'
ty^^^&t^-~-.-*fp^^st&i^.-f&r&£.^££&~£gi?k.--
:kB*--3ltesS«*sSE»3fet5«iaa
ml
-------
f
n
-------
vvEPA
Detailed Costing Document for
the Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for
the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry
(EPA.821-R-00-021) -
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
J. Charles Fox
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Geoffrey H. Grubbs
Director, Office of Science and Technology
Sheila E. Frace
Director, Engineering and Analysis Division
Elwood H. Forsht
Chief, Chemicals and Metals Branch
Jan S. Matuszko
Project Manager
Timothy E. Connor
Project Engineer
William J. Wheeler
Project Economist .
Maria D. Smith
Project Statistician
August 2000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
The Agency would like to acknowledge the contributions of Jan Matuszko, Elwood Forsht,
Ronald Jordan, Richard Witt, Timothy Connor, and Beverly Randolph to development of this
technical document. In addition EPA acknowledges the contribution of Science Applications
International Corporation.
Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors,
or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for any third party's use of, or the results of such use of, any information, apparatus,
product, orprocess discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such a third party would not
infringe on privately owned rights.
-------
DETAILED COSTING DOCUMENT FOR THE CWT POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
In this document, EPA presents the costs estimated for compliance with the proposed CWT
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Section 1 provides a general description of how the individual
treatment technology and regulatory option costs were developed. In Sections 2 through 4, EPA describes
the development of costs for each of the wastewater and sludge treatment technologies.
In Section 5, EPA presents additional compliance costs to be incurred by facilities, whichare not
technology specific. These additional items are retrofit costs, monitoring costs, RCRA permit modification
costs, and land costs.
SECTION! COSTS DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Technology Costs
EPA obtained cost information for the technologies selected from the following sources:
* the data base developed from the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry (WTI) Questionnaire responses
(This contained some process cost information, and was used wherever possible.),
• technical information developed for EPA rulemaking efforts such as the guidelines and standards
fonthe Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) category, MetalProducts and
Machinery (MP&M) category, and Industrial Laundries industries category,
• engineering literature,
• the CWT sampling/model facilities, and
• vendors' quotations (used extensively in estimating the cost of the various technologies).
The total costs developed by EPA include the capital costs of investment, annual O&M costs, land
requirement costs, sludge disposal costs, monitoring costs, RCRA permit modification costs, and retrofit
costs. Because 1989 is the base year for the WTI Questionnaire, EPA scaled all of the costs either up
or down to 1989 dollars using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index.
1-1
-------
Section 1 Costs Development
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
EPA based the capital costs for the technologies primarily on vendors' quotations. The standard
factors used to estimate the capital costs are listed in Table 1 -1. Equipment costs typically include the cost
of the treatment unit and some ancillary equipment associated with that technology. Other investment costs
in addition to the equipment cost include piping, instrumentation and controls, pumps, installation,
engineering, delivery, and contingency.
Table 1-1. Standard Capital Cost Algorithm
Factor
Equipment Cost
Installation
Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Total Construction Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Total Indirect Cost .
Total Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Technology-Specific Cost
25 to 55 percent of Equipment Cost
31 to 66 percent of Equipment Cost
6 to 30 percent of Equipment Cost
Equipment + Installation + Piping
+ Instrumentation and Controls
15 percent of Total Construction Cost
15 percent of Total Construction Cost
Engineering + Contingency
Total Construction Cost + Total Indirect
Cost
EPA estimated certain design parameters for costing purposes. One such parameter is the flow
rate used to size many of the treatment technologies. EPA used the total daily flow in all cases, unless
specifically stated. The total daily flow represents the annual flow divided by 260, the standard number
of operating days for a CWT per year.
EPA derived the annual O&M costs for the various systems from vendors' information or from
engineering literature, unless otherwise stated. The annual O&M costs represent the costs of maintenance,
taxes and insurance, labor, energy, treatment chemicals (if needed), and residuals management (also if
needed). Table 1-2 lists the standard factors EPA used to estimate the O&M costs.
1-2
-------
Section 1 • Costs Development
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Sections 2 through 4 present cost equations for capital costs, O&M costs, and land requirements
for each technology and option. EPA also developed capital cost upgrade and O&M cost upgrade
equations. EPA used these equations for facilities which already have the treatment technology forming the
basis of the option (or some portion of the treatment technology) in-place.
Table 1-2. Standard Operation and Maintenance Cost Factor Breakdown
Factor ; O&M Cost (1989 S/YR)
Maintenance
Taxes and Insurance
Labor
Electricity
Chemicals:
Lime (Calcium Hydroxide)
Polymer
Sodium Hydroxide (100 percent
solution)
Sodium Hydroxide (50 percent solution)
Sodium Hypochlorite
Sulfuric Acid
Aries Tek Ltd Cationic Polymer
Ferrous Sulfate
Hydrated Lime
Sodium Sulfide
Residuals Management
4 percent of Total Capital Cost
2 percent of Total Capital Cost
$30,300 to $31,200 per man-year
$0.08 per kilowatt-hour
$57 per ton
$3.38 per pound
$560 per ton
$275 per ton
$0.64 per pound
$80 per ton
$1.34 per pound
$0.09 per pound
$0.04 per pound
$0.30 per pound
Technology-Specific Cost
Total O&M Cost
Maintenance + Taxes and Insurance +
Labor
+ Electricity + Chemicals + Residuals
1-3
-------
Section 1 Costs Development
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.2 Option Costs
EPA developed engineering costs foreachofthe individual treatment technologies which comprise
the CWT regulatory options. These technology-specific costs are broken down into capital, O&M, and
land components. To estimate the cost of an entire regulatory option, it is necessary to sum the costs of
the individual treatment technologies which make up that option. In a few instances, an option consists of
only one treatment technology; for those cases, the option cost is obviously equal to the technology cost.
The CWT subcategory technology options are shown in Table 1-3. The treatment technologies included
in each option are listed, and the subsections which contain the corresponding cost information are
indicated. .
EPA generally calculated the capital and O&M costs for each of the individual treatment
technologies using a flowrate range of 1 gallonper day to five million gallons per day. However, the flow
rate ranges recommended for use in the equations are in a smaller range and are presented for each cost
equation is Sections 11.2 through 11.4 of the Development Document for the CWT Point Source
Category. • . ,
Table 1-3. CWT Treatment Technology Costing Index - A Guide to the Costing
Methodology Sections
Subcategory/
Option
Treatment Technology
Section
Metals 2
Selective Metals Precipitation
Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration
Secondary Chemical Precipitation
Clarification
Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration
Filter Cake Disposal
2.1.1
2.2.1
2.1.2
2.2.2
.4.1 '
4.2
1-4
-------
Section 1 Costs Development
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Subcategory/
Option
Metals 3
Metals 4
Metals - Cyanide
Waste
Pretreatment
Oils 8
Oils 8v
Oils 9
Oils 9v
Organics 4
Organics 3
Treatment Technology
Selective Metals Precipitation
Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration
Secondary Chemical Precipitation
Clarification
Tertiary Chemical Precipitation and pH Adjustment
Clarification
Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration
Filter Cake Disposal
Primary Chemical Precipitation
Clarification
Secondary (Sulfide) Chemical Precipitation
Secondary Clarification (for Direct Dischargers Only)
Multi-Media Filtration
Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration *
Cyanide Destruction at Special Operating Conditions
Dissolved Air Flotation
Dissolved Air Flotation
Air Stripping
Secondary Gravity Separation
Dissolved Air Flotation
Secondary Gravity Separation
Dissolved Air Flotation
Air Stripping
Equalization
Sequencing Batch Reactor
Equalization
Sequencing Batch Reactor
Air Stripping
Section •
2.1.1
2.2.1
2.1.2
2.2.2
2.1.3
2.2.2
4.1
4.2
2.1.4
2.2.2
2.1.5
2.2.2
2.5
4.1
2.6
2.8 .
2.8
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.4
2.3
3.1
2.3
3.1
2.4
* Metals Option 4 sludge filtration includes filter cake disposal.
1-5
-------
Section 1 Costs Development
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.2.1 Land Requirements and Costs
EPA calculated land requirements for each piece of new equipment based on the equipment
dimensions. The land requirements include the total area needed for the equipment plus peripherals
(pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). Additionally, EPA included a 20-foot perimeter around each unit.
In the cases where adjacent tanks or pieces of equipment were required, EPA used a 20-foot perimeter
for eachpiece of equipment, and configured the geometry to give the minimum area requirements possible.
The land requirement equations for each technology are presented throughout Sections 2 to 4. EPA then
multiplied the land requirements by the corresponding land costs (as detailed in 5.4) to obtain facility
specific land cost estimates.
X'
1.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs
EPAbased O&M costs on estimated energy usage,, maintenance, labor, taxes and insurance, and
chemical usage cost With the principal exception of chemical usage and labor costs, EPA calculated the
O&M costs using a single methodology. This methodology is relatively consistent for each treatment
technology, unless specifically noted otherwise.
EPA's energy usage costs include electricity, lighting, and controls. EPA estimated electricity
requirements at 0.5 kWhr per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated. EPA assumed lighting and controls
to cost $1,000 per year and electricity cost $0.08 per kWhr. Manufacturers' recommendations form the
basis of these estimates.
EPA based maintenance, taxes, and insurance on a percentage of the total capital cost as detailed
in Table 1-2.
Chemicalusage and labor requirements are technology specific. These costs are detailed for each
specific technology according to the index given in Table 1 -3.
1-6
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
SECTION 2 ItesiCAL/CHEMicAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY COSTS
2.1 Chemical Precipitation
Wastewater treatment facilities widely use chemical precipitation systems to remove dissolved
metals from wastewater. EPA evaluated systems that utilize sulfide, Erne, and caustic as the precipitants
because of their common use in CWT chemical precipitation systems and their effectiveness in removing
dissolved metals.
2.1.1 Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2 and Metals Option 3
The selective metals precipitation equipment assumed by EPA for costing purposes for Metals
Option 2 and Metals Option 3 consists of four mixed reaction tanks, each sized for 25 percent of the total
daily flow, with pumps and treatment chemical feed systems. EPA costed for four reaction tanks to allow
a facility to segregate its wastes into small batches, thereby facilitating metals recovery and avoiding
interference with other incoming waste receipts. EPA assumed that these four tanks would provide
adequate surge and equalization capacity for a metals subcategoryCWT. EPA based costs on a four batch
per day treatment schedule (that is, the sum of four batch volumes equals the facility's daily incoming waste
volume).
As shown in Table 1-3, plate and frame liquid filtration follows selective metals precipitation for
Metals Options 2 and 3. EPA has not presented the costing discussion for plate and frame liquid filtration
in this section (consult Section2.2.1). Likewise, EPA has presented the discussion for sludge filtration and
filter cake disposal in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
Capital and Land Costs
EPA obtained the equipment capital cost estimates for the selective metals precipitation systems
from vendor quotations. These costs include the cost of the mixed reaction tanks with pumps and treatment
2-1
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
chemical feed systems. Because only one facility in the metals subcategory has selective precipitation in-
'place, EPA included selective metals precipitation capital costs for all facilities (except one) for Metals
Options 2 and 3. The total construction cost estimates include installation, piping and instrumentation, and
controls. The total capital cost includes engineering and contingency fees at a percentage of the total
construction cost (as shown in Table .1-1).
Table 2-1 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the selective metals precipitation
treatment systems while Figure 2-1 presents the resulting cost curve. The total capital cost equation for
the Metals Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitation is:
where:
In(Yl) = 14.461 + 0.5441n(X) + 0.0000047(In(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Yl= Capital Cost (1989$).
(2-1)
Table 2-1. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001""
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Equip.
410
1,433
17,554
61,428
214,966
515,951
752,262
1,805,546
Installation
143
502.
6,144
21,500
75,238
180,583
263,292
631,941
Piping
123
430
5,266
18,429
64,490
154,785
225,679
541,664
Instrument. &
Controls
123
430
5,266
18,429
64,490
154,785
225,679
541,664
Engineer.
&
Conting.
240
839
10,269
• 35,936
125,755
301,831
440,073
1,056,245
Total
Capital Costs
(1989 $)
1,038
3,634
44,499
155,721
544,938
1,307,936
1,906,983
4,577,060
2-2
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
10,000,000
1,000,000
g 100,000
8
.o
1 10,000
'§•
o
1,000
100
t i i 11 i ii I I I t i I ml i i t i 11 n I t i i i M i tl i i t i 11111 t i i 1111il• i i i i i M t
1.00000E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow(MGD)
0.1
10
Figure 2-1. Total Capital Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - .
Metals Options 2 and 3
Table .2-2 presents the land requirements for the selective metalprecipitationtreatment systems and
Figure 2-2 presents the resulting cost curve. The land requirement equation for Metals Options 2 and 3
selective metals precipitation is:
where:
In(Y3) = -0.575 + 0.4201n(X) + 0.025(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(2-2)
2-3
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-2. Land Requirement Estimates for Selective Metals Precipitation •
Metals Options 2 and 3
Flow (MOD)
0.016
0.0284
0.06
0.2
0.4
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement
Area Required (Acres)
. 0.1413
0.164
0.25
0.342
0.376
0.517
0.59
0.92
1.322
Costs
10
CO
o
§
£
tr
03
cc
1
2
0.01
I I [ I I II
0.1
10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-2. Land Requirement Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
2-4
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
EPA based the labor requirements for selective metals precipitation on the model facility's
operation. EPA estimated the labor cost at eight man-hours per batch (four treatment tanks per batch, two
hours per treatment tank per batch).
<*
EPA estimated selective metals precipitation chemical costs based on stoichiometric, pH
adjustment, and buffer adjustment requirements. For facilities with no form of chemical precipitation in-
place, EPA based the stoichiometric requirements on the amount of chemicals required to precipitate each
of the metal and semi-metal pollutants of concern from the metals subcategory average raw influent
concentrations to current performance levels (See Chapter 12 ofthe Development Document for the CWT
Point Source Category for a discussion of raw influent concentrations and current loadings). The chemicals
used were caustic at 40 percent ofthe required removals and lime at 60 percent ofthe required removals.
(Caustic at 40 percent and lime at 60 percent add up to 100 percent ofthe stoichiometric requirements.)
These chemical dosages reflect the operation ofthe selective metals precipitationmodel facility. Selective
metals precipitation uses a relatively high percentage of caustic because the sludge resulting from caustic
precipitation is amenable to metals recovery. EPA estimated the pH adjustment .and buffer adjustment
requirements to be 40 percent ofthe stoichiometric requirement. EPA added an excess of 10 percent to
the pH and buffer adjustment requirements, bringing the total to 50 percent. EPA included a 10 percent
excess because this is typical ofthe operation ofthe CWT facilities visited and sampled by EPA.
Table 2-3 presents the lime and caustic requirements for the selective metals precipitation for
facilities with no treatment in-place. Table 2-4 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for these
facilities. Figure 2-3 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M cost equation for the Metals Options
2 and 3 selective metals precipitation for facilities with no treatment in-place is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 15.6402 + 1.0011n(X) + 0.04857(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(2-3)
2-5
-------
a
I
5
<2
If
I o
5 -o
*? e>
o
CO
•g
CM
1
"-I3
Q.
0
W
"I
§
1
"8,
'p
p^
en
*c3
1
1
o
(U
"o
l/J
cS
s
U
f
£
o
•-K
5
1
0
J
c«j5
CM
o
S
.OMGD
S
o
. S
O
o
K
1
u.
Q
O
o
0
S
o
E
0001 MGD
0
0
*
E
o
«3
e£
60
«
O
O
eu
i
&
&
*
a
C£
? "
.fe CO
j c
Causlic
(LBS/YR)
if
j a
Caustic
(LBS/YR)
ll
3g
U
Caustic
(LBS/YR)
Lime
(LBS/YR)
0 S
•= >•
3 «
" e
c?
*£
3 s
£g
53
If
IS
*5 2"
£ "Sb
J S
"d
"o
Cu
M VOCttO'O' — « OV«rt t^
cor* o\ -— .tr«t.^rvi**>|rt — o *o CM f- o
°. s s "«- = "- ? - -- s a = « •»- »• - i "•- $ - °-
t-cs-TTP,<*r1'9'»o— f-»t- \o-a-" *^" ^ "" w — TT" «" M «
SO—, O
ss"s«**?jsa2 s « s 5 s s
So^s-Sosgr-vo « a " ' °s« s
* 5 » « « « 5 * « s s « a -. o s; g *- "- * a "
'»iX'^Mc1.M"n incsirt1* cs «*>vo cs
t^w "rt£r(*)«'a- — 2j *o o* c- so
oo c\ eo EMOO «n-a- L. o\«*;i-ooo— ' o XJ (^ mrtr) o%
•nc\or:otnMV^f^M5^'r*'n ogotMOO^-
mt^o^deoo^ocs^mNO cs o' — o o d
*°-9'_J2O.TrO.OO2CS'OpnSl»1^-, °Sr^.ft*°
S S § S. g "2 g 2 5 S-g?SS § 3 "i S K g -.
s-B^s^s^Sg- «•'!»• 53- S s « ~ 5 s
S— — •*— Mf~2?Mclo'*M ~°«°;MClo\
lls.iSa-- ilJ^l.i ill
III III >'M
0
r^
1*1
fl
«*)
oC
cs
•o
CN
O\
eT
Ov
rr
r*>
O\
W
°i.
rT
4,229,093
o\
M
rt
oT
es
o\
cs_
c*r
rr
«->
o\
es
c^
M
-------
Section.2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs-
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-4. O&M Cost Estimates for Selective Metals
Flow _
(MOD) Energy
0.000001 1,000
0.00001 1,000
0.001 1,010
0.01 1,104
0.1 2,040
0.5 6,200
1.0 11,400
5.0 53,000
Taxes
Maintenance &
Insurance
42 21
145 73
1,780 - 890
6,229 3,114
21,798 10,899
52,317 26,159
76,279 . 38,140
183,082 91,541
Precipitation - Metals Option
T , Chemical
Labor
Costs
52,464 7
52,464 67
53,900 6,651
58,964 66,512
64,504 665,117
.68,684 3,325,587,
70,564 6,651,173
75,136 33,255,866
2and3
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
53,534
53,749
64,231
135,923 .
764,358
3,478,947
6,847,556 .
33,658,625
/
: -^~
S
. . ^r
0>
^ 1.000.000
_/"
,/"
O ,-. .... . .<-
*x
0
^
0.0001
i i i 1 1 ii i i i i i 1 1 1 1
0.001 0.01
Flow
\ i l l l l l 1 1 l l l l l l l 1 1
0.1 1-
(MGD)
'
10
Figure 2-3. O&M Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
2-7
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
EPA estimated selective metals precipitation upgrade costs for facilities that currently utilize some
form of chemicalprecipitation. Based on responses to the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, EPA
assumed that the in-place chemical precipitation systems use a. dosage ratio of 25% caustic and 75% lime
and achieve a reduction of pollutants from "raw" to "current" levels. Table 2-5 presents the chemical
dosages that EPA estimates facilities currently use to treat their wastewater from "raw" to "currenf' levels.
The selective metals precipitationupgrade would require a change indie existing dosage mix to 40% caustic
and 60 % lime. Table 2-6 presents the chemical dosages required for facilities to treat their wastewaters
from "raw" to "currenf levels using this dosage mix. Therefore, the selective metals precipitation upgrade
for facilities with in-place chemicalprecipitationis the increase in caustic cost ( from 25 % to 40%) minus
the lime credit (to decrease from75% to 60%). Table 2-7 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for
Metals Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitatiohupgrades for facilities that currently utilize some form
of chemical precipitation. Figure 2-4 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M upgrade cost equation
for the Metals Options 2 and 3 is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 14.2545 + 0.80661n(X) + 0.04214(In(X))2
X=Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2= O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(2-4)
2-8
-------
a
I
Si
o
§
5
t>o
I
CN
MGD
|
o
II
•s
MOD
1
E
I
8
§
o
Ca
(LB
ic
'R
Ca
(LB
II
«.
s
^H(v5O^-r^a- *^rc\
? i 5 S- a. 1 o a. s e
.,r— •t-^vorfc>voS3o\ ^S
^ "> « K « S » ^. 2 S 2 §
^ — m _- — F-
-------
I
5
4
vj
u
o
Q
J?
8
cs
I
vo
.1
Q
i
O
II
1
u.
Q
O
E
Q
i
g*~
o
tt
1
E
)001MGD
o
o
II
o
B.
1
V
a
1
-—
g
0
i
£?
.2 ?f
i m
21
J 0
.2 §"
l|
J g_
O OH
l|
s-
II
(J,
•1!
£?
E ^-
^»
.2 S"
O j
11
I Is
-,i
11
Pollutant
ll§|l|i!lli°l|^sljlal
oC ^ S ^ VJ erf (S O* — ' **« °* o2'O*O"-|OO OO ON»OO ^
J^nc--op;oooo_,oo0-c-itNooo — ooo
S '
«
c-
CM
o
r-
5-
o
CM
CO
0^
s
o
«
O
i-H
CS
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-7. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates -
Metals Options 2 and 3
Flow _
(MOD) Energy
0.000001 1,000
0.00001 1,000
0.001 1,010
0.01 1,104
0.05 1,520
0.1 2,040
0.5 6,200
1.0 11,400
5.0 53,000
Maintenance
42
145
1,780
6,229 .
