DETAILED COSTING DOCUMENT
FOR THE
CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRY
(EPA-821-R-95-002)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
January 1995
Support by:
Contract No. 68-C1-0006
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction ..... ..................... ................. 1-1
Section 2 Costs Development ............... . ..................... 2-1
2.1 Technology Costs ............ ................... ....... 2-1
2.2 Option Costs .......................................... 2-3
Section 3 Physical/Chemical/Thermal Wastewater Treatment Technology
Costs .............................................. 3-1
3.1 Chemical Precipitation ................................ • - 3-1
3.1.1 Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1 .............. 3-1
3.1 .2 Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2 ........ , 3-12
3.1.3 Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2 ............. 3-23
3.1 .4 Tertiary Precipitation - Metals Option 3 ................ 3-30
3.2 Clarification ........................................... 3-39
3.3 Plate & Frame Pressure Filtration (Liquid Stream) ............. 3-46
3.3.1 Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Option 1 .......... . 3-46
3.3.2 Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Option 2 ........... 3-52
3.4 Equalization .......................................... 3^47
3.5 Air Stripping .......................................... 3-61
3.6 Multi-Media Filtration ................................... 3-66
3.7 Carbon Adsorption .... ................................. 3-71
3.8 Cyanide Destruction .................................... 3-82
3.9 Chromium Reduction .................................... 3-87
Section 4 Biological Wastewater Treatment Technology Costs ........... 4-1
4.1 Sequencing Batch Reactors .............................. 4-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section 5 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Technology Costs
5.1 Ultrafiltration
5.2 Reverse Osmosis
Section 6 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs
6.1 Plate & Frame Pressure Filtration - Sludge Stream .
6.2 Filter Cake Disposal
Section 7 Additional Costs
7.1 Retrofit Costs
7.2 Monitoring Costs
7.3 RCRA Permit Modifications
7.4 Land Costs
Section 8 References
5-1
5-1
5-6
6-1
6-1
6-8
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-3
7-5
8-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
2-1.
2-2.
2-3.
3-1.
3-2.
3-3.
3-4.
3-5.
3-6.
3-7.
3-8.
3-9.
3-10.
3-11.
3-12.
3-13.
3-14.
Standard Capital Cost Factors
Standard 0 & M Cost Factors
CWT Subcategory Options
Capital Costs for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
Capital Costs Upgrades for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1 ...
Lime and Caustic Requirements for Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 1
O & M Costs for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
Lime and Caustic Requirements for Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 1
O & M Upgrade Costs for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
Land Requirements for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
Capital Costs for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2
Lime and Caustic Requirements for Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Option 2
60% Lime and 40% Caustic. Requirements for Selective Metals
Precipitation Upgrades (Raw to Current Removals) - Metals Option 2 ...
75% Lime and 25% Caustic Credit for Selective Metals Precipitation
Upgrades (Raw to Current Removals) - Metals Option 2
Lime and Caustic Requirements for Selective Metals Precipitation
Upgrades (Current to Option 1 Removals) - Metals Option 2
O & M Costs for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2
O & M Upgrade Costs - Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Option 2
2-2
2-3
2-5
3-3
3-3
3-6
3-5
3-9
3-8
3-10
3-14
3-15
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-20
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
3-15.
Land Requirements for Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Option 2
3-16. Capital Costs for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
3-17.
Lime and Caustic Requirements for Secondary Precipitation and
Secondary Precipitation Upgrades - Metals Option 2
3-18.
3-19.
3-20.
3-21.
3-22.
3-23.
3-24.
3-25.
3-26.
3-27.
3-28.
3-29.
3-30.
3-31.
O & M Costs for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
O & M Upgrade Cost for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2 ....
Land Requirements for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
Capital Costs for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
Capital Costs for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
Lime and Caustic Requirements for Tertiary Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 3
O & M Costs for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3 ...
O & M Costs for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
3-23
3-24
3-26
3-27
3-27
3-30
3-32
3-32
3-34
3-35
3-35
Land Requirements for Tertiary Precipitation Tanks - Metals
Option 3 • 3-37
Capital Costs for Clarification Systems for Metals Options 1, 2, & 3 ....
O & M Costs for Clarification Systems for Metals Options 1 and 2
O & M Costs for Clarification Systems for Option 3
Capital Costs for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals
Option 1 (Liquid Stream - Four Percent Solids)
O & M Costs for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 1
(Liquid Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Cost) .
3-40
3-41
3-41
3-47
3-49
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
3-32.
3-33.
3-34.
3-35.
3-36.
3-37.
3-38.
3-39.
3-40.
3-41.
3-42.
3-43.
3-44.
3-45.
3-46.
3-47.
3-48.
3-49.
O & M Upgrade Costs for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals
Option 1 (Liquid Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Cost)
Capital Costs for Plate & Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 2 .
O & M Costs for Plate & Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 2 .
Capital and O & M Costs and Land Requirements for
Equalization Systems
Capital Costs for Air Stripping Systems
O & M Costs for Air Stripping Systems
Capital Costs for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
O & M Costs for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
Capital Costs for Activated Carbon Systems
Activated Carbon Performance Data - Oils Option 3
Activated Carbon Performance Data - Oils Option 4
Activated Carbon Performance Data - Organics Option 2
O & M Costs for Activated Carbon Systems - Oils Option 3 . . . .
O & M Costs for Activated Carbon Systems - Oils Option 4 . . . .
O & M Costs for Activated Carbon Systems - Organics Option 2
Land Requirements for Activated Carbon Systems
Capital Costs for Cyanide Destruction at Special
Operating Conditions
O & M Costs for Cyanide Destruction at Special
Operating Conditions
3-50
3-53
3-53
3-58
3-61
3-62
3-67
3-67
3-71
3-74
3-75
3-76
3-78
3-78
3-80
3-81
3-83
3-84
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
3-50.
3-51.
3-52.
3-53.
4-1.
4-2.
5-1.
5-2.
5-3.
5-4.
5-5.
5-6.
6-1.
6-2.
6-3.
6-4.
6-5.
Capital Costs for Chromium Reduction Systems using
Sulfur Dioxide
Capital Upgrade Costs for Chromium Reduction Systems using
Sulfur Dioxide
O & M Costs for Chromium Reduction Systems using Sulfur Dioxide .
O & M Upgrade Costs for Chromium Reduction Systems using
Sulfur Dioxide
Capital Costs for Sequencing Batch Reactors . . . .
O & M Costs for Sequencing Batch Reactors
Capital Costs for Ultrafiltration Systems
O & M Costs for Ultrafiltration Systems
Land Requirements for Ultrafiltration Systems
Capital Costs for Reverse Osmosis Systems
O & M Costs for Reverse Osmosis Systems
Land Requirements for Reverse Osmosis Systems
Capital Costs for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals
Option 1 (Sludge Stream)
O & M Costs for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 1
(Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
O & M Upgrade Costs for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals
Option 1 (Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
CWT Metals Subcategory Filter Cake Disposal Costs
Filter Cake Disposal Costs for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration
Systems - Metals Options 1 and 2
3-89
3-89
3-91
3-91
4-2
4-2
5-2
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-8
5-9
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-9
6-10
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
7-1. Monitoring Costs for the CWT Industry 7-3
7-2. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Reported in WTI Questionnaire 7-4
7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas 7-6
7-4. Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas 7-17
7-5. State Land Costs for the CWT Industry 7-21
VII
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
3-1 Capital Cost Curve for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1 3-4
3-2 Capital Upgrade Cost Curve for Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 1 3-4
3-3 O & M Cost Curve for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1 3-7
3-4 O & M Upgrade Cost Curve for Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 1 3-7
3-5 Land Requirement Curve for Chemical Precipitation - Metals
Option 1 3-11
3-6 Land Requirement Upgrade Curve for Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 1 3-11
3-7 Capital Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals
Option 2 3-13
3-8 O & M Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals
Option 2 3-21
3-9 O & M Upgrade Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals
Option 2 3-21
3-10 Land Requirement Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals
Option 2 3-22
3-11 Capital Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2 3-28
3-12 O & M Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2 3-28
3-13 O & M Upgrade Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals
Option 2 . 3-29
3-14 Land Requirement Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals
Option 2 3-29
3-15 Capital Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3 ". 3-33
3-16 Capital Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3 3-33
VIII
-------
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
3-22
3-23
3-24
3-25
3-26
3-27
3-28
3-29
3-30
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
O & M Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
O & M Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3 ....
Land Requirement Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3 ...
Land Requirement Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
Capital Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Options 1, 2, and 3 . .
O & M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Options 1 and 2
O & M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Option 3
O & M Upgrade Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Option 1
Land Requirement Curve for Clarification Systems -
Options 1, 2, and 3
Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Capital Cost Curve -
Metals Option 1
Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O & M Cost Curve - Metals
Option 1 • •
Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O & M Upgrade Cost Curve
Metals Option 1
Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Land Requirement Curve -
Metals Option 1
Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Capital Cost Curve -
Metals Option 2
Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O & M Cost Curve - Metals
Option 2 . . -
3-31
3-32
3-33 Capital Cost Curve for Equalization Systems
Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Land Requirement Curve -
Metals Option 2
3-36
3-36
3-38
3-38
3^2
3-42
3-43
3-43
3-45
3-48
3-48
3-51
3-51
3-55
3-55
3-56
3-59
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (cent)
3-34 O & M Cost Curve for Equalization Systems 3-59
3-35 Land Requirement Curve for Equalization Systems 3-60
3-36 Capital Cost Curve for Air Strippers 3-64
3-37 O & M Cost Curve for Air Strippers 3-64
3-38 Land Requirement Curve for Air Strippers 3-65
3-39 Capital Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems 3-69
3-40 O & M Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems 3-69
3-41 Land Requirement Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems 3-70
3-42 Capital Cost Curve for Activated Carbon Systems 3-73
3-43 O & M Cost Curve for Activated Carbon - Oils Option 3 3-73
3-44 O & M Cost Curve for Activated Carbon - Oils Option 4 3-79
3-45 O & M Cost Curve for Activated Carbon - Organics Option 2 3-79
3-46 Land Requirement Curve for Activated Carbon Systems 3-81
3-47 Capital Cost Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special
Operating Conditions 3-85
3-48 O & M Cost Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special
Operating Conditions 3-85
3-49 Land Requirement Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special
Operating Conditions 3-86
3-50 Capital Cost Curve for Chromium Reduction Systems 3-90
3-51 Capital Upgrade Cost Curve for Chromium Reduction Systems 3-90
3-52 O & M Cost Curve for Chromium Reduction Systems 3-92
3-53 O & M Upgrade Cost Curve for Chromium Reduction Systems 3-92
-------
3-54
4-1
4-2
4-3
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
Land Requirement Curve for Chromium Reduction Systems
Capital Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactors
O & M Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactors
Land Requirement Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactors
Capital Cost Curve for Ultrafiltration Systems
O & M Cost Curve for Ultrafiltration Systems
Land Requirement Curve for Ultrafiltration Systems .
Capital Cost Curve for Reverse Osmosis Systems
O & M Cost Curve for Reverse Osmosis Systems
Land Requirement Curve for Reverse Osmosis Systems
Plate & Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) Capital Cost Curve - Metals
Option 1 . .
Plate & Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O & M Cost Curve - Metals
Option 1
Plate & Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O & M Upgrade Cost Curve -
Metals Option 1 ,
Plate & Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) Land Requirement Curve -
Metals Option 1
Filter Cake Disposal Cost Curve for Plate & Frame Filtration Systems -
Metals Options 1 & 2
Filter Cake Disposal Upgrade Cost Curve for Plate & Frame Filtration
Systems - Metals Options 1&2
3-94
4-4
4-4
4-5
5-2
5-4
5-5
5-7
5-7
5-10
6-2
6-2
6-6
6-6
6-11
6-11
XI
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This document presents the costs estimated for compliance with the Centralized
Waste Treatment (CWT) Industry effluent limitations guidelines and standards. It is a
more detailed discussion of the summary information that is presented in Section 7 of the
"Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry" (EPA 821-R-95-006).
Section 2 of this document provides a general description of how the individual
treatment technology and regulatory option costs were developed. In Sections 3 through
6, the development of capital costs, operating and maintenance (O & M) costs, and land
requirements for each of the specific wastewater and sludge treatment technologies is
described in detail.
Additional compliance costs to be incurred by facilities, which are not dependent
upon a regulatory option or treatment technology, are presented in Section 7. These
additional items are retrofit costs, monitoring costs, RCRA permit modification costs, and
land costs.
1-1
-------
-------
SECTION 2
COSTS DEVELOPMENT
2.1 TECHNOLOGY COSTS
Cost information for the technologies selected is available from several sources.
The first source of information is the data base developed from the 1991 Waste Treatment
Industry (WTI) Questionnaire responses. A second source of information is the Organic
Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industrial effluent limitations
guidelines and standards development document, which utilizes the 1983 U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of Wastewater
Treatment Systems (CAPDET). A third source is engineering literature. The fourth source
of information is the CWT sampling facilities. The fifth source of information is vendors'
quotations. Vendors' recommendations were used extensively in the costing of the various
technologies. The data from the WTI Questionnaire contained a limited amount of process
cost information, and was used wherever possible.
The total costs developed include the capital costs of the investment, annual O & M
costs, land requirement costs, sludge disposal costs, monitoring costs, RCRA permit
modification costs, and retrofit costs. All of the costs were either scaled up or scaled down
to 1989 dollars using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index, as
1989 is the base year for the WTI Questionnaire.
The capital costs for the technologies are primarily based on vendors' quotations.
The equipment costs typically include the cost of the treatment unit and some ancillary
equipment associated with that technology. Investment costs added to the equipment cost
include piping, instrumentation and controls, pumps, installation, engineering, and
contingency. The standard factors used to estimate the capital costs are listed in
Table 2-1.
2-1
-------
Table 2-1. Standard Capita! Cost Factors
Factor
Equipment Cost
Installation
Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Total Construction Cost (TCC)
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 TCC
15 percent of TCC
Engineering + Contingency
Total Construction Cost + Total Indirect Cost
The annual O & M costs for the various systems were derived from the vendors'
information or from engineering literature. The annual O & M cost is comprised of energy,
maintenance, taxes and insurance, labor, treatment chemicals (if needed), and residuals
management (also if needed). The standard factors used to estimate the 0 & M costs are
listed in Table 2-2. All of the parameters used in costing the CWT Industry are explained
further in this document.
2-2
-------
Table 2-2. Standard O & M Cost Factors
Factor
Maintenance
Taxes and Insurance
Labor
Electricity
Residuals Management
Granular Activated Carbon
Lime (Calcium Hydroxide)
Polymer
Sodium Hydroxide (100 percent
solution)
Sodium Hydroxide (50 percent
solution)
Sodium Hypochlorite
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfuric Acid
Total O & M Cost
O&M Cost (1989$)
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
Technology-Specific Cost
$0.70 per pound
$57 per ton
$3.38 per pound
. $560 per ton
$275 per ton
$0.64 per pound
$230 per ton
$80 per ton
Maintenance + Taxes and Insurance + Labor +
Electricity + Chemicals + Residuals
2.2 OPTION COSTS
Engineering costs were developed for each of the individual treatment technologies
which comprise the CWT regulatory options. These technology-specific costs, broken
down into capital, O&M, and land components, are presented in detail in the following
sections of this document.
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 some instances, an
2-3
-------
option consists of only one treatment technology; for those cases, the option cost is equal
to the technology cost.
The CWT subcategory regulatory options are described in Table 2-3. The
treatment technologies included in each option are listed, and the subsections of this
document which contain the corresponding cost information are indicated.
2-4
-------
Table 2-3. CWT Subcategory Options
Subcategory/Option I Treatment Technology
Metals 1
Metals 2
Metals 3
Metals - Hexavalent Chromium
Waste Pretreatment
Metals - Cyanide Waste
Pretreatment
Oils 2
Oils 3
Oils 4
Organics 1
Organics 2
Chemical Precipitation
Liquid Filtration or
Clarification/Sludge Filtration
Selective Metals Precipitation
Liquid Filtration
Secondary Precipitation
Liquid Filtration or
Clarification/Sludge Filtration
Metals Option 2 Technologies
Tertiary Precipitation
Clarification
pH Adjustment
Chromium Reduction using Sulfur
Dioxide
Cyanide Destruction at Special
Operating Conditions
Ultrafiltration
Oils Option 2 Technologies
Carbon Adsorption
Reverse Osmosis
Oils Option 3 Technologies
Carbon Adsorption
Equalization
Air Stripping
Sequencing Batch Reactor
Multi-Media Filtration
Organics Option 1 Technologies
Carbon Adsorption
Subsection
3.1.1
3.3.1 or
3.2/6.1
3.1.2
3.3.2
3.1.3
3.3.2 or
3.2/6.1
(above)
3.1.4
3.2
3.1,4
3.9
3.8
5.1
(above)
3.7
5.2
(above)
3.7
3.4
3.5*
4.1
3.6
(above)
3.7
2-5
-------
-------
SECTION 3
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL/THERMAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY COSTS
3.1 CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
3.1.1 Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
Chemical precipitation systems are used to remove dissolved metals from
wastewater. Lime and caustic were selected as the precipitants because of their
effectiveness and widespread use in the CWT Industry.
The CWT Metals Option 1 chemical precipitation system equipment consists of a
mixed reaction tank with pumps, a treatment chemical feed system, and an unmixed
wastewater holding tank. The system is operated on a batch basis, treating one batch per
day, five days per week. The average chemical precipitation batch duration reported by
respondents to the 1991 WTI Questionnaire was four hours. Therefore, a one batch per
day treatment schedule would provide sufficient time for the average facility to pump, treat,
and test its waste. A holding tank equal to the daily waste volume, up to a maximum size
of 5,000 gallons (equivalent to one tank truck receipt), was provided to allow facilities
flexibility in managing waste receipts.
Total capital cost estimates were developed for the Metals Option 1 chemical
precipitation systems. For facilities with no chemical precipitation system in-place, the
components of the chemical precipitation system included the precipitation tank with a
mixer, pumps, feed system, and holding tank. These cost estimates were obtained from
manufacturer's recommendations. The total construction cost was developed by adding
installation, piping, and instrumentation and controls to the equipment cost at 35 percent,
30 percent, and 30 percent of the equipment cost, respectively. The total capital cost
estimates included engineering and contingency, which were estimated at 30 percent of
the total construction cost. All capital cost estimates were converted to 1989 dollars using
ENR's Construction Cost Index.
3-1
-------
For facilities that already have a precipitation tank (treatment in-place), a capital
cost upgrade was determined; this consists of the cost of a holding tank only.
The itemized chemical precipitation capital cost and capital upgrade cost estimates
for Option 1 are presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, respectively. The corresponding capital
cost and capital upgrade cost curves are presented in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. The resulting
chemical precipitation capital cost and capital upgrade cost equations for Metals Option
1 are presented as Equations 3-1 and 3-2, respectively.
ln(Y1) = 14.019 + 0.481 ln(X) - 0.00307(ln(X))2 (3-1)
In(Y1) = 10.671 - 0.083ln(X) - 0.032(ln(X))2 (3-2)
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
where:
The O & M cost estimates for facilities with no treatment in-place were based on
estimated energy usage, maintenance, labor, taxes and insurance, and chemical usage
cost. The energy usage and costs were divided into electricity, lighting, and controls.
