EPA-230/1-78-001
December 1977
Do not remove. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection.
Economic Analysis of
Proposed
Pretreatment Standards
for Existing Sources
of the
Electroplating
Point Source Category
QUANTITY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Planning and Evaluation
Economic Analysis Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
EPA-230/1-78-001
December 1977
Economic Analysis of Proposed
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources of the
Electroplating
Point Source Category
Contract Nos.
68-01-1985 and 68-01-4425
Prepared for:
Office of Planning and Evaluation
Economic Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Planning and
Evaluation, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
PREFACE
The attached document is a contractor's study prepared
for the Office of Planning and Evaluation of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the study
is to analyze the economic impact which could result from
the application of alternative pretreatment standards to
be established under section 307(b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended.
The study supplements the technical study, Development
Document for Proposed Existing Source Pretreatment Standards
for the Electroplating Point Source Category, February 1978,
and the earlier Development Documents supporting the issu-
ance of interim final and final regulations under section
307(b). These documents survey existing and potential
waste treatment control methods and technologies within
particular industrial point source categories and support
the proposed pretreatment standards based upon an analysis
of the feasibility of these standards in accordance with
the requirements of section 307(b) of the Act. The invest-
ment and operating costs associated with alternative control
and treatment technologies are presented in Supplement B to
the Development Document which is available for inspection in
Room 2922, EPA Public Information Unit, 401 M Street, S.W.,
-------
Washington, D. C., 20460. The attached document supplements
this analysis by estimating the broader economic effects
which might result from the required application of various
control methods and technologies. This study investigates
the effect of alternative approaches in terms of product-
price increases, effects upon employment and the continued
viability of affected plants.
The study has been prepared with the supervision and
review of the Office of Planning and Evaluation of EPA.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Con-
tracts 68-01-1985 and 68-01-4425 by Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Inc.
This report is being released and circulated at approx-
imately the same time as publication in the Federal Register
of a notice of proposed rule making under section 307(b) of
the Act for the subject point source category. The study is
not an official EPA publication. It will be considered along
with the information contained in the Development Documents
and any comments received by EPA on either document before or
during rule making proceedings necessary to establish final
regulations. Prior to final promulgation of regulations, the
accompanying study shall have standing in any EPA proceeding
or court proceeding only to the extent that it represents
the views of the contractor who studied the subject industry.
It cannot be cited, referenced, or represented in any respect
in any such proceeding as a statement of EPA's views regarding
the subject industry.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. STUDY METHODOLOGY 1
II. THE INDUSTRY 41
III. POLLUTION ABATEMENT REQUIREMENTS
AND COSTS 72
IV. SAMPLE CLOSURE RESULTS 98
V. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 110
VI. LIMITS OF THE ANALYSIS 126
APPENDIXES
A - The Metalfinishing Job Shop
Sector Survey
B - The Printed Circuit Board Industry
Survey
C - The Captive Metalfinishing Industry
Survey
D - Sample Design and Survey Issues
E - Automated Financial Closure
Methodology
F - The Pollution Abatement Cost
Generating Program
G - Validation of the Pollution
Abatement Cost Estimates
-------
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Following
Page
I. EQUATIONS RELATING ESTIMATES OF
INVESTMENT FOR WATER TREATMENT WITH
GALLONS PER HOUR OF WATER TREATED 21
II. COMPARISON OF SELECTED ESTIMATED
COST FOR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
AND BUDGETARY QUOTES BY SUPPLIERS 22
III. CLASSIFICATION OF FIRMS WITHIN THE
FINANCIAL CLOSURE METHODOLOGY 29
IV. t-STATISTICS FOR ECONOMIC AND
FINANCIAL VARIABLES TESTED COMPARING
CLOSURES AND NON-CLOSURES (n = 36) 36
V. BEST PRACTICABLE TREATMENT SYSTEM 76
VI. CAPITAL COST OF FILTRATION UNITS 79
VII. CAPITAL COST FOR CLARIFIERS WITH
pH ADJUSTMENT 79
VIII. CAPITAL COSTS FOR CYANIDE OXIDATION
UNITS 80
IX. CAPITAL COSTS FOR HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
REDUCTION 80
X. RELATIONSHIP OF TOTAL SYSTEM FLOW
RATE TO INVESTMENT FOR LEAST COST
INDOOR PLANTS-FILTER MODE 80
XI. RELATIONSHIP OF TOTAL SYSTEM FLOW RATE
TO INVESTMENT FOR LEAST COST OUTDOOR
PLANTS-CLARIFIER MODE 80
-------
INDEX OF TABLES
Page
Number
1-1 SAMPLE STRATA WEIGHTS 8
1-2 TOTAL NUMBER OF METALFINISHING
JOB SHOPS 9
1-3 AVERAGE PRICE INCREASES 25
I-4 RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION 38
II-1 DISTRIBUTION OF METALFINISHING JOB SHOPS 50
II-2 DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED BOARD MAKERS 51
II-3 DISTRIBUTION OF CAPTIVE METAL FINISHERS 52
II-4 TYPICAL BALANCE SHEET ITEMS 62
II-5 VALUE OF SELECTED BALANCE SHEET ITEMS
ON A PER MAN BASIS 63
II-6 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED CAPITALIZATION
ITEMS BY SIZE OF FIRM 64
II-7 SELECTED CAPITALIZATION ITEMS ON A PER
MAN BASIS 64
II-8 SURVEY RESPONSES TO THE "JOB SHOP"
QUESTIONS 67
II-9 DISTRIBUTION OF PRICE BEHAVIOR BY
SIZE OF FIRM 68
11-10 METALFINISHERS1 JUDGMENT OF THEIR
CUSTOMERS' REACTIONS TO PRICE INCREASES 69
III-l MEAN INVESTMENT CAPITAL TO MEET A BPPT
SYSTEM ARRAYED ACROSS SALES CATEGORIES 83
III-2 MEAN INVESTMENT CAPITAL TO MEET A BPPT
SYSTEM ARRAYED ACROSS METALFINISHING
EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES (226 JOB SHOPS) 83
-------
NDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
Page
Number
III-3 MEAN INVESTMENT CAPITAL TO MEET A BPPT
SYSTEM ARRAYED BY SALES AND WETFINISHING
EMPLOYMENT 84
III-4 MEAN INVESTMENT CAPITAL TO MEET BPPT ABOVE
10,000 GPD, AND CHROMIUM REDUCTION AND
OXIDATION OF AMENABLE CYANIDE BELOW 10,000 GPD 85
III-5 MEAN INVESTMENT CAPITAL TO MEET A BPPT
SYSTEM ARRAYED ACROSS METALFINISHING
EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES (38 PB FIRMS) 87
III-6 MEAN INVESTMENT CAPITAL FOR PRINTED