14,950
21,798
52,317 •
76,279
183,082
Selective
Metals Precipitation (Raw to Current Removals) -
Taxes
& Labor
Insurance
21
73
890
3,114
7,475
10,899
26,159
38,140
91,541
.52,464
52,464
53,900
58,964
62,784
64,504
68,684
70,564
75,136
Chemical
Cost
2
15
1,445
14,458 '
72,291
144,582
722,909
1,445,818
7,229,093
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
53,529
53,697
59,025
83,869
159,020
243,823
876,269
1,642,201
7,631,852
10,000,000
O5
CO
o
~ 1,00"0,000
CO
0
O
5
08
0
100,000
10,000
0.0
. , : _^ -
/
/
. . — _^ _
• /• ;
^S
^^"
, — _=
,
i iii
001
i M ii i iii
0.001
0.01
t , , , , .
0.1
i i i i,i,i ,
1
l I t | I II
10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-4. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation (Raw to Current
Removals) - Metals Options 2 and 3
2-11
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.1.2 Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2 and Metals Option 3
The secondary precipitation system in the model technology for Metals Option 2 and Metals
Option 3 follows selective metals precipitation and plate and Same liquid filtration. This secondary
chemical precipitation equipment consists of a single mixed reaction tank with pumps and a treatment
chemical feed system, which is sized for the full daily batch volume.
As shown in Table 1-3, clarification follows secondary chemical precipitation for Metals Options
2 and 3. The costing discussion for clarification following secondaryprecipitation is presented in Section
2.2.2. The discussions for sludge filtration and the associated filter cake disposal are presented in Sections
4.1, and 4.2, respectively.
Many facilities in the metals subcategory currently have chemical precipitation units in-place. For
these facilities, costupgrades maybe appropriate. EPA used the following set of rules to decide whether
a facility's costs should be based on a full cost equation or anupgrade equation for the secondary chemical
precipitation step of Metals Options 2 and 3:
• Facilities with no chemical precipitation in-place should use the full capital and O&M costs.
• .Facilities with primary chemical precipitation iri-place should assume no capital costs, no land
requirements, but an O&M upgrade cost for the primary step.
• Facilities with secondary chemical precipitation currently in-place should assume no capital costs,
no land requirements, and no O&M costs for the secondary step.
Capital and Land Costs
For facilities that have no chemicalprecipitationin-place, EPA calculated capital cost estimates for
the secondary precipitation treatment systems from vendor quotations.
EPA estimated the other components (i.e., piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the total
capital cost by applying the same factors and additional costs as detailed for selective metals precipitation
(see Section 2.1.1 above).
2-12
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
For the facilities that have at least primary chemical precipitation in-place, EPA assumed that the
capital cost for the secondaryprecipitationtreatment systemwould be zero. The in-place primary chemical
precipitation systems would serve as secondary precipitation systems after the installation of upstream
selective metals precipitation units.
Table 2-8 presents the itemized capital cost estimates for the secondary precipitation treatment
systems in Metals Options 2 and 3 while Figure 2-5 presents the resulting cost curve. The total capital cost
equation for Metals Options 2 and 3 secondary precipitation is:
In (Yl) = 13.829 + 0.5441n(X) + 0.00000496(m(X))2
(2-5)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 $).
Table 2-8. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
Flow
(MOD)
0,000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Equipment
Cost
218
762
9,329
32,646
78,355
114,243 •
274,201 '
399,788
959,554
Piping
65
229
2,799
9,794
23,507
34,273
82,260
119,936
287,866
Instrumentation
&
Controls
65
229
2,799.
9,794
23,507
34,273
82,260
119,936
287,866
Installation
' 76
267
3,265
11,426
27,424
. 39,985
95,970
139,926
335,844
Engineering
&
Contingency
127
446
5,457
19,098
45,838
66,832
160,408
233,876
561,339
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
552
1,931
23,649
82,758
198,631
289,606
695,100
1,013,462
2,432,469
2-13
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
10.0CX3.CXX]
~ 1,000.000
o>
CO
03
•a
8
TO 100.000
10.000
aoooi
0.001
0.01.
Flow (MGD)
0.1
10
Figure 2-5. Total Capital Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3 •
Table 2-9 presents the land requirements for the secondary chemical precipitation treatment
systems. Figure 2-6 presents the resulting cost curve. The land requirement equation for Metals Options
2 and 3 secondary chemical precipitation is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.15 + 0.449In(X) + 0.027(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(2-6)
2-14
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-9. Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary Precipitation •
Metals Options 2 and 3
Flow
(MOD)
0.0040
0.0071
0.015
• o.ioo
0.250
0.500
1.00
Area Required
(Acres)
0.056
0.063
0.088
0.126
0.166
0.186
0.388
too
i
0-10
"5
cr
&
0.01
0.001
I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0.01
0.1 1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-6. Land Requirement Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
10
2-15
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs
EPA developed O&M cost estimates for the secondary precipitation step ofMetals Options 2 and
3 for facilities with and without chemical precipitation currently in-place. EPA assumed the labor cost to
be two hours per batch, based on manufacturers' recommendations. For facilities with no chemical
precipitation in-place, EPA calculated the amount of lime required to precipitate each of the metals and
semi-metals from the metals subcategory current performance concentrations (achieved withthe previously
explained selective metals precipitation step) to the Metals Option 2 long-term average concentrations.
EPA then added a tenpercent excess dosage factor and based the chemical addition costs on the required
amount of lime only, which is based on the operation of the model facility for this technology.
Table 2-10 presents the lime requirements for the secondary chemical precipitation step of Metals
Options 2 and 3. Table 2-11 presents the itemized annual O&M estimates for the secondary chemical
precipitation units. Figure 2-7 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M cost equation for Metals
Options 2 and 3 secondary chemical precipitation is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 11.6553 + 0.483481n(X) + 0.02485(In(X))2
X = How Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(2-7)
2-16
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1,000,000
o:
a>
CO
O)
u>
o
O
03
O
100,000
10,000
I I I I I I III
I I I I I 11II
I I I I I 11 11
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
10
Figure 2-7. O&M Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3 '
Table 2-11. O&M Cost Estimates for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,200
11,400
53,000
Maintenance
22
77
946 '
3,310
7,945
11,584
27,804
40,538
97,299
Taxes
&
Insurance
11
39
473 •
1,655
3,973
5,792
13,902
20,269
48,649
Labor
13,116
13,116
13,475
14,741
15,696
16,126
17,171
17,641
18,784
Chemical
Cost
0
1
21
, 214
1,070
2,140
10,198
21,395
106,976
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
14,149
14,233
15,925
21,024
30,204
37,682
75,775
111,243
324,708
2-17
-------
I
a
•
S 55
1 ^
3 o
>.x
S1
0 >.
i 5;
J o
*~>
I
E
i
J.
3^
"S.
E
c
ea
3
"o
cu
oS"" O1^^001"" CMM 00
0 — R. ^ o o ^. o «^ ?. M ee «n S" S ° * S" S "- ^ r^
TfONoo*""^ "~" j£'^'oof^r22oo'^i'— r - vo m f^ — T -"r^""O"t^""™t^"ev
«n'(N ^ ^ "•_f-- » J^j «n —
p*
• • ^* \£ .0 o^o ^^"-"cso^ioor^i— oot*-— "OOfl^-«OOOO
VI
5^5-drlSl:22522S5222S2-^
«SoSg§- oSo-o£££o'o<££iooo
vi rC d gj d o o d^dddoi— dddddddtn
en o o — • — \o — c\ — . ro o g NO ^ O1OOOO® ooo
0000000.0 o-^-ddxd*~*ooddd°dd
ooo-^-O— p-«« oo^mv»P-*-ir-Tr—voxooNr-\o
S?elo^Sm^ 3^SjS?'2?2"™o1<3^
«r-onoedo_oo0. ««ooe_ooo
S
Bl -)
Sk. M CO » *-<
P2 S§ '•">.§ s s - S i
5§^zSi^^ <^§J2Di2 55§
SS»2.'£'^;-=fcJW riOtTtdS^ij — j1^
2 s m o ** o ->N
en
c
t--
c
r-
o
0
o
V
t^
r-
M
p-
'
OO
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
For facilities with chemical precipitation in-place, EPA calculated an O&M upgrade cost. In
calculating the Q&M upgrade cost, EPA assumed that there would be no additional costs associated with
anyofthe components of the annual O&M cost, except for increased chemical costs. Since EPA aheady
applied credit for chemical costs for facilities with primary precipitation in estimating the selective metals
precipitationchemical costs, the chemicalupgrade costs for facilities withprimary precipitation are identical
to facilities with.no chemical precipitation in-place. Since EPA assumed that facilities with secondary
precipitation would achieve the Metals Option2 longtennaverage concentrations withtheir current system
and chemical additions (after installing the selective metals precipitation system), EPA assumed these
facilities would not incur any additional chemical costs. In turn, EPA also assumed that facilities with
secondary precipitation units in-place would incur no O&M upgrade costs.
Table 2-12 presents the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the secondary chemical
precipitation treatment systems. Figure 2-8 presents the resulting cost curve! The O&M upgrade cost
equation for the secondary chemical precipitation systems is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 9.97021 + 1.00162In(X) + 0.00037(In(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(2-8)
2-19
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-12. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates
Metals Options 2 and 3
Flow Chemical
•(MOD) " Cost
0.0005 11
0.001 21
0.005 107
0.01 214
0.05 1,070
0.1 2,140
0.5 10,698
1.0 21,395
5.0 106,976
1.000.000
100,000
5?
«» 10,000
co
CD
CO
0 1.000
5
08
o
100
10
0.0
for Secondary Precipitation -
• Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
11
21
107
214
1,070
2,140
10,698
21,395 .
106,976
-^.
^^
^
^s^
: : ^L
—r^-
-
•
i t i i i 1 1 1 1 i
01 0.01
I I I 1 1 1 ll I I I I I I ii ! i t i i i i i i
0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-8. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
2-20
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.1.3 Tertiary Precipitation andpH Adjustment - Metals Option 3
The tertiary chemicalprecipitationstep for Metals Options follows the secondaryprecipitationand
clarification steps. This tertiary precipitation system consists of a rapid mix neutralization tank and a pH
adjustment tank. In this step, the wastewater is fed to the rapid mix neutralization tank where lime slurry
is added to raise the pH to 11.0. Effluent from the neutralization tank then flows to a clarifier for solids
removal. The clarifier overflow goes to a pH adjustment tank where sulfuric acid is added to achieve the
desired final pH of 9.0. This section explains the development of the cost estimates for the rapid mix
neutralization tank and the pH adjustment tank. The discussions for clarification, sludge filtration, and
associated filter cake disposal are presented in Sections 2.2.2,4.1, and 4.2, respectively.
Capital and Land Costs
EPA developed the capital cost estimates for the rapid mix tank assuming continuous flow and a
15-minute detention time, which is based on the model facility's standard operation. The equipment cost
includes one tank, one agitator, and one lime feed system.
EPAdeveloped the capitalcost estimates for the pH adjustment tank assuming continuous flow and
a five-minute detentiontime, also based on the modelfacility's operation. The equipment cost includes one
tank, one agitator, and one sulfuric acid feed system.
. EPA estimated the other components (i.e., piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the total
capital cost for both the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank by applying the same factors and additional
costs as detailed for selective metals precipitation (see Section 2.1.1 above).
The itemized capital cost estimates for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank are presented in
Tables2-13 and 2-14, respectively. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-9 and 2-10. The
total capital cost equations calculated for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tanks are presented below as
Equations 2-9 and 2-10, respectively.
2-21
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs.
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
where:
ln(Yl) = 12.318 + 0.5431n(X) - 0.000179(ln(X))2
ln(Yl) = 11.721 + 0.5431n(X) + 0.000139(In(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 $).
(2-9)
(2-10)
Table 2-13.
Flow
(MOD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
Equipment
Cost
165
592
2,073
7,224
25,281
60,468
88,468
212,338
Piping .
49'
178
622
2,167
7,584
18,203
26,541
63,701
Instrument.
&
Controls
49
178
622
2,167
.7,584
18,203
26,541
63,701
Installation
58
207
726
2,528
8,848
21,237
30,964
74,318
Engineering
&
Contingency
96
347
1,213
4,226
14,789
35,433
51,754
124,217
Total Capital
Cost
(1989 $)
417
1,502
5,256
18,312
64,086
153,544
224,268
538,275
2-22
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-14.
Flow
(MOD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Total Capital Cost Estimates for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
Equipment
Cost
91
326
1,141
2,726
3,974
9,329
13,907
33,379
48,667
116,808
Piping
27
98
342
818
1,192
2,799
4,172
10,014
14,600
35,042
Instrument
&
Controls
27
98
342
818
1,1.92
2,799
4,172
10,014
14,600
35,042
Installation
32
114
399
954
1,391
3,265
4,867
11,683
17,033
40,883
Engineering
&
Contingency
53
191
667
1,595
2,325
5,458
8,135
19,581
28,470
68,333.
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
230
827
2,891 '
6,901
10,074
23,640
35,253 '
84,851
123,370
296,108
2.23
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
100,000
«»
05
oo
o>
8 10,000
o
CO
a-
o
1.
Figure 2-9.
1.00
"g 0.10
s
J
nivf
nnn
100
O.C
To
Js*r
^^
_ ^^, .
^^
^^
,__ ^L. ; ,
^^
s^'
\ \ i i i l i 1 1 l i i t t t i i 1 r i l l l 1 l l t i t | | | I i |
101 0.01 . 0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)
tal Capital Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
,
^^
^^^
^^~>"*^ : '
j — "
l i i i i i i i 1 t l l l l l 1 l 1 t l l l t l l l 1 1 l l l 1 1 l l
0.001
0.01
0.1 1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-10. Total Capital Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
10
2-24
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
The land requirements for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tanks are presented in Table 2-15. The
resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-11 and 2-12, respectively. The land requirement equations
for the rapid mix tank and pH adjustment tank are presented below as Equations 2-11 and 2-12,
respectively.
where:
ln(Y3) = -2.330 + 0.3521n(X) + 0.019(In(X))2
ln(Y3) = -2.67 + 0.301n(X) + 0.033(In(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(2-11)
(2-12)
Table 2-15. Land Requirement Estimates for Tertiary Precipitation Tanks - Metals Option 3
Flow
(MOD).
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Rapid Mix Tank
Land Requirements
(Acres)
0.036
0.044
0.05
0.078
0.098
0.184
pH Adjustment Tank
Land Requirements
(Acres)
0.037
0.037
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.12
2-25
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.00
§
<
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
estimated the chemical requirements for the pH adjustment tank based on the addition of sulfuric acid to
lower the pH from 11.0 to 9.0, based on the model facility's operation..
The itemized O&M cost estimates for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tanks are presented in
Tables 2-17 and 2-18, respectively, while the resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-13 and 2-
14. The O&M cost equations for the rapid mix tank and pH adjustment tank are presented below as
Equations 2-13 and 2-14, respectively.
where:
ln(Y2) = 9.98761 + 0.375141n(X) + 0.02124(ln(X))2
ln(Y2) = 9.71626 + 0.33275In(X) + 0.0196(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(2-13)
(2-14)
2-27
-------
I
a
o
•s:
8
f
I
•••
c:
I
13
i?
5 CO
it
|S
•5 «
II
t^
N
§
S
O
W
CO
§
*-C
S"
tn
•§
t
1
.•§
I
"3
a
a
••e
$
b
t*-<
.£2
C5
1
"p
pf
vo
u
IB
C3
£
Q
O
0
II
jS
§
s
1
o
0,
"a
i
0
^
N
o
u.
Q
O
S
^°
o
>
0
a.
S
i
u
sf
Q
e
_o
Q.
O
{;
_O
0.
°
c
0
o"
^^^
S1
I a
-J ta
c?
S >•
E J3
2 s
S1
1 -
.5 CO
-J m
e
S"
tz ^
»5 co
>-»
^^
S >•
.§ CO
>-) 03
1
31
•a
o
2*
"ob
^
n
es
H
S
— O vi ro m »n
C\ __ -- —r ^- CN) VO — if- •^-'OVO x-x (S
-
= R^2«-«-S?:SKSSSSSSagSS2
TT— OJ— OfS— — — 0 r^-ooooooovo
0*00*0 o* o'o'o'cno o 0*0 oo ^ o'o o o'.o* o
ooo^oooSrtooo'K<5SooooooS
0 0 0 ^ 0 0* 0* 0 0 0 0 ^ 0* °" O* 0* 0 0' 0* 0 O* O
t^—'Oo>-1N
v>
o
s
CO
en
m
en
fn
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-17.
Flow
(MOD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Table 2-18.
Flow
(MOD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
O&M Cost Estimates for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3 ,
Energy
63
63
63
69
128
388
713
3,313
Maintenance
17
60
210
732
2,563
6,142
8,971
21,531
Taxes
&
Insurance
8
30
105
366
1,282
3,071
4,485
10,766
T , Chemical .
Lab°r Cost
4,372
. 4,372
4,492
4,914
5,375
, 5,724
5,880
6,261
O&M Cost Estimates for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals
Energy
21
, 21
21
23.
43
130
238
1,104
Maintenance
9.
• 33
116
403 •
1,410
3,394
. 4,935
11,844
Taxes
• &
.. Insurance
5
17
58
201
705
1,697
3,467
5,922
Labor
4,372
4,372
4,492
4,914
5,375
5,724
5,880
6,261 '
0
1 '
1
9
94
472
944
4,718
OptionS
Chemical
Cost
1
1
2
18
175
870
1,735
8,660
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
4,460
4,826
4,871
6,090
9,442
15,797
20,993
46,589
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
4,408
4,444
4,684
5,559
7,708
11,815
16,255 '
33,791
2-29
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the.CWT Point Source Category
100.000
3t (1989 S/YR)
.0
o
O
j:
41
0
1,000
0.0
/
/
^
^ *— ;
D01 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-13. O&M Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
100.000
o>
CO
^r 10,000
en
8
1.000
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-14. O&M Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
2-30
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.1.4 Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
The primary chemical precipitation system equipment for the model technology for Metals Option
4 consists of a mixed reaction tank with pumps, a treatment chemical feed system, and an unmixed
wastewater holding tank. EPA designed the system to operate on a batch basis, treating one batch per
day, five days per week The average chemical precipitation batch duration reported by respondents to
the WTI Questionnaire was four hours. Therefore, a one batch per day treatment schedule should provide
sufficient time for the average facility to pump, treat, and test its waste. EPA also included a holding tank,
equal to the daily waste volume, up to a maximum size of 5,000 gallons (equivalent to the average tank
truck receipt volume throughout the industry), to allow facilities flexibility inmanaging waste receipts. (The
Metals Option 4 model facility utilizes a holding tank.)
As shown in Table 1-3, clarification follows primary chemical precipitation for Metals Option 4.
The costing discussion for clarification following primary precipitation in Metals Option 4 is presented in
Section 2.2.2. The discussions for sludge filtration and the associated'filter cake disposal are presented
in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
Capital and Land Costs
EPA developed total capital cost estimates for the Metals Option4 primary chemicalprecipitation
systems. For facilities with no chemical precipitation units in-place, the components of the chemical
precipitation systemincluded a precipitationtank witha mixer, pumps, and a feed system, hi addition, EPA
included a holding tank equal to the size of the precipitationtank, up to 5,000 gallons. EPA obtained these
cost estimates from manufacturer's recommendations.
EPA estimated the other components (i.e., piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the total
capital cost for both the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank by applying the same factors and additional
costs as detailed for selective metals precipitation (see Section 2.1.1 above).
2-31
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
For facilities that already have any chemical precipitation (treatment in-place), EPA included as
capital expense only the cost of a holding tank
The itemized primary chemical precipitation capital cost and holding tank capital cost estimates for
Metals Option 4 are presented in Tables-2-19 and 2-20, respectively. The resulting cost curves are
presented as Figures 2-15 and 2-16. The resulting total capital cost equations for the Metals Option 4
primary chemicalprecipitation and holdingtank systems are presented below as Equations 2-15 and 2-16,
respectively.
where:
ln(Yl) = 14.019 + 0.4811n(X) - 0.00307(ln(X))2
ln(Yl) = 10.671 - 0.0831n(X) - 0.032(ln(X))2 (2-16)
X - Flow Rate (MGD) and
Yl= Capital Cost (1989$).
Table 2-19. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
(2-15)
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0005
0.001
0.005
0.01
, 0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Avg. Vendor
Equipment
Cost
282
1,030
9,286
13,709
33,709
50,006
123,550
182,398
450,652
665,304 '
1,643,772
Holding
Tank
217
762
6,400
9,330
22,390
22,390
22,390
22,390
22,390
22,390
22,390
Install.
175
627
5,490
8,064 .
