-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-11. O&M Cost Estimates for
Flow
(MOD)
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
Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
Taxes
&
Insurance
11
39
473
1,655
3,973
5,792
13,902
20,269
48,649
Labor
13,116
13,116
13,475
14,741
15,696
16,126
17,171
17,641
18,784
Chemical
Cost
0
1
21
214
1,070 .
2,140
10,198
21,395
106,976
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
14,149
14,233
15,925
21,024
30,204
37,682
75,775
111,243
324,708
       For facilities with chemical precipitation in-place, EPA calculated an O&M upgrade cost.
In calculating the O&M upgrade cost, EPA assumed that there would be no additional costs
associated with any of the components of the annual O&M cost, except for increased chemical costs.
       Since EPA already applied credit for chemical costs for facilities with primary precipitation
in estimating the selective metals precipitation chemical costs, the chemical upgrade costs for
facilities with primary precipitation are identical to facilities with no chemical precipitation in-place.
       Since EPA assumed that facilities with secondary precipitation would achieve the Metals
Option 2 long term average concentrations with their current system and chemical additions (after
installing the selective metals precipitation system), EPA assumed these facilities would not incur
any additional chemical costs. In turn, EPA also assumed that facilities with secondary precipitation
units in-place would incur no O&M upgrade costs.
                                            2-19

-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       Table 2-12 presents the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the secondary chemical
precipitation treatment systems.  Figure 2-8 presents the resulting cost curve.  The O&M upgrade
cost equation for the secondary chemical precipitation systems is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 9.97021 + 1.00162In(X) + 0.00037(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                     (2-8)
Table 2-12. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Secondary Precipitation •
            Metals Options 2 and 3
Flow
(MOD)
0.0005
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Chemical
Cost
11
21
107
214
1,070
2,140
10,698
21,395
106,976
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
11
21
107
214
1,070
2,140
10,698
21,395
106,976
                                           2-20

-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                               Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
    en
    CO
    en
     8
     o
        1,000,000
         100,000
          10,000
1,000
            100
            10
             0.001
                                                                    III
                      0.01
0.1
                                                                             10
                                            Flow(MGD)
  Figure 2-8.  O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

2.1.3  Tertiary Precipitation andpH Adjustment - Metals Option 3

       The tertiary chemical precipitation step for  Metals Option 3 follows  the secondary
precipitation and clarification steps.  This tertiary precipitation system consists  of a rapid mix
neutralization tank and a pH adjustment tank.  In this step, the wastewater is fed to the rapid mix
neutralization tank where lime slurry is added to raise  the pH to 11.0.  Effluent from  the
neutralization tank then flows to a clarifier for solids removal.  The clarifier overflow goes to a pH
adjustment tank where sulfuric acid is  added to achieve the desired final pH of 9.0. This section
explains the development of the cost estimates for the rapid mix neutralization tank and the pH
adjustment tank.  The discussions for clarification, sludge filtration, and associated filter cake
disposal are presented in Sections 2.2.2, 4.1, and 4.2, respectively.
                                            2-21

-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Capital and Land Costs
       EPA developed the capital cost estimates for the rapid mix tank assuming continuous flow
and a 15-minute detention time, which is based on the model facility's standard operation.  The
equipment cost includes one tank, one agitator, and one lime feed system.
       EPA developed the capital cost estimates for the pH adjustment tank assuming continuous
flow and a five-minute detention time, also based on the model facility's operation. The equipment
cost includes one tank, one agitator, and one sulfuric acid feed system.
       EPA estimated the other components (i.e., piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the
total capital cost for both the rapid mix  and pH adjustment tank by applying the same factors and
additional costs as detailed for selective metals precipitation (see Section 2.1.1 above).
       The itemized capital cost estimates for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank are presented
in Tables 2-13 and 2-14, respectively.  The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-9 and 2-
10.  The total capital cost equations calculated for the rapid mix and  pH adjustment tanks are
presented below as Equations 2-9 and 2-10, respectively.
where:
ln(Yl) = 12.318 + 0.543In(X) - 0.000179(In(X))2
In(Yl) = 11.721 + 0.543In(X) + 0.000139(Ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl  = Capital Cost (1989 $).
                                                                                    (2-9)
                                                                                   (2-10)
                                           2-22

-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
          Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-13.
Flow
(MOD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Table 2-14.
Flow
(MOD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Total Capital
Equipment
Cost
165
592
2,073
7,224
25,281
60,468
88,468
212,338
Total Capital
Equipment
Cost
91
326
1,141
2,726
3,974
9,329
13,907.
33,379
48,667
116,808
Cost Estimates for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
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
Cost Estimates for pH Adjustment
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
96
347
1,213
4,226
14,789
35,433
51,754
124,217
Tanks - Metals
Engineering
&
Contingency
53
191
667
1,595
2,325
5,458
8,135
19,581
28,470
68,333
Total Capital
Cost
(1989 $)
417
1,502
5,256
18,312
64,086
153,544
224,268
538,275
Option 3
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
230
827
2,891
6,901
10,074
23,640
35,253
84,851
123,370
296,108
                                                2-23

-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater

          Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
   8
   o
   •3

   f
   o
       1.000,000
        100,000
         10,000
         1,000
100

  0.001
                       i  •  i i i ill      i - 1   i  I I  ml - 1 - 1 — I I  I I III - 1 - 1 — I  I  I I II

                                 0.01                  0.1                  1                   10

                                              Flow (MOD)
Figure 2-9. Total Capital Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
           1.00
        8
       o
       o
           0.10
           0.01
                     '   '   I  I 11 III
                                 I   I  1 I 11 ll	I   '  I  1  I I I ll	1	1—I  I  I I 11
             0.001
                                 0.01
                                           0.1


                                       Flow (MGD)
                                                                                             10
    Figure 2-10. Total Capital Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3




                                               2-24

-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       The land requirements for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tanks are presented in Table 2-
15.  The resulting cost curves are presented  as Figures 2-11 and 2-12, respectively.  The land
requirement equations for the rapid mix tank and pH adjustment tank are presented below as
Equations 2-11 and 2-12, respectively.
where:
In(Y3) = -2.330 + 0.352In(X) + 0.019(ln(X))2
ln(Y3) = -2.67 + 0.301n(X) + 0.033(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
                                                                                   (2-11)
                                                                                   (2-12)
Table 2-15.  Land Requirement Estimates for Tertiary Precipitation Tanks - Metals Option. 3
Flow
(MOD)
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Rapid Mix Tank
Land Requirements
(Acres)
0.036
0.044
0.05
0.078
0.098
0.184
pH Adjustment Tank
Land Requirements
(Acres)
0.037
0.037
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.12
                                           2-25

-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       1.000
       0.100
       0.010
          0.01
                                     0.1
                                                                                         10
                                           FIow(MGD)


 Figure. Land Requirement Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
         1.00
      o>
      £
      
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs
       EPA did not assign O&M costs and, in turn, chemical usage and labor requirement costs for
tertiary precipitation and pH adjustment to the few facilities which have tertiary precipitation (and
pH adjustment) systems in-place.  For those facilities without tertiary precipitation (and  pH
adjustment) in-place, EPA estimated the labor requirements at one man-hour per day for the rapid
mix and pH adjustment tanks. EPA based this estimate on the model facility's typical operation.
       EPA estimated chemical costs for the rapid mix tank based on lime addition to achieve the
stoichiometric requirements of reducing the metals and semi-metals in the wastewater from the
Metals Option 2 long-term averages to the Metals Option 3 long-term averages, with a 10 percent
excess. Table 2-16 presents the lime requirements for the tertiary chemical precipitation treatment
systems.  EPA estimated the chemical requirements for the pH adjustment tank based on the addition
of sulfuric acid to lower the pH from  11.0 to 9.0, based on the model facility's operation.
       The itemized O&M cost estimates for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tanks are presented
in Tables 2-17 and 2-18, respectively, while the resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-13
and 2-14. The  O&M cost equations for the rapid mix tank and pH adjustment tank are presented
below as Equations 2-13 and 2-14, respectively.
where:
ln(Y2) = 9.98761 + 0.375141n(X) + 0.02124(ln(X))2
ln(Y2) = 9.71626 + 0.33275In(X) + 0.0196(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                   (2-13)
                                                                                   (2-14)
                                          2-27
-------
I
1
I
i
t
3
s
as
I s
So
II
.8 i

II

i
c3
1
•_-,
«S
C/5
(U
£
.8
CT"
£
u
.£
^
VO
i
OJ
tt>
3
CO
H
Q
1

p
J_
o
Q
0

—
d
H
o
E
D
O
s
p
o
1
Ji


o
1
o
d
K
3.

1

i*
o
Q



*?
cs
c
0.
O

m

n.
O


M
.2
H.
O












S1
§ i
J ca



2"
s 5:

_] ffl
>^



S"
i fc
2 a




g.
i £
•— CO
_) 03



S
gS>"
1»~
^j c3
ci





2*
1




IT
•=•


/_
"5)
f2



's
ra
H
"o
B.






o\ 	 Q ». — f>^ ^c ~-> r^ ^^ \o ^o ^~ N c^
vj o ^ o Jn en o f«j t*^ en ^^ — " oo »y^ ^^ o m en o o o r->
CN en eN ^ en -~




ON — o^rScsoo^cs-^ M

es en  Q t^, Q Q\ Q (•«, « f«» f«-j o^ — « -^ o VO *"" ^" >~* O O O O\
\Q O O O ""• *rt VO O ">'t-0



o
en




^

en"





—
en





en
en



































                                                               oo

                                                               CN


                                                               CNI
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
          Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-1 7.
Flow
(MOD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Table 2-1 8.
Flow
(MOD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
O&M Cost Estimates for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
Energy
63
63
63
69
128
388
713
3,313
Maintenance
17
60
210
732
2,563
6,142
8,971
21,531
Taxes
&
Insurance
8
30
105
366
1,282
3,071
4,485
10,766
O&M Cost Estimates for pH Adjustment
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
Tanks -
Labor
4,372
4,372
4,492
4,914
5,375
5,724
5,880
6,261
Chemical
Cost
0
1
1
9
94
472
944
4,718
Metals Option 3
Chemical
Cost
1
1
2
18
175
870
1,735
8,660
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
4,460
4,826
4,871
6,090
9,442
15,797
20,993
46,589

Total
O&M Cost
(1989S/YR)
4,408
4,444
4,684
5,559
7,708
11,815
16,255
33,791
                                                2-29
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
100,000

it (1989 S/YR)
3
o
o
S
e«
O
1,000
0.0



/
/

^
— _ 	 	 ^.'-~ 	
	 • 	 •



, , i , i < ill i i i I I i i il i I I I i i nT I i.i I I I III 	 1 	 1 — 1 1 1 1 11
001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 1
Flow (MGD)
      Figure 2-13.  O&M Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
10O.UUU
t (1989 $/YR)
_o
9
O
2
o3
O
1,000
0.0




s
/
^
	 _ 	 _-—' "^ 	 —



j |,| | I il 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I.I 1 LJ LJJJ 	 1 	 1 	 1 1 1111
001 0.001 0.01 '0.1 1 1
                                                Flow (MGD)
     Figure 2-14. O&M Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
                                             2-30
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.1.4  Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4

       The primary chemical precipitation system equipment for the model technology for Metals
Option 4 consists of a mixed reaction tank with pumps, a treatment chemical feed system, and an
unmixed wastewater holding tank.  EPA designed the system to operate on a batch basis, treating
one batch per day, five days per week. The average chemical precipitation batch duration reported
by respondents to the WTI Questionnaire was four hours. Therefore, a one batch per day treatment
schedule should provide sufficient time for the average facility to pump, treat, and test its waste.
EPA also included a holding tank, equal to the daily waste volume, up to a maximum size of 5,000
gallons (equivalent to the average tank truck receipt volume throughout the industry), to allow
facilities flexibility in managing waste receipts.  (The Metals Option 4  model facility utilizes  a
holding tank.)
       As shown in Table 1-3, clarification follows primary chemical  precipitation for Metals
Option 4. The costing discussion for clarification following primary precipitation in Metals Option
4 is presented in Section 2.2.2. The discussions for sludge filtration and the associated filter cake
disposal are presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.

Capital and Land Costs
       EPA  developed total  capital  cost estimates for the Metals Option 4 primary chemical
precipitation systems. For facilities with no chemical precipitation units in-place, the components
of the chemical  precipitation system included a precipitation tank with a mixer, pumps, and a feed
system. In addition, EPA included a holding tank equal to the size of the precipitation tank, up to
5,000 gallons. EPA obtained these cost estimates from manufacturer's recommendations.
       EPA estimated the other components  (i.e., piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the
total capital cost for both the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank by applying the same factors  and
additional costs as detailed for selective metals precipitation (see Section 2.1.1 above).
                                          2-31
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       For facilities that already have any chemical precipitation (treatment in-place), EPA included
as capital expense only the cost of a holding tank.
       The itemized primary chemical precipitation capital cost and holding tank capital cost
estimates for Metals Option 4 are presented in Tables 2-19 and 2-20, respectively. The resulting cost
curves are presented as Figures 2-15 and 2-16. The resulting total capital cost equations for the
Metals Option 4 primary chemical precipitation and holding tank systems are presented below as
Equations 2-15 and 2-16, respectively.
                                                                                   (2-15)
                                                                                   (2-16)
where:
ln(Yl) = 14.019 + 0.481In(X) - 0.00307(ln(X))2
Ln(Yl) = 10.671 - 0.0831n(X) - 0.032(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl= Capital Cost (1989$).
Table 2-19. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
Flow
(MOD)
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
22,3 9"0
22,390
22,390
22,390
Install.
175
627
5,490
8,064
19,635
25,339
51,079
71,676
165,565
240,693
583,157
Total
Construction
Cost
674
2,419
21,176
31,103
75,734
97,735
197,019
276,464
638,607
928,387
2,249,319
Engineer. &
Conting.
202
726
6,353
9,331
22,720
29,321
59,106
82,939
191,582
278,516
674,796
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
876
3,145
27,529
40,434
98,454
127,056
256,125
359,403
830,189
1,206,903
2,924,115
                                           2-32
-------
   Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
            Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-20. Holding Tank Total Capital Cost Estimates fof Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 4
. Average Total Engineering Total
fiurm Vendor Installation Construction & Capital Cost
*• ' Equipment Cost Cost Contingency (1989$)
0.000001 217 76 293 88 381
0.00001 762 267 1,029 309 1,338
.0.0005 6,400 2,240 8,640 2,592 11,232
0.001 9,330 3,266 12,596 3,779 16,375
0.005 22,390 7,837 30,227 9,068 39,295
10,000,000
§£ 1,000,000
00
o>
en
o
0
2
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
        100,000
    CD
    o
    J5
    "5.
    CO
    O
         10,000
         1,000
                         '   I  I I  I I 11
                                                    '  I  I I  I 11
                                                                        '   I  I I  I I  I
           0.00001
                                   0.0001
                                                           0.001
                                                                                   0.01
                                             Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-16.  Holding Tank Total Capital Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation -
              Metals Option 4

       The land requirements for the Metals Option 4 primary chemical precipitation and holding
tank systems are presented in Table 2-21. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-17
and 2-18, respectively. The land requirement equations for the Metals Option 4 primary chemical
precipitation and holding tank systems are presented below as Equations 2-17 and 2-18, respectively.
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.019 + 0.2991n(X) + 0.015(In(X))2
ln(Y3) = -2.866 - 0.0231n(X) - 0.006(In(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
                                                                                     (2-17)
                                                                                     (2-18)
                                            2-34
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-21 . Land Requirement Estimates for Chemical
_. Primary Chemical Precipitation
Flow r j T> • T
fiurr^ Land Requirements
(Acres)
0.00001 0.0791
0.0001 0.0823
0.001 0.0940
0.01 0.1250
0.05 0.1724
0.1 0.2068
0.5 0.2434
1.0 0.4474
Land Requirement (Acres)
P§ 2
0

Precipitation - Metals Option 4
Holding Tank
Land Requirements
(Acres)
0.0395
0.0410
0.0470
0.0574
0.0574
0.0574
0.0574
0.0574







^x*
^^
_^^^







\ Illlllll 1 Illllfll 1 111
D01 0.001 0.01
i ii 1 1 i i i i 1 1 1 ii i i i i 1 1 1 1
0.1 1 10
                                           Flow (MGD)

 Figure 2-17. Land Requirement Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
                                            2-35
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                        Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       1.00
    0)
    £  0.10
       0.01
         0.00001
                 '   I  I  I I 11II
                                  '  '  I  I I 11II
                                                    	"I
                                                                      '   '—' I I  III
                           0.0001
   0.001
Flow (MGD)
                                                               0.01
                                       0.1
                                                                                       at
 Figure 2-18.  Land Requirement Curve for Holding Tank - Metals Option 4

Labor and Chemical Costs
       EPA approximated me labor cost for primary chemical precipitation in Metals Option 4
two hours per batch, one batch per day. The labor cost was estimated at $31,200 per man year.  EPA
based this approach on the model facility's operation.
       EPA estimated chemical costs based on stoichiometric, pH adjustment, and buffer adjustment
requirements.  For facilities with no chemical precipitation in-place, EPA based the stoichiometric
requirements on the amount of chemicals required to precipitate each of the metal and semi-metal
pollutants of concern from the metals subcategory average raw influent concentrations to Metals
Option 4 (Sample Point-03)  concentrations.  Metals  Option 4, Sample Point-03 concentrations
represent the  sampled effluent from primary chemical precipitation at the model facility.  The
chemicals used were lime at 75 percent of the required removals and caustic at 25 percent of the
                                           2-36
-------
 Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
 	Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
 required removals, which are based on the option facility's operation.  EPA estimated -the pH
 adjustment and buffer adjustment requirements to be 50 percent of the stoichiometric requirement,
 which includes a 10 percent excess of chemical dosage.  Table 2-22 presents the lime and caustic
 requirements for the primary chemical precipitation systems for the Metals Option 4.
       The itemized annual O&M cost estimates  for facilities with no treatment  in-place are
 presented in Table 2-23 and the subsequent cost curve is presented as Figure 2-19. The O&M cost
 equation for  Metals Option 4 chemical precipitation is:
 where:
ln(Y2) = 15.3086 + 1.08349In(X) + 0.04891(In(X))2
                                         *'
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                   (2-19)
  a:
   CO
   O3
   (O
   O
   O
   08
   O