BOARD FIRMS BY REGULATION 87
III-7 MEAN INVESTMENT CAPITAL TO MEET A BPPT
SYSTEM ARRAYED ACROSS METALFINISHING EMPLOY-
MENT CATEGORIES (733 CAPTIVE FACILITIES) 88
II1-8 MEAN INVESTMENT CAPITAL TO MEET A BPPT
SYSTEM ARRAYED ACROSS PROCESS WATER USE
CATEGORIES (733 CAPTIVE FACILITIES) 89
III-9 ANNUALIZED BPPT COST ARRAYED BY PLANT
SALES AND RISK CATEGORIES (716 CAPTIVE
OPERATIONS) 90
111-10 TOTAL INVESTMENT CAPITAL REQUIRED BY THE
JOB SHOPS DISCHARGING TO A POTW TO MEET
A BPPT SCENARIO 92
III-ll TOTAL INVESTMENT CAPITAL REQUIRED BY THE
JOB SHOPS ALLOWING A 10,000 GPD CUT-OFF 93
III-12 TOTAL INVESTMENT CAPITAL FOR PRINTED
BOARD FIRMS TO MEET A FULL BPPT STANDARD
(ARRAYED BY WETMETALFINISHING SIZE) 94
111-13 TOTAL INVESTMENT CAPITAL FOR PRINTED
BOARD FIRMS BY THE REGULATION 94
111-14 TOTAL INVESTMENT CAPITAL REQUIRED BY
THE CAPTIVE SECTOR TO MEET BPPT 95
-------
NDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
Page
Number
III-15 PRETREATMENT TOTAL INVESTMENT CAPITAL
REQUIRED BY CAPTIVES ALLOWING A 10,000
GPD CUTOFF 96
111-16 ANNUALIZED COST TO THE INDUSTRY OF THE
PRETREATMENT REGULATION (ARRAYED BY
WETMETALFINISHING EMPLOYMENT) 97
IV-1 MODEL PLANT CLOSURES FOR THE 10,000 GPD
OPTION USING WATER USE AND WMF EMPLOYMENT
CATEGORIES 101
IV-2 MODEL PLANT CLOSURES UNDER A BPPT SCENARIO
ARRAYED BY SALES AND WMF EMPLOYMENT
INTERVALS 102
V-l TOTAL PLANT CLOSURES IN THE JOB SHOP
SECTOR UNDER A BPPT SCENARIO ARRAYED BY
WMF EMPLOYMENT INTERVALS 114
V-2 TOTAL PLANT CLOSURES IN THE JOB SHOP
SECTOR UNDER THE REGULATION ARRAYED BY
WMF EMPLOYMENT INTERVALS 115
V-3 SALES AND EMPLOYMENT LOSSES DUE TO BPPT
JOB SHOP CLOSURES ARRAYED BY WMF
EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES 116
V-4 SALES AND EMPLOYMENT LOSSES DUE TO THE
REGULATION JOB SHOP CLOSURES ARRAYED
BY WMF EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES 117
V-5 SALES AND EMPLOYMENT LOSSES DUE TO THE
REGULATION JOB SHOP CLOSURES, SBA
FINANCING ARRAYED BY WMF EMPLOYMENT
CATEGORIES 118
V-6 ESTIMATED PLANT CLOSURES FOR PRINTED
BOARD MAKERS FULL BPPT 119
V-7 SALES AND EMPLOYMENT LOSSES FOR
PRINTED BOARD MAKERS FULL BPPT 120
-------
INDEX OF TABLES
Continued)
Page
Number
V-8 ESTIMATED PLANT CLOSURES FOR PRINTED
BOARD MAKERS UNDER THE REGULATION 120
V-9 SALES AND EMPLOYMENT LOSSES UNDER THE
REGULATION 121
V-10 PROJECTED TOTAL CAPTIVE CLOSURES
BY THE REGULATION 123
V-ll EMPLOYMENT AND SALES EFFECTS OF
CAPTIVE CLOSURES DUE TO THE REGULATION 123
V-12 TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PRETREATMENT
COMPLIANCE FOR THE METALFINISHING
INDUSTRY BY THE REGULATION 124
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an economic impact analysis of
the metalfinishing industry. The economic impact is that
due to capital investments in water pollution abatement
technology. The primary measure of economic impact is the
number of potential plant closures due to these requisite
capital investments.
For this summary, the following four points will be
developed:
Definitions and scope of the study
Data gathering and analytic methodologies
Descriptive information on the industry
Presentation of key findings (impacts)
1- THE STUDY IS RESTRICTED TO MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS IN
THREE METALFINISHING PRODUCTION SECTORS
This report covers firms that belong to, or perform
processes common to the metalfinishing industry. These
firms are specifically involved with a discrete number of
production processes defined by the EPA as falling within
the Electroplating Point Source Category, and hence, regu-
lated under this guideline. The scope of the study is lim-
ited to those establishments which perform one or more of
the following:
Electroplating of common metals
Electroplating of precious metals
-------
/uioaizing
Coatings, i.e., phosphating, chromating or
immersion plating
Chemical etching, milling and engraving
Electroless plating
Printed board manufacturing
Of the various standards, guidelines and regulations
proposed by the EPA for firms in this point source category,
the ones of interest for this report are the Pretreatment
Standards. Firms governed specifically by Pretreatment
Standards are those firms that now discharge their efflu-
ent wastewater to a sewer that requires chemical/biologic
treatment by a municipal or publically owned treatment
works (POTW). In sum, the focus of study is that universe
of metalfinishing firms performing regulated processes
that discharge to POTW's and face compliance to proposed
Pretreatment Standards.
The universe of metalfinishing firms is composed of
three production sectors. They are:
Job Shops—Independent, small (often family run)
operations that typically plate with copper,
nickel, chromium and zinc.
Printed Board Manufacturers—Independent pro-
ducers of wire or circuit boards whose products
involve copper and electroless plating.
Captive Operations—Production centers, found
within manufacturing firms, that provide fin-
ishing services to the products of the parent
company.
11
-------
These three sectors are studied independently in the
body of the report. Each is described as an economic en-
tity; costed for its pretreatment technology, and analyzed
for its expected impacts.
2. SURVEYS AND AUTOMATED IMPACT ROUTINES WERE THE PRIMARY
DATA GATHERING AND ANALYTIC METHODOLOGIES OF THE STUDY
This study is distinguished by the fact that virtu-
ally all descriptive and analytic data came from primary
sources. Primary sources in this case are members of the
industry for information pertinent to finances, production
processes and market conditions. Similarly, on the tech-
nical side, primary sources included pollution control
equipment suppliers for information on treatment systems
and their costs.
There were three separate data gathering surveys.
The groups surveyed were:
Independent suppliers of metalfinishing services,
i.e., the job shops
Independent producers of metal clad wiring or
printed circuit boards
Individual manufacturing establishments with in-
house metalfinishing capabilities, i.e., captive
operations
All survey methodologies are written up in detail in
Chapter I and in Appendices A, B and C of this report.
111
-------
Reviewing them here serves to set the findings of the next
section in perspective.
Job shops were contacted by mail in the winter
of 1976. Almost half of all listed metalfinish-
ing firms in the Dun's Market Identifiers File
were sent a questionnaire (2,221 of 5,551). This
sample frame was supplemented by a list of some
70 finishing establishments that had provided the
Agency data in the past. Returns came back from
approximately 900 cases. Usable mail returns
numbered 461 of which 444 were from the original
sample frame and 17 from the EPA furnished cases.