19,635
25,339
51,079
71,676
165,565
240,693
583,157-
Total
Construction
Cost
674
2,419
21,176
31,103
75,734
97,735
197,019
276,464
638,607
928,387
2,249,319
Engineer. &
Conting.
202
726
6,353
9,331
22,720
29,321
59,106
82,939
191,582
278,516
674,796
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
876
3,145
27,529
40,434
98,454
127,056
256,125
359,403
830,189
1,206,903
2,924,115
2-32
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs •
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-20. Holding Tank Total Capital Cost Estimates for Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 4
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0005
0.001
0.005
Average
Vendor
Equipment Cost
'217
762
6,400
9,330
22,390
Installation
76
267
2,240
3,266
7,837
Total
Construction
Cost
293
1,029
8,640
12,596
30,227
Engineering &
Contingency
88
309
2,592
3,779
9,068
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 S)
381
1,338
11,232
16,375
39,295
10,000,000
1,000,000
8
o
15
'5.
100,000
10,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
10
Figure 2-15. Total Capital Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
2-33
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
100.000
o>
oo
en
o 10,000
O
a.
ca
O
1,000
j t I I 1 1
0.00001
0.0001 • 0.001
Flow (MGD)
0.01
Figure 2-16. Holding Tank Total Capital Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals
Option4 •
The land requirements for the Metals Option 4 primary chemical precipitation and holding tank
systems are presented in Table 2-21. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-17 and 2-18,
respectively. The land requirement equations for the Metals Option 4 primary chemical precipitation and
holding tank systems are presented below as Equations 2-17 and 2-18, respectively.
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.019 + 0.2991n(X) + 0.015(ln(X))2
ln(Y3) = -2.866 - 0.0231n(X) - 0.006(In(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(2,17)
(2-18)
2-34
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-21 . Land Requirement Estimates for Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 4
Primary Chemical Precipitation Holding Tank
f Q™^ ' Land Requirements Land Requirements
(Acres) (Acres)
0.00001 0.0791
0.0001 0.0823
0.001 0.0940
0.01 0.1250
0.05 0.1724
0.1 0.2068
0.5 , 0.2434
1.0 0.4474
0.0395
0.0410
0.0470
0.0574
0.0574
0.0574
0.0574
0.0574
1 , , — 1
rement (Acres)
P
3
D-
&
C
OS
_l
0.01
0.(X
^
^^^
^^-^
— • — - - - -
i i i i i i i'il i i i i i'i nl i i i t i in 1 i
301 0.001 0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
1 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 l l 1 t 1 t t 1
1 10
Figure 2-17. Land Requirement Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
2-35
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs •
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.00
0.10
cr
CD
{£.
0.01
0.00001
i i i i i i 11
0.0001
0.01
• 0.001
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-18. Land Requirement .Curve for Holding Tank - Metals Option 4
0.1
Labor and Chemical Costs
EPA approximated the labor cost for primary chemical precipitation in Metals Option 4 at two
hours per batch, one batchper day. The labor cost was estimated at $31,200 per man year. EPA based
this approach on the model facility's operation.
EPA estimated chemical costs based on stoichiometric, pH adjustment, and buffer adjustment
requirements. For facilities with no chemical precipitation in-place, EPA based the stoichiometric
requirements on the amount ofchemicals required to precipitate eachofthe metal and semi-metal pollutants
of concern from the metals subcategory average raw influent concentrations to Metals Option 4 (Sample
Point-03) concentrations. Metals Option4, Sample Point-03 concentrations representthe sampled effluent
from primary chemical precipitation at the model facility. The chemicals used were lime at 75 percent of
2-36
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
, Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
the required removals and caustic at 25 percent of the required removals, which are based on the option
facility's operation. EPA estimated the pH adjustment and buffer adjustment requirements to be 50 percent
of the stoichiometric requirement, which includes a 10 percent excess of chemical dosage. Table 2-22
presents the lime and caustic requirements for the primary chemical precipitation systems for the Metals
Option 4. " •
The itemized annual O&M cost estimates for facilities with no treatment in-place are presented in
Table 2-23 and the subsequent cost curve is presented as Figure 2-19. The O&M cost equation for
Metals Option 4 chemical precipitation is: . .
where:
In(Y2) = 15.3534 + 1.08700In(X) + 0.04891(In(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(2-19)
ii
7>
O
3
1D.DOG.DDa
1 ,DDd,DOfi
1Da,fJOD
1DJJCO
nr.i
lit
Flaw (MGC)
Figure 2-19. O&M Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
2-37
-------
a
s:
I
s
«1
S
u
to
3
I
1
s a
S ^J
Is
18
U
N
'€
1
!
1
i
w
CO
g
i
t
"s
1
£
1
t..
i
i
$
-I
o
I
e.
a:
o
eu
w
«t
tf
Lime
(LBS/YR)
Caustic
(LBS/YR)
Lime
(LBS/YR)
Caustic
(LBS/YR)
Lime
(LBS/YR)
.s
a M
33
.£
•J a
« g
as
of
S^
j a
.s
53
> ^
J £
> •*«
•J J,
> "Sa
Pollultnl
§ 5 S I S S. R S. S S. s S s_ . S | = = 3- S s I T S 3 = e
~-r,s^-s»s_s^^s s~ S » •< si" 5
s" s " ; K" t s i "" s" '=.?" 's " I.! ° s' " s " s" 5 =" ' s
oo -^r — o, \o *oom ooo oo
~O»2""0"'''0"S"0*VOON— N -o - — o ^ " "°S-<*»oo°
i ; s s = I s s - s s s s o s 1-. H . 2 - s 's =.--.-
_ •« — OVM r--o \o*s P-
("Tr4>° "rl— C*ft«"*rj""V*^ M^ — T • cT(*T"* r>»
t-»0 00-TMOV CT,WV«V,NM
22522 2 2S2525 21 "•«• 2^2-222 --5-S
ss2 ssss';2ss2^2 2^5222 2 2g |22°°
s
->• -='"2 5 SS
S= a 1 ' S>-2 s a a a = _ =
£lsz = sssi l<§°^s§gi! | 2 1 i
VO
oC
VD
=.
t*
•0
s
„
s
•„
"
.
OO
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWf Point Source Category
Table 2-23. O&M Cost Estimates for Raw TIP Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01 .
0.05
0.1
0.5
• i.o
5.0
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,200
11,400
53,000
Maintenance
• 35
' 126
1,617
.5,082
1-0,245
. 14,376
33,208
48,276
116,964
Labor
13,116
13,116
13,475
14,741
15,696
16,126
17,171
17,641
18,784
Taxes &
Insurance
18
63
809
2,541
5,123
7,188
16,604
24,138
58,482
Chemical
Cost
5
51
5,068
50,683
253,416
506,832
2,534,161
5,068,322
25,341,609
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
• 14,174
14,356
21,979
74,151
286,000
546,562
2,607,344
5,169,777
25,588,839
For facilities whichalreadyhave chemicalprecipitationtreatment in-place, EPAestitriatedanO&M
upgrade cost EPA assumed that facilities with primary chemical precipitation in-place have effluent
concentrations exiting the primary precipitation/solid-h'quids separation system equal to the metals
subcategory primary precipitation current loadings. Similarly, EPA assumed that facilities withsecondary
chemical precipitation inplace have effluent concentrations exitingthe secondaryprecipitatiori/solid-h'quids
separation system equal to metals subcategory secondary precipitation current loadings (see Chapter 12
of the Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category for a detailed discussion of metals
subcategory primary and secondary chemical precipitation current loadings). ' .
For the portion ofthe O&M upgrade equation associated with energy, maintenance, and labor, for
facilities that currently have primary precipitation systems EPA calculated the percentage difference
between the primary precipitation current loadings and Metals Option4 (Sample Point-03) concentrations.
2-39
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
This difference is an increase of approximately two percent. Therefore, EPA calculated the energy,
maintenance, and labor components of the O&M upgrade cost for facilities with primary chemical
precipitationin-place at two percent ofthe O&M costfpr facilities withno chemicalprecipitationin-place.
For the portion ofthe O&M upgrade equation associated with energy, maintenance, and labor,
for facilities that currently have secondary precipitation systems EPA calculated the. percentage difference
between secondaryprecipitationcurrent loadings and Metals Option4 (Sample Point-03) concentrations.
This difference is also anincrease of approximately two percent1. Therefore, EPA calculated the energy,
maintenance, and labor components ofthe O&M upgrade cost for facilities with secondary chemical
precipitationin-place at two percent ofthe O&M cost for facilities withno chemical precipitationin-place.
For the chemical cost portion ofthe O&M upgrade, EPA also calculated upgrade costs depending
onwhetherthe facility had primary precipitation or secondaryprecipitation currently in-place. For facilities
with primary precipitation, EPA calculated chemicalupgrade costs based on current-to-Metals Option 4
(Sample Point-03) removals. Similarly for facilities with secondary precipitation, EPA calculated chemical
upgrade costs based on secondary precipitationremovals to Metals Option4 (Sample Point -03) removals.
In both cases, EPA did not include costs for pH adjustment or buffering chemicals since these chemicals
should already be used in the in-place treatment system. Finally, EPA included a 10 percent excess of
chemical dosage to the stoichiometric requirements ofthe precipitation chemicals. Tables 2-24 and 2-25
present the lime and caustic requirements for the Metals Option4 primary chemical precipitation upgrades
for facilities with primary treatment in-place and facilities with secondary treatment in-place, respectively.
While pollutant concentrations resulting from secondary chemical precipitation are generally lower than those
resulting from primary chemical precipitation, the percentage increase (when rounded) for primary and secondary
precipitation are the same.
2-40
-------
I
a
a
s
c
I
u
8?
»
§>
-11
?•» (U
£ £
tN
i
8
CN
3
Q
• o
2
u
S
0
a
a
S
>
o
a
o
2
o
>
o
u.
a
o -
"S.
0
5
Q
U.
ftj
eo
(U
o
a
0
o.
to"
eu
t^
" >s
B
0.
S"
et
•J m
u
5*
™ >•
a CQ
U J
Lime
(LBS/YR)
u o&
•- >'
53
s!
— OT
-J 0
.J
0 «
~ >•
53
Lime
(LBS/YR)
o **
53
o£
«>
-a oa
j
0 tf
•- >»
« CO
0 J
> -^
J £
!I
j E_
^^
> -^
j ^
e
3
O
«rtn*o t-r»v>'a-oi'0sbsi~>os
o* to (-• M IA TV os r*» vo m i^, "^ \o
\o cs . ^ T — o « — • o* \Q oe ri
— • -r> €•»""•-"*
SO >O f-
*^wt^ Mtrt'^oi"^*^'^ *e
*DOOO«O OOO\OO«OM, r* — — oo O oo O IN — o Ot-«oo
%o o« v •»— o^^1^^0**^
r» >o « „
<^M^ MOvO-W r^_«n M 0
njf-jr **V~"«V 6*v "*" *" ri
E«o5oooo'»or:Sso2SeS'»2=«=>--='='
— r» « ""
0 r^ ' M ' M
^J- * - * "T
«.2o'VOO'OOViO«MO'Oo""o»-OWO«eOOOO
-
- o. •. ... ........ . . . . ._.. . . , ..
2-mQ^QQQooto«t^WGo« = -r,-o~^ = = = «'=-=<=> = <= =
SSgSsS5«s5»s;S»c,is5_«E5Ss«B-
^225^2^nS2°'2^^'. "252Sss^S^
"•wo^owd— *o^ — ^~(^irt»o^rd'XorJeoepj —
s
.a 3
3 =" S 2; 2 3 S S
= 5us= z^Ss =ss= s
z°H_s-i-o:S sjagjsz^ps =as 5
iiiiiHihshi-irn ihiih
-t < >- M N
o>
Oi
e\
0
•«•
o>
VO
VO
Oi
OS
TT
OS
U3
>O
(S|
as
VO^
0\
*o
«
-------
Section 2* Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
EPA then combined the energy, maintenance and labor components of the O&M upgrade with the
chemical portion of the O&M upgrade to develop two sets of O&M upgrade equations for the primary
chemical precipitation portion of Metals Option 4.
Hie itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the facilities that currently have primary chemical
precipitationin-place are presented in Table 2-26, while the O&M upgrade cost estimates for the facilities
that currently have secondary chemical precipitation in-place are presented in Table 2-27. The resulting
cost curves are presented as Figures 2-20 and 2-21. The O&M upgrade cost equations for the facilities
that have primary and secondary chemical precipitation treatment in-place are presented below as
Equations 2-20 and 2-21, respectively.
where:
ln(Y2) = 11.6203+ 1.059981n(X) + 0.04602(ln(X))2. . (2-20)
ln(Y2) = 10.9500 + 0.948211n(X) + 0.04306(ln(X))2 (2-21)
X= Flow Rate (MOD)
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR)
2.1.5 Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation for Metals Option 4
The Metals Option 4 secondary sulfide precipitation system follows the primary metals
precipitation/clarification step. This equipment consists of a mixed reaction tank with pumps and a
treatment chemical feed system, sized for the full daily batch volume. For direct dischargers, the overflow
from secondary sulfide precipitation would carry on to a clarifier and then multi-media filtration. For
indirect discharges, the overflow would go immediately to the filtration unit, without clarification. Cost
estimates for the clarifier are discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this document. Cost estimates for multi-media
filtration are presented in Section 2.5.
2-42
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-26.
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Table 2-27.
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
. 1.0 .
5.0
O&M Cost Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation TIP - Metals
Energy
20
20
20
22
30
41
124
228
1,060
Maintenance
1
3
32
102
205
288
664
966
2,340
O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates
Metals Option 4
Energy
20
20
20
22
30
41
124
, 228
1,060
Maintenance
1
3
32
102
205
288
664
966
2,340
Labor
262
262
270
294
314
323
343
353
376
Taxes &
Insurance
8
27
32
786
786
786
786
786
786'
i
for Secondary Chemical
Labor
262
262
270
294
314
323
343
353
376
Taxes &
Insurance
8
27
32
786
786
786
786
786
786
Chemical
Cost
1
1
118
1,179
"5,895
11,790
58,950
117,900
589,502
Precipitation
Chemical
•Cost
0
1
44
439 ,
2,196
4,392
21,959
43,918
219,588
Option 4
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
292
313
472
2,383
7,230
13,228
60,867
120,233
594,064
TIP-
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
291
313
398
1,643
3,531
5,830
' 23,876
46,251
224,150
2-43
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.000,000
100,000
, o
O
s
»3
O
5 10.000
1.000
0.001
0.01
0.1
Flow (MGD)
10
Figure 2-20. O&M Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4 - Primary
Treatment In-place
1,000.000
OJ
CO
o>
in
o
O
08
O
"5
"5
100.000
10,000
1,000
0.001
0.01
0.1
Flow (MGD)
10
Figure 2-21. O&M Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4 -
Secondary Treatment In-place
2-44
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs •
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
For costing purposes, EPA assumed that facilities either have secondary-precipitation currently in-
place and attributes no additional capital and O&M costs to these facilities, or EPA assumes that facilities
do nothave secondarysuffideprecipitationin-place and, consequently, EPA developed costs for full O&M
and capital costs. Therefore, EPA has not developed upgrade costs associated with secondary
precipitation in Metals Option 4.
Capital and Land Costs
EPA developed capital cost estimates for the secondary sulfide precipitation systems in Metals
Option 4 from vendor's quotes. EPA estimated the other components (i.e., piping, instrumentation, and
controls, etc.) of the sulfide precipitationsystemby applying the same methodology, factors and additional
costs as outlined for the primary chemical precipitation system for Metals Option 4 (see Section 2.1.4
above). Table 2-28 presents the itemized capital cost estimates for the secondary precipitation (sulfide
precipitation) systems, while Figure 2-22 presents the resulting cost curve. The total capital cost equation
for Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide) precipitation is:
where:
ln(Yl) = 13.829 + 0.544In(X) + 0.00000496(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 $).
(2-22)
2-45
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-28. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation - Metals
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Equipment
Cost
218
762
9,329
32,646
78,355
114,243
274,201
399,788
959,554
Piping
65
229
2,799
9,794
23,507
34,273
82,260
119,936
287,866
, Instrumentation
& Controls
65
229
2,799
9,794
23,507
34,273
82,260
119,936
287,866
Installation
76
267
3,265
11,426
27,424
39,985
95,970
139,926
335,844
Engineering
&
Contingency
127
446
5,457
19,098
45,838
66,832
160,408
233,876
561,339
Option 4
Total
Capital Cost
. (1989 S)
551
1,933
23,649
82,758
198,631
289,606
695,099
1,013,462
2,432,469
Table 2-29 presents the land requirements for the Metals Option4 secondary (sulfide) precipitation
treatment systems. The land area curve is, presented as Figure 2-23. The land requirement equation for
Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide) precipitation is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.15 + 0.449In(X) + 0.027(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(2-23)
2-46
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-29. Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation •
Metals Option 4 _^^
Flow
(MOD)
Area Required
(Acres)
0.0040
0.0071
0.015
0.10
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.056
0.063
0.088
0.126
0.166
0.186
0.388
10,000,000
««•
03 1,000,000
CO
o>
o
§• 100,000
o
10,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
10
Figure 2-22. Total Capital Cost Curve for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation Systems - Metals
Option 4
2-47
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs •
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.00
£
o
c
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
was prepared using 100 Ibs of ferrous sulfate, 15 Ibs of hydrated lime, 70 Ibs of sodium sulfide and 500
gallons of water. According to the CWT BAT model plant, the pricing of these chemicals was as follows:
$0.11/lb for ferrous sulfate, $0.044/lb for hydrated lime, and $0.38/lb for sodium sulfide. EPA assumed
that the cost of water was negligible compared to the other items.
Table 2-30 presents the itemized annual O&M cost estimates for the Metals Option 4 secondary
(sulfide) chemical precipitation system. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-24. The O&M
cost equation for the Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide) precipitation is:
where:
In(Y2) =512.076 + 0.63456In(X) + 0.03678(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(2-24)
Table 2-30. O&M Cost Estimates for Sulfide Precipitation Systems - Metals Option 4
• Flow
(MOD)
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Energy
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,200
11,400
53,000
Maintenance
77
946
3,310
7,945 '
11,584
27,804
40,538
97,299
Taxes &
Insurance
39
473
; 1,655
3,973
5,792
13,902
20,269
4,8,649
Labor
13,116
13,475
14,741
15,696
16,126
17,171
. 17,641
18,784
Chemical Cost
Polymer FeS
1
9
87
438
873
4,368
8,736
43,680
1
72
718
3,588
7,176
35,880
71,760
358,800
Total O&M
Cost
(1989 S/YR)
14,234
15,985
21,615
33,160
43,591
105,325
170,344 '
620,212
2-49
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1,000.000
&
05
CO
O>
to
o
O
08
O
100,000
10,000
I I I I I I I ll
0.001
0.01
1
0.1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-24. O&M Cost Curve for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation Systems -
Metals Option 4
10
2.2 Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration and Clarification
Clarification systems provide continuous, low-cost separation and removal of suspended solids
from water. Waste treatment facilities use clarification to remove particulates, flocculated impurities, and
precipitants, often following chemical precipitation. Similarly, waste treatment facilities also use plate and
frame pressure systems to remove solids from waste streams. As described in this section, these plate and
frame filtration systems serve the same function as clarification and are used to remove solids following
chemical precipitation fromliquid wastestreams. The major difference between clarification systems and
plate and frame liquid filtration systems is that the sludge generated by clarification generally needs to be
processed further prior to landfilling, whereas, the sludge generated by plate and frame liquid filtrationdoes
not
2-50
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
EPA costed facilities to include a plate and frame liquid filtration system following selective metals
precipitation in Metals Options 2 and 3. The components of the plate and fiame liquid filtration system
include: filter plates, filter cloth, hydraulic pumps, control panel, connector pipes, and a support platform.
Since EPA costed all metals facilities for selective metals precipitation systems for Metals Options 2 and
3 (except the one facility which already utilizes this technology), EPA also costed .all metals facilities for
plate and fiame liquid filtrationsystems. Consequently, EPA did not develop any upgrade costs associated
with the use of plate and frame liquid filtration, for selective metals precipitation treatment systems.
EPAalso costed facilities to include a clarifier followingsecondaryprecipitationfor Metals Option
2 and following both secondary and tertiary precipitation for Metals Option 3. For Metals Option 4, EPA
costed -facilities to include a clarifier following primary chemical precipitation and following secondary
precipitation (for direct dischargers only). EPA designed and costed a single clarification system for all
options and locations in the treatment train. The components of this clarification system include a
clarification unit, flocculatiqn unit, pumps, motor, foundation, and accessories.
2.2.1 Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration Following Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3 . .
Capital and Land Costs • •
The plate and frame liquid filtration equipment following the selective metals precipitation step for
the model technology in Metals Option 2 and 3 consists of two plate and frame liquid filtration systems.
EPA assumed that each system would be used to process two batches per day for a total of four batches.