Energy costs were based on power requirements of 0.5 kwhr per 1,000 gallons of
wastewater. Lighting and controls were assumed at $1,000 per year and electrical cost
at $0.08 per kwhr.
The maintenance costs were estimated at four percent of the total capital cost
' while taxes and insurance were estimated at two percent of the total capital cost. The
labor cost was approximated at $31,200 per man-year at two hours per batch.
Chemical cost estimates were calculated based on stoichiometric, pH adjustment,
and buffer adjustment requirements. For facilities with no chemical precipitation in-place,
the stoichiometric requirements were based on the amount of chemicals required to
precipitate each of the metals from the Metals Subcategory average raw influent
concentrations to Option 1 levels. The chemicals used were lime at 75 percent of the
required removals and caustic at 25 percent of the required removals. The pH
3-2
-------
Table 3-1. Capital Costs for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0005
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Avg. Vendor
Equipment
Cost
282
1,030
9,286
13,709
33,709
50,006
123,550
182,398
450,652
665,304
1,643,772
Holding
Tank
217
762
6,400
9,330
22,390
22,390
22,390
22,390
22,390
22,390
22,390
Install.
175
627
5,490
8,064
19,635
25,339
51,079
71,676
165,565
240,693
583,157
Total
Construction
Cost
674
2,419
21,176
31,103
75,734
97,735
197,019
276,464
638,607
928,387
2,299,319
Engineer.
&
Conting.
202
726
6,353
9,331
22,720
29,321
59,106
82,939
191,582
278,516
674,796
Total
Capital Cost
(1989$)
876
3,145
27,529
40,434
98,454
127,056
256,125
359,403
830,189
1,206,903
2,924,115
Table 3-2. Capital Cost Upgrades for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
Flow
(MGD)
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$)
381
1,338
11,232
16,375
39,295
3-3
-------
10,000,000-
1,000,000-
•w-
o
•5
I
100,000-
10,000-
1,000'
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-1 Capital Cost Curve for Chemical Precipitaiton - Metals Option 1
100,000-
10,000-
1
I
1,000
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-2 Capital Upgrade Cost Curve for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
3-4
-------
adjustment and buffer adjustment requirements were estimated to be 50 percent of the
stoichiometric requirement. Finally, a 10 percent excess of chemical dosage was added.
Table 3-3 presents the lime and caustic requirements for the chemical precipitation
system. The cost of lime at $57 per ton and caustic at $275 per ton (50 percent solution)
were obtained from the Chemical Marketing Reporter.
The itemized annual O & M cost estimates for facilities with no treatment in-place
are presented in Table 3-4 and the subsequent cost curve is presented in Figure 3-3.
The O & M cost equation for Metals Option 1 chemical precipitation is:
where:
ln(Y2)= 15.206 + 1.091ln(X) + 0.05(In(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
(3-3)
Table 3-4. O & M Costs for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
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
35
126
1,617
5,082
10,245
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
1
44
4,416
44,162
225,225
441,617
2,208,086
4,416,172
22,080,858
Total
O & M Cost
(1989$)
14,170
14,349
21,327
67,630
257,809
481,347
2,281,269
4,517,627
22,328,080
An O & M upgrade cost was estimated for facilities with chemical precipitation
treatment in-place. It was assumed that these facilities already meet current Metals
Subcategory performance levels. The ratio of current-to-Metals Option 1 vs. raw-to-
3-5
-------
Q
(3
5
o
O
CO
<3
O =1
O>CM
OT-
eo
Ifi
o
00
»- c\T • ^ o ^ o> »-
COT r».O)
N.
•«t
CM
t»T CO -r? CO'lC CM co a>
OCO OJOSOCVJCJOJi-i-CO'T
oo cJ^r^-evI I-^T^
CMoo^i-'j'Oi-oocbioeo
rC ^f co
r- co *-o>
OJCOCMf-
§
8
co
5
o
o
o
I!
3
MC01
»-
co
en
11] c:
§C01
en
r»h-coT-
CM CO CM i-
m •*• CM
o
(0
o
o
3
CAUSTIC
(LBS/YR)
O) CM
CO Tf b-O>
T^'S1 '*'
HI
LIE
BSA'R)
coi-
OCO
coint^cni--a-incn«5cococvic»eoo>
CM O> O CMCJO-T-i-COT
CM CO CM^
CO'3-CM
0
S
TT
CO
2£i
lg
od^
in
CM
.
^~
do" do'o'dd
HI
£
co oca
CD
CM °°. T- T- o °. CM °. 9 °. co •» o CM
o o o o o o
(O
t
CO
O
|
O
co
UJ
UJ
cc
3
o
111
cc
g
CO
o
o
UJ
s
(3
CO
0
CO
I UJ -»».
n- > a>cotr)oj<*-cM« CM cocno
co o>v^r»- CMT-
coo)
g
toooocoooootn^to o o o in CM in
co -^
comoootooi-
coT-T-cniriindcocnddq-d dd^-d diridmr-'dr^dd
ocn CMCou5cM»-cMcor^r« TO*- o> h-'S'T-
co T-OJ^-TJ-^ COT- T- o
-------
100,000,000
10,000,000-
§
o>
g 1,000,000
o
100,000-
10,000-
~z
0.000001 0.00001 O.CKX)1 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
z
Figure 3-3 O & M Cost Curve for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
1,000,000
100,000-
te-
%
CD
O
00
O
10,000
1,000
100
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-4 O & M Upgrade Cost Curve for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
3-7
-------
current levels is approximately 0.03, therefore, the energy, maintenance, and labor
components of the O & M upgrade cost were calculated at three percent of the total
O & M cost for these components. Taxes and insurance were estimated to be two
percent of the total capital cost for the holding tank.
' Chemical upgrade costs were calculated based on current-to-Metals Option 1
removals with no additional chemicals used for pH adjustment and solution buffering, as
these steps would be part of the in-place treatment system. A 10 percent excess of
chemical dosage was added to the stoichiometric requirements. Table 3-5 presents the
lime and caustic requirements for the chemical precipitation upgrades.
The itemized O & M upgrade costs for Option 1 are presented in Table 3-6 while
the resulting cost curve is presented in Figure 3-4. The O & M upgrade cost equation for
Metals Option 1 chemical precipitation is:
where:
ln(Y2)= 11.702 + 1.006ln(X) + 0.044(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O & M Cost (1989 $).
Table 3-6. O & M Upgrade Costs for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
(3-4)
Row
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Energy
30
30
30
35
46
61
186
342
1,590
Maintenance
1
4
49
152
307
431
996
1,448
3,509
Labor
394
394
404
442
470
483
515
530
563
Taxes
&
Insurance
8
27
32
786
786
786
786
786
786
Chemical
Cost
2
2
129
1,287
6,562
12,867
64,333
128,666
643,328
Total
O & M Cost
(1989 $)
435
457
939
2,702
8,171
14,628
66,816
131,772
649,776
3-8
-------
o
o
5
o
2
CAUSTIC!
(LBS/YR)!
LIME
BS/YR)
c> «o o>ocoo>
i^ •»- O)weo
,- O •»- 1-
CM
U5COCOC3
in
CJU5 1O|C ej o> lOlOO
v- oo m to to
CM IO
co"
(O
co
,008^8
p
5
d
II
$
CAUSTIC
(LBS/YR)
OCM^CO^-
ca»-i-co
I^CTQSCB
CM
i- r~-cj »- i-
,-- o
CM
'»'OCOO>
O>CMOO
8
8"
ujcoorv-coi-cocococMcotD r^ T cvj co co to en IOIOOCM
IO ^ CO 1O U3 1O
CM 1O
c>c>c>0. c>°e5c>0. dd
»-»-CMCM'r-T-
O-^OOOO
CMO-^O
LIME
LBS/YR)
«CO-.-*Th...-CJinCMlOCOCMi-i-C»CMCMin3
cpmocooco'T — t^cncoocMcocMior^ocMiocn
CM in CM
-------
Land requirements were estimated for facilities with no chemical precipitation in-
place and for facilities requiring only an upgrade. The land requirements were obtained
by adding a perimeter of 20 feet around the equipment dimensions supplied by vendors.
This data was plotted and the land area equation was determined. The land
requirements are presented in Table 3-7 with subsequent cost curves in Figures 3-5 and
3-6. The land requirement and land requirement upgrade equations for Metals Option 1
chemicat precipitation are presented as Equations 3-5 and 3-6, respectively.
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.019 + 0.299In(X) + 0.015(ln(X))2
In(Y3)= -2.866 - 0.023ln(X) - 0.006(ln(X))2
*
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
Table 3-7. Land Requirements for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
(3-5)
(3-6)
Flow
(MGD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
Chemical Precipitation
Land Requirements
(Acres)
0.0791
0.0823
0.094
0.125
0.1724
0.1768
0.2434
0.4474
Chemical Precipitation Upgrade
Land Requirements
(Acres)
0.0395
0.041
0.047
0.0574
0.0574
0.0574
0.0574
0.0574
3-10
-------
at
TJ
0.1
0.01
X7"
"—'—-•'—•'*•' -I ' i 'I 1 fa.l.l.U I •» 1 L..L..1.I..IU.. I L_.I—1-l-lJJ- ' ' ' t I t it , I r i i_i_(_t l i _|_t lilt
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 3-5 Land Requirement Curve for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
0.1
£,
T3
0.01 — .'.-.' '. ' ' ' M.-- ' ' ' t i t i t
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 3-6 Land Requirement Upgrade Curve Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 1
3-11
-------
3.1.2 Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2
The CWT Metals Option 2 selective metals precipitation system equipment consists
of four mixed reaction tanks, each sized for 25 percent of the total daily flow, with purnps
and treatment chemical feed systems. Four tanks are included to allow the facility to
segregate its wastes into smaller batches, thereby facilitating metals recovery and
avoiding interference with other incoming waste receipts. A four batch per day treatment
schedule was used, where the sum of four batch volumes equal the facility's daily
incoming waste volume.
Capital cost estimates for the selective metals precipitation systems were estimated
using the same methodology as outlined for the Metals Option 1 chemical precipitation
systems. However, four precipitation tanks were costed, each tank sized to received 25
percent of the overall flow. The other components of the total capital cost (i.e.
installation, piping, instrumentation, and engineering and contingency fee) were calculated
as outlined for Metals Option 1.
Table 3-8 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the selective metals
precipitation treatment systems while Figure 3-7 presents the resulting cost curve. The
cost equation for the Metals Option 2 selective metals precipitation capital cost is:
where:
ln(Y1) = 14.461 + 0.544ln(X) + 0.0000047(ln(X))2 (3-7)
*
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
TheO & M cost estimates for the selective metals precipitation system for facilities
with no chemical precipitation treatment in-place were estimated using the same
methodology as outlined for Metals Option 1. However, since the proposed design
included four tanks instead of one, the labor cost was estimated at four times the labor
cost of the single chemical precipitation unit. Maintenance and taxes and insurance were
still estimated at four percent and two percent of the total capital cost, respectively.
3-12
-------
10,000,000-
1,000,000
|j 100,000-
o
«0
•5.
CO
O
10,000
1,000
iz:
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 O.O1
Flow (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-7 Capital Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2
3-13
-------
Table 3-8. Capital Costs for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Equip.
410
1433
17,554
61,428
214,966
515,951
752,262
1,805,546
Installation
143
502
6,144
21,500
75,238
180,583
263,292
631,941
Piping
123
430
5,266
18,429
64,490
154,785
225,679
541,664
Instrument. &
Controls
123
430
5,266
18,429
64,490
154,785
225,679
541,664
Engineer.
&
Conting.
240
839
10,269
35,936
125,755
301,831
440,073
1,056,245
Total
Capital Costs
(1989$)
1,038
3,634
44,499
155,721
544,938
1,307,936
1,906,983
4,577,060
Energy requirements were estimated the same as for the Metals Option 1 chemical
precipitation systems since energy is related to the flow of the system.
Treatment chemical costs were estimated based on the same principles as for
Metals Option 1 chemical precipitation. The stoichiometric requirements were calculated
based on the Metals Subcategory average raw influent concentrations to Metals Option
1 removal levels. The chemicals used were .caustic at 40 percent of the required
removals and lime at 60 percent of the required removals. Table 3-9 presents the lime
and caustic requirements for selective metals precipitation.
For facilities with chemical precipitation in-place, an O & M upgrade cost was
estimated using the same methodology as for Metals Option 1 with the exception of the
chemical costs. Chemical costs were estimated using a different methodology since
these facilities already meet Metals Option 1 levels. The in-place treatment system is
assumed to use a dosage ratio of 25 percent caustic and 75 percent lime to achieve the
raw influent to current performance removals. The selective metals precipitation upgrade
requires these facilities to change their existing dosage mix to 40 percent caustic and 60
percent lime to reach current performance levels, then apply the full 40 percent and 60
percent dosages to further achieve the current performance to Metals Option 1 removals.
The increase in caustic cost (to increase from 25 percent to 40 percent) minus the lime
3-14
-------
3
q.
II
>
O
§
ioo
CM
OOOO"r^'3rlOiOi-«oCM<'-<3'CMOOtN.
££
*s
m
•a- 10 o
j> t^ ID
CM
-r-O)(ocoinoj(r>cDcDtr)
o eo'fio^ CM
. »- 10001 oo
01
CO
to
a
a
eOT-
lOCD
ioo
CM
o =
OOOONTflOCOCMOT^
•r^ co" to" to i- CM d r>." to
CO 00 OO CO T- IO
T- CM CM T-
en
1C
-^-cno
»-h.CO
CO
CM
.
CMCO
en 10 ^- - i- CM
IO
Jo
in
en
o
M
Z
O
E
o
CO
3
enr«.cou> N- T-CDCO
CM eocococo-^uj •>-r«.oo
en co CMCO
10
IO
CD
O
H
UJ
CMTt«-t-
COtO
i-CO
T- lO O O)
CO
e»
CMtO
qqcoqqqqc»enqcot»:
cMddco'doodoodcoT^ioddd^oocddd^-ddddcciN^d-r^cvi
o
o
CM
i-COCO^
r«.
CM
m
UJ
II
CO
CO
CO
CO
u.
u
GE
c
u.
a.
v.
o
o
2
U
S
o ==
i ui =i
cr><5
Q%a
tj
o
> _l -T
OJCOlOCMT-CMtOtOt". CM COOO O r~T COCO
COTI"*- CM »- ^ O<
cocoooo
COCOOUJCOOCO'-CMIOCMCM
lodddcocadoduirr.d o d o in c\i u>
00 *—
co'iodddcodT-
dd'-d
OCO N-
m
a
2
s
POLLUT
S
CO
TOTALS
3-15
-------
credit (to decrease from 75 percent to 60 percent) were accounted for in the in-place
treatment removals from raw to current levels. Metals Option 2 uses a higher percentage
of caustic than does Metals Option 1 because the sludge resulting from caustic
precipitation facilitates metals recovery. Table 3-10 presents the dosage requirements
for the raw to current removals using a 60 percent lime and 40 percent caustic dosage
mix. Table 3-11 presents the dosage credit that in-place facilities receive for their existing
75 percent lime and 25 percent caustic dosage mix. The upgrade costs were calculated
using the Table 3-10 requirements minus the Table 3-11 credits, plus the Table 3-12 60
percent and 40 percent dosage requirements for the current to Metals Option 1 removals.
Tables 3-13 and 3-14 present the itemized O & M cost estimates and O & M
upgrade cost estimates for selective metals precipitation. Figures 3-8 and 3-9 present
the resulting cost curves. The equations for the Metals Option 2 selective metals
precipitation O & M cost and O & M upgrade cost estimates are presented as Equations
3-8 and 3-9, respectively.
In(Y2) = 15.566 + 0.999ln(X) + 0.049(ln(X))2 (3-8)
lri(Y2) = 14.276 + 0.789 ln(X) + 0.041 (ln(X))2 (3-9)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
The land requirements for selective metals precipitation were calculated based on
the equipment dimensions provided by vendors. The system dimensions were scaled up
to represent the total land required for the system plus peripherals (pumps, controls,
access areas, etc.). The rule-of-thumb used to scale the dimensions adds a 20-foot
perimeter around the unit. Table 3-15 presents the land requirements for the selective
metal precipitation treatment systems and Figure 3-10 presents the resulting cost curve.
The land requirement equation for Metals Option 2 selective metals precipitation is:
3-16
-------
it
eo r^ rC*fcooreo35f-mcgi^ to (Deo'9-
,- oiott)05T-cn. la of g'co^ioeocJcncJco
o> oco^iomcMcor^eo
,-- « o> eo « »- co
COCOCOCMCMIO
ajioco
eoofofweog;
r^oi eooo
ooeo
8
0>
£
co i- t>.^rcoo)0>CM OCOT-inTfCMCOCO
£ coc°Su'ncv'co-^
T- q q
CO O
vCMCMOCO (OCOCOCMCMin
(o co m co co o> en co co CD
^»> ^^— y * _^
R
in
s
Q
O
co q
CO
-
COtnCM^CMtDfOin T- CM C) 0
-
cc '
O
Si
_
ddjfd dioor-.in^.ON-ocooj-<
^S" W oS
C3^ *~ ^-*^fc*
1
w
e
I
H-
<
POLL
Ul
CO
..s3bB
ill!
3-17
-------
§
It
o
Q
0
1
m
ui
o
I
z
o
g
I
3
2
So
tUCQ
iiis
gQt
CO
Is
»s
CD
Sco
<3
o ^
H
m
CASTIC
(LBS/YR)
LI
BS/Y
S2S
"S
0=i
i|
1 w
m
3
[XJ .•—
m
H UJ
cor
Is
#0
W H
Si
ii
UJ
ViijS
T-CO
co
inu)i-*f
CO-^-*— CM
mco
oS't«- CO
iO'»-.
co
tO
•<»•
to
S ?I co intpcjoa)cjr~inTCMcpinincoc»ocD?cncoSmoS)cnc\jcO'r^f
^cnt^ cc^o^coc5Trc»inr^in_con^cMCO^o>cocb"cMr*- ^u53wT~COT"cMCMCO COT>-^rcMO>O»
u>'~coo'~inT- coir t COCM 10
OCO_CM tn.Ttc'lcOtMf>lT^<'i10. m_
CMCM
co-
coin
CMCO
coooomocoooocooT-ooooco^oo^ooooococMoooin
CMCMOO-Tfh.cocoo<ini-^-cocococMT-i-cooocMCM
q in co co<4c!'1;cMc^™C£?."?™cvi.u?eH'rT'~co':o)|s:ciT^cvJ
i^ — ci coiococSt-cir^oJcacjcricii^oiiriTrcicociiricoiricscMcoioi^eM'*
po> coincM'fcMcotoinT-cMcno ^- in co o>
co" co
OO)
CO
•^ oi in in o co" oi o" o" -r o" o o" W o cJm'or^irif^cJKcico'cD'-cd
CMCOIOCMT-CMCOt^r*. Vpt- O> NTT — CO CD
T-CS^^"*™ co^~ ^ o
-------
s
2
q
II
s
L.