Captives were also contacted by mail in the early
spring of 1977. This was a population mailing to
some 8,800 firms in the Products Finishing sub-
scription list that met two criteria.They were
not independent job shops, and they provided data
to Products Finishing in the past suggesting a
regulated process was performed at the plant.
Returns came back from some 3,400 cases of which
some 1,600 were used for analysis.
Printed circuit board manufacturers were identi-
fied through a two-step process. Underwriters
Laboratories furnished a listing of some 600 es-
tablishments or corporations that had submitted
a printed board product for testing. Their list-
ing was cross-checked against the Dun's Market
Identifiers File and produced some 300 matches.
Financial reports were ordered on all yielding
some 175 reports. These were screened and 100
firms contacted for detailed information.
This completes the brief description of the three sample
segments that define the industry of interest.
In addition to data gathering surveys of these indus-
trial sectors comprising the industry, additional surveys
were conducted to gather supplemental information:
Site visits to metalfinishers in three communi-
ties to appreciate how an established pretreat-
ment ordinance affected local finishing operations
IV
-------
Telephone interviews with commercial lending
officers to verify the appropriateness of key
financial criteria utilized in the automated
financial closure routine
Telephone interviews with suppliers of pollution
abatement systems for the metalfinishing industry.
Of key interest here was the agreement of computer
generated equipment costs with professional quo-
tations
Telephone follow-up interviews with a sub-set of
study respondents to clarify the key financial
data of the study. This effort established that
the base year of the study was a "typical" year
for the industry as a whole
Three additional study methodologies were required:
a method for developing costs, a means for predicting a
financially vulnerable plant, and a method for extrapolat-
ing closure results from the sample to the population.
Costs were developed by the Technical Contractor
for the Agency's Effluent Guidelines Division,
using an automated cost program developed speci-
fically for this industry. From the returns to
the job shop questionnaire, 74 actual cases pro-
viding detailed technical-production data were
selected for costing. Those 74 represented a
full distribution of job shops along key study
dimensions:
Processes
Water use
- Employment
Size
Location
- Lines
Sales
Regression equations for unit costs as well as
flow allocation rules per component were then
derived from the 74 by BA&H. This provided the
analytic tools for assigning costs to all other
usable cases. A usable case was operationalized
as any survey respondent providing sufficient
technical and financial data so that the plant
259-718 O - 78 - 2
-------
could be costed and tested for closure. There
were 244 job shops, 40 printed board manufac-
turers, and more than 600 captives which served
as closure test cases (or "model" plants).
Closures were calculated by an automated finan-
cial routine for both job shops and printed
boards. Captives, because their investment de-
cision is unique and because no detailed income
statements were requested, were handled through
a different analysis. The financial closure
routine uses reported income and balance sheet
data to compute a present cash flow situation
and a projected cash flow situation after the
investment. Two criteria must be satisfied for
a firm to satisfy the closure test. Its future
coverage ratio must be at least 1.5 or failing
that, the cash surplus in the firm (after
owner's compensation and profit after taxes)
must be at least $15,000.
Closure rates for the population were established
as the overall sample closure rate. Tests were
run to identify significant differences in clo-
sure rates by the size of the firm (i.e., test-
ing by employment, sales and water use). No
significant differences were found. Additional
tests were run between survey respondents and
non-respondents and between the model and non-
model plants to test for systematic differences.
Again, none were found that affected closure
rates. Therefore, the closure rate found in the
model plant analysis is extrapolated directly to
the estimate of the universe to project total
industry impacts.
This finishes the discussion of how the study pro-
ceeded methodologically. Summaries of major findings ap-
pear in the next section.
3. THE INDUSTRY CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF SMALL OPERATIONS
MEASURED BY SALES, EMPLOYMENT AND WATER USE
The following three sections provide summary descrip-
tions of selected descriptive data on each segment.
VI
-------
(1) Almost 3,000 Job Shops Are Affected
The data base of the 1977 Dun's Market
Identifiers File and the 1972 U.S. Census
of Manufacturers estimate the population
of job shops at approximately 5,000 firms.
By the pattern of responses to the job shop
survey (Appendix A) more than half, or
2,941 firms do processes covered by these
regulations. Of this number more than 90%
discharge to POTW's.
On the basis of total employment, these
2,941 firms employ 65,000 people of which
40,200 are production employees in wetmetal-
finishing.
Only 14% of the job shops sell $1 million
or more annually with 72% of all firms
selling $0.5 million or less a year. Aver-
age sales at the plants are $580,000 with
total industry output estimated at $1.7 bil-
lion annually.
At the plant level, a job shop uses water on
average at the rate of 38,700 gallons per da
of which 83% or 32,300 gallons per day is
water used directly in metalfinishing pro-
duction processes. For the industry as a
whole, total plant water use is on the or-
der of 114 million gallons per day with 95
million gallons per day taken by production
processes.
(2) Printed Board Manufacturers^ Are^A Small^ Segment
of the Industry
Given that process group H of the regula-
tions of the Electroplating Point Source
Category is for printed board manufacturers
all identified firms in the population (400)
are affected by this guideline.
Printed board shops are reported to be, on
average, larger than the typical job shop.
Mean total employment is 60 men with 35 in
production finishing. For the industry as
a whole, this accounts for some 23,300 men
with 13,700 part of producing the printed
boards.
vn
-------
These independent manufacturers have larger
per plant sales than do the job shops. Only
34% sell under $0.5 million annually with
68% selling over a million. Plant sales on
average are $1.5 million with total indus-
try sales estimated at $610.4 million.
The mean total plant water use of this sec-
tor is 21,900 gallons per day. Of this
amount, 86% or 18,800 gallons per day are from
production processes. For the industry as
a whole, 8.7 million gallons per day are used
of which 7.5 million gallons are for metal-
finishing processes.
(3) A Captive Operation Is Similar to An Independent
Job Shop
Survey results suggest that 47% of all cap-
tive operations do processes covered by these
regulations. This defines a population of
6,077 firms.
Mean total employment of these firms is 660
men for a plant work force of slightly more
than 4 million men. But with 20 men per
firm assigned to metalfinishing, the produc-
tion workforce of interest is some 120,000
men.
Total sales at the plant level are $20.1 mil-
lion. Of this amount, however, 54% reflects
sales of goods with metalfinishing. There-
fore, sales of metalfinished goods are $10.9
million. Given that the finishing cost of
these goods was found to be 6% of the total
production cost, the value added by metal-
finishing is estimated at $650,000 per plant.
For the total industry, this is $3.9 billion
annually.
In terms of plant water use, a firm with a
captive operation uses 808,000 gallons per
day. Of this total, 35% or 277,000 gallons
is used by the captive finishing operation.
On a daily basis, all 6,077 establishments
with captives use 4.9 billion gallons with
the captive operations requiring 1.7 billion
gallons.
Vlll
-------
4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED PRETREATMENT STANDARD
COULD IMPACT SOME TWENTY PERCENT OF ALL INDEPENDENT
ESTABLISHMENTS AND ONE PERCENT OF THE CAPTIVE
OPERATIONS
The points listed below capture the key estimates and
findings of the study. All costs reported below are in
January, 1977 dollars.
