Cost (a)
.
$0.17
$0.17
$0.17
Cost Factor
Reference
(a) January 1986 dollars
REFERENCES
1. M. Matheson, Gundle Linings, Inc.. Telephone conversation with R. Chessln, Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 14, 1986.
2. Mahoney, H.D., editor-in-chief, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Co, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1986, p. 137 (7.1.140.180).
3. Reference 2, p. 148 (5.2.54.718).
4. Reference 2, p. 74 (15.1.49.738).
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
6. Reference 2, p. 74 (3.3.12.001).
7. Reference 2, p. 301, 306, 307.
8. Vatavuk, H.M. and Neverll, R.B., Part II Factors for Estimating Capital and Operating Costs,
Chealcal Engineering, November 3, 1980, pp. 157 - 162.
9. Reference 5, pp. 2-27.
10. Reference 5, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
11. Reference 5, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
H-148
-------
3.2.6.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste
The following series of five tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
Installing and using a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system on an aerated surface treatment Impoundment
[Model Unit T02J] treating an aqueous sludge/slurry waste. The control system requires complete enclosure
of the impoundment surface using an air-supported structure. This Is an anchored, flexible membrane dome
that Is Inflated using a large fan. The exhaust vent of the dome Is connected to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber.
The impoundment volume is 2,700 cubic meters (712,400 gallons) with a surface area of 1,500 square meters
(16,200 square feet) and a depth of 1.8 meters (6 feet). The Impoundment retention time is 10 days.
Table 1a. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Air-Supported Structure
Equipment
Component
Dome Structure (b)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
! Equipment
! Size
! 31 i x 51 •
i (102 ft x 168 ft)
i
Construction
Material
Tedlar/
Plastic
Cost (a)
$70,030
$70,030
Reference
Ref 1
(a) January 1988 dollars
(b) Dome structure Includes seams, tension cables, primary and auxiliary inflation system, air lock,
personnel doors, liner, and Instrumentation.
(c) Size includes 0.5 meter (1.7 feet) border on each side of the dome structure.
H-149
-------
3.2.6.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste (continued)
Table 1b. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Equ I patent
Component
Fixed-bed Adsorber Vessels
(dual-bed horizontal system)
Granulated Activated Carbon
Other Process Equipment (d)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
(b)
10,411 kg (c)
(22,956 Ib)
(e)
Construction
Material
304 Stainless
Steel
Carbon
Cost (a)
$34,620
$41,320
$29,620
$105,560
Reference
Ref 2
Ref 2,3
Ref 4
(a) January 1988 dollars
(b) Dual fixed-bed carbon adsorber design. Adsorber vessel specifications:
Airflow rate - 233 normal cubic meters per ainute (8,225 acfm)
Adsorber Vessel Diameter -
Adsorber Vessel Length =
Adsorber Vessel Surface Area
3.2 meters
3.9 meters
55.9 sq. meters
10.6 feet
12.7 feet
602 sq. feet
(c) Quantity and cost of carbon determined using the estimation procedure recommended in the
EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 1). Cost of carbon is $3.97/kg ($1.80/lb).
(d) Fan, punps, condenser, decanter, ductwork, Instrumentation, and Internal piping.
(e) Total cost for this equipment determined by multiplying the sum of the adsorber vessel and carbon
cost by 0.39 as recommended In the EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 3).
H-150
-------
3.2.6.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste (continued)
Table 2a. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Air-Supported Structure
COSt CO!
Component Fact
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC) Tabl«
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Taxes & Freight 8* x
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS j
st Capital
tor Cost (a)
>• 1a $70,030
$0
BEC $5,600
$75,630
Erect ion and Handling | 2. IX x PEC $1,590
Electrical | 2* x PEC $1,510
Site Preparation * \ (C) $11t30o
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS |
$14,400
i
; i
Indirect Installation Costs | 15% x PEC j $11,340
Total Indirect Installation Cost
$11,340
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported Structure $101,370
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 1
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Estimated site preparation cost Is the cost for trenching the dome structure perimeter of
164 meters (538 feet) and using a cost factor of $68.90 per linear meter ($21/ft) obtained
from Reference 1.
H-151
-------
3.2.6.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste (continued)
Table 2b. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Cost
Coaponent
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxl I lary Equipment (b) •
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Hand I Ing
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up
Perforaance Test
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
Cost
Factor
Table Ib
82 x BEC
8X x PEC
14X X PEC
4X X PEC
2% x PEC
U x PEC
1X X PEC
(c)
10% X PEC
5X X PEC
1C* X PEC
2X X PEC
n x PEC
3XXPEC
Total Capital Investment for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) for Control
Structure (Table 2a)
System
Capital
Cost (a)
$105,560
$0
$8,440
$114,000
$9,120
$15,960
$4,560
$2,280
$1,140
$1,140
$500
$34,700
$11,400
$5,700
$11,400
$2,280
$1,140
$3,420
$35,340
$184,040
$101,370
$285,410
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
,
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment,costs Included In base equipment costs.
(c) Area around an existing surface Impoundment is assumed to be already cleared and leveled.
A nominal site preparation cost of $500 Is assumed.
H-152
-------
3.2.6.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Steam
Cooling Water
Labor
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Carbon Replacement (d)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR) (e)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) j
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG) j
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) |
Cost
Factor
$0.0463/k«h
$O.Q0719/kg of steam
$0.04/cubic meter
$12.00/hr
153! X OLC
$13.20/hr
100% x MLC
$0.84/kg of carbon
60X x (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4X X TCI
103! 8 10 yr (f )
i
i
DC+IC-RC !
TAC-CR j
Annual
Consumption
162,, 165 kWh (b
6,384,000 kg (b)
596,000 m3 (b)
550 hr (c)
646 hr (c)
!
Annual
Cost (a)
$7,510
$45,900
$23,840
$6,600
$990
$8,530
$8,530
$12,070
$113,970
$14,790
$11,420
$39,190
$65,400
$0
$179,370
$140,180
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 12
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber utility consumption determined using the estimation procedures recommended In
the EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 7). Air-supported structure fan electricity demand estimated
to be 173 kWh/day, 365 day/year.
(c) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber labor hours determined using the labor hour factors recommended in the
EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 8) and assuming workers are on-site 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Additional maintenance labor for air-supported structure estimated to be 8 hours per month.
(d) Carbon needs to be replaced once every 5 years. This cost represents 20% of the cost required to
replace the carbon in the fifth year of operation.
(e) CR based on TCI for air-supported structure plus TCI for carbon adsorber less the initial carbon cost.
(f) Estimated service life based on typical carbon adsorber system lifetime recommended in the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 12). H-153
-------
3.2.6.2.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aqueous Sludge/Slurry Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost
Component
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry
Cost
Factor
TAC/AWT
! Annual
! Consumption
! Mg/yr
! 98,595
i
i
Annual
Cost (a)
$1.82
Cost Factor
Reference
(a) January 1988 dollars
REFERENCES
1. Mahoney, W., editor-In-chief, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Co, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1986, pp. 241 (13.1.5.130-155).
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 4-16 to 4-23.
3. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute, Cost estimates for generic fixed-bed carbon adsorption.
Attachaent to Memorandum to S. Thorneloe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
4. Reference 2, pp. 4-23 and 4-24.
5. Reference 2, pp. 2-22.
6. Reference 2, pp. 4-25.
7. Reference 2, pp. 4-28 to 4-32.
8. Reference 2, pp. 4-33 and 4-34.
9. Reference 2, pp. 2-27.
10. Reference 2, pp. 4-32 and 4-33.
H-154
-------
3.2.6.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste
The following series of five tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
instalI Ing and using a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system on an aerated surface treatment impoundment
[Model Unit T02J] treating a dilute aqueous waste. The control system requires complete enclosure
of the Impoundment surface using an air-supported structure. This Is an anchored, flexible membrane dome
that is inflated using a large fan. The exhaust vent of the dome is connected to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber.
The Impoundment voluae is 2,700 cubic meters (712,400 gal Ions) with a surface area of 1,500 square meters
(16,200 square feet) and a depth of 1.8 meters (6 feet). The impoundment retention time Is 10 days.
Table la. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Air-Supported Structure
Equipment
Component
Dome Structure (b)
Equipment
Size
31 si x 51 m
(102 ft x 168 ft)
Construction
Material
Tedlar/
Plastic
Cost (a) | Reference
!
$70,030 | Ref 1
i
!
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
$70,030 i
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dome structure includes seams, tension cables, primary and auxiliary inflation system, air lock,
personnel doors, liner, and instrumentation.
(c) Size Includes 0.5 meter (1.7 feet) border on each side of the dome structure.
H-155
-------
3.2.6.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Haste (continued)
Table 1b. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Fixed-Bed Carton Adsorber
Equipment
Component
Fixed-bed Adsorber Vessels
(dual-tod horizontal system)
Granulated Activated Carbon
Other Process Equipment (d)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
(b)
11,482 kg (c)
(25,318 Ib)
(e)
Construction
Material
304 Stainless
Steel
Carbon
,
Cost (a)
$35,820
$45,570
$31,740
$113,130
Reference
Ref 2
Ref 2,3
Ref 4
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dual fixed-bed carbon adsorber design. Adsorber vessel specifications:
Airflow rate - 233 normal cubic neters per ilnute (8,225 acfm)
Adsorber Vessel Diameter -
Adsorber Vessel Length -
Adsorber Vessel Surface Area
3.6 meters
3.5 meters
59.3 sq. meters
11.7 feet
11.5 feet
639 sq. feet
(c) Quantity and cost of carbon determined using the estimation procedure recommended In the
EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 1). Post of carbon is $3.97/kg ($1.80/lb).
(d) Fan, pumps, condenser, decanter, ductwork, Instrumentation, and internal piping.
(e) Total cost for this equipment detenained by iultiplylng the sum of the adsorber vessel and carbon
cost by 0.39 as recommended in the EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 3).
H-156
-------
3.2.6.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste (continued)
Table 2a. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Air-Supported Structure
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Taxes & Freight
Cost
Factor
Table 1a
.
8XXBEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$70,030
$0
$5,600
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC) $75,630
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS j
I
Erection and Handling j 2. 15! x PEC $1,590
Electrical \ 25! x PEC $1,510
Site Preparation | (c) $11,300
— —
Total Direct Installation Cost $14,400
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
.
Indirect Installation Costs 15% x PEC $11,340
—
Total Indirect Installation Cost $11,340
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported Structure $101,370
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 1
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Estimated site preparation cost Is the cost for trenching the dome structure perimeter of
164 meters (538 feet) and using a cost factor of $68.90 per linear meter ($21/ft) obtained
from Reference 1.
H-157
-------
3.2.6.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste (continued)
Table 2b. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equlpaent Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b) .
Sales Taxes & Freight i
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Handl ing
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up
Perforsance Test
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
Cost
Factor
Table 1b
8Xx BEC
SXxPEC
14X x PEC
4X X PEC
2XXPEC
1X x PEC
1X x PEC
(c)
105! X PEC
5X X PEC
10X X PEC
2XXPEC
IX X PEC
SXxPEC
Total Capital Investment for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) for Control
Structure (Table 2a)
System
Capital
Cost (a)
$113,130
$0
$9,050
$122,180
$9,770
$17,110
$4,890
$2,440
$1,220
$1,220
$500
$37,150
$12,220
$6,110
$12,220
$2,440
$1,220
$3,670
$37,880
$197,210
$101,370
$298,580
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
'
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs included in base equipment costs.
(c) Area around an existing surface Impoundment Is assumed to be already cleared and leveled.
A noalnal site preparation cost of $500 Is assumed.
H-158
-------
3.2.6.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Steam
Coo ling Water
Labor
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Carbon Replacement (d)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR) (e)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) j
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC) j
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) <. ,'
Cost
Factor
$0.0463/kHh
$0.00719/kg of steam
$0.04/cubic meter
$12.00/nr
15* x OLC
$13.2Q/hr
100X x MLC
$0.84/kg of carbon
60Z X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4X X TCI
10X e 10 yr (f)
1
1
DC+IC-RC j
TAC-CR
Annual
Consumption
171,682kHh (b)
1,298,000kg (b)
121,000 m3 (b)
550 hr (c)
646 hr (c)
Annual
Cost (a)
$7,960
$9,330
$4,840
$6,600
$990
$8,530
$8,530
$13,320
$60,100
$14,790
$11,940
$40,580
$67,310
$0
$127,410
$86,830
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 12
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber utility consumption determined using the estimation procedures recommended In
the EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 7). Air-supported structure fan electricity demand estimated
to be 173 kWh/day, 365 day/year.
(c) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber labor hours determined using the labor hour factors recommended in the
EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 8) and assuming workers are on-slte 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Additional maintenance labor for air-supported structure estimated to be 8 hours per month.
(d) Carbon needs to be replaced once every 5 years. This cost represents 20% of the cost required to
replace the carbon in the fifth year of operation.
(e) CR based on TCI for air-supported structure plus TCI for carbon adsorber less the initial carbon cost.
(f) Estimated service life based on typical carbon adsorber system lifetime recommended in the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 12).
H-159
-------
3.2.6.2.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Dilute Aqueous Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL AKKUAL COST (concluded)
Cost i
CoBponent !
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AHT) i
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry i
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg) !
Aqueous Sludge/Slurry !
Cost
Factor
TAC/AHT
i Annual
! Consumption
i Mg/yr
i 98,595
!
i
i
Annual
Cost (a)
$1.29
Cost Factor
Reference
(a) January 1988 dollars
REFERENCES
1. Uahoney, H., editor-In-chief, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Co, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1986, pp. 241 (13.1.5.130-155).
2. U.S. Envlroraental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 4-16 to 4-23.
3. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute, Cost estimates for generic fixed-bed carbon adsorption.
Attachment to Memorandum to S. Thorneloe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
4. Reference 2, pp. 4-23 and 4-24.
5. Reference 2, pp. 2-22.
6. Reference 2, pp. 4-25.
7. Reference 2, pp. 4-28 to 4-32.
8. Reference 2, pp. 4-33 and 4-34.
9. Reference 2, pp. 2-27. ^
10. Reference 2, pp. 4-32 and 4-33.
H-160
-------
3.2.6.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste
The following series of five tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
installing and using a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system on an aerated surface treatment Impoundment
[Model Unit T02J] treating a 2-phase aqueous/organic waste. The control system requires complete enclosure
of the impoundment surface using an air-supported structure. This Is an anchored, flexible membrane dome
that is Inflated using a large fan. The exhaust vent of the dome Is connected to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
The Impoundment volume Is 2,700 cubic meters (712,400 gallons) with a surface area of 1,500 square meters
(16,200 square feet) and a depth of 1.8 meters (6 feet). The Impoundment retention time Is 10 days.
Table 1a. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Air-Supported Structure
Equipment
Component
Dome Structure (b)
Equipment
Size
31 • x 51 •
(102 ft X 168 ft)
Construction
Material
Tedlar/
Plastic
Cost (a) | Reference
!
$70,030 ! Ref 1
!
i
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (EEC)
$70,030 i
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dome structure Includes seams, tension cables, primary and auxiliary Inflation system, air lock
personnel doors, liner, and Instrumentation.
(c) Size Includes 0.5 meter (1.7 feet) border on each side of the dome structure.
H-161
-------
3.2.6.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste (continued)
Table 1b. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Equipment
Component
Fixed-bed Adsorber Vessels
(dual-bed horizontal system)
Granulated Activated Carbon
Other Process Equipment (d)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (EEC)
Equipment
Size
(b)
11,482 kg (c)
(25,318 Ib)
(e)
Construction
Material
304 Stainless
Steel
Carbon
•
Cost (a)
.$35,820
$45,570
$31,740
1
$113,130
Reference
Ref 2
Ref 2,3
Ref 4
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dual fixed-tad carbon adsorber design. Adsorber vessel specifications:
Airflow rate « 233 normal cubic meters per nlnute (8,225 acfra)
Adsorber Vessel Diameter -
Adsorber Vessel Length -
Adsorber Vessel Surface Area
3.6 meters
3.5 meters
59.3 sq. meters
11.7 feet
11.5 feet
639 sq. feet
(c) Quantity and cost of carbon determined using the estimation procedure recommended In the
EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 1). Cost of carbon Is $3.97/kg ($1.80/lb).
(d) Fan, puraps, condenser, decanter, ductwork, Instrumentation, and Internal piping.
(e) Total cost for this equipment determined by multiplying the sum of the adsorber vessel and carbon
cost by 0.39 as recommended In the EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 3).
H-162
-------
3.2.6.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste (continued)
Table 2a. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Air-Supported Structure
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b) •
Sales Taxes & Freight
Cost
Factor
Table 1a
82 x BEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$70,030
$0
$5,600
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC) $75,630
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS j
Erection and Handling \ 2. IX x PEC $1,590
Electrical j 7% x PEC $1,510
Site Preparation | (c) $11,300
Total Direct Installation Cost $14,400
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Indirect Installation Costs 15X x PEC $11,340
Total Indirect Installation Cost $11,340
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported Structure $101,370
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 1
Ref 1
'
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs included in the base equipment costs.
(c) Estimated site preparation cost is the cost for trenching the dome structure perimeter of
164 meters (538 feet) and using a cost factor of $68.90 per linear meter ($21/ft) obtained
from Reference 1.
H-163
-------
3.2.6.2.3 SURFACE I&POUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste (continued)
Table 2b. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Bass Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b) ,
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Handl Ing
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up
Performance Test
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
Cost
Factor
Table 1b
8* x BEC !
!
8X x PEC |
14X X PEC i
« X PEC ',
2XXPEC !
1X X PEC !
1X X PEC j
(c) !
10X X PEC
5X X PEC
103! X PEC
2XXPEC
1X X PEC
35! x PEC
Total Capital Investment for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Total Capital Investment for Air-Supported
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) for Control
Structure (Table 2a)
Systei
Capital
Cost (a)
$113,130
$0
$9,050
$122,180
$9,770
$17,110
$4,890
$2,440
$1,220
$1,220
$500
$37,150
$12,220
$6,110
$12,220
$2,440
$1,220
$3,670
$37,880
$197,210
$101,370
$298,580
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
Ref 6
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In base equipment costs.
(c) Area around an existing surface Impoundment Is assumed to be already cleared and leveled.
A nominal site preparation cost of $500 Is assumed.
H-164
-------
3.2.6.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Steam
Coo ling Water
Labor
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Carbon Replacement (d)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS |
i
i
Overhead ]
t
i
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs i
Capital Recovery (CR) (e) |
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) |
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC) |
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) |
Cost
Factor
$0.0463/kWh
$0.00719/kg of steam
$0.04/cublc meter
$12.00/hr
15% x OLC
$13.20/hr
100% x MLC
$0.84/kg of carbon
60% X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4% X TCI
10% 9 10 yr (f) |
i
i
DC+IC-RC i
TAC-CR j
Annual
Consumption
171,819 kWh (b)
1,332,000kg (b)
124,000 03 (b)
550 hr (c)
646 hr (c)
•
Annual
Cost (a)
$7,960
$9,580
$4,960
$6,600
$990
$8,530
$8,530
$13,320
$60,470
•
$14,790
$11,940
$40,580
$67,310
$0
$127,780
$87,200
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 9
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 12
(continued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber utility consumption determined using the estimation procedures recommended In
the EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 7). Air-supported structure fan electricity demand estimated
to be 173 kWh/day, 365 day/year.
(c) Fixed-bed carbon adsorber labor hours determined using the labor hour factors recommended in the
EAB Cost Control Manual (Reference 8) and assuming workers are on-site 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Additional maintenance labor for air-supported structure estimated to be 8 hours per month.
(d) Carbon needs to be replaced once every 5 years. This cost represents 20% of the cost required to
replace the carbon in the fifth year of operation.
(e) CR based on TCI for air-supported structure plus TCI for carbon adsorber less the initial carbon cost.
(f) Estimated service life based on typical carbon adsorber system lifetime recommended in the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 12).
H-165
-------
3.2.6.2.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for 2-Phase Aqueous/Organic Waste (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost i
Component !
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) i
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic !
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) !
2-Phase Aqueous/Organic , !
Cost
Factor
TAC/AWT
! Annual !
i Consumption !
i Mg/yr i
! 98,595 !
i i
i i
i 1
Annual
Cost (a)
$1.30
Cost Factor
Reference
(a) January 1988 dollars
REFERENCES
1. Mahoney, H., editor-In-chief, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Co, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts, 1986, pp. 241 (13.1.5.130-155).
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 4-16 to 4-23.
3. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute, Cost estimates for generic fixed-bed carbon adsorption.
Attachment to Memorandum to S. Thorneloe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
4. Reference 2, pp. 4-23 and 4-24.
5. Reference 2, pp. 2-22.
6. Reference 2, pp. 4-25.
7. Reference 2, pp. 4-28 to 4-32.
8. Reference 2, pp. 4-33 and 4-34.
9. Reference 2, pp. 2-27.
10. Reference 2, pp. 4-32 and 4-33.
H-166
-------
3.2.7.1 WASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Existing Enclosed Mechanical Mixer
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
venting an existing enclosed mechanical nlxer to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system [no model unit
Identification code Is assigned to this source]. The waste treated Is assumed to have an organic
content of 5% and during mixing 6X of the organics are emitted to the atmosphere. The waste throughput
Is 116,500 Mg/yr.
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Fixed-bed Adsorber Vessels
(dual horizontal bed system)
Granulated Activated Carbon
Other Process Equipment (d)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
(b)
.
11,371 kg (c)
(25,072 Ib)
(e)
Construction
Material
304 Stainless
Steel
Carbon
-
Cost (a)
$37,370
$45,140
$32,180
$114,690
Reference
-
Ref 1
Ref 1.2
Ref 3
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dual fixed-bed carbon adsorber.design. Adsorber vessel specifications:
Airflow rate = 312 normal cubic meters per minute (11,000 acfm)
Adsorber Vessel Diameter »
Adsorber Vessel Length *
Adsorber Vessel Surface Area
2.6 meters
6.3 meters
63.5 sq. meters
8.7 feet
20.8 feet
684 sq. feet
(c) Quantity and cost of carbon determined using the estimation procedure recommended in the
EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 1). Cost of carbon Is $3.97/kg ($1.80/lb).
(d) Fan, pumps, condenser, decanter, ductwork, instrumentation, and internal piping.
(e) Total cost for this equipment determined by multiplying the sura of the adsorber vessel and carbon
cost by 0.39 as recommended In the EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 3).
H-167
-------
3.2.7.1 WASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Existing Enclosed Mechanical Mixer (continued)
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (EEC)
Auxl I lary Equlpaent (b) .
Sales Taxes & Freight !
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Handl Ing
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up
Perforoance Test
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
Table 1
8XXBEC
8X X PEC
14X X PEC
42 X PEC
2XXPEC
W X PEC
1X x PEC
(c)
10% X PEC
5X X PEC
1C* X PEC
2XXPEC
1X X PEC
3XXPEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$114,690
$0
$9,180
$123,870
$9,910
$17,340
$4,950
$2,480
$1,240
$1,240
$500
$37,660
$12,390
$6,190
$12,390
$2,480
$1,240
$3,720
$38,410
$199,940
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 4
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 5
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included In the base equipment costs.
(c) Area around an existing mechanical mixer Is assumed to be already cleared and leveled.
A nonlnal site preparation cost of $500 Is assumed.
H-168
-------
3.2.7.1 WASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Existing Enclosed Mechanical Mixer (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Steam
Cooling Water
Labor
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Carbon Replacement (d)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Carbon Adsorber System (e) |
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC) |
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC) |
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC) j
Cost
Factor
•
$0.0463/KHh
$0.00719/kg of steam
$0.04/cubic meter
$12.00/hr
155! X OLC
$13.20/hr
1002 x MLC
$0.84/kg of carbon
60X x (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4XX TCI
105! 9 10 yr (f)
i
DC+IC-RC !
TAC-CR i
Annual
Consumption
126,609 kmi (b)
1,161,000kg (b)
108,500 D3 (b)
550 hr (c)
550 hr (c)
Annual
Cost (a)
$5,860
$8,350
$4,340
$6,600
$990
$7,260
$7,260
$13,190
$53,850
$13,270
$8,000
,
$24,610
$45,880
$0
$99,730
$75,120
! Cost Factor
i Reference
Ref 8
Ref 8
Ref 9
Ref 10
Ref 10 "
Ref 11
(cont inued)
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Annual utility consumption determined using the estimation procedures recommended In the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 6).
(c) Annual labor hours determined using the labor hour factors recommended In the EAB Control Cost Manual
(Reference 7) and assuming workers are on-slte 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
(d) Carbon needs to be replaced once every 5 years. This cost represents 20% of the cost required to
replace the carbon in the fifth year of operation.
(e) Capital Recovery Cost is based on TCI less the initial carbon cost.
(f) Estimated service life based on typical carbon adsorber system lifetime recommended in the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 11).
H-169
-------
3.2.7.1 HASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Existing Enclosed Mechanical Mixer (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost !
Component !
ANNUAL HASTE THROUGHPUT (AHT) !
5X Organic-Content Haste !
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg) !
5X Organic-Content Haste , ' i
Cost
Factor
TAC/AHT
! Annual i
! Consumption !
! Mg/yr !
: 116,500 :
! :
! i
Annual
Cost (a)
$0.86
i Cost Factor
! Reference
i
i
!
!
(a) January 1986 dollars
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 4-16 to 4-23.
2. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute, Cost estimates for generic fixed-bed carbon adsorption.
Attachaent to Memorandum to S. Thorneioe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
3. Reference 1, pp. 4-23 and 4-24.
4. Reference 1, pp. 2-22.
5. Reference 1, pp. 4-25.
6. Reference 1, pp. 4-28 to 4-32.
7. Reference 1, pp. 4-33 and 4-34.
8. Reference 1, pp. 2-27.
9. Reference 1, pp. 4-32 and 4-33.
10. Reference 1, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
11. Reference 1, pp. 4-34 and 4-35.
H-170
-------
3.2.7.2 WASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Fixation Pit
The following series of seven tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs for
replacing an existing waste fixation pit with an enclosed mechanical mixer and fabric filter unit,
and venting the enclosed mechanical mixer to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system [no model unit
Identification code is assigned to this source]. The waste treated Is assumed to have an organic
content of 5X and during mixing 6X of the organlcs are emitted to the atmosphere. The waste throughput
Is 116,500 Mg/yr.
Table 1a. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Enclosed Mechanical Mixer
Equipment
Component
Mechanical Mixer
Pumps (2 required)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (EEC)
Equipment
Size
80 cubic meter/hr
(2,835 cubic ft/hr)
537 Uters/ain
(142 gal/min)
Construction
Material
Stainless
Steel
Stainless
Steel
Cost (a)
$44,200
$3,820
-
taaaaaegirm-TTmaaaM
$48,020
Reference
Ref 1
Ref 2
(a) January 1986 dollars
Table 1b. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Fabric Filter
Equipment
Component
Fabric Filter
(air-to-cloth ratio 3:1)
Bags
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (BEC)
Equipment
Size
.
312 normal cu. meter/min
(11,000acfra)
682 sq. meters
(7,340 sq. feet)
Construction
Material
Stainless
Steel
Dacron
Cost (a)
$59,820
$3,300
.
$63,120
Refer
Ref
Ref
£=££±==2=
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-171
-------
3.2.7.2 HASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Fixation Pit (continued)
Table 1c. BASE EQUIPMENT COST for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Equipment
Component
Fixed-bed Adsorber Vessels
(dual horizontal bed system)
Granulated Activated Carbon
Other Process Equipment (d)
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (EEC)
Equipment
Size
(b)
11,371 kg (c)
(25,072 Ib)
(e)
Construction
Material
304 Stainless
Steel
Carbon
Cost (a)
$37,370
$45,140
$32,180
$114,690
Reference
Ref 4
Ref 4,5
Ref 6
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Dual fixed-bed carbon adsorber design. Adsorber vessel specifications:
Airflow rate - 312 normal cubic maters per Minute (11,000 acfra)
Adsorber Vessel Diameter =
Adsorber Vessel Length -
Adsorber Vessel Surface Area
2.6 meters
6.3 meters
63.5 sq. meters
8.7 feet
20.8 feet
684 sq. feet
(c) Quantity and cost of carbon determined using the estimation procedure recommended in the
EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 4). Cost of carbon Is $3.97/kg ($1.80/lb).
(d) Fan, punps, condenser, decanter, ductwork, instrumentation, and internal piping.
(e) Total cost for this equipment determined by Multiplying the sura of the adsorber vessel and carbon
cost by 0.39 as recommended In the EAB Control Cost Manual (Reference 6).
H-172
-------
3.2.7.2 HASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Fixation Pit (continued)
Table 2a. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Enclosed Mechanical Mixer
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Handling
Electrical
Piping
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up & Testing
Cont ingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
Table 1
10X x BEC
82 x BEC
8X x PEC
305! x PEC
5X x PEC
3XXPEC
1% x PEC
(c)
10X X PEC
105! X PEC
10X x PEC
15! X PEC
3%XPEC
Capital
Cost (a)
$48,020
$4,800
$4,230
$57,050
$4,560
$17,120
$2,850
$1,710
$570
$11,600
$38,410
$5,710
$5,710
$5,710
$570
$1,710
$19,410
$114,870
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 7
Ref 8
Ref 7
Ref 7
Ref 7
Ref 7
Ref 7
Ref 9
Ref 7
Ref 7
Ref 7
Ref 7
Ref 7
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Auxiliary equipment consists of instrumentation.
(c) Concrete slab 20 cm (8 In) thick covering 557 sq. meters (6,000 sq. ft).
H-173
-------
3.2.7.2 WASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Fixation Pit (continued)
Table 2b. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Fabric Filter
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPfcCNT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Ductwork
Instrumentation
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up & Testing
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
Cost
Factor
-Table 1
10X x BEC
8X x BEC
4X X PEC
50XXPEC
82 x PEC
1X X PEC
TXxPEC
2XXPEC
i
10X X PEC
i 20X X PEC
i 1C* X PEC
i 2X X PEC
| 3X X PEC
Capital i
Cost (a)
$63,120
$12,280
$7,540
$6,640
$89,580
$3,580
$44,790
$7,170
$900
$6,270
$1,790
$65,730
$130,230
$8,960
$17,920
$8,960
$1,790
$2,690
$40,320
$260,130
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 10
Ref 3
Ref 8
Ref 3
Ref 3
Ref 3
Ref 3
Ref 3
Ref 3
Ref 3
Ref 3
Ref 3
Ref 3
Ref 3
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-174
-------
3.2.7.2 WASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Fixation Pit (continued)
Table 2o. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Auxiliary Equipment (b)
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Foundations and Supports
Erection and Handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Site Preparation
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction & Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start-up & Testing
Contingency
Total Indirect Installation Cost
Cost
Factor
Table 1
8X x BEC
8X x PEC
14X x PEC
« X PEC
2XXPEC
U x PEC
IX X PEC
t
i
1C* x PEC
5X X PEC
1C* X PEC
3XXPEC
3XXPEC
Total Capital Investment for Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Total Capital Investment for Mixer
Total Capital Investment for Fabric
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI)
(Table 2a)
Filter (Table 2b)
Capital
Cost (a)
$114,690
$0
$9,180
$123,870
.
$9,910
$17,340
$4,950
$2,480
$1,240
$1,240
$0
$37,160
$12,390
$6,190
$12,390
$3,720
$3,720
$38,410
$199,440
$114,870
$260,130
$574,440
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 8
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 11
Ref 11
==========
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) All auxiliary equipment costs Included in the base equipment costs.
H-175
-------
3.2.7.2 HASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Fixation Pit (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Utilities
Electricity
Steaa
Coo ling Water
Labor
Operating Labor (OLC)
Supervisory Labor (SLC)
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Carbon Replacement (d)
Fabric Filter Bag Replacement (e)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance, & Admin. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR) (f)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAG)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
Cost
Factor
$0.0463AHh
$0.00719/kg of steam
$0.04/cublc meter
$12.00/hr
15X x OLC
$13.20/hr
100XXMLC
$0.84/kg of carbon
$0.04/sq. Deter
60X X (OLC+SLC+MLC+MMC)
4X X TCI
1C* i 10 yr (g)
i DC+IC-RC
,' TAC-CR
Annual
Consumption
548,931 kHh (b)
1,161,000kg (b)
108,500 ffl3 (b)
"
1,645hr (c)
1,200hr (c)
! 2/3 of bags
i
i
i
i
Annual ',
Cost (a)
$25,420
$8,350
$4,340
$19,740
$2,960
$15,840
$15,840
$13,190
$2,180
$107,860
$32,630
$22,980
$85,550
$141,160
$0
$249,020
$163,470
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 14
Ref 14
Ref 15
Ref 3
Ref 16
Ref 16
Ref 17
(see notes on next page)
(continued)
H-176
-------
3.2.7.2 WASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Fixation Pit (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (concluded)
Cost !
Component j
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT) j
5% Organic-Content Waste j
COST PER UNIT OF WASTE ($/Mg) j
52 Organic-Content Waste j
Cost
Factor
TAC/AWT
i Annual
! Consumption
! Mg/yr
! 116,500
i
i
i
i
Annual
Cost (a)
-
$2.14
Cost Factor
Reference
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Annual utility consumption determined by: 1) using the estimation procedures recommended in the EAB
Control Cost Manual (Reference 12) for fixed-bed adsorber, and 2) using a mixer/pump unit power rating of
44 hp and an operating period of 8,760 hr/yr (Mixer/pump kWh = 0.746 x [horsepower] x [operating hours]).
(c) Annual labor hours determined by 1) using the labor hour factors recommended in the EAB Control Cost
Manual (Reference 13) and assuming workers are on-site 24 hours/day, 7 days/week for the fixed-bed carbon
adsorber and fabric filter labor requirements, and 2) assuming mixer pumps require 100 hours per year of
aalntenance.
(d) Carbon needs to be replaced once every 5 years. This cost represents 20X of the cost required to
replace the carbon In the fifth year of operation.
(e) Estimated fabric filter bag life is 1.5 years.
(f) Capital Recovery Cost Is based on TCI less the initial carbon cost.
(g) Estimated service life based on typical carbon adsorber system lifetime recommended In the EAB Control
Cost Manual (Reference 17).
H-177
-------
3.2.7.2 HASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Fixation Pit (continued)
REFERENCES
1. Hlnlstorfer, J., Rapids Machinery Company. Waste fixation. Telephone conversation with
L. Goldaan, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 17, 1986.
2. Peters, M. and K. Tlnunerhaus, Plant design and Econoaics for Chealcal Engineers.
McGravf-Hlll Book Company, New York, 1980, p. 556.
3. Vatavtk, W. and R. Never!I, Part XI: Estimating the Size and Cost of Baghouses,
Chealcal Engineering, March 1982, pp. 153-158.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 4-16 to 4-23.
5. Coy, D., Research Triangle Institute, Cost estimates for generic fixed-bed carbon adsorption.
Attachment to Memorandum to S. Thorneloe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 4, 1987.
6. Reference 1, pp. 4-23 and 4-24.
7. Vatavuk, H. and R. Neverll, Part II: Factors for Estimating Capital and Operating Costs,
Chealcal Engineering, November 3, 1980, pp. 157-162.
8. Reference 4, pp. 2-22.
9. Mahoney, H., editor-in-chief, Means Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Company, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachuetts, 1986, pp. 28-315.
10. Vatavuk, H. and R. Never!I, Part IV: Estimating the Size and Cost of Ductwork,
Chealcal Engineering, December 29, 1980, pp. 71-73.
11. Reference 4, pp. 4-25.
12. Reference 4, pp. 4-28 to 4-32.
13. Reference 4, pp. 4-33 and 4-34.
14. Reference 4, pp. 2-27.
15. Reference 4, pp. 4-32 and 4-33.
16. Reference 4, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
17. Reference 4, pp. 4-34 and 4-35.
H-178
-------
3.2.8 LANDFILL
( THIS CATEGORY WAS NOT SELECTED FOR THE CONTROL OPTION ANALYSES )
H-179
-------
3.2.9 TRANSFER, HANDLING, & LOADING: Submerged Tank Truck Loading
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of capital and annual costs
for Installing and using a submerged fill pipe to load liquid wastes Into bulk tank trucks. The
tank truck volume Is 26.5 cubic asters (7,000 gal Ions). The waste throughput Is based on 16 truck
tank filling operations per year. [ No model unit Identification code Is assigned to this source.]
Table 1. BASE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment
Component
Piping
Swing Joint
TOTAL BASE EQUIPMENT COST (EEC)
Equipment
Size
1
120 ca x 10 ca dla.
(48 In x 4 In dla.)
10oi dla.
(4 In dla.)
Construction
Material
Aluralnum
Aluminum
Cost (a)
$110
$200
$310
Reference
Ref 1,2
Ref 1,3
(a) January 1986 dollars
H-180
-------
3.2.9 TRANSFER, HANDLING, & LOADING: Submerged Tank Truck Loading (continued)
Table 2. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost
Component
DIRECT EQUIPMENT COSTS
-
Base Equipment Cost (BEC)
Sales Taxes & Freight
Purchase Equipment Cost (PEC)
DIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS
Handling & Erection
Total Direct Installation Cost
INDIRECT INSTALLATION COSTS j
1
Total Indirect Installation Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT aci)
Cost Capital
Factor Cost (a)
Table 1 $310
8X x BEC ! $20
$330
(b) $60
$60
!
(c) i $0
$0
$390
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 4
1
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) Estimated fill pipe installation time Is 3 hours. Cost calculated using a base labor rate of
of $13.20 plus a 602 overhead rate.
(c) No indirect Installation costs are charged because installation involves mounting standard
accessory components on loading arm assembly.