3
2
S
CO
UJ
Q
§
2
o
a
o
II
3
CAUSTIC
(LBS/YR)
LIME
BS/YR)
CAUSTIC
(LBS/YR
LIME
BS/YR)
2 or
§3
15
UJ j=
m
CMCOCMU51OOO'*1»r^O-^-eM
oii-eocoo^N-ni-- •» t»-
— cn^cMcMCO'S'coo — «*•
r*- m
in i-
oa
CM
w
in
co
ta
CO
CM
• »-
CSCM
T
CM
CO
Tj-CMCMO
lO^t
. CM d
O CM
co
ciea
r-
o'cxi
-
CO
m
806,686
CO
1O
o>
S
d
CO
o
co
3
UJ CM
CO
o
q
o"
ujco.
Si
CO
II
<
UJ
1-
Ul ~
UJ o
COUJ
3 OC
<
cctii
QC -1
O
S^-comcM^i-i-inocMino^coinoo
inocDOco^^r** o>co OCMCO
qt>-CMr»coo>CMr^cq *-m «o inqT
cvidcocad'-d'^-co" dc\i —dt^
CM
o CM I-.. ,- o o
§^S
g°
O^-oo'*'«r'J-«r*-
oocoqincoqco — CMincMCM tncMqeocvigjco^^jgCO — TOCMqi^qqcv
in'dddcdddddu>'4:d ddduicM in a>CMdcod'-doj»-io»-
*- CM —
— dcM'^-CMdca — CMCQCDCM
CO
CM
1
f-
|
O
a.
2
3
co
TOTA
3-19
-------
Table 3-13. O & M Costs for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Energy •
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
2,040
6,200
11,400
53,000
Maintenance
42
145
1,780
6,229
21,798
52,317
76,279
183,082
Taxes
&
Insurance
21
73
890
3,114
10,899
26,159
38,140
91,541
Labor
52,464
52,464
53,900
58,964
64,504
68,684
70,564
75,136
Chemical
Costs
6
63
6,277
62,768
627,677
3,138,386
6,276,772
31,383,862
Total
O & M Cost
(1989$)
53,533
53,745
63,857
132,179
726,918
3,291,746
6,473,155
31,786,621
fable 3-14. O & M Upgrade Costs - Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2
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
42
145
1,780
6,229
14,950
21,798
52,317
76,279
183,082
Taxes
&
Insurance
21
73
890
3,114
7,475
10,899
26,159
38,140
91,541
Labor
52,464
52,464
53,900
58,964
62,784
64,504
68,684
70,564
75,136
Chemical
Cost
3
15
1,499
14,991
74,952
149,902
749,512
1,499,025
7,495,126
Total
O & M Cost
(1989$)
53,530
53,697
59,079
84,402
161,681
249,143
902,892
1,695,408
7,897,885
3-20
-------
100,000,000-
10,000,000-
3
o>
to 1,000,000-
o
0$
o
100,000
10,000
z
Z
z
z
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-8 O & M Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2
10,000,000-
1,000,000-
o
O 100,000-
10,000
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 3-9 O & M Upgrade Cost Curve for Selective Metals Preciptation - Metals
Option 2
3-21
-------
10-
1
0.1
0.01
0.00001 0.0001
0.001 0.01
Flow (MOD)
0.1
Figure 3-10 Land Requirement Curve Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2
3-22
-------
where:
ln(Y3) = -0.575 + 0.420ln(X) + 0.025(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
(3-10)
Table 3-15. Land Requirements for Selective Metals Precipitation Metals - Option 2
Flow (MGD)
0.016
0.0284
0.06
0.2
0.4
1-0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Area Required (Acres)
0.1413
0.164
0.25
0.342
0.376
0.517
0.59
0.92
1.322
3.1.3 Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
The CWT Metals Option 2 secondary precipitation system follows the selective
metals precipitation/filtration step. This equipment consists of a mixed reaction tank with
pumps and a treatment chemical feed system, sized for the full daily batch volume.
The capital cost estimates for the secondary precipitation treatment systems were
estimated using the same methodology as outlined for Metals Option 1. However, in this
case, no costs were included for a holding tank. These cost estimates are for those
facilities that have no chemical precipitation in-place. For the facilities that already have
chemical precipitation in-place, the capital cost for the secondary precipitation treatment
systems were assumed to be zero. These in-place chemical precipitation systems would
3-23
-------
serve as secondary precipitation systems after the installation of upstream selective
metals precipitation units.
Table 3-16 presents the itemized capital cost estimates for the secondary
precipitation treatment systems while Figure 3-11 presents the resulting cost curve. The
cost equation for the total capital cost for Metals Option 2 secondary precipitation is:
In (Y1) = 13.829 + 0.544ln(X) + 0.00000496(ln(X))2
(3-11)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
Table 3-16. Capital Costs for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Equipment
Cost
218
762
9,329
32,646
78,355
114,243
274,201
399,788
959,554
Piping
65
229
2,799
9,794
23,507
34,273
82,260
119,936
287,866
Instrumentation
&
Controls
65
229
2,799
9,794
23,507
34,273
82,260
. 119,936
287,866
Installation
76
267
3,265
11,426
27,424
39,985
95,970
139,926
335,844
Engineering
&
Contingency
127
446
5,457
19,098
45,838
66,832
160,408
233^876
561,339
Total
Capital Cost
(1989$)
552
1,931
23,649
82,758
198,631
289,606
695,100
1,013,462
2,432,469
O & M cost estimates were developed for the secondary precipitation treatment
systems for facilities with and without chemical precipitation in-place. For facilities with
no treatment in-place, the annual O & M costs were developed using the same
methodology used for Metals Option 1. However, the chemical cost estimates were
based on stoichiometric requirements only. Lime was used to precipitate the metals from
3-24
-------
Metals Option 1 to Metals Option 2 levels with a 10 percent excess dosage factor. Table
3-17 presents the lime and caustic requirements for secondary precipitation.
For facilities with chemical precipitation in-place, an O & M upgrade cost was
calculated. The O & M upgrade cost assumed that all of the components of the annual
O & M cost except chemical costs were zero. The chemical costs are the same as
calculated for the full O & M costs.
Tables 3-18 and 3-19 present the itemized annual O & M and O & M upgrade cost
estimates for the secondary precipitation treatment units with the corresponding cost
curves in Figures 3-12 and 3-13. The O & M cost and O & M upgrade cost equations for
Metals Option 2 secondary precipitation are presented as Equations 3-12 and 3-13,
respectively.
(3-12)
(3-13)
where:
ln(Y2) = 11.684 + 0.477ln(X) + 0.024(ln(X))2
ln(Y2) = 10.122 + 1.015ln(X) + 0.00151 (In(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O & M Cost (1989 $).
Land requirements for the secondary precipitation treatment systems were
estimated by adding a perimeter of 20 feet around the equipment dimensions supplied
by vendors. Table 3-20 presents the land requirements for the secondary precipitation
treatment systems. The land area curve is presented in Figure 3-14. The land
requirement equation for Metals Option 2 secondary precipitation is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.15 + 0.449ln(X) + 0.027(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(3-14)
3-25
-------
CM
Z
O
t
o
CO
j^
s
CO
UJ
D
cc
(3
a.
3
Z
2
<
P
E
O""
UJ
cc
a.
^
a
z
o
u
m
CO
<
z
o
I-
g
a.
u
cc
a.
>
a
z
0
o
UJ
CO
ff
o
CO
UJ
UJ
cc
5
n
UJ
cc
0
p
CO
3
<
U
•a
UJ
s
I!
N
*™
1
_o
1
O
(3
o
H
5
O
_J
u.
O
o
2
«-
d
U
g
q
_j
u.
Q
a
o
o
n
3
U.
Q
g
u
d
5
3
CO
JJ
i
Ul
(3
^
CO
o
Q
CM
CM
1
DL
o
*"•
£
0
S2£
13 w
O d
11
-1 w
cc
*—
O •"•*
™ 1C
03 ^
13 m
od
UJ —
s 5
-1 co
m
_i
*"
o -~
P «>.
ll
O d
Ul ff
S ^
m
^
o =
j— P
£5 g
-
> s
UJ ^
ni5
j §
-J ^7
ui d
UJ ^
— i _
$
i-
3
_l
g
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
i— i— CMCOCO_ -r-^ ^ C-iC?. r^CMCO-r-
rr T-^ CO 00 1- (D IO i-^
m co i- CM
oooooooooooooooooooooo
coiocnu>cMooa>ocMO'>-cocnoo^>iin(OC»(oco
^.^-CMCOCO ^ ^O'gg r^CMCOj;
in" co 'f CM
oooooooooooooooooooooo
comcnincMoocnocMOT-coaioo^fincocncoio
^~^CM(OCO O v— ^^.OCO OOl^CMCOv**
S*_ co co — d t*.oooo*rO'-o*-eoi-cooi-cocoo>cocM
•» ^ <4 o" co 2 co ^ 2 O O O
oooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooo
Cxjr-ij-rrQ ncQCOCB. CBT^. CftT-U'tl'mCn. C3
r-in^rincMT-co^o>N(OcococococoincMOO>T-
^T'-CMOOOCM'-'-'-OCMOCM'-T-OOT-COCM'-
CMV^O^ CM in r^oc*jr*» ^comcotnco
incooin^- o •<- i- o N. i- OOCMOOV
in o o o o o o o o •* »- oooooo
CO v~
ncM'r-^-coococMcncoocooinocoocMcMoov
COOOO'<-»-o- — o'-t-COOOCO^CMOO O O o 00
ddddcod d •* d d o o ddddd d
oor^r^oor^v*-iwinr^>ino>co^o>incotncM ^ co CM - "^ S ^- ^ •s S
ID Z o *^ ^ ^ n" ^ ^ 5 ^
^^ n ^^ ^i ^3 •? J^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^^ ^^ -3 ™^
<<M
o
m
o>
fsT
co
o
in
S
I^T
(0
o
o
CO
oo
O
CO
00
(O
g
o
1-
3-26
-------
Table 3-18. O & M Costs for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
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
1
1
25
250
1,276
2,502
12,511
25,022
125,109
Total
O & M Cost
(1989$)
14,150
14,233
15,929
21,060
30,410
38,044
77,588
114,870
342,841
Table 3-19. O & M Upgrade Costs for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
Flow
(MGD)
0.0005
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Chemical
Cost
13
25
125
250
1,276
2,502
12,511
25,022
125,109
Total
O & M Cost
(1989$)
13
25
125
250
1,276
2,502
12,511
25,022
125,109
3-27
-------
10,000,000-
1,000,000-
o
ft
£
100,000-
10,000'
1,000
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow(MGD)
0.1
1
Figure 3-11 Capital Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
1,000,000-
100,000-
08
o
10,000-
z
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-12 O & M Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
3-28
-------
1,000,000-
100,000-
m 10,000-
o>
o
1,000-
100-
10-
0.0001
1—
0.001
-••-.--- • ' -triii
0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
10
Figure 3-13 O & M Upgrade Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
0.1
0.01
0.00001
0.0001
I • • • - • -.•-..-
0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
7
Figure 3-14 Land Requirement Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
3-29
-------
Table 3-20. Land Requirements for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2
Flow
(MGD)
0.004
0.0071
0.015
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
Area Required
(Acres)
0.056
0.063
0.088
0.126
0.166
0.186
0.388
3.1.4 Tertiary Precipitation - Metals Option 3
The CWT Metals Option 3 tertiary precipitation system equipment consists of a
rapid mix tank and a pH adjustment tank (following Metals Option 3 clarification). The
wastewater is fed to the rapid mix neutralization tank where lime slurry is added to raise
the pH. Effluent from the neutralization tank then flows to the clarifier for solids removal.
The clarifier overflow goes to a pH adjustment tank where sulfuric acid is added to
achieve the desired final pH. The following discussion explains the development of the
cost estimates (i.e. capital, O & M, and land) for the rapid mix tank and the pH
adjustment tank. Cost estimates for the clarifier are discussed in another section of this
document.
The capital cost estimates for the rapid mix tank were developed assuming one
tank with a continuous flow and a fifteen-minute detention time. The equipment cost
included one tank, one agitator,' and one lime feed system.
The capital cost estimates for the pH adjustment tank were developed assuming
continuous flow and a five-minute detention time. The equipment cost included one tank,
one agitator, and one sulfuric acid feed system.
3-30
-------
The other components (i.e. piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the total
capital cost for both the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank were estimated using the same
methodology as outlined for Metals Option 1. The itemized capital cost estimates for the
rapid mix and pH adjustment tank are presented in Tables 3-21 and 3-22, respectively.
The resulting cost curves are presented in Figures 3-15 and 3-16, respectively. The
capital cost equations calculated for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank are presented
as Equations 3-15 and 3-16, respectively.
ln(Y1) = 12.318 + 0.543ln(X) - 0.000179(In(X))2 (3-15)
ln(Y1) = 11.721+0.543In(X) +0.000139(ln(X))2 (3-16)
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
where:
The O & M cost estimates for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank were
estimated using the same methodology as outlined for Metals Option 1. Maintenance
was estimated at four percent of the total capital cost while taxes and insurance were
estimated at two percent of the total capital cost. The labor requirements were estimated
at one man-hour per day at 260 days per year.
Chemical costs for the rapid mix tank were estimated based on lime addition to
achieve the stoichiometric requirements for Metals Option 2 to Metals Option 3 removals
with a 10 percent excess. Table 3-23 presents the lime requirements for tertiary
precipitation. The chemical requirements for the pH adjustment tank were estimated
based on the addition of sulfuric acid to lower the pH from 11.0 to 9.0. The price of
sulfuric acid was $80.00 per ton, taken from the Chemical Marketing Reporter.
The itemized O & M cost estimates for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tanks are
presented in Tables 3-24 and 3-25, respectively, while the resulting cost curves are
presented in Figures 3-17 and 3-18. The O & M cost equations for the rapid mix tank
and pH adjustment tank are presented as Equations 3-17 and 3-18, respectively.
3-31
-------
Table 3-21. Capital Costs for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
Flow
(MGD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Equipment
Cost
165
592
2,073
7,224
25,281
60,468
88,468
212,338
Piping
49
178
622
2,167
7,584
18,203
26,541
63,701
Instrument.
&
Controls
49
178
622
2,167
7,584
18,203
26,541
63,701
Installation
58
207
726
2,528
8,848
21,237
30,964
74,318
Engineering
&
Contingency
96
347
1,213
4,226
14,789
35,433
51,754
124,217
Total Capital
Cost
(1989$)
417
1,502
5,256
18,312
64,086
153,544
224,268
538,275
Table 3-22. Capital Costs for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
Flow
(MGD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
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
1,192
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$)
230
827
2,891
6,901
10,074
23,640
35,253
84,851
123,370
296,108
3-32
-------
s
CD
T-
1o
o
O
Ho
I
10,000-
100
-_ — _ _ . _^
^x
X
^L
^
y
/
/
X"
•S
/
/
J^
•s
iwu-| | | , , | ! !
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 3-15 Capital Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
1,000,000-
100,000-
1§ 10,000-
o
§•
o
1,000-
100
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001
0,001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
1
Figure 3-16 Capital Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
3-33
-------
CO
z
c
fe
METALS <
z
. PRECIPI
tf
CHEMIC
>:
TERTIA
cc
O
LL
1
UJ
NO REQUIF
U
Q
Z
Ul
S
CM
1
n
£
3
Q
C3
O
II
3
3
d
II
g
i.
Q
3
5
o
II
1
3
5
|
I
i
(3
m
I
CM
CO
E
O
CM
1
0
CAUSTIC
(LBS/YR)
££
let
a
C
CAUSTIC
(LBS/YR)
II
-1 w
a
CAUSTIC
(LBS/YR)
111 S
a
CAUSTIC
(LBS/YR)
UJ «—
3aJ
n
2 S
11
£s
cc
EiS
> o
rig
> H
> o
-^
|
D
a.
oooooooooooooooooooooo
O ? * (OCDCO^-COCO COlOf- t-
co cociJCMcn'rcgioco-r- co
CM — CM CM ^ — T-^
CM —
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|M° 'T- CM cMi"-^°' U'T-'~ do J2
CM
oooooooooooooooooooooo
»-TTOinococ»o>r^cocoo'3-in"-o'3-co«-o-'-
co'^Jd co cridcMcri^cM IOCOT- ^^d co'
CMO T-CMCMr^ T- OO »-
oooooooooooooooooooooo
COTI-OCOOO-^COO-^OJOmT-r-OfCO-r-OCO
CM S °. T- co o" cvi co" d d d — d 9 2 °. —
. O CM ••— *•% *^ O
0 00
oooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooo
ddddddo'ooo'ooddoddddddd
^S!*Sc3S2g52g?:S«»§ffl3ScMo52
*^"
ooo o> co oj cj cn in co o> x cj ooo N
CMOO co in o co r^ co o o°o ooo
-------
Table 3-24. O & M Costs for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
Flow
(MGD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Energy
63
63
63
69
128
388
713
3,313
Maintenance
17
60
210
732
2,563
6,142
8,971
21,531
Taxes
&
Insurance
8
30
105
366
1,282
3,071
4,485
10,766
Labor
4,372
4,372
4,492
4,914
5,375
5,724
5,880
6,261 '
Chemical
Cost
1
1
2
15
148
741
1,482
7,412
Total
O & M Cost
(1989$)
4,461
4,526
4,872
6,096
9,496
16,066
21,531
49,283
Table 3-25. O & M Costs for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
Flow
(MGD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
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
Chemical
Cost
1
1
2
18
175
870
1,735
8,660
Total
O & M Cost
(1989 $)
4,408
4,444
4,689
5,541
7,708
11,815
15,255
33,790
3-35
-------
100,000-
"g 10,000-
o
1,000-
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-17 O & M Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
100,000-
§ 10,000-
o
1,000-
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-18 O & M Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
3-36
-------
ln(Y2) = 10,011 + 0.385In(X) + 0.022(In(X))2 (3-17)
ln(Y2) = 9.695 + 0.328ln(X) + 0.019(ln(X))2 (3-18)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
The land requirements for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank are presented in
Table 3-26. The resulting cost curves are presented in Figures 3-19 and 3-20,
respectively. The land requirements equations for the rapid mix tank and pH adjustment
tank are presented as Equations 3-19 and 3-20, respectively.
ln(Y3) = -2.330 + 0.352ln(X) + 0.019(ln(X))2
ln(Y3) = -2.67 + 0.30ln(X) + 0.033(ln(X))2
(3-19)
(3-20)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
Table 3-26. Land Requirements for Tertiary Precipitation Tanks - Metals Option 3
Flow
(MGD)
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
3-37
-------
0.1
J3
0.01
I ' • ......
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-19 Land Requirement Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
o
£. 0.1
0.01
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 3-20 Land Requirement Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
3-38
-------
3.2 CLARIFICATION
Clarification systems provide continuous, low-cost separation and removal of
suspended solids from water. Clarification is used to remove particulates, flocculated
impurities, and precipitates. These clarification systems are equipped with a flocculation
unit and are costed with the addition of the flocculation step.