For plants whose metalfinishing process water
flow is below 10,000 GPD the treatment technology
for pretreatment is:
Destruction of cyanide amenable to chlorina-
tion by single stage chlorination
Reduction of hexavalent chromium to the
trivalent state
For plants above the 10,000 GPD process water
level, the treatment technology consists of:
Oxidation of cyanide in two stage alkaline
chlorination
Reduction of hexavalent chromium to the
trivalent form
Precipitation and clarification of metals
Total investment costs for the three sectors to
meet Pretreatment standards are $460.7 million.
Of this total, jobbers face $134.3M, printed
boards $20.8M and captives $305.6 million. On
a ten-year annualized basis, the total for the
industry is $128.9 million. Again for jobbers,
printed board makers and captives the figures
are $37.711, $5.7M and $85.5M respectively.
Closures are possible in 20% of the job shops and
in 14% of the printed board firms. No closures
are predicted in captive operations although 1%
might divest the operation and purchase finishing
from jobbers. On an overall basis, 19% of the
independent operations and 7% of all operations
within the Electroplating Point Source Category
may close as a result of pretreatment standards.
IX
-------
Other economic effects rest with price rises and
unemployment. Jobbers are expected to increase
price 5% and printed board makers 4%. Unemploy-
ment in the job shop sector could be 12,500 per-
sons and 3,135 positions in the printed board
industry. This corresponds to 19% and 13% of
the jobs in each sector.
No measurable impact on balance of trade levels
or on communities is anticipated because finish-
ing is neither an international commodity nor a
major regional employer.
Price impacts due to capital investment in pre-
treatment equipment are on the order of 4% to
5% for independent producers, and generally less
than 1% for captive operations. These requis-
ite price increases are within the range esti-
mated by the industry as feasible without
affecting adversely sales volumes.
All impacts were computed on the basis of two
sources of capital; commercial bank loans, and
a special loan program such as the SBA. Were
a special loan program readily accessible to
the metalfinishing industry, closure rates
could be one-half that predicted by regular
financing.
This completes the discussion of the key points of
the study. The subsequent chapters of the report provide
the substance of each issue presented herein.
-------
I. STUDY METHODOLOGY
-------
I. STUDY METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the several study methodologies
developed for assessing the impact of pollution control
capital investments on the metalfinishing industry.
As noted in the prior Executive Summary, the study
focuses on those firms presently discharging effluent
wastes into a publicly owned sewer system. In addition,
the relevant firms are only those presently performing
finishing processes defined within the Electroplating
Point Source Category. This restricts the industry of
interest to all independent metalfinishing job shops,
Printed Board makers, and general manufacturing establish-
ments with internal finishing operations (captives) cov-
ered by this regulation.
Analytically, the study requirements are captured by
the following questions:
How many such firms are there?
What are their present economic, market and
production characteristics?
What type of (pre)treatment system must they
install?
What are the costs of such systems?
How will making such investments affect the
structure and operating economies of the
industry?
— 1 —
-------
These questions are covered for each industry segment in
sections A, B and C in this chapter.
1. FIVE SEQUENTIAL OPERATIONS DEFINE THE STUDY
An overall study plan for conducting the analysis was
developed. It consists of the following five sequential
steps:
Survey the segments of the industry to gather
descriptive information
Designate a group of survey respondents as
model plants against which costs can be arrayed
and impacts assessed
Develop pretreatment pollution control costs
through modelling and verify the applicability
of those estimates for specific cases
Design a tool capable of incorporating relevant
fiscal and cost data such that accurate predic-
tions of financially impacted firms can be made
Establish a means for scaling sample based ob-
servations to the universe of affected firms
2. EACH SEQUENTIAL OPERATION OF THE STUDY REQUIRED
ITS OWN DATA GATHERING OR APPLICATION METHODOLOGY
This study is a fresh look at the industry. None of
the descriptive information on the size, composition or
economics of metalfinishing, whether available through
secondary sources or prior studies has been used here.
The goal of the study was to generate new data throughout.
The methods for gathering or applying data for each seg-
ment of the industry, metalfinishing job shops, printed
board makers and captive metalfinishers are presented
on the following pages.
-2-
-------
A. THE SURVEY OF INDEPENDENT
(JOB SHOP)
METALFINISHING ESTABLISHMENTS
This section describes the method and design of the
survey of metalfinishing job shops. Also presented here are
the strategy and results of a follow-up phone survey to non-
respondents. The manner in which these results were used
to generate the estimate of the regulated population is
also presented. In Appendix A the survey instrument and
the raw field data appear.
1. Design
The approach taken in this survey was a mail question-
naire followed by a follow-up telephone interview to a sample
of establishments not responding to the mail phase. A mail,
rather than a telephone or personal survey, was planned be-
cause of the nature of the data elements sought in the in-
quiry. We needed detailed and comprehensive information re-
garding production line configurations, water usage, employ-
ment statistics, and financial data. Such figures are not
normally readily accessible in an interview situation and
often require review and consultation with others. The mail
approach affords respondents an opportunity to search out
and to consider thoughtfully their written replies. Pre-
vious studies among members of this industry show that
respondents can and do answer even the most detailed and
-3-
-------
searching questions in a mail survey. The telephone follow-
up with non-respondents was included as an essential second
step to determine whether or not these establishments dif-
fered along key parameters from those responding to the mail
survey. Because differences were noted between mail respon-
dents and telephone respondents, a means of weighting mail
results to reflect population parameters was developed.
2. Method
Firms providing electroplating and metalfinishing
services are listed in SIC (Standard Industrial Classifi-
cations of the Department of Commerce) 3471 and 3479. There-
fore, the universe under investigation in the study was de-
fined as all firms listed in the two SIC's that currently
perform those manufacturing processes covered by the regula-
tions.
The most recent and complete listing of such firms
available at the start of the study was the Dun's Market
Identifiers File (DMI) purchased by the U.S. EPA from Dun
and Bradstreet. Contained in the DMI were 5,551 names of
organizations whose primary SIC is either 3471 or 3479.
This listing of 5,551 was ordered first by the size
of the company (using number of employees) and then, within
size categories, ordered by state and then alphabetically.
-4-
-------
A survey design was employed that systematically
sampled from the universe using a fixed interval and a
random starting point. By employing a 2.5 interval and
going through the list, a sample universe of 2,221 estab-
lishments was derived. An additional 70 firm names were
provided by the Agency for inclusion in the sample. They
were included because they provided data previously and
effects over time might be studied.
3. The Instrument
Prior analyses, client discussions, and coordination
with the metalfinishing industry reinforced the conclusion
that considerable information was needed for systematic
economic impact analysis. The data would have to be
gathered via the mail. The instrument had to be a conven-
ient self-administered questionnaire. To this end, the fol-
lowing developmental steps were followed. The study team:
Solicited descriptors of technical and pro-
duction variables from the technical con-
tractor. In this way, data would be gathered
from which pollution control costs could be
developed.
Provided drafts of the instrument to the indus-
try's association, the NAMF (National Association
of Metal Finishers). Their comments contributed
directly to the form, content, and length of the
final instrument.