EPA costed the plate and frame liquid filtration systems in this manner to allow facilities to segregate their
wastes into smaller batches, thereby facilitating selective metals recovery. EPA sized each of the units to
process a batch consisting of 25 percent of the daily flow and assumed that the influent to the plate and
fiame filtrationunits would consist of96 percent liquid and four percent (40,000 mgl) solids (based on the
model facility).
2-51
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-31 presents the itemized capital cost estimates for the plate and fiame filtration systems
following selective metals precipitation, while Figure 2-25 presents the resulting cost curve. The total
capital cost equation for Metals Options 2 and 3 plate and fiame filtration systems (following selective
metals precipitation) is:
where:
In(Yl) = 14.024 + 0.8591n(X) + 0.040(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 $).
(2-25)
Table 2-31. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration- Metals Options 2 and
3 - Selective Metals Precipitation
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.0010-
0.0100
0.100
0.500
1.000
Average
' Vendor
Equipment Cost
9,147
9,147
9,185
12,813
30,368
122,294
443,600
836,855
Installation
Cost
3,201
3,201
. 3,215
4,485
. 10,629
42,803
155,260
292,899
Total Equipment
• & • -
Installation Cost
12,348
12,348
12,400
17,298
40,997
165,097
598,860
1,129,754
Engineering
& Contingency
Fee
3,704
3,704
3,720
5,189
12,299
49,529
179,658
338,926
Total ,
Capital Cost
(1989$)
14,607
14,607
14,669
20,463
48,499
195,310
708,451
1,336,499 .
2-52
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
ffir
o>
10,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000
0.00001 0.0001
0.001 0.01
Row (MGD)
0.1
, 1
10
Figure 2-25. Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Total Capital Cost Curve for Selective
Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3 „
The land requirement cost curve for Metals Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitation liquid
filtration systems is presented as Figure 2-26; the subsequent equation is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.658 + 0.1851n(X) + 0.009(In(X))2
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(2-26)
2-53
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.00
I
K
1
2
0.10
0.01 I 1—1-
oooooi
0.0001
0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
10
Figure 2-26. Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Land Requirement Curve for
Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirements
EPA estimated that labor requirements for plate and frame liquid filtrationfor Metals Options 2 and
3 would be 30 minutes per batch per filter press (based on the Metals Options 2 and 3 model facility).
There are no chemicals associated withthe operationofthe plate and frame filtrationsystems. The itemized
O&M cost estimates for the Metals Options 2 and 3 plate and frame filtration systems are presented in
Table 2-32. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-27. The O&M equation for the Metals
Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitation plate and frame filtration systems is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 13.056 + 0.1931n(X) + 0.00343(In(X))2 .
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 S/YR).
(2-27)
2-54
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-32. O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Options
2 and 3 - Selective Metals Precipitation
. Flow Energy Maintenance
(MOD) ,
0.000001 1,000 293
0.00001 1,000 293
0.0001 1,000 294
0.001 1,010 409
0.01 1,104 970
0.1 2,040 3,906
0.5 • 6,155 14,169
. 1.0 11,464 26,730
1,000,000
05
CO
~ 100,000
O
o3
o ,
10,000
O.OC
Taxes
&
Insurance
147
147
147
205
485
1,953
7,085
.13,365
Labor
70,920
70,920
70,920
214,196
214,196
286,200
354,600
425,520
O&M
Cost
(1989 $/YR)
72,360
72,360
72,361
215,820
216,755
294,099
382,009
477,079
^r^*
^^^
^^^^
^-^^
i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 i i t t i t n i i
)001 0.0001 0.001
i 1 1 1 1 in i
0.01
i i t n 1 1 1 i i
0.1
i l l l it 1 t l l l t l l l
1 1
Flow(MGD)
Figure 2-27. Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O&M Cost Curve for Selective Metals
Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
2-55
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Eventhoughthemetal-richsludge generated fromselective metals precipitationand plate and feme
liquid filtration may be recycled and re-used, EPA additionally included costs associated with disposal of
these sludges in a landfill. The discussion for filter cake disposal is presented separately in Section 4.2.
These disposal costs are additional O&M costs whichmust be added to the O&M costs calculated above
to obtain the total O&M costs associated with plate and frame liquid filtration system for Metals Options
2 and 3.
2.2.2 Clarification - Metals Options 2,3, and 4
Capital and Land Costs
EPA obtained the capital cost estimate for clarification systems from vendors. EPA designed the
clarificationsystem assuming an influent total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of 40,000 mg/L (four
percent solids) and an effluent TSS concentration of200,000 mg/L (20 percent solids). In addition, EPA
assumed a design overflowrate of 600 gpd/ft2. EPA estimated the influent and effluent TSS concentrations
and overflowrate based on the WTI Questionnaire response for Questionnaire ID 105. A.S detailed earlier,
the same capital cost equation is used for all of the clarification systems for all of the Metals Options
regardless of its location in the treatment train. EPA did not develop capital cost upgrades for iacilities
which already have clarification systems in-place. Therefore, facilities which currently have clarifiers have
no land or capital costs.
EPA obtained the capital cost estimates for the clarification systems from vendors. The itemized
capital cost estimates for the clarification systems are presented in Table 2-33. The resulting cost curve
is.presented as Figure 2-28. The total capital cost equation for the Metals Options 2,3, and 4 clarification
systems is:
2-56
-------
Section 2 'Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs •
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
where:
ln(Yl) = 11.552 + 0.4091n(X) + 0.020(ln(X))2
X = Flow (MOD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 $).
(2-28)
Table 2-33. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2,3, and 4
Vol/Day
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
System
Cost
. 6,579
6,579
6,579
' 6,971
9,547
14,550
18,358
35,466
49,563
Install.
2,303
2,303
2,303
2,440
3,341
5,093
6,425
12,413
17,347
' Piping
1,974
1,974
1,974
2,091
2,864 .
4,365
5,507
10,640.
14,869
Instrum.
&
Controls
1,974-
1,974 ,
1,974
2,091
2,864
4,365
5,507
10,640
14,869
Engineer,
&
Conting.
3,849
3,849
3,849
4,078
5,585 .
8,512
10,739
20,748
28,994
Total
, Capital
Cost
(1993 $)
16,679
16,679
16,679 •
17,671
24,201
36,885
46,536
89,907
125,642
Total
Capital
Cost
(1989 $)
15,178
15,178
15,178
16,081
22,023
33,565
42,348
81,815
114,334
2-57
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1,000,000
«* 100,000
en
3
o
O
1
•5.
<3 10.000
1,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
10
Figure 2-28. Total Capital Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2,3, and 4
Figure 2-29 presents the land requirement cost curve for the Metals Options 2, 3, and 4
clarification systems. The equation relating the flow of the clarification system with the land requirement
for all Metals Options is:
where:
In(Y3) = -1.773 + 0.5131n(X) + 0.046(In(X))2
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(2-29)
2-58
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.00
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs •
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-34 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the Metals Options 2 and 4 clarification
treatment systems, while Table 2-35 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the Metals Option 3
clarificationsystems. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-30 and 2-31. Equations 2-30
and 2-31 present the O&M cost equations for clarification systems for Metals Options 2 and 4 and Metals
Option 3, respectively.
ln(Y2) = 10.673 + 0.2381n(X) + 0.013(ln(X))2
In(Y2) -10.294 + 0 -3621n(X) + 0.019(In(X))2
(2-30)
(2-31)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD),
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
Table 2-34. O&M Cost Estimates for Clarification'Systems - Metals Options 2 and 4
Vol/day
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.00
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,155
11,464
Labor
15,741
15,741
15,741
15,857
16,842
, 18,210
19,005
21,439
22,788
Maintenance
667
667
667
706
968
1,475
1,861
3,596
5,025
Taxes
&
Insurance
334
334
334'
353
484
738
931
1,798
2,513
Polymer
Cost
10
10
10
15
150
750
1,500
7,500
15,000
Total
O&M Cost
(1993 $/YR)
17,752
17,752
17,752
17,941
19,548
22,693
25,337
40,488
56,790
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
16,154
16,154
16,154
16,326
'17,789
20,651
23,057
36,844
51,679
2-60
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-35.
Vol/day
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
.0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.00
O&M Cost Estimates for Clarification Systems - Metals Option 3
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,155
11,464
Labor
5,247
5,247
• 5,247
5,286
5,614
6,070
6,335
7,146
7,596
Maintenance
.
667
667
667
706
968
• 1,475
1,861
3,596
5,025
Taxes
&
Insurance
334
334
334
353
484
738
931
1,798
2,513
Polymer
Cost
10
10
10
15
150
750
1,500
7,500
15,000
Total
O&M Cost
(1993 $/YR)
7,258
7,258
7,258
7,370 .
8,320
10,553
12,667
26,195
41,598
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
6,605
6,605
6,605
6,707
7,571
9,603
11,527
23,837
37,854
100,000
5>
o>
CO
en
10 —
o
O
08
O
10,000
0.0001
•0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
10
Figure 2-30. O&M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2 and 4
2-61
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
100,000
10,000
5
08
O
1,000
I I I I I I I M [ ill i t i 11
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10-
Flow(MGD)
Figure 2-31. O&M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Option 3
As shown in Table 1-3, sludge filtration follows clarification for the secondary precipitation step
of Metals Options 2 and 3 and the primary and secondary (direct dischargers only) of Metals Option 4.
The costing discussion and equations for 'sludge nitration and the associated filter cake disposal are
presented in Section 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
ForfeciUtieswhichalreadyhave clarificationsystems orplate and frame liquid filtrationsysterns in-
place foreachoptionand location in the treatment train, EPA estimated upgrade costs. EPA assumed that
clarification systems and plate and flame liquid nltrationsystems are equivalent Therefore, if a facility has
anin-place liquid filtrationsystemwhichcanserve the same purpose as a clarifier, EPA costed this facility
for an upgrade only and not anew system. •
For flie clarification step following secondary precipitation in Metals Options 2 and 3, in order to
quantify the O&M increase necessary for the O&M upgrade, EPA compared the difference between
2-62
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
secondary precipitation current performance concentrations and the Metals Option! long- term averages.
EPA determined facilities would need to increase their current removals by 3 percent. Therefore, for in-
place clarification systems (or plate and frame liquid filtration systems) which could serve as the clarifier
following secondary chemical precipitation for Metals Option 2 and 3, EPA included an O&M cost
upgrade of three percent of the O&M costs for a brand new system (except for taxes, insurance, and
maintenance which are a function of the capital cost).
For facilities which already have clarifiers or plate and frame liquid nitration systems ih-place which
could serve as the clarifier following the tertiary chemical precipitation of Metals Option 3, EPA did not
estimate any O&M upgrade costs. EPA assumed the in-place technologies could perform as well as (or
better) than the technology costed by EPA.
Equations 2-32 and 2-33 present the O&M upgrade cost equations for the Metals Options 2 and
3 clarification and liquid nitration systems, respectively..
ln(Y2) = 7.166 + 0.2381n(X) + 0.013(In(X))2
ln(Y2) = 8.707 + 0.3331n(X) + 0.012(ln(X))2
(2-32)
(2-33)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD),
Y2= O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
Figures 2-32 and 2-33 present the cost curves for the Metals Options 2 and 3 clarification and liquid
filtration O&M upgrade, respectively.
2-63
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
10,000
1.000
«s
o
100
I I I I I 1 I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I
I I I I I t I
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-32. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2 and 3
10.000
cc
CD
CO
CD
r 1.000-
o
O
100
0.00001 0.0001
I I I I I 11 ll I I I I I I I tl I I I I 1 I 111 I I I I 11 It I I I I I I t It I I I I I I I It
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-33. Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Primary
Chemical Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
2-64
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
For facilities whichalready have clarifiers or plate and frame liquid filtrationsystems in-place which
could serve as the clarifierfollowingthe primary chemicalprecipitation of Metals Option4, EPA compared
thediffeimcebetweenprimaiyprecipitationcurrent loadings and the long-term averages for Metals Option
4, Sample Point 03 (Sample Point 03 follows primary precipitation and clarification at the Metals Option
4 model facility). EPA'determined that facilities would need to increase their removals by 2%. Therefore,
for in-place clarification systems (or plate and frame liquid filtration systems) which could serve as the
clarifier following primary chemicalprecipitationfor Metals Option4,EPAincludedanO&M cost upgrade
of two percent of the O&M costs for a brand new system (except for taxes, insurance, and maintenance
which are a function of the capital .cost).
EPA did not calculate an O&M upgrade equation for the clarification step following secondary
chemical precipitation (direct dischargers only) of Metals Option 4. EPA costed all direct discharging
facilities for a new clarificationsystemfoUowingsecondary chemicalprecipitation for Metals Option4 since
none of the direct discharging metals facilities had treatment in-place for this step.
The O&M upgrade cost equations for the Metals Option4 clarification and liquid filtrationsystems
are presented below as Equations 2-34 and 2-35, respectively.
ln(Y2) = 6.8135 + 0.33151n(X) + 0.0242(In(X))2
ln(Y2) = 12.0242 + 1.176761n(X) + 0.05005(ln(X))2
(2-34)
(2-35)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD),
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
2-65
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.3 Equalization
To improve treatment, facilities oftenneed to equalize wastes by holding them in a tank. The CWT
industry frequently uses equalization to minimize the variability of incoming wastes effectively.
EPA costed an equalization system which consists of a mechanical aeration basin based on
responses to the WTI Questionnaire. EPA obtained the equalization cost estimates from the 1983 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of Wastewater
Treatment Systems (CAPDET). EPA originally used this program to estimate equalization costs for the
OCPSF Industry. Table 2-36 lists the default design parameters that EPA used in the CAPDET program.
These default design parameters are reasonable for the CWT industry since they reflect values seen in the
CWT industry. For example, the default detention time (24 hours) is appropriate since this was the median
equalization detention time reported by respondents to the WTI Questionnaire.
Table 2-36. Design Parameters Used for Equalization in CAPDET Program
Aerator mixing requirements = 0.03 HP per 1,000 gallons;
Oxygen requirements = 15.0 mg/l per hour;
Dissolved oxygen in basin = 2.0 mg/l; .
Depth of basin = 6.0 feet; and
Detention time = 24 hours.
EPA did not calculate capital or O&M upgrade equations for equalization. If a CWT facility
currently has an equalization tank in-place, the facilityreceived no costs associated with equalization. EPA
assumed thatthe equalizatipntanks currently in-place at CWT facilities would perform as well as (or better
than) the system costed by EPA. '
2-66
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Capital and Land Costs
The CAPDET program calculates capital costs which are "total project costs." These "total
project costs" include all of the items previously listed in Table 1 -1 as well as miscellaneous nonconstniction
costs, 201 planning costs, technical costs, land costs, interest during construction, and laboratory costs.
Therefore, to obtain capital costs for the equalization systems for this industry, EPA calculated capital costs
based on total project costs minus: miscellaneous nonconstniction c'osts, 201 planning costs, technical
costs, land costs, interest during construction, and laboratory costs.
Table 2-37 presents the total capital and land requirement estimates for the equalization systems.
Figure 2-34 presents the cost curve for the total capital cost of the equalization systems, while Figure 2-35
presents the cost curve for the land requirement for the equalization systems. Equation 2-36 presents the
cost equation for the total capital cost for equalization systems. Equation 2-37 presents the land
requirement cost equation for the equalization systems.
where:
ln(Yl) = 12.057 + 0.4331n(X) + 0.043(ln(X))2
ln(Y3) = -0.912 + 1.1201n(X) + 0.011(lnCX))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD),
Yl = Capital Cost (1989'$), and
Y3 = Land Requirements (Acres).
(2-36)
(2-37)
2-67
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-37. Total Capital Cost, O&M Cost, and Land Requirement Estimates
for Equalization Systems
Flow Rate
(MOD)
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
59,800
62,300
64,200
73,200
80,680
119,100
137,900"
155,100
215,900
222,200
309,600
352,900
423,500
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
33,400
41,100
45,400
59,100
67,600
. 97,500
108,700
117,900
137,900
150,200
178,100
202,200
226,900
Land Requirement
(acres)
0.0003
0.0015
0.003
0.015
0.03
0.15'
0.34
0.46
0.69
0.92
1.38
1.84
2.30
2-68
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs •
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1,000,000
g 100,000
O
CD
O
10,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-34. Total Capital Cost Curve for Equalization Systems
10
10.00
1.00
0.10
I-
0.01
0.00
000
0.0001
0.001
001 0.1
Row (MGD)
Figure 2-35. Land Requirement Curve for Equalization Systems
2-69
10
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.000.000
o:
o>
03
OJ
- 100.000
o
O
10,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-36. O&M Cost Curve for Equalization Systems
Operation and Maintenance Costs
EPA obtained O&M costs directly from the initial year O&M costs produced by the CAPDET
program. The O&M cost estimates for equalization systems are presented in Table 2-37. Figure 2-36
presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M cost equation for the equalization systems is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 11.723 + 03111n(X) + 0.0190n(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O & M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(2-38)
2-70
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.4 Air Stripping
Air stripping is an effective wastewater treatment method for removing dissolved gases and volatile
compounds from wastewater streams. The technology passes high volumes of air through an agitated gas-
water mixture. This promotes volatilization of compounds, and, preferably capture in air pollution control
systems. .
The air stripping system costed by EPA includes transfer pumps, control panels, blowers,-and
ancillary equipment. EPA also included catalytic oxidizers as part of the system for air pollution control
purposes.
If a CWT facility currently has an air stripping-systemin-place, EPA did not assign the facility any
costs associated with air stripping. EPA assumed that the air stripping systems currently in-place at CWT
facilities would perform as well as (or better than) the system costed by EPA.
1,000,000
O5
CO
ov
O 100,000
p
1
'a.
eo
O
10,000
0.00001 0.0001 0.001
II I I 111 11 . 1 1 t I 1 III \ I \ I I I 11 tl I I 1 1 1 I 111 I I I I I I ttl I I I I III I
0.01 0.1 1 10
Flow(MGD)
Figure 2-37. Total. Capital Cost Curve for Air Stripping Systems
2-71
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs .
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Capital and Land Costs
EPA's air stripping system is designed to remove pollutants withmedium to high volatilities. EPA
used the pollutant 1,2-dicHoroethane, whichhas a Henry's Law Constant of 9.14 E -4 atm*L/mol, as the
design basis -with an influent concentration of 4,000 |ig/L and an effluent concentration of 68 |J,g/L. EPA
based these concentration on infoimation collected on the model facility's operation. EPA used the same
design basis for the air stripping systems costed for the option 8v and 9v in the oils subcategory.
EPA obtained the equipment costs from vendor quotations. Table 2-38 presents the itemized
capital cost estimates for the air stripping systems. Figure 2-37 presents the resulting cost curve. The total
capital cost equation for. the air stripping systems is:
where:
ln(Yl) = 12.899 + 0.486In(X) + 0.031(ln(X))2
X = How Rate (MGD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 '$).
(2-39)
Table 2-38. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Air Stripping Systems
Flow (MGD)
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
System &
Installation Cost
(1989 $)
48,210
50,760
64,800
108,675
224,930
317,970
Engineering
&
Contingency
14,463
15,228
19,440
32,603
67,4,79
95,391
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
62,673
65,988
84,240
. 141,278
292,409
413,361
2-72
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
To develop land requirements for the air stripping and catalytic oxidizer systems, EPA used vendor
data. The dimensions pf the air strippers, in terms of length and width, are very small compared to the
catalytic oxidizers. Figure 2-38 presents the land requirement curve for air stripping systems. The land
requirement equation for the air stripping systems is:
In(Y3) =-2.207 + 0.5361n(X) + 0.042(In(X))2
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(2-40)
1.00
CD
£ 0.10
•o
c
CO
001 I I I I I I 11II I I I I I I 111 I I I I I 11II 1—1—I I I 1111 —I—I -I I 1 111
0.0001 0.001 ' 0.01 0.1 1 10
' Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-38. Land Requirement Curve for Air Stripping Systems
2-73
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Operation and Maintenance Costs
For air stripping, O&M costs include electricity, maintenance, labor, catalyst replacement, and
taxes and insurance. EPA obtained the O&M costs from the same vendor which provided the capital cost
estimates.
EPA based the electricity usage for the air strippers on the amount of horsepower needed to
operate the .system and approximated the electricity usage for the catalytic oxidizers at 50 percent of the
electricity used for the air strippers. EPA based both the horsepower requirements and the electricity
requirements forthe catalytic oxidizeronvendor'srecommendations. EPA estimated the laborrequirement
for the air stripping system at three hours per day, which is based on the model facility's operation. EPA
assumed that the catalyst beds in the catalytic qxidizer would require replacement every four years based
on the rule of thumb (provided by the vendor) that precious metal catalysts have a lifetime of approximately
four years. EPA divided the costs for replacing the spent catalysts by four to convert them to annual
costs. As is the standard used by EPA for this industry, taxes and insurance were estimated at 2 percent
of the total capital cost. ' .