The capital and O & M costs equations for the clarification systems were obtained
from two vendor services. The influent total suspended solids (TSS) design concentration
used was 40,000 mg/l or four percent solids. The effluent sludge TSS concentration was
200,000 mg/l or 20 percent solids. The effluent overflow TSS concentration was 500 mg/l-
at a flow rate of 80 percent of the influent flow. These parameters were taken from CWT
QID 105.
The capital cost curves for the clarification systems for all Metals Options were
estimated using the vendor quotes and represent equipment and installation costs. The
clarification system includes a clarification unit, flocculation unit, pumps, motor,
foundation, and necessary accessories. The total construction cost includes the system
costs, installation, installed piping, and instrumentation and controls. Installation, installed
piping, and instrumentation and controls are estimated at 35 percent, 30 percent, and 30
percent of the vendor system costs, respectively. The total capital cost includes the cost
for engineering (15 percent of total construction cost) and contingency (15 percent of total
construction cost). The capital costs were scaled down to 1989 dollars using ENR's
Construction Cost Index. The itemized capital costs are listed in Table 3-27.
The O & M costs for all Metals Options were based on energy usage,
maintenance, labor, flocculant cost, and taxes and insurance. Energy was divided into
cost for electricity, lighting, and controls. Pumping costs were based on power
requirements of 0.5 kwhr per 1,000 gallons of wastewater. Lighting and controls were
assumed at $1,000 per year and electrical cost was $0.08 per kwhr. The maintenance
was approximated at four percent of the total capital cost and taxes and insurance were
two percent of the total capital cost. The labor cost used was $31,200 per man-year.
3-39
-------
Table 3-27. Capital Costs for Clarification Systems for Metals Options 1, 2, & 3
Vol/Day
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
System
Cost
6,579
6,579
6,579
6,971
9,547
14,550
18,358
35,466
49,563
Install.
2,303
2,303
2,303
2,440
3,341
5,093
6,425
12,413
17,347
Piping
1,974
1,974
1,974
2,091
2,864
4,365
5,507
10,640
14,869
Instrum.
&
Controls
1,974
1,974
1,974
2,091
2,864
4,365
5,507
10,640
14,869
Engineer.
&
Conting.
3,849
3,849
3,849
4,078
5,585
8,512
10,739
20,748
28,994
Total
Capital Cost
(1993$)
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
The labor requirements for Metals Options 1 and 2 were estimated between three
hours per day (for the smaller systems) to four hours per day (for the larger systems),
while the labor requirement for Metals Option 3 was one hour per day. The polymer
dosage used in the flocculation step was 2.0 mg polymer per liter of wastewater. This
dosage was taken from the MP&M cost model.. The cost of polymer was $3.38 per
pound in 1989 dollars. The O & M costs were scaled down to 1989 dollars using ENR's
cost index. The itemized O & M costs for Metals Options 1 and 2 are presented in Table
3-28, with the subsequent O & M cost curve shown in Figure 3-22. The itemized O & M
costs for Metals Option 3 are in Table 3-29, with the cost curve shown in Figure 3-23.
The clarification systems capital cost equation is presented as Equation 3-21, with
the subsequent cost curve in Figure 3-21. The O & M cost equations for the Metals
Options 1 and 2 and Metals Option 3 clarification systems are presented as Equations
3-22 and 3-23, respectively.
In(Y1) = 11.552 + 0.409In(X) + 0.020(ln(X))2
In(Y2) = 10.429 + 0.174In(X) + 0.0091 (ln(X))2
(3-21)
(3-22)
3-40
-------
Table 3-28. O & M Costs for Clarification Systems for Metals Options 1 and 2
Vol/day
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.00
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,155
11,464
Labor
15,741
15,741
15,741
15,857
16,842
18,210
19,005
21,439
22,788
Maintenance
667
667
667
706
968
1,475
1,861
3,596
5,025
Taxes
&
Insurance
334
334
334
353
484
738
931
1,798
2,513
Polymer
Cost
10
10
10
15
150
750
1,500
7,500
15,000
Total
O & M Cost
(1993$)
17,752
17,752
17,752
17,941
19,548
22,693
25,337
40,488
56,790
Total
O & M Cost
(1989$)
16,154
16,154
16,154
16,326
17,789
20,651
23,057
36,844
51,679
Table 3-29. O & M Costs for Clarification Systems for Metals Option 3
Vol/day
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.00
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,155
11,464
Labor
5,247
5,247
5,247
5,286
5,614
6,070
6,335
7,146
7,596
Maintenance
667
667
667
706
968
1,475
1,861
3,596
5,025
Taxes
&
Insurance
334
334
334
353
484
738
931
1,798
2,513
Polymer
Cost
10
10
10
15
150
750
1,500
7,500
15,000
Total
O & M Cost
(1993$)
7,258
7,258
7,258
7,370
8,320
10,553
12,667
26,195
41,598
Total
O & M Cost
(1989$)
6,605
6,605
6,605
6,707
7,571
9,603
11,527
23,837
37,854
3-41
-------
1.000,000
8
O>
o
T3
1
O
100,000
10,000-
7
~7
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow(MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-21 Capital Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Options 1, 2, and 3
100,000
•8
o
10,000
7
0.1 1
Figure 3-22 O & M Cost Curve for Clarification-Systems - Options 1 and 2
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow(MGD)
3-42
-------
100,000-
7
10,000-
s
08
o
1,000-
0.000001 0.00001
0.0001 0.001 0.01
Row(MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-23 O & M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Option 3
10,000
1,000
•8
O
100
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
R0w(MGD)
Figure 3-24 O & M Upgrade Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Option 1
3-43
-------
In(Y2) = 10.294 + 0.362ln(X) + 0.019(ln(X))2 (3-23)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD),
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $), and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
A clarification system upgrade was calculated to estimate the increase in O & M
costs for facilities that already have a clarification system in-place. These facilities would
need to improve pollutant removals from their current performance levels to Metals Option
1 levels. To determine the required increase from current performance to Metals Option
1 levels, a comparison of the sum of the Metals current performance pollutant
concentrations to Metals Option 1 levels versus the Metals Subcategory raw influent
pollutant concentrations to current performance levels was calculated. This percentage
increase was determined to be 3 percent, as follows:
O & M Upgrade = Current - Metals Option 1 = 0.03 = 3
Increase Raw - Current
(3-24)
Therefore, in order for the facilities to perform at Metals Option 1 levels, an O & M
cost upgrade of three percent of the total O & M costs would be realized for each facility.
The O & M upgrade cost equation for Metals Option 1 clarification is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 7.166 + 0.238ln(X) + 0.013(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$)
(3-25)
The O & M upgrade cost curve is shown in Figure 3-24.
To develop land requirements for clarification systems, overall system dimensions
were provided by the vendor. The system dimensions were scaled up to represent the
3-44
-------
total land required for the system plus peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.).
The equation relating the flow of the clarification system with the land requirement
for all Metals Options is:
ln(Y3) = -1.773 + 0.513ln(X) + 0.046(ln(X))2
where:
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
The land requirement curve is shown in Figure 3-25.
0.1
0.01
0.00001
0.0001
0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
(3-26)
0.1
Figure 3-25 Land Requirement Curve for Clarification Systems - Options 1, 2, and 3
3-45
-------
3.3 PLATE AND FRAME PRESSURE FILTRATION - LIQUID STREAM
Pressure filtration systems are used for the removal of solids from waste streams.
These systems typically follow chemical precipitation or clarification.
3.3.1 Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Option 1
The plate and frame pressure filtration system costs were estimated for a liquid
stream; this is the full effluent stream from a chemical precipitation process. The liquid
stream consists of 96 percent liquid and four percent (40,000 mg/l) solids. These influent
parameters were taken from CWT QID 105.
The components of the plate and frame pressure filtration system include: filter
plates; filter cloth; hydraulic pumps; pneumatic booster pumps; control panel; connector
pipes; and support platform. Equipment and operational costs were obtained from
manufacturers' recommendations. The capital cost equation was developed by adding
installation, engineering, and contingency costs to the vendors' equipment costs. The
installation cost was estimated at 35 percent of the equipment cost. Engineering and
contingency fees were estimated to be 15 percent of the equipment and installation costs.
The capital costs are presented in Table 3-30. All vendor cost information has been
converted to 1989 dollars using ENR's Construction Index. The vendor costs were
plotted and a capital cost curve was developed. The curve is presented in Figure 3-26.
The capital cost equation for Metals Option 1 liquid filtration is:
where:
ln(Y1) = 14.826 + 1.089ln(X) + 0.050(ln(X))2
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
(3-27)
3-46
-------
Table 3-30. Capital Cost for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 1
(Liquid Stream - Four Percent Solids)
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.100
1.000
Average Vendor
Equipment Cost
($)
6,325
6,325
6,424
9,826
29,316
170,575
1,935,740
Install.
Cost
2,214
2,214
2,248
3,439
10,261
59,701
677,509
Total Capital
&
Installation Cost
8,539
8,539
8,672
13,265
39,577
230,276
2,613,249
Engineering &
Contingency Fee
2,562
2,562
2,602
3,980
11,873
69,083
783,975
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
10,102
10,102
10,259
15,693
46,820
272,417
3,091,474
The O & M costs were based on estimated electricity usage, maintenance, labor,
taxes and insurance, and filter cake disposal costs. The electricity usage and costs were
based upon a usage rate of 0.5 kwhr per 1,000 gallons at $0.08 per kwhr, and lighting
and control energy costs were estimated at $1,000 per year. Maintenance was
approximated at four percent of the capital cost. Taxes and insurance were approximated
at two percent of the capital cost. The labor cost for the plate and frame pressure
filtration system was approximated at $31,200 per man-year at thirty minutes per cycle
per filter press.
Filter cake disposal costs were derived from responses to the WTI Questionnaire.
The disposal cost was estimated at $0.74 per gallon of filter cake; this is based on the
cost of contract hauling and disposal in a Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill. A more detailed
explanation of the filter cake disposal costs development is presented in Subsection 6.2.
To determine the total annual O & M costs for a plate and frame filtration system, the
filter cake disposal cost must be added to the other O & M costs.
The O & M costs were converted to 1989 dollars using ENR's cost index. The
itemized annual O & M costs, excluding the filter cake disposal costs, are presented in
Table 3-31 with the subsequent cost curve presented in Figure 3-27.
3-47
-------
10,000,000
10.000
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 001
Row(MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-26 Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Capital Cost Curve - Metals
Option 1
1,000,000
§ 100.000
o
s
08
o
10,000
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001
7
z
0.001 0.01 0.1
Row(MGD)
Figure 3-27 Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O & M Cost Curve - Metals
Option 1
3-48
-------
Table 3-31. O & M Costs for Plate & Frame Pressure
Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal
Filtration - Metals Option 1 (Liquid
Cost)
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
' 1.0
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,155
11,464
Maintenance
404
404
410
627
1,872
5,977
10,895
55,480
123,660
Taxes
&
Insurance
202
202
205
314
936
2,989
5,448
27,740
61,830
Labor
17,730
17,730
17,730
53,549
53,549
62,504
71,550
88,650
106,380
O&M
Cost
(1989 $)
19,336
19,336
19,345
55,500
57,461
72,990
89,933
178,025
303,334
The O&M cost equation for Metals Option 1 liquid filtration is:
(3-28)
where:
In(Y2) = 12.406 + 0.381 ln(X) + 0.014(In(X))2
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y2 = O & M Cost (1989 dollars).
A pressure filtration system upgrade was calculated to estimate the increase in
O&M costs for facilities that already have a pressure filtration system in-place. These
facilities would need to improve pollutant removals from their current performance levels
to Metals Option 1 levels. To determine the incremental percentage increase from
current performance to Metals Option 1 levels, the ratio of the current performance to
Option 1 levels versus the raw data to current performance levels was calculated. This
incremental percentage increase was determined to be three percent, as follows:
O&M Upgrade = Current - Option 1 = 0.03 = 3 %
Increase Raw - Current
(3-29)
3-49
-------
Therefore, in order for the facilities to perform at Metals Option 1 levels, an O & M
cost upgrade of three percent of the total O & M costs (except for taxes and insurance,
which are a function of the capital cost) would be realized for each facility. The itemized
O & M upgrade costs without the filter cake disposal costs are presented in Table 3-32.
The filter cake disposal upgrade costs are presented in Subsection 6.2.
Table 3-32. O & M Upgrade Costs for Plate & Frame Filtration for Metals Option 1
(Liquid Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
Row
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
Energy
30
30
30
30
33
46
61
185
344
Maintenance
12
12
12
19
56
179
327
1,664
3,710
Labor
532
532
532
1,606
1,606
1,875
2,147
2,660
3,191
O & M Cost
(1989$)
574
574
574
1,655
1,695
2,100
2,535
4,509
7,245
The O & M upgrade cost equation for Metals Option 1 liquid filtration is:
In(Y2) a 8.707 + 0.333ln(X) + 0.012(ln(X))2 (3-30)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
The O & M upgrade cost curve for Option 1 is shown in Figure 3-28.
Land requirements were calculated for the plate and frame pressure filtration
systems. The land requirements were obtained by adding a perimeter of 20 feet around
the equipment dimensions supplied by vendors. The land requirement curve is presented
3-50
-------
100.000
10,000
1
§
o
2
08
o
1,000
100
0.000001 0.00001
0.0001 0.001 0.01
Row(MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-28 Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O & M Upgrade Cost Curve -
Metals Option 1
«
£E
•o
0.1
0.01
0.000001 0.00001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Row(MGD)
Figure 3-29 Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Land Requirement Curve - Metals
Option 1
3-51
-------
in Figure 3-29. The land requirement equation for Metals Option 1 liquid filtration is:
In(Y3) = -1.971 + 0.281 In(X) + 0.018(ln(X))2 (3-31)
where:
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
3.3.2 Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Option 2
The plate and frame pressure filtration system liquid stream costs for Metals Option
2 are based on the same parameters and are from the same vendors as Metals Option
1. The pressure filtration capital and O & M costs are computed the same as for the
Metals Option 1 liquid filtration systems. The Metals Option 2 capital and O & M costs
are based on two pressure filtration units processing two batches per day. These units
were sized at 25 percent of the total liquid stream flow each. The capital costs are
presented in Table 3-33.
The Metals Option 2 O & M costs parameters were similar to the Metals Option
1 parameters. The electricity costs were similar because electricity is based upon
wastewater flow rate. The labor costs were scaled up by four to account for the two units
at two batches per day. The maintenance and taxes and insurance were four percent
and two percent of the Metals Option 2 capital costs, respectively. The filter cake
disposal costs were the same as for Metals Option 1 and are presented in Subsection
6.2. The itemized O & M costs are presented in Table 3-34. The total O & M costs for
Metals Option 2 are calculated by adding the filter cake disposal costs to the O & M
costs. The capital and O & M cost equations for Metals Option 2 liquid filtration are
presented as Equations 3-32 and 3-33, respectively.
ln(Y1) = 14.024 + 0.859ln(X) + 0.040(ln(X))2 (3-32)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
3-52
-------
Table 3-33. Capital Costs for Plate & Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 2
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.100
0.500
1.000
Average
Vendor Equipment
Cost
9,147
9,147
9,185
12,813
30,368
122,294
443,600
836,855
Installation
Cost
3,201
3,201
3,215
4,485
10,629
42,803
155,260
292,899
Total Equipment
&
Installation Cost
12,348
12,348
12,400
17,298
40,997
165,097
598,860
1,129,754
Engineering
& Contingency
Fee
3,704
3,704
3,720
5,189
12,299
49,529
179,658
338,926
Total
Capital Cost
(1989$)
14,607
14,607
14,669
20,463
48,499
195,310
708,451
1,336,499
Table 3-34. O & M Costs for Plate & Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 2
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
2,040
6,155
11,464
Maintenance
293
293
294
409
970
3,906
14,169
26,730
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$)
72,360
72,360
72,361
215,820
216,755
294,099
382,009
477,079
3-53
-------
ln(Y2) = 13.056 + 0.193In(X) + 0.00343(ln(X))2
(3-33)
where:
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
The capital and O & M cost curves are presented in Figures 3-30 and 3-31,
respectively.
Land requirements were calculated for Metals Option 2 plate and frame pressure
filtration. The land requirements were obtained by adding a perimeter of 20 feet around
the equipment dimensions for one system and doubling the area to account for the two
systems. The Metals Option 2 liquid filtration systems requirement curve is presented in-
Figure 3-32; the subsequent equation is:
ln(Y3) = -1.658 + 0.185ln(X) + 0.009(ln(X))2
where:
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
(3-34)
3-54
-------
10,000,000
1,000,000
o
o
100,000
10,000
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Row (MOD)
z
0.1
Figure 3-30 Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Capital Cost Curve - Metals
Option 2
1,000,000
100,000
o
5
•8
o
10,000
04)00001 0.00001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Row (MGD)
1
Figure 3-31 Plate & Frame- Filtration (Liquid Stream) O & M Cost Curve - Metals
Option 2
3-55
-------
0.1
0.01
-.—I . ,
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Row (MGO)
0.1
Figure 3-32 Plate & Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Land Requirement Curve - Metals
Option 2
3-56
-------
3.4 EQUALIZATION
Waste treatment facilities often need to equalize wastes by holding them in a tank
for a period of time to get a stable waste stream which is easier to treat. In the CWT
Industry, equalization is frequently used to minimize the variability of incoming wastes.
The equalization cost estimates and curves were obtained from OCPSFs use of
the 1983 CAPDET. program. The equalization process utilizes a mechanical aeration
basin. The following default design parameters were used:
• Aerator mixing requirements = 0.03 hp per 1000 gallons;
• Oxygen requirements = 15.0 mg/l per hr;
• Dissolved oxygen in basin = 2.0 mg/l;
• Depth of basin = 6.0 feet; and
• Detention time = 24 hours.
The range of wastewater flows selected for these analyses was 0.001 to 5.0 MGD.
Capital costs were calculated based upon total project costs less: miscellaneous
nonconstruction costs, 201 planning costs, technical costs, land costs, interest during
construction, and laboratory costs. O & M costs were obtained directly from the initial
year O & M costs. The capital and O & M costs were calculated in 1982 dollars and
scaled up to 1989 dollars using ENR's construction index. The CAPDET capital and
O & M cost equations for equalization systems are presented as Equations 3-35 and 3-
36, respectively.
ln(Y1) = 12.057 + 0.433ln(X) + 0.043(ln(X))2
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
(3-35)
3-57
-------
ln(Y2) = 11.723 + 0.311ln(X) + 0.019(ln(X))2
(3-36)
where:
Y2 = O & M Cost (1989 $).
The capital and O & M costs and land requirements are presented in Table 3-35,
and the subsequent cost curves are shown in Figures 3-33 and 3-34, respectively.
Table 3-35. Capital and O & M Costs and Land Requirements for Equalization Systems
Flow Rate
(MGD)
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Capital Cost
(1989$)
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$)
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
To develop land requirements for the equalization systems, the CAPDET program
was used. The requirements are scaled up to represent the total land required for the
system plus peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). The land equation for
equalization systems is:
3-58
-------
1,000,000
o
o
100,000
10,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow Rate (MGD)
10
Figure 3-33 Capital Cost Curve for Equalization Systems
1,000,000
§ 100,000
o
2
•0
O
10,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow Rate (MGD)
Figure 3-34 O & M Cost Curve for Equalization Systems
10
3-59
-------
In(Y3) =s -0.912 + 1.120ln(X) -
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
\\2
(3-37)
The land requirement curve is presented in Figure 3-35.
l\J -
1 -
"5T
§
i
r 0.1,
a.