10,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
o.c


^
/
^
	 	 : 	 ^^ 	
^^
^^"^
^


, i i i 1 1 1 ii i i i i 1 1 1 ii i i i i i i n i i iii ii n
01 0.01 0.1 1 1
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-19.  O&M Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
                                           2-37
-------
1
a

I
2
.5
5
a.
O


*




{




I

.I5
O

£
'5

*
CO
o
'•g
•a
•F>
a
p-(
*ca
_o
S"—
rl
o
&
.8
"S
P-I
cS
uirements
or*
*i
Pi!
_o
*4~»
&Q
3
O
1
P
3
(N
es
CS

o
E

i
*
3
Q

f*i
o
c-
c/3
>
1
co
o
c.
CO
>
<§

2
a >:
5 g
1 1
7 CO
as
S"
g£
.- CO
Js
Causlic
(LBS/YR)
Sf
s>
23
_£
0 S"
I s
•33
£?
g >.
J,
Causlic
(LBS/YR)
S
il
0 S
o f|
!|
1|
H
Pollutant
2 « S 2<^r_rm^- o g g „ £ o K
S. £ - Z g ov 5 5 g S g S «= „ g 5. §„ 5 S „. r. -. SS r- g.
g o 2- ; § - •-" - § - s" S g s « - - "*- - " s 5 s K °
S 5 " 5 ° 3 = 5 S S" s -- - s -• S - 5 s S
2 a s S. s 1 s § s s s I a „, s s =. 8 ? _ „ § s e S.
g 5 S. S 5 S ?- 5 5- 5 § S « 2 s S ° S S "• 5 S S 5 S S °
v^—^o^r^^rS^S^JSo^ 2^ ^ — • <*V 2 °V
Cl CN TT « — — — (N M- —
S~ Sr-S-5>oSg2=5 gS § vo 2g S
S £ 5 5 §. 2 s. 2 t -- s- S ^an^o^S^RS 5- | S S- o
S5Sr-5 = S0>RS== S E S " - SS S
\O C* ro '^tn' — « _ — —_ tN T~ »-
-c- r4-a-— ^^^ — r^— «^ — r^t*io o™ — IT* os"i c\
Stnoo??: — — «gr->e-«-r-or^cnvocnroooooc4vDooir»r^o-^c>)«o)
^ _J oj _ O«N--— -o— «o«nrJo cs —I — vi 	 o1 o 	 o 	 ^- 	 'en 	 fn — co— ^^^i^-ooo — r-o— o>S2or- —
5n — — ** ~ fMr-'ftSsM— f^ -^MCS r» <** c%
l|o iln,2 J|Ll«Jl ill 1
I 1 I i i g 3 £ 2 z 0| § 3 § g g 8 1 § 3 lliol
3gSg5g§S||>His}N
ON
O

-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-23. O&M Cost Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
Flow
(MOD)
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
5
48
4,844
48,436
242,180
484,360
2,421,800
4,843,599
24,217,916
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
14,174
14,353
21,755
71,904
274,764
524,090
2,494,983
4,945,054
24,465,146
       For facilities which already have chemical precipitation treatment in-place, EPA estimated
an O&M upgrade cost.  EPA assumed that facilities with primary chemical precipitation in-place
have effluent concentrations exiting the primary precipitation/solid-liquids separation system equal
to the metals subcategory primary precipitation current loadings.  Similarly, EPA assumed that
facilities with secondary chemical precipitation in place have effluent concentrations exiting the
secondary precipitation/solid-liquids  separation system equal to metals subcategory secondary
precipitation current loadings (see Chapter 12 of the Development Document for the CWT Point
Source Category for a detailed discussion of metals subcategory primary and secondary chemical
precipitation current loadings).
       For the portion of the O&M upgrade  equation associated with energy, maintenance, and
labor, for facilities that currently have primary  precipitation systems EPA calculated the percentage
difference between the primary precipitation current loadings and Metals Option 4 (Sample Point-
                                           2-39
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
03) concentrations. This difference is an increase of approximately two percent. Therefore, EPA
calculated the energy, maintenance, and labor components of the O&M upgrade cost for facilities
with primary chemical precipitation in-place at two percent of the O&M cost for facilities with no
chemical precipitation in-place.
        For the portion of the O&M upgrade equation associated with energy, maintenance, and
labor, for facilities that  currently have secondary precipitation  systems EPA  calculated the
percentage difference between secondary precipitation current loadings and Metals Option 4 (Sample
Point-03) concentrations.  This difference is also an increase of approximately two percent1.
Therefore, EPA calculated the energy, maintenance, and labor components of the O&M upgrade cost
for facilities with secondary chemical precipitation in-place at two percent of the O&M cost for
facilities with no chemical precipitation in-place.
       For the chemical  cost portion of the O&M upgrade, EPA  also calculated upgrade costs
depending on whether the facility had primary precipitation or secondary precipitation currently in-
place. For facilities with primary precipitation, EPA calculated chemical upgrade costs based on
current-to-Metals Option 4 (Sample Point-03) removals. Similarly for facilities with secondary
precipitation, EPA calculated chemical upgrade costs based on secondary precipitation removals to
Metals Option 4 (Sample Point -03) removals.  In both cases, EPA did not include costs for pH
adjustment or buffering chemicals since these chemicals should already be used in the in-place
treatment system.   Finally, EPA included a 10 percent excess of chemical  dosage  to the
stoichiometric requirements of the precipitation chemicals. Tables 2-24 and 2-25 present the lime
and caustic requirements for the Metals Option 4 primary chemical precipitation  upgrades for
facilities with primary treatment  in-place  and  facilities  with secondary treatment in-place,
respectively.
        1 While pollutant concentrations resulting from secondary chemical precipitation are generally lower than those
resulting from primary chemical precipitation, the percentage increase (when rounded) for primary and secondary
precipitation are the same.
                                            2-40
-------
§5
Ql
tj
O
§>
s
^
•S
o
Q^
E-H

o


"S
i
§
§
l
bo
Co
s
U
1
Q


cal Wastewater
inology Costs

I £
o S
"« tc
Je ^
f^ ( ^-H
(N
S
_0
t3
u
CO
•f
CO
(D
"«
So
PH
c!
O
"-J2
CG
,**r^
&
"o
(U
l-l
CL,
"3
'a
CD
6
c3
a
.^H
PH
CO
-4—*
g
II
^ f-^-t
^T^ JL
nd Caustic Re
y Treatment Ir
CO i-t
.11
t-3 PH
^
CN
CN
| QJ
JD
H

.0 MOD
S
o
u.
Q
O
II
^
o
E
Q
g
0
o
II
o
u*
a
1
O
0
j>
o
u.


I
f
o
Q

en
0
a,
CO
™
a.
en
o
a,
w
&
•c
a,

Lime
(LBS/YR)
Caustic
(LBS/YR)
Liine
(LBS/YR)
0 S
•~ >•
s c/i
uS
Liine
(LBS/YR)
Caustic
(LBS/YR)
Lime
(LBS/YR)
.2 *
3 W
3«
o?
B ^*
.= 55
J,
o o?
•= >
jz CQ
J.
« J
£ "g>

1 5
0 g)
« 3
S "«
-J ^£,
"o
O.
oRo~-oo°o.oooS=>^i<=£oo§.o-.o$$oo
2 CO SO — "" Wl~
^ (N -q-
1-^ M •*
£ -a- o» n os
o^o^-oogJoooo^-o^go^oo^Troo-^oo
l£ o f^ — m
c4 m
rr ^ ^*
OoOfHOO'VOOOO00. O(M-3-O™O^
v5 °° a; ) TT
oJCooooooooomoo— OOOOTCOOOOOOO
(N en
-
— in-rTo'°"-co~"c^ONr"rr)VO<*>fnooooCNlvoo3tn(NO~'r>i~~'eN


rr — • « a « 3 ® § rt w 5 M 8 °" 2 2 § <=> N

u-i r-" o' ™ o o o o' m' ^ o" en" o ° en eN o' CN o' en o' — o o" o o'
s
UJ 3
iiiiiisei.aiiilJiifi ii|J
3feSgSggS|lS6s|oo3a||«iSig|a
<<>-Nisj
CO
m
<*l
oo
t^
oo
r^
c^
o"
VJD
>O
en
00_
r*"
r^
oo
CN
O_
XO
T
OO
P-^
r»T
0
vq^
«X"
oo
r^
r-
VO
wn











CN
-------
 I
I

O

.8
I

 a
     O
 —  o
      *"*







•*•
§
-t-»
CO
"S
4-1
o
^

I
CO
1
I
O
-*-»
&
e£
•s
o
S"*
o
*$
O
&
C3
id

P-I
s_i
o
CO
d> o
S "cu
"3 >3
fV*. Q.}
0 S
1 «
l"i
e °
c O
.£3 O
i-3 CO
10
-
o ^
ts St


O 5
S?
» >-
.5 33
J CO

u c^
™ >•
§ s
0 d.
S>
•— C/l
s
"^
0 S*
s ^
c5 S
^
s £:
~"±
S1
3 CO
« C3

C£
.is
-J m
^"*


'5 2:
o3

0 '3)
J ^


|^
"^
li


e

—
O.



vo r- _
v^ ON r* "a- ^
g-wog-ooooojooojn. oooooo se_ ^ o o en os
o —
W^— "^ f* (N'^"(-">(--i\3CNC3^


— cs
SO 0
vo ^° cC M o\ —
—• (N

vo «n
<2>^.og.oooor4ooor^ooe> _>— —
eo (N
vo^ ^ ® C3\_ o*_*o>— /i-no^^Q\



— «nooOOooc^ooo^oooooo^r40ooi — oo
-T cs

\0 — oSoOOOOOOOCNOOOOOOCNOOOOOOO


— ooooooooooor-oooooo — ooooooo
— es


^ _J ^4 2 o oi — ' — ' o— ^o'»o'tNO en rn ro rn 20r~"0 0 0 ° — 00
Ssg^S?:r,gg2SSsSgSSSSSSS5S|-S
^•^cM"*ovOrtOO«rtOcnE: — ovoo\-*oioo*r'jw-jO,o o^r-,
r-rteJc^esoo'fOooo'oio'tN— 'O — o — ooooo o
z P3 D™-^ ^
SS^^^-^-^W^ ^Oo?^^0^'2'^ 2<^ O
^POT§QSS£52:
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       EPA then combined the energy, maintenance and labor components of the O&M upgrade
with the chemical portion of the O&M upgrade to develop two sets of O&M upgrade equations for
the primary chemical precipitation portion of Metals Option 4.
       The itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the facilities that currently have primary
chemical precipitation in-place are presented in Table 2-26, while the O&M upgrade cost estimates
for the facilities that currently have secondary chemical precipitation in-place are presented in Table
2-27. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-20 and 2-21. The O&M upgrade cost
equations for the facilities that have primary and secondary chemical precipitation treatment in-place
are presented below as Equations 2-20 and 2-21, respectively.
where:
ln(Y2) = 11.4547 + 1.043371n(X) + 0.04575(ln(X))2
In(Y2) = 10.9647 + 0.98525In(X) + 0.04426(ln(X))2

X= Flow Rate (MOD)
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR)
                                                                                   (2-20)
                                                                                   (2-21)
2.1.5  Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation for Metals Option 4

       The Metals  Option 4 secondary sulfide precipitation system follows the primary metals
precipitation/clarification step. This equipment consists of a mixed reaction tank with pumps and
a treatment chemical feed system, sized for the full daily batch volume.  For direct dischargers, the
overflow from secondary sulfide precipitation would carry on to a clarifier and then multi-media
filtration.  For indirect discharges, the overflow would go immediately to the filtration unit, without
clarification.  Cost estimates for the clarifier are discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this document.  Cost
estimates for multi-media filtration are presented in Section 2.5.
                                           2-43
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-26. O&MCost
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Energy
20
20
20
22
30
41
124
228
1,060
Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation TIP - Metals Option 4
Maintenance
1
3
32
102
205
288
664
966
2,340
Labor
262
262
270
294
314
323
343
353
376
Taxes &
Insurance
8
27
32
786
786
786
786
786
786
Chemical
Cost
1
1
99
993
4,965
9,932
49,659
99,318
496,589
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
292
313
453
2,197
6,300
11,370
51,576
101,651
501,151
Table 2-27.  O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Secondary Chemical Precipitation TIP -
             Metals Option 4
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Energy
20
20
20
22
30
41
124
228
1,060
Maintenance
1
">
32
102
205
288
664
966
2,340
Labor
262
262
270
294
314
323
343
353
376
Taxes &
Insurance
8
27
32
786
786
786
786
786
786
Chemical
Cost
0
1
59
592
2,958
5,915
29,575
59,151
295,754
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
291
313
413
1,796
4,293
7,353
31,492
61,484
300,316
                                             2-44
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater

         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
          1,000,000
            100,000
       eo
       a>
       o
       CJ
            10,000
             1,000
                0.001
                                             I  I  I I I I 11
                                   0.01
          0.1

   Fiow(MGD)
                                                                                          10
    Figure 2-20.  O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation

                  Metals Option 4 - Primary Treatment In-place
           1,000,000
            100,000
       en
       co
       a>
       o
       O
             10,000
              1i0QO '      i   i  i  i i i nl     i	1  I  I I I I II	1	1—I  I I I I II	1	1—I  I I I III

                0.001               0.01               0.1                 1                 10

                                                 Flow(MGD)


    Figure 2-21.  O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation -

                  Metals Option 4 - Secondary Treatment In-place
                                              2-45
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       For costing purposes, EPA assumed that facilities either have secondary precipitation
currently in-place and attributes no additional capital and O&M costs to these facilities, or EPA
assumes that facilities do not have secondary sulfide precipitation in-place and, consequently, EPA
developed costs for full O&M and capital costs.  Therefore, EPA has not developed upgrade costs
associated with secondary precipitation in Metals Option 4.

Capital and Land Costs
       EPA developed capital cost estimates for the secondary sulfide precipitation systems in
Metals Option 4 from  vendor's  quotes.  EPA estimated the other components (i.e.,  piping,
instrumentation, and controls,  etc.) of the  sulfide precipitation system by applying  the  same
methodology, factors and additional costs as outlined for the primary chemical precipitation system
for Metals Option 4 (see Section 2.1.4  above).  Table 2-28 presents the itemized capital cost
estimates for the secondary precipitation (sulfide precipitation) systems, while Figure 2-22 presents
the resulting cost curve.  The total capital cost equation for Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide)
precipitation is:
where:
ln(Yl) = 13.829 + 0.544In(X) + 0.00000496(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl= Capital Cost (1989$).
                                                                                  (2-22)
                                           2-46
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-28. Total Capital
Flow Equipment
(MOD) Cost
0.000001 218
0.00001 762
0.001 9,329
0.01 32,646
0.05 78,355
0.1 114,243
0.5 274,201
1.0 399,788
5.0 959,554
Cost Estimates for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation - Metals Option 4
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 $)
551
1,933
23,649
82,758
198,631
289,606
695,099
1,013,462
2,432,469

6?
05 1,000,000
oo
05
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       Table 2-29 presents the land requirements for the Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide)
precipitation treatment systems.  The land area curve is presented as Figure 2-23.  The land
requirement equation for Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide) precipitation is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.15 + 0.449In(X) + 0.027(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
                                                                                  (2-23)
Table 2-29.  Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation •
             Metals Option 4
Flow
(MOD)
0.0040
0.0071
0.015
0.10
0.25
0.5
1.0
Area Required
(Acres)
0.056
0.063
0.088
0.126
0.166
0.186
0.388
                                           2-48
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       1.00
    
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
hydrated lime, 70 Ibs of sodium sulfide and 500 gallons of water. According to the CWT BAT
model plant, the pricing of these chemicals was as follows: $0.11/lb for ferrous sulfate, $0.044/lb
for hydrated lime, and $0.38/lb for sodium sulfide.  EPA assumed that the cost of water was
negligible compared to the other items.
       Table 2-30 presents the itemized annual O&M cost estimates for the Metals Option 4
secondary (sulfide) chemical precipitation system. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure
2-24. The O&M cost equation for the Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide) precipitation is:
where:
In(Y2) = 12.076 + 0.634561n(X) + 0.03678(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 - O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
Table 2-30.  O&M Cost Estimates for Sulfide Precipitation Systems - Metals Option 4
                                                                                  (2-24)
Flow
(MOD)
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Energy
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,200
11,400
53,000
Maintenance
77
946
3,310
7,945
11,584
27,804
40,538
97,299
Taxes &
Insurance
39
473
1,655
3,973
5,792
13,902
20,269
48,649
Labor
13,116
13,475
14,741
15,696
16,126
17,171
17,641
18,784
Chemical Cost
Polymer FeS
1
9
87
438
873
4,368
8,736
43,680
1
72
718
3,588
7,176
35,880
71,760
358,800
Total O&M
Cost
(1989 $/YR)
14,234
15,985
21,615
33,160
43,591
105,325
170,344
620,212
                                           2-50
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
          1,000,000
      C5
      CO
      CO
      ^   100,000
      tn
      o
      O
      08
      O
            10,000
                                                                         X
                                                1 1 1 1
                0.001
                                 0.01
         0.1
     Flow (MGD)
                                                                                    10
   Figure 2-24.  O&M Cost Curve for Secondary (Sulftde) Precipitation Systems -
                 Metals Option 4
2.2    Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration and Clarification

       Clarification systems provide continuous, low-cost separation and removal of suspended
solids from water.  Waste treatment facilities use clarification to remove particulates, flocculated
impurities,  and precipitants, often following chemical precipitation.  Similarly, waste treatment
facilities also use plate and frame pressure systems to  remove solids from waste streams.  As
described in this section, these plate and frame filtration systems serve the same function as
clarification and are used to remove  solids  following chemical  precipitation  from liquid
wastestreams.  The major  difference between clarification systems and plate  and  frame liquid
filtration systems is that the sludge generated by clarification generally needs to be processed further
prior to landfilling, whereas, the sludge generated by plate and frame liquid filtration does not.
                                            2-51
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       EPA costed facilities to include a plate and frame liquid filtration system following selective
metals precipitation in Metals  Options 2 and 3.  The components of the plate and frame liquid
filtration system include: filter plates, filter cloth, hydraulic pumps, control panel, connector pipes,
and a support platform.  Since EPA costed all metals facilities for selective metals precipitation
systems for Metals Options 2 and 3 (except the one facility which already utilizes this technology),
EPA also costed all metals facilities for plate and frame liquid filtration systems. Consequently,
EPA did not develop any upgrade costs associated with the use of plate and frame liquid filtration,
for selective metals precipitation treatment systems.
       EPA also costed facilities to include a clarifier following secondary precipitation for Metals
Option 2 and following both secondary and tertiary precipitation for Metals Option 3. For Metals
Option 4, EPA costed facilities  to include a clarifier following primary chemical precipitation and
following secondary precipitation (for direct dischargers only). EPA designed and costed a single
clarification system for all options and locations in the treatment train.  The components of this
clarification system include a clarification unit, flocculation unit, pumps, motor, foundation, and
accessories.