Table 2-39 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the air stripping systems. Figure 2-39
presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M cost equation for the air stripping system is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 10.865 + 0.298In(X) + 0.021(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(2-41)
2-74
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-39. O&M Cost Estimates for Air Stripping Systems
Flow
(MOD)
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
Energy
1,050
1,575
2,100
5,250
11,812
21,000
Maintenance
1,928
2,030
2,592
4,347
~ 9,000
12,720
Taxes
&
Insurance
964
1,015
1,296
2,174
4,500
6,360
Labor
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
Catalyst
Replacement
Cost
33
50
102
500 .
1,500
4,250
Total
O&M Cost
(1992 S/YR)
20,400
21,095
22,515
28,696
43,237
60,755
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 SAW.)
19,176
19,829
21,164
26,974
40,643
57,110
100,000
0>
CO
a>
o
O
08
O
10,000
0.00001
• 0.0001 0.001
Figure 2-39. O&M Cost Curve for Air Stripping Systems
0.01
Flow (MOD)
0.1
10
2-75
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.5 Multi-Media Filtration
Filtration is a proven technology for the removal of residual suspended solids from wastewater.
The multimedia filtration system costed by EPA for this industry is a system which contains sand and
anthracite coal, supported by gravel.
EPA based the design for the model multimedia filtration system on the TSS effluent long- term
average concentration for Metals Option 4—15 mg/L. EPA assumed that the average influent TSS
concentrationto the multimedia filtration system would range from 75 to 100 mg/L. EPA based the influent
concentration range on vendor's recommendations on realistic TSS concentrations resulting from
wastewater treatment following chemical precipitation and clarification.
EPA did'not calculate capital or O&M upgrade equations for multi-media filtration. If a CWT
facility currently has a multimedia filter in-place, EPA assigned the facility no costs associated with multi-
media filtration. EPA assumed thatthe multi-media filter currently in-place at CWT facilities would perform
as well as (or better than) the system costed by EPA.
Capital and Land Costs
EPA based the capital costs of multi-media filters on vendor's recommendations. Table 2-40
presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the multi-media filtration systems. The resulting cost
curve is presented as Figure 2-40. The total capital cost equation for the multi-media filtration system is:
where:
ln(Yl).= 12.0126 + 0.480251n(X) + 0.04623(In(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 $).
(2-42)
2-76
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-40. Total Capital. Cost Estimates'for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
r, „ Instrument.
• Flow Rate System
(MOD) Cost InStaJIah0n Plpmg .p & ,
v ' Controls •
' 0.01 23,500 8,225 7,050 7,050
0.05 .. 31,000 10,850 9,300 9,300
0.50 55,000 19,250 16,500 16,500
LO 87,000 30,450 26,100 26,100
1,000,000
0)
CO
en
§ 100,000
O'
co
. 'a.
as
O
10,000
O.C
Total
Engineering Total . ,
& Capital Cost ^f
Contingency (1997$) .(^$)
13,748 59,573 ' 47,198
18,135 78,585 62,261
32,175 139,425 110,463
50,895 220,545 174,732
^x
_-^^"~
^*~" "
____
—
1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
01 0.01 0.1
Flow(MGD)
1 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1
1 10
Figure 2-40. Total Capital Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
2-77
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
To develop land requirements for multi-media filtration systems, the vendor provided overall system
dimensions. EPA scaled up the land dimensions to represent the total land required for the system plus
peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). Table 2-41 presents the land requirement for multi-media
filtration systems. Figure 2-41 presents the resulting cost curve. The land requirement equation for the
multi-media filtration system is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -2.6569 + 0.193711n(X) + 0.02496(ln(X))2
X = Flow (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(2-43)
Table 2-41. Land Requirement Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
Flow Rate
Land Requirement (Acres)
(MOD)
0.01
0.05
0.50
1.0
0.0485
0.0500
0.0602
0.0716
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs
EPA estimated the labor requirement for the multi-media filtration system at four hours per day,
whichis based onmanufacturer's recommendations. There are no chemicals associated with the operation
of a multi-media filter. The itemized O&M cost estimates for the multi-media filtration systems are
presented in Table 2-42. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-42. The O&M cost equation
for the multi-media filtration system is:
2-78
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
ln(Y2) = 11.5039 + 0.724581n(X) + 0.09535(ln(X))2
where:
X =
Y2 =
Table 2-42.
Flow •
Rate
(MOD)
0.01
0.05
0.50
1.0
Flow Rate (MOD) and
= O&M Cost (1 989 $/YR).
(2-44)
O&M Cost Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
Energy Labor Maintenance
1,600 21,900 1,888
1,730 21,900 2,490
31,200 21,900 4,419
70,000 21,900 6,989
Taxes &
Insurance
944
1,245
2,209
3,495
Total O&M
Cost
' (1989 $/YR)
26,332
27,366
. 59,728 .
102,384
2-79
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
I.UUU.UUU
&
£
<»
O)
CO
O
~ 100.000
3
s
e8
0.0
/
X
X
^. — "
^x--*"
^^~
01 0.01 0.1 ' ' .1 . 1C
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-42. O&M Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
2.6 Cyanide Destruction
Many CWTs achieved required cyanide destruction by oxidation. These facilities primarily use
chlorine (in either the elemental or hypochlorite form) as the oxidizing agent in this process. Oxidation of
cyanide wMx chlorine is called alkaline chlorination.
The oxidationof cyanide waste using sodium hypochlorite is a two step process. In the first step,
cyanide is oxidized to cyanate in the presence of hypochlorite, and sodium hydroxide is used to maintain
a pH range of 9 to 11. The second step oxidizes cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen at a controlled
pH of 8.5. The amounts of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide needed to perform the oxidation
are 8.5 parts and 8.0 parts per part of cyanide, respectively. At these levels, the total reduction occurs at
a retentiontime of 16 to 20 hours. The application of heat can facilitate the more complete destruction of
total cyanide. .
2-80
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
The cyanide destruction system costed by EPA includes a two-stage reactor witha retentiontime
of 16 hours, feed system and controls, pumps, piping, and foundation. The two-stage reactor includes a
covered tank, mixer, and containment tank. EPA designed the systembased on amenable and total cyanide
influent concentrations of 1,548,000 |ig/L and 4,633,710 |ig/L, respectively and effluent concentrations
of amenable and total cyanide of276,106 |lg/Land 135,661 (ig/L, respectively. EPAbased these influent
and effluent concentrations on data collected during EPA's sampling of cyanide destruction systems.
Because the system used by the facility which forms the basis of the proposed cyanide limitation
and standards uses special operation conditions, EPA assigned full capital and O&M costs to all facilities
which perform cyanide destruction.
Capital and Land Costs . ,
EPA obtained the capital costs curves for cyanide destruction systems with special operating
conditions from vendor services. Table 2-43 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the
cyanide destructionsystems. Figure 2-43 presents the resulting cost curve. The total capital cost equation
for cyanide destruction systems is:
where:
ln(Yl) = 13.977 + 0.5461n(X) + 0.00330n(X))2)
X = Batch Size (MOD) and
Yl - Capital Cost (1989 $).
(2-45)
2-81
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-43. Total Capital
Volume
per Day System
(MOD) Cost
0.000001 500
0.00001 1,850
0.0001 5,000
0.001 14,252
0.01 45,875
0.05 106,105
0.10 160,542
0.50 401,320
1.0 560,000
10,000.000
1,000,000
2?
g
05
g 100.000
o
"co
•5.
(B
0
10.000
1.000
O.OC
Cost Estimates for Cyanide Destruction at Special Operating Conditions
Instrument
Installatio Piping
n &
Controls
175 155 65
648 574 241
1,750 1,550 650
4,988 4,418 1,853
16,056 14,221 ' 5,964
37,137 32,893 ' 13,794
56,190 49,768 20,870
140,462 124,409 52,172
196,000 173,600 72,800
Total
Construct!
on
Cost
895
3,313
8,950
25,511
82,116
189,929
287,370
718,363
1,002,400
Total
Capital
Cost
(1993 $)
960
3,554
9,600
27,364
88,080
203,723
308,240
770,535
1,075,200
Total
Capital
Cost
(1989 $)
874
3,234
8,736
24,901
80,153
185,388
280,498
701,187
978,432
, ^-
^x*"
^1^
^^
, ^L :
—^. :
^*^
— -^ _ ;
, , , , , ,,,,, , , , ,,,,,, ,,,,, -,,,
001
0.0001 0.001 0.01
0.1
1
• 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-43. Total Capital Cost Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special Operating
Conditions
2-82
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs .
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
To develop land requirements for the cyanide destnictionsystems, EPA used the vendor data. The
dimensions were scaled up to represent the total land required for the package unit plus peripherals (pumps,
controls, access areas, etc.). Figure 2-44 presents the land requirement curve for the cyanide destruction
system. The equation relating the flow of the cyanide destruction system with the land requirements is:
where:
In(Y3) = -1.168 + 0.419In(X) + 0.021(ln(X))2 (2-46)
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs
In estimating chemical usage and labor requirements, EPA assumed the systems would treat one
batch per day. EPA based this assumption on responses to the WTI Questionnaire. Based on vendor's
• recommendations, EPA estimated the labor requirement for the cyanide destruction to be three hours per
day. EPA determined the amount of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide required based on the
stoichiometric amounts to maintain the proper pH and chlorine concentrations to facilitate the cyanide
destruction as described earlier.
Table 2-44 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the cyanide destruction systems. Figure
2-45 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M equation for the cyanide destruction system is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 18.237 + 1.318In(X) + 0.04993(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(2-47)
2-83
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-44.
Flow
Rate
(MOD)
0.00001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05 •
0.10
0.50
1.0
O&M Cost Estimates for Cyanide Destruction at Special Operating Conditions
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,100
1,600
1,730
7,000
31,200
70,000
Sodium
Hypochlorite
Cost
50
482
4,826
48,260
482,470 •
2,412,345
4,824,700
24,123,450
48,246,900
Sodium
Hydroxide
Cost
25
225
2,256
22,568
225,680
1,128,400
2,256,800
11,284,000
22,568,000
Labor
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425 .
16,425
1>6,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
Maint.
47
172
465
1,207
3,886
8,987
13,598
33,993
47,434
Taxes .
&
Ins.
24
86
233
604
1,943
4,494
6,799
16,997
23,717
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
22
78
212
550
1,768
4,090
6,187
15,467
21,582
1.000,000,000
CO
8
100.000,000
o:
01 10,000.000
co .
o>
1.000.000
100,000
10.000
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
Flow (MOD)
Figure 2-45. O&M Cost Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special Operating Conditions
2-84
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.7 Secondary Gravity Separation
Secondary gravity separation systems provide additional oil and grease removal for oily
wastewater. Oily wastewater, after primary gravity separation/emulsionbreaking, is pumped into a series
of skimming tanks where additional oil and grease removal is obtained before the wastewater enters the
. dissolved air flotationunit The secondary gravity separation equipment discussed here consists of a series
of three skimming tanks in series. The ancillary equipment for each tank consists of a mix tank withpumps
and skimming equipment
In estimating capital and O&M cost associated withsecondary gravity separation, EPA assumed
that facilities either currently have or do not have secondary gravity separation. Therefore, EPA did hot
develop any secondary gravity separation upgrade costs.
Capital and Land Costs
EPA obtained the capital cost estimates for the secondary gravity separation system from vendor
quotes. The itemized capital cost estimates for the secondary gravity separation systems is presented in
Table 2-45, while the resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-46.
The total capital cost equation for Oils Option 9 secondary gravity separation is:
In(Yl) = 14.3209 + 0.387741n(X) - 0.01793(In(X))2
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 $)
(2-48)
2-85
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-45. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation
Flow Rate
(MOD)
0.0005
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Equipment
Cost
19,200
27,990
67,170
97,938
235,065
342,729
822,603.
1,199,364
1,378,662
Total
Construction
Cost
25,920
37,787
90,680
132,216
317,338
462,684
1,110,514
1,619,141 .
1,861,194
Engineer.
&
Conting.
7,776
11,336
27,204
39,665
95,201
138,805
. 333,154
485,742
558,358
Total
Capital Cost
(1989$)
33,696
49,123
117,884
171,881
412,539
601,489
1,443,668
2,104,883
2,419,552
o>
CO
o>
10,000
i i i 1 1 l
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-46. Total Capital Cost Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation
2-86
10
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
EPA calculated the land requirements for secondary gravity separation systems based on the
equipment dimensions. Table 2-46 presents the land requirements for the secondary gravity separation
systems. Figure 2-47 presents the resulting curve. The land requirement equation for the secondary gravity
separation system is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -0.2869 + 0.313871n(X) + 0.01191(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(2-49)
Table 2-46. Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation
Flow Rate Land Requirement
(MOD) • (Acres)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
0.097
0.114
0.158
0.225 .
0.341 '
0.381
0.492
0.891
2-87
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.00
o
3
0.10
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
10
Figure 2-47. Land Requirement Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs
EPA estimated the labor requirement to operate secondary gravity separation to be 3 to 9 hours
per day depending on the size of the system. EPA obtained this estimate from one of the model facilities
for Oils Option 9. There are no chemicals associated with the operation of the secondary gravity
separation system. The itemized O&M requirements for the secondary gravity separation system is
presented in Table 2-47 with the resulting cost curve presented as Figure 2-48.
The O&M Cost equation for the secondary gravity separation system is
ln(Y2) -12.0759 + 0.4401In(X) + 0.01544(ln(X))2
(2-50)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
2-88
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
Table 2-47. O&M Cost Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation
Flow Rate Maintenance
(MOD)
0.0005 1,348
0.001 1,965
0.005 4,715
0.01 6,875
0.05 16,502 •
0.1 24,060
0.5 57,747
1.0 84,195
5.0 96,782
1,000,000
ce
£0-
O)
co
03
^ 100,000
o
O
2
eS
O
10,000
0.0
Taxes &
Insurance
674
982
2,358
3,438
8,251
12,030
28,874
42,098
48,391
Energy
3,000
3,030
3,180
3,312
4,560
6,120
18,600
34,200 , •_
159,000
Labor
11,700
11,700
11,700
23,400
23,400
23,400
35,100
35,100
35,100
Total
O&M Cost
'(1989 $/YR)
. 16,722
17,677
21,953 .
37,025
52,713
65,610
140,321
195,593.
339,273
/• -
/
^
^^
^
^s"
^^
^^
^^^
1 1 t 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1
301 0.001
l 1 t t t l l l f
0.01
l l l i l f l 1 1 t
0.1
t t l l l 1 1 1
1
t l l i l l p
10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-48. O&M Cost Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation
2-89
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.8 Dissolved Air Flotation
Flotation is the process of inducing suspended particles to rise to the surface of a tank where they
can be collected and removed. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) is one of several flotation techniques
employed in the treatment of oily wastewater. DAF is commonly used to extract free and dispersed oil and
grease from oily wastewater.
Capital and Land Costs
EPA developed capital cost estimates for dissolved air flotation systems for the oils subcategory
Options 8 and 9. EPA based the capital cost estimates for the DAF units on vendor's quotations. EPA
assigned facilities with DAF units currently in-place no capital costs. For facilities with no DAF treatment
in-place, the DAF system consists of a feed unit, a chemical addition mix tank, and a flotation tank. EPA
also included a sludge filtration/dewatering unit EPA developed capital cost estimates for a series of flow
rates ranging from 25 gpm (0.036 MOD) to 1000 gpm (1.44 MOD). EPA was unable to obtain costs
estimates for unite with flows below 25 gallons per minute since manufacturers do not sell systems smaller
than those designed for flows below 25 gallons per minute.
The current DAF system capital cost estimates include a sludge filtration/dewatering unit. For
facilities whichdo not have a DAF unit in-place, but have other treatment systems that produce sludge (i.e.
chemicalprecipitationand/orbiologicaltreatment), EPA assumed that the existing sludge filtrationunit could
accommodate the additional sludge produced by the DAF unit. For these faculties, EPA did not include
sludge filtration/dewatering costs in the capital cost estimates. EPA refers to the capital cost equation for
these facilities as "modified" DAF costs.
Tables 2-48 and 2-49 present the itemized capital cost estimates forthe DAF and modifiedDAF
systems, while Figures 2-49 and 2-50 present the resulting cost curves. The capital cost equations for the
DAF and modifiedDAF treatment systems for Oils Options 8 and 9 are presented below as Equations 2-
51 and 2-52, respectively.
2-90
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
In (Yl) = 13.9518 + 0.294451n(X) - 0.12049(In(X))2
in (Yl) = 13.509 + 0.294451n(X) - 0.12049(ln(X))2
where:
•\r
Yl =
table 2-48.
Flow
MOD
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
Table 2-49.
Flow
(MOD)
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
Flow Rate (MGD)
= Total Capital Cost (1 989 $)
Total Capital Cost Estimates for DAF Systems
„ . Stodge . Total
DAF Feed _ . Shipping _ .
Dewaten J;* Equip.
Unit Unit _. . Cost .; r
ngUmt Cost
17,067. 12,560 16,502 923 47,052
• 34,135 16,505 28,206 1,577 80,423
73,731 36,727 61,525 3,440 175,423
209,928 99,877 172,561 9,647 492,013
Total
Construe
tion Cost
91,751 .
156,826
342,074
959,427
Engineer
&
Conting
27,525
. 47,048
102,622
287,828
(2-51)
(2-52)
Total
Capital
Cost
(1989 $)
119,276
203,874
444,696
1,247,255
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems
Total
DAF _ .TT . Shipping • _ .
„ . Feed Unit _rr Equipment
Unit Cost
Cost
17,067 ' 12,560 593 30,220
34,135 1-6,505 1,013 51,653
73,731 36,727 ' 2,209 . 112,667
209,928 99,877 6,196 316,001
Total
Construct!
on Cost
58,928
100,723
219,701
616,202
Engineer.
&
Conting.
17,678
30,217
65,910
184,861
Total
Capital
Cost
:(1989 $)
76,606
130,940
285,611
801,063
2-91
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
10,000.000
1.000,000
I
10QJOOO
10000
_J I I
11 ._\
0.01
0.1
Row (MGD)
Figure 2-49. Total Capital Cost Curve for DAF Systems
Locojooo
o
O
ra
O
100LOOO
10.000
I t I I I I t t 1 I I I I I 1 I I I
0.01
0.1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-50. Total Capital Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems
10
10.
2-92
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Because the smallest design capacity for DAF systems that EPA could obtain from vendors is 25
gpm, EPA assumed that only facilities with flow rates above 20 gpm would operate their DAF systems
everyday (i.e. five days per week). More than 75 percent of the oils subcategory facilities have flowrates
lower man 25 gpm. EPA assumed that these facilities could hold their wastewater and run their DAF
systems from one to four days per week depending on their flow rate. Facilities that are not operating their
DAF treatment systems everyday would need to install a holding tank to hold their wastewater until
treatment. Therefore, for facilities which do not currently have DAF treatment in place and which have
flow rates less than 20 gallons per minute, EPA additionally included costs for a holding tank. For these
facilities, EPA based capital costs on a combination of DAF costs (or modified DAF costs) and holding
tank costs. Table 2-50 lists the capacity of the holding tank costed for various flow rates.
Table 2-50. Holding Tank Capacity Estimates for DAF Systems
Flow Rate . Holding Tank Capacity
(GPM) . (gallons)
<5
5-10
10-15
15-20
>20
7,200
14,400
21,600
28,800
none
Table 2-51 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the holding tank systems. Figure
2-5 Ipresents the resulting cost curve. The total capital cost equation for the holding tanks is:
2-93
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
In (Yl) = 12.5122 - 0.15500In(X) - 0.05618(ln(X))2 (2-53)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989$).
Table 2-51. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Holding Tank Systems
„, Equipment Total Construction
Flow ^_^ A • _ ^
(MGD) C°St C°St
0.0005 25,600 - 34,560
0.001 37,310 50,382
0.005 89,560 120,906
0.01 97,938 132,216
0.05 156,710 211,559
1,000.000
v>
O)
|
o 100.000
s
•a.
8
10.000
0.0
Engineer. Total
& Capital Cost
Conting. (1989$)
10,368 44,928
15,115 65,497
36,272 157,178
39,665 171,881
63,468 275,027
_^-- —
^-^
^,f^
_^~
^s"
^
S"
D01 ' 0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-51. Total Capital Cost Curve for Holding Tanks
2-94
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs •
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
EPA estimated land requirements for the DAF and modified DAF systems. EPA assumed that the
DAF and the modified DAF systems have the same land requirement. Table 2-52 presents the DAF and
modified DAF land requirements, while Figure 2-52 presents the resulting cost curve. The land
requirement equation for the DAF and modified DAF systems is:
where:
In (Y3) = -0.5107 + 0.512171n(X) - 0.01892 (ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
(2-54)
Table 2-52. Land Requirement Estimates for DAF and Modified DAF Systems
Land
Requirement
(Acres)
Flow
(MOD)
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
0.090
0.132
0.212
0.720
2-95
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.00
0.10
a:
001
aoi
i i
0.1
10
Flow (MGD)
Figure. 2-52. Land Requirement Curve for DAF and Modified DAF Systems
EPA also estimated land requirements for the holding tanks. Table 2-53 presents the land
requirements forthe holding tank systems. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-53. The land
requirement cost equation for the holding tank systems is:
where:
In (Y3) = -1.0661 + 0.10066In(X) + 0.00214(In(X))2
X = How Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
(2-55)
2-96
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-53! Land Requirement Estimates' for Holding Tank Systems
Flow
(MOD)
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
1.00
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs .
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chemical Usage And Labor Requirement Costs
EPA estimated the labor requirements associated with the model technology at four hours per day
for the small systems to eight hours per day for the large systems, which is based on the average of the Oils
Options 8 and 9 model facilities. EPA used the same labor estimate for DAF and "modified" DAF
systems.
As discussed in the capital cost section, EPA has assumed that facilities with flow rates below 20
gpm wfll not operate the DAF daily. Therefore, for these lower flow rate facilities, EPA only included labor
to operate the DAF (or "modified"DAF) systems for the days the system will be operational. Table 2-54
lists the number of days per week EPA assumed these lower flow facilities would operate their DAF
systems..
Table 2-54. Labor Requirement Estimates for DAF Systems
Flow Rate Labor Requirements
(GPM) (days/week)
5-10
10-15
15-20
>20
1
2,
3
4
5
As detailed earlier, however, EPA also assumed that facilities withflowrates below20 gpm, would
also operate a holding tank. Therefore, for facilities with flow rates below 20 gallons per minute, EPA
included additional labor to operate the holding tank.
EPA calculated chemical cost estimates for DAF and ''modified" DAF systems based on additions
of aluminum sulfate, caustic soda, and polymer. EPA costed for facilities to add 550 mg/L alum, 335 mg/L
polymer and 1680 mg/L ofNaOH. EPA also included costs for perlite addition at 0.25 Ibs per Ib of dry
2-98
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
solids for sludge conditioning and sludge dewatering operations (for both the DAF and "modified" DAF
systems). EPA based the chemical additions on information gathered from literature, the database for the
proposed Industrial Laundries Industry guidelines and standards, and sampled facilities.
Finally, similar to the labor requirements shown in Table 2-54, EPA based chemical usage cost
estimates for the DAF and modified DAF systems assuming five days per week operation for facilities with
flow rates greater than 20 gpm and from one to four days per week for facilities with flow rates of 5 to 20
gpm. •
Tables 2-55 and 2-56 present the itemized O&M cost estimates for the DAF and modified DAF
systems with flow rates above 20 gpm. Figures 2-54 and 2-55 present the resulting cost curves. The
O&M cost equations for the DAF and modified DAF systems withflowrates above 20 gpm are presented
below as Equations 2-56 and 2-57, respectively.
where:
In (Y2) = 14.5532+ 0.964951n(X) + 0.01219(ln(X))2 (2-56)
In (Y2) = 14.5396 + 0.97629In(X) + 0.01451(ln(X))2 (2-57)
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
Tables 2-57 and 2-58 present the itemized O&M Cost estimates for the DAF andmodified DAF
systems with flow rates of up to 20 gpm. Figures 2-56 and 2-57 present the resulting cost curves.
The O&M cost equations for the DAF and modified DAF systems with flow rates up to 20 gpm
are presented below as Equations 2-58 and 2-59, respectively. •
In (Y2) = 21.2446 + 4.14823In(X) + 0.36585(ln(X))2
In (Y2) = 21.2005 + 4.074491n(X) + 0.34557(In(X))2
(2-58)
(2-59)
2-99
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR). .
Table 2-55. O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
Flow
(MGD)
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
Mainten-
ance
4,771
8,155
17,788
49,890
Table 2-56. O&M
Row
(MGD)
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
Mainten-
ance
3,064
5,238
11,424
32,043
Taxes &
Insur.
2,386
4,077
8,894
24,945
Energy
2,920
2,920
3,569
8,760
Chemical Cost
Labor
Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite
15,600 4,090 12,449
19,500 . 8,181 24,898
23,400 16,361 49,795
31,200 163,613 497,952
46,650 8,338
93,300 . 16,675
186,601 33,350
1,866,010 333,520
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
97,204
177,706
339,758
2,975,890
Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
Taxes &
Insur.
1,532
2,619
5,712
16,021
Enagy
2,920
2,920
3,569
8,760
Chemical Cost
Labor
Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite
15,600 4,090 12,449
19,500 , 8,181 - 24,898
23,400 16,361 • 49,795
31,200 163,613 497,952
46,650 8,338
93,300 16,675
186,601 33,350
1,866,010 333,520
Total
O&M Cost '
(1989 $/YR)
94,643
173,331
330,212
2,949,119
2-100
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-57. O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
Chemical Cost
Flow „ . Taxes & .
,-. ^^ Mamten- T Energy Labor
(MOD) Insur.
ance Alum NaOH Polymer Perhte
0.0072 4,771 2,386 2,920 3,120 164 498 . 1,866 334
0.0144 4,771 2,386 2,920 6,240 654 1,992 7,464 1,334
0.0216 4,771 2,386 2,920 9,360 1,473 4,482 16,794 3,002
0.0288 4,771 2,386 2,920 12,480 2,618 7,967 29,856 5,336
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
16,059
27,761
45,188
68,334
Table 2-58. O&M Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm -
Chemical Cost
Flow Taxes &
Mamten- Energy Labor
(MGD) ance ****' • " Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite
0.0072 3,064 1,532 . 2,920 3,120 164 498 1,866 . 334
0.0144 3,064 ' 1,532 2,920 6,240 654 1,992 7,464 1,334
0.0216 3,064 1,532 2,920 9,360 1,473 4,482 16,794 3,002
0.0288 3,064 1,532 2,920 12,480 2,618 7,967 29,856 5,336
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
13,498
.25,200
42,627
65,773
2-101
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
10.000,000
: 1.000,000
o
o
«8 100,000
o
10,000
0.01
0.1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-54. O&M Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
10.000.000
1.000.000
at
CO
o>
100.000
10.000
0.01
0.1 .
• 1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-55. O&M Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
10
10
2-102
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
100,000
g
O)
o
O
10,000
0.001
.0.010
Flow (MGD)
0.100
Figure 2-56. O&M Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
100,000
a:
o
O
oO
o
10,000
0.001
0.010
0.100
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-57. O&M Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
facil
2-103
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
ities with DAF treatment in-place, EPA estimated O&M upgrade costs. These facilities would need to
improve pollutant removals from their current DAF current performance concentrations to the Oils Option
8 and Option 9 long-term averages. As detailed in Chapter 12 of the Development Document for the
CWTPoint Source Category, EPA does not have current performance concentration data for the majority
of the oils facilities withDAF treatment in-place. EPA does, however, have sevendata sets whichrepresent
effluent concentrations from emulsion breaking/gravity separation. While the pollutant concentrations in
wastewater exiting emulsion breaking/gravity separation treatment are higher (in some cases, considerably
higher) than the pollutant concentrations in wastewater exiting DAF treatment, EPA has, nevertheless, used
the emulsion breaking/gravity separation data sets to estimate DAF upgrade costs. For each of the seven
emulsion breaking/gravity separation data sets, EPA calculated the percent difference between these
concentrations and the Option 8 and Option 9 long-term averages.. The median of these seven calculated
percentages is 25 percent
Therefore, EPA estimated the energy, labor, and chemical cost components of the O&M upgrade
cost as 25 percent of the full O&M cost of a new system. EPA assumed that maintenance, and taxes and
insurance would be zero since they are functions of the capital cost (that is, there is no capital cost for the
upgrade).
EPAdevelopedtwo separate O&M upgrade cost equations for facilities which currently have DAF
treatment in place — one for facilities with flow rates up to 20 gpm and one for facilities with flow rates
greater than 20 gpm.
Tables-2-59 and 2-60 present the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the DAF systems for
facilities withflow less than or equal to 20 gpm and greater than 20 gpm, respectively. Figures 2-58 and
2-59 present the resulting cost curves. The O&M upgrade cost equations for DAF systems for faculties
wife, flow of up to 20 gpm and greater than 20 gpm are presented below as Equations 2-60 and 2-61,
respectively.
2-104
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
In (Y2) = 19.0459 + 3.55881n(X) + 0.25553(ln(X))2 (2-60)
In (Y2) = 13.1281 + 0.99778In(X) + 0.018920n(X))2 . (2-61)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and . : . . '
Y2 = O&M Cost (1 989 $/YR).
Table 2-59. O&M Upgrade
Flow
(MOD) Mamten-
ance
0.0072 0
0.0144 0
0.0216 0
0.0288 0
Table 2-60. O&M
Flow
(MOD) Mainten'
ance
0.036 0
0.072 0
0.144 0
1.44 0
Taxes &
Insur.
0
0
0
0
Upgrade
Taxes &
Insur.
0
0
0
0 '
Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
Chemical Cost
Energy Labor
Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite
730 780 41 125 ' 467 84
730 1,560 164 • 498 1,866 334
730 2,340 368 1,121 ' 4,199 751
' 730 3,120 655 1,992 7,464 1,334
Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
Chemical Cost
Fjiergy Labor
Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite
730 3,900 1,023 3,112 11,663 2,085
730 4,875 2,045 6,225 23,325 4,169
892 5,850 4,090 12,449 46,650 8,338
2,190 7,800 40,903 - 124,488 466,503 83,380
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
2,227
5,152
9,509
15,295
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
22,513
* 41,369
78,269 .
725,264
2-105
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
100.000
'Z 10.000
o
O
1.000
0.001
0.010
Flow (MGD)
0.100
Figure 2-58. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
1,000.000
I
CT>
03
o>
5" 100,000
10.000
0.01
0.1-
10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-59. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
2-106
-------
Section 3 Biological Wastewater Treatment Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Technology Costs •
Sections Biological Wastewater Treatment Technology Costs
3.1 Sequencing Batch Reactors
A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a suspended growth system in which wastewater is mixed
with existing biological floe in an aeration basin. SBR's are unique in that a single tank acts as an
equalization tank, an aeration tank, and a clarifier.
The SBR systemcosted by EPA for the model technology consists of a SBR tank, sludge handling
equipment, feed system and controls, pumps, piping, blowers, and valves. The designparameters that EPA
used for the SBR system were the average influent and effluent BOD5, ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite
concentrations. The average influent concentrations were 4800 mg/L, 995 mg/L, and 46 mg/L for BOD5,
ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite, respectively. The average effluent BOD5, ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite
concentrations used were 1,600 mg/1, 615 mg/1, and 1.0 mg/1, respectively. EPA obtained these
concentrations from the sampling data at the SBR model facility. EPA assumed that all existing
biological treatment systems in-place at organics subcategory facilities can meet the limitations of this
proposal without incurring cost. This includes facilities which utilize any form of biological treatment — not
just SBRs. Therefore, the costs presented here only apply to facilities without biological treatment in-
place. EPA did not develop SBR upgrade costs for either capital or O&M.
Although biological treatment (SBR's) systems can be used as the BAT technology throughout the
United States, the design of the .systems should vary due to climate conditions. Plants in colder climates
should design their systems to account for lower biodegradability rates during the colder seasons.
Therefore, EPA has taken these added costs into account in its costing procedures.
EPA used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data (1979) for
determining the lowest minimum monthly average temperature (see Table 3-1). Hpwever, since water
temperature cannot fallbelowO°C, and rarely below5°C, EP A established a minimum water temperature
. of 5° C as the minimum water temperature for the purposes of this costing procedure.
3-1
-------
Sections Biological Wastewater Treatment Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Technology Costs ,
In addition, although some states have minimum temperature above 20°C, EPA has established
20°C as the highesttemperature in calculating activated sludge costs. Table 3-1 presents EPA wastewater
temperature values (middle column) used for each state.
EPAhascostedbiologicaltreatment, which willbe affected by climate conditions. Therefore, EPA
has developed a cost factor that was applied to each treatment cost, depending on the location of the plant.
In order to take into account the effect of temperature in the design and cost estimation ofactivated
sludge system upgrades, the following, factor was derived:
10.7
Temperature Correction Factor =
where kB = Base Line k
ks = k rate established for each State
0.7 = Cost Scale Factor
The ratio T*" is derived from the following general equation:
Kf
where 0
TB
Ts
1.07
20°C
State Temperature
Therefore, T"" ~
3-2
-------
Section 3 Biological Wastewater Treatment
Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 3- 1 . Temperatures and Temperature Cost Factors Used to Calculate Activated Sludge Costs and
to Adjust Biological Treatment Upgrade Costs
. State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
. Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas'
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska .
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Minimum Monthly Average
Ambient Temperature
CQW
8
-13
6
4
8
-6 ' .
-2
0
16
7
22
-2
-4
-6
-7
-2
0
10
-12
1 .
-3
-5
-13
8
-1
. -8
-6
-1
-6
0
2 '
Corresponding Wastewater
Temperature
CQ
13
5
. 11
9
13
5 .
5
5 .
20
12 .
20
5 . '
5 •
• 5
5
5
5 .
15
5
6
5
5
5
13 •
5
5.
5
5
5
5
7 '
Cost Factor
1.4
2.0
1.5
. 1-7
1.4
2.0 •
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1-3
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
3-3
-------
Section 3 Biological Wastewater Treatment
Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
State
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
0) Source of Data:
throueh!979GO
Minimum Monthly Average Corresponding Wastewater
Ambient Temperature Temperature Cost Factor
CQW (°Q
-3
6
-14
-3
3
2
-2
-1
8
-9
4
8
-3
-8
3
-3
o-
-8
-6
24
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
years of data), Environmental Data an
5
11
5
5
8
•7
5
5
13
5
9
13
5
5
8
5 '
' ' 5
5
5
20
Administration. ComDarison Climatic Data for
id Information Service, Asheville, North Carolina.
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
1.4
2.0
1.7
1.4
2.0
2.6
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
the United States
Thus, the temperature correction factor is:
3-4
-------
Sections Biological Wastewater Treatment Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
Technology Costs -
Column three of Table 3-1 presents the corresponding cost factors, using this equation for each
state. These factors were then used to adjust the capital and O&M of the biological treatment cost
estimates.
Capital and Land Costs
EPA estimated the capital costs for the SBR systems using vendor quotes whichinclude installation
costs. Table 3-2 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the SBR systems. The resulting cost
curve is presented as Figure 3-1. The SBR total capital cost equation is:
ln(Yl) = 15.707 + 0.5121n(X) + 0.0022(ln(X))2
(3-1)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 $).
Table 3-2. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
Flow
Rate
(MOD)
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
— System
Cost
100,000
360,000
635,000
970,000
2,350,000
3,200,000
Install.
.35,000
126,000
222,250
339,500
822,500
1,120,000
Piping
54,000
194,400
342,900
523,800
1,269,000
1,728,000
Total
Constr.
Cost
189,000
680,400
1,200,150
1,833,300
4,441,500
6,048,000
Engineer.
&
Conting.
40,500
145,800
257,175
392,850
951,750
1,296,000
Total
Capital Cost
(1993 $)
229,500
826,200
1,457,325
2,226,150
5,393,250
7,344,000
Total
Capital
Cost
(1989 $)
206,550
743,580
1,311,592-,
2,003,535
4,853,925
6,609,600
3-5
-------
Sections Biological Wastewater Treatment Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Technology Costs
10,000,000
0)
g i,ooo;ooo
o
ro
•5.
CO
O
100,000
\ I I I I I 11
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
10
Figure 3-1. Total Capital Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
To develop land requirements for SBR systems, the vendor provided EPA with overall system
dimensions. EPA scaled up the land dimensions to represent the total land required for the system plus
peripherals Cramps, controls, access areas, etc.). The land requirement equation for the SBR systems is:
where:
La(Y3) = -0.531 + 0.9061n(X) + 0.072(ln(X))2
X=Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
The land requirement curve is presented as Figure 3-2.
(3-2)
3-6
-------
Sections Biological Wastewater Treatment
_ Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Land Requirement (Acres)
o
o b P _
b -* . •-* ^ c
s
/
/
/
/
/
X
/
/•
X
X
X
^
-^
— ~~
1 1 1 1 1
301 0.001 0.01 0.1 110 100
Flow (MGD)
Figure 3-2. Land Requirement Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The O&M costs for the SBR system include electricity, maintenance, labor, and taxes and
insurance. No chemicals are utilized in the SBR system. EPA assumed the laborrequirements for the SBR
system to be four hours per day and based electricity costs on horsepower requirements. EPA obtained
the labor and horsepower requirements from vendors. EPA estimated maintenance, taxes, and insurance
using the factors detailed in Table 1-2.
Table 3-3 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the SBR systems. The resulting cost
curve is presented as Figure 3-3. The O&M cost equation for the SBR systems is:
ln(Y2) = 14.1015 + 0.815671n(X) + 0.03932(ln(X))2
3-7
(3-3)
-------
Section 3 Biological Wastewater Treatment
Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
Table 3-3.
Row
Rate
(MOD)
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
O&M Cost Estimates
Power
65
392-
1,852
3,703
18,298
36,596
Labor
14,600
14,600
29,200
29,200
58,400
58,400
for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
Maintenance
- 8,260
29,744
52,540
. 80,140
194,156
264,384
Taxes
&
Insurance
4,130
14,872
26,270
40,070
97,078
132,192
Chemicals
2,993
6,424
12,427
17,047
38,246
55,923
Filter
Cake
Disposal
770
'7,696
38,478
76,955
384,775
769,550
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
30,818
73,728
160,767
247,115
790,953
1,317,045
3-8
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
SECTION 4 SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL COSTS
4.1 Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Sludge Stream
Pressure filtration systems are used for the removal of solids from waste streams. This section
details sludge stream filtration which is used to treat the solids removed by the clarifiers in the Metals
Options.
The pressure filtration system costed by EPA for sludge stream filtration consists of a plate and
frame filtration system. The components of the plate and frame filtration system include: filter plates, filter
cloth, hydraulic pumps, pneumatic booster pumps, control panel, connector pipes, and a support platform.
For design purposes, EPA assumed the sludge stream to consist of 80 percent liquid and 20 percent
(200,000 mg/1) solids. EPA additionally assumed the sludge stream to be 20 percent of the total volume
of wastewater treated. EPA based these design parameters on CWT Questionnaire 105.
10,000,000
1,000,000
§
en
O
g 100,000
10,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
10
Figure 3-3. O&M Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
4-1
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
In costing for sludge stream treatment, if a facility does not have sludge filtration systems in-place,
EPA estimated capital costs to add a plate and frame pressure filtration system to their on-site treatment
train2. If a facfliiy's's treatment train includes more than one clarification step in its treatment train (such as
for Metals Option 3), EPA only costed the facility for a single plate and frame filtration system. EPA
assumed one plate and frame filtration system could be used to process the sludge frommultiple clarifiers.
Likewise, if a facility already had a sludge filtrationsystem in-place, EPA assumed that the in-place system
would be sufficient and did not estimate any sludge filtration capital costs for these facilities.
Capital and Land Costs
, EPA developed the capital cost equation for plate and frame sludge filtration by adding installation,
engineering, and contingency costs to vendors' equipment cost estimates. EPA used the same capital cost
equation for the plate and frame sludge filtration system for all of the Metals Options.
Table 4-1 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the plate and frame sludge filtration
systems for all the Metals Options. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 4-1. The sludge
filtration total capital cost equation for all the Metals Options is:
where:
ln(Yl) = 14.827 + 1.0871n(X) + 0.0050(Tn(X))2
X=How (MOD) of Liquid Stream and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 $).
(4-1)
Table 4-1. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration (Sludge Stream)
If a facility only had to be costed for a plate and frame pressure filtration system to process the sludge t
produced during the tertiary chemical precipitation and clarifications steps of metals Option 3, EPA did not cost the
facility for a plate and frame pressure filtration system. Likewise, EPA assumed no O&M costs associated with the
treatment of sludge from the tertiary chemical precipitation and clarification steps in Metals Option 3. EPA assumed that
the total suspended solids concentration at this point is so low that sludge stream filtration is unnecessary.
4-2
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Wastewater
Influent
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00
10,
» 1>
O5
CO
ff\
"55
o
JO
"Q_
CO
O
Average
Vendor
Equipment
Cost
6,325
6,325
6,482
9,897
29,474
93,960
.171,183
870,475
1,939,145
000. 000 —
•f nnn i i
Install.
Cost
2,214
2,214
2,269
• 3,464
10,316
32,886
59,914
304,666
678,701
— — - —
I 1 1 1 I ll I II
Total Capital
&
Installation Cost
8,539
8,539
8,751
13,361 ,
39,790
126,846
231,097
1,175,141
2,617,846
^
_^"
— — -"
1 1 1 Ml 1 • 1 t t 1 1 1 It 1 1
Engineering
&
Contingency
Fee
2,562
2,562 . •
2,625
4,008
11,937
38,054
69,329
352,542
785,354
/
/
X
/
X
X
1 1 It Ml 1 1 1 II M ll
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
10,102
10,102
10,352
15,806
47,072
150,059
273,388
1,390,192
3,096,912
-
t 1 I 1 f 1 II
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 4-1. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) Total Capital Cost Curve -
All Metals Options
4-3
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoin^Source_Categor^____
EPA calculated land requirements for the plate and frame pressure filtration systems using the
system dimensions plus a 20-foot perimeter. The land requirement curve is presented as Figure 4-2. The
land requirement equation for all Metals Options sludge filtration is the same and is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.971 + 0.281In(X) + 0.018(In(X))2
. F
X = Flow Rate (MOD) of Liquid Stream and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(4-2)
1
CO
£
g
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Operation and Maintenance Costs Metals Options 2 and 3
The operation and maintenance costs for Metals Options 2 and 3 plate and frame sludge filtration
consist of labor, electricity, maintenance, and taxes and insurance. EPA approximated the labor
requirements for the plate and fiame sludge filtration system to be thirty minutes.per batch based on the
Metals Options 2 and 3 model facility. Because no chemicals are used with the plate and frame sludge
filtration units, EPA did not include costs for chemicals. EPA estimated electricity, maintenance, and taxes
and insurance using the factors listed in Table 1-2.