3
1* 0.01 -
1 :
— *
OOOO1 -
o.a
/
/
_ ^
— -j^
/
-.£.
^
/
/
D01 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 1(
Row Rate (MGO)
Figure 3-35 Land Requirement Curve for Equalization Systems
3-60
-------
3.5 AIR STRIPPING
Air stripping is an effective wastewater treatment method for removing dissolved
gases and highly volatile odorous compounds from wastewater streams by passing high
volumes of air through an agitated gas-water mixture.
The capital cost curve for air strippers was obtained from four vendor services.
Catalytic oxidizers were also included in the price of the capital cost for air pollution
control purposes. The technology cost was based on removing medium volatile
pollutants. The medium volatile pollutant 1,2-dichloroethane was used for the
calculations, with an influent level of 4,000 u.g/1 and effluent level of 68 jj,g/l. The
equipment costs were calculated on a flow rate range from 0.0001 MGD to 1.0 MGD.
The air stripping unit costs included transfer pumps, control panels, blowers, and ancillary
equipment. The costs from the vendors were averaged together in order to calculate a
cost curve. The total capital cost included the cost for installation (35 percent of
equipment cost), engineering (15 percent of equipment and installation cost), and
contingency (15 percent of equipment and installation cost). The capital costs were
calculated in 1992 dollars and scaled down to 1989 dollars using ENR's Construction
Cost Index. The capital costs for the air strippers are listed in Table 3-36.
Table 3-36. Capital Costs 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
67,479
95,391
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
62,673
65,988-.
84,240
141,278
292,409
413,361
3-61
-------
The O & M costs were determined by electricity usage, maintenance, labor,
catalyst replacement, and taxes and insurance. The electricity usage and costs were
provided by the vendors. The electricity usage for the air strippers was determined by
the amount of horsepower needed to operate the systems. The electricity cost was
estimated at $0.08 per kwhr. The energy needed to run the catalytic oxidizer is variable
according to the type of system. Many of the systems regenerate a major portion of their
heat and recycle their energy, cutting down on electricity costs. The electricity for the
catalytic oxidizers were approximated at 50 percent of the electricity used for the air
strippers. Maintenance was approximated at four percent of the total capital cost and
taxes and insurance was two percent of the total capital cost. The labor cost for the air
strippers was $31,200 per man-year at three hours per day. The catalysts used in the
catalytic oxidizer are precious metal catalysts and their lifetime is approximately four
years. Therefore, the catalyst beds are completely replaced about every four years. The
costs for replacing the spent catalysts were divided by four to convert them to annual
costs. The O & M costs were scaled down to 1989 dollars using ENR's cost index. The
itemized annual O & M cost is presented in Table 3-37.
Table 3-37. O & M Costs for Air Stripping Systems
Row
(MGD)
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
1500
4250
Total
O & M Cost
(1992 $)
20,400
21,095
22,515
28,696
43,237
60,755
Total
O & M Cost
(1989$)
19,176
19,829
21,164
26,974
40,643
57,110
3-62
-------
The capital and O & M cost equations for the air stripping systems are presented
as Equations 3-38 and 3-39, with their subsequent cost curves presented in Figures 3-36
and 3-37, respectively.
where:
ln(Y1) = 12.899 + 0.486ln(X) + 0.031 (ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
ln(Y2) = 10.865 + 0.298ln(X) + 0.021 (ln(X))2
(3-38)
(3-39>
where:
Y2 = O & M Cost (1989 $).
To develop land requirements for the air stripping and catalytic oxidizer systems,
the vendor data was used. The dimensions of the air strippers, in terms of length and
width, are very small compared to the catalytic oxidizers. The land requirement equation
for the air stripping systems is:
where:
ln(Y) = -2.207 + 0.536In(X) + 0.042(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
The land requirement cuive is presented in Figure 3-38.
(3-40)
3-63
-------
1,000,000
CD
8
i
1
o
100,000
10,000
0.00001
0.0001
0.001 0.01
Row (MGD)
Figure 3-36 Capital Cost Curve for Air Strippers
0.1
100,000
o
s
10,000-
0.00001
0.0001
—I 1—
0.001 0.01
Flow(MGO)
Figure 3-37 O & M Cost Curve for Air Strippers
3-64
—T"
0.1
-------
0.1
0.01
0.0001
0.001
0.01
FTow(MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-38 Land Requirement Curve for Air Strippers
3-65
-------
3.6 MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION
Filtration is a proven technology for the removal of residual suspended solids from
wastewater. The media used in the CWT multi-media filtration process are sand and
anthracite coal, supported by gravel. Large particulate matter is captured by the coarse,
lighter media near the top of the filter bed. Smaller particles continue down to the lower
media level, where particles as small as 10 microns are retained. by the finer, heavier
media. The density differences between the media allows for layer separation after
backwashing. Flow controls are self-adjusting to regulate treatment and backwash rates
regardless of fluctuations in water pressure, thus helping to prevent a loss of filter media
from the tank.
The capital and O & M costs for the multi-media filtration systems were obtained
from a vendor" service. The design average influent total suspended solids design
concentration used was 165 mg/l. The design average effluent total suspended solids
concentration was 124 mg/l. The system costs were.calculated for a flow rate range from
0.001 to 1.0 MGD.
The total capital cost curves for the multi-media filtration systems were estimated
using the vendor quotes and represent equipment and installation costs. The total
construction cost includes the costs of the filter, instrumentation and controls, pumps,
piping, and installation. Installation, installed piping, and instrumentation and controls are
estimated at 50 percent, 60 percent, and 30 percent of the filter system equipment cost,
respectively. The total capital costs include the cost for engineering (15 percent of
construction cost) and contingency (15 percent of construction cost). The capital costs
were scaled down to 1989 dollars using ENR's construction cost index. The itemized
capital costs are listed in Table 3-38.
The O & M costs include energy usage, maintenance, labor, and taxes and
insurance. Energy is the cost of electricity to run the pumps, lighting, and instrumentation
and controls. Pumping costs were based on power requirements of 0.5 kwhr per 1,000
gallons per pump, which includes feed, booster, and metering pumps. The cost of
electricity was $0.08 per kwhr. The maintenance was approximated at four percent of the
3-66
-------
Table 3-38. Capital Costs for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
Flow
Rate
(MGD)
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
System
Cost
1,522
1,942
3,237
5,904
13,098
27,866
Installation
761
971
1,619
2,952
6,549
13,933
Piping
913
1,165
1,942
3,542
7,859
16,720
Instrument.
&
Controls
457
583
971
1,771
3,929
8,360
Engineering
&
Contingency
1,096
1,398
2,331
4,251
9,431
20,064
Total
Capital Cost
(1993$)
4,749
6,059
10,100
18,420
40,866
86,943
Total
Capital Cost
(1989$)
4,322
5,514
9,191
16,762
37,188
79,118
Table 3-39, O & M Costs for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
Flow Rate
(MGD)
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
Energy
1,100
1,600
1,730
7,000
31,200
70,000
Labor
21,900
21,900
21,900
21,900
21,900
21,900
Maintenance
173
221
368
670
1,488
3,165
Taxes
&
Insurance
87
111
184
335
744
1,583
Total
O & M Cost
(1993$)
23,260
23,832
24,182
29,905
55,332
96,648
Total
O & M Cost •
(1989$)
21,167
21,687
22,006
27,214
50,352
87,950
3-67
-------
total capital cost and taxes and insurance were two percent of the total capital cost. The
labor cost for the multi-media filtration system was $31,200 per man-year at four hours
per day. The O & M costs were scaled down to 1989 dollars using ENR's cost index.
The itemized O & M costs are presented in Table 3-39.
The vendor capital and O & M cost equations for the multi-media filtration systems
are presented as Equations 3-41 and 3-42, respectively. The capital cost and O & M cost
curves are presented in Figure 3-39 and 3-40, respectively.
ln(Y1) = 11.218 + 0.865ln(X) + 0.066(In(X))2
(3-41)
where:
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989$).
In(Y2) = 11.290 + 0.580ln(X) + 0.057(ln(X))2
•
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
(3-42)
To develop land requirements for multi-media filtration systems, overall system
dimensions were provided by the vendor. The land dimensions were scaled up to
represent the total land required for the system plus peripherals (pumps, controls, access
areas, etc.). The equation relating the flow of the system with the land requirement for
the multi-media filtration systems is:
ln(Y3) = -2.971 + 0.097ln(X) + 0.008(ln(X))2
(3-43)
where:
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
The land requirement curve is presented in Figure 3-41.
3-68
-------
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Row Rate (MGD)
Figure 3-39 Capital Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
10
1,000,000
100,000
08
o
10,
"Soobl
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow Rate (MGD)
Figure 3-40 O & M Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
3-69
10
-------
0.01
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001
0.001 0.01
Row(MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-41 Land Requirement Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
3-70
-------
3.7 CARBON ADSORPTION
Activated carbon adsorption is an effective treatment technology for the removal
of organic pollutants from wastewater. It is included in Oils Options 3 and 4 and Organics
Option 2. The considered application for the CWT Industry is granular activated carbon
(GAC) in column reactors. The equipment consists of two beds operated in series. This
configuration allows the beds to go to exhaustion and be replaced on a rotating basis.
The GAC capital costs are based on vendor quotations and are the same for all
of the regulatory options considered. The capital costs consist of the adsorber
construction cost, initial carbon fill, freight, and supervision. The vendor prices were
increased by 35 percent to account for installation costs. Engineering and contingency
costs were then added; these were each approximated at 15 percent of the subtotal
equipment and installation costs. The 1993 costs were scaled down to 1989 dollars using
ENR's Construction Cost Index.
The itemized capital costs for all option GAC systems are presented in Table 3-40.
Table 3-40. Capital Costs for Activated Carbon Systems
Flow
(MGD)
0.00001
0.00008
0.0001
0.001
0.008
0.04
0.08
0.16
0.24
Carbon Fill
(Ib)
5
40
50
500
4,000
20,000
40,000
80,000
120,000
Equipment Cost
($1993)
500
500
500
1,500
60,000
120,000
190,000
380,000
570,000
Equipment
&
Installation
675
675
675
2,025
81,000
162,000
256,500
513,000
769,500
Installation &
Eng. &
Contingency
878
878
878
2,633
105,300
210,600
333,450
666,900
1,000,350
Total
Capital Cost
($1989)
799
799
799
2,396
95,823
191,646
303,440
606,879
910,319
3-71
-------
The capital cost curve for all option GAC systems is presented in Figure 3-42. The GAG
capital cost equation for all options is:
In(Y1) = 15.956 + 1.423ln(x) + 0.050(ln(X))2 (3-44)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
The O & M costs are primarily attributed to carbon usage. The key design
parameter is adsorption capacity; this is a measurement of the mass of pollutant
adsorbed per unit mass of carbon. For each regulatory option system, the pollutants of
concern and their associated removals were tabulated. Using the adsorption capacities,
the specific carbon requirements were calculated. The carbon usage for each option was
scaled down by one-third; this accounts for the series-bed design of the systems. The
pollutant performance data and carbon requirements for Oils Options 3 and 4 and
Organics Option 2 are presented in Tables 3-41, 3-42, and 3-43, respectively.
The total O & M cost components are electricity, maintenance, labor, freight, and
taxes and insurance, in addition to the carbon usage. The electricity requirement is
approximated at 0.3 kwhr per 1,000 gallons of wastewater at a cost of $0.08 per kwhr.
Maintenance is estimated at five percent of the total capital cost and the taxes and
insurance line item is calculated at two percent of the total capital cost. GAC is sold by
the vendor in bulk at $0.70 per pound. The freight cost for shipping the carbon is
dependent upon the amount of carbon and the distance that it is shipped. The average
freight cost used is $3,000 per 20,000 pound shipment. Labor requirements are three
hours per day at a rate of $30,000 per man-year. The costs were calculated in 1993
dollars and were scaled down to 1989 dollars using ENR's Construction Cost Index.
The itemized O & M costs for Oils Options 3 and 4 and Organics Option 2 are
presented in Tables 3-44, 3-45, and 3-46, respectively. The respective O & M cost
curves are shown in Figures 3-43, 3-44, and 3-45. The O & M cost equations for the Oils
option 3, Oils Option 4, and Organics Option 2 carbon adsorption systems are presented
3-72
-------
1 U,WW,WWV
1 ,000,000 -
^^^
S 100,000-
O)
CO
o
-f 10,000-
o
1,000-
1OO-
/
/
/
/
/
, -7^ ~^-=.
/
/
/
z:
r^ __,^-_ _^
^x^
j-^:
0.000001 0.00001
0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-42 Capital Cost Curve for Activated Carbon Systems
10,000,000
1,000,000
O)
oo
o>
08
O
100,000
10,000
Z
Z
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow Rate (MGO)
0.1
1
Figure 3-43 O & M Cost Curve for Activated Carbon - Oils Option 3
3-73
-------
Table 3-41. Activated Carbon Performance Data - Oils Option 3
Pollutant
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
2-Butanone
2-Propanone
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Benzene
Benzoic acid
Ethylbenzene
Hexanoic Acid
Methylene Chloride
m-Xylene
n-Decane
n-Docosane
n-Dodecane
n-Eicosane '
n-Hexacosane
n-Hexadecane
n-Octadecane
n-Tetradecane
o+p-Xylene
Phenol
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
Total
Option 3
Influent
(MS/I)
776
1,426
15,724
4,025
5,817
30,467
734 .
7,595
1,281
1,019
64 (ND)
64 (ND)
64 (ND)
64 (ND)
64 (ND)
64 (ND)
64 (ND)
64 (ND)
557
1,753
100
11,183
99,101
182,070
Option 3
Effluent
Otg/i)
252
1,469
22,321
332
2,019
15,137
78
5,741
1,040
69
28
28
28
28
28
28
45
28
54
1,062
46
2,043
44,915
96,818
Pollutant
Removal
(^g/0
524
-
-
3,693
3,799
-
656
1,854
247
950
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
503
691
54
9,140
54,186
76,297
Carbon
Usage
(g/i)
0.338
-
-
0.036
0.174
-
0.093
0.017
0.182
0.019
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.010
0.032
0.006
0.256
0.028
1.191
3-74
-------
Table 3-42. Activated Carbon Performance Data - Oils Option 4
Pollutant
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
2-Butanone
2-Propanone
4-Chloro-3-MethyIphenoI
Benzene
Benzole Acid
Ethylbenzene
Hexanoic Acid
Methylene Chloride
m-Xylene
n-Decane
n-Docosane
n-Dodecane
n-Eicosane
n-Hexacosane
n-Hexadecane
n-Octadecane
n-Tetradecane
o+p-Xylene
Phenol
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
Total
Option 4
Influent
(^g/i)
90
1,718
17,529
331
1,002
2,928
47
1,796
497
42
28 (ND)
28 (ND)
28 (ND)
28 (ND)
28 (ND)
28 (ND)
28 (ND)
28 (ND)
25
1,217
1JOL (ND)
980
23,852
52,287
Option 4
Effluent
(W/l)
8
1,866
13,777
10
10
50
10
10
251
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
11
99
16,218
Pollutant
Removal
(ng/i)
82
-
16,752
321
992
2,878
37
1,786
246
32
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
15
1,207
(ND)
969
23,753
49,070
Carbon
Usage
(g/i)
0.171
-
0.002
0.005
0.361
0.199
0.027
0.242
0.941
0.0009
-
-
-
• -
-
-
-
-
0.0004
0.691
-
0.270
0.795
3.678
3-75
-------
Table 3-43. Activated Carbon Performance Data - Organics Option 2
Pollutant
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TetrachIoroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-TrichIoroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1-DichIoroethene
1 ,2,3-TrichIoropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-DichIorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3-DichIoroaniline
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-TrichlorophenoI
2,4-DimethylphenoI
2-Butanone
2-ChIorophenol
2-Hexanone
2-PicoIine
2-Propanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetophenone
Benzene
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Option 2
Influent
Gm/i)
10 (ND)
16 (ND)
155
10 (ND)
23
12
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
23
3,735
72
378
735
10 (ND)
745
28 (ND)
50 (ND)
68
1,130
65
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
140 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
82
10 (ND)
Option 2
Effluent
(ra/0
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
20 (ND)
89
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
65
10 (ND)
50 (ND)
58
1,183
50 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
50 (ND)
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
77
10 (ND)
• Pollutant
Removal
(W/l)
(ND)
(ND)
145
(ND).
13
2
(ND)
(ND)
13
3,715
-
368
725
(ND)
680
(ND)
(ND)
10
-
15
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
5
(ND)
Carbon
Usage
(g/i)
-
-
0.396
-
0.083
0.031
-
-
0.166
0.778
-
0.006
0.013
-
1.250
-
-
na
-
0.002
-
-
-
-
-
na
-
3-76
-------
Table 3-43 (Cont.) Activated Carbon Performance Data - Organics Option 2
Pollutant
Chloroform
Diethyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexanoic Acid
Isophorone
Methylene Chloride
m-Xylene
Naphthalene
n,n-Dimethylformamide
o+p-Xylene
o-Cresol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Pyridine
p-Cresol
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Total
Option 2
Influent
(Mfl/0
439
50 (ND)
10 (ND)
146
10 (ND)
887
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
50
10nd)
15
1,716
243
117
28 (ND)
472
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
92
721
20
43
12,665
Option 2
Effluent
-------
Table 3-44. O & M Costs for Activated Carbon Systems - Oils Option 3
Flow
(MGD)
0.00001
0.00008
0.0001
0.001
0.008
0.04
0.08
0.16
0.24
Energy
(1993 $)
1
1
1
9
70
350
701
1,402
2,102
Mainten.
(1993$)
44
44
44
132
5,265
10,530
16,673
33,345
50,018
Labor
(1993$)
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
Taxes &
Insurance
(1993$)
18
18
18
53
2,106
4,212
6,669
13,338
20,007
Carbon
Usage
(1993$)
17
135
169
1,693
13,544
67,717
135,435
270,870
406,305
Carbon
Shipping
(1993 $)
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
12,000
30,000
60,000
87,000
Total
O&M
Cost
(1993$)
18,873
18,991
19,025
20,680
39,778
110,602
205,271
394,748
581,225
Total
O&M
Cost
(1989$)
17,174
17,282
17,313
18,818
36,198
100,648
186,797
359,221
528,915
Table 3-45. O&M Costs for Activated Carbon Systems - Oils Option 4
Row
(MGD)
0.00001
0.00008
0.0001
0.001
0.008
0.04
0.08
0.16
0.24
Electricity
(1993 $)
1
1
1
9
70
350
701
1,402
2,102
Maint
(1993$)
44
44
44
132
5,265
10,530
16,673
33,345
50,018
Labor
(1993 $)
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793,
15,793
15,793
15,793
Taxes &
Insurance
(1993 $)
18
18
18
53
2,106
4,212
6,669'
13,338
20,007
Carbon
Usage
(1993$)
53
418
523
5,228
41,825
209,123
418,245
836,491
1,254,736
Carbon
Shipping
(1993$)
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
9,000
45,000
90,000
180,000
270,000
Total
O&M Cost
(1993$)
18,909
19,274
19,379
24,215
74,059
285,008
548,081
1,080,369
1,612,656
Total
O&M
Cost
(1989$)
17,207
17,539
17,635
22,036
67,394
259,357
498,754
983,136
1,467,517
3-78
-------
100,000,000
10,000,000
s»
§
O
2
08
O
,000,000 -
100,000-
10,000
1 /
/
/
7^- =
__ X"
1 1 — l-l I.I 11. 1 1 — t (tin, i ... i i i i t i . . ,,,,,,, . .