Reviewed the early drafts with the firm's sam-
pling survev division, National Analysts. Their
contribution went far beyond the duties of
administering, coding, and scoring the returns.
-5-
-------
On early drafts, they reviewed critically the
language/ format, and lucidity of all items.
Prior to the first mailing the instrument was
tested on a subsample of 12 firms located in
New Jersey. This effort was conducted to
ensure that directions were self-explanatory,
items clear, and data obtainable. Valuable
information was gathered by sitting with a re-
spondent and "walking him through" all items.
Several changes in the instrument's form and
length were made as a result of this pre-test.
4. Execution
At the end of this development phase the final instru-
ment was 14 pages long and covered the topics of:
Production activities
Market conditions
Technical operations
Financial conditions
Treatment requirements
Investment options
In October, 1976, all 2,221 establishments plus 40
of the 70 EPA firms were mailed a questionnaire with cov-
er letters from both the NAMF and the Agency. A postage
paid return envelope was enclosed. Replies were monitored
as received by National Analysts and when the response
levels diminished to fewer than two to three a day, a sec-
ond mailing went out to the non-respondents. Again, a
cover letter and a return envelope accompanied each
questionnaire.
-6-
-------
5. Follow-up
The results of mailing to 2,221 are shown below.
Number of Sample Plants
Result
Respondents
Subject to regulation
Out of scope
Undeliverables or
not Classified
Undeliverables
Not Classified
Nonrespondents
Total Sample
687
444
243
687
154
143
11
T5T
1380
2221
Data on more than 1300 cases were lacking. To iden-
tify as much as possible about non-respondents, a follow-up
telephone survey was designed.
The telephone follow-up survey of the mail non-
respondents was conducted according to a sample stratified
by employment at the plant location as given by D&B. The
weights, which are used to extrapolate the telephone sur-
vey results to the entire group of mail nonrespondents are
computed by taking the reciprocal of the probability of
selection within strata and then adjusting for nonresponse
to the telephone survey. For each stratum, the probability
of selection is determined by the ratio of the number of
-7-
-------
plants in the telephone sample to the number of mail non-
respondent plants. The adjustment factor, which is multi-
plied by the reciprocal of the selection probability to ob-
tain the weight, is computed by adding unity to the ratio
of telephone nonrespondents to the number of telephone
respondents plants in the same stratum. This factor adjusts
the telephone respondents to account for telephone non-
respondents. Quantities necessary to complete these compu-
tations are given in the summary table below:
Table 1-1
Sample Strata Weights
D&B Employment
Strata
1 (1-4)
2 (5-9)
3 (10-19)
4 (20-49)
5 (50-99)
6 (100-249)
7 (250+)
8 (zero)
9 (missing)
Mail
Nonrespondents
378
289
267
208
70
24
6
10
127
Telephone
Sample
124
57
47
19
20
6
2
3
42
Telephone
Nonr e sponden ts
8
6
7
1
2
1
1
0
2
Weight
3.26
5.66
6.68
11.55
3.88
4.68
6.00
3.33
3.18
1,379* 320 28
*Note that the total of mail nonrespondents in this table does
not agree with the same total in the previous table. This
minor discrepancy is due to one case being missing from the
file on which the weights are based.
The results of the mail and telephone surveys were extra-
polated to the initial sample by applying a weighting factor
of unity to each in-scope mail response and the appropriate
weight, as given in the table, to each of the 444 in-scope
mail responses. A second extrapolation to the entire D&B
—8 —
-------
sampling frame is accomplished simply by multiplying by
(5551/2221). This yields a final estimate of the total popu-
lation of independent job shops falling within this regulation.
This estimate is arrayed below.
Table 1-2
Total Number of
Metalfinishing Job Shops*
Size of
Firm** Total POTW***
1-4 1,156 1,045
5-9 682 658
10-19 546 524
20-49 357 339
50-99 159 142
100-249 4.L 26^
Total 2,941 2,734
* Covered by the Electroplating Point Source
Category Regulation
** Measured by wetmetalfinishing production employees
*** Discharging to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
B. THE PRINTED BOARD
MANUFACTURERS' SURVEY
This section presents the method and design of a data
gathering survey of independent manufacturers of Printed
Boards. The instrument used and the raw data are contained
in Appendix B.
-9-
259-718 O - 18 - 3
-------
1. Design
If all independent Printed Board Manufacturers (PBM's)
fell within one or two generic SIC 4-digit classifications,
structuring their survey would have been straightforward
Although many PBM's do appear in SIC 3679 (Electronic Com-
ponents, not elsewhere classified) two problems are obvious
with tapping that data source:
Many firms in SIC 3679 produce products far differ-
ent from printed circuit boardsj e.g., phonograph
needles, earphones, relays.
Known producers of printed boards do not necessarily
assign their firm to SIC 3679. Many use SIC's 3643,
3691, 2511, 5065, 5081.
The approach developed for targeting a sample from an estimate
of the population was the following:
From Underwriters Laboratories a listing of all
manufacturers of printed board products was obtained.
This listing numbered some 600 company names.
Dun and Bradstreet submitted the UL list to their
files and generated a DMI list of 508 "matches."
This list of 508 contained firms that were branches,
headquarters and independent locations.
Paring the list still further to just the indepen*--
dent producers yielded 357 names. For analytic pur-
poses this defined the population of interest.
Subsequent analysis suggested a somewhat higher
estimate of the universe; set at 400.
-10-
-------
2. Method
With access to the DMI list of 350+ PBM's,data were
available that could enable either a mail or phone survey
to be conducted.
Of primary importance to the survey effort was to obtain
sufficient financial data for the automated closure routine.
The mail survey to jobbers had succeeded in generating financial
data, but 6 to 8 weeks for a mail effort were not available. In
addition, there was little reason to expect that a complete
telephone survey which also sought financial data could be
successful.
The study method, then, was a synthesis of two methods.
A phone survey was part of the design because it yields data
immediately, but financial items would not be sought in the
interview but obtained directly from the Dun's reports.
The latest financial reports on approximately half the
identified population were purchased. This yielded a randomly
generated group of 190 firms all possessing financial records.
Perusal of these records showed slightly more than 100 provided
values for enough account categories to develop complete and
consistent balance sheets as well as sales and profit data.
This was the sample sub-group of primary interest, and the
group targeted for first contact.
-11-
-------
All firms for which satisfactory financial records existed
were defined as the segment of the universe to be contacted.
This pre-screening of the sample assumed two risks. One,
there is a certain probability of under-representing smaller
firms since they seem to be less likely to volunteer their
statements to D&B. A second is the possibility that those
firms offering data are overstating their condition since no
validation or certification of the records is offered by D&B.
While these biases could be self-canceling, the fact remains
that the sample is neither fully stratified nor randomly drawn.
However, it was the best available under the circumstances.
3. Execution
A telephone interview guide (Appendix B) was developed
by Boo'z, Allen & Hamilton and the client. In addition, the
Technical Contractor was consulted for guidance on the pro-
duction and process items. Brevity guided the effort. Each
interview took fewer than 20 minutes to complete.