2.2.1   Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration Following Selective Metals Precipitation -
       Metals Options 2 and 3

Capital and Land Costs
       The plate and frame liquid filtration equipment following the selective metals precipitation
step for the model technology in Metals Option 2 and 3  consists of two plate and frame liquid
filtration systems.  EPA assumed that each system would be used to process two batches per day for
a total of four batches. EPA costed the plate and frame liquid filtration systems in this manner to
allow facilities to  segregate their wastes into  smaller batches, thereby facilitating selective metals
recovery. EPA sized each of the units to process a batch consisting of 25 percent of the daily flow
                                            2-52
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
and assumed that the influent to the plate and frame filtration units would consist of 96 percent liquid
and four percent (40,000 mg/1) solids (based on the model facility).
       Table 2-31 presents the  itemized capital cost estimates for the plate and frame filtration
systems following selective metals precipitation, while Figure 2-25 presents the resulting cost curve.
The total capital cost equation  for  Metals Options 2 and 3 plate and frame filtration systems
(following selective metals precipitation) is:
where:
ln(Yl) = 14.024 + 0.8591n(X) + 0.040(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl  = Capital Cost (1989 $).
                                                                                    (2-25)
Table 2-31. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Options
            2 and 3 - Selective Metals Precipitation
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.100
0.500
1.000
Average
Vendor
Equipment Cost
9,147
9,147
9,185
' 12,813
30,368
122,294
443,600
836,855
Installation
Cost
3,201
.3,201
3,215
4,485
10,629
42,803
155,260
292,899
Total Equipment
&
Installation Cost
12,348
12,348
12,400
17,298
40,997
165,097
598,860
1,129,754
Engineering
& Contingency
Fee
3,704
3,704
3,720
5,189
12,299
49,529
179,658
338,926
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
14,607
14,607
14,669
20,463
48,499
195,310
708,451
1,336,499
                                            2-53
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
    o
    •5
    ra
    O
       10,000,000
        1.000,000
         100,000
         10.000
          1,000
                                     III	I   i I 1 I I I ll	I  I t I I I I I
                                                                     I I  I 11 111	I  1  I I 11 II
            0.00001
                         0.0001
                              0.001          0.01

                                      Flow (MGD)
                                                              0.1
                                                                                       10
 Figure 2-25. Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Total Capital Cost Curve for

              Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
       The land requirement cost curve for Metals Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitation

liquid filtration systems is presented as Figure 2-26; the subsequent equation is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.658 + 0.185In(X) + 0.009(ln(X))2




X = Flow (MGD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
                                                                                        (2-26)
                                             2-54
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
         1.00
     "£
      
-------
  Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
           Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
  Table 2-32. O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Options
              2 and 3 - Selective Metals Precipitation
Flow Energy
(MOD)
0.000001 1,000
0.00001 1,000
0.0001 1,000
0.001 1,010
0.01 1,104
0.1 2,040
0.5 6,155
1.0 11,464
1,000.000
K
|
C. 100,000
s
0
s
c3
o
10,000
o.oc
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 $/YR)
72,360
72,360
72,361
215,820
216,755
294,099
382,009
477,079




^-"-"
^^^^
_^-~"^
_^^^







1001 0.0001

0.001
1 1 1 1 ! Ill 1 1
0.01
Flow (MGD)
1 1 Mill 1 II
0.1
1 I III! 1 1 1 1 Mil
1 10
Figure 2-27.  Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O&M Cost Curve for Selective
              Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
                                              2-56
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       Even though the metal-rich sludge generated from selective metals precipitation and plate
and frame liquid filtration may be recycled and re-used, EPA additionally included costs associated
with disposal of these sludges in a landfill.  The discussion for filter cake disposal is presented
separately in Section 4.2. These disposal costs are additional O&M costs which must be added to
the O&M costs calculated above to obtain the total O&M costs associated with plate and frame
liquid filtration system for Metals Options 2 and 3.

2.2.2   Clarification - Metals Options 2,3, and 4

Capital and Land Costs
       EPA obtained the capital cost estimate for clarification systems from vendors. EPA designed
the clarification system assuming an influent total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of 40,000
mg/L (four percent solids) and an effluent TSS concentration of 200,000 mg/L (20 percent solids).
In addition, EPA assumed a design overflow rate of 600 gpd/ft2.  EPA estimated the influent and
effluent TSS concentrations and overflow rate based  on the WTI  Questionnaire response  for
Questionnaire ID 105.  As detailed earlier, the same capital cost equation is used for all of the
clarification systems for all of the Metals Options regardless of its location in the treatment train.
EPA did not develop capital cost upgrades for facilities which already have clarification systems in-
place.  Therefore, facilities which currently have clarifiers have no land or capital costs.
       EPA obtained the capital  cost estimates for the clarification systems  from vendors. The
itemized capital cost estimates for the clarification systems are presented in Table 2-33. The
resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-28.  The total capital cost equation for the Metals
Options 2, 3, and 4 clarification systems is:
                                           2-57
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
where:
In(Yl) = 11.552 + 0.4091n(X) + 0.020(ln(X))2


X = Flow (MOD) and

Yl  = Capital Cost (1989 $).
                                                                                     (2-28)
Table 2-33. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2,3, and 4
Vol/Day
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
System
Cost
6,579
6,579
6,579
6,971
9,547
14,550
18,358
35,466
49,563
Install.
2,303
2,303
2,303
2,440
3,341
5,093
6,425
12,413
17,347
Piping
1,974
1,974
1,974
2,091
2,864
4,365
5,507
10,640
14,869
Instrum.
&
Controls
1,974
1,974
1,974
2,091
2,864
4,365
5,507
10,640
14,869
Engineer.
&
Conting.
3,849
3,849
3,849
4,078
5,585
8,512
10,739
20,748
28,994
Total
Capital
Cost
(1993 $)
16,679
16,679
16,679
17,671
24,201
36,885
46,536
89,907
125,642
Total
Capital
Cost
(1989$)
15,178
15,178
15,178
16,081
22,023
33,565
42,348
81,815
114,334
                                            2-58
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater

         Treatment Technology Costs
                                       Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
      1,000,000
   <$   100,000

   CD
   CO
   03
(O
o
O

3s
'5.

O
        10,000
         1,000
                                   I  I I 1 I 111	I   III
                                                                     I II ll
                                                                                I  I I I I II
           0.0001
                          0.001
                                          0.01
                                                         0.1
                                                                         1
                                                                                       10
                                            Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-28. Total Capital Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2, 3, and 4




       Figure 2-29 presents the land requirement cost curve for the Metals Options 2, 3, and 4

clarification systems. The  equation relating the flow of the clarification system with the land

requirement for all Metals Options is:
where:
    ln(Y3) = -1.773 + 0.5131n(X) + 0.046(ln(X))2




    X = Flow (MGD) and

    Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
                                                                                       (2-29)
                                             2-59
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
   	Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       too
       0.10
       0.01
        0.0001
                       0.001
                                      0.01
                                                    0.1
                                                                                 10
                                        Flow(MGD)
 Figure 2-29. Land Requirement Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2,
              3, and 4
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirements
       EPA estimated the labor requirements for the clarification systems for Metals Options 2 and
3 following secondary precipitation and Metals Option 4 following primary and secondary (for direct
dischargers only) precipitation at three hours per day for low-flow clarifiers and four to six hours per
day for high-flow clarifiers. Based on manufacturers recommendations, EPA selected the flow cut-
off between high-flow and low-flow systems to be 1,000 gallons per day. For the clarifier following
tertiary precipitation in Metals Option 3 only, EPA estimated the labor requirement at one hour per
day (based on the operation of the Metals Option 3 model facility). For all clarifiers for all Metals
Options and treatment train locations, EPA estimated a polymer dosage rate of 2.0 mg per liter of
wastewater (for the flocculation step) based on the MP&M industry cost model.
       Table 2-34 presents the  itemized O&M  cost estimates for the Metals Options 2 and 4
clarification treatment systems, while Table 2-35 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the
                                           2-60
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
          Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Metals Option 3 clarification systems. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2^3_0 and
2-31. The O&M cost equations for the Metals Options 2 and 4 and Metals Option 3 are presented
below as Equations 2-30 and 2-3 1 , respectively.
ln(Y2) = 10.673 + 0.2381n(X) + 0.013(ln(X))2 (2-30)
In(Y2) = 10.294 + 0.3621n(X) + 0.019(In(X))2 (2-31)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD),
Y2 = O&M Cost (1 989 $/YR).
Table 2-34.
Vol/day
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.00
O&M Cost
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,155
11,464
Estimates
Labor
15,741
15,741
15,741
15,857
16,842
18,210
19,005,
21,439
22,788
for Clarification
Systems
Taxes
Maintenance &
Insurance
667
667
667
706
968
1,475
1,861
3,596
5,025
334
334
334
353
484
738
931
1,798
2,513
- Metals
Polymer
Cost
10
10
10
15
150
750
1,500
7,500
15,000
Options 2 and 4
Total
O&M Cost
(1993 $/YR)
17,752
17,752
17,752
17,941
19,548
22,693
25,337
40,488
56,790

Total
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
16,154
16,154
16,154
16,326
17,789
20,651
23,057
36,844
51,679
                                                 2-61
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
          Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-35.
Vol/day
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.00
O&M Cost Estimates for Clarification Systems - Metals Option 3
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,010
1,104
1,520
2,040
6,155
11,464
Labor
5,247
5,247
5,247
5,286
5,614
6,070
6,335
7,146
7,596
Maintenance
667
667
667
706
968
1,475
1,861
3,596
5,025
Taxes
&
Insurance
334
334
334
353
484
738
931
1,798
2,513
Polymer
Cost
10
10
10
15
150
750
1,500
7,500
15,000
Total
O&M Cost
(1993 $/YR)
7,258
7,258
7,258
7,370
8,320
10,553
12,667
26,195
41,598
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
6,605
6,605
6,605
6,707
7,571
9,603
11,527
23,837
37,854
          100,000
      o
      s
      e8
      O
                                                                       z
          10,000 I     '  i i  i i i 111	1	1  i  i i i 111	1	1  I  I I I III	1	1—I  I I I III	1	1—I  I I I III
             0.0001            0.001            0.01            0.1              1               10
                                                Flow (MGD)

   Figure 2-30.  O&M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2 and 4
                                                2-62
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
      100,000
   r   10,000
   08
   o
        1,000
                         I III
                                   I I I I 11ll
                                                       ml
                                                             i  i  i i  i i ill
           0.0001
                          0.001
                                         0.01
                                                        0.1
                                                                                      10
                                            Flow (MOD)
Figure 2-31. O&M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Option 3
       As shown in Table 1-3, sludge filtration follows clarification for the secondary precipitation
step of Metals Options 2 and 3 and the primary and secondary (direct dischargers only) of Metals
Option 4. The costing discussion and equations for sludge filtration and the associated filter cake
disposal are presented in Section 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
       For facilities which already have clarification systems or plate and frame liquid filtration
systems in-place for each option and location in the treatment train, EPA estimated upgrade costs.
EPA assumed that clarification systems and plate and frame liquid filtration systems are equivalent.
Therefore, if a facility has an in-place liquid filtration system which can serve the same purpose as
a clarifier, EPA costed this facility for an upgrade only and not a new system.
       For the clarification step following secondary precipitation in Metals Options 2 and 3, in
order to quantify the O&M increase necessary for the O&M upgrade, EPA compared the difference
                                            2-63
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
between secondary precipitation current performance concentrations and the Metals Option 2 long-
term averages.  EPA determined facilities would need to increase their current removals by 3
percent. Therefore, for in-place clarification systems (or plate and frame liquid filtration systems)
which could serve as the clarifier following secondary chemical precipitation for Metals Option 2
and 3, EPA included an O&M cost upgrade of three percent of the O&M costs for a brand new
system (except for taxes, insurance, and maintenance which are a function of the capital cost).
       For facilities which already have clarifiers or plate and frame liquid filtration systems in-
place which could serve as the clarifier following the tertiary chemical precipitation of Metals
Option 3, EPA did not estimate any O&M upgrade costs. EPA assumed the in-place technologies
could perform as well as (or better) than the technology costed by EPA.
       The O&M upgrade cost equations for the Metals Options 2 and 3 clarification and liquid
filtration systems are presented below as Equation 2-32 and 2-33, respectively. •
       ln(Y2) = 7.166 + 0.2381n(X) + 0.013(ln(X))2
       ln(Y2) = 8.707 + 0.3331n(X) + 0.012(In(X))2
                                           (2-32)
                                           (2-33)
where:
       X = Flow Rate (MGD),
       Y2= O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Figures 2-32 and 2-33 present the cost curves for the Metals Options 2 and 3 clarification and liquid
filtration O&M upgrade, respectively.
                                           2-64
-------
  Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
  	   Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       10,000
        1,000
   08
   o
         100
                         111 ll
                                        i ml
                                                     I  I 111ll
                                                                     I I I  IIII
          0.0001
                          0.001
                                           0.01
                                                          0.1
                                                                                          10
                                                Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-32.  O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2 and 3
        10,000
     >-
     fe
     o>
     CO
     05
     O
     O
     cS
     o
         1,000
          100
           o.ooooi
                          ,1
                                 i  t i i i ll 1	|  |  | I 1 II ll
                                                                           i i ml
                                                                                   i   i i  i i 111
                         0.0001
                                      0.001
       0.01
  Flow (MGD)
                    0.1
                                               10
  Figure 2-33.  Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for
                Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
                                                2-65
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       For facilities which already have clarifiers or plate and frame liquid filtration systems in-
place which could serve as the clarifier following the primary chemical precipitation of Metals
Option 4, EPA compared the difference between primary precipitation current loadings and the long-
term averages for Metals Option 4, Sample Point 03 (Sample Point 03 follows primary precipitation
and clarification at the Metals Option 4 model facility). EPA determined that facilities would need
to increase their removals by 2%.  Therefore, for in-place clarification systems (or plate and frame
liquid filtration systems) which could serve as the clarifier following primary chemical precipitation
for Metals Option 4, EPA included an O&M cost upgrade of two percent of the O&M costs for a
brand new system (except for taxes, insurance, and maintenance which are a function of the capital
cost).
       EPA did not calculate an O&M upgrade equation for the clarification step following
secondary chemical precipitation (direct dischargers only) of Metals Option 4. EPA costed all direct
discharging  facilities for anew clarification system following secondary chemical precipitation for
Metals Option 4 since none of the direct discharging metals facilities had treatment in-place for this
step.
       The  O&M upgrade cost equations for the Metals Option 4 clarification and liquid filtration
systems are presented below as Equations 2-34 and 2-35, respectively.
       ln(Y2) = 6.8135 + 0.33151n(X) + 0.0242(In(X))2
       ln(Y2) = 12.0242 + 1.176761n(X) + 0.05005(ln(X))2
                                            (2-34)
                                            (2-35)
where:
       X = Flow Rate (MOD),
       Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                            2-66
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.3    Equalization
                           •
       To improve treatment, facilities often need to equalize wastes by holding them in a tank. The
CWT industry frequently  uses  equalization to minimize the variability of incoming  wastes
effectively.
       EPA costed an equalization system which consists of a mechanical aeration basin based on
responses to the WTI Questionnaire. EPA obtained the equalization cost estimates from the 1983
U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers' Computer Assisted Procedure  for Design and Evaluation of
Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET).   EPA originally used this program to estimate
equalization costs for the OCPSF Industry. Table 2-36 lists the default design parameters that EPA
used in the CAPDET program.  These default design parameters are reasonable for the CWT
industry since they reflect values seen in the CWT industry. For example, the default detention time
(24 hours) is  appropriate since  this was the median equalization detention time  reported by
respondents to the WTI Questionnaire.