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 001 01 1
Flow Rate (MGD)
Figure 3-44 O & M Cost Curve for Activated Carbon - Oils Option 4
100,000 J
10.000,000
v*
%
o>
to 1,000,000
o
OS
o
100,000
10,000
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Row Rate (MGD)
0.1
1
Figure 3-45 O & M Cost Curve for Activated Carbon - Organics Option 2
3-79
-------
as Equations 3-45, 3-46, and 3-47, respectively.
ln(Y2) = 14.516 + 1.086ln(X) + 0.060(ln(X))2
(3-45)
ln(Y2) = 15.949 + 1.310ln(X) + 0.068(ln(X))2
In(Y2) = 17.621 + 1.455In(X) + 0.067(ln(X))2
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
Table 3-46. O & M Costs for Activated Carbon Systems - Organics Option
(3-46)
(3-47)
Flow
(MGD)
0.00001
0.00008
0.0001
0.001
0.008
0.04
0.08
0.16
0.24
Energy
(1993$)
1
1
1
9
70
350
701
1,402
2,102
Maint.
(1993 $)
44
44
44
132
5,265
10,530
16,673
33,345
50,018
Labor
(1993$)
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
15,793
Taxes &
Insurance
(1993 $)
18
18
18
53
2,106
4,212
6,669
13,338
20,007
Carbon
Usage
(1993$)
210
1,680
2,100
21,000
168,000
840,187
1,680,373
3,360,747
5,041,120
Carbon
Shipping
(1993$)
3,000
3,000
3,000
6,000
36,000
180,000
360,000
720,000
1,080,000
Total
O&M Cost
(1993$)
19,066
20,536
20,956
42,987
227,234
1,051,072
2,080,209
4,144,625
6,209,040
Total
O&M Cost
(1989$)
17,350
18,688
19,070
39,118
206,783
956,476
1,892,990
3,771,609
5,650,226
The land requirement estimates for the GAC systems are the same for all three
regulatory options. The equipment dimensions supplied by the vendor were used to
determine the land needed. The itemized land requirements are given in Table 3-47.
The resultant GAC land requirement curve is shown in Figure 3-46, and the equation is:
ln(Y3) = -1.780 + 0.319ln(X) + 0.017(ln(X))2 (3-48)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 == Land Requirement (Acres).
3-80
-------
Table 3-47. Land Requirements for Activated Carbon Systems
Flow
(MGD)
0.00001
0.00008
0.0001
0.001
0.008
0.04
0.08
0.16
0.24
, Land Requirement
(Acres)
0.037
0.037
0.037
0.046
0.0568
0.0574
0.075
0.092
0.143
01
£
1
o>
§•
-------
3.8 CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
Cyanide destruction oxidation is capable of achieving removal efficiencies of 99
percent or greater and to the levels of detection. Chlorine is primarily used as the
oxidizing agent in this process, which is called alkaline chlorination, and can be utilized
in the elemental or hypochlorite form.
The capital and O & M costs curves for cyanide destruction systems with special
operating conditions were obtained from vendor services. The concentration used for
influent amenable cyanide was 1,548,000 u.g/1 and for total cyanides was 4,633,710 jig/I.
The effluent for these pollutants was 276,106 jig/l for amenable cyanides and 135,661
|j.g/l for total cyanides. These rates produce a percent removal of 82 percent for
amenable cyanide and 97 percent for total cyanides. These concentrations were taken
from the sampling data for CWT QID 105.
The oxidation of 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 with the base required 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
amount of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide needed to perform the oxidation
is 7.5 pounds and 8.0 pounds per pound of cyanide, respectively. At these levels, the
total reduction occurs at a retention time of 16 to 20 hours. The application of heat can
facilitate the more complete destruction of total cyanide. The system costs were
calculated on a batch volume range from 1.0 gallon to 1,000,000 gallons per day and
because of the extended retention time, a basis of one batch per day is used.
The capital cost curve for the cyanide destruction system was estimated using the
vendor quotes and represent equipment and installation costs. The equipment items
include a two-stage reactor with a retention time of 16 hours, feed system and controls,
pumps, piping, and foundation. The cost of the reacting tank includes a covered tank,
mixer, containment tank, concrete foundation, inlet and outlet pipes, assembly and
erection, delivery, manway, vent, and ladder with a cage and platform. The pump costs
includes the motor and pump. The total construction cost included the tank costs,
3-82
-------
instrumentation and controls, pumps, piping, and installation. Installation, installed piping,
and instrumentation and controls were estimated based on equipment costs and were 35
percent, 31 percent,and 13 percent of the equipment cost, respectively. The total capital
costs included the cost for engineering (15 percent of construction cost) and contingency
(15 percent of construction cost). The capital costs were scaled down to 1989 dollars
using ENR's Construction Cost Index. The itemized capital costs are listed in Table 3-48.
Table 3-48. Capital Costs for Cyanide Destruction at Special Operating Conditions
Volume
per Day
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
System
Cost
500
1,850
5,000
14,252
45,875
106,105
160,542
401,320
560,000
Installation
175
648
1,750.
4,988
16,056
37,137
56,190
140,462
196,000
Piping
155
574
1,550
4,418
14,221
32,893
49,768
124,409
173,600
Instrument.
&
Controls
65
241
650
1,853
5,964
13,794
20,870
52,172
72,800
Total
Construction
Cost
895
3,313
8,950
25,511
82,116
189,929
287,370
718,363
1,002,400
Total
Capital Cost
(1993$)
1,164
4,307
11,635
33,164
106,751
246,908
373,581
933,872
1,303,120
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
1,059
3,919
10,588
30,179
97,143
224,686
339,959
849,824
1,185,839
The O & M costs were determined by energy usage, chemical costs, maintenance,
labor, and taxes and insurance. Energy was divided into cost for electricity, lighting, and
controls. Pumping costs were based on power requirements of 0.5 kwhr per 1,000
gallons per pump, which includes feed, booster, and metering pumps. Lighting and
controls were assumed at $1000 per year and electrical usage was $0.08 per kwhr. The
chemical costs for sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide at dosages of 7.5 pounds
and 8.0 pounds per pound of cyanide destruction were $0.64 per pound and $560 per
ton, respectively. The maintenance was approximated at four percent of the total capital
cost and taxes and insurance was two percent of the total capital cost. The labor cost
for the cyanide destruction system was $31,200 per man-year at three hours per day.
3-83
-------
The O & M costs were scaled down to 1989 dollars using ENR's cost index. The
itemized O & M costs are presented in Table 3-49. The corresponding capital cost and
O & M cost curves are presented in Figures 3-47 and 3-38, respectively. The vendor
capital and O & M cost equations for the cyanide destruction systems are presented as
Equations 3-49 and 3-50, respectively.
where:
where:
ln(Y1) = 13.977 + 0.546ln(X) + 0.0033(ln(X))2)
X = Batch Size (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
In(Y2) = 18.237 + 1.318ln(X) + 0.04993(ln(X))2
•
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
(3-49)
(3-50)
Table 3-49. O & M Costs for Cyanide Destruction at Special Operating Conditions
Row
Rate
(MGD)
0.00001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
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
16,425
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$)
15,990
v 16,735
22,937
82,049
666,124
3,250,867
6,484,043
32,310,519
64,584,953
3-84
-------
10,000,000
1,000,000 b
«J-
o
•3
100,000
10,000
1,000
0.0000001 0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow Rate (MGO)
0.1
10
Figure 3-47 Capital Cost Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special Operating
Conditions
1E+09
100,000.000
10,000,000
1.000,000
100,000
10.000
0.1
1
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow Rate (MGD)
Figure 3-48 O & M Cost Cuive for CN Destruction Systems at Special Operating
Conditions
3-85
-------
To develop land requirements for the cyanide destruction systems, the vendor data
was used. The dimensions are scaled up to represent the total land required for the
package unit plus peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). The equation relating
the flow of the cyanide destruction system with the land requirements is:
ln(Y3) = -1.168 + 0.419ln(X) + 0.021 (ln(X))2
(3-51)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
The land requirement curve is presented in Figure 3-49.
i
£ 0.1
0.01
' ' • "'"I—• ' '' ""I— I——
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Flow Rate (MGD)
Figure 3-49 Land Requirement Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special Operating
Conditions
3-86
-------
3.9 CHROMIUM REDUCTION
Reduction is a chemical reaction in which electrons are transferred from one
chemical to another. The main application of chemical reduction to the treatment of
wastewater is in the reduction of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium. The
reduction enables the trivalent chromium to be precipitated from solution in conjunction
with other metallic salts.
The capital and O & M costs curves for chromium reduction systems using sulfur
dioxide were obtained from various vendor services. The average influent hexavalent
chromium design concentration used was 752,204 fig/I; the maximum concentration was
3,300,000 u.g/1. The average effluent concentration was 30 |ig/l. These concentrations
were taken from the sampling data for CWT QID 255.
The hexavalent chromium is reduced to trivalent chromium using sulfur dioxide and
sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid is used to lower the pH of the solution and the sulfur
dioxide is used for the reduction process. After the reduction process, the trivalent
chromium is then removed by precipitation. The amount of sulfur dioxide needed to
reduce the hexavalent chromium was reported as 1.9 pounds sulfur dioxide per pound
chromium, while the amount of sulfuric acid was 1.0 pound per pound of chromium. At
these levels, the total reduction occurs at a retention time of 45 to 60 minutes. The
system costs were calculated on a batch volume range from 1,000 gallons to 1,000,000
gallons and a basis of two batches per day.
The capital cost curve for the chromium reduction system was estimated using the
vendor quotes and represent equipment and installation costs. The equipment items
include a reduction reactor, feed system and controls, pumps, piping, and foundation.
The cost of the reacting tank includes a covered tank, mixer, containment tank, concrete
foundation, inlet and outlet pipes, assembly and erection, delivery, manway, vent, and
ladder with a cage and platform. The pump cost includes the motor and pump. The total
construction cost includes the tank costs, instrumentation and controls, pumps, piping,
and installation. Installation, installed piping, and instrumentation and controls are
estimated at 40 percent, 45 percent, and 30 percent of the equipment cost, respectively.
3-87
-------
The total capital costs include the cost for engineering (15 percent of construction cost)
and contingency (15 percent of construction cost). The capital costs were scaled down
to 1989 dollars using ENR's construction cost index. The itemized capital costs are listed
in Table 3-50. The corresponding capital cost curve is presented in Figure 3-50.
Capital costs for system upgrades were developed to estimate the incremental cost
required to install a new chemical feed mechanism on an existing chromium reduction
system that utilizes a treatment chemical other than sulfur dioxide. For the upgrade
costs, the piping and instrumentation and controls equipment items were used to
determine the total construction cost. The total capital costs in 1989 dollars are equal to
the total construction cost plus engineering and contingency, scaled down using the ENR
index. The itemized capital upgrade costs are listed in Table 3-51. The corresponding
capital upgrade cost curve is presented in Figure 3-51.
The O & M costs were determined by energy usage, chemical costs, maintenance,
labor, and taxes and insurance. Energy was divided into cost for electricity, lighting, and
controls. Pumping costs were based on power requirements of 0.5 kwhr per 1,000
gallons per pump, which includes feed, booster, and metering pumps. Lighting and
controls were assumed at $1,000 per year and electrical cost was $0.08 per kwhr. The
chemical costs for sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid at dosages of 2.0 pounds and 1.0
pound per pound of chromium were $230 per ton and $79 per ton, respectively. The
maintenance was approximated at four percent of the total capital cost and taxes and
insurance were two percent of the total capital cost. The labor cost for chromium
reduction was $31,200 per man-year at four hours per day. The O & M costs are
presented in Table 3-52, with the corresponding O & M curve presented in Figure 3-52.
O & M costs for system upgrades were developed to estimate the incremental cost
required to operate an existing chromium reduction system that utilizes a treatment
chemical, other than sulfur dioxide, that is a waste product for which a facility does not
incur a purchase cost. The chemical cost items were used to determine the total O & M
cost. These costs were scaled down to 1989 dollars using the ENR index^ The itemized
O & M upgrade costs are listed in Table 3-53. The corresponding O & M upgrade cost
curve is presented in Figure 3-53.
3-88
-------
Table 3-50. Capital Costs for Chromium Reduction Systems using Sulfur Dioxide
Vol/Day
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
System
Cost
290
1,325
3,600
11,000
30,505
69,056
96,405
244,665
361,320
Installation
116
530
1,440
4,400
12,202
27,622
38,562
97,866
144,528
Piping
131
596
1,620
4,950
13,727
31,075
43,382
110,099
162,594
Instrument.
&
Controls
87
398
1,080
3,300
9,152
20,717
28,922
73,400
108,396
Engineer.
&
Conting.
187
855
2,322
7,095
19,676
44,541
62,181
157,809
233,051
Total
Capital
Cost
(1993$)
811
3,704
10,062
30,745
85,262
193,011
269,452
683,839
1,009,889
Total
Capital Cost
(1989$)
738
3,371
9,156
27,978
77,588
175,640
245,201
622,293
918,999
Table 3-51. Capital Upgrade Costs for Chromium Reduction Systems using Sulfur
Dioxide
Vol/Day
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
Piping
43
197
535
1,634
4,530
10,255
14,316
36,333
53,656
Instrument.
&
Controls
87
398
1,080
3,300
9,152
20,717
28,922
73,400
108,396
Total
Construction
Cost
130
595
1,615
4,934
13,682
30,972
43,238
109,733
162,052
Engineering
&
Contingency
39
179
485
1,480
4,105
9,292
12,971
32,920
48,616
Total
Capital Cost
(1993$)
169
774
2,100
6,414
17,787
40,264
56,209
142,653
210,668
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
154
704
1,911
5,837
16,186
36,640
51,150
129,814
191,708
3-89
-------
10,000,000-n
1,000,000-
g 100,000-
o
10,000-
1,000
X
s
x£i
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow Rate (MGD)
0.1
Figure 3-50 Capital Cost Curve for Chromium Reduction Systems
1,000,000 -,
100,000-
o
•3
10,000-
1,000-
100
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Row Rate (MGD)
Figure 3-51 Capital Upgrade Cost Curve for Chromium Reduction Systems
3-90
-------
Table 3-52. O & M Costs for Chromium Reduction Systems using Sulfur Dioxide
Vol/day
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,100
1,600
1,730
7,000
31,200
70,000
Sulfur
Dioxide
Cost
230
230
230
356
3,560
17,825
35,600
178,250
356,000
Sulfuric
Acid
Cost
20
20
20
65
650
3,250
6,500
32,500
65,000
Labor
21,900
21 ,900
21 ,900
21,900
21,900
21,900
21,900
21,900
21,900
Mainten
ance
30
135
366
1,230
3,410
7,720
10,778
27,354
40,396
Taxes
&
Insurance
15
68
183
615
1,705
3,860
5,389
13,677
20,198
Total
O & M Cost
(1993$)
23,195
23,353
23,699
25,266
32,825
56,285
87,167
304,881
573,494
Total
O&M
Cost
(1989$)
21,107
21,251
21,566
22,992
29,871
51,219
79,322
277,442
521,880
Table 3-53. O&M Upgrade Costs for Chromium Reduction Systems using Sulfur
Dioxide
Vol/day
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
Sulfur
Dioxide
Cost
230
230
230
356
3,560
17,825
35,600
178,250
356,000
Sulfuric
Acid
Cost
20
20
20
65
650
3,250
6,500
32,500
65,000
Total
O&M Cost
(1993$)
250
250
250
421
4,210
21,075
42,100
210,750
421,000
Total
O&M Cost
(1989$)
228
228
228
383
3,831
19,178
38,31 1
191,783
383,110
3-91
-------
1,000,000
s?
I
|T 100,000
10,000
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Row Rate (MQD)
r
0.1
Figure 3-52 O & M Cost Curve for Chromium Reduction Systems
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
0.00001 0.0001
0.001 0.01 0.1
Row Rate (MGO)
Figure 3-53 O & M Upgrade Cost Curve for Chromium Reduction Systems
3-92
-------
The capital cost, capital upgrade cost, O & M cost, and O & M upgrade cost
equations for the chromium reduction systems using sulfur dioxide are presented as
Equations 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, and 3-55, respectively.
In(Y1) = 13.737 + 0.600ln(X) (3-52)
where:
In(Y1) = 12.068 + 0.492Iri(X) - 0.000496(ln(X))2 (3-53)
ln(Y2) = 13.167 + 0.998In(X) + 0.079(ln(X))2 (3-54)
ln(Y2) = 13.123 + 1.365ln(X) + 0.059(ln(X))2 (3-55)
X = Volume per Day (MGD),
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $), and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
To develop land requirements for chromium reduction systems, approximate
dimensions were calculated using the diameters of the systems. The land was calculated
by estimating the size for the reaction tank, storage tanks, and feed system. The
dimensions are scaled up to represent the total land required for the system plus
peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). The equation relating the flow of the
chromium reduction system with the land requirement is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.303 + 0.185lri(X) - 0.036(ln(X))2
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
The land requirement curve is presented in Figure 3-54.
(3-56)
3-93
-------
S, 0.1
~7
~z
0.01
0.001 0.01
Flow (MOO)
0.1
1
0.00001 ' 0.0001
Figure 3-54 Land Requirement Curve for Chromium Reduction Systems
3-94
-------
SECTION 4
BIOLOGICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY COSTS
4.1 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. SBRs are unique
in that a single tank acts as an equalization tank, an aeration tank, and a clarifier.
The capital and O & M costs curves for the SBR systems were obtained from a
vendor service. The average influent BOD5, ammonia as N, and nitrate-nitrite as N
design concentrations used were 4,800 mg/l, 995 mg/l, and 46 mg/l, respectively. The
average effluent BOD5, ammonia as N, and nitrate-nitrite as N concentrations used were
1,600 mg/l, 615 mg/l, and 1.0 mg/l, respectively. These concentrations were obtained
from the sampling data from CWT QID 059. The system costs were calculated for a flow
range from 0.001 to 1.0 MGD.