A team of special Booz, Allen & Hamilton consultants,
working for a week, made all the calls. Each call went
directly to the individual shown on the D&B listing as the
owner, president or chief officer of the establishment.
Calls from the list of 190 continued until 100 inter-
views were completed. Reviewing all financial and technical
data for accuracy yielded a sub-sample of 40 plants that were
used for estimating compliance burdens and closure rates for
the population.
-12-
-------
C. SURVEY OF MANUFACTURING
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH
IN-HOUSE CAPTIVE
METALFINISHING OPERATIONS
This section presents the issues involved in the design
and execution of a data gathering effort in the captive metal-
finishing sector. Of specific interest here are the special
considerations of this sector that delineated the study
approach. Appendix C contains the study instrument and all
the raw field data.
1. Design
As in the study of the Printed Circuit Board industry,
the key starting point in the survey of captive operations
was to define the universe. Essential to any sample design
is knowing the totality of all cases defining the population
from which a sample can be drawn.
The difficulty with respect to targeting a study of
captives is that any manufacturing establishment that pro-
duces a durable good might have applied surface finishing
covered by these regulations. Consequently, establishments
with captive operations could appear throughout the indus-
trial manufacturing sectors covered by the U.S. Census of
Manufactures. This defines a universe in the hundreds of
thousands.
-13-
-------
Resolution of this problem was provided through contact
with the publishers of Products Finishing magazine. People
knowledgeable about this industry, including the magazine's
publisher, maintained that it was widely read in the indus-
try; that its subscription list includes the vast majority
of establishments involved in metalfinishing; and prior sur-
veys by the magazine had already recorded the primary finish-
ing processes of the subscribers. An added reason for work-
ing with the Products Finishing list was that it served as
the source data for the National Commission on Water Quality's
estimate of 60,000 - 80,000 captive operations. The list,
therefore, was regarded as the best single estimator of the
universe of establishments with captive operations.
The editor of Products Finishing magazine provided full
cooperation with the effort under the following two conditions:
Names and addresses of firms were not to be seen
by the Agency, or by BA&H. Mailing labels
would be provided only if we agreed not to see,
record, or identify respondents in any fashion.
Mailing was to occur at a single point, with no
means for second mailings, follow-ups or subse-
quent contact.
Both conditions were accepted. The implication being that
the survey was literally a "blind" mailing with no opportunity
to stratify the universe in order to draw a sample, or to
clarify responses once they were received.
-14-
-------
2. Method
In October 1976, Products Finishing provided Booz, Allen
a card deck containing 21,975 records, each record representing
one firm. From the code sheet accompanying the deck, it was
possible to delete all establishments whose primary SIC was
either 3471 or 3479. This eliminated all job shops from the
population. Next, firms doing painting only, and all firms
doing only finishing processes outside the Electroplating Point
Source Category were eliminated. This yielded a sub-set of
subscribers which,on the basis of information provided to
Products Finishing magazine, should be manufacturing plants
with in-house finishing operations doing finishing processes
under this regulation. There were 8,874 such establishments
that defined the population of interest.
The months of January and February 1977 were spent in
developing the questionnaire instrument. Several key deci-
sions were made:
Detailed financial information would not be
requested in the instrument because of the size
of some of the parent corporations, e.g., Ford
Motors, General Electric.
Detailed line descriptions and production process
information were also omitted because treatment
costs could be modelled by process water use
coupled to generic finishing processes, e.g.,
anodizing, chromating, common metals plating.
-15-
-------
Freedom to divest the inhouse operation was judged
a key factor so special attention was given to the
captive operation, relevance of the operation to
on-going production schedules/the availability
of outside finishing and the probability of chang-
ing finishes or doing without metalfinishing
altogether.
The instrument went through five versions (See Appendix
C) before it was ready for mailing. Copies went to several
outside sources for critical comments. Providing their
critiques were Products Finishing editors, a director of
environmental engineering at a major corporation and an aca-
demic researcher familiar with the industry. By early March,
1977, the survey was ready to mail.
3. Execution
On March 2, 1977 questionnaires were mailed to each
of the 8,874 establishments targeted as the relevant popula-
tion. The date requested for return was March 25. Due to
the fact that several firms called explaining that the ques-
tionnaire reached the "right" individual as late as March 20-
21, the survey was kept open until April 8, 1977.
Questionnaires were received from 3,450 firms in the
sample for a response rate of 39%. The most interesting
finding from the returns is that 1,836 respondents (53%)
said they did not do a finishing process listed for the
Electroplating Point Source Category. There were 1,614
returns that yielded full and useful data.
-16-
-------
4. Discussion
Finding that 53% of the defined population reported
that they did not do regulated processes was unexpected.
There are three possibilities:
They identified their involvement with processes
in order to keep up with the marketplace although
they were not an active part of that market. As
an example, a firm may have indicated it did anodiz-
ing (when it didn't) in order to follow the litera-
ture, technical developments or sales opportunities
in that field.
They reported their processes accurately to Prod-
ucts Finishing but when contacted with an EPS
data gathering form they chose to position them-
selves outside the point source category. Cer-
tainly, it would have been as easy for such firms
not to have responded at all, than to have reported
inaccurate data.
There could be an error in the data base, or an
error in the respondent's understanding of the
question. It is not likely that at least 1,800
respondents to Products Finishing prior surveys
are miscoded and misclassified with respect to their
primary processes. It is possible, although not
likely, that 1,800 respondents misread the first
item and inadvertently took themselves out of the
eligible sample. Lacking a follow-up capability,
the question cannot be resolved.
This completes the discussion on the three surveys
done for this economic analysis of the metalfinishing industry.
-17-
-------
3. POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS WERE DEVELOPED BY COMPUTER
APPLICATION OF FIELD DATA AND THEN MODELLED FOR
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Appendix F to this report presents the logic, data
requirements and assumptions of the computer model developed
by the Technical Contractor for costing a Pretreatment Tech-
nology for the metalfinishing industry. The focus of this
section is restricted to the method employed by Booz, Allen
to generate costs for use in the economic impact analysis.
(1) The Technical Contractor Developed Pollution
Control Costs for 74 Job Shops
When some 300 job shop survey responses were
available, they were reviewed for diversity, complete-
ness of data and representativeness. There were 82
plants at that time which provided sufficient data for
costing and which represented at least three to four
other returns. These 82 plants were considered "model
plants" for costing. A subsequent group of 244 plants
were labelled model plants for purposes of the economic
analysis.
The 82 plant records were submitted to the Tech-
nical Contractor for costing. Due to inconsistencies
and/or omissions on 8 records, costs were developed on
74 plants.
-18-
-------
(2) Rules Were Developed for Relating the
Equipment Needs of the 74 Plants to the
Plant Models Used for impact Analysis
Inspection of the production operations of the
74 plants yielded one set of decision rules for deter-
mining a plant's pollution abatement needs.
Plants involved only in sulfuric acid anod-
izing, and/or nonelectroplating metalfinish-
ing operations (except chromating and bright
dipping) were likely to require pH adjust-
ment only to meet BPT requirements.