Table 2-36.  Design Parameters Used for Equalization in CAPDET Program
 Aerator mixing requirements  = 0.03 HP per 1,000 gallons;
 Oxygen requirements = 15.0 mg/1 per hour;
 Dissolved oxygen in basin =  2.0 mg/1;
 Depth of basin = 6.0 feet; and
 Detention time = 24 hours.

       EPA did not calculate capital or O&M upgrade equations for equalization. If a CWT facility
currently  has  an equalization tank  in-place, the facility  received  no costs associated with
equalization. EPA assumed that the equalization tanks currently in-place at CWT facilities would
perform as well as (or better than) the system costed by EPA.
                                           2-67
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
 Capital and Land Costs
       The CAPDET program calculates capital costs which are "total project costs." These "total
project costs" include all of the items previously listed in Table 1-1 as well as miscellaneous
nonconstruction costs, 201 planning costs, technical costs, land costs, interest during construction,
and laboratory costs. Therefore, to obtain capital costs for the equalization systems for this industry,
EPA calculated capital costs based on total project costs minus: miscellaneous nonconstruction costs,
201 planning costs, technical costs, land costs, interest during construction, and laboratory costs.
       Table 2-37 presents the total capital and land requirement estimates for the equalization
systems. Figure 2-34 presents the cost curve for the total capital cost of the equalization systems,
while Figure 2-35 presents the cost curve for the land requirement for the equalization systems. The
cost equation for the total capital cost for the equalization systems is presented below as Equation
2-36.  The land requirement cost  equation for the equalization systems is presented below as
Equation 2-37.
where:
In(Yl) = 12.057 + 0.4331n(X) + 0.043(ln(X))2
ln(Y3) = -0.912 + 1.120In(X) + 0.011(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD),
Yl  = Capital Cost (1989 $), and
Y3  = Land Requirements (Acres).
                                                                                     (2-36)
                                                                                     (2-37)
                                            2-68
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-37. Total Capital Cost, O&M
for Equalization Systems
Flow Rate Capital Cost
(MOD) (1989$)
0.001 59,800
0.005 62,300
0.01 64,200
0.05 73,200
0.10 80,680
0.50 119,100
0.75 137,900
1.0 155,100
1.5 215,900
2.0 222,200
3.0 309,600
4.0 352,900
5.0 423,500
Cost, and Land
O&M Cost
(1989$/YR)
33,400
41,100
45,400
59,100
67,600
97,500
108,700
117,900
137,900
150,200
178,100
202,200
226,900
Requirement Estimates
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
1,000,000 	 	 1





/
s> /
O>
In innnnn 	
O

Q.
O


== 	 -*=


^^






10000 1 i i i i i ill i i i i i
0.0001 0.001
i ni i i i i 1 1
0.01

0.1 1 10
                                           Flow (MGD)

 Figure 2-34^ Total Capital Cost Curve for Equalization Systems

                                              2-69
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
moo
1.00
£ 0.10
% 0.01
0.00
0.00
0.0


^.
	 ^ —

/
x — — — .
	 -^ 	
/

^x^
^


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 II






001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
                                          Flow(MGD)
 Figure 2-35.  Land Requirement Curve for Equalization Systems


Operation and Maintenance Costs
       EPA obtained O&M costs directly from the initial year O&M costs produced by the
CAPDET program. The O&M cost estimates for equalization systems are presented in Table 2-37.
Figure 2-36 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M cost equation for the equalization systems
is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 11.723 + 0.3111n(X) + 0.019(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O & M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                   (2-38)
                                           2-70
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
         1,000,000
     >-
     s
     ;T   100,000
     W
     O
     o
     <=8
     O
          10,000
             0.0001
                            0.001
                                          0.01
                                                         0.1
                                                                                     10
                                              Flow (MGD)
  Figure 2-36. O&M Cost Curve for Equalization Systems

2.4    Air Stripping

       Air stripping is an effective wastewater treatment method for removing dissolved gases and
volatile compounds from wastewater streams.  The technology passes high volumes of air through
an agitated gas-water mixture. This promotes volatilization of compounds, and, preferably capture
in air pollution control systems.
       The air stripping system costed by EPA includes transfer pumps, control panels, blowers, and
ancillary equipment. EPA also included catalytic oxidizers as part of the system for air pollution
control purposes.
       If a CWT facility currently has an air stripping system in-place, EPA did not assign the
facility any costs associated with air stripping.  EPA assumed that the air stripping systems currently
in-place at CWT facilities would perform as well as (or better than) the system costed by EPA.
                                            2-71
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Capital and Land Costs
       EPA's air stripping system is designed to remove pollutants with medium to high volatilities.
EPA used the pollutant 1,2-dichloroethane, which has  a Henry's Law Constant of 9.14 E -4
atm*L/mol, as the design basis with an influent concentration of 4,000 ug/L and an effluent
concentration of 68 jag/L. EPA based these concentration on information collected on the model
facility's operation.  EPA used the same design basis for the air stripping systems costed for the
option 8v and 9v in the oils subcategory.
       EPA obtained the equipment costs from vendor quotations. Table 2-38 presents the itemized
capital cost estimates for the air stripping systems.  Figure 2-37 presents the resulting cost curve.
The total capital cost equation for the air stripping systems is:
where:
In(Yl) = 12.899 + 0.4861n(X) + 0.031(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl  = Capital Cost (1989 $).
Table 2-38. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Air Stripping Systems
Flow (MOD)
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
                                                                                   (2-39)
                                           2-72
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
      1,000,000
   0)
   CO
   o>
   O
   O.
   CO
   O
        10,000
                                               i nil
                                                                       mill
           0.00001
                        0.0001
                                    0.001
                                                 0.01
                                            Flow (MGD)
                                                              0.1
                                                                                       10
Figure 2-37.  Total Capital Cost Curve for Air Stripping Systems

       To develop land requirements for the air stripping and catalytic oxidizer systems, EPA used
vendor data.  The dimensions of the air  strippers, in terms of length and width, are very small
compared to the catalytic oxidizers. Figure 2-38 presents the land requirement curve for air stripping
systems. The land requirement equation for the air stripping systems is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -2.207 + 0.5361n(X) + 0.042(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
                                                                                     (2-40)
                                            2-73
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       1,00
    S
    cr
    O>
    CC
       0.10
       0.01
                              •  '  1  I t I III
                                             '  I  I I  I 11 ll
                                                               _l—I I I III
        0,0001
                        0.001
0.01             0.1
     Flow (MGD)
                                                                                     10
Figure 2-38. Land Requirement Curve for Air Stripping Systems
Operation and Maintenance Costs
       For air stripping, O&M costs include electricity, maintenance, labor, catalyst replacement,
and taxes and insurance.  EPA obtained the O&M costs from the same vendor which provided the
capital cost estimates.
       EPA based the electricity usage for the air strippers on the amount of horsepower needed to
operate the system and approximated the electricity usage for the catalytic oxidizers at 50 percent
of the electricity used for the air strippers. EPA based both the horsepower requirements and the
electricity requirements for the catalytic oxidizer on vendor's recommendations. EPA estimated the
labor requirement for the air stripping system at three hours per day, which is based on the model
facility's operation. EPA assumed that the catalyst beds in the catalytic oxidizer would require
replacement  every four years based on the rule of thumb (provided by the vendor) that precious
                                           2-74
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
metal catalysts have a lifetime of approximately four years.   EPA divided the costs for replacing
the spent catalysts by four to convert them to annual costs. As is the standard used by EPA for this
industry, taxes and insurance were estimated at 2 percent of the total capital cost.
       Table 2-39 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the air stripping systems.  Figure
2-39 presents the resulting cost curve.  The O&M cost equation for the air stripping system is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 10.865 + 0.298In(X) + 0.021(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2= O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                     (2-41)
Table 2-39. O&M Cost Estimates for Air Stripping Systems
Flow
(MOD)
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
Energy
1,050
1,575
2,100
5,250
11,812
21,000
Maintenance
1,928
2,030
2,592
4,347
9,000
12,720
Taxes
&
Insurance
964
1,015
1,296
2,174
4,500
6,360
Labor
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
Catalyst
Replacement
Cost
33
50
102
500
1,500
4,250
Total
O&M Cost
(1992S/YR)
20,400
21,095
22,515
28,696
43,237
60,755
Total
O&M Cost
(1989S/YR)
19,176
19,829
21,164
26,974
40,643
57,110
                                           2-75
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
         100.000
      in
      o»
      o
      O
          10.000
                  '  t I i I nil	1	1  1 1
            0.00001
                        0.0001
                                    0.001
                                                0.01
                                                            0.1
                                                                                    10
                                             Flow (MGD)
   Figure 2-39. O&M Cost Curve for Air Stripping Systems
2.5    Multi-Media Filtration

       Filtration is a proven  technology for the removal of residual  suspended solids  from
wastewater. The multimedia filtration system costed by EPA for this industry is a system which
contains sand and anthracite coal, supported by gravel.
       EPA based the design for the model multimedia filtration system on the TSS effluent long-
term average concentration for Metals Option 4-15 mg/L. EPA assumed that the average influent
TSS concentration to the multimedia filtration system would range from 75 to 100 mg/L. EPA based
the influent concentration range on vendor's recommendations on realistic TSS concentrations
resulting from wastewater treatment following chemical precipitation and clarification.
       EPA did not calculate capital or O&M upgrade equations for multi-media filtration. If a
CWT facility currently has a multimedia filter in-place, EPA assigned the facility no costs associated
                                           2-76
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
	Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
with multi-media filtration. EPA assumed that the multi-media filter currently in-place at CWT
facilities would perform as well as (or better than) the system costed by EPA.

Capital and Land Costs
       EPA based the capital costs of multi-media filters on vendor's recommendations. Table 2-40
presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the multi-media filtration systems. The resulting
cost curve is presented as Figure 2-40.  The total capital cost equation for the multi-media filtration
system is:
where:
ln(Yl) = 12.0126 + 0.480251n(X) + 0.04623(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl= Capital Cost (1989$).
                                                                                    (2-42)
Table 2-40. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
Flow Rate
(MOD)
0.01
0.05
0.50
1.0
System
Cost
23,500
31,000
55,000
87,000
Installation
8,225
10,850
19,250
30,450
Piping
7,050
9,300
16,500
26,100
Instrument.
&
Controls
7,050
9,300
16,500
26,100
Engineering
&
Contingency
13,748
18,135
32,175
50,895
Total
Capital
Cost
(1997 $)
59,573
78,585
139,425
220,545
Total
Capital
Cost
(1989 S)
47,198
62,261
110,463
174,732
                                           2-77
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
I.UUU.UUU
 100,000
o
CO
O
10,000
O.C






-X
	 _ 	 	 m - 	 "~ 	 — 	 —
	 	


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 II 1 	 1 — 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 1.
K)1 0.01 0.1 1 1
Flow (MGD)
 Figure 2-40. Total Capital Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems

       To develop land requirements for multi-media filtration systems, the vendor provided overall
system dimensions. EPA scaled up the land dimensions to represent the total land required for the
system plus peripherals (pumps,  controls, access  areas, etc.).  Table 2-41 presents  the land
requirement for multi-media filtration systems. Figure 2-41 presents the resulting cost curve.  The
land requirement equation for the multi-media filtration system is:
 where:
ln(Y3) = -2.6569 + 0.193711n(X) + 0.02496(ln(X))2

X = Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
                                                                                    (2-43)
                                           2-78
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
	      Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-41. Land Requirement Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
Flow Rate
Land Requirement (Acres)
(MOD)
0.01 0.0485
0.05 0.0500
0.50 0.0602
1.0 ' 0.0716
1.00
"to*
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs
       EPA estimated the labor requirement for the multi-media filtration system at four hours per
day, which is based on manufacturer's recommendations. There are no chemicals associated with
the operation of a multi-media filter.  The itemized O&M cost estimates for the multi-media
filtration systems are presented in Table 2-42.  The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-42.
The O&M cost equation for the multi-media filtration system is:
where:
In(Y2) = 11.5039 + 0.724581n(X) + 0.09535(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                   (2-44)
Table 2-42. O&M Cost Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
Flow
Rate
(MOD)
0.01
0.05
0.50
1.0
Energy
1,600
1,730
31,200
70,000
Labor
21,900
21,900
21,900
21,900
Maintenance
1,888
2,490
4,419
6,989
Taxes &
Insurance
944
1,245
2,209
3,495
Total O&M
Cost
(1989 $/YR)
26,332
27,366
59,728
102,384
                                           2-80
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
	Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       1,000,000
    o
    CO
    en
    CO
    o
    O
        100,000
         10,000
            0.001
                               0.01
                                                 0.1
                                                                                      10
                                              Flow (MGD)
 Figure 2-42. O&M Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems

2.6    Cyanide Destruction

       Many CWTs achieved required cyanide destruction by oxidation. These facilities primarily
use chlorine (in either the elemental or hypochlorite form) as the oxidizing agent in this process.
Oxidation of cyanide with chlorine is called alkaline chlorination.
       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 is used
to maintain a pH range of 9 to 11. The second step oxidizes cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen
at a controlled pH of 8.5. The amounts of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide needed to
perform the oxidation are 8.5 parts and 8.0 parts per part of cyanide, respectively. At these levels,
the total reduction occurs at a retention time of 16 to 20 hours. The application of heat can facilitate
the more complete destruction of total cyanide.
                                            2-81
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       The cyanide destruction system costed by EPA includes a two-stage reactor with a retention
time of 16 hours, feed system and controls, pumps, piping, and foundation. The two-stage reactor
includes a covered tank, mixer, and containment tank. EPA designed the system based on amenable
and total cyanide influent concentrations of 1,548,000 p.g/L and 4,633,710 p.g/L, respectively and
effluent  concentrations of amenable and total  cyanide of 276,106 ug/L and 135,661  ug/L,
respectively.  EPA based these influent and effluent concentrations on data collected during EPA's
sampling of cyanide destruction systems.
       Because the system used by the facility  which forms the basis of the proposed  cyanide
limitation and standards uses special operation conditions, EPA assigned full capital and O&M costs
to all facilities which perform cyanide destruction.

Capital and Land Costs
       EPA obtained the capital costs curves for cyanide destruction systems with special operating
conditions from vendor services. Table 2-43 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for
the cyanide destruction systems. Figure 2-43 presents the resulting cost curve.  The total capital cost
equation for cyanide destruction systems is:
where:
ln(Yl) = 13.977 + 0.5461n(X) + 0.0033 (ln(X))2)

X = Batch Size (MOD) and
Yl= Capital Cost (1989$).
                                                                                    (2-45)
                                           2-82
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-43
Volume
per Day
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
. Total Capital
Cost Estimates for Cyanide Destruction at Special
System Installation Piping
Cost
500
1,850
5,000
14,252
45,875
106,105
160,542
401,320
560,000
175 155
648 574
1,750 1,550
4,988 4,418
16,056 14,221
37,137 32,893
56,190 49,768
140,462 124,409
196,000 173,600
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
Operating
Total
Capital
Cost
(1993 $)
1,164
4,307
11,635
33,164
106,751
246,908
373,581
933,872
1,303,120
Conditions
Total
Capital
Cost
(1989 $)
1,059
3,919
10,588
30,179
97,143
224,686
339,959
849,824
1,185,839

-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       To develop land requirements for the cyanide destruction systems, EPA used the vendor data.
The dimensions were scaled up to represent the total land required for the package unit plus
peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). Figure 2-44 presents the land requirement curve
for the cyanide destruction system. The equation relating the flow of the cyanide destruction system
with the land requirements is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.168 + 0.4191n(X) + 0.021(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
                                                                                     (2-46)
        1.00
         0.10
         0.01
                                  '' I "I   '—I  I I
                                                      •  i i i i trie    i	1  I I 1 Illl	1	1 I I I III
          0.00001
                       0.0001
                             0.001          0.01          0.1
                                       Flow(MGD)
                                                                                       10
  Figure 2-44.  Land Requirement Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special Operating
                Conditions
                                            2-84
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
	Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs
       In estimating chemical usage and labor requirements, EPA assumed the systems would treat
one batch per day. EPA based this assumption on responses to the WTI Questionnaire. Based on
vendor's recommendations, EPA estimated the labor requirement for the cyanide destruction to be
three hours per day. EPA determined the amount of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide
required based on the stoichiometric amounts to maintain the proper pH and chlorine concentrations
to facilitate the cyanide destruction as described earlier.
       Table 2-44 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the cyanide destruction systems.
Figure 2-45 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M equation for the cyanide destruction system
where:
In(Y2) = 18.237 + 1.3181n(X) + 0.04993(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                   (2-47)
                                          2-85
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-44.
Flow
Rate
(MOD)
0.00001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
O&M Cost Estimates for
Energy
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,100
1,600
1,730
7,000
31,200
70,000
1,000,000.000
100,000,000
0?