H-181
-------
3.2.9 TRANSFER, HANDLING. & LOADING: Submerged Tank Truck Loading (continued)
Table 3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cost
Component
DIRECT ANUUAL COSTS
Utilities
Maintenance Labor (MLC)
Maintenance Materials (MMC)
Total Direct Annual Cost (DC)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
Taxes, Insurance & Attain. Costs
Capital Recovery (CR)
Total Indirect Annual Cost (1C)
RECOVERY CREDIT (RC)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TAC)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
ANNUAL WASTE THROUGHPUT (AWT)
Aqueous sludge
Organic sludge
2-phase aqueous/organic
Dilute aqueous
Organic liquid
COST PER UNIT OF HASTE ($/Mg)
Aqueous sludge
Organic sludge
2-phase aqueous/organic
Dilute aqueous
Organic liquid
Cost
Factor
*
60% X (MLC4WC)
4X X TCI
! ID* « 15 yr (c)
DC+IC-RC
TAC-CR
TAC/AWT
Annual
Consumption
none
none (b)
none (b)
Mg/yr
521
499
490
423
413
.
Annual
Cost (a)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20
$50
$70
$0
$70
$20
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.17
Cost Factor
Reference
Ref 5
Ref 5
Ref 6
(a) January 1986 dollars
(b) No scheduled maintenance required.
(c) Estimated service life Is based on expected useful life of materials of construction.
H-182
-------
3.2.9 TRANSFER, HANDLING, & LOADING: Submerged Tank Truck Loading (continued)
REFERENCES
1. EMCO Hheton Catalog E, EMCO Nheaton Inc., Conneaut, Ohio 44030, January 1986, pp. 25.
2. EMCO Nheton Price List, July 1987,"E" Line, Loading Arm Assemblies, Product no. E55-021, pp. 19.
3. EMCO Hheton Price List, July 1987,"D" Line, Swivel Joints, Product no. D123-004, pp. 8.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EAB Control Cost Manual, 3rd Edition, EPA 450/5-87-001a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1987, pp. 2-22.
5. Reference 4, pp. 2-30 and 2-31.
6. Reference 4, pp. 2-12 and 2-13.
H-183
-------
H-184
-------
COST TABLE ATTACHMENTS TO
APPENDIX H:
PART B: WEIGHTED COST FACTOR TABLES
H-185
-------
H-186
-------
WEIGHTED COST FACTOR TABLES
The weighted cost factor tables are presented for the following TSDF
emission source categories.
• Tank storage
• Surface impoundment storage
• Tank treatment
• Surface impoundment treatment
• Waste fixation.
Each TSDF emission source and control device combination is assigned
an index number. A uniform format has been adopted to present the control
cost factor calculations. In general, each table grouping consists of the
following four elements:
• Introduction. A brief paragraph introduces the tables describing
the control strategy applied to the TSDF emission source.
• Table I - Nationwide TSDF Model Unit Distribution. This table
explains the assumptions made and calculations performed to
derive a nationwide distribution factor for each TSDF model unit
size.
• Table 2 - Nationwide TCI Cost Factors. This table presents the
calculations performed to derive nationwide TCI cost factors for
the TSDF emission source category.
• Table 3 - Nationwide AOC Cost Factors. This table presents the
calculations performed to derive nationwide AOC cost factors for
the TSDF emission source category.
An index to the cost tables is presented on the following page to aid
the reader in locating a particular TSDF emission source category.
H-187
-------
H-188
-------
INDEX FOR WEIGHTED COST FACTORS TABLES
Index Number
3.3.2.1 Drum Storage
3.3.2.2 Tank Storage
3.3.2.2.1 Level
2 Control Strategy for Covered Tanks
3.3.2.2.2 Level 1 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks
3.2.2.2.3 Level 2 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks
3.3.2.3 Surface Impoundment Storage
3.3.2.3.1 Floating Membrane
3.3.2.3.2 Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
3.3.2.4 Tank Treatment
3.3.2.4.1 Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent
Covered Tanks
3.3.2.4.2 Level 1 Control Strategy for Quiescent
Open-Top Tanks
3.3.2.4.3 Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent
Open-Top Tanks
3.3.2.4.4 Level 1 Control Strategy for Aerated
Open-Top Tanks
3.3.2.4.5 Level 2 Control Strategy for Aerated
Open-Top Tanks
3.3.2.5 Surface Impoundment Storage
3.3.2.5.1 Floating Membrane on Quiescent Impoundment
3.3.2.5.2 Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Quiescent
Impoundments
3.3.2.5.3 Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated
Impoundments
3.3.2.6 Waste Fixation Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
Page
H-190
H-191
H-196
H-201
H-206
H-208
H-211
H-215
H-220
H-225
H-228
H-230
H-232
H-235
H-238
H-189
-------
3.3.2.1 DftUM STORAGE
(THIS CATEGORY WAS NOT SELECTED FOR THE CONTROL OPTION ANALYSES )
H-190
-------
3.3.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: Level 2 Control Strategy for Covered Tanks
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for covered storage tanks using Level 2 control. Level 2 control Is achieved by
I TCJ,™ 2L1 '?!rnal f'°atin9 r°°f- 2) Ventln9 ** tank to « exlstlnS combustion device,
or 3) venting the tank to a carbon adsorption systea. The type of Level 2 control
used at a particular TSOF site Is left to the discretion of the TSDF owner. For the purpose
of developing nationwide cost factors, it Is assumed that SOX of the tanks are controlled
using an Internal floating roof, 75% using a vent to an existing combustion device, and
25% using a carbon adsorption system.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSDF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit (a)
S02A
S02C
S02D
S02E
Model Unit T
(cubic meters)
6
30
76
795
ank Capacity
"
(gallons)
1,500
8,000
20,000
210,000
HESTAT Survey
emulative
Frequency (b)
16.9%
58. 5%
81.45!
94.1%
!
! Nationwide
Distribution
Factor (c)
0.337 (d)
0.323 (e)
0.178 (f)
0.122 (g) !
(a) Model units S02B and S02C have the same tank capacity. Model unit S02C selected for
nationwide cost factors computations.
(b) Cumulativepercentage of storage tanks In WESTAT survey data having capacities less
than the TSDF model unit tank capacity. Survey data do not distinguish between
covered and open-top tanks. Same size distribution assumed for both tank types.
16.9% of the tanks are smaller than S02A
41.6% of the tanks are between S02A and S02C
22.9% of the tanks are between S02C and S02D
12.7% of the tanks are between S02D and S02E
5.9% of the tanks are larger than S02E
100%
(c) Assume all tanks smaller than S02A are represented by S02A
Fnr tta!f H6tWeen 2S 3nd S02C aSSUm8 50% rePresented by S02A and 50% represented by
For 2S £ H6en S "! cS02° aSSUrae 50% rePreS8nted by S02C and m represented by
IL,I! n fT", ^ "ld S02E aSSUme 50% rePres8nte^ ^ S02D and 50% represented by S02E
Assume all tanks larger than S02E are represented by S02E.
(d) 0.169 + (0.416 X 0.5) - 0.3770
(e) (0.416 X 0.5) + (0.229 X 0.5) = 0.3225
(f) (0.229 x 0.5) + (0.217 x 0.5) = 0.1780
(g) (0.217 X 0.5) + 0.059 = 0.1225
H-191
-------
3.3.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: Level 2 Control Strategy for Covered Tanks (continued)
Tab'le 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
-
•
I
S02A
S02C
S02D
S02E
—__—__
S02A
S02C
S02D*
S02E*
S02A
S02C
S02D
S02E*
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
140
1,377
4,095
20,520
134
1,318
3,919
19,640
131
1,295
3,851
19,300
B
Total
Capital
Investnent
(a)
$3,073
$4,863
$6,353
$10,493
$3,073
$4,863
$24,208
$28,305
$3,073
$4,863
$6,353
$28,305
c
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A ]
$22.00
$3.50
$1.60
$0.50
$22.90
$3.70
$6.20
$1.40
$23.50
$3.80
$1.60
$1.50
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
'
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
E i
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$8.30
$1.10
$0.30
$0.10
TOTAL
$8.60
$1.20
$1.10
$0.20
TOTAL
$8.90
$1.20
$0.30
I $0.20
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$9.80
$11.10
$10.60
(contInued)
(a) Average TCI control cost per tank computed by adding 50% of TCI for Internal floating roof plus 25% of
TCI for vent to existing combustion device plus 252 of TCI for a carbon adsorption system. Control
cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system were prepared for each
•odeI unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption system with the lowest total annual cost
was used for the average TCI control cost per tank computation. The model units using the fixed-bed
carbon adsorber costs are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-192
-------
3.3.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: Level 2 Control Strategy for Covered Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS (concluded)
Waste Type
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSDF
Model
Unit
S02A
S02C
S02D*
S02E*
S02A
S02C
S02D
S02E« !
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
113
1,118
.
3,324
16,660
111
1,118
3,324
16,260
B
Total
Capital
Investment
(a)
$3,073
$4,863
$24,208
$28,305
$3,073
$4,863
$6,353
$28,305
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$27.20
$4.30
$7.30
$1.70
$27.70
$4.30
$1.90
$1.70
: D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
- 0.178
0.122
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$10.30
$1.40
$1.30
$0.20
TOTAL
$10.40
$1.40 .
$0.30
$0.20
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$13.20
$12.30
(a) Average TCI control cost per tank confuted by adding SOX of TCI for Internal floating roof plus 25% of
TCI for vent to existing combustion device plus 253! of TCI for a carbon adsorption system. Control
cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system were prepared for each
model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption system with the lowest total annual cost
was used for the average TCI control cost per tank computation. The model units using the fixed-bed
carbon adsorber costs are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-193
-------
3.3.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: Level 2 Control Strategy for Covered Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
S02A
S02C
S02D
S02E
S02A
S02C
S02D»
S02E*
S02A
S02C
S02D
S02E«
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
140
1,377
4,095
20,520
134
1,318
3,919
19,640
131
1,295
3,851
19,300
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
(a)
$1,018
$1,6S8
$3,095
$9,770
$1,343
$5,413
$11,913
$11,245
$1,385
$1,295
$10,750
$11,235
c
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$7.30
$1.20
$0.80
$0.50
$10.00
$4.10
$3.00
.$0.60
$10.60
$1.00
$2.80
$0.60
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
E !
Weighted
AOC Cost '
Factor
($/Mg)
[CxD]
$2.80
$0.40
$0.10
$0.10
TOTAL
$3.80
$1.30
$0.50
$0.10
TOTAL
$4.00
. $0.30
$0.50
$0.10
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$3.40
$5.70
$4.90
(continued)
(a) Average AOC control cost per tank computed by adding 50X of AOC for Internal floating roof plus 25% of
AOC for vent to existing combustion device plus 25X of AOC for a carbon adsorption system. Control
cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system were prepared for each
codeI unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption system with the lowest total annual cost
was used for the average AOC control cost per tank computation. The model units using the fixed-bed
carbon adsorber costs are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-194
-------
3.3.2.2.1 TANK STORAGE: Level 2 Control Strategy for Covered Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS (concluded)
Waste Type
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
,
TSDF
Model
Unit
S02A .
S02C
S02D*
S02E*
S02A
S02C
S02D
S02E*
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
113
1,118
3,324
16,660
111
1,118
3,324
16,260
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
(a)
$1,830
$9,320
$10,700
' $11,588
$1,173
$1,091
$6,188
$11,208
! C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$16.20
$8.30
$3.20
$0.70
$10.60 |
i
i
$1.00 !
j
$1.90 |
$0.70
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[CxD]
$6.10
$2.70
.
$0.60
$0.10
TOTAL
$4.00
$0.30
$0.30
$0.10
TOTAL
! F
! Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
gg-B,-,,,,,, • — ^.^
$9.50
$4.70
(a) Average AX control cost per tank computed by adding 50% of AX for internal floating roof plus 25% of
AOC for vent to existing combustion device plus 25% of AOC for a carbon adsorption system. Control
cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system were prepared for each
fflodel unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption system with the lowest total annual cost
was used for the average AOC control cost per tank computation. The model units using the fixed-bed
carbon adsorber costs are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-195
-------
3.3.2.2.2 TANK STORAGE: Level 1 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for open-top storage tanks using Level 1 control. Level 1 control Is achieved by
enclosing the open-top tank with a fixed roof.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSOF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit (a)
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
Model Unit Tc
(cubic meters)
6
30
76
795
ink Capacity
(gallons)
1,500
8,000
20,000
210,000
HESTAT Survey
Cumulative
F rflni IATV* v f h ^
16.92
58.52
81.42
94.12
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor (p}
0.337 (d)
0.323 (e)
0.178 (f)
0.122 (g) j
(a) Model units S02G and S02H have the same tank capacity. Model unit S02H selected for
nationwide cost factors computations.
(b) emulative percentage of storage tanks In WESTAT survey data having capacities less
than the TSDF node I unit tank capacity. Survey data do not distinguish between
covered and open-top tanks. Same size distribution assumed for both tank types.
16.92 of the tanks are snaller than S02F
41.62 of the tanks are between S02F and S02H
22.92 of the tanks are between S02H and S02I
12.72 of the tanks are between S02I and S02J
5.92 of the tanks are larger than S02J
1002
(c) Assune all tanks smaller than S02F are represented by S02F.
For tanks between S02F and S02H assume 502 represented by S02F and 502 represented by S02H.
For tanks between S02H and S02I assume 502 represented by S02H and 502 represented by S02I.
For tanks between S02I and S02J assume 502 represented by S02I and 502 represented by S02J.
Assuae all tanks larger than S02J are represented by S02J.
(d) 0.169 + (0.416 x 0.5) - 0.3770
(e) (0.416 X 0.5) + (0.229 X 0.5) - 0.3225
(f) (0.229 X 0.5) + (0.217 X 0.5) = 0.1780
(g) (0.217 x 0.5) + 0.059 = 0.1225
H-196
-------
3.3.2.2.2 TANK STORAGE: Level 1 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
140
1,377
4,095
20,520
134
1,318
3,919
19,640
131
1,295
3,851
19,300
B
Total
Capital
Investment
$3,790
$9,510
$14,840
$26,040
$3,790
$9,510
$14,840
$26,040
$3,790
$9,510
$14,840
$26,040
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$27.10
$6.90
$3.60
$1.30
$28.30
$7.20
$3.80
$1.30
$28.90
$7.30
$3.90
$1.30 !
0
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[TabJe 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$10.20
$2.20
$0.60
$0.20
TOTAL
$.10.70
$2.30
$0.70
$0.20
TOTAL
$10.90
$2.40
$0.70
$0.20
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
1
1
t
1
$13.20
$13.90
$14.20
(contInued)
H-197
-------
3.3.2.2.2 TANK STORAGE: Level 1 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS (concluded)
Waste Type
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSDF
Model
Unit
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
113
1.118
3,324
16,660
111
1,118
3,324
16,260
B
Total
Capital
Investment
$3,790
$9,510
$14,840
$26,040
$3,790
$9,510
$14,840
$26,040
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$33.50
$8.50
$4.50
$1.60
$34.10
$8.50
$4.50
$1.60
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[CxD]
$12.60
$2.70
$0.80
$0.20
TOTAL
$12.90
$2.70
$0.80
$0.20
TOTAL
F
Natlonwldi
TCI Cost
Factor
(S/Mg)
$16.3
! $16.6
H-198
-------
3.3.2.2.2 TANK STORAGE: Level 1 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
'
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
!
TSDF
Model
Unit
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
140
1,377
4,095
20,520
134
1,318
3,919
19,640
131
1,295
3,851
19,300
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
$310
$760
$1,200
$2,100
$310
$760
$1,200
$2,100
$310
$760
$1,200
$2,100
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A ]
$2.20
$0.60
$0.30
•
$0.10
$2.30
$0.60
$0.30
$0.10
$2.40
$0.60
$0.30
$0.10
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.80
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.90
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.90
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
-
$1.10
-
$1.20
$1.20
(continued)
H-199
-------
3.3.2.2.2 TANK STORAGE: Level 1 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AX COST FACTORS (concluded)
Waste Type
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
!
TSDF |
Model
Unit
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
A
Waste
Throughput
(Hg/yr)
113
1.118
3,324
16,660
111
1,118
3,324
16,260
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
$310
$760
$1,200
$2,100
$310
$760
$1,200
$2,100
C
Unit '
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$2.70
$0.70
$0.40
$0.10
$2.80
$0.70
$0.40
$0.10
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
i 0.377
i
i
! 0.323
!
j 0.178
i
! 0.122
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$1.00
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
$1.10
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$1.30
$1.40
H-200
-------
3.3.2.2.3 TANK STORAGE: Level 2 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for open-top storage tanks using Level 2 control. Level 2 control Is achieved by
enclosing the tank with a fixed roof plus either: 1) using an Internal floating roof, 2) venting
the tank to an existing combustion device, or 3) venting the tank to a carbon adsorption systen.
The type of control used in combination with the fixed roof at a particular TSOF site is left
to the discretion of the TSDF owner. For the purpose of developing nationwide cost factors, It is
assumed that 50% of the tanks are controlled using an Internal floating roof, 255! using a vent
to an existing combustion device, and 25% using a carbon adsorption system.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSDF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit (a)
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
Model Unit T;
(cubic meters)
6
30
•
76
795
ink Capacity
(gallons)
1,500
8,000
20,000
210,000
HESTAT Survey
Cumulative
Ffoni ionA\/ /h\
frequency (p)
16.9%
58. 5% .
81. 4%
94.1%
Nationwide
Distribution
C<9/t4*n»- /f\\
Factor (c)
0.337 (d)
0.323 (e)
0.178 (f)
0.122 (g)
(a) Model units S02G and S02H have the same tank capacity. Model unit S02H selected for
nationwide cost factors computations.
(b) Cumulative percentage of storage tanks In HESTAT survey data having capacities less
than the TSDF model unit tank capacity. Survey data do not distinguish between
covered and open-top tanks. Same size distribution assumed for both tank types.
16.9% of the tanks are sraaller than S02F
41.6% of the tanks are between S02F and S02H
22.9% of the tanks are between S02H and S02I
12.7% of the tanks are between S02I and S02J
5.9% of the tanks are larger than S02J
100%
(c) Assume all tanks smaller than S02F are represented by S02F.
For tanks between S02F and S02H assume 50% represented by S02F and 50% represented by S02H.
For tanks between S02H and S02I assume 50% represented by S02H and 50% represented by S02I.
For tanks between S02I and S02J assume 50% represented by S02I and 50% represented by S02J.
Assume a 11 tanks larger than S02J are represented by S02J.
(d) 0.169 + (0.416 X 0.5) - 0.3770
(e) (0.416 x 0.5) + (0.229 x 0.5) - 0.3225
(f) (0.229 X 0.5) + (0.217 X 0.5) = 0.1780
(g) (0.217 X 0.5) + 0.059 - 0.1225
H-201
-------
3.3.2.2.3 TANK STORAGE: Level 2 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
S02F
S02H
S02I*
S02J
- S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
140
1,377
4,095
20,520
134
1,318
3,919
19,640
131
i
! 1,295
i
i
! 3,851
i
i
! 19,300
B
Total
Capital
Investaent
(a)
$6,218
$13,643
$20,308
$33,958
$6,218
$13,643
$38,163
$33,695
$6,218
$13,643
$20,308
$33,958
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$44.40
$9.90
$5.00
$1.70
$46.40
$10.40
$9.70
$1.70
$47.50
$10.50
$5.30
' $1 .80
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[CxD]
$16.70
$3.20
$0.90
$0.20
— — — — ~
TOTAL
$17.50
$3.40
$1.70
$0.20
TOTAL
$17.90
$3.40
$0.90
$0.20
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$21.00
$22.80
$22.40
(continued)
(a) Average TCI control cost per tank computed by adding TCI for fixed roof plus 505! of TCI for
Internal floating roof plus 25% of TCI for vent to existing combustion device plus 25% of TCI for a
1 carbon adsorption system. Control cost estlnates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
systea with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average TCI control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-202
-------
3.3.2.2.3 TANK STORAGE: Level 2 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS (concluded)
Waste Type
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSDF
Model
Unit
S02F
S02H
S02I*
S02J*
S02F
i
i
S02H
S02I
j
S02J* j
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
.
113
1.118
3,324
16,660
111
1,118
3,324
16,260
: B
! Total
Capital
Investment
(a)
$6,218
$13,643
$38,163
$51,770
$6,218
$13,643
$20,308
$51,770
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$55.00
$12.20
$11.50
$3.10
$56.00
$12.20
$6.10
$3.20
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377 |
i
0.323
0.178
0.122
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$20.70
$3.90
$2.00
$0.40
TOTAL
$21.10
$3.90
$1.10
$0.40
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$27.00
$26.50
(a) Average TCI control cost per tank computed by adding TCI for fixed roof plus 50% of TCI for
Internal floating roof plus 25% of TCI for vent to existing combustion device plus 25% of TCI for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
system with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average TCI control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-203
-------
3.3.2.2.3 TANK STORAGE: Level 2 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS
!
Haste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
«__.
S02F
S02H
S02I«
S02J
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
140
1,377
4,095
20,520
! 134
1,318
i
i
! 3,919
i
19,640
131
1,295
3,851
19,300
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
(a)
$1,200
$2,280
$4,108
$11,328
$1,525
$6,025
$12,925
$3,473
! $1,568
i
i
! $5,205
i
i
! $11,763
i
i
i $56,118
P
if
unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A ]
$8.60
$1.70
$1.00
$0.60
$11.40
$4.60
$3.30
$0.20
$12.00
$4.00
$3.10
.
$2.90
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
C CxD ]
$3.20
$0.50
$0.20
$0.10
TOTAL
$4.30
$1.50
$0.60
$0.00
TOTAL
$4.50
$1.30
$0.60
$0.40
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$4.00
$6.40
$6.80
(continued)
(a) Average AOC control cost per tank computed by adding AOC for fixed roof plus 50% of AOC for
Internal floating roof plus 25% of AOC for vent to existing combustion device plus 255! of AOC for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each aodel unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
system with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average AOC control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-204
-------
3.3.2.2.3 TANK STORAGE: Level 2 Control Strategy for Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS (concluded)
Waste Type
'
'
'
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSDF
Model
Unit
S02F
S02H
S02I*
S02J*
S02F
S02H
S02I
S02J*
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
113
1,118
'
3,324
16,660
111
1,118
3,324
16,260
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
(a)
.
$2,013
$9,933
$11,713
$13,145
$1,355
$3,580
$7,200
$12,765
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ B/A ]
$17.80
$8.90
$3.50
$0.80
$12.20
$3.20
$2.20 ,
i
i
$0.80 i
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
0.377
0.323
0.178
0.122
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[CxD]
$6.70
$2.90
$0.60
$0.10
TOTAL
$4.60
$1.00
$0.40
$0.10
TniAi
F
Nation
AOCC
Fact
($/w
$1
*
$6.10
(a) Average AOC control cost per tank confuted by adding AOC for fixed roof plus 50% of AOC for
Internal floating roof plus 25X of AX for vent to existing combustion device plus 25X of AOC for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type contoination. The carbon adsorption
system with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average AX control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-205
-------
3.3.2.3.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Floating Membrane
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for Installing and using floating nembranes on surface storage Impoundments.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSDF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSOF
u-u-tol Ihlt fz}
S04A & S04B
S04C &S04D
S04E & S04F
Model Unit Impoundment
(sq. ieters)! (sq. feet)
300 i 3,200
i
i
1,500 i 16,100
i
i
9,000 ! 98,900
IIESTAT Survey
F rflfH iflnc* v f h ^
17.7%
58.8%
89.4%
Nationwide Distribution Factor
Per Surface Area j Per Model Unit
Category (c) i Type (g)
0.382 (d) ! 0.191
i
i
0.359 (6) j 0.1795
i
i
0.259 (f) i 0.1295
(a) Model units S04A and S04B have the sane lupoundment surface areas but different retention times.
Model units S04C and S04D have the sane lapouncteent surface areas but different retention times.
Model units S04E and S04F have the same impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
(b) Cumulative percentage of storage Impoundments In WESTAT survey data having surface areas less
than the TSDF node I unit Impoundment surface area.
17.7% of the Impoundments are smaller than S04A/S04B.
41.1% of the Impoundments are between S04A/S04B and S04C/S04D
30.6% of the Impoundments are between S04C/S04D and S04E/S04F
10.6% of the Impoundments are larger than S04E/S04F.
100%
(c) Assume all Impoundments smaller than SOWS04B are represented by S04A/S04B.
For Impoundments between S04A/S04B and S04C/S04D assume 50% represented by S04A/S04B and
50% represented by S04C/S040.
For Impoundments between S04C/S040 and S04E/S04F assume 50% represented by S04C/S040 and
50% represented by S04E/S04F.
ASSUBQ all Impoundments larger than S04E/S04F are represented by S04E/S04F.
(d) 0.177 f (0.411 X 0.5) - 0.3825
(6) (0.411 X 0.5) + (0.306 X 0.5) - 0.3585
(f) (0.306 X 0.5) + 0.106 » 0.2590
(g) No nationwide statistical data were available on retention times. Each dlstlbution factor
computed for a surface area category was divided equally among the two model units within
the surface area category.
H-206
-------
3.3.2.3.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Floating Membrane (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Waste Type
All
Waste Types
Applicable to
Surface
Impoundment
Storage
TSDF
Model
Unit
S04A
S04B
S04C
S040
"
S04E
S04F
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
38,595
'
9,765
49,140
24,570
'
121,275
67,410
B
Total
Capital
Investment
$5,200
$5,200
$6,890
$6,890
$16,610
$16,610
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ B/A ]
$0.10
$0.50
$0.10
$0.30
•
$0.10
$0.20
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[CxD]
$0.00
$0.10
$0.00
$0.10
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Natlonwl
TCI Cos
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.:
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS
.e Type
•
All
e Types
cable to
irface
undment
orage
i
TSDF
Model
Unit
S04A
S04B
S04C
S04D
S04E
S04F
'
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
98,595
9,765
49,140
24,570
121,275
67,410
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
$14,760
$14,760
$57,010
$57,010
$300,070
$300,070
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A ]
$0.10
$1.50
$1.20
$2.30
$2.50
$4.50
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
_
0.1295
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.00
$0.30
$0.20
$0.40
$0.30
$0.60
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$1.80
H-207
-------
3.3.2.3.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and ADC cost
factors for Installing and using a fixed-bed carbon adsorber systei on surface storage Impoundments.
The control systeu requires complete enclosure of the Impoundment surface using an air-supported
structure.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSOF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit (a)
S04A & S04B
S04C & S040
Model Unit Impoundment
Surface Area
(sq. neters)
300
1,500
S04E & S04F | 9.000
(sq. feet)
3,200
16,100
36,900
WESTAT Survey
Cumulative
Frequency (b)
17.7%
58.8X
89.4*
Nationwide Distribution Factor
Per Surface Area ', Per Model Unit
Category (c) ', Type (g)
0.382 (d) ! 0.191
i
0.359 (e) i 0.1795
i i
i i
0.259 (f) i 0.1295 !
(a) Model units S04A and S048 have the same Inpoundnent surface areas but different retention times.
Model units S04C and S04D have the sane impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
Model units S04E and S04F have the sane Impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
(b) Cumulative percentage of storage Impoundments In WESTAT survey data having surface areas less
than the TSDF model unit Impoundment surface area.
17.7% of the Impoundments are smaller than S04A/S04B.
41.IS of the Impoundments are between S04A/S04B and S04C/S04D
30.6% of the Impoundments are between S04C/S04D and S04E/S04F
10.6% of the Impoundments are larger than S04E/S04F.
100%
(c) Assume all Impoundments smaller than S04A/S04B are represented by S04A/S04B.
For Impoundments between S04A/S04B and S04C/S04D assume 50% represented by S04A/S04B and
50% represented by S04C/S040.
For Impoundments between S04C/S040 and S04E/S04F assume 50% represented by S04C/S04D and
50% represented by S04E/S04F.
Assuro all Impoundments larger than S04E/S04F are represented by S04E/S04F.
(d) 0.177 + (0.411 X 0.5) - 0.3825
(8) (0.411 X 0.5) + (0.306 X 0.5) - 0.3585
(f) (0.306 X 0.5) + 0.106 - 0.2590
(g) No nationwide statistical data were available on retention times. Each dlstlbutlon factor
computed for a surface area category was divided equally among the two model units within
the surface area category.
H-208
-------
3.3.2.3.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
!
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Dilute
Aqueous
or
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
S04A
S04B
S04C
S04D
S04E
S04F
S04A
S04B
S04C
S040
S04E
S04F
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
98,5%
9,765
49,140
24,570
121,275
67,410.
98,595
9,765
49,140
24,570
121,275
67,410
B
Total
Capital
Investment
(a)
$181,480
$179,800
$311,440
$309,790
$1,164,480
$1,170,200
$176,680
$179,470
$249,070
$309,630
$804,480
$806,030
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$1.80
$18.40
$6.30
$12.60
$9.60
$17.40
$1.80
$18.40
$5.10
$12.60
$6.60
$12.00
: D
i Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
0.191
0.191
"
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.30
$3.50
$1.10
$2.30
$1.20
$2.30
TOTAL
$0.30
$3.50
$0.90
$2.30
$0.90
$1.60
TOTAL
i F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
ncssxxxssssss:
$10.70
$9.50
(a) TCI control cost computed by adding TCI for air-supported structure plus TCI for fixed-bed carbon
adsorber.
H-209
-------
3.3.2.3.2 SURFACE IKPOUTOMENT STORAGE: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE ADC COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Dilute
Aqueous
or
2-Phasa
Aqueous/Organic
!
i
!
TSDF
Model
Unit
S04A .
S04B
S0«
S04D
S04E
S04F
S04A
S04B
S04C
S04D
S04E
S04F
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
98,595
9,765
49,140
24,570
121,275
67,410
98,595
9,765
49,140
24,570
121,275
67,410
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
(a)
$54,990
$49,520
$93,230
$81,270
$362,650
$326,300
$49,490
$45,600
$64,750
$68,480
$186,060
$179,210
C
unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$0.60
$5.10
$1.90
$3.30
$3.00
$4.80
$0.50
$4.70
$1.30
$2.80
$1.50
$2.70
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[CxD]
$0.10
$1.00
'
$0.30
$0.60
$0.40
$0.60
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.90
$0.20
$0.50
$0.20
$0.30
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$3.00
$2.20
(a) AOC control cost computed by adding AOC for air-supported structure plus AOC for fixed-bed carbon
adsorber.
H-210
-------
3.3.2.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent Covered Tanks
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for quiescent covered treatment tanks using Level 2 control. Level 2 control Is achieved
by enclosing the tank with a fixed roof plus either: 1) using an Internal floating roof, 2) venting
the tank to an existing combustion device, or 3) venting the tank to a carbon adsorption system.
The type of control used In combination with the fixed roof at a particular TSDF site is left
to the discretion of the TSDF owner. For the purpose of developing nationwide cost factors, It is
assumed that SOX of the tanks are controlled using an Internal floating roof, 252 using a vent
to an existing combustion device, and 25X using a carbon adsorption systera.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSDF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit
T01D
T01E
T01F
Model Unit Tank Capacity
(cubic neters) ! (gallons)
30 i 8,000
i
76 i 20,000
795 ! 210,000
WESTAT Survey
Cumulative
frequency (a)
25.92
30.62
69.42
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor (b)
0.282 (c)
0.218 (d)
0.500 (e)
(a) Cumulative percentage of OMiescent treatment tanks in WESTAT survey data having capacities
less than the TSDF model unit tank capacity. Survey data do not distinguish between
covered and open-top tanks. Same size distribution assumed for both tank types.
25.92 of the tanks are smaller than T01D
4.72 of the tanks are between T01D and T01E
38.82 of the tanks are between T01E and T01F
30.62 of the tanks are larger than T01F
1002
(b) Assume all tanks smaller than T01D are represented by T01D.
For tanks between T01D and T01E assume 502 represented by T01D and 502 represented by T01E.
. For tanks between T01E and T01F assume 502 represented by T01E and 502 represented by T01F.
Assuae alI tanks larger than T01F are represented by T01F.
(c) 0.259 + (0.047 X 0.5) « 0.2825
(d) (0.047 X 0.5) + (0.388 X 0.5) - 0.2175
(e) (0.388 X 0.5) + 0.306 - 0.500
H-211
-------
3.3.2.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent Covered Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01D
T01E
T01F*
T01D
T01E«
T01F*
T01D
T01E«
T01F*
!
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070
27,700
290,600
B
Total
Capital
Investment
(a)
$4,863
$6,353
$28,775
i $4,863
i
i
$24,420
i
! $28,775
! $4,863
i
i
i $24,420
!
! $28,775
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Hg)
CB/A ]
$0.40
$0.20
$0.10
$0.40
$0.90
$0.10
$0.40
$0.90
$0.10
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0,500
i 0.282
1
1
j 0.218
!
! 0.500
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[CxD]
$0.10
$0.00
: $0.10
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.20
$0.10
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.20
$0.10
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.20
$0.40
$0.40
(cont Inusd)
(a) Average TCI control cost per tank computed by adding TCI for fixed roof plus 50% of TCI for
Internal floating roof plus 25X of TCI for vent to existing combustion device plus 25X of TCI for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
system with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average TCI control cost per tank
coaputatlon. The isodel units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-212
-------
3.3.2.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent Covered Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS (concluded)
!
Waste Type
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSOF
Model
Unit
T01D*
T01E*
T01F*
T01D
T01E*
T01F*
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070
27,700
290,600
B
Total
Capital
Investment
(a)
$22,608
$24,420
$28,775
$4,863 '
$24,420
$28,775
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
CB/A]
$2.00
$0.90
$0.10
$0.40
$0.90
$0.10
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
;
0.218 |
i
i
0.500 j
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.60
$0.20
$0.10
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.20
$0.10
TOTAL
! F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.90
$0.40
(a) Average TCI control cost per tank computed by adding TCI for fixed roof plus 50X of TCI for
internal floating roof plus 25X of TCI for vent to existing combustion device plus 25% of TCI for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
system with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average TCI control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-213
-------
3.3.2.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent Covered Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE ADC COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01D
T01E
T01F«
T01D
T01E*
T01F*
T01D
T01E*
T01F*
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
11,070
27,700
290,600
! 11,070
i
27,700
! 290.600
11,070
27,700
290,600
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
(a)
$2,155
$4,240
$11,993
i $6,715
! $10,750
i
! $11,993
$8,830
$10,750
$11,993
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
CB/A ]
$0.20
$0.20
$0.00
$0.60
$0.40
$0.00
$0.80
$0.40
$0.00
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
! 0.282
i
! 0.218
1
: 0.500
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.10
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL
| $0.20
[
! $0.10
i
! $0.00
TOTAL
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.10
$0.30
$0.30
(continued)
(a) Average AOC control cost per tank computed by adding AOC for fixed roof plus 50% of AOC for
Internal floating roof plus 25% of AOC for vent to existing combustion device plus 25% of AX for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fIxed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
systea with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average AX control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-214
-------
3.3.2.4.1 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent Covered Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS (concluded)
Waste Type
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01D«
T01E*
T01F*
T01D
T01E*
T01F*
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070 i
27,700 i
i
i
290,600 i
: B
Annual
Operating
Cost
(a)
$10,385
$10,750
$11,993
$5,905
$10,750
$11,993 j
C
Unit
AX Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A ]
$0.90
$0.40
$0.00
$0.50
$0.40
$0.00
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282 ,
0.218 |
i
i
0.500 i
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.30
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.40
$0.20
(a) Average AOC control cost per tank computed by adding AOC for fixed roof plus 50% of AOC for
Internal floating roof.plus 255! of AX for vent to existing combustion device plus 25% of AOC for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
system with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average AX control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-215
-------
3.3.2.4.2 TANK TREATMENT: Level 1 Control Strategy for Quiescent Open-Top Tanks
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for quiescent open-top treatment tanks using Level 1 control. Level 1 control Is achieved
by enclosing the open-top tank with a fixed roof.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSDF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit
T01A
T01B
T01C
Model Unit TJ
(cubic meters)
30
76
795
ink Capacity
(gallons)
8,000
20,000
210,000
HESTAT Survey
'Cumulative
Frenusncv fa^
25.9%
30.6%
69.4%
Nationwld
Dlstributl
Factor (b
0.28
0.21
0.50
(a) Cumulative percentage of quiescent treatment tanks In NESTAT survey data having capacities
less than the TSDF aodel inlt tank capacity. Survey data do not distinguish between
covered and open-top tanks. Same size distribution assumed for both tank types.
25.9% of the tanks are smaller than T01A
4.7% of the tanks are between T01A and T01B
38.8% of the tanks are between T01B and T01C
30.6% of the tanks are larger than T01C
100%
(b) Assume all tanks smaller than T01A are represented by T01A.
For tanks between T01A and T01B assume 50% represented by T01A and 50% represented by T01B.
For tanks between T01B and T01C assume 50% represented by T01B and 50% represented by T01C.
Assuse all tanks larger than T01C are represented by T01C.
(0) 0.259 + (0.047 X 0.5) = 0.2825
(d) (0.047 X 0.5) + (0.388 X 0.5) = 0.2175
(e) (0.388 X 0.5) + 0.306 - 0.500
H-216
-------
3.3.2.4.2 TANK TREATMENT: Level 1 Control Strategy for Quiescent Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
1
1
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01A
T01B
T01C
T01A
T01B
T01C
T01A |
i
T01B i
i
i
T01C
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
11,700
27,700
290,600
11,700 !
27,700
290,600
11,700
27,700
290,600
B
Total
Capital
Investment
$9,510
$14,840
$26,040
$9,510
$14,840
$26,040
$9,510
$14,840
$26,040
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A 1
$0.80
$0.50
$0.10
$0.80
$0.50
$0.10
$0.80
$0.50
$0.10
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.20
$0.10
$0.10
TOTAL
$0.20
$0.10
$0.10
TOTAL
$0.20
$0.10
$0.10
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
.