Plants involved only in copper, tin, cadmium,
zinc, precious metalplating or bright dip-
ping or a combination thereof were likely
to require cyanide destruction and pH ad-
justment equipment.
Plants involved only in chromium plating,
chromic acid anodizing, chromating or a
combination thereof were likely to require
hexavalent chromium reduction and pH adjust-
ment equipment.
Other plants doing combinations of these
operations were likely to require all three
major systems: cyanide destruction, hexa-
valent chromium reduction, and pH adjustment.
Line segregation is a cost element if at
least two pieces of control equipment are
required. The cost of line segregation is
halved if only two pieces are specified or
if at least one piece of equipment is already
in place. Details of this analysis are in
Appendix G.
(3) Rules Were Also Established for Allocating
Flow Volumes Through Each Component
Inspection of the 74 model plants revealed that
different types of finishing operations have character-
istic flow levels to their pollution control equipment.
-19-
-------
This breakdown also appears in Appendix G.
The decision rules for allocating metalfinishing
process water flow to the various waste treatment com-
ponents appear below:
Plants requiring installation of cyanide
destruction and pH equipment tend to have
about 56% of their metalfinishing water
flowing to the cyanide destruction unit.
Plants requiring installation of hexavalent
chromium reduction and pH adjustment equip-
ment tend to have about 23% of their metal-
finishing water flowing to the chrome re-
duction unit.
Plants requiring installation of systems fall
into two categories:
- Plants which perform more than six
operations tend to have about 62% of
their metalfinishing water flow in the
cyanide destruction unit and about 4%
of their metalfinishing water flowing
to the hexavalent chromium reduction
unit.
Plants with six or fewer operations
tend to have about 8% of their metal-
finishing water flow to the cyanide
destruction unit and about 10% flowing
to the hexavalent chromium reduction
unit.
In all cases all the metalfinishing water
flows through the pH adjustment unit.
(4) Cost Equations Per Component Were Developed
as a Function of Flow
Using the costs per component provided by the
Technical Contractor, and applying the flow allocation
-20-
-------
rules per component shown above, a series of equations
was derived. Exhibit I, on the following page, presents
these equations. Data are presented for the cost, and
then for the results of a regression using the formula
against the flow data of 74 plants.
The equations account for between 60 and
80% of the variability between investment
cost estimates and volume of water treated
in their appropriate regression of flow.
The pH adjustment equation was derived from
the computer model cost estimates as well
as from industry sources such as manufac-
turers and distributors of neutralization
systems because the computer model did not
separate pH adjustment costs from costs
for combined pH adjustment/batch clarifi-
cation equipment used in low flow situations,
(5) Per Component Cost Estimates Were Tested
Against the Computer Routine to Establish
Error Ranges and Agreement With Other Sources
Investment cost estimates derived from the equa-
tions were compared with estimates from the model.
Agreement was on the order of + 30%. This level of
agreement only means that the equations reflect the
computer generated costs. It does not confirm the
accuracy of those cost estimates.
In order to test the agreement of these cost
estimates with the costs electroplaters and metal-
finishers might face, a limited survey of waste water
-21-
-------
EXHIBIT I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EQUATIONS RELATING ESTIMATES OF INVESTMENT FOR
WATER TREATMENT WITH GALLONS PER HOUR OF WATER TREATED
Subsystem
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
Cyanide Destruction
pH Adjustment
Line Segregation
Clarifier
Diatomaceous Earth Filter
* Notes on Equations
1. Investment value in 1977 dollars.
2. GPH is the metalfinishing water to specific unit.
3. GPH is the total metalfinishing water of the plant.
Equation*
Investment ($) = 8,400 GPH 0.17
Investment ($) = 19,000 +15.2 GPH
Investment ($) = 14,700 +1.0 GPH
Investment ($) 210 GPH 0.5
Investment ($) = $16,000 GPH 0.15
Investment ($) = $4,065 GPH 0.33
Correlation Statistic
0.8
0.9
0.9
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
treatment equipment suppliers was undertaken. The
results of the survey are shown in Exhibit II, on the
following page.
At worst, the budgetary quotation from small
capacity hexavalent chromium reduction units
exceeds the model estimated cost by 33%.
For hexavalent chromium reduction units, the
average percentage difference between model
estimates and budget quotes was 13%.
For cyanide oxidation units, the average per-
centage difference between model estimates
and budget quotes was about 7 percent.
For clarifiers, the average percentage dif-
ference between model estimates and budget
quotes was about 13 percent.
The conclusion from this review is that the models
used for costing are appropriate, the sizing assump-
tions hold in practice and estimated and reported costs
are within an acceptable range of accuracy for the
present analysis.
4. CLOSURES IN THE JOB SHOP SECTOR AND IN PRINTED
BOARD MANUFACTURING WERE PREDICTED FROM AN
AUTOMATED CLOSURE ROUTINE
A firm is a potential closure if, for a given pollution
control system under a set of assumptions about price increases
and capital costs, the firm cannot finance the investment
through cash flows or through securing a commercial or Small
Business Administration (SBA) loan.
-22-
-------
EXHIBIT II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
COMPARISON OF SELECTED ESTIMATED
COST FOR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
AND BUDGETARY QUOTES BY SUPPLIERS *
Equipment
Item
Chromium Reduction
Cyanide Oxidation
Clarifier
Capacity
(GPH)
300
1,400
2,000
3,000
5,000
300
500
1,000
1,500
3,000
1,000
10,000
Model Estimated Cost
(Thousand)
20
28
32
35
40
24
17
33
36
94
46
66-105
Budgetary Quotes by Supplier
(Thousand)
30
30
35
32
38
29
30
33
35-41
94
60
82
Two suppliers provided quotes in chromium reduction equipment. Three suppliers provided quotes on
cyanide oxidation equipment. One supplier provided quotes on clarifiers.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton
-------
It is clear that such an analysis requires information
on several variables simultaneously:
Cost of capital
Payback period
Depreciation schedules
Capital needs
Price increases
Working with an automated routine capable of reflecting
changes to these objective functions was an important part
of conducting a systematic industry impact study. The
method by which the closure routine developed and its spe-
cial features appear below. This was the routine utilized
in predicting closures for the independent metalfinishing
job shops, and for the Printed Board Manufacturers. The
closure methodology for the captive sector appears in the
next major section.
(1) Cost of Capital and Freedom to Raise Prices
Are Two Key Determinants of Closure
A key operation in the closure analysis is the
calculation of price increase, i.e., the estimation of
the projected cost increase due to installation of pol-
lution control equipment that can be passed on to cus-
tomers. While there are several economic hypotheses
about pricing flexibility, or elasticity measures in
the metalfinishing industry, little data exist to verify
the hypotheses conclusively.
-23-
259-718 O - 78 - 4
-------
The typical price setting mechanism found in any
given industry can usually be classified as one of the
three basic scenarios:
Prices set by the least cost—and typically
highest volume—producers. This scenario
is often found in high volume, automated in-
dustries with concentrated production.
Prices set by the average cost producers.
Prices set by the marginal, i.e., high cost,
producers. This scenario is typical. For
example, for raw materials where successively
more expensive sources are developed to meet
expanding demand.