^ 10.000,000
CO
O)
8
0 1
s
eO
O
,000.000
100.000
10.000
O.OC
Sodium
Hypochlorite
Cost
50
482
4,826
48,260
482,470
2,412,345
4,824,700
24,123,450
48,246,900
Cyanide Destruction at
Sodium
Hydroxide
Cost
25
225
2,256
22,568
225,680
1,128,400
2,256,800
1 1,284,000
22,568,000
Labor
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
16,425
Special Operating
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
Conditions
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
15,990
16,735
22,937
82,049
666,124
3,250,867
6,484,043
32,310,519
64,584,953

. .ii 	 . ' 	 	 	 -.- 	 ••; ' ' =

. X


	 —r*Z. 	 — 	

J001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1
1 1 1 1 1 III! I I I 1 1 111






1 10
                                                 Flow (MOD)
 Figure 2-45. O&M Cost Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special Operating Conditions
                                             2-86
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
	      Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.7    Secondary Gravity Separation

       Secondary gravity separation systems provide additional oil and grease removal for oily
wastewater. Oily wastewater, after primary gravity separation/emulsion breaking, is pumped into
a series of skimming tanks where additional oil and grease removal is obtained before the wastewater
enters the dissolved air flotation unit. The secondary gravity separation equipment discussed here
consists of a series of three skimming tanks in series. The ancillary equipment for each tank consists
of a mix tank with pumps and skimming equipment.
       In estimating capital and O&M cost associated with secondary gravity separation,  EPA
assumed that facilities either currently have or do not have secondary gravity separation. Therefore,
EPA did not develop any secondary gravity separation upgrade costs.

Capital and Land Costs
       EPA obtained the capital cost estimates for the secondary gravity separation system from
vendor quotes. The itemized capital cost estimates for the secondary gravity separation systems is
presented in Table 2-45, while the resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-46.
       The total capital cost equation for Oils Option 9 secondary gravity separation is:
where:
ln(Yl) = 14.3209 + 0.387741n(X) - 0.01793(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl  = Capital Cost (1989 $)
                                                                                   (2-48)
                                           2-87
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-45. Total Capital Cost Estimates for
Flow Rate ^7*
(MOD) C°St
0.0005 19,200
0.001 27,990
0.005 67,170
0.01 97,938
0.05 235,065
0.1 342,729
0.5 822,603
1.0 1,199,364
5.0 1,378,662
Secondary Gravity
„ , Engineer.
Total *&
Construction _ ,.
Cost C°ntmg-
25,920
37,787
90,680
132,216
317,338
462,684
1,110,514
1,619,141
1,861,194
7,776
11,336
27,204
39,665
95,201
138,805
333,154
485,742
558,358
Separation
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
33,696
49,123
117,884
171,881
412,539
601,489
1,443,668
2,104,883
2,419,552


__ — . 	

§> 	



^
_^_ 	 _

8 /"
1 ^
x^

10.000 	 1 — 1 1 1 II III
» i i i i ii
'' i i i i mil —
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1 1 Illl
             0.0001
                             0.001
 0.01              0.1
   Flow (MGD)
                                                                                             10
 Figure 2-46. Total Capital Cost Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation
                                               2-S
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       EPA calculated the land requirements for secondary gravity separation systems based on the
equipment dimensions.  Table 2-46 presents the land requirements for the secondary gravity
separation systems.  Figure 2-47 presents the resulting curve. The land requirement equation for the
secondary gravity separation system is:
where:
In(Y3) = -0.2869 + 0.313871n(X) + 0.01191(In(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
Table 2-46.  Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation
                                                                                  (2-49)
Flow Rate
(MOD)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
Land Requirement
(Acres)
0.097
0.114
0.158
0.225
0.341
0.381
0.492
0.891
                                           2-89
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
        1.00
    1
     IS
        0.10
                              i  i iiiin
                                                         I I I Illl
                                                                  '  I  I I I Illl
                                                                               •  I  I I I III
         0.00001
                      0,0001
                                   0.001
                                         0.01
                                      Flow (MGD)
                                                             0.1
                                                                           1
                                                                                       10
 Figure 2-47. Land Requirement Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation

Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs
       EPA estimated the labor requirement to operate secondary gravity separation to be 3 to 9
hours per day depending on the size of the system.  EPA obtained this estimate from one of the
model facilities for Oils Option 9. There are no chemicals associated with the operation of the
secondary gravity separation system.  The itemized O&M requirements for the secondary gravity
separation system is presented in Table 2-47 with the resulting cost curve presented as Figure 2-48.
       The O&M Cost equation for the secondary gravity separation system is
where:
ln(Y2) = 12.0759 + 0.44011n(X) + 0.01544(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 S/YR).
                                                                                   (2-50)
                                           2-90
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-47. O&M Cost Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation
™ r, * A-T - * Taxes &
Flow Rate Maintenance T
(MOD) . InSUrance
0.0005 1,348 674
0.001 1,965 982
0.005 4,715 2,358
0.01 6,875 3,438
0.05 16,502 8,251
0.1 24,060 12,030
0.5 57,747 28,874
1.0 84,195 42,098
5.0 96,782 48,391
1,000,000
2
«•
05
CO
en
^-* 100,000
8
o
•^
°Q
O
10,000
0.0
Energy
3,000
3,030
3,180
3,312
4,560
6,120
18,600
34,200
159,000
Labor
11,700
11,700
11,700
23,400
23,400
23,400
35,100
35,100
35,100
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
16,722
17,677
21,953
37,025
52,713
65,610
140,321
195,593
339,273






/
^
/

^
^^'
^^
^s^
^^^
^^
1 Illlllll 1 Illlllll
001 0.001 0.01
I I llillll I
0.1
i i 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
i i | | I T 1 ?
10
                                                Flow (MGD)

 Figure 2-48. O&M Cost Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation
                                              2-91
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Waste-water
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
2.8    Dissolved Air Flotation

       Flotation is the process of inducing suspended particles to rise to the surface of a tank where
they can be collected and removed.  Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) is one of several flotation
techniques employed in the treatment of oily wastewater. DAF is commonly used to extract free and
dispersed oil and grease from oily wastewater.
Capital and Land Costs
       EPA developed capital cost estimates for dissolved air flotation systems for the oils
subcategory Options 8 and 9.  EPA based the capital cost estimates for the DAF units on vendor's
quotations. EPA assigned facilities with DAF units currently in-place no capital costs. For facilities
with no DAF treatment in-place, the DAF system consists of a feed unit, a chemical addition mix
tank, and a flotation tank.  EPA also included a'sludge filtration/dewatering unit. EPA developed
capital cost estimates for a series of flow rates ranging from 25 gpm (0.036 MOD) to 1000 gpm
(1.44 MOD). EPA was unable to obtain costs estimates for units with flows below 25 gallons per
minute since manufacturers do not sell systems smaller than those designed for flows below 25
gallons per minute.
       The current DAF system capital cost estimates include a sludge filtration/dewatering unit.
For facilities which do not have a DAF unit in-place, but have other treatment systems that produce
sludge (i.e. chemical precipitation and/or biological  treatment), EPA assumed that the existing
sludge filtration unit could accommodate the additional sludge produced by the DAF unit.  For these
facilities, EPA did not include sludge filtration/dewatering costs in the  capital cost estimates. EPA
refers to the capital cost equation for these facilities as "modified" DAF costs.
       Tables 2-48 and 2-49 present the itemized capital cost estimates for the DAF and modified
DAF systems, while Figures 2-49 and 2-50 present  the resulting cost curves.  The  capital cost
equations for the DAF and modified DAF treatment systems for Oils Options 8 and 9 are presented
below as Equations 2-51 and 2-52, respectively.
                                           2-92
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
where:
In (Yl) = 13.9518 + 0.294451n(X) - 0.12049(In(X))2
In (Yl) = 13.509 + 0.294451n(X) - 0.12049(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD)
Yl = Total Capital Cost (1989 $)
                                                                                  (2-51)
                                                                                  (2-52)
Table 2-48.  Total Capital Cost Estimates for DAF Systems
Flow
MOD
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
DAF
Unit
17,067
34,135
73,731
209,928
Table 2-49. Total
Flow
(MOD)
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
DAF
Unit
17,067
34,135
73,731
209,928
Feed
Unit
12,560
16,505
36,727
99,877
Sludge
Dewatering
Unit
16,502
28,206
61,525
172,561
Capital Cost Estimates
Feed
Unit
12,560
16,505
36,727
99,877
Shipping
Cost
593
1,013
2,209
6,196
Shipping
Cost
923
1,577
3,440
9,647
Total Total Engineer _ . .
Equip. Construction & r
Cost Cost Conting (198°9S$)
47,052 91,751 27,
80,423 156,826 47,
175,423 342,074 102
492,013 959,427 287
525 119,276
048 203,874
,622 444,696
,828 1,247,255
for Modified DAF Systems
Total
Equipment
Cost
30,220
51,653
112,667
316,001
Total Engineer.
Construction &
Cost Conting.
58,928 17,678
100,723 30,217
219,701 65,910
616,202 184,861
Total
Capital Cost
(1989 $)
76,606
130,940
285,611
801,063
                                           2-93
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
          Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
        10,000,000 .
    _  1,000,000
    o
    3
    8"   100,000
          10.000
                                                '    '   '—I—I I  I I •
              0,01
                                       0.1
                                            FIow(MGD)

 Figure 2-49. Total Capital Cost Curve for DAF Systems
          1,000.000
       ~m    100,000
       o
       O
       O
            10.000
                0.01
                                         0.1
                                                                                          10
                                I  t  I  I 1 I  I	1    1   '—I—1 I  I I I	1	1	1—I—I I  1 I
                                                                                          10
                                                  Flow (MGD)

    Figure 2-50. Total Capital Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems
                                                2-94
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       Because the smallest design capacity for DAF systems that EPA could obtain from vendors
is 25 gpm and since more than 75 percent of the oils subcategory facilities have flow rates lower than
25 gpm, EPA assumed that only facilities with flow rates above 20 gpm would operate their DAF
systems everyday (i.e. five days per week).  EPA assumed that the rest of the facilities could hold
their wastewater and run their DAF systems from one to four days per week depending on their flow
rate. Facilities that are not operating their DAF treatment systems everyday would need to install
a holding tank to hold their wastewater until treatment.   Therefore, for facilities which do not
currently have DAF treatment in place and which have flow rates less than 20 gallons per minute,
EPA additionally included costs for a holding tank. For these facilities, EPA based capital costs on
a combination of DAF costs (or modified DAF costs) and holding tank costs.  Table 2-50 lists the
capacity of the holding tank costed for various flow rates.

Table 2-50.  Holding Tank Capacity Estimates for DAF Systems
Flow Rate
(GPM)
<5
5-10
10-15
15-20
>20
Holding Tank Capacity
(gallons)
7,200
14,400
21,600
28,800
none
       Table 2-51 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the holding tank systems.
The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-51.  The total capital cost equation for the holding
tanks is:
                                           2-95
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                    Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
where:
In (Yl) = 13.4616 + 0.544211n(X) + 0.00003(In(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl = Capital Cost (1989 $).
                                                                                        (2-53)
Table 2-51 . Total Capital Cost Estimates for Holding Tank Systems
Flow
(MOD)
0.0005
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
Equipment
Cost
6,400
9,330
22,390
32,646
78,355
Total
Construction
Cost
8,640
12,596
30,227
44,072
105,779
Engineer.
&
Conting.
2,592
3,779
9,068
13,222
31,738
Total
Capital Cost
(1989$)
11,232
16,375
39,295
57,294
137,517
         1,000.000
           100,000
      "eg
           10.000
            1,000
              0.0001
                    t  T   I	1  I I I I	
                              0.001
                                                             0.01
                                          Flow(MGD)
    Figure 2-51. Total Capital Cost Curve for Holding Tanks

                                              2-96
                                                                                    0.1
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
        Treatment Technology Costs
                                Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       EPA estimated land requirements for the DAF and modified DAF systems.  EPA assumed

that the DAF and the modified DAF systems have the same land requirement.  Table 2-52 presents

the DAF and modified DAF land requirements, while Figure 2-52 presents the resulting cost curve.

The land requirement equation for the DAF and modified DAF systems is:
where:
In (Y3) = -0.5107 + 0.512171n(X) - 0.01892 (ln(X))2


X = Flow Rate (MOD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
                                                                              (2-54)
Table 2-52. Land Requirement Estimates for DAF and Modified DAF Systems
              Flow
             (MOD)
                                         Land
                                      Requirement
                                         (Acres)
              0.036

              0.072

              0.144

               1.44
                                         0.090

                                         0.132

                                         0.212

                                         0.720
                                        2-97
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
	Treatment Technology Costs
                                  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
        1,00
       0.10
     8"
    a:
       0.01
                         I  I  I  I I  I
                                          I	i	i   i  i I  i i I
          0.01
                                  0.1
                                                                                   10
                                           Flow(MGD)
 Figure. 2-52. Land Requirement Curve for DAF and Modified DAF Systems
       EPA also estimated land requirements for the holding tanks. Table 2-53 presents the land
requirements for the holding tank systems. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-53. The
land requirement cost equation for the holding tank systems is:
where:
In (Y3) = -1.5772 + 0.359551n(X) + 0.02013(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
                                                                                  (2-55)
                                           2-98
-------
 Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
          Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
 Table 2-53. Land Requirement Estimates for Holding Tank Systems
      too,
      0.10
      0.01
               Flow
              (MOD)
              0.0001

               0.001

               0.01

               0.05
       0.00001
                           0.0001
    Land
 Requirement
    (Acres)
    0.0410

    0.0470

    0.0574

   0.0862
   0.001
Flow(MGD)
Figure 2-53. Land Requirement Curve for Holding Tanks
                                                                 0.01
                                                                                    0.1
                                             2-99
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chemical Usage And Labor Requirement Costs
       EPA estimated the labor requirements associated with the model technology at four hours
per day for the small systems to eight hours per day for the large systems, which is based on the
average of the Oils Options 8 and 9 model facilities. EPA used the same labor estimate for DAF and
"modified" DAF systems.
       As discussed in the capital cost section, EPA has assumed that facilities with flow rates
below 20 gpm will not operate the DAF daily. Therefore, for these lower flow rate facilities, EPA
only included labor to operate the DAF (or "modified" DAF) systems for the days the system will
be operational. Table 2-54 lists the number of days per week EPA assumed these lower flow
facilities would operate their DAF systems..

Table 2-54.  Labor Requirement Estimates for DAF Systems
          Flow Rate              Labor Requirements
            (GPM)                    (days/week)
             <5
             5-10
            10-15
            15-20
             >20
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
       As detailed earlier, however, EPA also assumed that facilities with flow rates below 20 gpm,
would also operate a holding tank. Therefore, for facilities with flow rates below 20 gallons per
minute, EPA included additional labor to operate the holding tank.
       EPA calculated chemical cost estimates for DAF and "modified" DAF systems based on
additions of aluminum sulfate, caustic soda, and polymer. EPA costed for facilities to add 550 mg/L
alum, 335 mg/L polymer and 1680 mg/L of NaOH. EPA also included costs for perlite addition at
0.25 Ibs per Ib of dry solids for sludge conditioning and sludge dewatering operations (for both the
DAF and "modified" DAF systems). EPA based the chemical additions on information gathered
                                         2-100
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
from literature, the database for the proposed Industrial Laundries Industry guidelines and standards,
and sampled facilities.
       For a special set of facilities—referred to as "group 5 facilities" in the oils subcategory current
performance modeling estimates — EPA estimated the chemical additions at 760 mg/L alum, 460
mg/L polymer, and 2300 mg/L NaOH. EPA costed these facilities for additional chemicals because
the concentration of metal analytes assigned to the group 5 facilities was significantly higher than
the metal concentrations assigned to the facilities in the other modeling groups  (See Chapter 12 of
the Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category). Hence, it would be necessary to
use larger dosages of flocculent chemicals to remove the higher metals concentrations associated
with these group 5 facilities. Therefore, in addition to the four O&M equations developed for DAF
and modified DAF systems with flow rates above and below 20 gpm, EPA additionally developed
four O&M equations for these group 5 facilities
       Finally, similar to the labor requirements shown in Table 2-54, EPA based chemical usage
cost estimates for the DAF and modified DAF systems assuming five days per  week operation for
facilities with flow rates greater than 20 gpm and from one to four days per week for facilities with
flow rates of 5 to  20 gpm.
       Tables 2-55 and 2-56 present the itemized O&M cost estimates for the  DAF and modified
DAF systems with flow rates above 20 gpm. Figures 2-54 and 2-55 present the resulting cost curves.
The O&M cost equations for the DAF and modified DAF systems with flow rates above 20 gpm are
presented below as Equations 2-56 and 2-57, respectively.
where:
In (Y2) = 14.5532 + 0.964951n(X) + 0.01219(ln(X))2
In (Y2) = 14.5396 + 0.976291n(X) + 0.01451(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