$0.40
$0.40
$0.40
(continued)
K-217
-------
3.3.2.4.2 TANK TREATMENT: Level 1 Control Strategy for Quiescent Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS (concluded)
Waste Type
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
!
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01A
T01B
T01C
T01A
T01B
T01C
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
11,700
27,700
290,600
11,700
27,700
290,600
B
Total
Capital
Investment
$9,510
$14,840
$26,040
$9,510
$14,840
$26,040
u
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ B/A ]
$0.80
$0.50
$0.10
$0.80
$0.50
$0.10
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.20
$0.10
$0.10
TOTAL
$0.20
$0.10
$0.10
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.40
$0.40
H-21H
-------
3.3.2.4.2 TANK TREATMENT: Level 1 Control Strategy for Quiescent Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AX COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01A
T01B
T01C
T01A
T01B
T01C
T01A
T01B
T01C
A
Waste
Throughput
'
(Mg/yr)
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070
27,700
290,600
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
$760
$1,200
$2,100
$760
$1,200
$2,100
$760
$1 ,200
$2,100
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
CB/A ]
$0.07
$0.04
$0.01
$0.07
$0.04
$0.01
$0.07
$0.04
$0.01
0
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
! E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.02
$0.01
$0.01
TOTAL
$0.02
$0.01
$0.01
TOTAL
$0.02
$0.01
$0.01
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.04
$0.04
$0.04
(continued)
;:H-219
-------
3.3.2.4.2 TANK TREATMENT: Level 1 Control Strategy for Quiescent Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS (concluded)
!
Waste Type
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01A
T01B
T01C
T01A
T01B
T01C
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070
27,700
290,600
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
$760
$1,200
$2,100
$760
$1,200
$2,100
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
CB/A ]
$0.07
$0.04
$0.01
$0.07
$0.04
, $0.01
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.02
$0.01
$0.01
TOTAL
$0.02
$0.01
$0.01
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.04
$0.04
H-220
-------
3.3.2.4.3 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent Open-Top Tanks
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for quiescent open-top treatment tanks using Level 2 control. Level 2 control is achieved
by enclosing the tank with a fixed roof plus either: 1) using an internal floating roof, 2) venting
the tank to an existing combustion device, or 3) venting the tank to a carbon adsorption systei.
The type of control used in combination with the fixed roof at a particular TSOF site is left
to the discretion of the TSDF owner. For the purpose of developing nationwide cost factors, It Is
assumed that 50% of the tanks are controlled using an internal floating roof, 25% using a vent
to an existing combustion device, and 25% using a-carbon adsorption system.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSDF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit
T01A
T01B
T01C
Model Unit T<
(cubic meters)
30
76
795
-
*nk Capacity
..
...
(gallons)
8,000
20,000
210,000
HESTAT Surve
Cumulative
25.9%
"
30.6%
69.4%
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor (b)
0.282 (c)
0.218 (d)
0.500 (e)
(a) Cumulative percentage of quiescent treatment tanks in WESTAT survey data having capacities
less than the TSDF model unit tank capacity. Survey data do not distinguish between
covered and open-top tanks. Same size distribution assumed for both tank types.
25.9% of the tanks are smailer than T01A
4.7% of the tanks are between T01A and T01B
38.8% of the tanks are between T01B and T01C
30.6% of the tanks are larger than T01C
100%
(b) Assume all tanks smaller than T01A are represented by T01A.
For tanks between T01A and T01B assume 50% represented by T01A and 50% represented by T01B.
For tanks between T01B and T01C assume 50% represented by T01B and 50% represented by T01C.
Assume all tanks larger than T01C are represented by T01C.
(c) 0.259 + (0.047 X 0.5) » 0.2825
(d) (0.047 X 0.5) + (0.388 X 0.5) = 0.2175
(e) (0.388 X 0.5) + 0.306 - 0.500
H-221
-------
3.3.2.4.3 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01A
T01B
T01C*
T01A
T01B*
T01C«
T01A
T01B*
T01C*
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070
27,700
290,600
B
Total
Capital
Investment
(a)
$13,643
$20,308
$36,420
$13,643
$38,375
$36,895
$13,643
$38,375
$36,420
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
C B/A ]
$1.20
$0.70
$0.10
$1.20
$1.40
$0.10
$1.20
$1.40
$0.10
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
TOTAL
$0.30
$0.30
$0.10
TOTAL
$0.30
$0.30
$0.10
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.60
$0.70
$0.70
(continued)
(a) Average TCI control cost per tank computed by adding TCI for fixed roof plus 50% of TCI for
Internal floating roof plus 25% of TCI for vent to existing combustion device plus 25% of TCI for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
system with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average TCI control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-222
-------
3.3.2.4.3 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS (concluded)
Haste Type
•
X
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01A*
T01B*
T01C*
T01A
T01B*
T01C*
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070
27,700
290,600
B
Total
Capital
Investment
(a)
$31,388
$38,375
$36,895
$13,643
$38,375
•
$36,895
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
CB/A ]
$2.80
$1.40
$0.10
$1.20
$1.40
$0.10
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[CxD ]
$0.80
$0.30
$0.10
TOTAL
$0.30
$0.30
-
$0.10
TOTAL
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$1.20
$0.70
(a) Average TCI control cost per tank computed by adding TCI for fixed roof plus 50% of TCI for
Internal floating roof plus 25% of TCI for vent to existing combustion device plus 25% of TCI for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
system with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average TCI control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-223
-------
3.3.2.4.3 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01A
T01B
T01C«
T01A
T01B*
T01C*
T01A
T01B*
T01C«
A B
Waste Annual
Throughput Operating
Cost
(Mg/yr) (a)
11,070 j $2,768
t
27,700 i $5,253
i
i
290,600 i $12,275
11,070 j $7,328
i
27, 700 ! $11,763
j
290.6X i $11,938
11,070 | $9,443
i
i
27,700 i $11,763
i
i
! 290.6X i $12,275
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
C B/A ]
$0.30
$0.20
$0.00
$0.70
$0.40
$0.00
$0.90
$0.40
$0.00
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
0.218
0.500
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.10
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.20
$0.10
$O.X
TOTAL
$0.30
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.10
$0.30
$0.40
(continued)
(a) Average AX control cost per tank computed by adding AOC for fixed roof plus 50% of AOC for
Internal floating roof plus 25% of AX for vent to existing combustion device plus 25% of AOC for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
system with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average AX control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-224
-------
3.3.2.4.3 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Quiescent Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS (concluded)
Waste Type
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01A«
T01B*
T01C*
T01A
T01B«
T01C*
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
11,070
27,700
290,600
11,070
27,700
290,600
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
(a)
$10,998
$11,763
$11,938
$6,518
$11,763 ,
1
$11,938 '
C
.Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ B/A ]
$1.00
$0.40
$0.00
$0.60
$0.40
$0.00
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.282
0.218
0.500
0.282
,
0.218
0.500
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.30
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.40
$0.30
(a) Average AOC control cost per tank computed by adding AOC for fixed roof plus 50% of AOC for
Internal floating roof plus 253! of AOC for vent to existing combustion device plus 25% of AOC for a
carbon adsorption system. Control cost estimates for both a carbon canister and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber system were prepared for each model unit and waste type combination. The carbon adsorption
system with the lowest total annual cost was used for the average AX control cost per tank
computation. The model units using the fixed-bed carbon adsorber cost are marked with an asterisk (*).
H-225
-------
3.3.2.4.4 TANK TREATMENT: Level 1 Control Strategy for Aerated Open-Top Tanks
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for aerated open-top treatment tanks using Level 1 control. Level 1 control Is achieved
by enclosing the open-top tank with a fixed roof.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSDF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSOF
Model Unit
T01G
T01H
•
Model Unit Tank Capacity
(cubic meters) | (gallons)
108 i 28,500
i
1,590 i 420,000
WESTAT Survey
Cumulative
Frpfii ifinpv fa ^
'
67.1%
89.4%
i
i Nationwide
! Distribution
i Factor (b}
I
\ 0.782 (c)
i
! 0.218 (d)
(a) Cuniulatlve percentage of aerated treatment tanks in NESTAT survey data having capacities
less than the TSDF aodel unit tank capacity.
67.IX of the tanks are saaller than T01G
22.3% of the tanks are between T016 and T01H
10.6% of the tanks are larger than T01H
100%
(b) Assume all tanks smaller than T01G are represented by T01G.
For tanks between T01G and T01H assume 50% represented by T01G and 50% represented by T01H.
Assune all tanks larger than T01H are represented by T01H.
(0) 0.671 + (0.223 x 0.5) - 0.7825
(d) (0.223 X 0.5) + 0.106 - 0.2175
H-226
-------
3.3.2.4.4 TANK TREATMENT: Level 1 Control Strategy for Aerated Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Haste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
.
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01G
T01H
T01G
T01H
T01G
T01H
T01G !
T01H !
T01G
T01H
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
234,250
2,759,400
234,250
2,759,400
234,250
2,759,400
234,250 |
i
i
2,759,400 i
234,250 !
i
2,759,400 i
B
Total
Capital
Investment
$14,840
$139,380
$14,840
$139,380
$14,840
$139,380
$14,840 j
i
$139,380 !
$14,840
$139,380
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.782
0.218
0.782
0.218
0.782
0.218
0.782
i
i
0.218 !
0.782 !
!
0.218 |
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[CxD ]
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
,
$0.10
$0.10
H-227
-------
3.3.2.4.4 TANK TREATMENT: Level 1 Control Strategy for Aerated Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS
Haste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Dilute
Aqueous
Organic
Liquid
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01G
T01H
T01G
T01H
T01G
T01H
T01G
T01H
T01G
T01H
! A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
234,250
2,759,400
234,250
2,759,400
234,250
2,759,400
i 234,250
! 2,759,400
i 234,250
i
i 2,759,400
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
$1,200
$11,150
$1 ,200
$11,150
$1,200 i
i
i
$11,150 !
$1,200 |
i
$11,150 |
i $1,200
i
i
i $11,150
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$0.01
$0.00
$0.01
$0.00
$0.01
$0.00
$0.01
$0.00
$0.01
$0.00
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.782
0.218 i
0.782
0.218
0.782
0.218
0.782
0.218
0.782
0.218
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD 3
$0.01
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.01
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.01
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.01
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.01
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
H-228
-------
3.3.2.4.5 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Aerated Open-Top Tanks
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for aerated open-top treatment tanks using Level 2 control. Level 2 control is achieved
by enclosing the open-top tank with a fixed roof plus venting the tank to a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSDF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit
T01G
T01H
Model Unit Tank Capacity
(cubic meters) ! (gallons)
108 ! 28,500
i
1,590 ! 420,000
NESTAT Survey
Cumulative
Frequency {a)
67. 13!
89.4%
Nationwide
Distribution
r actor (D)
0.782 (c)
•
0.218 (d)
(a) Cumulative percentage of aerated treatment tanks in WESTAT survey data having capacities
less than the TSDF model unit tank capacity.
67.1% of the tanks are smaller than T01G
22.3% of the tanks are between T01G and T01H
10.6% of the tanks are larger than T01H
100%
(b) Assuae all tanks smaller than T01G are represented by T01G.
For tanks between T01G and T01H assume 50% represented by T01G and 50% represented by T01H.
Assume all tanks larger than T01H are represented by T01H.
(c) 0.671 + (0.223 X 0.5) = 0.7825
(d) (0.223 X 0.5) •*• 0.106 - 0.2175
H-229
-------
3.3.2.4.5 TANK TREATMENT: Level 2 Control Strategy for Aerated Open-Top Tanks (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Dilute
Aqueous
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01G
T01H
T016
T01H
A
Waste
Throughput .
(Mg/yr)
234,250
2,759,400
234,250
2,759,400
B
Total
Capital
Investment
$108,890
$592,540
$109,990
$592,540
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A ]
$0.50
$0.20
$0.50
$0.20
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.782
0.218
0.782
0.218
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.40
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.40
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Natlonwi
TCI Cos1
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.
$0.
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Dilute
Aqueous
TSDF
Model
Unit
T01G
T01H
T01G
T01H
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
234,250
2,759,400
234,250
2,759,400
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
$44,920
$508,990
$76,940
$508,990
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
C B/A ]
$0.19
$0.18
$0,30
'
$0.20
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.782
0.218
0.782
0.218
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
-($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.15
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.20
$0.00
TOTAL
Nat
AOl
F
(
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.15
$0.20
H-230
-------
3.3.2.5.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Floating Membrane on Quiescent Impoundment
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for Installing and using floating membranes on quiescent surface treatment impoundments.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSDF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit (a)
T02A & T02B
T02C & T02D
T02E & T02F
Model Unit Impoundment
Surface Area
(sq. meters)
300
1,500
9,000
(sq. feet)
3,200
16,100
98,900
HESTAT Survey
Cumulative
Frequency (b)
14.7%
47.6%
85.9%
Nationwide Distribution Factor
Per Surface Area
Category (c)
0.311 (d)
0.356 (e)
0.333 (f)
Per Model Unit
Type (g)
0.191
0.1795
0.1295
(a) Model units T02A and T02B have the same Impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
Model units T02C and T02D have the same impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
Model units T02E and T02F have the same impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
(b) Cumulative percentage of treatment Impoundments in WESTAT survey data having surface areas less
than the TSDF model unit impoundment surface area. Survey data do not distinguish between
quiescent and aerated treatment impoundments. Same size distribution assumed for both treatment
types of treatment Impoundments.
14.7% of the impoundments are smaller than T02A/T02B.
32.9% of the Impoundments are between T02A/T02B and T02C/T02D
38.3% of the Impoundments are between T02C/T02D and T02E/T02F
14.1% of the impoundments are larger than T02E/T02F.
100%
(c) Assune alI impoundments smaller than T02A/T02B are represented by T02A/T02B.
For impoundments between T02A/T02B and T02C/T02D assume 50% represented by T02A/T02B and
50% represented by T02C/T02D.
For impoundments between T02C/T02D and T02E/T02F assume 50% represented by T02C/T02D and
50% represented by T02E/T02F.
Assume all Impoundments larger than T02E/T02F are represented by T02E/T02F.
(d) 0.147 + (0.329 X 0.5) « 0.3115
(e) (0.329 X 0.5) + (0.383 x 0.5) = 0.3560
(f) (0.383 X 0.5) + 0.141 = 0.3325
(g) No nationwide statistical data were available on retention times. Each distribution factor
computed for a surface area category was divided equally among the two model units within
the surface area category.
H-231
-------
3.3.2.5.1 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Floating Membrane on Quiescent Impoundment (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Waste Type
All
Waste Types
Applicable to
Surface
Icpoincbent
Storage
!
TSDF
Model
Unit
T02A
T02B
T02C
T02D
T02E
T02F
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
198,450
19,845
985,950
98,595
607,950
302,400
B
Total
Capital
Investment
$14,760
$14,760
$57,010
$57,010
$300,070
$300,070
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ B/A ]
$0.10
$0.70
$0.10
$0.60
$0.50
$1.00
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
-[Table 1]
0.1555
0.1555
0.128
0.128
0.1665
0.1665
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.00
$0.10
$0.00
,$0.10
$0.10
$0.20
TOTAL
F |
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.50
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS
Waste Type
All
Waste Types
Applicable to
Surface
Impoundment
Storage
TSDF
Model
Unit
T02A
T02B
T02C
- at. <-it n .
T02D
T02E
T02F
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
'
198,450
19,845
985,950
=
98,595
607,950
302,400
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
$5,200
. $5,200
$6,890
$6,890
$16,610
$16,610
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ B/A ]
$0.03
$0.26
$0.01
$0.07
$0.03
$0.05
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.1555
0.1555
0.128
0.128
0.1665
0.1665
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.00
$0.04
$0.00
$0.01
$0.00
$0.01
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$0.06
H-232
-------
3.3.2.5.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Quiescent Impoindment
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for installing and using a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system on quiescent surface treatment
impoundments. The control system requires complete enclosure of the impoundment surface using an
air-supported structure.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSOF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit (a)
T02A & T02B
T02C & T02D
T02E & T02F
Model Unit Impoundment
Surface Area
, ,
(sq. Bieters)j (sq. feet)
300 ! 3,200
i
i
1,500 i 16,100
9,000 | 96,900
,
WESTAT Survey
Cumulative
Frequency (b)
14.7%
47.6%
85.9%
ima _*» uu _ „ «=,==
Nationwide Distribution Factor
Per Surface Area
Category (c)
0.311 (d)
0.356 (e)
0.333 (f)
Per Model Unit
Type (g)
0.191
0.1795
0.1295
(a) Model units T02A and T02B have the same Impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
Model units T02C and T02D have the same Impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
Model units T02E and T02F have the same impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
(b) Cumulative percentage of treatment Impoundments in WESTAT survey data having surface areas less
than the TSDF model unit Impoundment surface area. Survey data do not distinguish between
quiescent and aerated treatment impoundments. Same size distribution assumed for both treatment
types of treatment Impoundments.
14.7% of the impoundments are smaller than T02A/T02B.
32.9% of the impoundments are between T02A/T02B and T02C/T02D
38.3% of the Impoundments are between T02C/T02D and T02E/T02F
14.1% of the impoundments are larger than T02E/T02F.
100%
(c) Assume* all impoundments smaller than T02A/T02B are represented by T02A/T02B.
For impoundments between T02A/T02B and T02C/T02D assume 50% represented by T02A/T02B and
50% represented by T02C/T02D.
For Impoundments between T02C/T02D and T02E/T02F assume 50% represented by T02C/T02D and
50% represented by T02E/T02F.
Assume all impoundments larger than T02E/T02F are represented by T02E/T02F.
(d) 0.147 + (0.329 x 0.5) - 0.3115
(e) (0.329 x 0.5) + (0.383 x 0.5) = 0.3560
(f) (0.383 X 0.5) + 0.141 = 0.3325
(g) No nationwide statistical data were available on retention times. Each distribution factor
computed for a surface area category was divided equally among the two model units within
H-233
-------
3.3.2.5.2 SURFACE IkPOUNDKENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Quiescent Impoundment (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Dilute
Aqueous
or
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
unit
T02A
T02B
T02C
T02D
T02E
T02F
T02A
T02B
T02C
T02D
T02E
T02F
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
198,450
19,845
985,950
98,595
607,950
302,400
198,450
19,845
985,950
98,595
• 607,950
302,400
B
Total
Capital
Investment
(a)
$181,190
$176,930
$280,570
$262,800
$636,600
$577,880
$179,800
$171 ,750
$277,450
$237,450
$500,030
$461 ,540
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A ]
$0.90
$8.90
$0.30
$2.70
$1.00
$1.90
$0.90
$8.70
$0.30
$2.40
$0.80
$1.50
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.20
$1.70
$0.10
$0.50
$0.10
$0.20
TOTAL
$0.20
$1.70
$0.10
$0.40
$0.10
$0.20
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$2.80
$2.70
(a) TCI control cost computed by adding TCI for air-supported structure plus TCI for fixed-bed carbon
adsorber.
H-234
-------
3.3.2.5.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Quiescent Impoundment (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Dilute
Aqueous
or
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
T02A
T02B
T02C
T02D
T02E
T02F
T02A
T02B
T02C
T02D
T02E
T02F
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
198,450
19,845
985,950
"
98,595
607,950
302,400
198,450
19,845
985,950
98,595
607,950
302,400
B
Annual
Operat Ing
Cost
(a)
$56,160
$51,040
$150,530
$88,410
$309,420
-
$239,660
$54,970
$44,900
'
$108,270
$59,900
$150,920
$98,900
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A ]
$0.30
$2.60
$0.20
$0.90
$0.50
$0.80
$0.30
$2.30
$0.10
$0.60
$0.20
$0.30
: D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
0.191
-
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.10
$0.50
$0.00
$0.20
$0.10
$0.10
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.40
$0.00
$0.10
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL
"^TfTPBt^P^lElBBasE
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$1.00
$0.60
(a) AOC control cost computed by adding AOC for air-supported structure plus AOC for flxed^bed carbon
adsorber.
H-235
-------
3.3.2.5.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Impoundment
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for Installing and using a fixed-bed carbon adsorber system on aerated surface treatment
iBpoundraents. The control system requires complete enclosure of the Impoundment surface using an
air-supported structure.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSOF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit (a)
T02G & T02H
T02I & T02J
T02K & T02L
Model Unit Impoundment
Surface Area
. ,
(sq. meters)! (sq. feet)
300 j 3,200
1,500 | 16,100
9,000 | 96,900
HESTAT Survey
Cumulative
Frequency (b)
14.7%
47.6%
85.9%
Nationwide Distribution Factor
Per Surface Area
Category (c)
0.311 (d)
0.356 (e)
0.333 (f)
Per Model Unit
Type (g)
0.191
0.1795
0.1295
(a) Model units T02G and T02H have the sane Impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
Model units T02I and T02J have the same Impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
Model units T02K and T02L have the same Impoundment surface areas but different retention times.
(b) Cumulative percentage of treatment Impoundments In WESTAT survey data having surface areas less
than the TSDF Bedel unit Impoundment surface area. Survey data do not distinguish between
quiescent and aerated treatment Impoundments. Same size distribution assumed for both treatment
types of treatment Impoundments.
14.7% of the Impoundments are smaller than T02G/T02H.
32.9% of the impoundments are between T02G/T02H and T02I/T02J
38.3X of the impoundments are between T02I/T02J and T02K/T02L
14.1% of the impoundments are larger than T02K/T02L.
1003!
(c) Assume all Impoundments smaller than T02G/T02H are represented by T02G/T02H.
For Impoundments between T02G/T02H and T02I/T02J assume 50% represented by T02G/T02H and
503! represented by T02I/T02J.
For Impoundments between T02I/T02J and T02K/T02L assume 50% represented by T02I/T02J and
50% represented by T02K/T02L.
Assume all Impoundments larger than T02K/T02L are represented by T02K/T02L.
(d) 0.147 + (0.329 X 0.5) - 0.3115
(e) (0.329 X 0.5) + (0.383 X 0.5) =
(f) (0.383 X 0.5) + 0.141 « 0.3325
0.3560
(g) No nationwide statistical data were available on retention times. Each distribution factor
computed for a surface area category was divided equally among the two model units within
the surface area category.
H-236
-------
3.3.2.5.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Impoundment (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
Haste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Dilute
Aqueous
or
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
TSDF
Model
Unit
T02G
T02H
T02I
T02J
T02K
T02L
T02G '
T02H
T02I
T02J
T02K
T02L
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
198,450
19,845
985,950
98,595
607,950
302,400
198,450
19,845
985,950
98,595
607,950
302,400
: B
Total
Capital
Investment
(a)
$196,170
$181,270
$481,290
$304,840
$777,050
$675,340
$199,210
$178,540
$375,640
$297,800
$512,170
$459,550
! C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A ]
$1.00
$9.10
$0.50
$3.10
$1.30
$2.20
$1.00
$9.00
$0.40
$3.00
$0.80
$1.50
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
0.191
0.191
'
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
C CxD ]
$0.20
$1.70
$0.10
$0.60
$0.20
$0.30
_
TOTAL
$0.20
$1.70
$0.10
$0.50
$0.10
$0.20
TOTAL
Nat
TC
F
(
TCI,Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$3.10
$2.80
(a) TCI control cost computed by adding TCI for air-supported structure plus TCI for fixed-bed carbon
adsorber.
H-237
-------
3.3.2.5.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber for Aerated Impoundment (continued)
Table 3. NATIONWIDE ADC COST FACTORS
Waste Type
Aqueous
Sludge/Slurry
Dilute
Aqueous
or
2-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
!
TSDF
Model
Unit
T02G
T02H
T02I
T02J
T02K
T02L
T02G
T02H
T02I
T02J
T02K
T02L
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
198,450
19,845
985,950
98,595
607,950
302,400
198,450
19,845
985,950
98,595
607,950
302,400
B
Annual
Operating
Cost
(a)
$73,930
$56,210
$348,160
$134,340
$594,890
$355,470
$77,580
$47,270
$222,580
$80,730
$237,010
$98,610
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A ]
$0.40
$2.80
$0.40
•
$1.40
$1.00
$1.20
$0.40
$2.40
$0.20
$0.80
$0.40
$0.30
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
0.1295
0.191
0.191
0.1795
0.1795
0.1295
| 0.1295
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$0.10
$0.50
$0.10
$0.30
$0.10
$0.20
TOTAL
$0.10
$0.50
$0.00
$0.10
$0.10
$0.00
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$1.30
$0.80
(a) AOC control cost computed by adding AOC for air-supported structure plus AOC for fixed-bed carbon
adsorber.
H-238
-------
3.3.2.6.1 WASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber
The following series of three tables presents the calculation of nationwide TCI and AOC cost
factors for replacing existing open waste fixation mixing with enclosed mechanical mixing and
venting the mixer enclosure to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber. No nationwide statistical data were
available on open mixing area sizes. The assumption was made that all open mixing is conducted
at landfill sites, and the size of the mixing pit or tank is directly proportional to the size of
the landfill. Therefore, landfill size distribution data were used to represent the open mixing
area size distribution.
Table 1. NATIONWIDE TSOF MODEL UNIT DISTRIBUTION
TSDF
Model Unit (a)
.
FXA (D80D)
FXB (D80E)
FXC (D80F)
Model Unit
Landfill Surface Area
(sq. meters)! (sq. feet)
300 i 218,000
i
1,500 j 763,000
i
9,000 ! 1,090,000
HESTAT Survey
Cumulative
Frequency (b)
34. 25!
57.7%
.
64.03!
Nationwide Distribution Factor
Landfill
Source Category
0.460 (d)
0.149 (e)
0.391 (f)
Fixation Pit
Source Category
0.460
0.149
0.391
(a) Landfill model unit D80D corresponds to fixation pit model rnit FXA.
Landfill model unit D80E corresponds to fixation pit model unit FXB.
Landfill model unit D80F corresponds to fixation pit model unit FXC.
(b) Cumulative percentage of landfills In WESTAT survey data having surface areas less than
the TSDF model unit landfill area.
34.2% of the landf11 Is are smaller than D80D.
23.5% of the landfills are between D80D AND D80E.
6.3% of the landfills are between D80E AND D80F.
36.0% of the landfills are larger than D80F.
100%
(c) Assume all landfills smaller than D80D are represented by D80D.
For landfills between D80D and D80E assume 50% represented by D80D and 50% represented by D80E.
For landfills between D80E and D80F assume 50% represented by D80E and 50% represented by D80F.
Assuue all landfills larger than D80F are represented by D80F.
(d) 0.342 + (0.235 x 0.5) = 0.4595
(6) (0..235 X 0.5) + (0.063 X 0.5) = 0.1490
(f) (0.063 X 0.5) + 0.360 = 0.3915
H-239
-------
3.3.2.6 WASTE FIXATION: Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber (continued)
Table 2. NATIONWIDE TCI COST FACTORS
I
1
Waste Type
5X Organic
Content
Waste
TSDF
Model
Unit
FXA
FXB
FXC
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
16,650
116,500
166,500
B
Total
Capital
Investment
$371 ,360
$462,790
$506,170
C
Unit
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
$22.30
$4.00
$3.00
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.460
0.149
0.391
E
Weighted
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$10.30
$0.60
$1.20
TOTAL
Table 3. NATIONWIDE AOC COST FACTORS
Waste Type
— — — .
5% Organic
Content
Waste
TSDF
Model
Unit
FXA
FXB
FXC
A
Waste
Throughput
(Mg/yr)
16,650
116,500
166,500
B
Annual
Operat Ing
Cost
$115,450
$140,570
$151,040
C
Unit
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[B/A]
' $6.90
$1.20
$0.90
D
Nationwide
Distribution
Factor
[Table 1]
0.460
0.149
0.391
E
Weighted
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
[ CxD ]
$3.20
$0.20
$0.40
TOTAL
F
Nationwide
TCI Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
$12.10
F
Nationwide
AOC Cost
Factor
($/Mg)
ssss=3!ss=ss:==:=:
$3.80
H-240
-------
APPENDIX I
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
I.I SUMMARY OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY, COMPLIANCE
COSTS, AND EMISSIONS
This section presents the data on the key variables for hazardous
waste management facilities used in this report. All treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities (TSDF) are classified into one of these groups:
Affected facilities:
Facilities included in the economic
impact analysis
Storage-only facilities: Facilities storing hazardous wastes
using storage containers, including
drums
Government facilities:
Facilities owned by government
establishments.
Table 1-1 shows the quantity of hazardous wastes managed by these distinct
groups and their share of the national total. The affected facilities
account for 97 percent of waste quantities, and 84 percent of organic air
emissions estimated from the Source Assessment Model (SAM). Tables 1-2 and
1-3 present the compliance and capital costs of the control options by
group. Table 1-4 presents the estimated organic air emissions for each
control option by group. The number of facilities in the baseline and the
number of facilities affected by the proposed control options are presented
in Table 1-5.
1-3
-------
to
to
«_>
i
to
1-4
h-
to
^_
2
Sg
^e
^£
to
t>
nj
w
Fff
lit
V)
§
^J
<
i
L->
CA
«tf
to
2
|
Nl
Z^
f (
1
. i
UJ
ai
i—
<*- en
o « o e
43 E U
43 n o — (
w a oj >
o S o u
U CO
a u)
E
^—
9 "•
— u n
— — c
o c o
i- a —
4» OJ W
cum
o o —
c i
*^
o
CO
TH
CD
n
co
in
3
0
u
n
N
TH
w
u
^_
CO
m
TH
(0
43
0
H
n
o
i
o
0
43
U
C
o
Q.
O
1.
OJ
.%
._
<—
u
n
II
^
co*
co
s
CM
to
,4"
K
(S
s
LD
CO
rH
IS
CM
r--
to
19
CO
00
n
a>
i
._
u
n
• A
43
U
tr.
^
S CM
S CD
rH TH
S} IS
^r to
CM
r
cs ^
CO i-l ,
TT CD
rH •»
< CO
Z U5
U>
CO CO
TJ- S
rH Tj-
U
W
O 43
43 -_
• ^ *^
— O
— a
u <«-
a
43 C
C O
ffi 1
E ffi
c o>
t- n
> o
0 43
o in
%
CO
-t
CO
CO
8
00
rH
s
rH
Q
CM
IS)
r^
CM
co"
§
U}
CO
rH
01
a
o
r-
43
C
J
— Ifl
•— W
o ^
a
u
ffi t-
O 3
i- O
ffi
2$
* £
> a
J3 O
•o o —
ffi 43
O) ffi 0
a L. o
cat/}
(a
E 43
•t)
>> O
43 j: ffi
43 .-
C «t- «*-
a o o
3 1-
cr ffi a.
L.
ffi re >>
O 43 U) 43
— W
_a in L. 3
B * •- ^O
u o ffi c
— .C .C M
— 01 45
a s~.
Q. ffi "D S
-O n to
43 n ^
O 43 0)
Z Q- —
in 3 c
II — O T)
j: L o
< 1- 0)2
Z 0
n
O
to 45
CO —
co —
oT'o
a
o
to
43 CO
3 CO
O -
in —
9 —
u a
> i.
t- o
0 f-
in
o E
43 3
CD —
flj O
* >
U —
3 a
0 43
-o o
1- 43
a
N 0
CO ,C
.c h-
ffi
O (I)
0) C
o
•u —
ffi V)
E w
o'i
<^ ffi
t."
ffi O
a.—
c
43 (0
n o>
JC 1-
43 0
in -o
— 43
43 CO
— E
.- 43 CM
u in i
CD ffi CO
43 0)
CM CO —
S> *~ <"*
IS 43 CO
r-
CM TJ
C C
O CO —
JC
43 y-^^3
0 ffi 43
43—1-
-------
TABLE 1-2. COMPLIANCE COSTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS, $10&/yra
Control option^1
Facility group
Affected facilities
Government facilities
Storage-only facilities
Totals
1
892.00
2.55
31.10
$925.00
2
695.00
1.46
15.20
$711.00
3
355.00
0.44
4.04
$359.00
4
271.00
1.06
14.00
$286.00
5
197.00
1.02
13.90
$212.00
Presented in this table is the distribution of compliance costs (annual-
ized compliance capital plus annual operating costs) by the facility
groups: affected facilities (facilities included in the analytical
model), government facilities, and storage-only facilities for each of
the control options. The facilities included in the analytical model
account for most of the compliance costs. These costs were estimated
using the Source Assessment Model (SAM) and are discussed in Appendix D.
bControl options 1 through 5 are based predominantly on the use of add-on
emission controls and reflect five levels of controls (1=0 ppm organics;
2 and 3 = 500 ppm; 4 = 1,500 ppm; and 5 = 3,000 ppm). The example control
options are described in Chapter 5.0.
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-3. CAPITAL COSTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS, $10&/yra
Control option*3
Facility group
Affected facilities
Government facilities
1
2,000.00
5.39
2
1,680.00
3.55
3
941.00
1.70
4
660.00
2.42
5
486.00
2.32
Storage-only
facilities
Totals
$2
59
,069
.90
.00
35
SI, 720
.70
.00
18
$961
.20
.00
29
$692
.80
.00
29
$518
.80
.00
Presented in this table is the distribution of compliance capital costs
by the facility groups: affected facilities (facilities included in the
analytical model), government facilities, and storage-only facilities for
each of the control options. The facilities included in the analytical
model account for most of the compliance capital costs. These costs were
estimated using the Source Assessment Model (SAM) and are discussed in
Appendix D.
^Control options 1 through 5 are based predominantly on the use of add-on
emission controls and reflect five levels of controls (1=0 ppm organics;
2 and 3 = 500 ppm; 4 = 1,500 ppm; and 5 = 3,000 ppm). The example control
options are described in Chapter 5.0.
1-6
-------
to
to
o
H)
f-
co
t-l
H
•^
1-
co
1
2
2£
^3
••
O>
IE
CO
«S
tH
«•
CO
n
H-
CL.
o
_J
Z
o
w
u.
o
CO
2:
o
HI
CO
CO
HI
3£
UJ
ft**
M
•^
tj
M
z
o
a:
o
•
^
i
n
UJ
CO
£
-o
c
o
•~
43
Q
O
^—
O
t.
43
c
o
t_J
1C
*^
co
CM
1-1
o
c
•— •
^
o
(A
CO
m
o.
3
O
u
o>
^
•—
^—
o
LL
i-l CO i-l to
0> CM tH
TH CM
co co 1-1 co
1C CM CO
TH .-1
•» '•» CO CM
•» CM 1^
i-l iH
•3° CO »H O>
i-l CM CO
TH " i— 1
CM CO i-l CO
TH CM CO
f^ 1~t
S) T~I co 51
Is- ^t UJ O
U) CM CO
*• ••.
TH TH
IA
(A .—
O 43
(A .-
O 43 —
.— .— .—
43—0
.— .— flj
— 0 «f-
— CO
O «K X
CO — (A
«»- 43 C —
C O CO
TJ 0 1 43
O E O O
43 C 0) |-
O 1. CO
5: S 4?
< O CO
E
o
1. 'i
v> en- •
«— 1-1
.— t» .
" 43-D CD CM
IA — « c •
Q.— -0 — Q
3 — 3 CO
O O— 43 C
t. CO 0.0 O
O)«r- CO*—
.— 43
X43 ^ 0
43 C IA I. O
._ o o eo co
— C 43 CO «
O I 43 Q
CO O ^— CO
«t- > — Q X
O O —
* O> O -D
^ «t- • C
43 - CA O
^-s O C Q.
x— j: o o.
J3 O 1 <
-0 (A
IA O M -
C E ..- O
O IA E IA
. c O CO
IA CO O .O.
(A O — t-
-6 43 Q."cO 43
O X 0 CD
— OT3
— COCO
CO CO <- CO —
43 O)—
O O C L. CL
"O S) CO
"D UJ r-
CO C^>
II
«»- C
O CO —
IA C O
3 CO J2
O CM L.
.c o
43 •« IA
0) O
C O -D
O —
x co i.
— D) CO
43 (-
C O IA
a c
cEo
.— Q.—
E 0.43
O CL
•D » O
O
t- II —
CL O
iH L.
-O ^43
O C
IA (A O
CO — O
.£? O
L. O
O 43 —
L. C CL
CO O E
O CO
LO X
t- O
j: o
Ol ffi
3 IA.C
O — 1-
t- O
JC >
43 O •
«-*~ "E^
O CL
IA > O.
C —
O
-------
(9
C3
t—
Is
d
1*^
|
^
0
m
I~j
UJ
Li.
n
^^
CO
111
HI
H
i
HI
*T
uT
It
O
UJ
^fc
z
t_ft
1
HI
UJ
a
J—
*
_D
C
45
O
o
^^
o
t-
c
c
U)
^3*
CO
CM
rH
c
_
M
n
CD
c
c
c
^
,;
>—
^_
•»•
u
ffl
IL
d ^" SI
SLO in
O
U) CO IS
S> IA U>
CD S)
r-l
O CD Q
u> T r*-
tfi Si
fc
rH
TT
00 CO 00
CO S>
r-l
IT Q S)
CO t^ S>
CO r-t
r-l
U
O
(P -P
w — —
fl> -p —
-P — U
— U O
**- 0 -P
< O CO
CO
CO
r-l
G>
r-l
r-
r-l
SJ
CO
r-«
IS)
CO
h»
,_4
SI
CM
CO
r-)
IS
S!