Table 4-2 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the plate and frame, sludge filtration
systems for Metals Options 2 and 3. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 4-3. The O&M cost
equation for the Metals Options 2 and 3 sludge filtration systems is:
where:
In(Y2) = 12.239 + 0.3881n(X) + 0.016(Tn(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(4-3)
4-5
-------
Table 4-2. O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals
(Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
Wastewater
Influent Flow Energy
(MOD)
0.000001 1,000
0.00001 1,000
0.0001 1,001
0.001 1,005
0.01 1,010
0.10 1,104
0.50 ' 1,520
1.0 2,040
1 000 000 |
Maintenance
404
404
414
632
' 1,882
10,935
55,607
123,876
Taxes
& Insurance
202
202
207
316
941
5,468
27,804
61,938
Labor
17,730
17,730
17,730
35,457
53,549
53,549
62,504
71,550
Options 2 and 3
O&M
Cost
(1989 $/YR) .
19,336
19,336
"19,352
37,410
57,382
71,056
147,435
259,404
i?
£2 inn nnn .
. .
/
^s
^~
{§ ' ^
tj ^-^~
^ **^'
. ^^^
•~^*~~~'
tnnnn in mill i i i mill i
Mil Mil 1 III
\ ml i i i ii nil
i i i n i M
0.00001 0.0001 0.001
0.01 0.1 1
Ffow(MGD)
10
Figure 4-3. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Cost Curve -
Metals Options 2 and 3
4-6
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
10,000
>
66-
O
OO
O)
~ 1,000
(O
o
O
08
O
X QQ I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I. I I I 1 1 I II Illl 1 1 I I I Illl 1 1 I I I III
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 4-4. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve -
Metals Options 2 and 3
For facilities whichalreadyhave a sludge filtrationsystem in-place, EPA included plate and frame
filtration O&M upgrade costs. Since the sludge generated from the secondary precipitation and
clarification steps in Metals Options 2 and 3 is the sludge whichrequires treatment for these options, these
facilities would be required to improve pollutant removals from their secondary precipitation current
performance concentrations to the long term averages for Metals Options 2 and 3. Therefore, EPA
calculated the percent difference between secondary precipitation current performance and the Metals
Options 2 and 3 long-term averages. EPA determined this percentage to be an increase of three percent
For facilities which currently have sludge nitration systems in place, for Metals Options 2 and 3,
EPA included an O&M upgrade cost whichis three percent of the O&M costs of a new system (except
for taxes and insurance, which are a function of the capital cost).
4-7
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 4-3 presents the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the Metals Options 2 and 3
sludge filtration systems. Figure 4-4 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M upgrade cost equation
for the Metals Options 2 and 3 sludge filtration systems is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 8.499 + 03311n(X) + 0.013(Tn(X))2
X=Flow Rate (MOD) of Liquid Stream and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(4-4)
Table 4-3. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Options
2 and 3 (Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
Wastewater
Influent Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
Energy
30'
30
30 .
30
30
31
33
45
61
Maintenance
12
12
12
18
56
180
328
1,668
3,716
Labor
531
531
531
' 1,063
1,606
1,606
1,606
1,875
. 2,146
O&M
Cost
(1989 $ /YR)
603
603
603
1,141
1,722
1,848
2,000
3,633
5,984
4-8
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for th
Operation and Maintenance Costs - Metals Option 4
The operation and maintenance costs for Metals Option 4 consists of labor, chemical usage,
electricity, maintenance, taxes, and insurance, and filter cake disposal. The O&M plate and frame sludge
filtration costing methodology for Metals Option4 is very similar to the one discussed previously for Metals
Options 2 and 3. The primary differences in the methodologies are the estimation of labor, the inclusion
of filter cake disposal, and the O&M upgrade methodology.
EPA approximated the labor requirement for Metals Option 4 plate and fiame sludge filtration
systems at 2 to 8 hours per day depending on the size of the system. As was the case for Metals Options
2 and 3, no chemicals are used in the plate and fiame sludge nitration units for Metals Option4, and EPA
estimated electricity, maintenance and taxes and insurance using the factors listed in Table 1-2. EPA also
included filter cake disposal costs at $0.74 per gallon of filter cake. A detailed discussion of the basis for
the filter cake disposal costs is presented in Section 4.2.
Table 4-4 presents the itemized O&M estimates for the Metals Option 4 sludge filtration systems.
Figure 4-5 shows the resulting cost curve. The O&M cost equation for the Metals Option 4 sludge
filtration systems is-:
where:
In(Y2) = 15.9321 + 1.177In(X) + 0.04697(ln(X))2
X ^Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
(4-5)
4-9
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 4-4. O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 4
(Sludge Stream - Including Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
100
o? 10
S
C3
CO 1
0) '
to
o
O
oS
O
Taxes
Energy Maintenance & Labor
Insurance
1,000 404 202 7,800
1,000 404 202 7,800
1,001 414 209 11,700
1,005 632 316 11,700
1,010 1,882 941 15,600
1,104 10,935 5,468 19,500
1,520 55,607 27,804 23,400
2,040 123,876 61,938 " 31,200
,000,000
,000,000
,000,000
100,000
10,000
i.nnn
Filter
Cake
Disposal
8
77
. 770
7,696 .
76,960
769,600
3,848,000
7,696,000
Total O&M
Cost
(1989 $/YR)
9,414
9,483
14,094
21,349
96,393
806,607
3,956,331
7,915,054
: : „
/
-^. :
I I I I Mill I I I I mil i i n mil i
IHI nil i i i n i
1U 1 i i i nn
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
\ Flow(MGD)
Figure 4-5. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Cost Curve - Metals Option 4
4-10
-------
Sgctign4_Sludg^Treatoent and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
For facilities which already have a sludge filtration system in-place, EPA included sludge stream
filtration O&M upgrade costs. For Metals Option 4, EPA included these O&M upgrade costs for
processing the sludge generated from the primary precipitation and clarification steps3. These facilities
would need to improve pollutant removals from their primary precipitation current performance
concentrations to Metals Option 4 (Sample Point-03) concentrations. This sample point represents the
effluent from the liquid-solids separationunit Mowing primary chemical precipitation at the Metals Option
4 model facility. Therefore, EPA calculated the percent difference between primary precipitation current
performance concentrations and Metals Option4 (Sample Point 03) concentrations. EPA determined that
there was an increase of two percent.
As such, for facilities which currently have sludge filtration systems in place, for Metals Option 4,
EPA included an .O&M cost upgrade of two percent of the total O&M costs (except for taxes and
insurance, which are a function of the capital cost).
Table 4-5 presents the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the Metals Option 4 sludge
filtration systems. Figure 4-6 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M upgrade cost equation for the
Metals Option 4 sludge filtration systems is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 12,014 + 1.178461n(X) + 0.050(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MOD) of Liquid Stream and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).'
(4-6)
Table 4-5. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Option 4
EPA' did not include O&M upgrade costs for the sludge generated from the secondary precipitation and
clarification step (direct dischargers only).
4-11
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
(Sludge Stream - Including Filter Cake Disposal Costs )
Wastewater Filter
Influent Flow Cake Energy
(MGD) Disposal
0.000001 1 20
0.00001 2-20
0.0001 15 20
0.001 154 20
0.01 1,539 20
0.1 15,392' 22
0.5 76,960 30
1.0 153,920 41
1,000,000
£> 100,000
te-
as
oo
a>
C. 10,000
8
o
s
o 1,000
•inn
Total O&M
Maintenance Labor Cost
(1989 $/YR)
8 156 185
8 ' 156 186
8 ' 234 277
13 234 421
38 312 1,909
219 390 16,023
1,112 468 78,570
2,478 624 157,063
/
X
/
/
S '
/
x
• / •• -
^_____. — iL . :
i IMI ml i i i i mil
i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 1 i ii 1 i i i 1 1 ml i i i i i f 1 1
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 4-6. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve -
Metals Option 4
•4-12
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing. Document for the CWT Point Source Category
4.2 Filter Cake Disposal
The liquid stream and sludge stream pressure filtration systems presented in Sections 2.2 and 4.1,
respectively, generate a filter cake residual. There is an annual O&M cost that is associated with the
disposal of this residual. This cost must be added to the pressure nitration equipment O&M costs to arrive
at the total O&M costs for pressure filtration operation4.
To determine the cost of transporting and disposing filter cake to anoff-site facility, EPA performed
an analysis on a subset of questionnaire respondents in the WTI Questionnaire response database. This
subset consists of metals subcategory facilities that are direct and/or indirect dischargers and that provided
information on contract haul and disposal cost to hazardous (Subtitle Q and non-hazardous (Subtitle D)
landfills. From this set of responses, EPA tabulated two sets of costs — those reported for Subtitle C
contract haul and disposal and those reported for Subtitle D contract haul and disposal, the reported costs
for both the Subtitle C and Subtitle D contract haul/disposal. EPA then edited this information by excluding
data that was incomplete or that was not separated by RCRA classification.
EPA used the reported costs informationinthis data set to determine the median cost for both the
Subtitle C and Subtitle D disposal options, and then calculated the weighted average of these median costs.
The average was weighted to reflect the ratio of hazardous (67 percent) to nonhazardous (33 percent)
waste receipts at these Metals Subcategory facilities. .The final disposal cost is $0.74 per gallon of filter
cake. Table 4-6 presents this analysis.
EPA calculated a single disposal cost for filter cake using both hazardous and non-hazardous
landfilling costs: Certain facilities will incur costs, however, that, in reality, are higher and others will incur
costs that, in reality, are lower. Thus, some low revenue metals subcategory facilities that generate non-
hazardous sludge may show a higher economic burden than is representative. On the other hand, some
low revenue metals subcategory facilities that generate hazardous sludge may show a lower economic
Note that these costs have already been included in the O&M equation for plate and frame sludge filtration
for Metals Option 4.
4-13
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Poin^Source_Category____
burden than is representative. EPA has concluded that in the end, these over- and under estimates will
balance out to provide a representative cost across the industry.
EPA additionally estimated an O&M upgrade for filter cake disposalresulting rromMetals Options
2 and 3 for facilities that already generate filter cake as part of their operation.
This upgrade is 3 percent ofthe cost ofthe O&M upgrade for facilities that do not already generate
filter cake as a part of their operation. EPA used 3 percent because this was the same percentage
calculated for plate and frame sludge filtration for these same options.
Table 4-6. CWT Metals Subcategory Filter Cake Disposal Costs
CWTQDD
Filtercake Quantity
(Pounds per Year)
Total Cost
(1989$ per Year)
Unit Cost
(1989 $/G Filter Cake)
Subtitle C Landfills
022
072
080
089
100
105
255
257
284
288
294
449
MEDIAN
2,632,000.
8,834,801
6,389,520
9,456,000
968,000
13,230,000
3,030,000
151,650
5,850,000
297,234
2,628,600
36,000,000
250,000
835,484
711,000
602,471
125,964
1,164,200
530,250
12,450
,789,000
36,750
390,000
2,000,000
0.95
0.95
1.11
0.64
1.30
0.88
1.75
0.82
1.35
1.24
1.48 •
0.56
1.03
Subtitle D Landfills
067
072
119
15,393,486
440,000
30,410,880
276,160
24,200
361,000
. 0.18
0.55,
0.19
4-14
-------
Section 4 Sludee Treatment and Disoosal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source.Category
132
133'
135
231
294
298
MEDIAN
26,378,000
36,960,587
131,451,200
80,000,000 •
56,777,760
2,365,740
158,273
780,351
2,768,225
800,000
898,560
18,800
0.06
0.21
0.21
0.10
0.16
0.08
0.16
Weighted Average of Subtitle C and D Landfills Median Values
Weighted Average ($1.03 @ 67% + S0.16 @ 33%) 0.74
Source: WTI Questionnaire Data Base
Note: Pounds = Gallons X 8.34 X Specific Gravity (SG filtercake = 1.2)
Table 4-7 presents the cost estimates for the filter cake disposal O&M and filter cake disposal
O&M upgrades for Metals Options 2 and 3 systems. Figures 4-7 and 4-8 present the resulting cost
curves. Equations 4-7 and 4-8 present the filter cake disposal O&M cost and O&M upgrade cost
equations.
where:
Z = 0.109169 + 7,695,499.8(X)
Z = 0.101186 + 230,879.8(X)
X = Flow Rate (MOD) of Liquid Stream and
Z = Filter Cake Disposal Cost (1989 S/YR).
(4-7)
(4-8)
4-15
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 4-7. Filter Cake Disposal Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration Systems
Metals Options 2 and 3 .
faA/$ 6861.) SJSOQ |E
CO
o
Q.
in
U
CD
J£
CO
O
u.
CD
•«— •
LL
Wastewater Filter Cake
Influent Flow Disposal Costs
(MOD) (1989 $/YR)
0.000001 • 8
0.00001 ' 77
0.0001 770
0.001 7,696
0.01 76,960
0.05 ' 384,800
0.10 769,600
0.50 3,848,000
1.0 7,696,000 ' '
^
100.000 ^-
/
.• nnn 1 i i i I nil i i i i i nil i i i i mil .
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Filter Cake
Upgrade Disposal Costs
(1989 $/YR)
1
2
23
• 231
2,309
11,544
. 23,088
115,440
230,880
^
i i i i n ni i i i 1 1 in
1 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 4-7. Filter Cake Disposal O&M Cost Curve for Plate and Frame Filtration Systems -
Metals Options 2 and 3
4-16,
-------
Section 4 Sludse Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
j>: 1,000,000
I
•gj 100,000
o
o
To
8
Q.
05
Q
0>
-o
E
D3
Q.
10,000
1,000
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Flow(MGD)
10
Figure 4-8. Filter Cake Disposal O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Plate and Frame Filtration
Systems - Metals Options 2 and 3
4-17
-------
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
SECTIONS ADDITIONAL COSTS
5.1 Retrofit Costs
EPA assigned costs to the CWT Industry on both an option- and facility-specific basis. The
option-specific approach estimated compliance cost for a sequence of individual treatment technologies,
corresponding to a particular regulatory option, for a subset of facilities defined as belonging to that
regulatory subcategory. Within the costing of a specific regulatory option, EPA assigned treatment
technology costs on a facility-specific basis depending upon the technologies determined to be currently
in-place at the facility.
Once EPA determined that a treatment technology cost should be assigned to a particular facility,
EPA considered two scenarios. The first was the installation of a new individual treatment technology as
a part of a new treatment train. The full capital costs presented in Sections 2 through 4 of this document
apply to this scenario. The second scenario was the installation of a new individual treatment technology
which would have to be integrated into an existing in-place treatment train. For these facilities, EPA applied
retrofit costs. These retrofit costs cover such items as piping and structural modifications which would be
required in an existing piece of equipment to accommodate the installation of a new piece of equipment
prior to or within an existing treatment train.. = ,.
For all facilities whichreceived retrofit costs, EPA added a retrofit factor of 20 percent of the total
capital cost of the newly-installed or upgraded treatment technology unit that would need to be integrated
into an existing treatment, train. These costs are in addition to the specific treatment technology capital costs
calculated with the technology specific equations described in earlier sections.
5-1
-------
Sections Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
5.2 Monitoring Costs
CWT facilities that discharge process wastewater directly to a receiving stream or indirectly to a
POTW will have monitoring costs. EPA regulations require both direct discharge with NPDES permits
and indirect dischargers subject to categorical pretreatment standards to monitor their effluent.
EPA used the following generalizations to estimate the CWT monitoring costs:
1. EPA included analytical cost for parameters at each subcategory as follows:
• TSS, O&G, Cr+6, total CN, and full metals analyses for the metals subcategory direct
dischargers, and Cr+6, total CN, and full metals analyses for the metals subcategory
indirect dischargers;
• TSS, O&G, and full metals and semi-volatiles analyses for the oils subcategory option 8
.and 9 direct dischargers, and full metals, and semi-volatiles for oils subcategory options 8
and 9 indirect dischargers; and
• TSS, O&G, and full metals, volatiles and semi-volatiles analyses for the oils subcategory
direct dischargers, and fullmetals, volatiles, and semi-volatiles for oils subcategory option
8V and 9V indirect dischargers; and
• TSS, BOD5, 6&G, 6 individual metals, volatiles, and semi-volatiles analyses for the
organics subcategory option 3 direct dischargers, and 6 individual metals, volatiles, and
semi-volatiles analyses for the organics subcategory option 3 indirect dischargers; and
• TSS, BOD5, O&G, 6 individual metals, and semi-volatiles analyses for the organics
subcategoryoption4 direct dischargers, and 6 individualmetals and semi-volatiles analyses
. for the organics subcategory option 4 indirect dischargers.
EPA notes that these analytical costs may be overstated for the oils and the organics subcategories
because EPA's final list of regulated pollutants for these subcategories do not include all of the parameters
included above.
5-2
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1. The monitoring frequencies are listed in Table 5-1 and are as follows:
Table 5-1. Monitoring Frequency Requirements
Monitoring Frequency (samples/month)
Parameter
Conventionals*
Total Cyanide and Cr+6
Metals
Semi- Volatile Qrganics
Volatile Qrgariics
Metals
Subcategory
20
20
20
Oils
Subcategory
20
4
4
4**
Organics
Subcategory
20
4
4
4**
* Conventional monitoring for direct dischargers only.
** Volatile organics monitoring for oils option 8V and 9V and organics option 3 only.
3. For facilities in multiple subcategories, EPA applied full multiple, subcategory-specific monitoring
costs. '
4. EPA based the monitoring costs on the number of outfalls through which process wastewater is
discharged. EPA multiplied the cost for a single outfall by the number of outfalls to arrive at the total
costs for a facility. For facilities for which this information is not available, EPA assumed a single
outfall per facility.
5. EPA did not base monitoring costs on flow rate. . .
6. EPA did not include sample collection costs (labor and equipment) and sample shipping costs, and
7. The monitoring cost (based on frequency and analytical methods) are incremental to the monitoring
currently being incurred by the CWT Industry. EPA applied credit to facilities for current monitoring-
in-place (MIP). For facilities where actual monitoring frequencies are unknown, EPA estimated
monitoring frequencies based on other Subcategory facilities with known monitoring frequencies.
5-3
-------
Sections Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
The cost ofthe analyses needed to determine compliance for the CWT pollutants are shown below
in Table 5-2. EPA obtained these costs from actual quotes given by vendors and converted to 1989
dollars using the ENR's Construction Cost Index.
Table 5-2. Analytical Cost Estimates
Analyses
Cost ($1989)
BOD5
TSS
O&G
Cr+6
Total CN
Metals:
Total (27 Metals)
Per Metal1
Volatile Organics (method 1624)2
Semi-volatile Organics (method 1625)2
$20
$10
$32
$20
. $30
$335
$335
$35
$285
•$615
1 For 10 or more metals, use the full metals analysis cost of $335.
2 There is no incremental cost per compound for methods 1624 and 1625 (although
there may be a slight savings if the entire scan does not have to be reported). Use
the full method cost, regardless of the actual number of constituent parameters
required.
5.3 Land Costs
An important factor in the calculation oftreatment technology costs is the value of the land needed
for the installation ofthe technology. To determine the amount of land required for costing purposes, EPA
calculated the land requirements for each treatment technology for the range of system sizes. EPA fit these
land requirements to a curve and calculated land requirements., in acres, for every treatment system costed.
5-4
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
EPA then multiplied the individual land requirements by the corresponding state land cost estimates to
obtain facility-specific cost estimates.
EPA used different land cost estimates for eachstate rather thana single nationwide average since
land costs may vary widely across the country. To estimate land costs for each state, EPA obtained
average land costs for suburban sites for each state from the 1990 Guide to Industrial and Real Estate
Office Markets survey. EPA based these land costs on "unimproved sites" since, according to the survey,
they are the most desirable. Table 5-3 presents the estimated unit land prices for the unimproved suburban
sites of major cities and the averages for each state and region.
Table 5-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: Northeast
State
Connecticut
Maine
•
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
City
Hartford
New Haven
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Portland
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Boston
Springfield
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre(S)
Nashua
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Central
Northern - .