                                   2-101
                                                                                  (2-56)
                                                                                  (2-57)
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       Tables 2-57 and 2-58 present the itemized  O&M Cost estimates for the DAF and modified
DAF systems with flow rates of up to 20 gpm. Figures 2-56 and 2-57 present the resulting cost
curves.
       The O&M cost equations for the DAF and modified DAF systems with flow rates up to 20
gpm are presented below as Equations 2-58 and 2-59, respectively.
where:
In (Y2) = 21.2446 + 4.148231n(X) + 0.36585(ln(X))2
In (Y2) = 21.2005 + 4.074491n(X) + 0.34557(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                (2-58)
                                                                                (2-59)
Table 2-55.  O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
Plow
^-.OT-VN Mainten-
(MGD) ance
0.036 4,771
0.072 8,155
0.144 17,788
1.44 49,890
T=* »-*>
2,386 2,920
4,077 2,920
8,894 3,569
24,945 8,760
Labor
15,600
19,500
23,400
31,200
Chemical Cost
Alum NaOH Polymer
4,090 12,449
8,181 24,898
16,361 49,795
163,613 497,952
46,650
93,300
186,601
1,866,010
Perlite
8,338 .
16,675
33,350
333,520
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
97,204
177,706
339,758
2,975,890
                                         2-102
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-56. O&M
Flow
(MOD)
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
Mainten-
ance
3,064
5,238
11,424
32,043
Table 2-57. O&M
Flow
(MOD)
0.0072
0.0144
0.0216
0.0288
Mainten-
ance
4,771
4,771
4,771
4,771
Table 2-58. O&M
Flow
(MOD)
0.0072
0.0144
0.0216
0.0288
Mainten-
ance
3,064
3,064
3,064
3,064
Cost Estimates
Taxes & _
T Energy
Insur. ^
1,532
2,619
5,712
16,021
Cost
2,920
2,920
3,569
8,760
Estimates
Taxes & „
T Energy
Insur. °
2,386
2,386
2,386
2,386
Cost
2,920
2,920
2,920
2,920
Estimates
Taxes &
Energy
Insur.
1,532
1,532
1,532
1,532
2,920
2,920
2,920
2,920
for Modified DAF Systems
- Flow > 20
Chemical Cost
Labor
Alum NaOH Polymer
15,600 4,090 12,449
19,500 8,181 24,898
23,400 16,361 49,795
46,650
93,300
186,601
31,200 163,613 497,952 1,866,010
for DAF Systems - Flow <
20gpm
Chemical Cost
Labor
Alum NaOH Polymer
3,120 164 498
6,240 , 654 1,992
9,360 1,473 4,482
12,480 2,618 7,967
for Modified DAF Systems
1,866
7,464
16,794
29,856
- Flow < 20
Chemical Cost
Labor
Alum NaOH Polymer
3,120 164 498
6,240 654 1,992
9,360 1,473 4,482
12,480 2,618 7,967
1,866
7,464
16,794
29,856
gpm
Perlite
8,338
16,675
33,350
333,520

Perlite
334
1,334
3,002
5,336
gpm
Perlite
334
1,334
3,002
5,336

Total
O&M Cost
(1989S/YR)
94,643
173,331
330,212
2,949,119

Total
O&M Cost
(1989S/YR)
16,059
27,761
45,188
68,334

Total
O&M Cost
(1989S/YR)
13,498
25,200
42,627
65,773
                                               2-103
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
        10,000,000
    a:   1,000,000
    08    100,000
    o
          10,000
                       I	I
                              t   i  r i  l i I
              0.01
                                       0.1
                                            Flow(MGD)
 Figure 2-54.  O&M Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
                                                                                          10
          10,000,000
          1,000,000
      o
      O
            100,000
            •10,000 I	'    '   i   t  i i i  i i	i	1	1—I—I  I I I I	1	1	1—I—1 I  I I
                0.01                      0.1                       1
                                                 Flow (MGD)

   Figure 2-55. O&M Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
                                              2-104
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater

         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
         100,000
     ce
     >-
     O)

     8
     o
     O

     2
     08

     O
o

8
°
            0.001
                                       I   1  1  I  1  1
                                                0.010

                                          Flow (MGD)
                                                                                    0.100
   Figure 2-56. O&M Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
         100,000
     ct
      o
     o
     08

     O
          10,000
             0.001
                                                 0.010

                                               Flow (MGD)
                                                                                      0.100
  Figure 2-57. O&M Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
                                              2-105
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
        Treatment Technology Costs
                                Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       Tables 2-59 and 2-60 present the itemized O&M cost estimates for the group 5, DAF, and
modified DAF systems with flow rates above 20 gpm. Figures 2-58 and 2-59 present the resulting
cost curves. The O&M cost equations for the group 5 DAF and modified DAF systems with flow
rates above 20 gpm are presented below as Equations 2-60 and 2-61, respectively.
                                                                                (2-60)
                                                                                (2-61)
where:
In (Y2) = 14.8255 + 0.97411n(X) + 0.01005(In(X))2
In (Y2) = 14.8151 + 0.98286In(X) + 0.01176(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
       Tables 2-61 and 2-62 present the itemized O&M cost estimates for the group 5, DAF and
modified DAF systems with flow rates up to 20 gpm. Figure 2-60 and 2-61 present the resulting cost
curves. The O&M cost equations for the group 5 DAF and modified DAF treatment systems with
flow rates up to 20 gpm are presented below as Equations 2-62. and 2-63, respectively.
where:
In (Y2) = 21.8136 + 4.252391n(X) + 0.36592(ln(X))2
In (Y2) = 21.6503 + 4.119391n(X) + 0.33896(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                (2-62)
                                                                                (2-63)
                                         2-106
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
          Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-59. O&M
Flow
(MOD)
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
Cost Estimates
. . . . Taxes &
Mainten- ,
Insur.
ance
4,771
8,155
17,788
49,890
Table 2-60. O&M
Flow
(MOD)
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
Mainten-
ance
3,064
5,238
11,424
32,043
Table 2-61. O&M
Flow
(MOD)
0.0072
0.0144
0.0216
0.0288
Mainten-
ance
4,771
4,771
4,771
4,771
2,386
4,077
8,894
24,945
Energy
2,920
2,920
3,569
8,760
for DAF
Labor
15,600
19,500
23,400
31,200
Systems, Group 5
Alum
5,652
11,304
22,607
226,070
Cost Estimates for Modified DAF
Taxes &
Insur.
1,532
2,619
5,712
16,021
Energy
2,920
2,920
3,569
8,760
Cost Estimates
Taxes &
Insur.
2,386
2,386
2,386
2,386
Energy
2,920
2,920
2,920
2,920
Labor
15,600
19,500
23,400
31,200
for DAF
Labor
3,120
6,240
9,360
12,480
Alum
5,652
11,304
22,607
Facilities - Flow > 20 gpm
Chemical Cost
NaOH Polymer Perlite
17,073
34,145
68,291
682,906
64,061 8,338
128,122 16,675
256,243 33,350
2,562,431 333,520
Total
O&M Cost
(1989$/YR)
120,801
' 224,898
434,142
3,919,722
Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow > 20 gpm
Chemical Cost
NaOH Polymer Perlite
17,073
34,145
68,291
64,061 8,338
128,122 16,675
256,243 33,350
226,070 682,906 2,562,431 333,520
Systems,
Alum
226
904
2,035
3,617
, Group 5
Facilities - Flow < 20
Chemical Cost
NaOH Polymer Perlite
683
2,732
6,146
10,926
2,562 334
10,250 1,334
23,062 3,002
40,999 5,336
Total
O&M Cost
(1989S/YR)
1 18,240
220,523
424,596
3,892,951
gpm
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
17,002
31,537
53,682
83,435
                                               2-107
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-62.  O&M Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow < 20 gpm
Chemical Cost Total
tMTTH Mainten- TfCeS& Energy Labor O&M Cost
1MOU' ance lnsun Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite (1989 $/YR)
0.0072 3,064 1,532 2,920 3,120 226 683 2,562 334 14,441
0,0144 3,064 1,532 2,920 6,240 904 2,732 10,250 1,334 28,976
0.0216 3,064 1,532 2,920 9,360 2,035 6,146 23,062 3,002 51,121
0.0288 3,064 1,532 2,920 12,480 3,617 10,926 40,999 5,336 80,874
10,000,000
g. 1,000,000
£
^ 100,000
o
10,000
a


/
/
^

^
^
^
^



1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 .!_ 1 1 1 1


01 0.1 1 10
                                         Flow (MOD)

 Figure 2-58. O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
                                           2-108
-------
Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                             Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
        10,000,000
     a:   1,000,000
     O
     O
          100,000
           10,000
              0.01
                                      0.1
                                              Flow (MGD)
  Figure 2-59.   O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 Modified DAF Systems -
                 Flow > 20 gpm
           100,000
       o:
       >
        o
        O
       cS
       O
           10,000

                          _i	1_
                                                              1       II
0.001
                                                  0.010
                                            Flow (MGD)
                                                                                     10
                                                                                      0.100
     Figure 2-60.  O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
                                              2-109
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                             Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       100.000
    o
    3
    
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
these concentrations and the Option 8 and Option 9 long-term averages. The median of these jseven
calculated percentages is 25 percent.
       Therefore, EPA estimated the energy, labor, and chemical cost components of the O&M
upgrade cost as 25 percent of the full O&M cost of a new system. EPA assumed that maintenance,
and taxes and insurance would be zero since they are functions of the capital cost (that is, there is
no capital cost for the upgrade).
       EPA developed two separate O&M upgrade cost equations for facilities which currently have
DAF treatment in place — one for facilities with flow rates up to 20 gpm and one for facilities with
flow rates greater than 20 gpm. Similarly, EPA developed two separate O&M upgrade equations --
one  for  facilities  which currently have  DAF treatment in-place and were assigned Group 5
concentrations in the first step of EPA's current performance modeling procedure and one  for
facilities which currently have DAF treatment in-place and were assigned concentrations from one
of the other six groups in the first step of EPA's current performance modeling procedure.
       Tables 2-63 and 2-64 present the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the DAF systems
for facilities with flow less than or equal to 20 gpm and greater than 20 gpm, respectively. Figures
2-62 and 2-63 present the resulting cost curves. The O&M upgrade cost equations for DAF systems
for facilities with flow of up to 20 gpm and greater than 20 gpm are presented below as Equations
2-64 and 2-65, respectively.
where:
In (Y2) = 19.0459 + 3.55881n(X) + 0.25553 (ln(X))2
In (Y2) = 13.1281 + 0.997781n(X) + 0.01892(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                  (2-64)
                                                                                  (2-65)
                                          2-111
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
                                 Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       Tables 2-65 and 2-66 present the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the DAF systems
for the group 5 facilities with flow up to 20 gpm and greater than 20 gpm, respectively. Figures 2-64
and 2-65 present the resulting cost curves. The O&M upgrade cost equations for the group 5 DAF
systems with flow rates up to 20 gpm and greater than 20 gpm are presented below as Equations 2-
66 and 2-67, respectively.
where:
In (Y2) = 19.2932 + 3.50923In(X) + 0.23946(ln(X))2
In (Y2) = 13.4098 + 0.999251n(X) + 0.01496(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                 (2-66)
                                                                                 (2-67)
Table 2-63.  O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
,^L Mainten-
 ance
0.0072 0
0.0144 0
0.0216 0
0.0288 0
Chemical Cost Total
Taxes & Energy Labor O&M Cost
• Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite (1989 $/YR)
0 730 780 41 125 467 84 2,227
0 730 1,560 164 498 1,866 334 5,152
0 730 2,340 368 1,121 4,199 751 9,509
0 730 3,120 655 1,992 7,464 1,334 15,295
                                          2-112
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
          Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 2-64.
O&M
Flow .
(MOD) Mamten-
ance
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
Table 2-65.
0
0
0
0
Upgrade Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
Taxes &
Insur.
0
0
0
0
O&M Upgrade
Flow .
/X^TW Mainten-
(MGD)
' ance
0.0072
0.0144
0.0216
0.0288
Table 2-66.
0
0
0
0
O&M
Flow , . . .
,,„,,_., Mamten-
 ance
0.036
0.072
0.144
1.44
0
0
0
0
Taxes &
Insur.
0
0
0
0
Upgrade
Taxes &
Insur.
0
0
0
0
Energy
730
730
892
2,190
Labor
3,900
4,875
5,850
7,800
Cost Estimates
Energy
730
730
730
730
Labor
780
1,560
2,340
3,120
Cost Estimates
Energy
730
730
892
2,190
Labor
3,900
4,875
5,850
7,800
Chemical Cost
Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite
1,023 3,112
2,045 6,225
4,090 12,449
40,903 124,488
11,663 2,085
23,325 4,169
46,650 8,338
466,503 83,380
for DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow
Chemical Cost
Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite
57 171
226 683
509 1,537
904 2,732
641 84
2,562 334
5,766 751
10,250 1,334
for DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow
Chemical Cost
Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite
1,413 4,268
2,826 8,536
5,652 17,073
56,518 170,726
16,015 2,085
32,030 4,169
64,061 8,338
640,608 83,380
Total
O&M Cost
(1989$/YR)
22,513
41,369
78,269
725,264
< 20 gpm
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)
2,463 .
6,095
11,633
19,070
> 20 gpm
Total
O&M Cost
(1989 S/YR)
28,411
53,166
101,866
961,222
                                               2-113
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater

          Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
        100,000
    c.  10,000

    I
    o
    s
    08

    o
         1,000
            X
                        I	I
                                   I	I   I   I  I  I I
                                                             1       I   	I   I   t   II
           0.001
                                                 0.010


                                          Flow (MGD)
                                                                                      0.100
 Figure 2-62.  O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow <, 20 gpm
       1,000,000
   ce.
   £-   100.000

   1
   o
        10,000 I	'    111—i i  i i I	1	1	1—I  I  I I I I	1	1	1	1  I  1 I I

            0.01                      0.1                       1                        10

                                             Flow (MGD)



Figure 2-63. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
                                              2-114
-------
Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater
         Treatment Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
         1,000,000
      tr
      —   100,000
      CO
      o
      O
      OS
      o
           10,000
               0.01
                                       0.1
                                                                                        10
                                                Flow (MGD)

   Figure 2-64.   O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
        10,000,000
         1,000,000
     §
     CO
     o
     O
          100,000
           10,000
               0.01
                                        0.1
                                                                                          10
                                                 Flow (MGD)

  Figure 2-65.   O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
                                             2-115
-------
-------
Section 3   Biological Wastewater Treatment
          Technology Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Section 3     Biological Wastewater Treatment Technology Costs
3.1    Sequencing Batch Reactors

       A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a suspended growth system in which wastewater is
mixed with existing biological floe in an aeration basin. SBR's are unique in that a single tank acts
as an equalization tank, an aeration tank, and a clarifier.
       The SBR system costed by EPA for the model technology consists of a SBR tank, sludge
handling equipment, feed system and controls, pumps, piping, blowers, and valves. The design
parameters that EPA used for the SBR system were the average influent and effluent BOD5,
ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite concentrations. The average influent concentrations were 4800 mg/L,
995 mg/L, and 46 mg/L for BOD5, ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite, respectively. The average effluent
BOD5, ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite concentrations used were 1,600 mg/1, 615 mg/1, and 1.0 mg/1,
respectively.  EPA obtained these concentrations from the sampling data at the SBR model facility.
       EPA assumed that all existing biological treatment systems in-place at organics subcategory
facilities can meet the limitations of this proposal without incurring cost.  This includes facilities
which utilize any form of biological treatment — not just SBRs.  Therefore, the costs presented here
only apply to facilities without biological treatment in-place. EPA did not develop SBR upgrade
costs for either capital or O&M.

Capital and Land Costs
       EPA estimated the capital costs for the SBR systems using vendor quotes  which include
installation costs. Table 3-1 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the SBR systems.
The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 3-1. The SBR total capital cost equation is:
                                            5-1
-------
Section 3  Biological Wastewater Treatment     Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
          Technology Costs
ln(Yl) = 15.707 + 0.5121n(X) + 0.0022(In(X))2
where:
X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Yl= Capital Cost (1989$).
Table 3-1. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Sequencing Batch Reactor
Flow Total Engineer.
Rate System Install. Piping Constr. &
(MOD) Cost Cost Conting.
0.001 100,000 35,000 54,000 189,000 40,500
0.01 360,000 126,000 194,400 680,400 145,800
0.05 635,000 222,250 342,900 1,200,150 257,175
0.10 970,000 339,500 523,800 1,833,300 392,850
0.50 2,350,000 822,500 1,269,000 4,441,500 951,750
1.0 3,200,000 1,120,000 1,728,000 6,048,000 1,296,000
(3-1)
Systems
Total Total
Capital Capital
Cost Cost
(1993$) (1989$)
229,500 206,550
826,200 743,580
1,457,325 1,311,593
2,226,150 2,003,535
5,393,250 4,853,925
7,344,000 6,609,600
10.000.000 . — 	 — 	 ,
v>
en
§
T-
w 1,000,000
1
100.000


jS
/
/
/
^/
	 —^. 	

_/
/
/
/
/
	 i 	 i 	 i i i i ill 	 l 	 l 	 I I I I ill 	 1 	 1 — 1 1 1 Illl 	 1 	 1 I I 1 III
1 I I 1 1 I III
0.0001
              0.001
                                          0.01          0.1
                                            Flow (MGD)
                                                                                  10
 Figure 3-1. Total Capital Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems

                                              3-2
-------
Section 3  Biological Wastewater Treatment    Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
         Technology Costs		
       To develop land requirements for SBR systems, the vendor provided EPA with overall
system dimensions. EPA scaled up the land dimensions to represent the total land required for the
system plus peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). The land requirement equation for the
SBR systems is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -0.531 + 0.9061n(X) + 0.072(ln(X))2

X = Flow (MOD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).