The capital costs for the SBR systems were estimated using the vendor quotes
and represent equipment and installation costs. The equipment items include a tank
system, sludge handling equipment, feed system and controls, pumps, piping, blowers,
and valves. The total construction cost includes piping and installation. Installation and
installed piping are estimated at 35 percent of the equipment cost and 40 percent of the
construction cost, respectively. The total capital costs include the cost for engineering
(15 percent of construction cost) and contingency (15 percent of construction cost). The
capital costs were scaled down to 1989 dollars using ENR's construction cost index. The
itemized capital costs are listed in Table 4-1.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1. Capital Costs for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
Flow
Rate
(MGD)
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
Installation
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
Construction
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
1,311,593
2,003,535
4,853,925
6,609,600
The O & M costs were determined by power, maintenance, labor, and taxes and
insurance. Power was estimated using the vendor estimates at an electrical cost of $0.08
per kwhr. The maintenance was approximated at four percent of the total capital cost
and taxes and insurance were two percent of the total capital cost. The labor cost was
$31,200 per man-year at four hours per day. The O & M costs were scaled down to
1989 dollars using ENR's cost index. The itemized O & M costs are presented in Table
4-2. .
Table 4-2. O & M Costs for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
Flow Rate
(MGD)
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
Power
65
392
1,852
3,703
18,298
36,596
Labor
14,600
14,600
29,200
29,200
58,400
58,400
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
Total
O & M Cost
27,055
59,608
109,862
153,113
367,932
491,572
4-2
-------
The capital cost curve and O & M cost curve are presented in Figures 4-1 and 4-2,
respectively. The vendor capital and O & M cost equations for the sequencing batch
reactor systems are presented as Equations 4-1 and 4-2, respectively.
where:
In(Y1) = 15.707 + 0.512ln(X) + 0.0022(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
ln(Y2) = 13.139 + 0.562ln(X) + 0.020(ln(X))2
(4-1)
(4-2)
where:
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
To develop land requirements for SBR systems, overall system dimensions were
provided by the vendor. The land dimensions were scaled up to represent the total land
required for the system plus peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). The rule-
of-thumb used to scale the dimensions adds a 20-foot perimeter around the unit. The
equation relating the flow of the SBR system with the land requirement is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -2.971 + 0.097lri(X) + 0.008(ln(X))2
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
The land requirement curve is presented in Figure 4-3.
(4-3)
4-3
-------
10,000,000
0>
T—
I
H
f
O
1,000,000
100,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow Rate (MGD)
Figure 4-1 Capital Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
10
1,000,000
fj 100,000
o
eS
o
10,000
''''•' I
0.0001
T
0.001
0.01 0.1 1
Row Rate (MGD)
Figure 4-2 O & M Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
10
4-4
-------
10
0.1
0.01
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
Flow Rat* (MOD)
"Z
10
Figure 4-3 Land Requirement Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
4-5
-------
-------
SECTION 5
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY COSTS
5.1 ULTRAFILTRATION
Ultrafiltration (UF) systems are used by industry for the treatment of metal-finishing
wastewater, textile industry effluent, and oily wastes. In the CWT industry, UF is applied
for the treatment of oil/water emulsions.
The components of the UF system include: booster pumps; cartridge prefilters;
control units; high pressure pump and motor assembly; membrane/pressure vessel-
assembly; and reject holding tanks. Capital equipment and operational costs were
obtained from manufacturers' quotations. The capital cost equation was developed by
adding installation, engineering, and contingency costs to the vendors' equipment cost.
The installation cost was estimated at 35 percent of the equipment cost. Contingency
and engineering fees were estimated to be 15 percent of the equipment and installation
costs. The vendor cost information has been converted to 1989 dollars using ENR's
Construction Index. The capital costs are presented in Table 5-1 with the subsequent
cost curve presented in Figure 5-1. The UF capital cost equation is:
where:
ln(Y1) = 14.672 + 0.8789ln(X) + 0.044(ln(X))2 (5-1)
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
The O & M costs were based on estimated electricity usage, maintenance, labor,
taxes, and insurance. The electricity usage and costs were provided by the vendors.
Maintenance was approximated at four percent of the capital cost. Taxes and insurance
were approximated at two percent of the capital cost. The labor cost for the UF system
was approximated at $31,200 per man-year at two hours per day. Concentrate disposal
5-1
-------
Table 5-1. Capital Costs for Ultrafiltration Systems
Flow
(MGD)
0.00005
0.0001
0.0005
0.0010
0.0020
0.0100
0.0480
0.1000
1.0000
Average Vendor
Capital Cost
17,557
17,730
21,377
25,280
31,325
60,667
142,036
226,365
1,319,323
Installation
Cost
6,145
6,206
7,482
8,848
10,964
21,233
49,713
79,228
461,763
Total Capital
&
Installation Cost
23,702
23,936
28,859
34,128
42,289
81,900
191,749
305,593
1,781,086
Engineering
&
Contingency
7,111
7,181
8,658
10,238
12,687
24,570
57,525
91,678
534,326
Total
Capital Cost
(1989$)
30,813
31,117
37,517
44,366
54,976
106,470
249,274
397,271
2,315,412
10,000,000
_ 1,000,000
100,000
10,000
0.00001 0.0001
Figure 5-1 Capital Cost Curve for Ultrafiltration Systems
0.001 0.01
Flow (MOO)
0.1
5-2
-------
costs were based on a concentrate generation rate of two percent of influent flow. The
cost of concentrate disposal was quoted as $0.50 per gallon by CWT QID 409. The O
& M costs were converted from 1992 dollars to 1989 dollars using ENR's cost index. The
itemized annual O & M costs are presented in Table 5-2 and the subsequent cost curve
is presented in Figure 5-2. The UF O & M cost equation is:
ln(Y2) = 15.043 + 1.164lri(X) + 0.057(ln(X))2
(5-2)
where:
Y2 = O & M Cost (1989 $).
Land requirements were calculated for UF systems. The land requirements were
obtained by adding a perimeter of 20 feet around the equipment dimensions supplied by
vendors. The land requirement data and curve are presented in Table 5-3 and Figure 5-
3, respectively. The UF land requirement equation is:
ln(Y3) = -1.632 + 0.42ln(X) + 0.035(ln(X))2
(5-3)
where:
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
5-3
-------
Table 5-2. O & M Costs for Ultrafiltration Systems
Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
1.0
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,200
2,938
15,068
47,243
77,278
396,329
Maintenance
1,232
1,232
1,232
1,587
3,575
7,623
13,398
83,526
Taxes
&
Insurance
616
616
616
794
1,788
3,812
6,699
41,763
Labor
7,607 •
7,607
7,607
7,607
7,607
7,607
7,607
7,607
Concentrate
Disposal Costs
2
25
253
2,536
25,357
126,786
253,571
2,535,714
Total
O & M Cost
(1989$)
10,457
10,480
10,908
15,462
53,395
193,071
358,553
3,064,939
10,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
0.0000001 0.000001 0.00001
0.0001 0.001
Bow (MOD)
0.01
Figure 5-2 O & M Cost Curve for Ultrafiltration Systems
5-4
-------
Table 5-3. Land Requirements for Ultrafiltration Systems
Flow (MGD)
0.001375
0.003625
0.0102
0.02115
0.0352
Land Requirements
(Acres)
0.0549
0.0555
0.0602
0.0617
0.0725
I
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
Row (MGD)
0.1
Figure 5-3 Land Requirement Curve for Ultrafiltration Systems
5-5
-------
5.2 REVERSE OSMOSIS
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a high-pressure, fine membrane process for separating
dissolved solids from water. A semi-permeable, microporous membrane and pressure
are used to perform the separation. RO systems are typically used as end-of-pipe
polishing processes, prior to final discharge of recovered wastewater.
The components of the RO system include a booster pump, cartridge prefilters, RO
unit, and a reject holding tank. The capital cost equation was developed by adding
installation, engineering, and contingency costs to the vendors' equipment cost. The
installation cost was estimated at 35 percent of the equipment cost. Contingency and
engineering fees were estimated to be 15 percent of the equipment and installation costs.
All vendor cost information has been converted to 1989 dollars using ENR's Construction
Index. The capital cost information is presented in Table 5-4, with its subsequent curve
in Figure 5-4. The RO capital cost curve equation is:
ln(Y1) = 15.381 + 0.919ln(X) + 0.04(In(X))2
where:
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
Table 5-4. Capital Costs for Reverse Osmosis Systems
(5-4)
Row
(MGD)
0.00001
0.0005
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1.0
Average Vendor
Capital Cost
13,630
25,108
31,680
65,404
94,489
246,952
394,233
2,811,421
Installation
Cost
4,771
8,788
11,088
22,891
33,071
86,433
137,982
983,997
Total Capital
&
Installation Cost
18,401
33,896
42,768
88,295
127,560
333,385
532,215
3,795,418
Engineering
&
Contingency
5,520
. 10,169
12,830
26,489
38,268
100,016
159,665
1,138,625
Total
Capital Cost
(1989$)
23,921
44,065
55,598
114,784
165,828
433,401
691,880
4,934,043
5-6
-------
10,000,000
_ 1,000,000
«»
OJ
8
CO
O
O
100,000
10,000 i , 1 r
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGO)
Figure 5-4 Capital Cost Curve for Reverse Osmosis Systems
0.1
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
i
100,000
10,000
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Flow (MGO)
Figure 5-5 O & M Cost Curve for Reverse Osmosis Systems
5-7
0.1
-------
The O & M costs were based on estimated electricity usage, maintenance, labor,
taxes, and insurance. The electricity usage and costs were roughly provided by the
vendors. Maintenance was approximated at four percent of the capital cost. Taxes and
insurance were approximated at two percent of the capital cost. The labor cost for the
reverse osmosis system was approximated at $31,200 per man-year at two hours per
day. Concentrate disposal costs were based upon a concentrate generation rate of 28
percent of influent flow (QID 409). The cost of concentrate disposal was quoted as $0.46
per gallon. The O & M costs were converted from 1992 dollars to 1989 dollars using
ENR's cost index. The itemized annual O & M costs are presented in Table 5-5 and the
subsequent cost curve is presented in Figure 5-5. The RO O & M cost equation is:
ln(Y2) = 17.599 + 1.303ln(X) + 0.048(ln(X))2
where:
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
Table 5-5. O & M Costs for Reverse Osmosis Systems
(5-5)
Flow
(MGD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
1.0
Energy
1000
1076
2,045
6,670
20,876
36,960
348,015
Maintenance
957
1,183
2,235
6,452
17,414
28,467
191,976
Taxes &
Insurance
479
592
1,118
3,226
8,707
14,234
95,988
Labor
7,607
7,607
7,607
7,607
7,607
7,607
7,607
Concentrate
Disposal Costs
327
3,267
32,660
326,600
1,633,000
3,266,000
32,660,000
Total O & M
Cost (1989$)
10,370
13,725
45,665
350,555
1,687,604
3,353,268
33,303,586
Land requirements were calculated for RO systems. The land requirements were
obtained by adding a perimeter of 20 feet around the equipment dimensions supplied by
vendors. This data was plotted and the land area equation was determined. The land
5-8
-------
requirement data and curve are presented in Table 5-6 and Figure 5-6, respectively. The
RO land requirement equation is:
where:
In(Y3) = -2.346 + 0.166ln(X) + 0.012(in(X))2
X = Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
Table 5-6. Land Requirements for Reverse Osmosis Systems
(5-6)
Flow
(MGD)
0.0008
0.004
0.008
0.019
0.042
0.056
0.083
Land Requirements
(Acres)
0.0498
0.0511
0.0522
0.0541
0.0589
0.0605
0.0620
5-9
-------
0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Row(MGO)
Figure 5-6 Land Requirement Curve for Reverse Osmosis Systems
5-10
-------
SECTION 6
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL COSTS
6.1 PLATE AND FRAME PRESSURE FILTRATION - SLUDGE STREAM
Pressure filtration systems are used for the removal of solids from waste streams.
These systems typically follow chemical precipitation or clarification.
The plate and frame pressure filtration system costs were estimated for a sludge
stream; this consists of the sludge which is collected in the clarification step following
some chemical precipitation processes. The sludge stream consists of 80 percent liquid
and 20 percent (200,000 mg/l) solids. The influent flow rate used for the sludge stream
is 20 percent of the influent flow rate for the liquid wastewater stream. These influent
parameters were taken from CWT QID 105. ..
The components of the plate and frame pressure filtration system include: filter
plates; filter cloth; hydraulic pumps; pneumatic booster pumps; control panel; connector
pipes; and support platform. Equipment and operational costs were obtained from
manufacturers' recommendations. The capital cost equation was developed by adding
installation, engineering, and contingency costs to the vendors' equipment costs. The
installation cost was estimated at 35 percent of the equipment cost. Engineering and
contingency fees were estimated to be 15 percent of the equipment and installation costs.
These costs are presented in Table 6-1. All vendor cost information has been converted
to 1989 dollars using ENR's Construction Index. The capital cost equation for the Metals
Option 1 sludge filtration systems is presented as Equation 6-1, with the subsequent cost
curve in Figure 6-1.
where:
ln(Y1) = 14.827 + 1.087ln(X) + 0.050(ln(X))2
X = Flow (MGD) of Liquid Stream and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).
(6-1)
6-1
-------
10,000,000
1,000,000
s?
3
100.000-
10,000
7
7
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001
0.001 0.01 • 0.1
Flow (MGO)
Figure 6-1 Plate & Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) Capital Cost Curve Metals
Option 1
1,000,000
§ 100,000
o
10,000
7
0.000001 0.00001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Row(MGD)
Figure 6-2 Plate & Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O & M Cost Curve Metals
Option 1
6-2
-------
Table 6-1. Capital Costs for Plate and Frame
(Sludge Stream)
Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 1
Wastewater
Influent Flow
(M'GD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00
Sludge
Filtration
Flow (MGD)
0.0000002
0.000002
0.00002
0.0002
0.0020
0.0100
0.0200
0.1000
0.2000
Average
Vendor
Equipment
Cost
6,325
6,325
6,482
9,897
29,474
93,960
171,183
870,475
1,939,145
Install.
Cost
2,214
2,214
2,269
3,464
10,316
32,886
59,914
304,666
678,701
Total Capital
&
Installation Cost
8,539
8,539
8,751
13,361
39,790
126,846
231,097
1,175,141
2,617,846
Engineering
&
Contingency
Fee
2,562
2,562
2,625
4,008
11,937
38,054
69,329
352,542
785,354
Total
Capital
Cost
(1989$)
10,102
10,102
10,352
15,806
47,072
. 150,059
273,388
1,390,192
3,096,912
The O & M costs were based on estimated electricity usage, maintenance, labor,
taxes and insurance, and filter cake disposal costs. The electricity usage and costs were
based upon a usage rate of 0.5 kwhr per 1,000 gallons at $0.08 per kwhr, and lighting
and control energy costs were estimated at $1,000 per year. Maintenance was
approximated at four percent of the capital cost. Taxes and insurance were approximated
at two percent of the capital cost. The labor cost for the plate and frame pressure
filtration system was approximated at $31,200 per man-year at thirty minutes per cycle
per filter press.
Filter cake disposal costs were derived from responses to the WTI Questionnaire.
The disposal cost was estimated at $0.74 per gallon of filter cake; this is based on the
cost of contract hauling and disposal in a Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill. A more detailed
explanation of the filter cake disposal costs development is presented in Subsection 6.2.
To determine the total O & M costs for a plate and frame filtration system, the filter cake
disposal costs must be added to the other O & M costs.
6-3
-------
The O & M costs were converted to 1989 dollars using ENR's cost index. The
itemized annual O & M costs, excluding the filter cake disposal costs, are presented in
Table 6-2 with its subsequent cost curve presented in Figure 6-2.
Table 6-2. O & M Costs for Plate & Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 1
(Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
Wastewater
Influent Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.10
0.50
1.0
Sludge
Filtration
Flow (MGD)
0.0000002
0.000002
0.00002
0.0002
0.002
0.02
0.10
0.2
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,001
1,005
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
Maintenance
404
404
414
632
1,882
10,935
55,607
123,876
Taxes
&
Insurance
202
202
207
316
941
5,468
27,804
61,938
Labor
17,730
17,730
17,730
35,457
53,549
53,549
62,504
71 ,550
O&M
Cost
(1989$)
19,336
19,336
19,352
37,410
57,382
71,056
147,435
259,404
The O&M cost equation for Metals Option 1 sludge filtration is:
where:
In(Y2) = 12.239 + 0.388In(X) + 0.016(ln(X))2 (6-2)
X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989$).
A pressure filtration system upgrade was calculated to estimate the increase in
O&M costs for facilities that already have a pressure filtration system in-place. These
facilities would need to improve pollutant removals from their current performance levels
to Metals Option 1 levels. To determine the incremental percentage increase from
current performance to Metals Option 1 levels, the ratio of the current performance to
Option 1 levels versus the raw data to current performance levels was calculated. This
incremental percentage increase was determined to be three percent, as follows:
6-4
-------
O & M Upgrade = Current - Metals Option 1 = 0.03 = 3%
Increase Raw - Current
(6-3)
Therefore, in order for the facilities to perform at Metals Option 1 levels, an O & M
cost upgrade of three percent of the total O & M costs (except for taxes and insurance,
which are a function of the capital cost) would be realized for each facility. The itemized
O & M upgrade costs without the filter cake disposal costs are presented in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3. O & M Upgrade Costs for Plate & Frame Filtration for Metals Option 1
(Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
Wastewater
Influent Flow (MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
Sludge
Filtration Flow
(MGD)
0.0000002
0.000002
0.00002
0.0002
0.002
0.01
0.02
0.10
0.2
Energy
30
30
30
30
30
31
33
45
61
Maintenance
12
12
12
18
56
180
328
1,668
3,716
Labor
531
531
531
1,063 .
1,606
1,606
1,606
1,875
2,146
O & M Cost
(1989$)
574
574
574
1,113
1,693
1,818
1,968
3,589
5,924
The O & M upgrade cost equation for Metals Option 1 sludge filtration system is
presented as Equation 6-4, with the subsequent cost curve in Figure 6-3.
where:
ln(Y2) = 8.499 + 0.331 ln{X) + 0.013(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and
Y2 = O & M Cost (1989 $).
(6-4)
6-5
-------
10,000
°a
o
1,000
z
100
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 ,.0.01
How (MOD)
0.1
Figure 6-3 Plate & Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O & M Upgrade Cost Curve Metals
Option 1
I
0.1
0.01
0.000001 0.00001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Row(MGO)
Figure 6-4 Plate & Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) Land Requirement Curve Metals
Option 1 6_6
-------
Land requirements were calculated for the plate and frame pressure filtration
systems. The land requirements were obtained by adding a perimeter of 20 feet around
the equipment dimensions supplied by vendors. The land requirement curve is presented
in Figure 6-4. The land requirement equation for Metals Option 1 sludge filtration is:
where:
In(Y3) = -1.971 + 0.281In(X) + 0.018(ln(X))2
X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and
Y3 = Land Area Requirements (Acres).
(6-5)
6-7
-------
6.2 FILTER CAKE DISPOSAL
The liquid stream and sludge stream pressure filtration systems presented in
Subsections 3.3 and 6.1, 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 filtration equipment O & M costs to arrive at the total O & M costs for the
pressure filtration operation.