0-10
Acres
1.37
1.85
1.61
70,132
0.60
0.60
26,136
•
1.45
1.45
63,162
1.50
1.50
65,340
2.00
4.00
Land Costs (S/ft2)
10-100
Acres
0.92
1.60
1.26
54,886
0.40
0.40
17,424
2.00
1.10
1.55
67,518
1.15
1.15
50,094
1.50
3.50
-
>100
Acres
0.58
1.15
0.87
37,679
0.35
0.35
15,246
1.50
0.75
1.13
49,005
1.00
1.00
43,560
1.00
2.50
5-5
-------
Sections Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
Table 5-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas
State • City
Southern
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
New York Albany
Buffalo
Rochester
Rockland/Westchester Counties
Syracuse
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Pennsylvania Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre(S)
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGIONAL AVERAGE REGIONAL COST
- ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)
- Region: Northeast
0-10
Acres
. 1.15
2.38
103,673
1.20
0,25
0.75
20.00
0.40
4.52
196,891
0.90
1.00
0.95
' 41,382
*
*
1.86
80,959
Land Costs ($/ft2)
10 - 100
Acres
1.10
2.03
88,426
1.00
0.15
0.50
12.00
0.35
2.80
121,968
0.80
0.60
0.70
30,492
*
*
1.41
61,544
>100
Acres
-
1.75
76,230
0.40
0.12
0.25
-
0.25
• 0.26
11,1.80
0.80
0.35
0.58
25,047
*
*
0.85
36,964
5-6
-------
Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
Table 5-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas -
State City
Illinois Chicago
Quad Cities
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Indiana Gary-Hammond
Indianapolis
South Bend
Terre Haute
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Iowa Des Moines
Quad Cities
Sioux City
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre(S)
. Kansas Kansas City
Wichita
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Michigan Grand Rapids
Jackson
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Minnesota Minneapolis/ St. Paul
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Region: North Central
Land Costs ($/ft2)
0 - 10 10 - 100
Acres Acres
1.65
0.25
0.95
41,382
0.60
2.30
0.34
0.50
0.94
40,728
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.27
11,616
0.23
0.23
10,019
0.85
0.20
0.53
22,869
1.00
1.00
. 43,560
1.50
0.20 '
0.85
37,026
0.60
0.20
0.10
0.30
13,068
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.20
8,712
0.20
. 0.09 .
0.15
6,316
0.40
0.15
0:28
11,979
0.25
0.25
10,890 .
>100
Acres
1.25
0.15
0.70
30,492
0.50
0.10
0.05
0.22
9,438'
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.15
6,534
0.20
0.02
0.11
4,792
0.18
0.10,
0.14
6,098
0.20
0.20
8,712
5-7
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: North Central
State
Missouri
Ohio
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin
REGIONAL
City
Kansas City
St Louis
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Akron
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Omaha
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Milwaukee
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
AVERAGE REGIONAL COST
'ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)
Land Costs ($/ft2)
0- 10
Acres
-
1.50
1.50
65,340
0.80
0.75
0.40
0.25
0.25.
0.49
21,344
0.70
0.70
30,492
*
*
0.60
, 0.60
26,136
0.72
31,407
10 - 100
Acres
0.20
1.10
0.65
28,314
0.25
0.50
0.30
0.18
0.20
0.29
. 12,458
,0.60
0.60
26,136
*
*
• 0.35 '
0.35
15,246
0.89
16,988
>100
Acres
0.20
1.00
0.60
26,136
0.20
0.55
0.17
0.12
0.15
0.23
9,932
0.40
0.40
17,424
*
* .
0.25
0.25
10,890
0.30
13,068
5-8
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South
State City
Alabama Birmingham
Mobile
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Arkansas Fort Smith
Little Rock
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Delaware Wilmington
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Florida Jacksonville
FtLauderdale
Lakeland
Melbourne/ South Brevard Cry
Miami
Orlando
Sarasota/Bradenton
Tampa
West Palm Beach
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Georgia Atlanta
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
0-10
Acres
1.00
0.75
0.88
38,115
0.75
0.15
0.45
19,602
1.50
1.50
65,340
1.00
4.50
0.45
0.80
3.00
1.25
0.85
1.75
3.10
1.86
80,828
2.00
2.00
87,120
Land Costs (S/ft2)
10 - 100
Acres
0.50
0.50
0.50
21,780
0.60
0.10
0.35
15,028
1.25 .
1.25
54,450
1.00
3.50
0.45
0.80
1.60
0.50
0.65
1.25
2.25
1.33
58,080
1.75
1.75
76,230
>100
Acres
0.30
0.50 .
0.40
17,424
0.50
0.10
0.30
13,068
1.00
1.00
43,5.60
0.75
3.50
0.30
0.80
-
0.50
0.50
1.25'
1.75
1.17
50,911
1-.25
1.25
54,450
5-9
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South
State City
Kentucky Louisville
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Louisiana New Orleans
Shreveport
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Maryland Baltimore
State Average Co.st
Estimated State Cost/Acre(S)
Mississippi Jackson
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
North Carolina Charlotte
Greensboro
Raleigh
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Oklahoma Oklahoma City
Tulsa
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
South Carolina Charleston
Columbia
Greenville
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
0 - 10
Acres
0.80
0.80
34,848
2.00
1.00
1.50
65,340
3.00
3.00
• • 130,680
0.50
0.50
21,780
0.50
0.90.
1.00
0.80
34,848
0.70
0.50
0.60
26,136
0.75
. 0.70
0.65
0.70
30,492
Land Costs (S/ft2)
10 - 100
Acres
0.70
0.70 '
30,492
2.00
0.50
1.25
54,450
3.00
3.00
130,680
0.20
0.20
8,712
0.40
0.75
1.50
0.88
38,478
0.75
0.50
0.63
27,225
0.50
0.40
0.45
0.45
19,602
>100
Acres
0.50
0.50
21,780
2.00
0.30
1.15
50,094
1.75
1.75
76,230
0.20
0.20
8,712
0.30
1.00
0.65
28,314
0.50
0.40
0.45
19,602
0.30
0.25
0.40
0.32
13,794
5-10
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
Table 5-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South
State
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
District of
Columbia
West Virginia
REGIONAL
City
Chattanooga
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre(S)
Austin
Corpus Christi
Dallas
• Fort Worth
Houston
. San Antonio
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Richmond
Roanoke
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Washington
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre(S)
. .
AVERAGE REGIONAL COST
ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
0-10
Acres
0.40
0.45
1.00
0.80
0.66
28,859
0.75
1.25
2.50
1.00
2.50
0.85
1.48
64,251
0.75
1.25
1.00
43,560
4.50
4.50
196,020
*
1.39
60,521
10 - 100
Acres
0.60
: 0.25
0.75
0.50
' 0.43
18,513
0.60
0.50
2.00
0.75
2.00
0.65
1.08
47,190
1.00
1.00
1.00
43,560
3.50
3.50
152,460
*
1.14
49,658
>100
Acres
0.50
0.15
0.55
0.50
0.35
15,246
0.50
0.20
1.50
0.50
1.00
0.65
0.73
31,581
0.75
0.75
0.75
32,670
- .
.
- .
*
0.73
31,857 •
5-11
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
Table 5-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: West
State City
Alaska
Arizona Phoenix
Tucson
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
California Contra Costa
Orange County
San Fernando Valley
' San Gabriel Valley
South Bay
Marin & Sonoma Counties
San Diego
Stockton
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre(S)
Colorado Denver
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Hawaii** Honolulu
State Average Cost
Estimated State' Cost/Acre(S)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
0- 10
Acres
*
2.25
1.00
1.63
70,785
3.00
12.00
7.00
7.50
18.00
4.00
6.00
1.20
7.34
319,622
1.25
1.25
54,450
30.00
30.00
, 1,306,800
10 - 100
Acres
*
1.50
0.60
1.05
45,738
1.50
11.00
6.00
'4.50
18.00
2.50 '
6.00
0.60
6.26
>100
Acres
*
0.75 •
0.25
0.50
21,780
-
-
5.00
-
18.00
-
5.00
0.50
7.13
272,795 310,365
1.00
1.00
43,560
20.00
20.00
871,200
0.75
0.75
32,670
-
-
-
5-12
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for th e CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: West
State
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington •
Wyoming
REGIONAL
City
Reno
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Albuquerque
State Average Cost
• Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Portland
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Seattle - Eastside
Spokane
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre(S)
AVERAGE REGIONAL COST
ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE(S)
Land Costs ($/ft2)
0-10 , 10-100 >100
Acres Acres Acres
*
*
1.25
1.25
54,450
1.00
1.00
43,560
2.00
2.00
87,120
*
4.50
.0.35
2.43
105,633
*
2.41
104,980
*
*
0.75
0.75
32,670
0.50
0.50
21,780
1.00
1.00
43,560
*
• 3.50
0.20
1.85
80,586
*•
1.77
77,101
*
*
0.50
0.50
21,780
0.35
0.35
15,246
0.50
. 0.50
21,780
*
0.11,
0.11
4,792
*
1.41
61,233
* No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
** Hawaii was not included in the regional average calculations.
5-13
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
The survey additionally provides land costs broken down by size ranges. These are zero to 10
acres, 10 to 100 acres, and greater than 100 acres. Since CWT facilities fall into all three size ranges
(based on responses to the WTI Questionnaire), EPA averaged the three size-specific land costs for each
state to arrive at the final land costs for each state. Table 5-4 presents a summary of the estimated land
prices for each state.
The survey did not provide land cost estimates for Alaska, Idaho, Montana, NorthDakota, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont or West Virginia. For these states, EPA used regional averages of
land costs. EPA determined the states comprising each region also based on the aforementioned survey
since the survey categorizes the states by geographical region (northeast, north central, south, and west).
In estimating the regional average costs for the westernregjon, EPA did not include Hawaii since Hawaii's
land cost is high and would have skewed the regional average.
Table 5-5 lists the land cost per acre for each state. As Table 5-5 indicates, the least expensive
state is Kansas witha land cost of $7,042 per acre and the most expensive state is Hawaii with a land cost
of $1,089,000 per acre.
5-14
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4. Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas -
Region: Northeast
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York .
Pennsylvania • .
Rhode Island
Vermont
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($)
Land Costs per Acre ($)
0-10 Acres 10
70,132 '
26,136
63,162
65,340
103,673
196,891
.41,382
*
*
80,959
- 100 Acres
54,886
17,424
67,518
50,094
88,426
121,968
30,492
*
*
61,544
>100 Acres
37,679
15,246
49,005
43,560
76,230
11,180
25,047
*
*
36,964
Region: North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Mexico
Ohio
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($)
41,382
40,728
11,616
10,019
22,869
43,560
65^340
*
21,344
30,492
*
• *
26,136
31,407
37,026
13,068
8,712
6,316
11,979
10,890
28,314
*
12,458
26,136
*
*
15,246
16,988
30,492
9,438
6,534
4,792
6,098
8,712
26,136
*
9,932
17,424
*
*
10,890
13,068\
5-15
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4 (cont). Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas -
Region: South
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland ;
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
, South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
District of Columbia
West Virginia
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE(S)
Land Costs per Acre ($)
0-10 Acres
38,115
19,602
65,340
80,828
87,120
34,848
65,340
130,680
21,780
34,848
26,136
30,492
28,859
64,251
43,560
196,020
*
967,819.00
10-100 Acres
21,780
15,028
54,450
58,080
76,230
30,492
54;450
130,680
8,712
38,478
27,225
19,602
18,513
47,190
43,560
152,460
*
796,940.00
>100 Acres
17,424
13,068
43,560
50,911
•54,450
21,780
50,094
76,230.
8,712
28,314
19,602
13,794
15,246
31,581
32,670
-
-*
477,536.00
5-16
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
Table 5-4 (cont). Surrrmaiy of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas -
Region: West
State
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii**
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)**
Land
0-10 Acres
*
70,785
319,622
54,450
1,306,800
*
*
54,450
43,560
87,120
*
105,633
#
2,042,420.00
Costs per Acre
10-100 Acres
*
45,738 '
272,795
43,560
871,200
. *
*
32,670
21,780
43,560
*
80,586
*
1,411,899.00
($)
>100 Acres
*
21,780
310,365
32,670
*
*
*
21,780 .
15,246
21,780
*
4,792
*
428,513.00
* No data available for state, use regional average.
** Hawaii was rtnf inrlllH^H in thft rpcinnal Dvp-raat* ralnilatirmc
5-17
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-5. State
State
Alabama
Alaska*
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho*
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana*
Land Costs for the CWT Industry
Land Cost per Acre
(1989$)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
' 0.00
0.00
0.00
1,089,000
81,105
36,300
21,078
8,954
7,042
29,040
56,628
19,602
112,530
59,895
13,649
•21,054
13,068
39,930
81,105
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island*
' South Carolina
South Dakota*
Tennessee
Texas
Utah*
Vermont*
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia*
Wisconsin
Wyoming*
Washington DC
Land Cost per Acre
(1989 $)
24,684
36,300
52,998
89,443
26,929
110,013
33,880
20,488
14,578
24,321
50,820
32,307
59,822
21,296
20,488
20,873
47,674
81,105
59,822
39,930
. 63,670
47,345
17,424
81,105
174,240
No data available for state, use regional average.
5-18
-------
Section 6 Mixed Waste Subcategory
Cost Estimates
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
SECTION 6 MULTIPLE WASTESTREAM SUBCATEGORY COST ESTIMATES
6.1 Implementation of a Fourth Subcategory
Inthe 1999 proposal, EPA proposed to establishlimitations and standards for three subcategories
of CWT facilities: facilities treating either metal, oily, or organic wastes and wastewater. Section VII of
the proposal detailed this subcategorization scheme. See 64 FR 2300 (1999), While EPA did not
propose limitations and standards for a multiple wastestream Subcategory, the proposal did discuss EPA's
consideration of a multiple wastestream Subcategory. The proposal explained that multiple wastestream
subcategory limitations, if adopted, would apply to facilities that treat wastes inmore thanone Subcategory.
EPA would establish limitations and standards for the multiple wastestream subcategory by combining
pollutant limitations from the three subcategories, where relevant, and selecting the most stringent value
where they overlap.
EPA's consideration of this option responded to comments to the 1995 proposal and the 1996
Notice of Data Availability. The primary reason some members of the waste treatment industry favored
development of a multiple wastestream subcategory was to simplify implementation for facilities treating
wastes covered by multiple subcategories. As detailed in the proposal, EPA's primary reason for riot
proposing (and adopting) this option was its concern that facilities that accept wastes in multiple
subcategories need to provide effective treatment of all waste receipts. This concern was based onEPA's
data that showed such facilities did not currently have adequate treatment-in-place. While these facilities
meet their permit limitations, EPA concluded that compliance was likely achieved through co-dilution of
dissimilar wastes rather than treatment. As a result, EPA determined that adoption of "multiple
wastestream subcategory" limitations as described above could arguably encourage ineffective treatment
EPA solicited comments on ways to develop a '"multiple wastestream subcategory" which ensures
treatment rather than dilutioa The vast majority of comments on the 1999 proposal supported the
establishment of a multiple wastestream subcategory for this rule, and re-iterated their concerns about
6-1
-------
Section 6 Mixed Waste Subcategoiy
Cost Estimates
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
implementingfhe three-subcategory scheme at multiple-subcategory facilities. One commenter suggested
a way to implement a fourth subcategory while ensuring treatment. This commenter suggested that EPA
followthe approachtakenfor the Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging (PFPR) Point Source
category (40 CFR Part 455). Under this approach, multiple wastestream subcategory facilities would have
the optionof 1) monitoring for compliance withthe appropriate subcategory limitations after each treatment
step or 2) monitoring for compliance with the multiple wastestream subcategory limitations at a combined
discharge point and certifying that equivalent treatment to that which would be required for each
subcategory waste separately is installed and properly designed, maintained, and operated. This option
would eliminate the use of the combined wastestream formula or building block approach in calculating
limits or standards for multiple wastestream subcategory CWT facilities (The combined wastestream
formula and the building block approachare discussed in more detail in Chapter 14 of the Final Technical
Development Document). Commenters suggested that an equivalent treatment system could be defined
as a wastewater treatment system that is demonstrated to achieve comparable removals to the treatment
system on which EPA based the limitations and standards. Ways of demonstrating equivalence might
mcludedatafromfecognizedsources of information on pollution control, treatabilitytests, or self-monitoring
data showing comparable removals to the applicable pollution control technology.
EPA concluded that the approaches adopted in the PFPR rule address the concerns identified
earlier. EPA agreed with commenters that developing appropriate limitations on a site-specific basis for
multiple wastestream facilities presents many challenges and that the use of a multiple wastestream
subcategory would simplify implementation of the rule. Moreover, the limits applied to multiple
wastestream treaters would be a compilation of the most stringent limits from each applicable subcategory
and would generally be similar to or stricter than the limits calculated via the application of the combined
wastestream formula or building block approach. Most significantly, the equivalent treatment certification
requirement would address EPA's concerns that the wastes receive adequate treatment.
6-2
-------
Section 6 Mixed Waste Subcategory
Cost Estimates
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Therefore, EPA has established a fourth subcategory: the multiple wastestream subcategory.
Section Xni.A.5.b of the preamble to the finalrule details the manner in which EPA envisions the multiple
wastestream subcategory will be implemented. Further, EPA is preparing a guidance manual to aid permit
writers/control authorities and CWT facilities in implementing the certification process. EPA's 1999
proposal was based on establishing limitations and standards for three subcategories of CWT facilities:
facilities treating either metals, oils, or organic wastes and wastewater. As detailed in the proposal, multiple
wastestream subcategory limitations would be used for facilities which treat wastes in more than one
subcategory, and would be established by combining pollutant limitations from all three subcategories,
selecting the most stringent value where they overlap.
6.2 Methodology Used for Cost Estimates
EPA has developed cost estimates for the Multiple Wastestream Subcategory based upon data
gathered and analyses performed for the original three subcategories: Metals Subcategory, Oils
Subcategory, and Organics Subcategory.
Cost estimates for the Multiple Wastestream Subcategory were developed for Metals Option 4,
Cyanide Option 2, Oils Option 8, and Organics Option 4. Thie costing methodology followed for the
development of the Multiple Wastestream Subcategory cost estimates is as follows:
1. Obtain cost estimates for the oils subcategory Option 8 using the oils flowrate only.
2. Obtain cost estimates for the cyanide subsection using the cyanide flowrate only.
3. Combine oils and metals and cyanide subcategory flowrates and obtain cost estimates for the
Metals Option 4. (The chemical dosages were adjusted to include the additional metals
contributed by the oils subcategory effluent).
4. Combine oils, metals, cyanide, and organics flowrates and develop cost estimates for Organics
Option 4. .
6-3
-------
Section 6 Mixed Waste Subcategory
Cost Estimates
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
5. The monitoring cost estimates were only developed once at the following frequency
requirements:
Conventionals* 20 samples/month
Total Cyanide, CR+6 20 samples/month
Metals** 20 samples/month .
Semi-Volatiles . 4 samples/month
* Conventional were monitored only at direct dischargers
** For the oils/organic only mix, the metals monitoring frequency is 4 samples/month
6. Plant TIP was taken into account when developing the cost estimates in the same manner as
before.
6-4
-------
OAptinn 7 T? p
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
SECTION? REFERENCES
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 15th Edition, Washington, DC.
Henricks, David, Inspectors Guide for Evaluation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.
Culp/Wesner/Culp, El Dorado Hills, CA, 1979.
Technical Practice Committee, Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants. MOP/11, Washington, DC,
1976. •
Clark, Viesman, and Hasner, Water Supply and Pollution Control Harper and Row Publishers, New
York, NY, 1977.
1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire Respondents Data Base. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
Osmonics, Historical Perspective of Ultraffltration and Reverse Osmosis Membrane Development.
Minnetonka, MN, 1984.
Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers fOCPSF) Cost Document: SAIC, 1987.
Effluent Guidelines Division, Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Organic Chemicals. Plastics and Synthetic Fibers COCPSFX Volume U, Point Source Category, EPA
440/1-87/009, Washington, DC, October 1987.
Engineering News Record fENRX McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, March 30, 1992.
Comparative Statistics of Industrial and Office Real Estate Markets. Society of Industrial and Office
Realtors of the National Association of Realtors, Washington, DC, 1990.
Peters, M., and Timmerhaus, K., Plant Desimand Economics for ChemicalEngineers. McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY, 1991. • *
7-1
-------
Section? References
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chemical Marketing Reporter. Schnell Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY, May 10,1993.
Palmer, S.K., Breton, M.A., Nunno, T.J., Sullivan, D.M., and Supprenaut, N.F., Metal/Cyanide
Containing Wastes Treatment Technologies. Alliance Technical Corporation, Bedford, MA, 1988.
Freeman, H.M., Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal U.S. Environmental
'Protection Agency, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1989.
Effluent Guidelines Division, Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Metals Products and Machinery Phase 1 Point Source Category. Point Source Category,
EPA 821-R-95-021, Washington, DC, April 1995.
Control and Treatoent Technology fortheMetalFinishinglndustry'. Sulfide Precipitation. Summary Report
EPA 625/8-80-003, April 1980.
7-2
------- |