The land requirement curve is presented as Figure 3-2.
                                                                                   (3-2)
  CO
  1_
  o
  c
  0)
  
-------
 Section 3   Biological Wastewater Treatment    Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
 	Technology Costs
Operation and Maintenance Costs
       The O&M costs for the SBR system include electricity, maintenance, labor, and taxes and
insurance. No chemicals are utilized in the SBR system. EPA assumed the labor requirements for
the SBR system to be four hours per day and based electricity costs on horsepower requirements.
EPA obtained the labor and horsepower requirements from vendors. EPA estimated maintenance,
taxes, and insurance using the factors detailed in Table 1-2.
       Table 3-2 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the SBR systems. The resulting cost
curve is presented as Figure 3-3. The O&M cost equation for the SBR systems is:
where:
In(Y2) = 13.139 + 0.5621n(X) + 0.020(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                   (3-3)
Table 3-2. O&M Cost Estimates for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
Flow Rate
(MOD)
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
(1989 $/YR)
27,055
59,608
109,862
153,113
367,932
491,572
                                          3-4
-------
Section 3  Biological Wastewater Treatment     Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

	Technology Costs	
        1,000,000
    >•
    ^
    (30
    CO
    (35
    8
    cO
    o
         100,000
           10,000  I    '   i  i i i ml   i   i  i i i i nl	1	''ii JIT!	1	1  I  I I I III	!	1—I I I I II

               0.0001         0.001          0.01           0.1             1             10

                                               Flow (MGD)



 Figure 3-3.  O&M Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems
                                               3-5
-------
-------
Section 4  Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

SECTION 4    SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL COSTS
4.1    Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Sludge Stream

       Pressure filtration systems are used for the  removal of solids from waste streams.  This
section details sludge stream filtration which is used to treat the solids removed by the clarifiers in
the Metals Options.
       The pressure filtration system costed by EPA for sludge stream filtration consists of a plate
and frame filtration system.  The components of the plate and frame filtration system include: filter
plates, filter cloth, hydraulic pumps, pneumatic booster pumps, control panel, connector pipes, and
a support platform. For design purposes, EPA assumed the sludge stream to consist of 80 percent
liquid and 20 percent (200,000 mg/1) solids. EPA additionally assumed the sludge stream to be 20
percent of the total volume of wastewater treated.  EPA based these design parameters on CWT
Questionnaire 105.
       In costing for sludge stream treatment, if a facility does not have sludge filtration systems in-
place, EPA estimated capital costs to add a plate and  frame pressure filtration system to their on-site
treatment train2.  If a facility's's treatment train includes more  than one clarification step  in its
treatment train (such as for Metals Option 3), EPA only costed  the facility for a single plate and
frame filtration system. 'EPA assumed one plate and frame filtration system could be used to process
the sludge from multiple clarifiers. Likewise, if a facility already had a sludge filtration system in-
place, EPA assumed that the in-place system would be sufficient and did not estimate any sludge
filtration capital costs for these facilities.
        2 If a facility only had to be costed for a plate and frame pressure filtration system to process the sludge
 produced during the tertiary chemical precipitation and clarifications steps of metals Option 3, EPA did not cost the
 facility for a plate and frame pressure filtration system. Likewise, EPA assumed no O&M costs associated with the
 treatment of sludge from the tertiary chemical precipitation and clarification steps in Metals Option 3. EPA assumed
 that the total suspended solids concentration at this point is so low that sludge stream filtration is unnecessary.
                                             4-1
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Capital and Land Costs
        EPA developed the capital cost equation for plate and frame sludge filtration by adding installation,
engineering, and contingency costs to vendors' equipment cost estimates. EPA used the same capital cost
equation for the plate and frame sludge filtration system for all of the Metals Options.
        Table 4-1  presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the plate and frame sludge
filtration systems for all the Metals Options.  The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 4-1.
The sludge filtration total capital cost equation for all the Metals Options is:
where:
ln(Yl) = 14.827 + 1.0871n(X) + 0.0050(In(X))2

X = Flow (MOD) of Liquid Stream and
Yl= Capital Cost (1989$).
                                                                                        (4-1)
Table 4-1. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration (Sludge Stream)
Wastewater
Influent
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00
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
                                             4-2
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
         10,000,000
          1,000,000
     a>
     CO
     to      100,000
     8
     O       10,000
              1,000 '   '  ' '"""  '  ' '"""—i  i i nun—i  i i nun—i  i i mm—i  i i inn
                 0.00001    0.0001     0.001      0.01       0.1         1         10
                                            Flow (MGD)
  Figure 4-1.  Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) Total Capital Cost Curve -
              All Metals  Options
       EPA calculated land requirements for the plate and frame pressure filtration systems using
the system dimensions plus a 20-foot perimeter.  The land requirement curve is presented as Figure
4-2. The land requirement equation for all Metals Options sludge filtration is the same and is:
where:
ln(Y3) = -1.971 + 0.2811n(X) + 0.018(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).
                                                                                 (4-2)
                                           4-3
-------
 Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
    
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
where:
ln(Y2) = 12.239 + 0.388In(X) + 0.016(ln(X))2


X = Flow Rate (MOD) of Liquid Stream and

Y2 - O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                     (4-3)
Table 4-2.  O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Options 2 and 3
           (Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
Wastewater
Influent
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.10
0.50
1.0

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 $/YR)

19,336
19,336
19,352
37,410
57,382
71,056
147,435
259,404
                                            4-5
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
     1,000,000
      100,000
       10,000 '    '  ''"""  ' ' ""'"	i  t Mmil—i  111 mil—i  i i iinil—i  i  mm
           0.00001    0.0001      0.001       0.01        0.1         1         10
                                          Row (MGD)

 Figure 4-3.  Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Cost Curve -
             Metals Options 2 and 3
       For facilities which already have a sludge filtration system in-place, EPA included plate and
frame filtration O&M upgrade costs. Since the sludge generated from the secondary precipitation
and clarification steps in Metals Options 2 and 3 is the sludge which requires treatment for these
options, these facilities would be required to improve pollutant removals from their  secondary
precipitation current performance concentrations to the long term averages for Metals Options 2 and
3.  Therefore,  EPA calculated the percent difference between  secondary precipitation current
performance and the Metals Options 2 and 3 long-term averages. EPA determined this percentage
to be an increase of three percent.
       As such, for facilities which currently have sludge filtration systems in place, for Metals
Options 2 and 3, EPA included an O&M upgrade cost which is three percent of the O&M costs of
a new system (except for taxes and insurance, which are a function of the capital cost).
                                            4-6
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

       Table 4-3 presents the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the Metals Options 2 and
3 sludge filtration systems. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 4-4. The O&M upgrade
cost equation for the Metals Options 2 and 3 sludge filtration systems is:
where:
In(Y2) = 8.499 + 0.3311n(X) + 0.013(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) of Liquid Stream and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                     (4-4)
Table 4-3.  O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Options
           2 and 3 (Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
Wastewater
Influent Flow
• (MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
Energy
30
30
30
30
30
31
33
45
61
Maintenance
12
12
12
18
56
180
328
1,668
3,716
Labor
531
531
531
1,063
1,606
1,606
1,606
1,875
2,146
O&M
Cost
(1989 $/YR)
574
574
574
1,113
1,693
1,818
1,968
3,589
5,924
                                           4-7
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
        10,000
    o:
    ««•
    O)
    co
    o>
    "-'   1,000
    •*-*
    CO
    o
    O
           100
            0.00001
                   '  '  ' ' '""   i  i I I mil	L_LJL
                                                       I  I ' Illl"   I  I  I I Hill	1  I  I I III!
0.0001
0.001
     0.01
Flow (MGD)
                                     0.1
                                      1
                                         10
 Figure 4-4.    Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve
               Metals Options 2 and 3
Operation and Maintenance Costs - Metals Option 4
       The operation and maintenance costs for Metals Option 4 consists of labor, chemical usage,
electricity, maintenance, taxes, and insurance, and filter cake disposal. The O&M plate and frame
sludge filtration costing methodology for Metals Option 4 is very similar to the one discussed
previously for Metals Options 2 and 3. The primary differences in the methodologies are the
estimation of labor, the inclusion of filter cake disposal, and the O&M upgrade methodology.
       EPA approximated the labor requirement for Metals Option 4 plate and frame sludge
filtration  systems at 2 to 8 hours per day depending on the size of the system.  As was the case for
Metals Options 2 and 3, no chemicals are used in the plate and frame sludge filtration units for
Metals Option 4, and EPA estimated electricity, maintenance and taxes and insurance using the
factors listed in Table 1-2. EPA also included filter cake disposal costs at $0.74 per gallon of filter
                                            4-8
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

cake. A detailed discussion of the basis for the filter cake disposal costs is presented in Section 4.2.
       Table 4-4 presents the itemized O&M estimates for the Metals Option 4 sludge filtration
systems.  The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 4-5.  The O&M cost equation for the Metals
Option 4 sludge filtration systems is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 15.9321 + 1.177In(X) + 0.04697(ln(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) of Liquid Stream and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                    (4-5)
Table 4-4.
Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 4
(Sludge Stream - Including Filter Cake Disposal Costs)
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
209
316
941
5,468
27,804
61,938
Labor
7,800
7,800
11,700
11,700
15,600
19,500
23,400
31,200
Filter
Cake
Disposal
8
77
770
7,696
76,960
769,600
3,848,000
7,696,000
Total O&M
Cost
(1989S/YR)
9,414
9,483
14,094
21,349
96,393
806,607
3,956,331
7,915,054
                                            4-9
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
   CO
   ta
   o
   O
   08
   O
100,000,000

 10,000,000

   1,000,000

    100,000

      10,000
              •^000 I   ' ' ' """   ' ' ''"	"""—i  i iiiml—i  i i mill—i  i i mill
                0.00001    0.0001    0.001      0.01       0.1         1         10
                                             Flow (MOD)
Figure 4-5.  Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Cost Curve - Metals Option 4

       For facilities'which already have a sludge filtration system in-place, EPA included sludge
stream filtration O&M upgrade costs. For Metals Option 4, EPA included these O&M upgrade costs
for processing the sludge generated from the primary precipitation and clarification steps3.  These
facilities  would need  to improve pollutant removals from their primary precipitation current
performance concentrations to Metals Option 4 (Sample Point-03) concentrations. This sample point
represents the effluent from the  liquid-solids  separation unit following primary  chemical
precipitation at the Metals Option 4 model facility. Therefore, EPA calculated the percent difference
between primary precipitation current performance concentrations and Metals Option 4 (Sample
Point 03) concentrations. EPA determined that there was an increase of two  percent.
        3 EPA did not include O&M upgrade costs for the sludge generated from the secondary precipitation and
 clarification step (direct dischargers only).
                                           4-10
-------
Section 4  Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

       As such, for facilities which currently have sludge filtration systems in place, for Metals
Option 4, EPA included an O&M cost upgrade of two percent of the total O&M costs (except for
taxes and insurance, which are a function of the capital cost).
       Table 4-5 presents the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the Metals Option 4 sludge
filtration systems. Figure 4-6 presents the resulting cost curve.  The O&M upgrade cost equation
for the Metals Option 4 sludge filtration systems is:
where:
ln(Y2) = 12.014 + 1.17846In(X) + 0.050(In(X))2

X = Flow Rate (MOD) of Liquid Stream and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).
                                                                                   (4-6)
Table 4-5.  O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Option 4
           (Sludge Stream - Including Filter Cake Disposal Costs )
Wastewater
Influent Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
Filter
Cake
.Disposal
1
2
15
154
1,539
15,392
76,960
153,920
Energy
20
20
20
20
20
22
30
41
Maintenance
8
8
8
13
38
219
1,112
2,478
Labor
156
156
234
234
312
390
468
624
Total O&M
Cost
(1989 $/YR)
185
186
277
421
1,909
16,023
78,570
157,063
                                           4-11
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
          1,000,000
            100,000
             10,000
              1,000
                100 I   ' ' "i mi   '  ' """'	i  11 inn!—i  i  MI ml—i  i i mill—i i nun
                 0.00001    0.0001     0.001      0.01       0.1         1         10
                                              Row (MOD)
   Figure 4-6.  Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve -
                Metals Option 4
4.2     Filter Cake Disposal

        The liquid stream and sludge stream pressure filtration systems presented in Sections 2.2 and
4.1, respectively, generate a filter cake residual. There is an annual O&M cost that is associated with
the  disposal of this residual. This cost must be added to the pressure filtration equipment O&M
costs to arrive at the total O&M costs for pressure filtration operation4.
        To determine the cost of transporting and disposing filter cake to an off-site facility, EPA
performed an analysis on a subset of questionnaire respondents hi the WTI Questionnaire response
database.   This  subset consists of metals subcategory facilities that are direct and/or indirect
dischargers and that provided mformation on contract haul and disposal cost to hazardous (Subtitle
        4 Note that these costs have already been included in the O&M equation for plate and frame sludge filtration
 for Metals Option 4.
                                             4-12
-------
Section 4  Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs  Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

C) and non-hazardous (Subtitle D) landfills. From this set of responses, EPA tabulated two sets of
costs — those reported for Subtitle C contract haul and disposal and those reported for Subtitle D
contract haul and disposal,  the reported costs for both the Subtitle C and Subtitle D contract
haul/disposal. EPA then edited this information by excluding data that was incomplete or that was
not separated by RCRA classification.
       EPA used the reported costs information in this data set to determine the median cost for both
the Subtitle C and Subtitle D disposal options, and then calculated the weighted average of these
median costs.  The average  was weighted to  reflect the ratio of hazardous (67 percent)  to
nonhazardous (33 percent) waste receipts at these Metals Subcategory facilities.  The final disposal
cost is $0.74 per gallon of filter cake. Table 4-6 presents this analysis.
       EPA calculated a single disposal cost for filter cake using both hazardous and non-hazardous
landfilling costs.  Certain facilities will incur costs, however, that, in reality, are higher and others
will incur costs that, in reality, are lower. Thus, some low revenue metals subcategory facilities that
generate non-hazardous sludge may show a higher economic burden than is representative.  On the
other hand, some low revenue metals subcategory facilities that generate hazardous sludge may show
a lower economic burden than is representative. EPA has concluded that in the end,  these over- and
under estimates will balance out to provide a representative cost across the industry.
       EPA additionally estimated an O&M upgrade for filter cake disposal resulting from Metals
Options 2 and 3 for facilities that already generate filter cake as part of their operation.
       This upgrade is 3 percent of the cost of the O&M upgrade for facilities that do not already
generate filter cake as a part of their operation.  EPA used 3 percent because  this was the same
percentage calculated for plate and frame sludge filtration for these same options.
                                           4-13
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs    Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 4-6.  CWT Metals Subcategory Filter Cake Disposal Costs
CWTQID

Filtercake Quantity Total Cost
(Pounds per Year) (1989$ per Year)
Unit Cost
(1989 $/G Filter Cake)
Subtitle C Landfills
022
072
080
089
100
105
255
257
284
288
294
449
MEDIAN
2,632,000 250,000
8,834,801 835,484
6,389,520 711,000
9,456,000 602,471
968,000 125,964
13,230,000 1,164,200
3,030,000 530,250
151,650 12,450
5,850,000 789,000
297,234 36,750
2,628,600 390,000
36,000,000 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
15,393,486 276,160
440,000 24,200
30,410,880 361,000
26,378,000 158,273
36,960,587 780,351
131,451,200 2,768,225
80,000,000 800,000
56,777,760 898,560
2,365,740 18,800

Weighted Average of Subtitle C and D Landfills
Weighted Average (SI. 03 @ 67% + $0.16 @ 33%)
0.18
0.55
0.19
0.06
0.21
0.21
0.10
0.16
0.08
0.16
Median Values
0.74
 Source: WTI Questionnaire Data Base
 Note:   Pounds = Gallons X 8.34 X Specific Gravity (SG filtercake = 1.2)
                                               4-14
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

       Table 4-7 presents the cost estimates for the filter cake disposal.O&M and filter cake disposal
O&M upgrades for Metals Options 2 and 3 systems.  Figures 4-7 and 4-8 present the resulting cost
curves. The filter cake disposal O&M cost and O&M upgrade cost equations are presented below
as Equations 4-7 and 4-8, respectively.
where:
Z = 0.109169+ 7,695,499.8(X)                                                 (4-7)
Z = 0.101186 + 230,879.8(X)                                                   (4-8)

X = Flow Rate (MOD) of Liquid Stream and
Z = Filter Cake Disposal Cost (1989 $/YR).
Table 4-7.  Filter Cake Disposal Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration Systems
           Metals Options 2 and 3
Wastewater
Influent Flow
(MOD)
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
Filter Cake
Disposal Costs
(1989 $/YR)
8
77
770
7,696
76,960
384,800
769,600
3,848,000
7,696,000
Filter Cake
Upgrade Disposal Costs
(1989 $/YR)
1
2
23
231
2,309
11,544
23,088
115,440
230,880
                                           4-15
-------
Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs   Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
       100.000,000
        10,000,000
   CT>

   CO
   42
   

   ,5     1,000,000


   "to
   CO
   o

   g-      100,000


   5

   CD
   (0

   O
      10,000
              1,000
                        i   i i mill   '  i  i mill	1  I  I Illlll	1  I  I IIMIl	1  I I  Mil
                 0.0001
                         0.001
0.01         0.1


   Flow (MGD)
                                                                                    10
  Figure 4-7.  Filter Cake Disposal O&M Cost Curve for Plate and Frame Filtration Systems -

               Metals Options 2 and 3
      05
      oo
      o
      CO

      8

      CO

      8
      CL


      a

      CD
      •o
      CO
I
O

o>

E
          1,000,000
            100,000
       10,000
              1,000
                100
                 0.0001
                                 il    1  i  i I mil    i  111 "Ml - 1 - 1  1 1 Mill - 1 - 1  1 '
                         0.001
0.01          0.1


  Flow (MGD)
                                                                                    10
    Figure 4-8.  Filter Cake Disposal O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Plate and Frame Filtration

                Systems - Metals Options 2 and 3


                                            4-16
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
SECTION 5    ADDITIONAL COSTS
5.1    Retrofit Costs'

       EPA assigned costs to the CWT Industry on both an option- and facility-specific basis.  The
option-specific  approach estimated compliance cost for a sequence  of individual treatment
technologies, corresponding to a particular regulatory option, for a subset of facilities defined as
belonging to that regulatory subcategory. Within the costing of a specific regulatory option, EPA
assigned treatment technology costs on a facility-specific basis depending upon the technologies
determined to be currently in-place at the facility.
       Once EPA determined that a treatment technology cost should be assigned to a particular
facility, EPA considered two scenarios.  The first was the installation of a new individual treatment
technology as a part of a new treatment train. The full capital costs presented in Sections 2 through
4 of this document apply to this scenario.  The second scenario was the installation of a new
individual treatment technology which would have to be integrated into an existing  in-place
treatment train.  For these facilities, EPA applied retrofit costs. These retrofit costs cover such items
as piping and structural modifications which would be required in an existing piece of equipment
to accommodate the installation of a new piece of equipment prior to or within an existing treatment
train.
       For all facilities which received retrofit costs, EPA added a retrofit factor of 20 percent of
the total capital cost of the newly-installed or upgraded treatment technology unit that would need
to be integrated into an existing treatment train. These costs are in  addition to the specific treatment
technology  capital costs calculated with the technology specific equations  described in earlier
sections.
                                            5-1
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
5.2    Monitoring Costs

       CWT facilities that discharge process wastewater directly to a receiving stream or indirectly
to a POTW will have monitoring costs. EPA regulations require both direct discharge with NPDES
permits and indirect dischargers subject to categorical pretreatment standards to monitor their
effluent.
       EPA used the following generalizations to estimate the CWT monitoring costs:


1.   EPA included analytical cost for parameters at each subcategory as follows:

     •          TSS, O&G, Cr+6, total CN, and full metals analyses for the metals subcategory
               direct dischargers, and Cr+6,  total CN, and full metals analyses for  the metals
               subcategory indirect dischargers;

     •          TSS, O&G, and full metals and  semi-volatiles analyses for the oils subcategory
               option 8 and 9 direct dischargers, and full metals,  and semi-volatiles for oils
               subcategory options 8 and 9 indirect dischargers; and

     •          TSS, O&G, and  full metals,  volatiles and semi-volatiles  analyses for the oils
               subcategory direct dischargers,  and full metals, volatiles, and  semi-volatiles for oils
               subcategory option 8V and 9V indirect dischargers; and

     •          TSS, BOD5, O&G, 6 individual metals, volatiles, and semi-volatiles analyses for the
               organics subcategory option 3 direct dischargers, and 6 individual metals, volatiles,
               and  semi-volatiles analyses  for the organics  subcategory option  3 indirect
               dischargers; and

     •          TSS, BOD5, O&G, 6 individual metals, and semi-volatiles analyses for the organics
               subcategory option 4 direct dischargers, and 6 individual metals and semi-volatiles
               analyses for the organics subcategory option 4 indirect dischargers.
                                             5-2
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
               Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
     EPA notes that .these analytical costs may be overstated for  the  oils and  the  organics
subcategories because EPA's final list of pollutants proposed for regulation for these subcategories
do not include all of the parameters included above.