CN
IA
n
43
o
1-
n 0
0 C -0 0
u— o 0 t-
C CO — 43 *
a u 43 c o
— •— a. 0 co
— 43 O VI
o co o 0.43
u c t. 0
CO 43 L. E
O C O
L. 0 0 0 t. •
C -C U L. <»- i-l
N 43 O
1 0 -O CM
c c _c u) a -
(0 .- 43 43 CO
.C (A —
43 -o o- o ra c
1 0 O O 43 0
L. -O .O —
0 3 JC. 0 O 43
43 — O O 0
a u ra c o o
o c 0 a t- co
O) L. — -
, I m co
— 43 — U O JQ
_ ._ c o ._
. O 43 43 «
o — I ra X43
*t- co co C ra "o
<<- ra 01 c
v
t. •• W 0 43
43 (A 0 (A ~O W
IA O.— 033
.- 3 43 • T3
•O O — 43 O C
t. — — CM
0 0) —
-C U— ^
43 >, a u a. 3
43 <4- CO 3 <
(A •- —
0 43 O X O 43
— O>43 CO C
_O X — «t- 0
ra -D - i- E
43 ^ 0 0 W
(A >-C 01
(A 43 0 ra 43 0
•- 01 -O E IA
.C O O X M
1- o E < -0 <
ra
(I) —
— E
o a.
u a
43
CSI
O SI
U ID
c «H"
0
•- II
(A •
in *r 51
P ••.LO
0 E
a. L.
C CL 0
O 43
I
43 0 •
— /— *
r-l E
0 a.
» > a.
c —
01- S)
43 43 S
Q. 0 -
O 0 CO
^—
— «t- II
O 0
U L. LO
43
C "O T)
O C C
<_> n ra
_o
1-8
-------
1.2 REGULATORY IMPACTS ON STORAGE-ONLY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES
This section presents data on the potential impacts of the control
options for the storage-only hazardous waste management facilities. Table
1-6 shows the volume of the waste managed by the storage-only facilites.
The industrial chemicals sector, inorganic and organic, accounts for the
major volume of hazardous waste stored. The second most important sector
is the the commercial hazardous waste management service sector.
The regulatory impacts on the storage-only facilities are summarized
by the key variables: the annual compliance costs, the capital costs, the
number of facilites affected, and increase in cost of hazardous waste
management services after the regulation. The compliance costs, the capi-
tal costs, the number of affected facilites, the increase in cost of
hazardous waste management services after the regulation, and the organic
emissions are presented in Tables 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, and 1-11, respec-
tively.
The costs for the 1,000+ storage-only facilities affected range from
$4 million to $31 million annually depending on the control option.
A major alternative to increasing these costs appears to be to close
the permitted storage facility. These permits are required if storage is
to exceed 90 days unless it is a small-quantity generator, in which case
the period is 180 to 270 days, depending on the circumstances. Thus, the
firm could, after satisfying regulatory requirements, "close" the hazardous
waste storage facility and then reopen it for less than 90 days storage by
turning in its permit.
1.3 PARTIAL EQUILIBRIUM MULTIMARKET MODEL FOR THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
The control options will affect many markets throughout the economy.
The major impacts, however, will be felt by facilities actually generating
or managing hazardous wastes. For this reason, only the markets in which
these facilities are active are modeled; the model is therefore a partial
equilibrium market impact model rather than a general equilibrium one. The
basic mathematics of the model are set out below.
1-9
-------
TABLE 1-6. VOLUME OF WASTE MANAGED: STORAGE-ONLY FACILITIES
BY SECTOR, 1986a
Sector
Mining
Grain and textile mill products
Furniture, paper products, printing
Industrial chemicals, inorganic and organic
Plastics, fibers
Biological, pharmaceutical, medical chemicals
Assorted chemical products
Paint and allied products, petroleum and coal
Rubber, plastics
Cement companies
Primary metals
Metal fabrication
Nonelectrical machinery
Electrical machinery and supplies
Transportation equipment
Instruments
Miscellaneous manufacturing
Electric and gas utilities
Nondurable goods: wholesale sales
Research labs, hospitals, universities
Commercial hazardous waste handlers
Totals
Number of Volume managed,
facilities 10^ Mg/yr
3
18
22
90
54
34
61
41
31
15
30
50
61
119
71
29
7
10
53
24
119
l,100b
0.2
11.1
1.8
2,340.0
36.2
128.0
35.6
118.0
3.0
100.0
139.0
385.0
226.0
45.0
464.0
5.5
0.7
0.6
13.6
0.3
553.0
4,610.0
aThe number of storage-only facilities and the volume of wastes managed by
the storage-only facilities that are not included in the analytical model
are included in this table. The number of facilities and volume of
wastes are summed by 21 market sectors (20 generating sectors and 1 com-
mercial storage-only waste management sector). These quantities were
estimated using the Source Assessment Model (SAM) and are discussed in
Appendix D.
^Includes 156 government facilities.
1-10
-------
c
o
43
O
O
o
[_
43
c
o
u
o
43
u
*
*
*
*
*
en
c.
c.
•—
2£
00
SI
si
00
SI
IS
rH
SI
si
03
SI
si
CO
si
in
43
u
3
-e»
o
L.
Q.
^
—
•—
E
0
.—
43
X
S
-o
c
a
c
a
L
C3
*
*
*
*'
*
en
c
.—
43
C
•_
L,
CL
M
If)
43
0
3
•o
O
L.
CL
t-
0
Q.
is
0.
«T
L.
3
43
C
L,
3
LL
00
O>
to
00
O)
to
LD
CM
CM
CM
CM
1^
SI
CD
rH
0
C
(0
en
L.
o
*^j
C
a
u
•_
c
(0
en
L.
0
c
fc
01
^_
a
o
._
E
0
j=
u
a
•~
i.
43
II)
3
C
M
rH
SI
rH
Si
CO
S)
IS
T
rH
SI
I—
SI
to
L
C
.£
^
(0
u
43
II)
re
a.
rH
SI
rH
SI
IS
5!
^
rH
SI
o>
SI
II)
a
u
E
_f
O
_
a
u
•—
•o
•t
_
a
0
43
3
0
U
a
E
L.
OJ
J=
a.
(0
o
en
o
o
m
CO
SI
CO
rH
IS
co
SI
IS
K
rH
SI
00
S)
10
43
0
3
O
L,
CL
^—
a
0
1
u
•o
0
43
t-
o
10
10
•<
to
CM
SI
10
CM
SI
00
SI
SI
CO
CM
SI
SI
SI
_
a
o
o
-o
c
a
E
3
—
o
L,
43
0
CL
«
II)
43
0
3
O
CL
•o
0
a
•o
c
a
43
C
10
0-
*
*
*
*
*
in
u
jp
in
a
CL
•t
L,
0
JJ
3
or
£
SI
CO
S)
^
SI
IS
00
t
S)
LO
s>
10
0
c
01
CL
0
O
•&
C
i
0
CM
i-l
S)
CM
rH
SI
CO
SI
CM
»H
SI
o
1-1
SI
II)
43
i
^
t_
10
E
L.
£L
a>
s
S)
O)
51
CM
SI
SI
SI
rH
SI
S
CM
C
O
"43
a
o
L,
JD
a
•t-
__
a
43
0
S
SI
S)
CM
SI
CM
rH
SI
CO
CM
SI
CM
SI
^
L.
®
C
t—
f
V
£
a
0
L.
43
U
o
0
c
0
z
i
IS
i
SI
CM
S
CO
Si
IS
00
S
S)
II)
0
_p
CL
CL
3
10
-^
c
a
X
i.
0
c
-C
o
a
a
u
L,
0
0
LU
CM
CO
CO
CM
CO
«
CM
LO
IS
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
co
^
c
£
CL
3
cr
0
c
0
43
10
L.
O
CL
V)
C
a
H
CM
SI
51
g
SI
*
CM
St
SI
CO
SI
5)
10
43
C
g:
3
U
43
10
C
M
*
*
*
*
*
en
c
L.
3
43
U
a
3
C
a
E
10
3
O
O
c
a
^_
0
o
in
35
*
*
*
*
*
IA
0
43
—
,_
43
3
V)
re
c
a
u
L.
43
U
_
LU
co
51
si
CO
SI
si
S
si
co
S)
si
CO
SI
SI
10
0
CO
in
0
re
10
0
o
j:
i
••
10
o
o
en
0
ft
a
L.
3
T3
C
o
z
*
*
*
*
*
in
0
43
in
L.
0
• «
C
3
^
10
10
43
'o.
10
O
•t
(0
-C
u
L.
10
0
10
EC.
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
si
LO
CM
CM
CO
CM
CO
10
L.
0
•^
C
(0
JC
0
43
u
CO
S
u
3
O
L.
10
N
10
JC
(0
o
m
1
O
St
CO
si
IS
CO
si
CO
CM
SI
si
CO
SI
^
E
O
c
o
u
0
_c
43
*l
o
43
in
0
ce
§
co
•9
SI
O)
co
rH
CO
SI
V)
SI
CM
LO
69
51
rH
rH
CO
W
10
a
43
o
,
rH
S)
5)
C
a
jC
43
in
ID
i
M
*
0
II
t- c
o co —
0 -0 TJ
10 C O
3 (8 _Q
0 CM t
-c o
43—10
II) 0
C O -D
O —
C 0
X 0 t-
43 ? "
C O 10
CO C
CEO
.— CL —
E 0.43
O CL
~O 51 O
1- II —
CL O
rH L.
0 C
in in o
10 — O
JO O
L. 0
0 43-
i- c a
a o E
o re
to x
-c o
O) 0
3 10 J=
O — r-
U 0
JZ >
43 0 •
rH 1"
0 CL
10 > CL
C —
43 43 St
0- O -
O 0 CO
—
-------
49
O
O
O
u
49
C
o
u
t_
o
49
U
o
(O
CO
rH
4r t5)
CO
rH
* IS
10
* ta
CO
tH
* ta
CO
rH
* ta
in
49
u
3
TJ
O
L.
O_
_
_
e
0
,_
.^
X
0
TJ
C
CO
cn
c c
C CO
— L.
Z O
2 cn
Q tH
IS cn
ta tH
ta
4 Q
rH
rH Q2
O LO
rH
rH IS
IS CD
ta co
co
u
c
CO
cn
L.
O
cn TJ
c c
— CO
49
C U
L. c
o. co
cn
» t-
01 O
49 C
O —
3
TJ -
O 01
O. (0
U
t. —
0 E
o. 0
CO .C
o. u
„ _
0 eg
3 L.
— 01
C 3
L. TJ
3 C
U. M
rH
CO
ta
rH
CO
ta
CM
tH
iH
CO
ta
CO
CO
ta
0)
o
c*.
01
O
49
in
CO
0.
•*•
s
5
ta
r-
CM
?
f-
ta
01
CO
u
• ~*
£
0
j:
o
_
CO
o
TJ
^_
CO
o
49
3
0
5
c
L.
CD
.C
O-
„ .
eg
cn
o
0
m
CM
CO
ta
CM
CO
ta
CM
rH
IS
co
co
LO
CO
ta
0)
49
U
^j
0
<_
Q.
^_
CD
u
e
_|
U
1
t-
o
0)
0)
<
CN tH 00 CO
co IS cn co
ta is s> ta
CM rH Cn ^
co ta cn co
ta si s is
h- CM TT
CO CO CM
IS * IS S
Cfi l& S CO
IS S} rH ta
CO rH CO CO
co ta TH ^
rH IS rH S
CO
O
u
•TJ
c
CD
^
0
o
L.
49
0
a
A
01
49
o
3
TJ
O
i.
Q.
TJ m in
0 u 0
.— .- .- 01
— 49 C —
— 0) CO CD
CD CO CL 49
— E 0
•o o. o E
c u
O X
t. 49 L.
49 0 C CO
CO 3 0 L.
a. or u a.
cn
rH
S
cn
tH
IS
CM
tH
CM
ta
N.
ta
LO
c
o
49
CD
O
^
CD
t-
a
49
0
ID
S
LO
SI
cn
ta
CO
en
ta
X
L.
0
C
f
u
g
^
CO
u
L.
49
U
0
0
I
f
iH
Si
LO
tH
ta
en
SI
LO
IH
ta
00
ta
0)
•—
—~
Q.
Q.
3
in
•TJ
C
eg
X
I.
0
c
JC
u
E
__
rica
49
U
0
111
Q LO
rH 5)
r- IS
IS LO
TH ta
is. G>
CO CN
co ta
(M SI
rH LO
rH ta
t*1* ta
CM CO
rH IS
r- ta
49
c
a.
3
cr
0
c
o
49 (A
CD 49
49 C
i3 1
O. 3
in i.
C 49
CD
L_
3
49
U
CD
(^
3
C
CO
E
in
3
O
0
c
CD
0
O
01
z
*
*
*
*
*
(A
0
• —
49
•_
—
49
3
(A
CD
O
•o
c
CD
U
L.
49
U
0
UJ
ta
ta'
Q
ta
co
ta
ta
IS
i-.
ta
C
3
•i
01
—
CO
49
Q.
V)
O
-C
•*
0)
CO
~—
j;
u
i.
CO
0
in
0
LO
ta
LD
LO
IS
ID
cn
ta
CM
CO
ta
LO
en
CO
CO
0)
i.
0
TJ
C
CO
_c
0
49
01
CO
^
01
3
0
T)
i.
CO
N
CO
-C
^—
rcia
I
o
LO
rH
r-
10
rH
§
rH
00
LO
rH
IO
co
rH
X
E
O
c
o
o
o
0
.c
49
O
49
01
0
00
0)
CM
ta
CO
cn
CM
e»
ta
CM
CO
rH
W
IS
LO
CO
ta
8
cn
LO
69
0)
^
CD
49
r?
.
T~t
JC\
,
ta
c
CD
^
49
in
in
0
_j
II
it
49 CO
0 49 .
L. *O, 0
ra n> t- x
E o co —
TJ
rH 0 CO C
CM U 49 0
C CO O.
O CO O O.
j; ._ <
49 —
O. • •
X E (A 0
.0 o 0 oi
O — CO
C 49 J3
O0 —
— ^ — CO
49 49 — 49
CL U CD
O O) CO TJ
C t-
0
o e x—
4> 3 C 0 —
t. CD— E rH
O. U O •
tS CO L. CM
0 CM -C
O — 1-
L. 0
^ >
49 0 •
— * y"^.
rH E
0 a.
in > a.
c —
o 4- ta
49 49 ta
CL U -
O 0 CO
— £ II
O 0
U L. LD
49
CTJ TJ
O C C
<_j eg co
J3
1-12
-------
1
h-
UJ
U.
u.
ffi
1— 1
h-
M
_J
W
C^
^c
u_
S
s
LL)
^
"Z.
^C
!S
£ z
C/D O
>.
<_J CD
'•^
o
1
s
1
LL
o
Q^
UJ
OD
§
j£
en
1
M
UJ
m
u>
^
JQ
c
o
•—
43
Q
O
CO
^—
O
L.
43
C
O
CM
TH
Sector
co oo
TH
co oo
TH
co oo
TH
CO 00
TH
co oo
TH
n
43
O
"O
O
Q.
—
—•
'i
X
43
TJ
c
a
c c
•— •—
c n
.2: w
O) f^ TH
TH 00 IO
en t*» TH
TH 03 10
5t S TH
CM O) 1C
giH
1C
Si St CO
CM CO 1C
O
C
n
en
i_
o
CO TD
C C
— B
c o
L. C
CL a
O)
- L.
n o
43 C
o —
3
•o
o n
i_ —
a. a
u
i. — n
0 E «-
o jc jo
CL 0 —
tOTH
TH
TH (S) 1C (S) ^ TH 5} i"H
^COTHCO^COTHh*
TH
TH(S1OS}^TH^TH
^fCOTHCO^COTH^.
TH
THSllCSSlTHTHTH
^•COi-tcOlOCOTH^
TH
— .
n
o
o
"D
C
n
E
3
O
— 0)
O O
t-
43 —
e a
a a
3
n
n
43 "O 43
o >> c c
3 t- a c
-o ffi I
O C 3s CL
t- — U —
^ *C 9 3
c o c o"
•own o a — o
c o » — E -c
.-.-.- n 43 o c
— 43c — n— no
— nnaonE —
n n CL 43 — o 43
— £ a i_ — — n
c o n 43 o L.
n •> x t- o — o
L. -p t- O t- CL
43 ® c n ^ ~~ 43 o)
c **^ (D E n o u c
0301.00 — i-
CLQ^OQ-SZUJf—
t«- h- S CM
CM t-t 1C
r- h- S) CM
CM TH 1O
0) r** s co
CM TH 1C
O) r~ s co
CM TH 1C
01 1- S CO
CM TH 1C
n
o
n
in
0
O) —
c o> n
— o n
3 43 ^—
43—O
o — -c
n — i
«T- 43
3 3
C
n n o>
CO O
10 O
3 T3 O)
n o c
O H O _Ct
3 — L. t.
L. O 43 3
43 O O "O
c — — o
r-H 2 UJ Z
CO 00 rH
CM TH 1C
TH TH
co oo TH
CM TH 1C
TH TH
co co co
CM TH 1C
r* rH
CO 00 CO
CM rH LO
T-i rH
CO O> CO
C
— a
C J=
o
•> 43
in m
— n
n *
43
— n
CL 3 >»
WOE
o ~o o
.C L. C
a o
• NO
o> n o
n o
— — -c
_c —
U O
c&
TH
00
S
TH
o>
to
51
TH
en
o t.
L. O
O 43 O
N O O
1 O l-
c in 3
0 O
J= 43
^ O ' <0
3 43 -
O JC JO O
COO
— n x
0) I- 13
o i- a c
— O 0
43 «f- <0 CL
— 43 o.
— -o o <
— C Q
on -
a 0
t- V) • in
c s~. a
>, O L. JO
C 43 43 n
O CL O 43
O (0-0
o>—
t. L. a —
O 43
43 C O s
L- 43 U (.
O 43
ji «r- TH n
E O 3
3 "O -O
C JC C C
0 n
J= O CO /~.
43 t- S
u o <
01 O 43 -o
LOCO
CL O — 3E
43
— o t- c
43 0 •
lH £
0 CL
in > CL
C —
0 <*- 51
43 43 Si
CL 0 -
O 0 CO
— «K II
O 0
t. t. 1C
43
C -O T3
O C C
o n n
jQ
1-13
-------
O
49
O
o
I.
49
C
O
u
to
•T
CO
CM
rH
L.
O
49
U
O
10 Os
CO (9
CM 00
to en
CO S
CM 00
rH ^-
CO CM
(9 rH
tO rH
CO rH
CM CO
CO CM
CM CO
O
49
U
3
-o
O
L.
CL
^_
•m
'i
o
._
43
X
o
•^
c
a
O!
c c
c a
— t.
a- o
O O U)
r- Q t--
Sl CO CM
Q O IO
r*» 10 I*-"
IS CO CM
IO rH tO
rH S LO
15} CO IS
CM tO 10
r>- to r-
is en CM
f- 5> co
Q •«• co
CM
o
c
o
CO
o
TO -0
c c
••" CO
49
c u
'L. 'c
CL a
TO
- L.
(ft O
49 C
o —
3
O (ft
t. —
CL B)
u
i. •— (ft
0 E L.
0. « O
s jz -Q
a. u —
^ _
c a -
L. — 0
3 L. U
49 49 —
— (0 49
C 3 (A
u -o a
3 C —
LL M O.
en is
co to
to •»
en is
CO LO
10 •»
co r—
CM r-
CM IS
Si CM
to TT
IS (0
(ft
at
o
'E
o
_c
u
CO
o
•^J
1:
•t
— (ft
a 49
u u
— 3
49 -O
3 O
O <-
V CL
a
E —
L. a
n u
.c —
CL E
^ r-
— O
CO
O ~O
°O) 49
o t-
— o
O (ft
— (ft
CO <
SI CM S>
rH CO 00
•«• s> en
CM
IS OJ IS
rH CO IS
•3- IS 51
co
rH to CO
CO rH rH
rH Si f
CM CO IS
CM CO CM
^ ^S S
ffj
S LO S
rH 6) LO
rH CO
_„
m
o
u
13
c
CO
£
3
O
o
L.
49
O
CL
n
to
49
U
3
-o
O
L.
CL
•a (ft 10
o u o
— 49 *C
— (0 (D
B) (0 CL
"O CL O
C U
HI «
L. 49
49 O C
.- _a E
a 3 o
a. a: u
CO LO
00 <9
rH CM
LO IO
00 IS
rH CM
00 to
cn to
5) IS
10 00
00 CM
rH CM
CM IS
CO 10
CM •<]•
CO
C
o
(ft 49
— O
co u
49 —
H -o
CO
t_
a —
E a
— 49
i. O
a. z
cn
s>
cn
B
CM
to
Si
to
,_,
IS
CM
>»
L.
o
c
j:
u
CO
E
__
CO
u
L.
49
0
o
o
o
f-
S T CM
t
cn co r~
® *s- CM
(0
._
Q.
CL
3
(A
TJ 49
C C
a to
>> CL
0 *3
c cr
— o
_c
u c
n o
E —
49 (0
— 10 49
CO 49 C
U t- O
••— Q c
L. Q. D
49 (0 «-
0 C 49
— L. C
CM
IS
(0
S
to
CM
S
to
S
CM
s
O)
c
i.
3
49
U
in
<*-
3
C
B)
E
(0
o
o
c
n
.H
o
0
...
2E
CM cn rH
IS S IS
rH CO IS
IS S IS
rH CO CO
CM CM S
IS S 51
rH (O IS
CM O> rH
S S S)
S S CM
rH rH Q
(0
O
49
(0 —
O (0
co 9
._
O C
— 3
(0 co
O (0 -
— O (ft
49 — —
•— o co
— JC 49
3 * 'el
3 tO
•• O
in n jc
a -o
TO 0 -
O (0
c a
B) O —
O -O jf
— 0 0
t- L L,
49 3 B>
O c to
— o o
CM 51
5> LO
rH
SI to
S LO
r- S>
Gt •»
CM CM
Q cn
CM 5t
St IO
rH
oo TT
x- 10
rH
(0
L.
o
•o
ro
JC
O
49
(ft
B)
10
(0 0
O 49
•o —
L. —
a —
N O
ra a
— 49
01 C
.- m
u I
L. C
o <-
i °
0 0
a
49 (ft •«
(0 o — E
3 -o 49 o a.
~~ O) flf ^ O.
0. C 0 J£ >, 49
— — L. JI 49 C IS
— 49 .- a o — OS
a « a <<-2L,— o to
49 49 L. o ra ra -
— (OO L.OO3 CrH
CL « c xa. ^ (o er o
0 * 0 — 49 O — II
U TO C 5s 0£ ^ (0 •
o o t- <*- — w -3 « U, OJ
O i- L. O < OCML.
U49rHO49(OQ. J: U
CCCM49C OC 49 — (ft
BIO UOUL.O (OO
— E O « E 49 — COU
Q. TO49 (ft O «t- O <_) CO
E(0 49OOBIOZ 5s(0t-
OC— ' i_ re * > (Aioo
c N c (ft o i-cj: o — o
OBIO3L. OLUU-CtO
.-^.-O«f--W t. t-O
49 49-0 rH •raO49 —
l__CLt--0 • 4> 0 L.CCL
CL3 NC-OOO DID
o c — a — o E DCLO x
t- c o j: re oo t- is
CL re i- 4^ c O-c - ^: o
49 — _Q O CO -P CO TO O
OOcaio— c -o D w -c
j;^o— 49rat-L. o — 1—
4949UUOOZOBI L.O
L. L. IB <«- TJ -C >
W O -C ffi CO CO ID C49O-
4949OE 49OB1 — ^-,
C <0£ni-.(»4949tH E
Ox^O049QB)3tO OCL
(0(0 U ro 3: -P (ft>a
049U OX — -OC —
t-(AOrH — (A 49 C O <*- S
CL O
-------
J
o
cj
oe
o
H W
CO t-
^»
• • o)
o •*
M V)
H UJ
Q. W
O h~
n
_J -J
O M
^ ^
1Z LL
O
tJ ^~
£t Ul
j3 pc
Q_ liJ
C3
II
llH
?i 55
3t
O
W CO
< o
O Q
or o:
o <
IS)
• i
TH
rH
1
M
UJ
m
LO
C
O
45
a
o
co
o
L.
4^
C
O
u
r-i
Sector
~ §
r^ IS
CO
CM 5>
CO
i— I 5)
CO
TH IS
CO
ffl
o
3
73
o
CL
—
'i
0
45
X
73
C
to
0)
c c
c a
'•s o
CM
00
•» s>
CM
00
-
LO
CM
oT
LO
00
v
*t
-.
00
u
c
a
O)
o
O> 73
C C
— CO
45
c u
'i. 'c
CL CO
o>
-. L.
(fl O
45 C
o —
3
73
O M
t. —
CL CO
U
L. —
0 E
CL 0
a jc
CL u
0" "(0
3 L.
45 45
•- M
C 3
L. 73
3 C
U. M
CO to 00
00 TH 00
co to oo
00 TH 00
LO LO S
O> CO CM
CO h- CM
co to oo
oo TH oo
CM •» f-
00 TH 00
in
CO
u
JC
o
^—
a
o
-o
i
— m
a 45
u u
— 3
45 73
3 O
0 L.
O CL
(D I. to
1- to U
0 J= •-
-O CL E
.- j>
«t- » jc
— O
• to
(A O 73
O •— 0
— 0> 45
45 0 L.
in — o
co o w
— —in
0- ffl <
O) h-
O) IS
!»• h-
CO TH
LO
^ ^
i~- f-
CO t>-
^~
CD
O
•o
c
CO
E
3
0
—
o
CL
ffi
45
0
3
•o
O
L.
CL
73 in
0 U
— 45
— W
co to
73 CL
C
CO
L,
C JO
— -O
CO 3
o- a:
-g-gfOOOJCOTH
» CO
COCMI*-O>COS>O>COrH
TH oo co ^- r~ <• TH
co"
CD CD 00 1- 00 CO IN *°*
f TH CO TH IS
n"
COCMCOOOLOSO>COTH
TH 00 CO •» 1^ •<»• TH
co
CMSLO^rtOSOCOi-l
rH 00 CO ^" t»- -^ TH
co"
» C C 3 45
e a I "o —
C >, CL 10 —
— U — V- 45
coca c
(A O CO — 0 CO W
0 — E J= E to
— in 45 o c TO
c — to — co o IA
coeoueoE— 373
CL 45 — O -P W O C
E 0U — — C045 0CO
x
TH
CM
S
IS
CO
TH
CM
Totals
^
O 45
C
JC 0 45
u i c
0 o> i
CO (A
1- C IA
o co 0
t_
JC <7>O-
45 IA CO
U I- >*
IA O O t-
45 45 45 45
C O IA ID
00 3
V) IA 0 73
0 JC C
l_ 45 45 M
JC I- x— .
0 1- O 2
— ffl t- <
-a E co_
45 TH ^
CM O —
IA 45 0
•- 0 0 73
Hi3§J
ID
a •-
- E
O CL
t- CL
C S
0 IS
U LO
C rH
O
— II
0)
IA TJ- IS
*E -»Lo'
0 E
CL I.
C CL 0
0 45
1 S CL
a u
II
k CO t-
— o> to
45 1-
C O IA
CO C
cEo
.- CL —
E 0.45
O CL
73 IS O
0
t_ II ^
CL O
TH t_
73 ^^45
O C
IA IA O
CO — O
-Q O
(- 0
L. C CL
CO O E
U CO
LO X
CT. Q)
jc o
0) 0
3 IA JC
O — 1-
L, 0
43 O •
rH E
0 a.
IA > CL
C —
O t- Si
45 45 S
CL O -
O 0 CO
— t- II
O 0
t- L. LO
45
C 73 73
O C C
O CO CO
JQ
1-15
-------
Notation
c
E(-)
QJ
PQ-J
RD-j
RS-|
RC-j
PR
hazardous waste generating sector; i = 1 to 20
commercial sector
SRC =
6RC =
6Ri =
HRi =
total quantity of generator output product in sector i
price of generator output product in sector i
hazardous waste management demanded by sector i
hazardous waste management done on site by sector i
commercial hazardous waste demanded by sector i
market price of hazardous waste
regulatory shift variable for hazardous waste sector i
regulatory shift variable for hazardous waste in commercial
sector
demand elasticity for generator output product Q in sector i
pRRi/pQiQi = "input expenditure share for the hazardous waste
input R in sector i
(8Ri/8SRi)(SRi/Ri) = E(Ri)/E(SRi)
/jRiE(SR-j) = % shift of the supply function R-j given a change in
the regulatory variable SR-J
supply elasticity for hazardous waste output R in sector i
supply elasticity for hazardous waste output R in commercial
sector
(PRRC-j)/(PREiRCi) = RC-j/EiRCi = market share of commercial
hazardous waste demanded by generator sector i
(PRRSi)/(pRRDi) = RS-j/RS-j = share of sector i's hazardous waste
being done on site
1-16
-------
T = (PRRCi)/(PRRDj) = (RCi)/(RDi) = share of sector i's hazardous
waste being done commercially
= elasticity of substitution beween composite inputs x and
hazardous waste management services in sector i.
Market Demand Functions for Generator Industries:
E(Qi) = >?QiE(PQi) (1-20)
Cost Functions for Generator Industries;
E(PQi) = KR1E(PR) + KliECP!) (21 - 40)
First-Order Conditions for Hazardous Waste Management Input;
E(Qi) = HRiE(RSi) + CRiE(RCi) + (l-KRi)
-------
TABLE 1-12. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF WORKERS IN TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Sector
Number of
workers
Mining
Grain and textile mill products
Furniture, paper products, printing
Industrial chemicals, inorganic and organic
Plastics, fibers
Biological, pharmaceutical, medical chemicals
Assorted chemical products
Paint and allied products-, petroleum and coal
Rubber, plastics
Cement companies
Primary metals
Metal fabrication
Nonelectrical machinery
Electrical machinery and supplies
Transportation equipment
Instruments
Miscellaneous manufacturing
Electric and gas utilities
Nondurable goods wholesale sales
Research labs, hospitals, universities
Commercial, hazardous waste handlers
56
37
119
19,200
10,300
594
4,090
1,580
23
42
593
416
56
241
236
31
65
141
24
35
1,510
Totals
39,300
aThe number of production workers in the treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities for each of the 21 market sectors (20 generating sectors and
1 commercial hazardous waste management sector) is presented in this
table. The number of jobs for each facility in each market sector is
estimated using the regression model:
L = A + B Q,
where L = number of production workers, Q = quantity of waste (Mg/yr),
A = intercept of the regression, and.B = slope of the regression.
(See Reference 1 for source of data.)
1-18
-------
1.5 REFERENCES
1. Memorandum from Chandran, Ram, RTI, to Docket. September 28, 1988.
Estimation of Number of workers in Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (TSDF).
2. Reference 1.
1-19
-------
-------
APPENDIX J
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR MAXIMUM RISK AND
NONCANCER HEALTH EFFECTS
-------
-------
APPENDIX J
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR MAXIMUM RISK AND
NONCANCER HEALTH EFFECTS
The purpose of this appendix is to present the treatment, storage, and
disposal facility (TSDF) data and the models used to assess chronic and
acute risk from TSDF organic air emissions. Chronic risk is expressed as
(1) risk of contracting cancer from long-term (e.g., 70 years) exposure to
carcinogenic agents, and (2) risk of adverse health effects from long-term
exposure to noncarcinogenic agents. Acute risk is expressed as the risk of
adverse noncancer health effects from exposure to short-term, concentrated
TSDF emissions of chemical agents.
Chronic risk is assessed using the maximum annual average ambient
concentrations estimated from (1) the emission models, and (2) the
Industrial Source Complex Long-term (ISCLT) model. Acute risk is assessed
from the short-term (peak) ambient concentrations estimated from (1) the
short-term emission models and (2) the Industrial Source Complex Short-term
(ISCST) model. Each ISC model calculates the ambient concentration of the
waste constituents or their surrogates in TSDF emissions dispersed at the
facility fenceline and beyond. To calculate chronic cancer risk, the
ambient concentration is multiplied by a constituent's or surrogate's unit
risk factor (see Appendix E). Chronic and acute noncancer health effects
are assessed by comparing the ambient concentration of constituents to
their reference doses (RFDs) (see Appendix E). The modeling is performed
not only to assess risk from exposure to uncontrolled TSDF emissions but
also to evaluate the effectiveness of control techniques in lowering TSDF
emissions and risk. Appendix E provides a detailed discussion of these
risk assessment procedures.
J-3
-------
Briefly, the steps required to assess risk are as follows:
• Characterize the TSDF of interest.
• Collect meteorological data (hourly for short-term assess-
ments and annual frequency distribution for long-term
assessments).
• Identify the characteristics of wastes managed at the TSDF.
• Generate organic emission rates (hourly for short-term
assessments and annual average for long-term assessments).
• Execute dispersion modeling of the organic emissions.
• Identify the highest ambient concentration of the organic
emissions.
Chapter 6.0 presents the results of the ISCLT for chronic cancer risk as
maximum lifetime risk. Chronic and acute risk assessments for noncarcino-
genic TSDF emissions are still in progress.
This appendix discusses the models used to estimate short-term and
annual average concentrations used in the health effects assessment. It
presents the TSDF characterized for the risk assessment and then addresses
the information used to assess the reduction in risk once emission controls
are in place.
To expand on these particular model inputs, data generated and their
corresponding Appendix J sections include:
• TSDF long-term emission models (Section J.I.I)
• TSDF short-term emission models (Section J.I.2)
• TSDF to be modeled including their plot plans, design and
operating parameters, and waste characterization (Section
J.2)
• Long-term example control strategies and emission estimates
(Section J.3)
• Short-term control strategies (Section J.4, currently not
available)
• Dispersion modeling for chronic health effects (Section
J.5).
Chronic risk estimates are computed using long-term TSDF emission
estimates. The long-term emission models discussed in Section J.I.I are
J-4
-------
the same as those summarized in Appendix C, Section C.I. (A detailed
description of emission models is contained in a recent TSDF air emissions
models report.1) The emission models compute the emission of organic
surrogates (defined in Appendix D, Section D.2.3) for chronic cancer
effects. Physical properties of each surrogate are classified according to
(1) Henry's law constant and biodegradability, or (2) vapor pressure and
biodegradability. Table J-l lists the physical properties of surrogates
(numbered 1 through 9) associated with values of Henry's law constant and
the physical properties of surrogates (numbered 1 through 12) used with
values of vapor pressure. (The properties associated with the Henry's law
constants are valid for dilute aqueous wastes; the properties for vapor
pressure are used for oily or more concentrated organic wastes.)
Chronic noncancer effects will be evaluated using specific chemicals
instead of organic surrogates. Waste constituents of interest will be
modeled using the long-term emission models and the ISCLT model to estimate
annual ambient concentrations. These concentrations will be compared to
health benchmark values for each constituent to assess chronic noncancer
effects of TSDF air emissions.
Acute risk assessments must be based on short-term TSDF emission esti-
mates; therefore, it was necessary to modify the long-term emission models
in Appendix C to estimate emissions on an hourly basis. These modifica-
tions (summarized in Section J.I.2) are explained in Reference 2. The
emission models compute the emission of specific waste constituents from'
the two modeled TSDF. Physical properties of each waste constituent are
taken from an appropriate surrogate listed in Table J-l.
In Section J.2, the selection of facilities to be modeled is
addressed. As explained in Chapter 6.0, the detailed and accurate data
necessary to estimate risk for each TSDF in the Nation and, in turn, iden-
tify the TSDF causing the maximum risk in the Nation were not available.
Therefore, two TSDF were selected to estimate chronic cancer risk (referred
to as maximum lifetime risk), and chronic and acute noncancer health
effects. The following topics are discussed for the two TSDF selected:
• Comparison of TSDF selected to characteristics of TSDF nationwide
• Description of each TSDF
J-5
-------
- * E
x c -i
to «-*
CM Q Q
CM ro
a. CM
I. 4>
^% *-v CO r- ft
* i
" ° a
gr
n • a^
n t. i. -s.
<• O O O)
Ki
m •* i -o
•* n
O) tO
CO CM
1 1
II II
X X
IB CM
O> S)
(9 19
CO f-
f^ CD
(O O) CD CO
IO Q T IO
7 ^ ~ 7
• ^- -^ •
II II II 11
X X X X
to <-»
10 CM f- CM
fO f CM CO
ft CM
O f-
Q ID •«• CM
CD f r- CO
r* ft
U3 CD '
CM f i
t t ,
~~ i
II 11 f
x x 1
!
1
i
t
- « !
T C4
,
CO CO f
LO h- L
O) CD 1
I
[
i
~c
3
n
it
a
u
o
a.
>
5
"*
J
*
S
n
M
M
c
o
a.
o
t_
a.
—
*
n
x
» 3
n
It
"H,
;
•"
O O OB
CD 9
'i?
'• U
•CM
^ la
O *-"
t i- i i + *
1-10 *~ i_ *" u. t-
QtsssasoBB
II II II II H II II II II
CLO-O_^tl.O.O.O_(L
n>0*Lo'col
CO CM T
0> O 00 CO O) G
a>coeor».cDcoo>s&
aonncocMCDCD^'
cof-cotB
S
Mol ocul
w»ight
g/g mo
^.r-r-ti-tcococn
, , r
i-t CM
oo ^ u> to a) -CM
X_l
• O * • WXC1-XCI-XC "">>>^
I.X X • O 3 X3 X3 333>
Q..C » u * o •- JT — j: — £ j: J= ^ — — *-
a- ex T»o>»T)»>T>aiaso> wo -o -^ >
*-o ux c "
=
01 • • E x a» ii ii u ii ii u ii n II ii ii M M ii
O X 3 O
i?x5^ 8"S.?
J-6
-------
• Source of data
• Plant layout
• Waste managed and their characteristics.
The plot plans and design and operating parameters of each facility also
are presented.
For long-term emission control, the five control options described in
Chapter 5.0 are applied in Section J.3. Efforts to identify controls for
both acute, and chronic noncarcinogenic TSDF emissions are still in
progress. No information is currently available on short-term controls for
Section J.4.
J.I TSDF EMISSION MODELS
Estimates of air emissions from the two TSDF described in this
appendix include both short-term or peak emissions and annual average
emissions. The emission models derived for short-term estimates use inputs
that are based primarily on a high level of activity with most transfers of
waste occurring during an 8-h period each day. The approach for average
annual emissions assumes a relatively continuous operation, and the
emission models for annual average estimates use inputs based on average
flow rates, a temperature commonly used in emission modeling, and an
average annual windspeed.