To determine the cost of transporting filter cake to an off-site facility for disposal,
an analysis of the WTI Questionnaire response data base was performed. Data from a
subset of questionnaire respondents was pulled for analysis. This subset consisted of
Metals Subcategory facilities that are direct and/or indirect dischargers, and would
therefore be costed for CWT compliance. From these responses, the reported costs for
both the Subtitle C and Subtitle D contract haul/disposal methods of filter cake disposal
were tabulated. This information was edited to eliminate incomplete or combined data
that could not be used. The resulting data set is presented in Table 6-4.
From this data set, the median cost for both the Subtitle C and Subtitle D disposal
options were determined. Then, the weighted average of these median costs was
determined. 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.
The O & M costs for filter cake disposal for the Metals Options 1 and 2 plate and
frame filtration full systems and system upgrades are given in Table 6-5, and the resultant
cost curves are shown in Figures 6-5 and 6-6. The filter cake disposal O & M cost and
O & M upgrade cost equations are presented as Equations 6-6 and 6-7, respectively.
where:
Z = 0.109169 + 7,695,499.8(X)
Z = 0.101186 + 230,879.8(X)
X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and
Z = Filter Cake Disposal Cost (1989 $).
6-8
(6-6)
(6-7)
-------
Table 6-4. CWT Metals Subcategory Filter Cake Disposal Costs
CWTQID
Filtercake Quantity
(Pounds per Year)
Total Cost
(1 989 $ 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
132
133
135
231
294
298
MEDIAN
15,393,486
440,000
30,410,880
26,378,000
36,960,587
131,451,200
80,000,000
56,777,760
2,365,740
276,160
24,200
361,000
158,273
780,351
2,768,225
800,000
898,560
18,800
0.18
0.55
0.19
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% + $0.16 @ 33%) 0.74
Source: WTI Questionnaire Data Base
Note: Pounds = Gallons x 8.34 x Specific Gravity (SG filtercake = 1.2)
6-9
-------
Table 6-5. Filter Cake Disposal Costs for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtrations Systems
- Metals Options 1 and 2
Wastewater
Influent Flow
(MGD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
Filter Cake
Disposal Costs
(1989$)
8
77
770
7,696
76,960
384,800
769,600
3,848,000
7,696,000
Filter Cake Upgrade
Disposal Costs
(1989$)
1
2
23
231
' 2,309
1 1 ,544
23,088
115,440
230,880
6-10
-------
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000.000
100,000
8-
Q
10,000
1.000
100
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001
0.1 -
0.001 0.01
Row (MQO)
Figure 6-5 Filter Cake Disposal Cost Curve for Plate & Frame Filtration Systems Metals
Options 1 & 2
1,000.000
1
0.000001 0.00001
0.0001
0.001 0.01
Row (MGO)
0.1
Figure 6-6 Filter Cake Disposal Upgrade Cost Curve for Plate & Frame Filtration
Systems Metals Options 1 & 2
6-11 ,
-------
-------
SECTION 7
ADDITIONAL COSTS
7.1 RETROFIT COSTS
Costs were assigned to the CWT Industry on both an option- and facility-specific
basis. The option-specific approach costed 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, treatment technology costs were assigned on a facility-specific basis
depending upon the technologies determined to be currently in-place at the facility.
Once it was determined that a treatment technology cost should be assigned to
a particular facility, there were two design scenarios which were considered. 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 3 through 6 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.
It is in the case of this second scenario that retrofit costs were applied. 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 which received retrofit costs, a retrofit factor of 20 percent was
applied to the total capital cost of the newly-installed or upgraded treatment technology
unit that would need to integrated into an existing treatment train.
7.2 MONITORING COSTS
Monitoring costs will be realized by CWT facilities who discharge process
wastewater directly to a receiving stream or indirectly to a POTW. Direct discharge
effluent monitoring requirements are mandated in NPDES permits. Indirect discharge
7-1
-------
monitoring requirements are mandated by the operating authority of the POTW.
The method developed for the OCPSF Industry was used as the basis for the CWT
monitoring cost estimation. The following generalizations have been used to estimate
compliance monitoring costs:
1) Monitoring costs are based on the number of outfalls through which process
wastewater is discharged. The cost for a single outfall is multiplied by the
number of outfalls to arrive at the total costs for a facility.
2) Flow monitoring equipment costs are included in the capital costs for the
specific treatment technologies.
3) Sample collection costs (labor and equipment) and sample shipping costs
are not included and.
4) The monitoring costs (based on frequency and analytical methods) are
incremental to the monitoring currently being incurred by the CWT facility.
Respondents to the WTI Questionnaire reported their POTW discharge monitoring
requirements. For direct discharger, NPDES permits were reviewed. This information
shows that most facilities are currently required to monitor for several classical pollutant
parameters (e.g. BOD5, TSS, pH, and cyanide). And, for the parameters that are not
addressed, these analyses are relatively inexpensive. Therefore, costs for classical
pollutant analyses are not included in the cost estimation.
Many facilities are required to monitor for commonly-regulated metals (e.g. lead,
copper, and nickel); however, the CWT list of pollutants includes many more metals than
any facility currently quantifies. Therefore, costs for metals monitoring are included in the
cost estimation.
Very few facilities are required to monitor for organic compounds, so costs are
included for these analyses. EPA method 1624 is used for the quantification of volatile
organic compounds, and Method 1625 is used for the quantification of semivolatile
organic compounds.
7-2
-------
The frequency of monitoring currently required in the CWT Industry varies widely
for any specific parameter from daily to semi-annually. An estimated weekly frequency
was used for the cost estimation. This frequency includes a full scan as one of the
analyses each month.
The OCPSF methodology assumes that larger discharges would be required to
monitor for more parameters within a pollutant group. As such, the analytical cost would
increase based on the number of parameters to be quantified. The monitoring costs,
adjusted to 1989 dollars, are presented in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1. Monitoring Costs for the CWT Industry
Flow (MGD)
<0.5
0.5-4.99
5-9.99
> 10
Annual Monitoring Cost
per Outfall (1989$)
40,680
61,725
68,100
134,525
7.3 RCRA PERMIT MODIFICATION COSTS
Respondents to the 1991 WTI Questionnaire whose RCRA Part B permits were
modified were asked to report the following information pertaining to the cost of obtaining
the modification:
Legal fees;
Administrative costs;
Public relations costs;
Other costs; and
Total costs.
The purpose of the permit modification was also asked. Anticipated changes to
a facility's RCRA permit as a result of the implementation of CWT regulations include the
7-3
-------
upgrades to existing equipment and/or the installation of new treatment technologies to
achieve effluent limitations. These changes correlate with the purposes identified by the
WTI Questionnaire respondents as "new tanks", "new units", "new technologies", and
"other - modification of existing equipment". The applicable costs are summarized in
Table 7-2.
Table 7-2. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Reported in WTI Questionnaire
Modification
New Units
New Technology
Modify Existing
Equipment
Average
QID
081
255
081
090
402
-
Year
1990
' 1990
1990
1990
1991
-
Total Cost
(Reported $)
26,000
7,000
82,000
6,300,000*
14,080
-
Total Cost
(1989$)
25,357
6,827
79,793
' 6,144,231
13,440
31 ,400
This cost includes equipment/installation costs; no cost breakdown is given.
Therefore, this cost was not used in calculating the average cost.
7-4
-------
7.4 LAND COSTS
An important factor in the calculation of treatment technology costs is the value of
the land needed for the installation of the technology. Due to continuing development,
the availability and therefore the cost of land can prove to be a significant part of the
capital cost. To determine the amount of land required for costing purposes, the land
requirements for each treatment technology were calculated for the range of system
sizes. These land requirements were fitted to a curve so that a land requirement, in
acres, could be calculated for every treatment system costed. The individual land
requirements are then multiplied by the corresponding land cost estimates to obtain
facility-specific cost estimates. Since land costs may vary widely across the country, a
nationwide average figure would not be representative. Therefore, the average land costs
for suburban sites of each state were obtained from the 1990 Guide to Industrial Real
Estate Office Markets survey.
Table 7-3 shows the estimated unit land prices for the unimproved suburban sites
of major cities and the averages for each state and region. According to the survey, the
unimproved sites are the most desirable of the existing inventory and are zoned for
industrial use; therefore, improved land costs were used in this analysis. Table 7-4 is
a summary of the estimated land prices for each state. For states that have no land
prices available, the regional average figures were used. In calculating the regional
average costs for the western region, Hawaii was not included because of Hawaii's
disproportionately high land cost, which would have skewed the regional average.
The survey report data is broken down by site size ranges; these are zero to 10
acres, 10 to 100 acres, and greater than 100 acres. The respondents to the WTI
Questionnaire reported total facility areas ranging from less than one acre to 2,700 acres
and undeveloped facility areas from zero to 1,775 acres. Since the CWT facilities fall into
all three size ranges covered by the report data, the three size-specific land costs for
each state were averaged to arrive at the final costs for the industry. Table 7-5 indicates
that the least expensive state is Kansas with a land cost of $7,042 per acre. The most
expensive state is Hawaii with a land cost of $1,089,000 per acre.
7-5
-------
Table 7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: Northeast
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
City
Hartford
New Haven
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Portland
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Boston
Springfield
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Nashua
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Central
Northern
Southern
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
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
1.15
2.38
103,673
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
1.10
2.03
88,426
>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
-
1.75
76,230
No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
7-6
-------
Table 7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: Northeast
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGIONAL
City
Albany
Buffalo
Rochester
Rockland/Westchester Counties
Syracuse
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
AVERAGE REGIONAL COST
ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
0-10
Acres
1.20
0.25
0.75
20.00
0.40
4.52
196,891
0.90
1.00
0.95
41,382
*
*
1.86
80,959
10- 100
Acres
1.00
0.15
0.50
12.00
0.35
2.80
121,968
0.80
0.60
0.70
30,492
*
*
1.41
61,544
>100
Acres
0.40
0.12
0.25
-
0.25
0.26
11,180
0.80
0.35
0.58
25,047
*
*
0.85
36,964
No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
7-7
-------
Table 7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: North Central
State
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
City
Chicago
Quad Cities
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Gary-Hammond
Indianapolis
South Bend
Terre Haute
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Des Moines
Quad Cities
Sioux City
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Kansas City
Wichita
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Land Costs ($/ft2)
0-10
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
10- 100
Acres
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
>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
No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
7-8
-------
Table 7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: North Central
State
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Ohio
City
Grand Rapids
Jackson
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Minneapolis/ St. Paul
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Kansas City
St Louis
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Akron
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
0-10
Acres
0.85
0.20
0.53
22,869
1.00
1.00
43,560
-
1.50
1.50
65,340
0.80
0.75
0.40
0.25
0.25
0.49
21,344
10- 100
Acres
0.40
0.15
0.28
11,979
0.25
0.25
10,890
0.20
- 1.10
0.65
28,314
0.25
0.50
0.30
0.18
0.20
0.29
12,458
>100
Acres
0.18
0.10
0.14
6,098
0.20
0.20
8,712
0.20
1.00
0.60 -
26,136
0.20
0.55
0.17
0.12
0.15
0.23
9,932
No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
7-9
-------
Table 7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: North Central
State
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin
REGIONAL
City
Omaha
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Milwaukee
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
AVERAGE REGIONAL COST
ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
0-10
Acres
0.70
0.70
30,492
*
*
0.60
0.60
26,136
0.72
31,407
10- 100
Acres
0.60
0.60
26,136
*
*
0.35
0.35
15,246
0.89
16,988
>100
Acres
0.40
0.40
17,424
*
*
0.25
0.25
10,890
0.30
13,068
No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
7-10
-------
Table 7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
City
Birmingham
Mobile
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Fort Smith
Little Rock
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Wilmington
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Jacksonville
Ft Lauderdale
Lakeland
Melbourne/ South Brevard Cty
Miami
Orlando
Sarasota/Bradenton
Tampa
West Palm Beach
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
0-10
Acres
1.00
0.75
0.88
38,115
0.75
0.15
0.45
19,602
1.50
1.50
65,340
1.00
4.50
0.45
0.80
3.00
1.25
0.85
1.75
3.10
1.86
80,828
10- 100
Acres
0.50
0.50
0.50
21,780
0.60
0.10
0.35
15,028
- 1.25
1.25
54,450
1.00
3.50
0.45
0.80
1.60
0.50
0.65
1.25
2.25
1.33
58,080
>100
Acres
0.30
0.50
0.40
17,424
0.50
0.10
0.30
13,068
1.00
1.00
43,560
0.75
3.50
0.30
0.80
-
0.50
0.50
1.25
1.75
1.17
50,91 1
No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
7-11
-------
Table 7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South
State
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
City
Atlanta
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Louisville
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
New Orleans
Shreveport
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Baltimore
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Jackson
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Charlotte
Greensboro
Raleigh
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
0-10
Acres
2.00
2.00
87,120
0.80
0.80
34,848
2.00
1.00
1.50
65,340
3.00
3.00
130,680
0.50
0.50
21,780
0.50
0.90
1.00
0.80
34,848
10- 100
Acres
1.75
1.75
76,230
0.70
0.70
30,492
2.00
0.50
" 1.25
54,450
3.00
3.00
130,680
0.20
0.20
8,712
0.40
0.75
1.50
0.88
38,478
>100
Acres
1.25
1.25
54,450
0.50
0.50
21,780
2.00
0.30
1.15
50,094
1.75
1.75
76,230
0.20
0.20
8,712
0.30
-
1.00
0.65
28,314
No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
7-12
-------
Table 7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South
State
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
City
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Charleston
Columbia
Greenville
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Chattanooga
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Austin
Corpus Christi
Dallas
Fort Worth
Houston
San Antonio
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
0-10
Acres
0.70
0.50
0.60
26,136
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.70
30,492
0.40
0.45
1.00
0.80
0.66
28,859
0.75
1.25
2.50
1.00
2.50
0.85
1.48
64,251
10- 100
Acres
0.75
0.50
0.63
27,225
0.50
0.40
0.45
0.45
-19,602
0.60
0.25
0.75
0.50
0.43
18,513
0.60
0.50
2.00
0.75
2.00
0.65
1.08
47,190
>100
Acres
0.50
0.40
0.45
19,602
0.30
0.25
0.40
0.32
13,794
0.50
0.15
0.55
0.50
0.35
15,246
0.50
0.20
1.50
0.50
1.00
0.65
0.73
31,581
No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
7-13
-------
Table 7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South
State
Virginia
District of
Columbia
West Virginia
REGIONAL
City
Richmond
Roanoke
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Washington
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
AVERAGE REGIONAL COST
ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
0-10
Acres
0.75
1.25
1.00
43,560
4.50
4.50
196,020
*
1.39
60,521
10- 100
Acres
1.00
1.00
1.00
43,560
3.50
3.50
152,460
*
" 1.14
49,658
>100
Acres
0.75
0.75
0.75
32,670
-
-
-
*
0.73
31,857
No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
7-14
-------
Table 7-3. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: West
State
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii**
City
Phoenix
Tucson
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Contra Costa
Orange County
San Fernando Valley
San Gabriel Valley
South Bay
Marin & Sonoma Counties
San Diego
Stockton
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Denver
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Honolulu
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
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
272,795
1.00
1.00
43,560
20.00
20.00
871,200
>100
Acres
*
0.75
0.25
0.50
21,780
-
-
5.00
-
18.00
-
5.00
0.50
7.13
310,365
0.75
0.75
32,670
-
-
-
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.
7-15
-------
'Table 7-3. 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($)
Seattle - Eastside
Spokane
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
AVERAGE REGIONAL COST
ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)
Land Costs (S/ft2)
0- 10
Acres
*
*
1.25
1.25
54,450
1.00
1.00
43,560
2.00
2.00
87,120
*
4.50
0.35
2.43
105,633
*
2.41
104,980
10- 100
Acres
*
*
0.75
0.75
32,670
0.50
0.50
21,780
1.00
1.00
43,560
*
3.50
0.20
1.85
80,586
it
1.77
77,101
>100
Acres
*
*
0.50
0.50
21,780
0.35
0.35
15,246
0.50
0.50
21,780
if
-
0.11
0.11
4,792
*
1.41
61,233
No data available for state, use regional average.
No data available for city or area indicated.
Hawaii was not included in the regional average calculations.
7-16
-------
Table 7-4. Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas - Region:
Northeast
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($)
Land Costs per Acre ($)
0-10
Acres
70,132
26,136
63,162
65,340
103,673
196,891
41,382
*
*
80,959
10- 100
Acres
54,886
17,424
67,518
50,094
88,426
121,968
30,492
*
.*
61,544
>100
Acres
37,679
15,246
49,005
43,560
76,230
11,180
25,047
*
*
36,964
No data available for state, use regional average.
7-17
-------
Table 7-4. Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas - Region:
North Central
State
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Mexico
Ohio
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($)
Land Costs per Acre ($)
0-10
Acres
41,382
40,728
11,616
10,019
22,869
43,560
65,340
*•
21,344
30,492
*
if
26,136
31,407
10-100
Acres
37,026
13,068
8,712
6,316
11,979
10,890
28,314
*
t2,458
26,136
*
*
15,246
16,988
>100
Acres
30,492
9,438
6,534
4,792
6,098
8,712
26,136
*
9,932
17,424
*
*
10,890
13,068
No data available for state, use regional average.
7-18
-------
Table 7-4. Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas - Region:
South
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
District of Columbia
West Virginia
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($)
Land Costs per Acre ($)
0-10
Acres
38,115
19,602
65,340
80,828
87,120
34,848
65,340
130,680
21,780
34,848
26,136
30,492
28,859
64,251
43,560
196,020
*
60,521
10- 100
Acres
21,780
15,028
54,450
58,080
76,230
30,492
54,450
130,680
"8,712
38,478
27,225
19,602
18,513
47,190
43,560
152,460
*
49,658
>100
Acres
17,424
13,068
43,560
50,911
54,450
21,780
50,094
76,230
8,712
28,314
19,602
13,794
15,246
31,581
32,670
-
*
31,857
No data available for state, use regional average.
7-19
-------
Table 7-4. Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas - Region:
West
State
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii**
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($)**
Land Costs per Acre ($)
0-10
Acres
*
70,785
319,622
54,450
1,306,800
*
*
54,450
43,560
87,120
*
105,633
*
104,980
10- 100
Acres
*
45,738
272,795
43,560
871,200
*
*
32,670
21,780
43,560
*
80,586
* .
77,101
>100
Acres
*
21,780
310,365
32,670
*.
*
*
21,780
15,246
21,780
*
4,792
*
61,233
*
**
No data available for state, use regional average.
Hawaii was not included in the regional average calculations.
7-20
-------
Table 7-5. State Land Costs for the CWT Industry
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 Cost per
Acre (1989 $)
22,773
81,105
46,101
15,899
300,927
43,560
54,232
54,450
63,273
72,600
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.
7-21
-------
-------
8.0 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. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Osmonics, Historical Perspective of Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis Membrane
Development, Minnetonka, MN, 1984.
Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSR Cost Document. SAIC,
1987.
Effluent Guidelines Division, Development Document For Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Organic Chemicals. Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF).
Volume II, Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-87/009, Washington, DC, October 1987.
Engineering News Record (ENR), McGraw-Hill Co., 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 Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1991.
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 Corp.,
Bedford, MA, 1988.
Freeman, H.M., Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal. U.S.
EPA, McGraw-Hill, New York, MY, 1989.
8-1
-------
-------
|