2.   The monitoring frequencies are listed in Table 5-1 and are as follows:

Table 5-1.  Monitoring Frequency Requirements
 Parameter
   Monitoring Frequency (samples/month)
   Metals         Oils          Organics
Subcategory    Subcategory     Subcategory
Conventional*
Total Cyanide and Cr+6
Metals
Semi- Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics
20
20
20
-
-
20
-
4
4
4**
20
-
4
4
4**
*   Conventional monitoring for direct dischargers only.
**  Volatile organics monitoring for oils option 8V and 9V and organics option 3 only.

3.  For facilities in multiple subcategories, EPA applied full  multiple, subcategory-specific
    monitoring costs.

4.  EPA based the monitoring costs on the number of outfalls through which process wastewater
    is discharged. EPA multiplied the cost for a single outfall by the number of outfalls to arrive
    at the total costs for a facility. For facilities for which this information is not available, EPA
    assumed a single outfall per facility.

5.  EPA did not base monitoring costs on flow rate.

6.  EPA did not  include sample collection costs (labor and equipment) and sample shipping costs,
    and
                                            5-3
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
7.  The monitoring cost (based on frequency and analytical methods) are incremental to the
    monitoring currently being incurred by the CWT Industry.  EPA applied credit to facilities for
    current monitoring-in-place (MIP).  For facilities where  actual monitoring frequencies are
    unknown, EPA estimated monitoring frequencies based on other subcategory facilities with
    known monitoring frequencies.

       The cost of the analyses needed to determine compliance for the CWT pollutants are shown
below hi Table 5-2. EPA obtained these costs from actual quotes given by vendors and converted
to 1989 dollars using the ENR's Construction Cost Index.


Table 5-2. Analytical Cost Estimates
                Analyses
       Cost ($1989)
BOD5
TSS
O&G
Cr+6
Total CN
Metals:
   Total (27 Metals)
   Per Metal1
Volatile Organics (method 1624)2
Semi-volatile Organics (method 1625)2
            $20
            $10
            $32
            $20
            $30
           $335
           $335
            $35
           $285
           $615
 1  For 10 or more metals, use the full metals analysis cost of $335.
 2  There is no incremental cost per compound for methods 1624 and 1625 (although
   there may be a slight savings if the entire scan does not have to be reported). Use
   the full method cost, regardless of the actual number of constituent parameters
   required.
                                            5-4
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
5.3    RCRA Permit Modification Costs

       Respondents to the WTI Questionnaire who indicated that their 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.

       EPA also requested the reason for the permit modification. Table 5-3 lists the RCRA permit
modification costs  reported for installation of new units, installation of new technology, and
modifications to existing equipment. As shown, the average cost for these permit modifications is
$31,400. EPA anticipates that many CWT facilities with RCRA Part B permits will be required to
modify their permits to include the upgrade  of existing equipment and/or the installation of new
treatment technologies to achieve the proposed CWT effluent limitations and standards. Therefore,
for all RCRA B facilities, EPA additionally included a one-time cost of $31,400 to modify their
permit.
                                            5-5
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-3.  RCRA Permit Modification Costs Reported in WTI Questionnaires
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 and installation costs; no cost breakdown is given. Therefore, this data was not used
   in calculating the average cost.

5.4    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.  To determine the amount of land required for costing
purposes, EPA calculated the land requirements for each treatment technology for the range of
system sizes. EPA fit these land requirements to a curve and calculated land requirements, in acres,
for every treatment system costed. EPA then multiplied the individual land requirements by the
corresponding state land cost estimates to obtain facility-specific cost estimates.
       EPA used different land cost estimates for each state rather than a single nationwide average
since land costs may vary widely across the country. To estimate land costs for each state, EPA
obtained average land costs for suburban sites for each state from the 1990 Guide to Industrial and
Real Estate Office Markets survey.  EPA based these land costs on "unimproved sites" since,
according to the survey, they are the most desirable.  Table 5-4 presents the estimated unit land
prices for the unimproved suburban sites of major cities and the averages for each state and region.
                                            5-6
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: Northeast
State City


Connecticut Hartford
New Haven
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Maine Portland
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Massachusetts Boston
Springfield
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
New Hampshire Nashua
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
New Jersey Central
Northern
Southern
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Land Costs ($/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
                                                 5-7
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4. 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($)

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

Land Costs ($/ft2)
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

                                                  5-8
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4.
Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region:
State City
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
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($)
Kansas City
Wichita
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Grand Rapids
Jackson
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Minneapolis/ St. Paul
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
North Central
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
0.85
0.20
0.53
22,869
1.00
1.00
43,560
Land Costs ($/ft2)
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
0.40
0.15
0.28
11,979
0.25
0.25
10,890
>100
Acres
1.25
0.15
0.70
30,492
0.50
0.10
0.05
0.22
9,438
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.15
6,534
0.20
0.02
0.11
4,792
0.18
0.10
0.14
6,098
0.20
0.20
8,712
                                                 5-9
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: North Central
State


Missouri



Ohio






Nebraska


North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin


REGIONAL


City


Kansas City
St Louis
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Akron
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Omaha
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)


Milwaukee
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
AVERAGE REGIONAL COST
ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)

0-10
Acres
-
1.50
1.50
65,340
0.80
0.75
0.40
0.25
0.25
0.49
21,344
0.70
0.70
30,492
*
*
0.60
0.60
26,136
0.72
31,407

Land Costs (S/ft2)
10- 100
Acres
0.20
1.10
0.65
28,314
0.25
0.50
0.30
0.18
0.20
0.29
12,458
0.60
0.60
26,136
*
*
0.35
0.35
15,246
0.89
16,988


>100
Acres
0.20
1.00
0.60
26,136
0.20
0.55
0.17
0.12
0.15
0.23
9,932
0.40
0.40
17,424
*
*
0.25
0.25
10,890
0.30
13,068

                                                 5-10
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region:
State City

Alabama Birmingham
Mobile
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Arkansas Fort Smith
Little Rock
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Delaware Wilmington
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Florida Jacksonville
Ft Lauderdale
Lakeland
Melbourne/ South Brevard Cty
Miami
Orlando
Sarasota/Bradenton
Tampa
West Palm Beach
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Georgia Atlanta
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
South


Land Costs ($/ft2)
0- 10
Acres
1.00
0.75
0.88
38,115
0.75
0.15
0.45
19,602
1.50
1.50
65,340
1.00
4.50
0.45
0.80
3.00
1.25
0.85
1.75
3.10
1.86
80,828
2.00
2.00
87,120
10- 100
Acres
0.50
0.50
0.50
21,780
0.60
0.10
0.35
15,028
1.25
1.25
54,450
1.00
3.50
0.45
0.80
1.60
0.50
0.65
1.25
2.25
1.33
58,080
1.75
1.75
76,230
>100
Acres
0.30
0.50
0.40
17,424
0.50
0.10
0.30
13,068
1.00
1.00
43,560
0.75
3.50
0.30
0.80
-
0.50
0.50
1.25
1.75
1.17
50,911
1.25
1.25
54,450
                                                5-11
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South
State
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
City
Louisville
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
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($)
Charlotte
Greensboro
Raleigh
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Charleston
Columbia
Greenville
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Land Costs ($/ft2)
0-10 10-100
Acres Acres
0.80
0.80
34,848
2.00
1.00
1.50
65,340
3.00
3.00
130,680
0.50
0.50
21,780
0.50
0.90
1.00
0.80
34,848
0.70
0.50
0.60
26,136
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.70
30,492
0.70
0.70
30,492
2.00
0.50
1.25
54,450
3.00
3.00
130,680
0.20
0.20
8,712 .
0.40
0.75
1.50
0.88
38,478
0.75
0.50
0.63
27,225
0.50
0.40
0.45
0.45
19,602
>100
Acres
0.50
0.50
21,780
2.00
0.30
1.15
50,094
1.75
1.75
76,230
0.20
0.20
8,712
0.30
1.00
0.65
28,314
0.50
0.40
0.45
19,602
0.30
0.25
0.40
0.32
13,794
                                                 5-12
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South
State

Tennessee




Texas






Virginia


District of
Columbia

West Virginia
REGIONAL

City

Chattanooga
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Austin
Corpus Christi
Dallas
Fort Worth
Houston
San Antonio
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Richmond
Roanoke
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Washington
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)

AVERAGE REGIONAL COST
ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)

0-10
Acres
0.40
0.45
1.00
0.80
0.66
28,859
0.75
1.25
2.50
1.00
2.50
0.85
1.48
64,251
0.75
1.25
1.00
43,560
4.50
4.50
196,020
*
1.39
60,521
Land Costs ($/ft2)
10-100
Acres
0.60
0.25
0.75
0.50
0.43
18,513
0.60
0.50
2.00
0.75
2.00
0.65
1.08
47,190
1.00
1.00
1.00
43,560
3.50
3.50
152,460
*
1.14
49,658

>100
Acres
0.50
0.15
0.55
0.50
0.35
15,246
0.50
0.20
1.50
0.50
1.00
0.65
0.73
31,581
0.75
0.75
0.75
32,670
-
-
-
*
0.73
31,857
                                                5-13
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: West
State City


Alaska
Arizona Phoenix
Tucson
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
California Contra Costa
Orange County
San Fernando Valley
San Gabriel Valley
South Bay
Marin & Sonoma Counties
San Diego
Stockton
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Colorado Denver
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Hawaii** Honolulu
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)
Land Costs ($/ft2)
0- 10
Acres
*
2.25
1.00
1.63
70,785 ,
3.00
12.00
7.00
7.50
18.00
4.00
6.00
1.20
7.34
319,622
1.25
1.25
54,450
30.00
30.00
1,306,800
10- 100
Acres
*
1.50
0.60
1.05
45,738
1.50
11.00
6.00
4.50
18.00
2.50
6.00
0.60
6.26
>100
Acres
*
0.75
0.25
0.50
21,780
-
-
5.00
-
18.00
-
5.00
0.50
7.13
272,795 310,365
1.00
1.00
43,560
20.00
20.00
871,200
0.75
0.75
32,670
-
-
-
                                                 5-14
-------
Section 5 Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-4. 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($)
Land Costs ($/ft2)
0-10 10-100 >100
Acres Acres Acres
*
*
1.25
1.25
54,450
1.00
1.00
43,560
2.00
2.00
87,120
*
4.50
0.35
2.43
105,633
*
2.41
104,980
*
*
0.75
0.75
32,670
0.50
0.50
21,780
1.00
1.00
43,560
*
3.50
0.20
1.85
80,586
*
1.77
77,101
*
*
0.50
0.50
21,780
0.35
0.35
15,246
0.50
0.50
21,780
*
0.11
0.11
4,792
*
1.41
61,233
*  No data available for state, use regional average.
   No data available for city or area indicated.
** Hawaii was not included in the regional average calculations.
                                             5-15
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
    The survey additionally provides land costs broken down by size ranges. These are zero to 10
acres, 10 to 100 acres, and greater than 100 acres.  Since CWT facilities fall into all three size ranges
(based on responses to the WTI Questionnaire), EPA averaged the three size-specific land costs for
each state to arrive at the final  land costs for each state.  Table 5-5 presents a summary of the
estimated land prices for each state.
    The survey did not provide land cost estimates for Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont or West Virginia.  For these states, EPA used regional averages
of land costs. EPA determined the states comprising each region also based on the aforementioned
survey since the survey categorizes the states by geographical region (northeast, north central, south,
and west). In estimating the regional average costs for the western region, EPA did not include
Hawaii since Hawaii's land cost is high and would have skewed the regional average.
    Table 5-6 lists the land cost per acre for each state. As Table 5-6 indicates, the least expensive
state is Kansas with a land cost of $7,042 per acre and the most expensive state is Hawaii with a land
cost of $1,089,000 per acre.
                                            5-16
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-5. 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($)


0- 10 Acres
70,132
26,136
63,162
65,340
103,673
196,891
41,382
*
*
80,959

Land Costs per Acre ($)
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
Region: North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Mexico
Ohio
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($)
41,382
40,728
11,616
10,019
22,869
43,560
65,340
*
21,344
30,492
*
*
26,136
31,407
37,026
13,068
8,712
6,316
11,979
10,890
28,314
*
12,458
26,136
*
*
15,246
16,988
30,492
9,438
6,534
4,792
6,098
8,712
26,136
*
9,932
17,424
*
*
10,890
13,068
                                                5-17
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-5 (cont.). Summary of Land Costs
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($)
for Unimproved Suburban

Areas -

Land Costs per Acre
0-10 Acres 10
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
- 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
                                                 5-18
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-5 (cont).
Region: West

Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved

State
Suburban Areas -

Land Costs per Acre
0-10 Acres 10 -100 Acres
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii**
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
*
70,785
319,622
54,450
1,306,800
*
*
54,450
43,560
87,120
*
105,633
*
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($)** 104,980
*
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.
                                                  5-19
-------
Section 5  Additional Costs
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 5-6. State
State
Alabama
Alaska*
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho*
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana*
Land Costs for the CWT Industry
Land Cost per Acre
(1989 $)
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 S)
24,684
36,300
52,998
89,443
26,929
110,013
33,880
20,488
14,578
24,321
50,820
32,307
59,822
21,296
20,488
20,873
47,674
81,105
59,822
39,930
63,670
47,345
17,424
81,105
174,240

*   No data available for state, use regional average.
                                                  5-20
-------
Section 6  References
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
SECTION 6   REFERENCES

Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 15th Edition, Washington, DC.

Henricks, David,  Inspectors Guide for Evaluation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.
Culp/Wesner/Culp, El Dorado Hills, CA, 1979.

Technical Practice Committee, Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants. MOP/11, Washington,
DC, 1976.

Clark, Viesman, and Hasner, Water Supply and Pollution Control. Harper and Row Publishers, New
York, NY, 1977.

1991  Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire Respondents Data Base. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Osmonics, Historical Perspective of Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis Membrane Development.
Minnetonka, MN, 1984.

Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers fOCPSF^ Cost Document. SAIC, 1987.

Effluent Guidelines Division, Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the  Organic Chemicals. Plastics and Synthetic Fibers fOCPSF). Volume II, Point
Source Category, EPA 440/1-87/009,  Washington, DC, October 1987.

Engineering News Record (ENR). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, March 30,1992.

Comparative Statistics of Industrial and Office Real Estate Markets. Society of Industrial and Office
Realtors of the National Association of Realtors, Washington, DC, 1990.

Peters, M., and Timmerhaus, K., Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY, 1991.
                                         6-1
-------
Section 6  References
Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chemical Marketing Reporter. Schnell Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY, May 10, 1993.

Palmer, S.K., Breton, M.A., Nunno, T.J., Sullivan, D.M., and Supprenaut, N.F., Metal/Cyanide
Containing Wastes Treatment Technologies. Alliance Technical Corporation, Bedford, MA, 1988.

Freeman,  H.M., Standard  Handbook of Hazardous Waste  Treatment and  Disposal.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1989.

Effluent Guidelines Division, Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Metals Products and Machinery Phase 1 Point Source Category.
Point Source Category, EPA 821-R-95-021, Washington, DC, April 1995.

Control and Treatment  Technology for the Metal Finishing Industry. Sulfide Precipitation.
Summary Report EPA 625/8-80-003, April 1980.
                                          6-2
-------