J.I.I Long-Term Emission Models
Annual average or long-term emissions are estimated from the emission
models presented in the TSDF air emission models report. This approach is
based on annual average waste flow rates (instead of the peak rates used
for the short-term approach) and average meteorological conditions. The
source descriptions and dimensions used as inputs to the models are the
same as those used for the short-term effort and are described in Section
J.2.
For both sites, a temperature of 25 °C was used as recommended in
Reference 1. The frequency of occurrence of various windspeeds at each
site was used to estimate an annual average windspeed. The average annual
windspeed used for TSDF Site 1 was 3.5 m/s and the windspeed used for
Site 2 was 4.5 m/s. None of the TSDF emission sources were defined as
biologically active treatment systems; consequently, biodegradation was not
J-7
-------
included in the emission models. The annual average estimates for each
source include adjustments to the organic concentration in the waste to
reflect losses due to air emissions from prior processing.
J.I.2 Short-Term Emission Models
The models used to estimate short-term emissions are discussed in
detail in Reference 2 and are based on modifications to the annual average
models presented in the TSDF air emission models report. A basic modifica-
tion used for the short-term models is to present the input parameters and
mass transfer correlations in terms of their dependence on temperature and
windspeed. Accounting for short-term variations in temperature and wind-
speed will then yield more accurate estimates of short-term emissions. For
example, the following properties were expressed in terms of their tempera-
ture dependence: vapor pressure, Henry's law constant, diffusivity ef a
compound in air and water, density and viscosity of air, and diffusion
coefficients. For models that contain windspeed as an input parameter, the
functional dependence on windspeed was retained as a variable.
The short-term approach uses site-specific data on temperature and
windspeed to estimate emissions for short time intervals. The temperature
and windspeed are updated hourly to estimate hourly instantaneous emissions
from each source. The emission estimates generated in this manner permit
peak emission periods to be identified and also allows the estimation of
peak ambient air concentrations of organics around the facility. This
approach also reduces the organic concentration as the waste is processed
to reflect losses to the air from previous process emission sources. The
emission source descriptions, including method of operation, peak waste
pumping rates and pumping times, and-process unit dimensions used in the .
short-term models are provided in Section J.2.
0.2 TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES SELECTED FOR DETAILED
ANALYSIS
This section introduces two TSDF selected for modeling the dispersion
of organic air emissions to assess chronic and acute health effects from
exposure to ambient air concentrations. These TSDF are based on actual
facilities.
J-8
-------
In Sections J.2.2 and J.2.3, each TSDF emission source is described,
including quantity of waste transferred, loading times, dimensions of emis-
sion source, and input parameters for the appropriate emission calcula-
tions.
The data used to characterize both facilities came from test reports
prepared for EPA, along with the Industry Profile and the Waste Characteri-
zation Data Base (WCDB). (The Industry Profile and WCDB are described in
more detail in Appendix D.) This information was supplemented by
discussions with EPA Regions, State agencies, RCRA permit applications, and
the 1986 National Screening Survey.3
Representative waste concentrations were developed for chemical
constituents and their organic surrogates for Sites 1 and 2 as an input to
the emission models. Using the Industry Profile along with the test
reports prepared for EPA, waste stream mixtures consisting of RCRA waste
codes, their physical/chemical forms, and quantities were designated for
each waste management process (multiple waste codes may be mixed and
managed in the same process). All of the waste data bases constituting the
WCDB (see Appendix D, Section D.2.2) were then accessed to provide
compositional data for determining representative waste concentrations of
constituents or surrogates. Default compositions (described in Appendix D,
Section D.2.2) were used to characterize waste streams that were undefined
in the WCDB. The methodology for developing constituent and surrogate
concentrations is documented in Reference 4.
J.2.1 Rationale for Selection of Facilities
As noted earlier, two TSDF were selected for modeling in order to
assess chronic and acute health effects from exposure to organic air
emissions at the facilities. For these assessments, the highest ambient
concentrations in the vicinity of the facilities are used to assess the
potential for the greatest human exposure. The highest ambient
concentrations around a facility are sensitive to a number of factors,
including:
• Magnitude and rate of emissions from all sources of air
emissions at a facility
• Emission release characteristics such as temperature, height
of release, the area over which the emissions occur, etc.
J-9
-------
• Location of the emission sources relative to the impact area
• Meteorology at the site that affects both emission rates
(e.g., temperature and windspeed) and transport and dispersion
of the emissions (e.g., windspeed, wind direction, atmospheric
stability, depth of the mixed layer, etc.).
Ideally, the facilities selected for analysis would be those that are
indicative of the highest exposures around TSDF. Because of the complex
nature of TSDF and the dependency of ambient concentration estimates on the
factors cited above, selecting facilities that have the greatest potential
for the highest ambient concentrations is extremely difficult. Thus, the
approach used here was to select the facilities on the basis of a number of
criteria, including:
• Sufficient information on the facility must be available in
order to properly characterize it for emission model and
refined dispersion model applications
• The facilities should contain a variety of TSDF emission
sources in order to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative
control strategies on lowering emissions from the various
source types
• The facilities should have significant waste volume
throughputs to maximize the potential for high emissions.
Inital screening of all TSDF identified relatively few sites with the
necessary information to perform a refined modeling analysis and meet the
above criteria. Of these, two sites that best met the criteria were
selected after reviewing the available information on emission source
types, forms of waste handled, site layout, and process flow.
J.2.2 Description of Site 1
Site 1 is a commercial hazardous waste management facility. The
facility accepts a variety of hazardous wastes, both in bulk and in
containers. Much of the waste that the facility handles is treated onsite,
and it consists primarily of wastewater containing soluble oils, acids,
caustics, chromium, cyanides, and some solvents. Waste entering Site 1
arrives in drums and by tank truck. The facility has wastewater and waste
J-10
-------
oil treatment units. Figure J-l presents a plot plan of Site 1 and Figure
J-2 presents a flow diagram of Site 1. The plot plan shows numbered
emission sources that correspond to the same description of the facility.
The flow diagram contains alphabetized process flows that are keyed to
short-term and continuous (annual average) flow rates in Table J-2.
The contents (waste form and code) of each waste mixture managed at
Site 1 are presented in Table J-3. The average concentrations of waste
constituents of a health concern in each waste stream mixture managed in a
process unit on Site 1 are shown in Table J-4; average waste compositions
of each waste mixture expressed as organic surrogates are listed in Table
J-5. Design and operating parameters for the site along with the
appropriate emission calculations are described in the following section.
" J.2.2.1 Design and Operating Parameters of Emission Points for
Site 1. The following pages present the design and operating parameters of
Site 1 emission sources. Each numbered emission source is identified in
the plot plan, as shown in Figure J-l. For each emission point within a
source, the reader is referred to the modified TSDF emission equations of
Reference 2 when dealing with short-term emission estimates. Table J-6
presents the definitions of variables listed for each emission source when
estimating short-term emissions.
J.2.2.1.1 Storage and transfer building (emission source No. 1).
Five hundred 0.21-m3 (55-gal) drums arrive each week. Drums are sampled
and moved to separate hazard class storage areas. The contents of 250 of
these drums are stored in three covered 23-m3 aqueous waste storage tanks
(3 m x 3 m x 2.5 m). It is assumed that each drum contains 15 percent
solids. . Solids are consolidated into drums and shipped offsite for
disposal.
Each week, two 23-m3 tank trucks transfer the aqueous waste from the
drum storage building to the acid/alkali receiving area. Tank truck
loading occurs on Monday and Thursday at 1000 hours for 1 h at a rate of
6.72 x 10'3 m3/s.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
'Assume all surrogates are heavy liquids.
J-ll
-------
" rB
.Till F,,
JjEtt^HfUj
j«pL c-i
" I III
1 i— I t*o
I!<0
[
1
B B
B S [
1
sfa |
3
ii
" S
III *fr .
•^n - i
i
- ;
• ^
•st
X *
, 1
j -: ,,
HI !•
*^i= «£ ?
-_-_-«--- >-^, -S ^
" ._. t-^ta) • s 3
psn pn ^™^\y 3 ^
«2
1 '
fi ^
c
||-
s **
It
E II
Hn
Is]
1
§
"
|
'5
|
i
&
5
E
a
-
•
M
T '
1
s
J-
.
M
c
I
a
1 "5
51
II
ii
si
D
o"
•
s
•
£
55
"o
n (0
0 —
Q.
4^
_o
^
§.
^m
a
a
1 . >«
1
•o
~
a3
8 °
1^
4)
5*
"•
o
J-12
-------
_a
5
STORAGE
13. Covtrad
Tinkt
t-
STORAGE
IS. Covtrid
Wot* Oil
Tank
0
«
a
i
STS
0>
en
2
o
§ 2
c en
f: I
(A C
"O 'cS
_o> w
'« o.
O)
iz
J-13
-------
TABLE J-2. DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS: SHORT-TERM AND
CONTINUOUS PROCESS FLOW RATES WITHIN TSDF SITE la
Process
flow
pathb
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
6.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
Short-term Continuous
flow rates,0 Short-term flow rates, d
10~3 m^/s timeframe 10"3 nvVs
0.
0.
6.
6.
8.
28.
0.
0.
6.
3.
2.
0.
0.
2.
1.
2.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
6.
258 (7 d/wk,
018 (7 d/wk,
72 (2 h/wk)
5 (7 d/wk,
42 (7 d/wk,
9 (1 d/wk,
516 (7 d/wk,
611 7 d/wk,
23 7 d/wk,
72 7 d/wk,
5 7 d/wk,
343 (7 d/wk,
343 (7 d/wk,
16 (7 d/wk,
89 (7 d/wk,
03 (7 d/wk,
00845 (7 d/wk,
89 (1 h/mo)
132 (7 d/wk,
744 (7 d/wk,
0929 (7 d/wk,
3 (1 d/wk,
8 h/d) 0.086
8 h/d) 0.006
0.08
1 h/d) 0.27
1 h/d) - 0.35
1 h/d) 0.172
8 h/d 0.172
8 h/d 0.204
8 h/d 2.08
8 h/d 1.24
8 h/d 0.833
8 h/d 0.114
8 h/d) 0.114
8 h/d) 0.72
8 h/d) 0.63
8 h/d) 0.677
8 h/d) 0.00282
0.00282
8 h/d) 0.044
1 h/d) 0.031
8 h/d) 0.031
2 h/d) 0.075
TSDF = Transfer, storage, and disposal facility.
aThis table presents short-term and continuous flow rates that are based
on site-specific information.
^Hazardous waste management process flow paths are alphabetized to corre-
spond to Figure J-2.
cShort-term flow rates were estimated based on site-specific information.
^Continuous flow rates used to estimate long-term emissions were estimated
given nonstop flow through the facility 7 d/wk, 24 h/d.
J-14
-------
- i g
fe !;
*• i
I x
I CM
g
(O
! g
S I
5!
X
m
S
^
2
CO.
g
*"•
X
s
s
f^
X
X
K
u>
•
J^
CO
g
X
CO
£
*"•
u
e
L.
o
«
x
iiilllllsslliiiilSs
.
.- -
2££§si§i§§B33333333333
SSSSS22SSSS2SS2SSSSS2S
U.U.U.§3BSSSS=> = = = 3 = = = 3 = => =
.
ssSfiBBaea^cMCMCMCMCM
U. U. 13 =) 5 3 B ZJ 3 D O 15 D D
-
BSBQ&Q9B&I1*
•
•
' •••--• • • - • - -
^ ut
^Mn^lD^MMOXD^I^MS^tt^BM^MIO-B^aXIXSVr.
_
T LO O> S M
a a a o ^
Mn u,u, ...... ».... ..''..
EaSE£SSSSSS5§SSsS5S = =,=, = = =, = =,aaSSSSSSS
»U10iSCO^COO»rHCMe4«>»HC)-*CO»-f»
CJQSQ5) .
a: 4> «
oe *> *
j.
\
.
!
1
{
1
j •; •• ' ,::• "'if- "
|
I
i ' .
,
\
1
'• «*r X
— e
n o
0 U
a. 9
n K
•e -o
c
-o *
c
• c
1 o
c"+>
a •
!_(....
o e c ^ T)
*s « a-- —
M CT3 3 3
O 3 O" CT
C C
JL 3 3 .-
3 0 0 C
• o c 0 a
£fl) 3 3 OD
« O- IT U
H- (C < < O
II II II II II
U. < X X X
d o: x x x
to u CM ro ^p
t- K
-*
5
w
4>
C
t_
3
X
"g
V
a
•^
"
c
-o
TO
C
a
E
tn
o
«
u
'i
V
u
u
*
a.
*c
c
|
o
u
s
n
*
ce
o
•
4?
M
C
c
n
c
a.
n
9
CO
u.
a
CO
t—
^
•
t)
c
3
C
I
OJ
c
I
0
0)
c
c
Jj
-p
n
o
e
j;
T,'
c
*
«v
0
O
U
s
13
*
^
(T
O
S
3
4>
«
5
0
c
I
a
9
O
U
M
L
•§
C
mix tun
^
M
1
C
t.
3
C9
LL
C
•c
C
«
~
«
(_
«
t|
L.
3
X
0
«
C
•a
u
c
c
L
*
g
L.
O
c
(A
O
-C
h-
c
"0
u
a
tn
*
^
a:
Qg
(I
O
E
O
C
V)
•
u
*i
J
u
u
*
c
i
c
O
1
0
c
0
c
t"
u •
CM
CM
Ji O
X C
8.2
4J
9 U
L. e
4>
fl C
-------
TABLE J-4. DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS: WASTE CHARACTERIZATION BY
CONSTITUENT OF CONCERN FOR TSDF SITE la
Waste
mixture
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Surrc
Hib
1
4
5
3
7
9
4
5
7
9
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
7
5
5
5
3
3
3 .
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
1
1
7
7
iqate
VPi
1
1
2
3
4
6
1
2
4
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
Average
• concentratii
c %
0.0001
0.0361
0.0941
0.0001
0.001
0.132
Total organic =
0.0352
0.0916
0.0001
0.175
Total organic =
7.88
3.14
0.0072
6.31
0.183
0.827
1.43
1.82
0.588
4.304
0.0007
0.0765
3.054
0.0262
5.48
1.19
0.0033
0.344
0.07
0.0162
0.2028
0.0977
4.2
0.0131
0.2802
Constituent
Methyl ene chloride
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl alcohol
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Phenols
Cyanide
0.818
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl alcohol
Phenols
Cyanide
0.620
Toluene
Methyl ene chloride
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Butanol
Isopropanol
Ethyl acetate
Methanol
Ethyl alcohol
Acetone
Propanol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tri ch 1 oroethy 1 ene
Chloroform
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Perchloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Methyl methacrylate
1,4-Dioxane
Ethyl benzene
Dichlorobenzene
Xylene
Toluene diisocyanate
Isobutyl alcohol
(continued)
J-16
-------
TABLE J-4 (continued)
Waste
mixture
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
•5 .'-
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Surrogate Average
^ concentration,
Hib VP^ % Constituent
8
8
3
6
4
3
3
7
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
7
2
2
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
1
1
7
7 .
7
8
8
3
5
5
6
6
10
12
3
' 4 ' .
Total
1
1
1 •
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
0.0111
0.0078
0.292
0.241
0.0073
1.12
0.0001
0.0002
organic =
2.43
6.028
0.0055
0.124
0.6097
1.107
4.84
1.32
0.0005
0.0013
0.0006
3.32
0.448
0.0202
0.0025
0.922
2.36
4.23
0.0591
0.0541
0.013
0.281
0.163
0.0754
3.32
0.0005
0.0101
0.216
0.0086
0.006
0.2405
Aniline
Methyl acrylate
Styrene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
Tri ch 1 orotri fl uoroethane
Gasoline
Phenols
0.146
Methyl ene chloride
Toluene
Benzene
Butanol
Isopropanol
Ethyl acetate
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Acetic acid
Chlorobenzene
Propanol
Acetone
Ethyl alcohol
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Perch 1 oroethy 1 ene
Trichloroethylene
1,1, 1-Tri chl oroethane
1,2-Oichloroethane
Methyl methacrylate
1,4-Dioxane
1,1, 2-Tri chl oroethane
Ethyl benzene
Di Chlorobenzene
Xylene
Phenol
To1uene diisocyanate
Isobutyl alcohol
Aniline
Methyl acrylate
Styrene
(continued)
J-17
-------
TABLE J-4 (continued)
Waste
mixture
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
SurrnnatP Average
Surrogate concentration,
Hib VPic % Constituent
6
4
3
1
4
5
3
3
7
9
3
7
6
10
12
Total
1
1
2
3
3
4
, 6
Total
3
4
0.186
0.005
0.866
organic =
0.0002
0.0666
0.174
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
organic = 0
0.0001
0.0002
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
Tri chl orotri f 1 uoroethane
68.2
Methyl ene chloride
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl alcohol
Gasoline
1,1, 1-Trichl oroethane
Phenols
Cyanide
.8303
Gasoline.
Phenols
8
Total organic = 0.146
6 0.267 Cyanide
Total organic = 0.386
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1
1
1
4
4
7
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.0153
0.0552
5.068
0.422
0.0094
0.126 -
0.0015
0.013
0.0054
0.007
1.69
9.48
0.0558
6.503
0.163
0.733
Benzene
Toluene
Methyl ene chloride
Isopropanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Propanol
Ethyl alcohol
Acetone
Carbon tetrachloride
Perch 1 oroethy 1 ene
1,1, 1 -Tri ch 1 oroethane
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1, 1,2-Tri chl oroethane
(continued)
J-18
-------
TABLE J-4 (continued)
Waste
mixture
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Surrc
Hib
6
1
1
1
7
6
3
1
1
4
4
4
4
7
5
5
3
6
1
1
7
8
8
3
6
4
1
1
4
7
2
2
1
1
4
7
L
3
4
4
4
4
6
12
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
10
Total
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
Average
oncentrati
%
0.0345
0.0083
0.208
0.0074
0.0278
0.0057
2.38
organic =
1.38
14.3
2.62
0.334
1.15
11.5
3.22
1.061
7.85
1.86
0.128
0.364
7.82
0.511
0.0142
0.0203
0.532
0.435
0.0133
organic =
0.01
0.0082
0.0023
0.0059
0.0037
0.01
0.046
0.0031
0.0001
0.0035
Constituent
1,4-Dioxane
Xylene
Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene diisocyanate
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
90.46
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Ethyl acetate
Butanol
Isopropanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Ethyl alcohol
Acetone
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Methyl methacrylate
Ethyl benzene
Xylene
Isobutyl alcohol
Methyl acrylate
Aniline
Styrene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
88.5
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Ethyl acetate
Methanol
Acetic acid
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Xylene
Benzaldehyde
Phenol
(continued)
J-19
-------
TABLE J-4 (continued)
Waste
mixture
11
11
Surrogate
2 5
3 . 6
Average
concentration,
0.0001
0.115
Constituent
Cumene
Styrene
Total organic = 0.996
12
12
12
12
12
12
1
4
5
3
3
9
1
1
2
3
3
6
0.0004
0.0387
0.1007
0.0001
0.0004
0.0021
Total organic =
Methyl ene chloride
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl alcohol
Gasoline
1,1, 1-Tri chl oroethane
Cyanide
0.628
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
aThis table presents the average concentrations of specific hazardous
constituents of health concern in the waste mixtures handled at TSDF Site 1
for the Detailed Facility Analysis.
&Hi - Henry's law surrogate number keyed to the properties in Table J-l.
CVP| = Vapor pressure surrogate number keyed to the properties in Table J-l.
J-20
-------
5
OGATES
(T
ce
fe
CO
1
h- •
< rH
§LU
M
u 3
« X f-
1
|5^
£
Ji
»1 *> 03
• X
^
• t.
*> 3
• -J 1-
• X
m •
C t.
4» 3
*'i
Wast* Wast*
mixtura mixtur*
2 4
Wast*
mixtur*
1
J3
" ^
t. * 08
c a o
3
«
C4 to 11 S CD S !*• * S
•r T CD w« co oo
11 0» ** «0 « O
V CD
O) i-t <*r CM 19 S B
T CO OB Q LO CO
CM en f* -r
CM US r* CM ^ CO D
to OD""
<-4O>O)v*^CM<9S B
*r co oo <9 u> «j
CM en f*. Y
CM ID US f*. -^ ^ LO Q
CM tn eo
ft 00 *T tO CO (O O>
en CM Q ui co m «
ciV co*
mmojcDmmmaa "5
3x_jai_iax i-
^*
j
c
;
>,
|
c
0
tp
•
L.
4d
C
C
u
c
0
u
s
a
5 =
M 4» S
* X *H
*I
Wasto WasU
mixtur* mixtur*
6 9
WasU
mi xturt
3
.0
p 5
U 3 (V
0 W OS
a. u) o
(9 C L.
M
gggggaasQ a
®.Q.*llalm *""*" ® §
CO V CM *-> CO CO O» QO
V3 v* »•* go
§B4963 <9 00 CO r»> *•* V V
U> ^ I-. r* O> ••* f* CM 6}
* . <^* CD
CM ^ uj ** m CM" to" CM* co* m
i-» rH W ™
CM oo co co oo ^- en £ en
ID CD —
XXX333^>> |£
O
J»O
C X
si
§a
u»
• C
* •
x e
tv ~
c **•
x-8
e •
0 I.
•o
• s
• •*>
-O •
• 0
• C.
4* C
!«
t.
3 >— .
"s .
• o M e g c
X *V O • • e .— S
-«*,_• -~= c . .g 3J2
•— c c c 4^ o o- c c —••<»*>
"~ OX O * O • « ••— C«O O •*> C C ^ <•
"• S ^? f h."9 ™~° O9 • -^ U « t. O A SOT3
M S ^ ? * ?« * * * U * °S"D 0)"T3 C *• *" °
g £ _ " . T o>^ .a o ca o e ca^o i- TS — e o In
8" S* — -5«e^-g2'ocoa>
11 _2 JOJJ3 O — O .Q -^ Ifl S — .-.- o
S»« * '" P ™ ~ -C JJ — O 3JJS^ —
* j: • • « a % SskSk ^.t- .- _ » * «
L *>> «— S«i— 5 *-- j>^5*— — — x— —
U " "2 u*.01 « ?.** 0 x.w z T "* *i 5 •£ ™ * *
g • ^ ^ C X- C X- C >»4j"*>*43 — — — —^^
| Q.|""ii^|i=li=>>>§ii"?t,tl
S — i^ ^ ."§* ^ . "» * ^ "&"«"& "S^'-o 5 *««
L. ^ •**3ZJ3I-1 JS3T z •£ x 2 2 3 -3
II ** 0 — ? " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
« J- •« ^auax-ianxiszsj »
J-21
-------
TABLE J-6. DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS: DEFINITION OF VARIABLES
USED IN SHORT-TERM TSDF EMISSION EQUATIONS3
Variables
Definitions
Q
N
/'waste
D
H
POWR
At
d
u
d*
Aq
Pt
A
'L
w
U
Throughput
Turnovers/year
Density of waste
Molecular weight of waste
Diameter
Height
Total power to aerator
Area affected by aeration
Impeller diameter, m
Rotational speed of impeller
Impeller diameter, ft
Quiescent area
Total operating pressure
Area
Density of water
Molecular weight of oily waste
Length of uncovered dumpster or
fixation pit
Width of uncovered dumpster
Windspeed
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
aThis table presents those variables used to estimate short-term organic
emissions from TSDF. The emission equations (given in Reference 2) are
modified versions of the long-term equations defined in Reference 1.
J-22
-------
Spills
Drum and Tank
Truck Loading
Tank Loading
Tank Storage
Spill fraction during drum transfer to
storage = 1 x 10'4.
Q = 2.40 x lO'4 m3/s.
Assume only 50 percent of the organics in the
spill is volatilized to the atmosphere.
Spills occur 8 h each day.
Q = 6.72 x ID'3 n)3/s (for two tank trucks).
Q = 2.40 x 10-4 m3/s for three tanks (from
drum to storage tank)
N = 47.
MWwaste = 18 g/g mol.
D = 3.0 m, H = 1.2 m.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the above
equations.
J.2.2.1.2 Acid/alkali receiving area (emission source No. 2). The
acid/alkali receiving area consists of six covered 41-m3 storage tanks
(3.7 m x 3.7 m x 3 m).
Each week, six 30-m3 tank trucks deliver acidic and caustic waste to
the acid/alkali receiving area. Tank loading occurs daily at 0900 hours
for 1 h at a rate of 6.50 x 10"3 m3/s.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Tank Loading
Tank Storage
Q = 2.4.0 x 10;4 m3/s, N = 33 (for two tanks).
Q = 6.5 x 10-3 m3/s, N = 56 (for four tanks).
D = 3.7 m, H = 1.8 m.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all the above
equations.
J.2.2.1.3 North equalization basin (emission source No. 3). For 8 h
each day, waste from the acid/alkali receiving area is pumped to the North
equalization basin (an uncovered, aerated tank). Wastewater from the oil
treatment system and washwater and filtrate from the rotary vacuum filters
are pumped 8 h each day to the North equalization basin.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
J-23
-------
Mechanically Aerated POWR = 14.9 kW (20 hp), At = 16.7 m2,
Uncovered Tank retention time = 12 h, d = 1.524 m,
w = 0.93 rad/s, d* = 1.524 m, Aq = 66.8 m2,
7.7 m x 10.8 m x 2.3 m, Q = 5.10 x 10'3
m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the above
equations.
J.2.2.1.4 South waste receiving area (emission source No. 4) Each
week, the contents of four 26.5-m3 tank trucks are pumped into the South
waste receiving area, which consists of four covered 30.3-m3 (8,000-gal)
storage tanks (3.7 m x 3.7 m x 3 m). One tank truck contains acid/chrome
waste, two tank trucks contain acid/ alkali dilute sludge, and one tank
truck contains cyanide. Each type of waste is stored in a separate storage
tank. Tank loading occurs early Thursday at 0900 hours each week for 1 h
at a rate of 2.89 x 10~2 m3/s.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Tank Loading Q = 2.89 x 10"2 m3/s, N = 36.
Tank Storage D=3.7m, H = 1.4 m.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
above equations.
J.2.2.1.5 Cyanide pretreatment (emission source No. 5). Cyanide is
pumped from the South waste receiving area to the uncovered, quiescent
cyanide pretreatment tank (5 m x 6 m x 3 m) each day for 8 h.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Flow-through
Uncovered Tank
A = 30 m2, D = 3 m, Q = 1.29 x 10'4 m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.2.1.6 Chrome reduction (emission source No. 6). The acid/chrome
waste is pumped from the South waste receiving area to the uncovered,
quiescent chrome reduction tank (5 m x 6 m x 3 m) each day for 8 h.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
J-24
-------
Flow-through
Uncovered
Tank
A = 30 m2, D = 3 m, Q = 1.29 x 10'4 n)3/s,
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.2.1.7 Neutralization tank (emission source No. 7). The
acid/alkali dilute sludge and the reduced acid/chrome waste are pumped to
the uncovered, quiescent neutralization tank (7 m x 10 m x 5 m) each day
for 8 h. . •
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Flow-through
Uncovered Tank
A = 70 m2, D = 5 m, Q = 3.87 x 1(H m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.2.1.8 South equalization basin (emission source No. 8). The
contents of the neutralization tank along with the pretreated cyanide waste
are pumped into the South equalization basin—an uncovered, aerated tank
(6.9 m x 15.8 m x 2.2 m). Pumping occurs each day for 8 h at a rate of
1.13 ITH/S. The contents of the North equalization basin are pumped into
the South equalization basin along with neutralization chemicals at a flow
rate of 5.10 x 10"3 m3/s for 8 h each day.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Mechanically
Aerated Uncovered
Tank
POWR = 22.4 kW (30 hp), At = 10.9 m2,
retention time = 12 h, d = 1.067 m, u = 1.13
rad/s, Aq = 97.8 m2, 6.8 m x 15.8 m x 2.2 m,
Q = 6.23 x 10-3 m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.2.1.9 Aqueous waste clarifier (emission source No. 9). The
contents of the South equalization basin are pumped into the aqueous waste
clarifier—an uncovered, quiescent treatment tank (6.9 m x 15.8 m x 2.2 m).
Pumping occurs for 8 h each day.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Flow-through
Uncovered Tank
A = 108.7 m2, D = 2.2 m, Q = 6.23 x 1Q-3
ITH/S.
J-25
-------
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.2.1.10 Rotary vacuum filters (emission source No. 10). Waste
from the aqueous waste clarifier is pumped to the rotary vacuum filters at
a rate of 2.50 x 10"3 m3/s. The vacuum filter operates continuously from
0800 to 1600 hours. The vacuum generates 68.8 m3 of filter cake each week.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Vacuum Pump Pt = 40 kPa, (0.4 atm), Qt = 11.2 m3.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.2.1.11 Sludge loading area (emission source No. 11). Filter cake
from the rotary vacuum is generated at a rate of 19.7 m3 every 2 days.
Filters are loaded on an open dump truck and hauled to an offsite landfill.
Vacuum Filter Cake L = 3.0 m, W = 2.5 m.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for the above
equation.
J.2.2.1.12 Receiving tank 8 (emission source No 12). Each day,
industrial waste oils from one 18.9-m3 tank truck and oily wastewater
(nonhazardous waste) from two 26.5-m3 tank trucks are pumped into receiving
tank 8, which consists of four 19-m3 (5,000-gal) treatment tanks—uncovered
and quiescent (3 m x 3 m x 2.5 m deep). Pumping duration is 23 m3 for 8 h
each day. Hazardous waste is transferred at a rate of 5.1 x 10"4 m3/s for
8 h each day.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Oil Film Surface A = 37.16 m2, p\_ = 8.8 x 1()5 g/m3, MW0ii = 100
g/g mol.
Use the vapor pressure surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.2.1.13 Recovered waste oil storage tank (emission source no. 13).
Recovered waste oil from receiving tank 8 is pumped to the recovered waste
oil storage tank (3.7 m long x 1.8 m diameter) along with waste oil
J-26
-------
containing flammable solvents from the waste oil storage tank (3 m x 3 m x
2.5 m) each week. The storage tank is covered and vented. Pumping rate is
1.32 x lO'4 m3/s for 8 h each day from Section 0.2.2.1.12, Receiving
tank 8. The recovered waste oil is blended and used as secondary fuel.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Tank Loading Q = 1.23 x 10~3 m3/s, N = 48.
Tank Storage Assume />waste- = 8.8 x 105 g/m3, MWwaste = 100
g/g mol, D = 4.0 m, H = 2.0 m.
Use the vapor pressure surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of
the above equations.
J.2.2.1.14 Reusable chlorinated solvent storage tank (emission source
No. 14). Each day, reusable chlorinated solvents are pumped at a rate of
8.45 x 10~6 m3/s from receiving tank 8 to the 6.8-m3 chlorinated solvent
storage tank (a covered tank 2 x 2.3 m in diameter). Pumping duration is
8 h each day. Once a month, chlorinated solvents are sent offsite for
reclamation.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Tank Loading Q = 8.45 x 10'6 m3/s, N = 13.
Tank Storage Assume MWwaste = 100 g/g mol, D = 2.3 m,
H = 1.1 m.
Use the vapor pressure surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.2.1.15 Waste oil storage tank (emission source No. 15). Each
week, the contents of 90 drums are pumped into an 18.9-m3 waste oil storage
tank (3 m x 3 m x 2.5 m). The storage tank is covered and vented and is
located in the drum storage and transfer building.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Spills
Tank Loading
Spill fraction during drum transfer to storage =
1 x ID'4. Q = 9.29 x 10-5 m3/s.
Q = 9.29 x 10-5 m3/s.
N = 51.
/"waste = 8-8 x !05 9/m3, MWwaste = 100 g/g mol.
J-27
-------
Tank Storage
D = 3.0 m, H = 1.2 m.
Use the vapor pressure surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.3 Description of Site 2
Site 2 is a commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal
facility. A variety of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes are accepted at
the facility. Common wastes received include wastes from chemical, steel,
and automotive industries. Of specific interest are the following
activities: active landfills, wastewater treatment (including uncovered
tanks and surface impoundments), and drum transfer and processing. The
plot plan with numbered emission sources and a flow diagram for Site 2 are
shown in Figures J-3 and J-4, respectively. The flow diagram contains
alphabetized process flows that are keyed to short-term and continuous
(annual average) flow rates as shown in Table J-7.
Table J-8 gives the contents (waste form and code) of each waste
mixture managed at Site 2. The average concentrations of waste consti-
tuents of a health concern in each waste stream mixture are shown in Table
J-9; average waste compositions- expressed as organic surrogates are listed
in Table J-10. Design and operating parameters for the site along with the
appropriate emission calculations are described in the following section.
J.2.3.1 Design and Operating Parameters of Emission Points for Site 2.
The following pages present the design and operating parameters of Site 2
emission sources for estimating both long-term and short-term emissions.
Each numbered emission source is identified in the plot plan as shown in
Figure J-3. Table J-6 presents the definitions of variables listed for each
emission source when estimating short-term emissions.
J.2.3.1.1 Drum storage and transfer building (emission source No. 1).
Five hundred 0.21-m3 drums containing aqueous waste arrive each week.' The
contents of these drums are stored in a 90.8-m3 covered storage tank (4.8 m
x 4.8 m x 4 m). It is assumed that each drum contains 15 percent solids.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Spills
Spill fraction during drum transfer to
storage = 1 x 10'4, Q = 4.80 x 10'4 m3/s.
(Assume only 50 percent of the organics in
the spill is volatilized to the atmosphere.)
J-28
-------
1620
1500
1380
1260
1140
1020
900
780
660
540
420
300
180
60
Wastewatw Treatment Facility
Pha»1
3
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Phaia2
8
=
9
ib
11
0 60 180
300 420 540 660 780900 1020 H40 1260 1380~ 1500 1620"
300m
-*• Scale
O,D » Waste management process units
Figure J-3. Detailed facility analysis plot plan of Site 2.
J-29
-------
OJ
CM
~
CO
J-30
-------
TABLE J-7. DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS: SHORT-TERM AND
CONTINUOUS PROCESS FLOW RATES WITHIN TSDF SITE 2a
Process
flow
pathb
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K. ..
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Short-term
flow rates,0
10-3 m3/s
0.48
0.253
3.84
24
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.4
0.094
21.4
21.4
66.0
21.4
21.4
21.4
0.094
21.3
21 3
59 nH/mo
59 m3/mo
Short-term
timeframe
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(1 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 1 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(1 h/wk)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(7 d/wk, 8 h/d)
(1 h/mo)
Continuous
flow rates, d
10-3 m3/s
0.160
0.0264
0.160
7.01
7.17
7.17
7.17
7.13
0.0314
7.13
0.392
0.392
7.52
7.52
7.52
0.0314
7.49
7.49
0.0228
0.0228
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
aThis table presents short-term and continuous flow rates that are based
on site-specific information.
^Hazardous waste management process flow paths are alphabetized to corre-
spond to Figure J-4.
cShort-term flow rates were estimated based on site-specific information.
^Continuous flow rates used to estimate long-term emissions were estimated
given nonstop flow through the facility 7 d/wk, 24 h/d.
J-31
-------
TABLE J-8. DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS: CONTENTS OF EACH
WASTE MIXTURE MANAGED AT TSDF SITE 2a
Waste mixture
number:'3
Percent comp. 7% 2XX
by waste form:c 93% 3XX
100% 1XX 100% 3XX
20% 2XX
65% 3XX
15% 5XX
100% 3XX 100% 1XX
RCRA waste
code within
each waste
formrd
D002 D002 D002 D002
D005 D005 D005 D003
F009 F009 F009 D004
K062 K062 K062 D005
U210 U210 U210 D006
D007
D008
D009
DO 10
D011
F009
K002
K049
K050
K051
K052
K062
P015
P030
U009
U012
U036
U037
U080
U102
U122
U124
U125
U134
U144
U147
U151
U159
U189
U207
U210
U211
U220
U228
D002
D003
D004
D005
D006
D007
D008
D009
DO 10
D011
F009
K002
K049
K050
K051
K052
K062
P015
P030
U009
U012
U036
U037
U080
U102
U122
U124
U125
U134
U144
U147
U151
U159
U189
U207
U210
U211
U220
U228
D002
D003
D004
D005
D006
D007
D008
D009
D010
D011
F00.9
K002
K049
K050
K051
K052
K062
P015
P030
U009
U012
U036
U037
U080
U102
U122
U124
U125
U134
U144
U147
U151
U159
U189
U207
U210
U211
U220
U228
(continued)
J-32
-------
TABLE' J-8 (continued)
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
1XX = Inorganic solid.
2XX = Aqueous sludge.
3XX = Aqueous liquid.
5XX = Organic sludge/solid.
aThis table presents the RCRA waste codes (and their physical/chemical forms)
managed in each waste mixture at Site 2.
"Waste stream numbers correspond to the mixture of RCRA waste codes and their
forms that enter waste management units at TSDF Site 2. These streams are
labeled in Figure J-4.
CA waste stream may be a mixture of two or more physical/chemical waste forms
of a RCRA waste code. These forms are described in Appendix D, Section
D.2.2.
dRCRA waste codes are defined in 40 CFR 261, Subparts C and D.
J-33
-------
TABLE J-9. DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS: WASTE CHARACTERIZATION BY
CONSTITUENT OF CONCERN FOR TSDF SITE 2a
Waste
mixture
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Surrc
Hib
1
4
4
7
2
2
5
5
3
9
9
9
1
7
8
3
6
9
7
4
3
1
3
2
1
4
4
7
2
2
5
5
3
9
9
9
jgate
VPi<
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
• 3
3
"3
4
4
5
6
6
6
8
10
12
1
3
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
e c^cSon.
0.0012
0.0002
0.0002
0.005
0.0013
0.0001
0.0011
0.0002
0.0002
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
0.0038
0.0005
0.0116
0.0002
0.0054
0.0003
0.0003
0.0004
0.0001
Total organic = 0.2
0.0003
0.0253
0.0003
Total organic = 1.12
0.0012
0.0002
0.0002
0.005
0.0013
0.0001
0.0011
0.0002
0.0002
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
Constituent
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Isopropanol
Methanol
Acetic acid
Benzene, Chloro
Vinyl acetate
Acetone
1,2-Dichloroethane
Formic acid
Ethyl glycol
Hydrazine
Xylene
Phenol
Aniline
p-Chloroaniline
Dimethyl formamide
Glycidol
Glycerin
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Cumene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Isopropanol
Methanol
Acetic acid
Benzene chloro
Vinyl acetate
Acetone
1,2-Dichloroethane
Formic acid
Ethyl glycol
Hydrazine
(continued)
J-34
-------
TABLE J-9 (continued)
Waste
mixture
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Surrc
Hib
1
7
8
3
6
9
7
4 '
3
1
1
4
4
4
'7
2
2
5
5
5
1 5
3
3
3
3
6
9
9
9
1
1
7
5
5
8
8
3
3
6
9
>gate
VPiC
4
4
5
6
6
6
8
10
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
Average
concentration,
: %
0.0038
0.0005
0.0116
0.0002
0.0054
0.0003
0.0003
0.0004
0.0001
Total organic =0.2
0.0001
0.0142
0.0012
0.0002
0.0014
0.0367
0.0087
0.0004
0.0003
0.0069
0.0002
0.0016
0.0004
0.0016
0.0206
0.0038
0.0002
0.0072
0.392
0.0008
0.002
0.0243
0.0056
0.0003
0.0002
0.0742
0.113
0.0001
0.0009
0.0347
0.0206
Constituent
Xylene
Phenol
Aniline
p-Chloroaniline
Dimethyl formamide
Glycidol
Glycerin
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
Toluene
Methyl ene chloride
Isopropanol
Acrylonitrile
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Acetic acid
Benzene, Chloro
N-propanol
Vinyl acetate
Ethanol
Acetone
Tri ch 1 oroethy 1 ene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrach 1 oroethene
Carbon tetrachloride
1,4-Dioxane
Formic acid
Ethyl ene glycol
Hydrazine
Dichlorobenzene
Xylene
Phenol
Acetophenone
Methacrylic acid (MAA)
Aniline
Phthalic anhydride
1,2, 3-Tri chl oropropane
P-Chloroaniline
Dimethyl formamide
Hexachloroethane
(continued)
J-35
-------
TABLE J-9 (continued)
Waste
mixture
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
Surroaate Average
Surrogate concentration,
Hib VP^c % Constituent
9
7
8
4
2
3
4
4
7
2
2
5
5
3
9
9
9
1
8
3
6
9
7
4
2
3
1
4
3
2
6
8
9
10
11
12
Total
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
6
6
6
8
10
11
12
Total
1
1
3
5
Total
0.0016
0.0016
0.0001
0.0855
0.0037
0.0006
organic =
0.0002
0.0002
0.0043
0.0014
0.0001
0.0003
0.0011
0.0003
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
0.0041
0.0124
0.0002
0.0058
0.0003
0.0003
0.0004
0.0006
0.0001
organic =
0.0003
0.0015
0.0261
0.003
organic = 1
Glycidol
Glycerin
Maleic anhydride
Formaldehyde
Di ethyl amine
Bromomethane
6.17
Isopropanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Acetic acid
Benzene, Chloro
Acetone
Vinyl acetate
1 , 2-Di ch 1 oroethane
Formic acid
Ethylene glycol
Hydrazine
Xylene
Aniline
p-Chloroaniline
Dimethyl formamide
Glycidol
Glycerin
Formaldehyde
Di ethyl amine
Bromomethane
0.198
Benzene
Isopropanol
Carbon tetrachloride
Cumene
.2214
TSDF - Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
aThis table presents the average concentrations of specific hazardous
constituents of health concern in the waste mixtures handled at TSDF Site 2
for the Detailed Facility Analysis.
^H-j = Henry's law surrogate number keyed to the properties in Table J-l.
= Vapor pressure surrogate number keyed to the properties in Table J-l.
J-36
-------
TABLE J-10. DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS: AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF
SURROGATES IN WASTE STREAM MIXTURES AT TSDF SITE 2a
Concentration, ppm by weiqht
Henry's
law
surrogate**
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB
Waste
mixture
1 and 3
236
223
495
738
121
79
18
93
Aqueous
Waste
mixture
2
2,190
2,900
4,630
1,390
3
48
0
3
waste
Waste
mixture
5
254
212
521
707
130
68
21
87
Waste
mixture
6
2,190
3,230
4,760
1,580
67
249
132
11
Oi
Vapor
pressure
surrogate**
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
ly waste
Waste
mixture
4
565
1,340
6,470
424
8,810
2,050
37,900
1,320
656
Total
2,000
11,200 2,000 12,200
59,500
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
aThis table presents the average concentrations of surrogates based on
Henry's law constants (for aqueous wastes) and vapor pressure (for oily
wastes). Surrogates are defined in Appendix D, Section D.2.3.3.
Surrogate codes:
MHLB =
HHLB =
LHMB =
MHMB =
HHMB =
LHHB =
MHHB =
HHHB =
HVHB =
HVMB =
HVLB =
MVHB =
MVMB =
MVLB =
LVMB =
VHVHB
VHVLB
Medium Henry's law, low biodegradation.
High Henry's law, low biodegradation.
Low Henry's law, medium biodegradation.
Medium Henry's law, medium biodegradation.
High Henry's law, medium biodegradation.
Low Henry's law, high biodegradation.
Medium Henry's law, high biodegradation.
High Henry's law, high biodegradation.
High volatility, high biodegradation.
High volatility, medium biodegradation.
High volatility, low biodegradation.
Medium volatility, high biodegradation.
Medium volatility, medium biodegradation.
Medium volatility, low biodegradation.
Low volatility, medium biodegradation.
= Very high volatility, high biodegradation,
= Very high volatility, low biodegradation.
J-37
-------
Tank Loading
Tank Storage
Q = 4.8 x ID"4 m3/s (from drum to storage
tank)
N = 56, MWwaste = 18 g/g mol.
D = 5.4 m, H = 2.0 m.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.2 LI - Tank storage (emission source No. 2). Each day at
0900 hours, aqueous waste is pumped from the 90.8-m3 storage tank to LI, a
2,271-m3 covered storage tank (15 m x 15 m x 10 m) for 1 h at a rate of
3.84 x 10-3 m3/s.
Each day, twenty 30.3-m3 tank trucks deliver aqueous waste to tank LI
at the wastewater facility. Waste from the .tank trucks is loaded into
storage tank LI daily beginning at 0800 hours for 8 h at a rate of 2.40 x
10-2 m3/s.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Tank Loading
Tank Storage
Q = 3.84 x 10"3 m3/s (from aqueous storage
tank to tank LI)
Q = 2.40 x ID'2 m3/s (from tank trucks to
tank LI)
N = 100.
D = 17 m, H = 5.0 m.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.3 LR - Neutralization tank (emission source No. 3). The
aqueous waste is pumped from tank LI to tank LR (uncovered, quiescent) for
neutralization. Pumping occurs for 8 h each day at a rate of 2.15 x 10~2
m3/s.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Flow-through
Uncovered Tank
A = 38.4 m2, d = 5 m, Q = 2.15 x 10'2 m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J-38
-------
J.2.3.1.4 12 - Surface impoundment (emission source No. 4). The
neutralized waste is pumped to L2, a 1,325-m3 quifescent surface
impoundment. Pumping occurs for 8 h each day at a rate of 2.15 x 10~2
m3/s.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Flow-through
Surface
Impoundment
A = 121 m2, D = 11 m, Q = 2.15 x HJ-2 m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.5 Filter press (emission source No. 5). Waste is pumped from
the L2 surface impoundment to the filter press at a rate of 2.15 x 10'2
m3/s for 8 h each day. Solids trapped by the filter (2.4 m x 9 m) are
collected in an open dump truck and taken to an active landfill (see
Section 0.2.3.1.20). Solids are generated at a rate of approximately 9.4 x
10-5 m3/s for 8 h each day.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Vacuum Filter Cake 1 = 3.04 m, w = 2.44 m.
Use the Henry's Taw surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.6 L3 - Aerated surface impoundment (emission source No. 6).
Waste is pumped from the filter press to the aerated surface impoundment at
a rate of 2.14 x 10'2 m3/s for 8 h each day.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Mechanically
Aerated Surface
Impoundment
POWR = 14.9 kW (20 hp), At = 45 m2, retention
time = 12 h.
d = 1.524 m, u = 0.93 rad/s, Aq = 180 m2,
15 m x 15 m x 6 m, Q = 2.14 x lO'2 m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) far all of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.7 L4 - Surface impoundment (emission source No. 7). Waste is
pumped from surface impoundment L3 to the quiescent surface impoundment L4
at a rate of 2.14 x 10~2 m3/s for 8 h each day.
J-39
-------
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Flow-through A = 225 m2, Q = 2.14 x 10~2 m3/s, D = 6 m.
Surface
Impoundment
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.8 L5 - Storage tank (emission source No. 8). L5, a 1,136-m3
covered storage tank, receives leachate from the closed landfills (SCMF 1,
2, 3, and 4). Leachate is pumped to L5 each Monday at 0900 hours for 1 h.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Tank Loading Q = 6.60 x 10~2 m3/s.
Tank Storage , D = 15.5 m, H = 3.0 m, N = 11.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.9 L6 - Storage tank (emission source No. 9). Each week,
leachate is pumped from tank L5 to tank L6 (a covered tank) for 1 h at a
rate of 6.6 x 10~2 m3/s. Waste is pumped from surface impoundment L4 to
storage tank L6 at a rate of 2.14 x 10~2 m3/s for 8 h each day.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Tank Loading
Tank Storage
Q = 6.6 x 10"2 m3/s (from tank L5).
Q = 2.14 x 10~2 m3/s (from surface impound-
ment L4).
D = 15.5 m, H = 3.0 m, N = 198.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.10 L7 - Surface impoundment (emission source No. 10). Waste
is pumped from tank L6 to aerated surface impoundment L7 for 8 h each day
at a rate of 2.14 x 10~2 m3/s.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Mechanically POWR = 14.9 kW (20 hp), At = 37.7 m2,
Aerated Surface d = 1.524 m, u = 0.93.rad/s, Aq = 150.9 m2
Impoundment 15.5 m diameter x 6 m high, Q = 2.14 x 10"2
m3/s.
J-40
-------
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.11 L8 - Neutralization tank (emission source No. 11). Waste
is pumped from surface impoundment 17 to the uncovered, quiescent
neutralization tank L8 for 8 h each day at a rate of 2.14 x 10'2 m3/s.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Flow-through
Uncovered Tank
A = 188.7 m2, D = 6 m, Q = 2.14 x 10'2 m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.12 Sand filters (emission source No. 12). Waste is pumped
from the neutralization tank to the sand filters at a rate of 2.14 x ID"2
m3/s for 8 h each day. Solids trapped by the filter (2.4 m x 9.1 m) are
collected in an open dump truck and taken to the landfill. Solids are
generated at a rate of 9.4 x lO'5 m3/s for 8 h each day.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Vacuum Filter Cake 1 = 3.04 m, w = 2.44 m.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.13 19 - Surge tank (emission source No. 13). Liquid waste
from.the sand filters is pumped to the 1,136-m3 uncovered, quiescent surge
tank at a rate of 2.13 x 10~2 m3/s for 8 h each day.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Tank Loading Q = 2.13 x 10'2 m3/s, N = 197.
Tank Storage D = 15.5 m, .H - 3.0 m.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.14 L10 - Surface impoundment (emission source No. 14). Waste
from the surge tank is pumped to the aerated L10 surface impoundment at a
rate of 2.13 x 10'2 m3/s for 8 h each day.
J-41
-------
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Mechanically
Aerated Surface
Impoundment
POWR = 30 kW (40 hp), At = 37.7 m2,
d = 1.524 m, u = 0.93 rad/s, Aq = 150.9 m2,
15.5 m diameter x 6 m high, Q = 2.13 x 10~2
m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.15 111 - Surface impoundment (emission source No: 15). Waste
from the L10 surface impoundment is pumped to aerated impoundment 111, a
1,136-m3 surface impoundment, at a rate of 2.13 x 10~2 m3/s for 8 h each
day.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Mechanically POWR = 14.9 kW (20 hp), At = 37.7 m2,
Aerated Surface d = 1.524 m, u = 0.93 rad/s, Aq = 150.9 m2
Impoundment 15.5 m diameter x 6 m high, Q = 2.13 x 10~2
m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.16 L12 - Surface impoundment (emission source No. 16). Waste
is pumped from 111 surface impoundment to the aerated impoundment L12, a
1,136-m3 surface impoundment, at a rate of 2.13 x 10~2 m3/s for 8 h each
day.
Pumping and Piping Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
Mechanically POWR = 14.9 kW (20 hp), At = 37.7 m2,
Aerated Surface d = 1.524 m, u = 0.93 rad/s, Aq = 150.9 m2
Impoundment 15.5 m diameter x 6 m high, Q = 2.13 x 10~2
m3/s.
Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
above equations.
J.2.3.1.17 Discharge (emission source No. 17). Liquids from the L12
surface impoundment are pumped offsite.
J.2.3.1.18 Closed landfills (emission source No. 18). Emissions from
closed landfills are not included because of a lack of information on waste
J-42
-------
concentrations within the source and the difficulty of modeling this
source. In addition, closed landfills are not currently included in the
Detailed Facility Modeling effort.
J.2.3.1.19 Haste fixation pits (emission source No. 19). On the
first Monday of each month at 1000 hours, two tank trucks, each containing
20 m3 aqueous sludge slurry, are emptied into fixation pit A. On the first
Monday of each month at 1100 hours, one tank truck containing 19 m3 organic
sludge slurry is emptied into fixation pit B. Each pit has a 1-h fixation
time. This facility encloses two fixation pits (4 m x 3 m x 3 m) that
operate.at ambient temperature. The entire building is evacuated through
the two particulate scrubber units, which have stacks 17 m tall and 1.2 m
in diameter. The building is 15 m tall. The scrubbers exhaust 21 m3/s
each and operate simultaneously and continuously.
Fixation Pit 1 = 4.0 m, w = 3.0 m, U = 0.045 m/s.
Use the vapor pressure surrogate table (Table J-l) for the above
equation.
J.2.3.1.20 Active landfill (emission source No. 20). Each Monday at
0900 hours, an open dump truck containing 19 m3 bulk solids from the filter
press (see Section J.2.3.1.5) is emptied at the active landfill. Each
Friday at 1000 hours, an open dump truck containing 19 m3 bulk solids from
the sand filters (see Section J.2.3.1.12) is emptied at the active
landfill. Each Monday at 1000 hours, an open dump truck containing 16 m3
of bulk solids from drums is emptied at the active landfill. On the first
Monday of each month at 1400 hours, 59 m3 of fixed waste is disposed of at
the landfill. Use the vapor pressure surrogates. Emissions occur from the
uncovered waste for 1 week before it is covered.
Active Landfill Loading = 1,94 x 104 g oil/m3 soil, water = 50
percent, weekly depth of waste =1.11 m, total
porosity = 0.5, air porosity = 0.25, MW0ii = 147
g/g mol, exposure time = 7 d, total landfill
area = 5 x 104 m2.
J.3 LONG-TERM TSDF EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES
The five control options described in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.2, were
applied to Sites 1 and 2 for each emission source. These control options
J-43
-------
are based primarily on the use of individual source (add-on) controls that
are applied when a waste stream handled at a particular source exceeds the
specified volatile organics action level. For control options 1, 2, 4, and
5, when the action level is exceeded, covers are required for tanks; covers
and a control device are required for aerated tanks, surface impoundments,
and waste fixation; and covers/submerged fill are required for waste
containers. In addition, quiescent tanks must be vented to a control
device if the waste stream's vapor pressure exceeds 10 kPa (1.5 psi). The
controls for option 3 are the same except that only covers are required for
quiescent tanks and surface impoundments when the action level is exceeded,
and no vapor pressure cutoff is used.
The baseline for the control options will include the effects of the
land disposal restrictions (LDR) on emissions as described in Chapter 5.0.
Certain wastes may be banned from surface impoundments under LDR; however,
treatment impoundments may be exempted and other impoundments may be
replaced by large uncovered tanks. Because impoundments may be exempted or
replaced by a source with a similar emission potential, this analysis
assumes that LDR will not affect emissions from surface impoundments at the
two sites described in this appendix. Emissions from equipment leaks are
not included because these sources will be controlled by other regulatory
activities.
The wastes handled at Sites 1 and 2 are mixtures of different waste
codes and waste forms. Each of these waste form/waste code combinations
has different organic concentrations and different physical/chemical
properties. In this analysis, the waste stream mixtures are separated into
their individual waste streams, the volatile organic content, as measured
by the test method described in Appendix G, is estimated for the individual
stream, and the individual streams are composited into two groups. One
group contains those waste streams with a total volatile organic content
less than the action level for a given control option, and the other is
composed of waste streams with a total volatile organic content greater
than the action level. For each control option, process units that receive
wastes that exceed the action level are controlled.
J-44
-------
The waste streams with a volatile organic content less than the action
level are assumed to be processed through the facility as defined for the
baseline case (open-area sources remain uncovered). For control options 1,
2, 4, and 5, storage tanks that receive waste streams that exceed the vapor
pressure cutoff of 10 kPa (1.5 psi) are controlled at 95 percent, and
storage tanks that pass the vapor pressure cutoff are not controlled. For
option 3, no additional controls are applied to covered storage tanks. The
emissions from these three types of waste streams are added for each source
to estimate the cumulative effect of the control options on emissions.
The analysis used to estimate the volatile organic content of
individual waste streams is based on what the volatile organic test method
is projected to measure (see Appendix G). The approach uses factors
derived for steam distillation with 20-percent boilover to adjust for the
percent recovery of high, medium, and low volatiles. For example, the
appropriate factor (representing the fraction recovered by the method for a
given volatility class) is multiplied by the surrogate concentration to
predict the concentration that the test method would measure. The test
method concentrations are summed for each surrogate to obtain the total
organic content as measured by the test method. This total is compared to
the action level to determine whether control is required. These test
method correction factors are used only to determine which waste streams in
the mixture require control. The estimates of impacts are based on the
surrogates and their actual concentrations in the waste stream mixtures.
J.3.1 Long-Term Control Options
Table J-ll summarizes the controls applied to each source at Site 1
for the control options. The controls applied to Site 2 are summarized in
Table J-12.
J.3.2 Estimates of Annual Average Emissions and Maximum Risk
The annual average organic emissions were estimated for each site.
These emission estimates were coupled with the dispersion model (described
in detail in Section J.5) to predict maximum annual ambient concentrations.
The maximum ambient concentrations occurred at Site 1 at a receptor that
J-45
-------
ra
a
{2 c
U 49
Q
r4 O
E £
«/> 49
£ tS
e
DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:
1, 2, 4, 5
3
"->
Ul
ffl
?
O
O
Emission sour
in to
"o o
u u
49 49
c c
o o
O 0
o
49 LO
c o>
5 ,
o a
O. 0
Sc£
o-o
n— c
•049 10
o a.
cue
o o o n
x »•— —
e-O 49 O
• 0 t.
O 49
ac— c
• o— o
>.£> O O
uo
<«- a o
MO Z
o>
•o
.0
u
o
n
c
a
u
49
t» B
c je O
ra c co
a o
O 49 C.
D) O
no 49
U CO V)
o a
49 1_ E
MO 3
49 U
ECO 0
L. •
O a jo
r-l
M
0
L-
c
o
o
to
49 O>
O C 1
> o
-49 a
e o. >
0. L. 0
m c
rH e
n c c
-o o a
O L. C
o a o
x o —
0 49
O U
• 49 0
o. —
• W •"•
>^£ O
CO
«*- a
M 49
a
9
i_
o
o>
c
alkali receivi
-o
"o
oi
c
o
49
a
o to
fl O>
•o
a i
o n
J3 >
L. O
n E
o e
t_
0
49-0
C
49 a
c
o c
> 0
•0 4>
c o
a o
t. —
O 0
> tJ
o
o
49
fx
o u>
IA O>
a I
c —
o a
L O
o o
L.
O
49T3
C
49 a
c
e c
> o
•O 49
C O
>
Cover and if v.p. exceeds 1
vent to carbon adsorption
Collection and removal -
49
de pretreatmer
c
CD
>v
10
0
o
a
ID
(S 05
(A C
•o o —
049 >
O Q. 0
x u E
O o o
n L.
o. a-o
c
> c a
o
«t-_O C
— c. o
a —
•0 O 49
C O
a o o
4> —
O 49 O
> c o
0 O
CJ >
ne reduction
b
o
L.
J=
(O
0
o
u
a
10
Q C7>
w c
•o o —
§.- a
49 >
o o. o
x t. E
0 o o
n L.
* c
> c a
o
«t-oO C
— t. o
•0 O 49
C O
a o c
49 —
u —
O 49 O
> C C_>
O O
o >
V
-al ization tan)
49
3
O
_
r-
c
o
49
(X
o to
in o>
a i
c —
o a
t^ rt
SI
u v
0
49-0
C
49 a
o c
> o
-O 49
C U
(0 O
i_ —
a o
o
0
c
o
49
o to
(A O>
a t
c —
o a
t. o
a E
00
o
49-0
c
49 0
0 C
> O
•0 49
C 0
a o
o"o
>
••<
Cover and if v.p. exceeds :
vent to carbon adsorption
Collection and removal -
«
._
L.
IB
U
5
to
n
in
3
O
1
.
o>
M n
0 O
49 49
C C
o o
o u
£ £
No contrqis
No controls
w
O IB
49 O
— t-
•~ a
§ I
3 "O
U a
a o
t!" o>
o -o
49 3
«2 CO
G) IH
rH r-l
~O
s>
c
49
C
o
o
L.
O
o
u
^
a
to
o o
Cover and if v.p. exceeds
vent to carbon adsorption
Collection and removal -
00
c
a
49
c
o
0
o
cc
CSI
rH
J-46
-------
•
^
•o
0
3
C
43
C
o
u
j_4
TH
1
LU
_J
ffl
1-
.0
C
O
43
Q
O
O
43
C
o
*
m
ID
•^
^^
n
CM
•»
0
o
L.
O
(A
C
O
(A
in
•*•
E
LU
^
O
L,
43
C
O
u
o
z
LO
43 0)
C
0 1
» CD
ce >
0. 0
.* c E
O 0
•H 43
ct-o
S) L. C
-o o o
0 n
o -o c
u o o
x •—
0 C 43
O U
• -O 0
CL L, —
• CD —
> U O
o
«l- O
t-H 43
0
eg
t_
o
43
(A
—
O
$
(A
CO
•o
0
L, U>
ffi-X
> C
O a
U 43
0
oc
.
co
1-4
_
o
L,
43
C
o
u
o
z
o
43 t?
to
43 0)
C
0 1
a >
CL 0
-x E
O t-
IH C
o-o
TJ 43 ID
O CL
O L. C
U O O
X (A —
CD U
0
CL C —
• O —
> J3 O
«t- CD
M O
43
C
0
__
0
(A
-O
2.
a
c.
o c
.C 43
U
0
O 0>
— ID
J3 L.
ID O
(A 43
3 (A
0
ce
.
«^
iH
_>.
0
L,
43
C
o
o
o
z
0
43
43
C
>
a
0.
&
IH
(A
"O
0
U
X
0
•
CL
>
t-
IH
V
C
eg
43
o
o>
CO
L,
O
43
Ift
——
•_
O
0
43
(A
ID
3=
•
to
r-t
s
o>
i
CO
o
E
0
L,
C
o -o
•— c
43 CD
CL
C. C
0 O
•O 43
CO U
C —
o —
J3 O
L. (_>
a
u
•
^
43
.—
•^
O
CO
•_
CO
(A
O
CL
in
•o
-o
c
CO
•k
0
o>
n
o
43
(A
^
43
C
0
E
43
CD
0
i.
1-
II
LL
O
05
.
0
L.
(A
(A
0
CL
L,
o
Q.
CO
II
a.
•
>
c
o
-Q
O
(A
a
•H
a
c
i
0
. JS
43
t_
O
•o
E.
o-
1L •
CM
W •
0 1O
•^
u c
c o
®._
t— (/)
«(^
9 ^
•o •
C LD
89
t_
(A 0
0 43
O CL
— CO
> -C
0 o-
•o
c
o
u -o
43 0
C 43
o c
U 0
(A
0 O
-C L.
43 CL
(A (A
43 C
C O
0 •—
« 43
0 Q.
<- O
Q.
_
0 O
.a 43
a c
43 O
to
-C X
1- 43
0
> 0
O L,
— ID
0 (A
> C
•- O
43
43 a.
U 0
o
^ **t
— E
43 CL
c a
ID
C Q
E u)
•0 II
0
L, CO
CL
•o
•o c
0 ID
(A.
^^ '
0 in
L, U
CD •"*
C
ID CO
OJ
j: t- •
O) O S
3
O E ID
L. CL
-C CL L.
43 0
S 43
i-l CL
II CO
n -c
C j-HJ
o ^
— c
43 (A —
Q.—
O OT3
L. 0
— 43 .0
O C —
L. O L,
43 U U
c in
o<<- 0
o o -o
•
•~>
(A
a
ID
fH
o
43
_•
CD
3
tr
0
(A
._
CO
a_
s
T-t
U
J-47
-------
t-«
to o>
a E
a £
o c
c —
o u —
o o o
I-K
5) 0)
— -o o —
c E x u E
.
X L. E
.
ffl E
-p-o *» -o
j: c E
o o
».- t.
a E
x t. E
Q.-D -P T3
O VI
u a o —
— x —
O — t- O
U -P TJ O -P
13 O -P
-P CO
— — x o> —
O -O -P
> — *> —
O -P O
> C
J-48
-------
^
•o
CD
3
C
45
C
O
u
^^
CM
r-l
1
UJ
_I
CD
I-
.Q
C
o
•—
c
o
o
L.
45
C
o
co
LO
TJ-
oT
^
V
u
L.
3
o
«
C
O
(ft
w
L§
C
O
45
Q.
L.1S
o to
(ft O)
CO 1
c —
o co
•O >
U O
a E
L) O
L.
O
45-0
45 a
c
o c
> o
•0 45
C U
a o
•~
L. —
CD O
> O
O
c
o
45
O.
O LO
en oi
•o
eg l
c —
o co
-O >
L. O
CD E
U O
L.
O
45-0
. C
45 CD
C
O C
> o
c u
CD O
—
L. —
CD O
> O
O
u
45
C
•o
c
3
O
Q.
O
0 45
U CD
ID L.
«t- O
t. CO
3
V) 1
•
^
*""*
C
- o
45
CX
O LO
en o>
"O
CO 1
c —
o a
-O >
L. O
co E
U O
L.
o
45 -0
C
45 CO
C
O C
> o
•O 45
C U
CD O
—
I_ —
a o
> o
o
o
c
0
45
a.
o to
en o>
•o
O 1
c —
o eg
L. 0
CD E
u o
c.
o
45-0
C
45 CO
C
o c-
> o
••~
c u
eg o
—
o"o
>
"U
a i
c —
o eg
-a >
t. o
u o
L.
o
45 -0
45 eg
c
o c
> o
-0 45
C U
eg o
—
t. —
O 0
> CJ
o
o
c
o
45
a
o to
10 a>
-o
CD 1
C —
o a
L. O
eg E
u o
L.
0
45-0
45 IB
c
o c
> o
•~
c o
a o
—
O 0
> o
o
u
45
c
-§
c
3
O
a.
— T>
o a
a L.
1- O
t. a
V) 1
•
co
«•"*
to
6
45
C
o
u
o
in
—
L.
45
C
O
u
o
e. 45
««- c
o
in E
3 3
tr o
— a.
— E
•«—
«*-
O O
u
O CO
L. L.
CD 3
_c en
0
en •
— CO
O *-•
•
f^
»•*
in
o
L.
45
C
O
u
0
to
—
o
45
C
0
o
I
n
— -
•—
-o
c
CO
o
en
0
3
•
00
rH
10
O
45
C
o
u
«— .
a
c
o
45
• _ .
-o
-o
eg
0
to
o
L.
45
C
o
u
ID
C
O
45
•o
•o
CO
0
to
45
"a.
c
o
45
CO
X
IT
•
o>
TH
en
o
L.
45
C
O
u
o
en
—
O
L.
45
C
O
u
o
•o
—
•^
-o
c
CO
O
45
U
•
S
CN
•
$
_
u
CO
^
CD
to
0
a.
to
•<~
•o
c
CO
•k
o
|D>
L! -
O CD
45 l_
at 3
en
- en
45 O
c t.
O a.
45 L.
CO 0
O a.
t- eo
t- >
II II
U. •
O Q.
CO •
1- >
CO
o —
4= O
45 •>
w (A
C — "O
O —
9 — Z3 O
•O > 0 O"2
in 1- 45 —
CD C
_o 45 o o en
CM
c w ^ —
(0 ••• CO ^O
E E 00
OH en J=
O en 45
JC C LO O
45 O 0 O
1-0 O 45
«- -0 C L.
o -o eg a. o
*»* eg en
•— CO C
"o «»- E o o
CO O Q. 45 O.
L. a. en en
3 CM in ea s t-
O" • 3 O
O LO LO O C
L. CD •» JC •—
C J= i-i 45
en o 45 " o
O— II 0)45
— 45 C C —
o u o T —in
CO C
OOT Ss •» I- <*-
U - 45 Q. U O
— SCO. C
<*- • eo o TO
i- to c s u o
O •— 13 <">
L. E LO T> Q. •
T9 O O CD — «t-
C 45 -o II — -C —
co a. o — to o
ro t- co a. en
W-C Q. O. O 45
O O T> CD J. •-
O -O C • CD
— C O CO S C —
>— CO • O O>—
O eg CN to o c —
•O "O JD JO — «4-
O •- t- — -0
— 45 o in o o— c
OCL.U45 > — CO
L.O CO— Q. C0<4- —
45 10 C CO JC -O
c o to co jr • co
O L. O)U — M CO J=
UO.JZL. en c — 45
O) o c a. o
o en 3 — — t. o
-C C OE 1O45O45
45 O t- Q.-O • O «t-
— jr Q. o> »-H — -o
10 45 45 -D L. -O O
45 O. Q — O 45 O —
COiH L.45 CO C —
o u u o — a.
en — in to — t- -P a.
oocrHoco cnco
t_ t_ O ^— '-O 3 — O
0. 45 — O* CD ~O O
c 45 to CD o en t-
o o a.— t. o >. co
— o o o co tn a. —
_o u — eo — to
COO — 4560 — CO —
45 — OCC COTJCO
a. t- o o a. — L.
10 E 45 O — J£ -O O)45
— CO C 45 C — C
-cx o <*- a. S> co t. o
t— OOOOr-l_|OO
CO J3 0-0
J-49
-------
was approximately 25 m from the major emission sources. The ambient
concentrations for Site 1 were consistently higher than those for Site 2
for the baseline and controlled cases; consequently, the analysis focused
on the results for Site 1 to estimate maximum lifetime risk.
The results for Site 1 are summarized in Table J-13. The control
options reduce emissions by 96 to 97 percent from the uncontrolled case.
The major difference among control options 1, 2, 4, and 5 is in the
population of wastes that is controlled. There is not a great deal of
difference in the residual .emissions after control, for two reasons:
(1) most of the emissions occur from waste streams with organic
concentrations of 500 ppm or greater, and (2) the same control efficiency
is applied for each of the control options. Control option 3 is slightly
different from the others in that storage tank emissions are not controlled
at 95 percent. However, the effect of control option 3 on the maximum
ambient concentration is small because these storage tanks are present at
different locations at the facility and their emissions are fairly well
dispersed.
The maximum risk is estimated by multiplying the maximum ambient
concentration times the unit risk factor. The derivation of the unit risk
factors for each control option is described in Appendix E.
J.4 SHORT-TERM CONTROLS
After the modeling of uncontrolled short-term emissions, the need to
assess short-term controls will be determined. If the long-term control
options do not provide adequate control of peak emissions, additional
control strategies will be investigated.
J.5 DISPERSION MODELING FOR CHRONIC HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
One portion of the health effects assessment is concerned with quanti-
fying health effects associated with long-term exposure to potentially
hazardous substances emitted from TSDF. Included in this portion of the
assessment are effects due to chronic exposure to both noncancer toxicants
and carcinogens. In order to conduct this assessment, estimates of ambient
concentrations of these substances in the vicinity of TSDF are required.
For this assessment, the ambient concentration estimates have been obtained
by estimating the magnitude of air emissions occurring at TSDF using
J-50
-------
to
T-l
t
M
CO
ce
o
U.
H
Z3
CO
HI
ce
C3
2£
r-l
_J
UJ
O
2E
u.
o
ce
•<
2
^
CO
co
i
— j
UJ
1
CO
1-
12c
•— (/)
X — -
CO t.
3
t-f-l
O 1
•*5 ^N
oco
a E
«*- ^
c
•* 3
ce
o
CO
4> E
c --»
.£ a
-O ^-*
E
to c
13
E to
X 45
to c
Z 0
0
c
o
u
in
c
o *— ,
— in
in ~v
in o
"E
LU
r>
cl
O 0-
^
o —
>
0
o c
I- O
43 —
C 45
O CL
o o
1 1 t 1 1 1
A A 0Q 15 O O
X X X X X X
CM U> LO U) 00 O>
CO ID UJ ID 10 U)
1 1 1 1 1 1
X X X X X X
CM CM CO TH T CM
IS
CO
- CM CM t~ O> TH
t-l -V -V "V ID CO
Tt r- r-- co co eo
CM CM •V CO T
r* Q Q O IS Q
0 O Q IS S> SJ
O ID ID ID ISt
•z. -
TH CO
0
c
0 T-t CM CO T U>
in
to
CD
• L.
r-l 0
0
45 O
co-
in
L,
O 0
.p
W
^— O
3 <*-
in
L. C
o
CO—
C -P
.— a
— t_
0 45
•D C
E O
C
c o
o u
'In 4>
t- C
0 0
a.—
in ja
•o to
^3 0
C -C
tO 45
C O
o in
•— • 3
in re
(A U
EJ3
_x
0 IA
.c —
45 L.
«T- E •
0 3 CM
E
in — o
45 X 45
— to —
3 E CO
in
L. -P O
to 4-
^—0
45 45 IA
IA O
IA 0 -C
45 45
C 0
0 45 C
IA O
t- 0 45
Q. IA
3 1-
— W 45
^ to to
to * 0
45 L.
T-l O)
in
— 0 JC
-C 43 O
1 3
(0 CO E
IS
CL
a
-o
2
c
0
in
c
o
CL
O
"O
u
o
in
to
c
o
u
o
45
u
IU 43
X C
— o
1 3
0 to
CL i-
'a. 45
"* o
c o
— c
o
-o o
0
C 45
— C
L. tO O
to — —
O
O
CO
-O
O
45
C
o
IA
0
a.
O)
c
c
o
IA
L.
O
CL
to
45
O
•
to
c
o
-o
-a
-i
10
CL
X
O
in E
(A .—
L. X
O 10
45 E
o
to O
4?
to
45
IA
0
45
—
C
0
-C
45
to —
> U.
0 3
T3 E
0 'x
_c to
>- s
•o o
J-51
-------
emission models and by applying an atmospheric dispersion model to simulate
the transport and dispersion of the emitted substances downwind of a
facility. This section describes the application of the dispersion model
to obtain the estimates of ambient concentration.
Atmospheric dispersion models have traditionally been used to relate
air emissions of pollutants occurring at a source to ambient concentrations
at downwind locations. These models are made specific to the application
under consideration by including in the application the following factors:
the rate of emission at each source, the physical configuration of each
source, the locations of sources with respect to the areas at which ambient
concentrations are to be estimated, and the meteorology affecting the
transport and dispersion of the air emissions. For the modeling analysis
described here, this type of an application was conducted to estimate
ambient concentrations in the vicinity of two TSDF. The selection and
characterization of the two TSDF were described previously, and the data
presented there were used to develop the atmospheric dispersion model
inputs described in this section. In all model applications, primary
emphasis was placed on determining the highest ambient concentrations at
the facility fencelines or beyond in order to quantify the greatest human
exposure. This type of information can be used, for example, to determine
the maximum exposed individual for a cancer risk assessment (i.e., maximum
individual risk or maximum lifetime risk). Analyses designed to measure
aggregate population risk (e.g., the number of annual incidences) are
described in Appendix E.
Atmospheric dispersion models are routinely applied to relate ambient
concentrations of a specific pollutant to source emission rates of that
pollutant. For this analysis, however, a somewhat different approach was
used in order to provide an efficient procedure for estimating ambient
concentrations for a number of hazardous pollutants. In the approach used
here, "normalized" ambient concentrations are computed as the ratio of
downwind ambient concentration to the source emission rate. The normalized
ambient concentrations can then be used to estimate ambient concentrations
of any specific pollutant by multiplying the normalized value by the "true"
source emission rate of the pollutant. Because the atmospheric dispersion
J-52
-------
model need only be applied once, this approach is particularly suited to
estimating ambient concentrations for a large number of substances, as well
as for evaluating several control scenarios in which the emission rates of
individual sources are altered.
The discussion below is divided into three parts. The first briefly
describes the particular atmospheric dispersion model used in this analy-
sis. The second part describes in general terms the use of normalized
concentrations in estimating ambient concentrations of specific pollutants.
The third and final portion of this section describes the applications of
the atmospheric dispersion model to the two TSDF modeled in this study. As
discussed in Appendix E, the results of this dispersion modeling are used
to estimate ambient concentrations of both individual toxicants and total
organic compounds. Because only normalized concentrations were generated
with the atmospheric dispersion model, however, the discussions below are
not pollutant-specific. A description of the specific pollutants evaluated
is included in the health effects description of Appendix E.
J.5.1 Description of the Atmospheric Dispersion Model
The atmospheric dispersion model used in this study was selected on
the basis of its applicability to the specific situations being modeled and
the outputs required for the health effects assessment. TSDF are charac-
terized by a wide variety of source types (e.g., closed roof storage tanks,
surface impoundments, open tanks, building fugitives, vents, stacks, and
landfills). Sources such as these are represented in dispersion modeling
analyses as either point, area, or volume sources. Thus, the model
selected for this assessment must have the capability to consider all three
source types. Another factor affecting the model selection is the consid-
eration of the averaging times required for estimating ambient concentra-
tions (i.e., short-term averages such as 1 hour or 3 hours versus long-term
averages such as annual or multiyear). Because only long-term averages are
neoded for the chronic portion of the health effects assessment, a computa-
tionally efficient model type capable of producing such estimates was
selected.
The particular model selected for this analysis is the ISCLT model.5i6
The ISCLT is a steady-state, Gaussian plume, atmospheric dispersion model
J-53
-------
that is applicable to multiple-point, area, and volume emission sources.
It is designed specifically to estimate long-term ambient concentrations
resulting from air emissions from these source types in a computationally
efficient manner. ISCLT is recognized by the Guideline on Air Quality
Models as a preferred model for dealing with complicated sources (i.e.,
facilities with point, area, and volume sources) when estimating long-term
concentrations (i.e., monthly or longer).7 The current UNAMAP 6 version of
ISCLT as implemented on EPA's National Computing Center (NCC) UNIVAC 1100
computer system was used in all model applications described in this
section.8
As described in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, the ISCLT is
appropriate for modeling industrial source complexes in either rural or
urban areas located in flat or rolling terrain. With this model, long-term
ambient concentrations can be estimated for transport distances up to
50 km. The ISCLT incorporates separate point, area, and volume source
computational algorithms for calculating ambient concentrations at user-
specified locations (i.e., receptors). The locations of the receptors
relative to the source locations are determined through a user-specified
Cartesian coordinate reference system.
ISCLT source inputs vary according to source type. For point sources,
the inputs include emission rate, physical stack height, stack inner diam-
eter, stack gas exit velocity, and stack gas exit temperature. If the
stack is located adjacent to a building and aerodynamic wake effects are to
be considered, the building dimensions are also required as inputs. Inputs
for the other two types of sources include emission rate, horizontal dimen-
sions of the source, and the effective height of release. Individual area
sources are required to have the same north-south and east-west dimensions
(i.e., they must be square), but multiple square area sources of different
size can be used to approximate the geometry of a source of another shape.
Horizontal dimensions of volume sources can be determined from the physical
dimensions of the source using procedures contained in the ISCLT User's
Manual.9
The ISCLT is a sector-averaged model that uses statistical summaries
of meteorological data to calculate long-term, ground-level ambient concen-
J-54
-------
trations. The principal meteorological inputs to the ISCLT are stability
array (STAR) summaries that consist of a tabulation of the joint frequency
of occurrence of windspeed categories and wind-direction sectors, classi-
fied according to Pasquill atmospheric stability categories. STAR summar-
ies are routinely generated from meteorological data collected at major
U.S. meteorological monitoring sites that are available from the National
Climatic Center in Asheville, NC. As recommended in the Guideline on Air
Quality Models, a 5-year period of record was used in generating the STAR
summaries used in the model applications described below. Other meteoro-
logical data requirements include average maximum and minimum mixing
heights and ambient air temperatures. Recommended procedures for develop-
ing these inputs are contained in the ISCLT User's Manual.
The discussion above is intended to provide a brief overview of the
ISCLT model and some of its features. It should be noted that the model
contains a number of features not relevant to the applications discussed
here, and thus the model description is not comprehensive in nature. For a
more complete discussion of the model, the reader is referred to References
5 and 6.
J.5.2 Normalized Concentrations
As described above, the ISCLT model computes long-term ambient concen-
trations at user-specified receptor points that occur as a result of air
emissions from multiple sources. These computations are done on a source-
by-source basis such that the ambient concentration from each source at
each receptor is computed. Total ambient concentrations at a particular
receptor are obtained by summing the contributions from each of the
sources. With Gaussian plume algorithms such as those included in the
ISCLT, the source contributions at each receptor are directly proportional
to the source emission rate. As a result, ambient concentrations corre-
sponding to any number of desired source emission rates can be obtained by
applying the atmospheric dispersion model once, and scaling the ambient
concentrations by the ratio of the desired emission rate to that used in
the dispersion model application. This is the approach that has been used
for this analysis, and it is described below.
J-55
-------
Normalized ambient concentrations for each source-receptor combination
were computed such that they would correspond to a unit emission rate of
1 g/s for each source in the facility. The total ambient concentration at
a receptor is then computed as the sum of the contributions from each
source, where the latter are computed as the product of the normalized
concentration and the desired emission rate. Mathematically, this can be
expressed as follows:
(J-l)
*ij
J
= total ambient concentration at receptor i, /*g/m3
= emission rate for source, g/s
= normalized source contribution from source j to receptor i,
/ig/m3
« total number of sources at the TSDF.
Thus, the principal output of the dispersion modeling applications is a set
of normalized source contributions, i.e., xjj in Equation (J-l) for each
facility modeled.
In the formulation presented in Equation (J-l) above, both the
individual normalized source contributions and total ambient concentrations
represent multiyear averages because a 5-year period of record was used in
developing the statistical STAR summaries. The emission rates in Equation
(J-l) are also long-term estimates (e.g., annual average values), although
they are expressed on a gram-per-second basis. All ISCLT outputs generated
for this analysis were structured such that the total emission rate for
each source could be used in Equation (J-l). In a few instances, a TSDF
source group was represented by a small number of individual sources in the
ISCLT modeling analyses. When this situation involved point or volume
sources, the total source group emission rate was apportioned equally among
the individual ISCLT sources. This was performed in the modeling analyses
by setting the input ISCLT source emission rate equal to the reciprocal of
the number of sources in the group. In an analogous manner, the input
ISCLT emission rates for all area sources were set to the reciprocal of the
J-56
-------
total area of the source because area source inputs for ISCLT are
expressed on an emission density basis (i.e., grams per square meter per
second). Thus, all normalized source contributions output developed in
this analysis are on a gram per second basis for the entire source group,
regardless of the type of source or the number of individual sources used
to represent the group.
0.5.3 Dispersion Model Application
This section describes the ISCLT model applications conducted in order
to estimate the normalized concentrations for use in Equation (J-l) for
each of the two TSDF described earlier. Described below are the ISCLT
source inputs, the meteorological data used in the modeling analyses, the
receptor networks, and other model options.
Tables J-14 and J-15 list the source inputs used in the modeling
application for each of the two TSDF. The tables list an ISCLT source
group number, an ISCLT source reference number, the emission source number
assigned earlier in this appendix, a brief source description, and the
source and effluent characteristics used in the ISCLT modeling analyses.
Normalized concentrations were developed only for each ISCLT source group.
In most cases, each group corresponds to a single. ISCLT. source. In a few
instances, however, a source group is represented by more than one ISCLT
source in order to better approximate the geometry of the source or to
combine sources when their emissions are equally apportionable among the
individual sources. In these cases, the normalized concentrations for the
source group are equal to the sum of the contributions from the individual
ISCLT sources making up the group. With respect to the source character-
izations, sources with emissions released at ground level from open areas
are usually modeled as area sources, stacks as point sources, and closed
and open storage tanks as volume sources. In the latter case, initial
horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficients for volume sources were
derived from the physical dimensions of the source according to the
procedures recommended in the ISCLT User's Manual.
Meteorological data were chosen to reflect the geographical locations
of the TSDF on which the source configurations were based. STAR summaries
for both facilities were derived from hourly surface data using the
J-57
-------
u
• c
*> O
• 6
M C
4*
• — *—
i^-5
=•^8
i-5B
to^
S Z
re* coordlni
m
ft *
e
•jj*
3U
U
5 4?
W
c
0
u
i
1
LT EfflUiton
re* teurc*
ib*r numb«r
ssi
s =1
U> t- D
l-t Ci B
U>U>tAtAQQOQ)Q
•H fl *4 *4
QQtQCh.Q«QkQ
loiDia-vrth-^^K
OOOTCOv^^^W
eaeaaaaaa
r-co§r-<»r»coo>>>
3330. 0000
SSBC^*01*"
• • .0 t — — — —
tro-o-««oooo
r««Hr4v4t^CietDr-caoi
aaoiaaaai-iMMr«
0>COa«>f91oa
c4M«Ha^*^4
aaaaaaaiaaaa
f^eoai*»r^cor^iAU>u>(*>
rlrlCMCMCMCMWCMMCMCM
m
01 §
i i : 1 1 I i i I i .
c _e
S. S . • . . S
c2m2222^ jt™
: : § : : : : i e i J
oo*oooo*— c«
a: a: Noeoeosflc u 4» o M
— 4> O •— •—
= i!2333ii3!
|iuTiiii^*-uj
— ~L.a33a.l-33
uuooodo>v^0o
««^a»
a»ic4m«u>0r>coo>a
ocaa^dc«)<
a
a
a
f-4
a
m
CM
m
i
S
e
•
o
e
o
N
Jr
.e
o
00
•^
00
J-58
-------
Ul
^
u
5 §
I S 6
ll
e e
o •
_ —
• •
•— o
v u
its
3 « E
O •
V9 •£•
M £
1 *
c
i
u
•
O X
Wl
C
is
— *
j
s.
L. o>
O 4»
CO
e
o
a
u
• «o
s
k
o
to
c
O • L.
"11 u .a
• 3 E
e m e
H 5S
d =•§
CO 0 D
M • C
I- a. •
_j 3 -O
O O E
U> 1. 3
MOIC
.
. "
B
61
B
Q
S
S
^
m
9*
a
s
J
<
l_
•
U
•
U
4}
m
S
•
1
o-
o>
g
•
F>M«SSSSSS<
SOB.CD CH M CM M tO «
• WMM.MMM«»1
sssiaiDtaiaaBcn
SV>OC4MMC4t^C4a
SSSBSS9SBS
SS'SSCtSSS
SiSiSSKC&Sigg
s
SS5SSSBS99
. | 1 1 | i | 1 | -
<>>>>>>^>'2
&
1 1
L. •
i • u • •
±2 S ± »
iZ *- w w •
3 «— O — *>
3 *D CO 0 OD O3 ^ C
t> • • U •
*ojejejcje4> ?
x.^^^^^2 ;
• T) Ol Gl 01 Ol 01 M «>
•
•
.C
4>
|
•
•
^
J
»
B
.?
o
o
"•
>
4»
X
•
J£
U
1
s i
V W
il
• •
ll
49
0 4>
S I
i =:
T~ i
•o •
|l
1 «•
: s "
U JC •
u ^
O • 3
• • C
u
: k s
• o t.
o
*" — J
« e d
1 > V>
C4_ H4
e t.
***» O L
«*»
8 J 5
t. u u
0 • C 3
" 1 *• S
J 1 C 1
e o "o
•*» •
•0 • t. 0
• ~ s. •* .
" "2 li6
.£ § •» -S-
O U — U B
? s 1 -•-
O — 0 Si
• — V. 4> •
<• ^ o •«
J-59
-------
~ I
CD CO 00 u> ID q
CO >•• « a r»
51 (B ID
BCMCMNCMVNI0C4C4
(DOS
u> a a
B U> U> U» 10 U9
- ~
a a a a
a CD a* a
B a a a a
BBSS
•=.3
s • O I.
3 C 3
— U L. O
U C. *».
-J O O
C U I. U
C C C C
J J J J
o o o o o
co r^ co
J-60
-------
II - - I
3
C
C
0
u
u>
t
^
UJ
o
2
•a o
o '« g
N C
'i!
X T>
.
-§1
0 "• '3
•— L. •— £
•a • ».
i 8-*
>- 0
TJ O
• *>"
Jj
.
*
C
•5
o
o
u
i,
O X
V)
c
0 •
— *•
•8.
—
s s.
3 >.
o •*>
10
e
o
a
u
u
M
•S
•
g
C 3
0 0
.-
u
5
c
e
•o c
— o e u
— o o
• » U J3
I II I
CO
• t.
t- 0 •
d Si
(O O 3
n M e
u
H a •
d ii
CO U 3
•^ a c
ID ID ID
CM CM ft
a a a
a a' a
a a a
a a a
a a a
m a a
a ", i
a .a a
CD ID CO
w p* in
ID » ID
• • •
t. 1- L.
s s s
U. U. U.
SS
«H *^
aaaaaaaaaa
S*cMco'acM
..a«Dxu>ScoMSa
CMmm^rcMcocn^iDco
si?!!??????
SSSSS*1*****1*^^
&&fc&&b§feb&
(oiocacococococototn
^^"~^~™™™™~
•o^?^^^^^^^
= = c.c c c c See
23'2'22222
•O'O'O'e'DTJTJTjT.).—
j j j j j 1 j j 1 I
<-»WWUOUOO*JU
COCDCOODCOCDCOCOCatD
^*^^^^*-J^4t^^l^«
u)cor-coa>Si-iCMm«
CMCMCMCMCMnmmmm
u> u> a a a a
|SS"2-"2.'~"e'«»
aa<< r^«H^4<
•1 ••• Z Z M M M £
s a TJ -o aaaao
aaSSaaaaS
aa^oiaaBacM
»ajjjjaaaae»
ataaaaaaaa
§ScDcou>S9$a>
ScocoecDiou™
aaaaaaaaa
Sa a a
g g CM
a a* a a a' a «
•a a M
s:^ = :ss:l
i«-oo"£S*^
<
ii^.-iiii?
JJ'e'cjJ S • 1
i.iijjlil
,0 _0 x x *J *3 *J *i «
CO OB 0> OJ O S S |Q _«
«-««Sggg5
nmmn35>~<"m
BBr*p4cueuAi«MiM
NCMCMCMaSicMeMS
1
e
1
•£
J-61
-------
L. —
1
u
I -
-.-1- 1
• 3— 3 -O
O O 3
• * t. • —
1 >-S h- g
"o d ? d 6 ~
> u> • tn -t'
h4*« H4 tH o
C — • — U
WOO —
• *> CD *> • U
o — u — u •
• • r x - -
> C 0.4> Q. ft
- 9 Q..- o.-
*> — 4> ^ —
J-G2
-------
following 5-year periods of record: 1970 through 1974 for Site 1, and 1973
through 1977 for Site 2. In both cases, the TSDF were identified as being
located in an urban environment, so the ISCLT urban dispersion coefficients
were used in all model simulations. Ambient temperatures for each locale
were obtained from Local Climatological Data summaries, and mixing heights
from Holzworth.10-11 Procedures contained in the ISCLT User's Manual were
employed to estimate the ISCLT input values for ambient temperature and
mixing height.
The receptor networks used in conjunction with the ISCLT modeling
analyses are shown in Figures J-5 and J-6. As noted in the introductory
portion of this section, primary emphasis was placed on detecting the
highest ambient concentrations at, or outside of, the fenceline of the
facility. Because most sources are characterized by emission releases at
relatively low heights, the highest ambient concentrations tend to occur
nearest the sources. Most of the receptors are, therefore, located at the
TSDF fence!ines. The receptor networks shown in Figures J-5 and J-6 were
developed after performing several sensitivity analyses to identify the
location of each source's maximum impact and the likely locations of the
greatest aggregate facility impacts.
In addition to source, meteorological, and receptor data, the ISCLT
contains a number of options that affect the dispersion model calculations.
In general, these options were chosen to be consistent with the regulatory
recommendations contained in the Guideline on Air Quality Models. Table
J-16 lists several of these, along with other model options that were used
to generate the normalized concentrations.
J.5.4 Estimation of Average Annual Ambient Concentration
This appendix provides explanations on (1) how TSDF organic emissions
were estimated, and (2) how the dispersion of these emissions was modeled.
A detailed discussion on the estimation of maximum lifetime risk is
provided in Appendix E. To estimate risk, the ambient concentration of the
TSDF organic emissions at the point of human exposure must be known. This
is accomplished by multiplying the TSDF emission estimate for each emission
source by its corresponding dispersion factor for each receptor. The sum
of the products of TSDF emission sources results in a maximum ambient
J-63
-------
0)
0)
J-64
-------
1620
1500
1380
1260
1140
1020
900
780
660
540
420
300
180
k60
Wattewatar Treatment Facility
Phaial
Wastewater Treatment Facility
PhM.2
0 60 180 300 420 540 660 780 900 1020 1140 1260 1380 1500 1620
300m
Scale
= Receptor
O.D » Waste management process units
Rgure J-6. Receptor network for Site 2.
J-65
-------
TABLE J-16. OPTIONS USED IN ISCLT MODEL APPLICATIONS
Urban dispersion mode 3 used.
Terrain effects not included (i.e., no elevated receptors).
Wind system reference height set to 10 m.
ISCLT default values used for vertical potential temperature gradients and
for wind profile exponents.
Stack-tip downwash and buoyancy-induced dispersion used for point
sources unaffected by building wake effects.
Final plume rise used.
Decay coefficient set to zero.
Correction angle for grid system versus wind direction data is 45 degrees
for Site 1, and zero for Site 2.
Multiyear concentrations computed using 5-year STAR data.
J-66
-------
concentration for each receptor expressed in pg/m^. The receptor with the
maximum ambient concentration is used in combination with health effects
data to estimate maximum lifetime risk.
•J?
J.6 DISPERSION MODELING FOR ACUTE HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
The preceding section described the modeling approach used to estimate
long-term ambient concentrations for the assessment of both cancer and
chronic noncancer- health effects. Another aspect of the health effects
assessment is the potential for adverse effects that could result from
short-term exposures to air emissions from TSDF. Thus, for this
assessment, estimates of ambient concentrations for short averaging periods
are needed (i.e., averaging times of 24 h and less). The approach used to
produce this information consists of integrating short-term TSDF emission
models with a short-term air quality dispersion model. The TSDF emission
models estimate short-term emission rates from each of the various emission
sources within a TSDF, and the air quality dispersion model provides
estimates of ambient concentrations of the emitted substances over short-
term periods. The purpose of this section is to describe the modeling
approach and the manner in which it was used to generate the ambient
concentration estimates needed for the acute health effects assessment.
The short-term modeling analysis described here was conducted in a
manner analogous to the long-term approach described in the preceding
section. The integrated emission and dispersion models were applied to the
two TSDF described earlier in this appendix. As with the application
described in the preceding section, this analysis was structured to
estimate the highest ambient concentrations of potentially hazardous
substances in the vicinity of the facilities in order to assess the
potential for the greatest human exposure. The hazardous substances
consist of a number of waste constituents that pose a potential health
hazard if their ambient concentrations are sufficiently high. Appendix E,
describes the rationale for selecting the constituents, and Section J.2 of
this appendix lists the specific ones included in the modeling analyses
described here. For each constituent, ambient concentrations were
estimated for the following short-term averaging periods: 15 min, 1 h,
3 h, 8 h, and 24 h. For the health effects assessments, the concentration
J-67
-------
estimates obtained from these modeling applications are compared to
available health data corresponding to these averaging times.
All of the modeling analyses conducted for the acute health effects
assessment were performed using estimated uncontrolled emissions. As such,
the potential effects of control options in lowering short-term levels were
not evaluated. However, some of the results obtained from the short-term
analysis were used to indicate whether control option evaluation should be
carried out for some constituents to assess their effectiveness in
mitigating chronic, noncancer health effects. As is described below, the
short-term dispersion 'model is also capable of producing long-term average
concentrations if applied for a sufficiently lengthy period of record.
This was done in order to identify those constituents that posed a
potential problem with respect to chronic health impacts. Any constituent
so identified became a candidate for control strategy evaluation. All
subsequent control option analyses that were performed were done with the
long-term models because they are less costly and require less processing
time than do the short-term models.
The remaining portion of this section is divided into two parts. The
first describes the modeling approach in general terms, with primary
emphasis placed on describing the manner in which the emission models were
integrated with the short-term dispersion model. This discussion is
followed by a description of the application of that approach to the two
TSDF and a summary of the results obtained from that application. The
results of the acute health effects assessment itself are described in
Appendix E.
J.6.1 Short-Term Modeling Approach
The estimation of short-term ambient concentrations of potentially
hazardous substances in the vicinity of TSDF is complicated by several
factors. First, a large number of waste constituents must be evaluated,
making the analysis relatively resource-intensive. Second, short-term
emission rates of potentially hazardous substances from many of the sources
within TSDF are affected by meteorological conditions. In many cases, the
meteorological conditions associated with the greatest emission rates are
the same conditions that give rise to the greatest atmospheric dispersion
J-68
-------
(e.g., high ambient temperatures, which are often associated with
atmospheric instability, and high windspeeds). Thus, reliable estimates of
short-term, maximum ambient concentrations cannot be obtained by selecting
source emission rates and meteorologically induced dispersion conditions
independently. Finally, the emission rate of a specific substance depends
on the concentration of the substance in the waste being processed at the
facility. Not only do the concentrations of individual substances in the
wastes processed at TSDF vary substantially, but they can also vary
significantly from source to source within a TSDF because of the various
processing steps used in the treatment of that waste.
Because of the complexities cited above, a specialized modeling
procedure was developed to produce the desired ambient concentration
estimates. With this approach, mathematical short-term emission models are
integrated with a short-term atmospheric dispersion model. The formulation
of the emission models that have been developed for the various TSDF
sources is discussed in Section J.2 and is summarized here. The short-term
emission models provide estimates of hourly emission rates of individual
waste constituents using information on the chemical and physical
properties of the substance, the source operating practices, the
concentration of the substance in the waste, and the meteorological
conditions affecting emission rates (e.g., windspeed and temperature). In
these models, the physical and chemical properties of a substance are
represented by a surrogate chemical with similar properties. The models
are structured such that contaminant concentrations leaving a particular
treatment step can be estimated, and input to a second emission model used
for the treatment step to which the waste is next transferred. The
emission models are then linked together to generate estimates of hourly
emission rates for all sources individually within a TSDF, and these
estimates reflect variations in meteorological conditions, waste
concentrations, and the operating practices of the facility.
The emission models discussed above are used to estimate hourly emis-
sion rates for each source within a TSDF for use with an atmospheric
dispersion model. The dispersion model selected for this application is
the Industrial Source Complex Short-term (ISCST) model.12,13 jhe ISCST is
J-69
-------
a Gaussian plume model that is applicable to multiple point, area, and
volume sources. As noted in The Guideline on Air Quality Models, ISCST is
a preferred model for dealing with complex sources (i.e., facilities with
point, area, and volume sources). With this model, industrial surce
complexes located in either urban or rural areas with flat or rolling
terrain can be modeled. As with the ISCLT model described in the preceding
section, ambient concentrations can be estimated for transport distances up
to about 50 km. All of the ISCST model applications for the analysis
described in this section were performed with the UNAMAP 6 version of ISCST
as implemented on EPA's National Computing Center (NCC) UNIVAC 1100
computer system.14
The ISCST source and receptor inputs are virtually identical to those
of the ISCLT, and thus no further discussion is included here. The reader
is referred to Section J.5.1 for a brief overview of these inputs, or to
the ISCST User's Manual for a more comprehensive description. A major
difference between inputs to the ISCLT and ISCST occurs in the form and
structure of the meteorological data inputs. With ISCST, these inputs
include hourly estimates of wind direction, windspeed, ambient air
temperature, Pasquill stability category, and mixing height. These data
can be developed by the user, or can be generated from meteorological data
collected at various National Weather Service (NWS) monitoring sites
located around the country using a preprocessor program described in the
User's Manual for Single Source (CRSTER) model.15 Use of the hourly
meteorological data with the dispersion model algorithms contained in ISCST
enables the model to calculate 1-h average concentrations at various
receptors positioned around the facility being modeled. The model can be
run for any number of hours, ranging from one to a complete 366-d year.
Concentrations for averaging times longer than 1 h can be calculated
directly from the hourly values. For example, if the ISCST is used with a
full year of sequential, hourly meteorological data, annual average
concentrations can be computed at each receptor included in the ISCST
simulation.
The TSDF emission models and the atmospheric dispersion models are
integrated by conducting an annual simulation of the emissions released to
J-70
-------
the atmosphere and their subsequent transport and dispersion downwind. In
this simulation, the emission models are used to calculate the hourly
emission rates for each hour of the year, and the dispersion model is used
to calculate the resultant ambient concentrations for those same hourly
periods. These calculations are performed for each waste constituent
included in the modeling application. (In order to minimize computational
expenses, the atmospheric dispersion model is run one time with normalized
emission rates [see Section J.5.2] to generate all hourly contributions
from each source to each receptor. Ambient concentrations of specific
constituents are then calculated,by merging the emission model estimates
with the ISCST output.) The ambient concentrations for the other averaging
times of interest are computed directly from the hourly average estimates.
For all averaging times longer than 1 h, the concentrations are computed as
block averages for successive time periods. For example, the 3-h averages
in a single day would correspond to the following time periods: 12-3, 3-6,
6-9, etc. The 15-min average concentrations are estimated from the hourly
values using an empirical scheme developed by Briggs that relates
concentrations for different averaging times to atmospheric stability and
emission release height.^ Finally, the EPA-recommended approach for
treating calm wind situations is used in the computation of the
concentrations for each of the averaging times.17 With this method, hours
with calm winds are treated as missing data, and the longer-term averages
are adjusted according to the number of such periods occurring during the
averaging period.
J.6.2 Short-term Model Application
The short-term modeling approach described in the previous section was
applied to the two TSDF discussed earlier. Three annual simulations were
performed for each facility in order to include effects of year-to-year
variations in meteorology on the ambient concentration predictions. As
noted earlier, the highest ambient concentration for each of the chemicals
listed in Tables J-4 and J-5 were generated for each of the averaging times
of concern (i.e., 15 min, 3 h, 8 h, 24 h, and annual).
The source data and receptor data required by the ISCST are very
similar to that of the ISCLT discussed in Section J.5. Thus, the source
J-71
-------
data listed in Table J-14 and J-15 are the same as those used in the ISCST
application. Similarly, the same receptor networks were used in both
applications as well, and these are shown in Figures J-4 and J-5. The
other major type of input data is the meteorological data. For the ISCST
applications described here, data were obtained from NWS sites and
preprocessed with the meteorological preprocessor referenced earlier.
Other relevant ISCST options used in the model applications are described
in Table J-17.
As described earlier, the short-term modeling approach for the acute
health effects assessment was designed explicitly to estimate the highest
ambient concentrations of each waste constituent at the two TSDF. Tables
J-18 and J-19 have been prepared to summarize these results. These tables
show the total annual average emissions on a facility basis for each of the
constituents included in the analysis. They also show the highest ambient
concentration estimates found in the three annual simulations for each of
the averaging times of concern. Note that the ambient concentration
estimates for a given constituent decrease with increasing averaging time.
Further, a comparison of the predictions for different chemicals reveals
that ambient concentration estimates are not necessarily proportional to
total facility emissions. This occurs because ambient concentrations are
affected by such factors as the characteristics of the emission release
(e.g., height, horizontal area), the location of the release relative to
facility fence!ine, and the meteorology. Thus, direct comparisons of
results for individual constituents and facilities may be inappropriate.
For a discussion of how these levels compare with available health data,
the reader is referred to Appendix E,
J.7 REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)—Air Emission Models. Office
of Air Quality, Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
December 1987. 367 p.
2. Memorandum from Gitelman, A., RTI, to Docket. December 4, 1987.
Detailed facility analysis: Modified TSDF emission models.
J-72
-------
TABLE J-17. OPTIONS USED IN ISCST MODEL APPLICATIONS
Urban dispersion mode 3 used.
Terrain effects not included (i.e., no elevated receptors).
Meteorological data selected from preprocessed NWS data.
Default wind profile exponents and vertical temperature
gradient values used.
For point sources unaffected by adjacent buildings, final plume
rise, stack tip downash, and buoyancy-induced dispersion used.
Decay coefficient set to zero.
ISCST calms processing routine used in the calculation of all ambient
concentrations.
ISCST = Industrial Source Complex Short-Term.
NWS - National Weather Service.
J-73
-------
s • s • 2 a 2 2 s s a s a s s s s a 2 s
S.2
SI:
n M M « «
I 1 I
22222
%
X X X X
XXX
XXX
X X X X
S 2
• B D 9
* ID O
•i L L L
X X X X K
n o f-i n
la IB
S S S
e« f-> f* 09
552
• • •
OOf
u u *»
o o •
_ •• o
J .c u
u u o
S 2
•? 3
I I
x a. o
• COL.
I I i
1 § s I
o c — —
L. * X X
O, .C .C .?
UUUOUOUIUJU1
J 5
J-74
-------
I
TI
•
4>
4»
•
•
4>
•
f»
i
*« »« 01
I I
J 5 .
• « -o •
:: £ I J
*» • 2 ^
J 5 " U
o • • o
• S = ±
222
v^ n m r^ «4
•
e
. I
4* •
• O
C • l_
fr I I
O >» ^
= 13
•00 o
x * * o S
ill i
e i-
a. «
J-75
-------
I
till
x <• « M
L ' ' "
I. «
i i i
I t I 1 T*
I I I
till
•> « Oi
«4 *« 10
I" IB M
S 5
* m r»
« « Q « Q
«^ rH <-« <-i i-«
t* 1-1 O
I t I
is a e «o
2 C • -o
o a c —
— — • O
c -
•g
- S
T ii
c — o
i - s
I 4> 49 4> X ^
^ 5
i i
e — o e
« o — •— o.
E u u
M o u u
< « a
••£ 3 •— *- .— 49 4» o O«~« £»M •
<->uuaoouiiii££ao±fMa
J-76
-------
IS
5
—
• a
e
I
I
"S
a J-
Ci
L
•
O .C
concentre!
f
4>
e ^
1-
1
*
i
X
10
e
»— t.
!•=>
*M
Wast* constituent *
i
*"*
•H
a
' '
•H
a
"*
M
„
a
•4
»
„
1
JC
1
X
1
III!
s a a Q
to m N
a a a
t I fc
•a *• *L "a
•
- T ? 7
v •> a i>
««.«<«
^ N r4
*H - O> IO IA
tit
i*. •» m o
Uethylene chloride 2
n-propino 1 0
Perchloroethylene 7
Phenol 0
ii i i i
22322
^ ••• 40 U)
a a a IB
;IO IO
a a
m 10 10
IB a a
~ « M o> e>
i i i «•«
a a a a
M « a a 10
M *4 o> a •*
» -^ €1 U>
a a a a
W !• «» » »
Phthallc anhydride 2
p-ch 1 oroen 1 1 1 ne 4
Toluene S
Trlchloroethylene 1
Vinyl ecetete 2
IB
J-77
-------
3. Memorandum from Maclntyre, L., RTI, to Docket. November 4, 1987.
Data from the 1986 National Screening Survey of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal, and Recycling Facilities used to
develop the Industry Profile.
4. Memorandum from Gitelman, A., RTI, to Lassiter, P., EPA/OAQPS.
May 19, 1987. Detailed facility analysis: Surrogate concentrations
for Sites 1, 2, 3.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Source Complex (ISC)
Dispersion Model User's Guide - Second Edition, Volume 1. Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA 450/4-86-005a. 1986.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Source Complex (ISC)
Dispersion Model User's Guide - Second Edition, Volume 2. Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA 450/4-86-005b. 1986.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised). Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA 450/2-78-
027R. 1986.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User's Network for Applied
Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP), Version 6 (Computer Programs on
Tape). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. NTIS
No. PB 86-222361. 1986.
9. Reference 5.
10. Department of Commerce. Local Climatological Data. Annual Summaries
with Comparative Data. 1967.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds,
and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United
States. Research Triangle Park, NC. 1972. AP-101.
12. Reference 5.
13. Reference 6.
14. Reference 8.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User's Manual for Single Source
(CRSTER) Model. Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA-
450/2-74-013. July 1977.
16. Briggs, G. Diffusion Estimation for Small Emissions. Atmospheric
Transport and Dispersion Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN. Report No. 79
(draft). 1973.
J-78
-------
APPENDIX K
SECONDARY AIR AND CROSS-MEDIA IMPACT ESTIMATES
-------
-------
APPENDIX K
SECONDARY AIR AND CROSS-MEDIA IMPACT ESTIMATES
Control devices used to reduce organic air emissions from sources at
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF) create.
additional environmental impacts as well as energy impacts. The purpose of
this appendix is to describe the methodology used to develop order-of-
magnitude estimates of the nationwide secondary air emission impacts,
wastewater and solid waste impacts, and energy impacts associated with each
of the five control options defined in Chapter 5.0. The estimates were
prepared using an approach that applied energy conversion factors, air
emission factors, and wastewater and solid waste generation rates to
results from the Source Assessment Model (SAM) control option analyses
described in Appendix D.
The environmental and energy impacts are sensitive to the control
device operating conditions used at the TSDF (e.g., electricity source,
type of fuel burned to produce steam, spent carbon management practices).
To account for this sensitivity, a range of environmental and energy impact
values was computed for each control option by defining two sets of TSDF
control device operating conditions that provide an upper boundary estimate
and a lower boundary estimate. This approach allows a range of values to
be computed that spans the conditions most likely to occur at TSDF on a
nationwide basis.
K.I CONTROL OPTION ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS
The control options are defined in terms of control device combina-
tions as applied to individual TSDF source categories. Control device
combinations selected for these options involve the application of covers
and enclosures to specific TSDF source categories, and in many cases, the
K-3
-------
venting of the captured organic emissions to an add-on control device
capable of removing at least 95 percent of the organics from the vent
stream.
For the SAM analyses, it is assumed that the add-on control device
used nationwide for all TSDF surface impoundment, aerated treatment tank,
and waste fixation sources is a new carbon adsorption system. A mix of
control devices is assumed for TSDF storage tanks and quiescent treatment
tanks. The nationwide distribution of control devices for these tanks
consists of 25 percent new carbon adsorption systems, 25 percent existing
add-on control devices, and 50 percent internal floating roofs.
Environmental and energy impacts for the five control options are
produced from two primary types of activities:
• Steam regeneration of spent activated carbon from carbon
adsorption control devices
• Generation of electricity required to ventilate enclosures
and to power carbon adsorption control devices.
Steam is used to regenerate the activated carbon (i.e., remove the
organics adsorbed on the carbon surface). The resulting steam and organic
vapor mixture is condensed to recover the organics and separate the water
for discharge to a wastewater treatment unit. Spent carbon that is not
regenerated or is no longer suitable for regeneration must be disposed as a
solid waste. The generation of the process steam in a natural gas or fuel
oil fired boiler produces air emissions.
Electric motor-driven fans, blowers, or pumps are needed for control
device operations such as ventilating enclosures, circulating cooling water
through condensers, and pumping recovered organic liquids. Generation of
electricity required to operate the TSDF control devices produces air emis-
sions, wastewater discharges, and solid wastes. The types and quantities
of these impacts vary depending on the power generation technology and, for
fossil-fuel power plants, the type of fuel burned.
A portion of the TSDF storage and quiescent treatment tanks is assumed
to be vented to existing, onsite control devices. These devices would be
equipment currently operating at the TSDF such as process steam boilers,
condensers, or vapor incinerators with sufficient available capacity to
K-4
-------
handle the additional tank vapor flow. Depending on the control device
used and tank vapor stream characteristics, the environmental and energy
impacts associated with the control device's new operating conditions may
decrease, increase, or remain the same from the levels that occurred at the
existing operating conditions (i.e., prior to adding the tank vapor flow).
For the environmental and energy impact analysis, control of organic vapors
from TSDF storage and quiescent treatment tanks by venting the vapors to
existing control devices is assumed on a nationwide average basis to
produce no net change in the environmental or energy impacts already
attributable to the existing equipment operating conditions.
K.2 ESTIMATION PROCEDURE
The environmental and energy impact estimates were prepared using an
approach that applied energy conversion factors, air emission factors, and
wastewater and solid waste generation rates to the results of the SAM
analyses for the five control options. A nine-step procedure was followed
to estimate the nationwide annual environmental and energy impacts produced
as a result of the operation of the selected control devices. Each step is
summarized below:
1. Define the TSDF control device operating conditions.
2. Develop TSDF source category operation factors relating the
following control device operating requirements to the
amount of hazardous waste managed:
• Control device electricity demand (kilowatt-hour per
megagram of waste managed)
• Control device steam demand (kilogram of steam per
megagram of waste managed)
• Fixed-bed adsorber carbon demand (kilogram per megagram
of waste managed)
• Canister adsorber carbon demand (kilogram per megagram
of waste managed).
3. Select energy conversion factors for electricity generation
by fossil-fuel-fired utility power plants and process steam
production by industrial boilers.
K-5
-------
4. Select air pollutant emission factors for utility and
industrial boilers.
5. Select wastewater and solid waste generation rate factors
for utility power plants and carbon regeneration units.
6. Select SAM results for each control option listing annual
nationwide hazardous waste throughput (megagram of waste per
year) by TSDF source category.
7. Multiply control device operation factors times individual
TSDF source category throughput to obtain annual electric-
ity, steam, and carbon demand for each source category.
8. Add the individual source category demand values to obtain
the total annual electricity, steam, and carbon demand for
each control option.
9. Multiply the total annual electricity, steam, and carbon
demand values by the appropriate energy conversion factors,
air emission factors, and wastewater and solid waste genera-
tion rate factors to obtain annual environmental and energy
impacts.
K.3 DEFINITION OF CONTROL DEVICE OPERATING CONDITIONS
Control device operating conditions were defined to develop the energy
conversion, air emission, and wastewater and solid waste generation rate
factors for an upper boundary estimate and a lower boundary estimate of
each impact. Table K-l presents the common set of control device operating
conditions used for both the upper and lower boundary estimates. The fuel
property and air emission factor values were selected from the EPA document
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).1 The other operat-
ing conditions were selected based on engineering judgment to be consistent
with typical electric utility power generation and industrial process steam
production practices.
The environmental and energy impact results are sensitive to certain
control device operating conditions such as electricity source, fuel type,
and spent carbon canister practices selected. For example, many TSDF will
purchase electricity from the local electric utility. The mix of power
plants (e.g., coal-fired, natural gas-fired, hydroelectric, nuclear) used
to supply power to the utility grid varies depending on the region of the
country. Estimates of environmental and energy impacts for TSDF control
K-6
-------
TABLE K-l. GENERAL TSDF CONTROL DEVICE OPERATING CONDITIONS
USED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACT ESTIMATES
Fuel properties
Fuel type
Natural gas
Fuel oil
Coal
Heating value Sulfur content. % Ash content,%
39 MJ/m3 (1,050 Btu/ft3) Trace Trace
39 GJ/m3 (140,000 Btu/gal) 0.5 Trace
30 MJ/kg (13,000 Btu/lb) 3 12
Air pollutant emission factors
• Air pollutant emission factors for combustion sources obtained from
EPA document Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).2
Process steam production
• Carbon regeneration requires 3.5 kg of steam/kg of adsorbed organics.
• Steam supplied for carbon regeneration by industrial boilers
having a heat input capacity less than 105 TJ/h (100 million Btu/h).
• Industrial boilers fired by natural gas or fuel oil.
• Boiler efficiency = 80%.
• Steam output from boiler at 149 °C (300 °F), 483 kPa (70 psia).
Spent activated carbon management
• All spent carbon from canister-type carbon adsorbers that is not sent
to a regeneration facility is disposed at an appropriate landfill.
(continued)
K-7
-------
TABLE K-l (continued)
Electricity generation
• Electricity supplied to TSDF by electric utility.
• Electric utilities operate natural gas or coal-fired power plants.
• Fossil-fuel-fired power plant efficiency = 33%.
• Power plants comply with Federal New Source Performance Standards
for electric utility .steam generating units (40 CFR 60 Subpart Da)
• Coal-fired power plants use lime/limestone wet scrubbers.
• Wastewater discharge rate:
—Coal-fired power plant with wet scrubber = 2.5 m3/MW/day
(660 gal/MW/day)
—Natural gas-fired power plant = 0.4 m3/MW/day (100 gal/MW/day).
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
K-8
-------
device electricity consumption can vary significantly depending on the
power plant mix selected.
To account for the sensitivity of the control device operating
conditions' selection on the analysis results, a range of estimates was
computed by defining a set of lower and upper boundary conditions. Table
K-2 presents the upper and lower boundary conditions selected for control
device operation.
K.4 DEVELOPMENT OF ESTIMATION FACTORS
A set of control device operation factors was developed for each TSDF
source category using the control cost estimates presented in Appendix H.
As part of these cost estimates, annual control device electricity, steam,
and carbon consumption was computed to determine capital and annual control
costs for individual TSDF model units defined for each TSDF source cate-
gory. Each operation factor was calculated by dividing the control device
annual consumption value by the annual hazardous waste throughput defined
for the model unit.
Table K-3 presents the control device operation factors used for
environmental and energy impact calculations. These factors were developed
based on specific control device operating conditions, waste compositions,
and nationwide TSDF model unit distribution factors used for SAM. It is
not appropriate to use the values presented in Table K-3 to perform
environmental and energy impact analyses for other air emission source
categories or control alternatives.
The air. emission factors and waste generation rates used for the
environmental and energy impact calculations are presented in Table K-4.
These values were developed using the control device operating conditions
described in Tables K-l and K-2.
K.5 RESULTS
Environmental and energy impacts were estimated for each control
option using the TSDF source category annual nationwide hazardous waste
throughput values estimated by the SAM analyses. Multiplying the factors
presented in Tables K-3 and K-4 times these waste throughput values yielded
the environmental and energy impact results. The results are presented in
Table K-5 for the lower boundary conditions and Table K-6 for the upper
boundary conditions.
K-9
-------
TABLE K-2. BOUNDARY TSDF CONTROL DEVICE OPERATING CONDITIONS
USED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACT ESTIMATES
TSDF control device
operating condition
Lower
boundary
Upper
boundary
Electric utility
power plant mix
50% coal
25% natural gas
25% noncombustion
100% coal
Steam boiler fuel
100% natural gas
100% fuel oil
Carbon regeneration yield
903
803
Spent carbon canister
management practice
100% regenerated
100% direct
landfill disposal
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
K-10
-------
a
CO
UJ
H-
§
M
|—
UJ
|—
I
>-
a
UJ
•Z
^1 .
y5
g
3j
g
M
2£
m
CC
O
U.
^^
UJ
CO
co
en
o
1-
<
u.
z
o
tH
1-
s
a.
o
111
M
UJ
O
0
l__
o
u
u.
a
CO
f
\
\s
UJ
1-
l_ L.
e 0
43 -0
ID L.
•— O
C (0
« "O
u a
1 L.
-0 «
-o i.
e o
x a
•«- "TJ
U. a
c
u
">
e
«_
o
L.
43
C
O
«
>
o
^_
o
t.
43
C
o
o
•o c
C 0
a -o
•o u
c «*-
o o
.a
«- O>
a JK
u
,
•o"^ c
c o
a _a
E t_
9 a
ts u
c ««-
0 0
_o
U O)
u
^
-0 E
c a
a o
E 43
T)
E O
a
43 v
ID
x.c
u
L, TJ
43 C
u a
.? i
e -o
x
I
a
u
o
u
1_
3
o
(I)
c
o
in
V)
._
E
u.
V)
^-
G
Si
S)
SI
^^
rH
o
CO
a
O)
(0
t-
.8
10
L.
O
c
5
c
0
u
,_, .
•
rH O
rH CO
SI rH
si si
TH
O t^
TH TH
1^
Si CO
Si CM
-o
I
>^
«
Ul
a
L.
O
43
II)
-O 43
^-x C
CM Q
O E
CO -0
3
O O
2 1
o
43 0
w u
a
JC «t-
C L.
a 3
h- to
m
S
TH
SI
SI
Si
rH
^
,_)
.
s>
J2
TH
0
^^
43
C
!
a
O
L.
43
]y
C
a
43
43
c
O
U
II)
«
3
®
|s.
Si
si
ID
00
CO
.
TH
-5^
CM
O
{-,
43
C
£
43
a
L.
43
43
C
g
T)
C
O
1
o
u
a
«t-
L.
3
II)
43
C
O
u
in
O
3
s
TH
SI
Si"
SI
TH
CM
.
IQ
TH
O
\^r
4>
C
J
a
0
L.
43
je
c
a
43
"8
43
0
L.
9
e ri K >^
o — Q. « «
— «»- > n x
4} o— — a
— C 43 43 JI -0
O 43 C C ID
t«<- -o e o -
o a 43 4- x
o 4»— a
•) * t. ^
43 M . « ^
B X^ O >
• — 43 i. O 00
* a 43 o
c c c u.
» « — O X O
c — -o c H-
0 « » t- 0
.- TJ 43 0 43
43 o c ai a
•—SOU) 9
-O (1) O L. -O
C 43 « — — 0
O C L. L. 3 £
U 0 O. O O* t-
E CT « O
CD n u o L. <«-
C 0) O 43 L.
— 0 3 a -c o
43 ID— U U 0.
ana —
L, < > 0 jc e
0 O * t.
a 0 0 t. a
O U J= 3 -
u 43 o n m
e 3 n c
u o 0 c o
— CO II) C O —
> 3 O — 43
0 0 — 43 a
T> -C O W O. L.
43 43 (A O 0
— Q.
O t. o E — O
L. 0 43 O 0
43 ra — o —
43— L. 43 05 43
a o c 0 a o . a
t. TJ — C t. 43 I.
o o 0 0 » e
a E -o a. o a
o o L. o o
U. JO O 0
0 Q — 0 U 0
U CO L. — U t- U •
— 1- u n — 3 — <— .
> n 43 > o > L.
O00C O(A OX
"° — ~° 1 "" c "°i"
— * 0) C — O —
OCCO O— OS
L.OO1. t. 01 t. 00
43 ._ ._ — 43 m 43 5)
C -P -P > C— C »
o re a. c OE OCM
UCOO OO
-------
C IS
i
UJ
Ul
i §
B
0>
B
B
U C
B
V I
11
B
49 E
c a
CM
B
o>
e c
U 3
B
_! 3
B
B
B
c
0.-
J
e a
B
B
B
B
B
11
« o
E 3
o a 9 a
£L O Q- O
C 49
&'
1
-* E 3
a in
i. e c
CL « o a_ o
0) ID
e c
O 49
O 49
c 49
c c E
O— O
C a
L. E
49 a
O E I- E
1C 49 C
O O
c a
LL a
8-2
•8:2
I- 49 C t- E
49 o a 49 a
c O E CO
u E
U. U U U
K-12
-------
CO
g
a
^g
IM
<
X
QL
o -
U.
CO
S
2 a
M UJ
r- r-
CO <
UJ 2
M
tt-
(O
< HI
^E ^~
M a:
>- o
o z
Q£ ^5
MI ^3
"2, 00
QJ
(3 yj
Z 5
^j
_i
SCO
z
2 0
Z M
Si-
ll.
M O
ZJ i— ^
UP) ^3
£t
UJ t-
a z
M O
^?
0 U.
M O
1- CO
< 1-
z
UJ
U. r-
O (O
^£
N» ^g
o:
3E
z>
to
•
U)
1
UJ
ffi
?
u>
c
0
•45
Q.
O
^f
0
-O CL
C O
0
45
a
o co
— c
0 0
t. •—
45 45
C CL
0 0
O
U.
a
CO CM
r-
C
O
45
a.
o
^
-c
o
• "43
CL
O
to
45
O
a
CL
E
M
SBBS
CO B B TH
CM TH
S S S S
tOBBTH
SIS8
U> OJ
B S *S Q)
*r & & < ffl ft £
2 ID C C
c o o 0
. O — — 45
0) — « 0) ffl
45 in a in —
8.2113
§-!•'£
XXI.
O O O (D
L. o z co a.
•—
o> s
CM CO SI
CM CM
co o> B
CM CO
4^
45 C
C 0
0 3
3 —
f— •*— *^
X *^ *^
1-0
E ~^ ^
C C 9
§O 0-Si
3 — J3
S — 45 3
><<- a t.
TH O
O 8) O 0 t- IS T3
.. > - 0 L. 4343IS C
CM CO IO CM 1. 0 «0 C U> ffl
CL a O
— X *<_>--
0 L. tO CO 43 IT
•O « CM O) C
O -O 45 C • ••> 0 -
2C — C — 01 E 0 CM
3 t> C -O L. CL 01
CO SI 61 SI SI S 4>00 0 390.0-.
TH S IS SI SI S C -O t- L, — 43 .- ^i
*.> » - E L. V- CL C CLSl CT U
COLD CO CO «0 1 •-_ E U5 C •
SO S S -o »c — ^
— CO -TH 01 CM « 43 0)
0) CO Jt L. CL CL
<0 — I./-N CO —0O
.c a e CM <• «»- o) o) 10
0 45 t. ^ %^' 45 O (D ^ •
CO SSSS S O 3 BK 8) •— U O TH
TH BBSS S t- L. 45 O - L. L. C O t- ^
S) O CO CD IH 3O (0 J3 43 O 0 ffl 43 43
*.» « - O09ll)C<0
co co 0> u> co — 0 o L. o a.
o> 45 a o o> o o 13 o -^
0 C C — L. 0 0
-CO 0 1.0 O 13 <*- t- C CO
45— O 45O. ~ C O 0— •
45 i. in > a > B
C— 0 3B 0 EO-OTH
o -o a. "o en T3 - a. o 0
CO BBSS B C C 0) CL t- 0)
^ BBB B B -OO IO •— II — E t. •— ~O
BBSS B 0O CM O3BO30
...» - VI T3"O I.UU.CT0
00 CO CM CO S « O> '- 0— 43 -0 C 0O
TH CM TH U3C-DI.ec ffl I-X
.— 0 .— .— o «t- -C • 0
X 045 L. «
BSS S S ^r «»-
TH CM TH ffl t- > C450 O"O TOO— C
ID f>0 04>ao>Eo0c o —
O "D-D OCC0O TO— E t-
ac 1.0 i. t — t. c 0.45 0
0 — 0)3— 0— 45«l-.-0— O-C43
o> a — oo o-CLC^fflimoo)
t- j: I) -D Ji C. 0THC45.O43SOa
0 0) O 45 Bt.O^-'OC3CB»
-c a CL -ot-c to«i-j3eo)osiffl
O O 0) C0O J » L. O-0
fl) £ O) *~ 19 £O OCL**(DU7^ COOf
— O-O -O O "O.45Otl>«)4343
•DI-453 C -—0 CSC.C430-
X45 — L. O 0 -C OXB045OC43IO O>«r-
t- ^ O O O *— TO 0H- *— 45THEC3OV) CO
O TO^i <«- 43 o j: 45 — 0 o o E a -o —
.c c act.
t--CJ3 43 1.3 45 0)0) 045CC 43 3 O O3
0 n 01
4545 3 ffl ^ C CO 0 —EOTHO-E ID
(0 O X t- * -) O >0._ TO C 43 E « D. - C
JO — O h-O 45 (1)45 OOCCID— O CL (0 L.
O-«T- e> -o c 0 a x— 3 o o c — -* o.
E C — -X 0 t-O"4545TOJJ— O-O— BC
in .-4545O — 43 TO E CL ffl — 01 O L, +3 — C Q.B 01-
ffl c CJ3 o o t- 45 — t.o3t-rao45a a to 45 o
t 0 ffl « u ID ffl a> a «oo— -oo.uL.CL a - CL
45—— O Q. C 0 — L. t- E 0O/-^TH43O
— 0) CL Q. O — E0 1- -D43ffl43OE43C CrH C >
a a a— 1- ac45ooac0— o - ®
45 * i_ t. 43 45 — 43 o m 0C00TOO— cifE0
O O O C O XO II OE — O43O.Ot.45O 43 j;
1— T3 * 3t O 1— TO 43 0) — UJC
-------
g
§
N
4^
3C
or
o
u.
(O
III
J—
^c
IE «
H UJ
^™ H~
CO *C
M
H 1-
o to
!>
MJT
>- Q
O 2
UJ o
ZZ CD
or
~ft £^
< a.
S
^£
^B ••
*y j/j
foj 21
^S JQ
2 M
0 1-
or a.
M O
m o
n*
in F
•O 2t
M a
g u
2C
O UL
Pg
^^
o to
>- ^
or
to
CO
1C
UJ
,. J
5
t™
10
g
CL
O
c
O
•—•
49
XI CL
C O
0
49
a
O CO
— c
o o
49 49
C CL
O O
u
u.
Q
to CM
h-
c
o
49
CL
O
rH
C
0
49
CL
0
49
U
a
CL
E
M
SilS
co r-
Sl SI SI SI
CD B SI ^J"
CO B
•,
rH
Q SI SI SI
CO B B CD
rH
§GS o
SI O
f- rH
rH CM
SI St SI SI
CO S SI rH
rH h- CM rH
rH CO
n
C
o
••»
CO B
rH
UJ IT SI
r- ID si
•^ CM
49
49 C
C 0
0 3
3 —
t, — >-.> > 0 O 49 43 SI C
^- CO CM CM CM L. 0 W C UJ •
rH I. » O
— X — * <-) -
0 L -0 CO 49 •»
TJ • O) C
OTJ 49 C • — 0 -
3 C C — V) E U CM
3 0 TJ t- CL (A
10 SI SI S) SI (9 490 U 30CL0-
CM S> S> S> SI SI CXI t. — 49 — rH
SI SI T S! CM 0 0UVIC93
» - . « « EL. CLC CLt9 T V)
CO O) CN 00 V «0 * — E 10 C •
rH 0) Q. »B>^-'3-OO/-^
1)3 «!0rH V) O? U 43 '«
V) 49 — -* i- O. CL
<0 C'-y-x C O -~ C O
x: • o CM cg— c «»- > en w c <»
f^rHrHCO UJ to * L. « O L. O O.
rH rH 0) O43OWOOT1UJ:
0 C CL (A U 0 0
.CO 30 U-DO-I-CCO
49 — x -a CL — c o 0 — •
49 49 C > CO > S>
C — — — S 0 E O TJ rH
O-o — CO TJ-.Q.O0
O^ B t9 S} 19 O C ••— ^3 CD CL 1L If)
CO OCfiS)C9 CS) ^O 490 II ^E L. •— ^
S) Si S) S) 0U 31- O3C9O30
«-•••> « V) •— T> (.L.U.CT0
CO CO U> t> rH « CO -O «(- — 49-OC 0O
rHCM ^T rH XI C 010 CQL.X
L. — .- 0«f-XC • 0
X 049 .-._>> UO49(At4
43 43 0 B U49O OOI49V) "OCD CD—
h* C9C9S) csi ca tt to UH-i9i.v)eg0^>0
B S) B B O *^ 0 0 ~~ C— 0 ^ O 1— O 0 *E
•»«- « » O 49>— 0490— OJTJ49
f- 00 T O> CO — X— C 49 C V) > <*-
t-ICMrH UJ iH a t- > 0 c u 0 c o —
o TJ "O L. -o 0 eg o>._ g i_
CL C 0 t. U — L. c 0.49 0
0 — (A3— CL49 — 0 — CL C 49
ca e — o o c^EaEraow
i. x: n -o xi L. s0rHO49xi49iaueg
« V) O 43SIO^'1-C3CSI*
X: « CL 17C.C rHL. - fo o x:
— O-O TO CL ..490100)4949
-o (.493 c -30 cscxtx:490.
X49— L. O 0 X: OSl»l-CnC4JLD O><«-
(.^^OV) O — O)0K — rH E O 3 « W CO
o DJXI it- 49 ax: 49 o u o E ra T3 •-
1- S L, CL U.49 (B OI--OXC490
-00 0 E O • L." <043X:COCL,
L, -CXI 49 L. D 49 « « 0CCC493O 03
0 B B XI (A XV) V) 43 C COC00 O 49 — > (A
4949 3 CB^C CO 0 — E O. rH CL E (A
S 0 X L. * -5 0 -0— 0)49 i.
O CL<(- (A -o C0CL X3O««-C — JCCL
49 E C — -X 0 I.O" 49TJX1OO-O— SC
V) — 49490 — 49O) £ o- ID — O L. — c O.S) ea L.
O C C XI O UL 49 — ILUt-CB— 49fg O-IO 49 O
£ caai. tA cg0 a 9 o a — CL o o a a- CL
49 eg CLC 0— t- i- v)O/-vrH49eg
— (0 O. CL O — E0 1- Xl 43 (B 43 E 43 O CrH c>
a n a— |_ oj c 43 o m c a. — o -0
49 * L. L. 49 49 — 49OID 000CAO— C •V E »
o 00coxeg II o E — 49 CL— t- 43 o 43 x:
1- -0 * * O (- O149 (A — UJlOtOT>49IO— — 049
— O O CL t- O U. — 1-49 CX49E0
— Q. Q. tO 01— Q X: O (/) O — CL CL L. <+-
O C tOH-<«-OCL49 —
to ui 1- o xi
K-14
-------
K.6 REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, AP-42, 4th edition. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1985.
2. Reference 1.
K-15
-------
-------
APPENDIX L
90-DAY TANKS AND CONTAINERS IMPACTS
-------
-------
APPENDIX L- ,
90-DAY TANKS AND CONTAINERS IMPACTS
Hazardous waste generators who accumulate waste on-site in containers
or tanks for short periods of time are specifically exempted from the RCRA
Subtitle C permitting requirements provided the generators comply with the
provisions specified in 40 CFR 262.34. Both large quantity generators
(i.e., generators who generate more than 1,000 kilograms per calendar
month) and small quantity generators (i.e., generators who generate more
than 100 kilograms but less than 1,000 kilograms per calendar month) can be
exempted. A large quantity generator is exempted if hazardous waste is
accumulated on-site in tanks and containers for 90 days or less and certain
requirements are met as specified in §262.34(a) including compliance with
40 CFR 265 Subpart I (if the waste is accumulated in a container) or Sub-
part J (if the waste is accumulated in a tank). The generator accumulation
tanks and containers that meet these requirements are referred to in this
Appendix as "90-day tanks and containers." A small quantity generator is
exempted if hazardous waste is accumulated on-site in containers and tanks
for up to 180 (or 270 days in some cases) and certain requirements are met
as specified in 40 CFR 262.34(d) and (e) including compliance with contain-
er requirements in 40 CFR 265 Subpart I and with special tank requirements
in 40 CFR 265 Subpart J (specifically §265.201). All generators are
exempted for containers used at or near the point of generation to accumu-
late up to 55 gallons of hazardous waste or 1 quart of acutely hazardous
waste listed in 40 CFR 261.33(e), provided certain requirements are met as
specified in 40 CFR 262.34(c).
Generator accumulation tanks and containers collect hazardous waste
near the point where the waste is generated and the potential to release
L-3
-------
volatile organics is highest. If these units are open to the atmosphere,
the majority of the organics in the waste may be emitted to the atmosphere
before the waste is transferred to a TSDF waste management unit. Under
these conditions, organic emissions from certain generator accumulation
tanks and containers could be substantial and, consequently, decrease the
organic emission reductions that are potentially achievable by requiring
organic emission controls for TSDF waste management units.
The purpose of this appendix is to describe the methodology used to
estimate the nationwide impacts from 90-day tanks and containers. Nation-
wide organic emission, annual cancer incidence, and control cost impacts
were estimated for two cases: (1) the current level of air emissions
(referred to as the "baseline case"); and (2) assuming that existing open-
top 90-day units are equipped with covers (referred to as the "controlled
case"). For the controlled case, the covers are assumed to be installed on
all open-top 90-day tanks and containers accumulating hazardous waste con-
taining greater than 500 parts per million by weight (ppmw) of volatile
organics.
L.I ESTIMATION PROCEDURE
A five-step procedure was followed to estimate the nationwide annual
impacts for 90-day tanks and containers. Each step is summarized below.
1. Develop impact estimation factors for 90-day tanks and containers
based on the results from the Source Assessment Model (SAM)
impacts analyses of permitted TSDF waste management units
described in Appendix D.
2. Estimate nationwide quantities of waste managed in 90-day tanks
and containers.
3. Multiply estimated nationwide quantities of waste (Step 2) times
organic emission factors (Step 1) to obtain nationwide organic
emissions from 90-day tanks and containers for the baseline and
controlled cases.
4. Multiply estimated nationwide quantities of waste (Step 2) times
control cost factors (Step 1) to obtain nationwide capital and
annual costs for the controlled case.
5. Multiply estimated total quantity of nationwide 90-day tanks and
containers organic emissions (Step 3) times an annual cancer
incidence factor (Step 1) to obtain nationwide annual cancer
L-4
-------
incidence from 90-day tanks and containers for the baseline and
controlled cases. '"
L.2 ESTIMATION FACTORS
To develop the 90-day tank and container estimation factors, the
assumption is made that, on a nationwide average basis, the impacts from
managing a megagram of waste in a 90-day waste management unit are the same
as the impacts from managing the megagram of waste in a permitted TSDF
unit. Therefore, the estimation factors are based on the SAM impact analy-
ses results for permitted TSDF as calculated for four waste management unit
categories:
• Open-top 90-day tanks
• Covered 90-day tanks
• Aerated 90-day tanks
• 90-day containers.
Each estimation factor was calculated by dividing the appropriate
nationwide impact value from the SAM analyses by the annual nationwide
waste throughput value for the TSDF waste management unit category. For
example, SAM-calculated nationwide baseline organic emissions from open-
top, permitted TSDF tanks are 790,000 megagram of organic emissions per
year (Mg/yr). The SAM analysis also calculated that 26,000,000 Mg/yr of
waste are managed in these open-top, permitted TSDF tanks. Dividing
790,000 Mg/yr by 26,000,000 Mg/yr yields an estimation factor for 90-day
open-top tanks of 0.03 Mg of organic emissions per megagram of waste
managed. Table L-l presents the calculation of 90-day tanks and containers
emission estimation factors for the baseline and controlled cases. Table
L-2 presents the calculation of control cost estimation factors for the
controlled case.
A single estimation factor for annual cancer incidence was developed
assuming that cancer incidence is a direct function of the amount of
organic emissions from a hazardous waste management unit regardless of
whether or not the unit is permitted under RCRA. Using the SAM results for
nationwide baseline impacts as presented in Table 6-1, 140 cancer inci-
dences are estimated to occur nationwide annually as a result of 1,800,000
L-5
-------
C O C /-v
C — O t- CO
•— C •— O 2E
— • n 4J -x.
C> TO « U 05
s
u
o
-o e n
— c o c r-*
o •••>•««.
,,.»
O)
3 §
i
§
U.
LL
—— W »» ^^
— — O L. W
O C — OS
• « 43 *>v
O) m o ro
L. — a 2
C
i
: — .- o t.
49 D> M CB
C I. — S
o o E ^-'
20 «
§
i-< CM
c >.
— • C
o .o
§
§
\»f Uf
i i
«T V
i
u.
L-6
-------
CO
ce
o
H-
u
u.
I
1
M
CO
UJ
1-
to
o
0
i
AINERS
H
u
1
i
?
V
o
ca
t
V
to
M
— O
• O L. /-^
4> O O)
°O. O U ->»
a> L. aw
0 45 «(- ^
c
o
u
_^
• 91 91 s~i
T> — O C L.
— O O O X
S 4» •— *••»
o a. o v> s
— • 1. — rH
U°-cfS,
Z 0
0
C 4»*
•D — 4»
— V C s-\
* «) a t-
c a a >v
O -O O"*»-
'•PU.CZ
•Z.fn'n^"'
*~ *
4>
a 01 c
S a 3
c
a
co ^r co
TJ- S IS
(9 S CO CO
CM W »H iH
rH 0> W
§19 19 51
5) O O
*
C Jf JC
ace
4> a a e>
43 45 L.
U- «
O U. LL C
co o a
H to co a
a. c
o t> -D o
4> a « o
1 t- 4>
c c a a.
« > t. Q
a. o * co
0 (J •< 1-
.p
w
o
— u t- /-*.
a o o>
3— 4> S
c o o ••••.
c t- ««•
^C .^} tf» ^^
c
0
u
4»
« « ^-v
T3 O « U
• O C >»
* • o ^»
C 3 — —CO
o c o a> (9
— C L « ft
49 a 43 — «•
5 SS"
u
C >t
C 45
c
* in a i.
c a 3 >»
49U. ez
H & 4* ^-*
Z CO W
l— a
*
4>
C
• V
4» E 4»
a O) c
* a 3
c
<0
O co co
^ s d si
•C S r-l tO
CM •» r-l 6»
m •»
^ «t •«• CM
O
-* « W
c je je
ace
* » a .
a. a
a u. u. c
co a a —
I— co co a
H H -P
a. c
O "O T3 O
•f S * °
c c a u.
0 > t. O
a. o « co
O (J < t-
L-7
-------
Mg/yr of organic emissions from TSDF. Dividing 140 cancer incidences/year
by 1,800,000 Mg/yr obtains an estimation factor of 7.8 x 10'5 cancer
incidences per megagram of organic emissions. This factor was used for
both the baseline and controlled cases.
L.3 NATIONWIDE 90-DAY TANKS AND CONTAINERS WASTE QUANTITY
Nationwide 90-day tanks and containers waste quantity is estimated
based on data from the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators and
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in 1981
(referred to here as '"1981 Survey") and preliminary data from the 1986
National Survey of Hazardous Haste Treatment Storage, Disposal, and Recy-
cling Facilities (referred to here as the "1986 Survey"). The more recent
1986 Survey data provided information about 90-day tanks and containers
located at RCRA permitted facilities. These data do not include 90-day
tanks and containers at generator sites not requiring a RCRA permit.
Therefore, the 1981 Survey data were used to estimate waste quantities for
90-day tanks and containers at sites that do not require RCRA permits. The
calculations for estimating nationwide 90-day tanks and containers waste
quantity are presented below.
A. 90-day tanks and containers at RCRA-permitted facilities
Al. Nationwide quantity of waste in 90-day storage units accumulated
at non-RCRA-permitted facilities based on preliminary 1986 Survey
data.l
Waste Management Unit
Open-top 90-day tanks
Covered 90-day tanks
Aerated 90-day tanks
90-day containers
Nationwide Waste Quantity
7,300,000 Mg/yr
5,700,000 Mg/yr
3,000 Mg/yr
110,000 Mg/yr
B. 90-day tanks and containers at non-RCRA-permitted facilities
Bl. Nationwide quantity of waste received at TSDF from off-site
generators based on 1981 and 1986 Survey data.
1981 5.4 billion gallons2
1986 6.7 billion gallons3
Conversion to megagrams of waste assuming density of waste is
equivalent to the density of water.
L-8
-------
B2.
B3.
B4.
B5.
(5.7 x 109 gal/yr) x (264 Mg/gal) = 21.6 x 106 Mg/yr
(6.7 x 109 gal/yr) x (264 Mg/gal) = 25.4 x 106 Mg/yr
Nationwide quantity of waste accumulated in 90-day storage units
at non-RCRA-permitted facilities based on 1981 Survey data.
1981
1.2 billion gallons4
Conversion to megagrams of waste assuming density of waste is
equivalent to the density of water.
(1.2 x 109 gal/yr) x (264 Mg/gal) = 4.5 x 10$ Mg/yr
Estimated 1986 nationwide quantity of waste in 90-day storage
units at non-RCRA-permitted facilities:
(25.4 x 106 Mg/yr)
(4.5 x 106 Mg/yr) x = 5.4 x 106 Mg/yr
(21.6 x 106 Mg/yr)
Nationwide distribution of waste in 90-day storage units based on
1981 Survey data.5
Waste Management Unit
90-day tanks
90-day containers
Other (non-90-day units)
Nationwide Distribution
15%
51%
34%
Estimated 1986 quantity of waste in 90-day tanks and containers
at non-RCRA-permitted facilities assuming distribution remained
the same as in 1981:
90-day Tanks
(5.4 x 106 Mg/yr) x— = 1.2 x 106 Mg/yr
( 15% + 51% )
90-day Containers
(5.4 x 10& Mg/yr) x
( 51% )
( 15% + 51% )
= 4.2 x 106 Mg/yr
B6. Estimated distribution of waste in 90-day tanks at non-RCRA-
permitted facilities assuming same distribution by tank type as
at RCRA-permitted facilities (Step Al above):
L-9
-------
Open-top 90-day tanks
(1.2 x 106 Mg/yr) x
( 7.3 x 106 Mg/yr)
( 13 x 106 Mg/yr)
= 6.7 x 105 Mg/yr
Covered 90-day tanks
(1.2 x 106 Mg/yr) x
( 5.7 x 106 Mg/yr)
( 13 x 106 Mg/yr)
= 5.3 x 105 Mg/yr
Aerated 90-.day tanks
(1.2 x 106 Mg/yr) x
( 3.0 x 103 Mg/yr)
( 13 x 106 Mg/yr)
= 0 Mg/yr
C. Total Nationwide 90-Day Tanks and Containers Waste Quantities
Cl. Add results of Steps A and B as presented in Table L-3.
L.4 RESULTS
Table L-4 presents the calculation of 90-day tanks and containers
organic emission estimates. Table L-5 presents the calculation of 90-day
tanks and containers control cost estimates. Annual cancer incidence was
calculated by multiplying the total organic emission estimates for the
baseline and controlled cases (Table L-4) times the estimation factor of
7.8 x 10~5 cases per megagram of organic emission.
The analysis results estimate that nationwide emissions of organics
from 90-day tanks and, containers are approximately 259,000 Mg/yr for the
baseline case. Annual cancer incidence as a result of exposure to these
emissions is estimated to be approximately 21 cases per year. By applying
controls to 90-day tanks and containers, annual emissions of organics would
be reduced to about 4,000 Mg/yr and that annual cancer incidence would be
reduced to less than one case per year. The capital costs of adding emis-
sion controls to 90-day tanks and containers are estimated to be approxi-
mately $41 million. Total annual costs are estimated to be approximately
$10 million for 90-day tanks and containers.
L-10
-------
?.*?
C 4> 4» X
owe —
— a a o>
-P * = S
JS
o>
to
CM
CO
s
fH
CO
.?ȣ
'i 0 '-P
L. .— C *
' -
S'o e
U S 45
K
-o
a.
o
a.
o
5
x
e
•o
o
o
X
a
•o
•o
c
c
IB
O
O
X
a
•o
s
L-ll
-------
uS
i
i
M
to
S
U
g
to
<
U
5
(A
A
^
r—
Jjj
O
H
T
o
s
J—
•§ e «
lig-^
3 S ?.!! =?
• Xl 6 6 '-'
Z O
M
e u c ^
C — O U CO
SO9 •> O 0)
U.- *S
• O E «t- >-'
m c
o x
C 43
•§-£
•— « C <-x
* « « U
C • 3 X
O -O CT^s.
•"• CO
• O 43 *~s
Z CO *
£
43
e I
in *> —
a en c
S a 3
c
i
§ia co is
n ta
Q i-t t«T
CM
CM
CO IS tH IS
O ^9 (& O
O ^& O S
i i i i
•* •» ^ M
§C^ CO S
co co
CO CD ^
tn
-* B W
C Jf Jf
ace
43 a a a
43 43 t.
x C
a x x c
•o • a —
i "D ~o a
S 1 1 43
09 (S O
o. o
o -o -o
43 C « X
i i- 43 a
c t> a -a
• > L. 1
Q. O C IS
o u < o
L
X
CO
oT
u>
CM
II
0
H
-§•§ «
0 C ,-y
* — — O t.
C O C — X
O U O B ^
— 43 o> e) a
43 C U — S
• o o e ^
Z U 9
« II)
— 0 C ^v
— — O 1- CO
o c — o z
I. 0 W 43 -^.
43 co at o co
c t- — us
O O E «t- ^
w 9
^
•§ *43
^ .— eg |_
C — 3 X
•~ tt CO
43 a • 3E
Z 0
£
43
c
c o
43 i 43
IB CO*C
S a 3
c
a
CD CO O)
iH rH
CM CM ID CM
i § § §
(2 O C& (S)
§ i i §
^«» ^^ ^^ ^^
§§ ro §
CO CO
00 CD ^f
0)
C n¥ ^£.
ace
43 a a n
43 43 C.
X D
t. i
O. O €> S
O (_) < O)
C.
X
CO
i
CD
co"
II
O
1-
L-12
-------
<0
SE
^g
C
[2
0
^J
O
QJ
|_
z
o
(O
cc
5
i
o
1
CO
^
Jl
H-
<
i
u>
1
_J
0
^(
CO
1-
•o
"* co o «
C 49 t. 49 /^
0 — 49 in n
— O. C O "— '
49 a o o
co o o
' Z
49
— o
• O t- ^-v
49 O O)
•— ^— 43 3£
a. o o -X
CO I- CO «»
0 49 «»->-'
C
o
o
-8 x
•- 49 /-.
* C — t.
C 49 49 X
O 0) C >«.
£g§i>
IB O'^-'
Z
49
C
J $
(00 —
to o> c
S CO 3
c
a
(S R} R) Rl
S M S S
s c^ *s
•^ •. fc
§ Si
00 tO
Q C
O> O> O
a. o
o -o -o
49 0 0 X
1 L. 49 IB
c 0 a -o
0 > L. 1
o. o e si
0 0 < 0)
S
i
i
co
is"
M
II
^£
1-
0
•o
"* a o « ^->
C 3 L. 49 L.
O C 49 -^
Z
_„
n
o
— O 1- /—»
3 ^^ 45 ^E
c o o *«»
C t. IB t*
< 49 «t- v-'
C
o
u
•o x
'* 0 — T"
C 49 49 X
o « c ^
— CO CO D)
45 * 3 3
a o-N-'
Z
49
C
0 e
CO D) C
S CO 3
c
i
§ S i §
(9 CM S
§5 §
CO
fc fc
00 vH
ce e*
O co co
• ^} • •
K> C
o> o> o
a. u
o -o -o
49 0 0 X
1 L. 49 IB
C « CO -O
0 > 1. 1
0. O 0 S
O O < O>
i
s>
1
*.
o>
11
<
1-
g
I™"
L-13
-------
L.5 REFERENCES
1. Research Triangle Institute. Preliminary Results for 90-day Accumula-
tion Tanks and Containers' from National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (TSDR).
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. March 1989.
2. Westat, Incorporated. National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
and Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in
1981. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Solid Waste. April 1984.
3. Reference 1.
4. Reference 2.
5. Reference 2.
L-14
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-89-023c
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Hazardous Waste TS&F - Background Information for
Proposed RCRA Air Emission Standards
Volume III - Appendices G-L
5. REPORT DATE
June 1991
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1C. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
'ill. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4326
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Interim Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Air emission standards are being proposed under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDF) to reduce emissions of ozone precursors (volatile organic compounds) and
exposures to hazardous air pollutants. This document contains background
information and environmental and economic assessments of regulatory alternatives
considered in developing the proposed standards. The regulatory alternatives
consider application of air pollution controls on tanks, surface impoundments,
and containers used to manage hazardous waste at TSDFs, as well as at generators
using tanks and containers to accumulate large quantities of waste on site. This
document is divided into a three volume set.
KEY WOfU'S ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATi f icld Group
Air Pollution
Volatile Organic Compounds
Hazardous Waste
Treatment
Storage
Disposal
Air Pollution Control
13b
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS iThis Report,
Unclassified
21. MO. OF PAGES
396
2O. SECURITY CLASS iTills page/
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R.». 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
------- |