The primary survey conducted for this study
yielded some important findings that guide the model-
ing of pricing behavior:
Metalfinishers while noting that the industry
is competitive, have a fairly diverse product
and customer base. Typically, this implies
an industry with good pricing flexibility.
The respondents' reported historical and fore-
cast maximum price increases were higher
(averaging 8% and 12%) than had been predicted
by some industry observers.
Further, the forecast price increase was slightly greater
than calculations of the average percentage price increase
needed by metalfinishers to recover all pollution control
operating costs including depreciation and interest ex-
pense. This calculated percent is called the cost pass
through.
-24-
-------
These different price categories are shown in the table
below for the 244 analytic models.
Table 1-3
Average Price Increases
Maximum Forecast Price 12.4%
Weighted Maximum Forecast Price* 7.5%
Cost Pass Through (10% interest)** 11.3%
Weighted Cost Pass Through* 5.3%
*Weighted by sales volume of the respondents
** For cyanide destruction, chromium reduction,
and metals removal
The other key closure variable is the interest
rate that metalfinishers would be charged for a loan
to purchase pollution control equipment. If a metal-
finisher personally guarantees the loan, the interest
rate charged by a commercial bank would probably be in
the 8% to 12% range, depending primarily on prior bor-
rowings and profitability of the firm. The most likely
interest rate is 10%, which is 350 to 375 basis points
over the current prime rate, i.e., the rate charged
preferred borrowers by banks, which has been in the
6-1/4% to 6-1/2% range recently (March 1977). This
spread over the prime rate indicates a moderate level
of risk from a banker's point of view.
-25-
-------
For any combination of price and interest rate
assumptions discussed above, the computerized closure
model can predict resultant coverage ratios and prof-
itability changes. Three cases were selected for
analysis as described below.
Best Case—A low interest rate of 8% with
every firm being allowed the average maximum
forecast price increase, which was 12.4%.
This case incorporates:
The best practical borrowing terms
A standard industry-wide price increase
that would allow marginal producers to
pass through pollution control costs
up to the average maximum level forecast
by the respondents
Mid-Range Case—A moderate interest rate of
10% with each firm being able to pass through
its unique pollution control costs. The case
incorporates:
The likely interest rate
A different price increase for each firm;
this assumes sufficient market protection
for each firm to pass its unique pollu-
tion control cost increase on to its
customers; the aggregate industry-wide
price increase, therefore, would be the
weighted cost pass through, which cor-
responds to the industry price being
set by the average cost producers
Worst Case—A high interest rate of 12% with
each firm being allowed a price increase
equal to one half the weighted cost pass
through. This case incorporates:
An interest rate slightly higher than
what most firms that qualify for loans
would have to pay
-26-
-------
A standard industry-wide price increase
approximating the cost pass through of
the low cost producers
The results arrayed in the body of this report
are those from the mid-range case.
(2) Two Unknowns in the Closure Model Are the
Investment Decisions of Owners and Bankers
Although specifying the financial variables for
a closure analysis is straightforward, it is consider-
ably more difficult to assign "absolute" minimum values
for these variables in predicting candidates for clo-
sure. This is particularly true in applying profit-
ability standards because little is known about the
minimum profit expectations of small businessmen such
as independent metalfinishers.
The data as reported in the survey provide a
departure point. Typical profits and owner's compensa-
tion were calculated on the sample and used to develop
profitability criteria for predicting closures. A
firm was considered tp show inadequate profitability
(and, hence, appear as a candidate to close) if:
It made no profit, i.e., profit after tax was
less than zero
Profit after tax plus owners compensation per
owner who works full time was less than the cut-
off value—selected initially to be $15,000.
-27-
-------
These profitability values are based on the sample
returns and include a combined assessment of:
Evaluation of the decision from a general cor-
porate point of view
Assessment of the likely reaction of a small
business that is owned and operated by, at
most, a small group of people who:
Have other opportunities for both their
investment and time, namely they could
own another business or invest in real
estate and work full time for a salary
elsewhere
Consider, from their unique situation,
the increased risk in owning their own
business versus the independence, etc.,
of being their own bosses
Credit rules applied by bankers to loan applicants,
on the other hand, are well defined and easier to model.
In practice, issues such as longstanding banking rela-
tionships and personal guarantees are important. There
are minimum standards of quality that bankers apply
to the projected financial performance of a loan ap-
plicant. In the model, a firm was judged to be unable
to obtain a loan if its coverage ratio was less than
1.5. This is fairly liberal, assuming the personal
guarantee of the owner that is typical for metalfinish-
ing and other small industries. A coverage ratio of
2.0 is the standard minimum without the owners' per-
sonal guarantee. Banks would be extremely hesitant
-28-
-------
to lend to a firm with a coverage ratio approximating
1.0. Firms at a 1.0 coverage ratio have a projected
cash flow that is exactly equal to operating costs plus
loan payments; this cash flow would not provide for
temporary business downturns or other considerations of
risk.
(3) Three Types of Closures and Two Types
of Non-Closures Are Predicted
Consideration of the profitability and capital ac-
cess measures and values lead to the five classifica-
tions of post-investment firms illustrated in Exhibit
III, following this page. The classifications are
based on the possible combinations of profitability
and capital access, which range from a firm's being
rated poor in both categories—the upper left hand cor-
ner of the illustration—to a firm's being rated very
good in both categories—the lower right hand corner
of the illustration. The five categories are defined
as follows:
Vulnerable Firms (1)—Those firms that on both
a current and projected basis showed inadequate
profitability, which implies that they are can-
didates for closure regardless of the installa-
tion of pollution control equipment.
Candidate for Closure Due to Lack of Capital
Access (2)—Those firms that have coverage
ratios under 1.5 and that would require prohibi-
tively large equity infusions to secure loans.
-29-
-------
EXHIBIT III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CLASSIFICATION OF FIRMS WITHIN THE FINANCIAL
CLOSURE METHODOLOGY
Poor |-
PROFITABILITY
Very Good
Poor
Vulnerable Firm
on Pre-Investment
Basis
Capital
Access
Candidate for Closure Due To
Lack of Capital Access
Very Good
Non-Closure
with Equity
Infusion
Candidate for
Closure Due To Lack
of Profitability
Non-Closure
-------
Non-Closure With Equity Infusion (3)—Those
firms that have poor capital access but that
could obtain loans with an investment of a
reasonable amount of additional equity, which
is defined as an amount that does not lower
the return per owner who works full-time to
less than $15,000.
Candidate for Closure Due to Lack of^ Profit-
ability (4)—Those firms that could secure a
loan but which might not because of inadequate
projected profitability.
Non-Closure (5)—Those firms with both ade-
quate profitability and adequate capital access,
Classification of the 234 selected firms into those
five categories is the basis for extrapolation of candi-
dates for closure to the entire industry.
5. A CAPTIVES CLOSURE ANALYSIS IS BASED ON
OPERATIONAL RATHER THAN FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
It is presumed that a manufacturing establishment in-
vests in its own in-house finishing operation for reasons of
operational efficiency; i.e., it costs less to do it in-
house, production functions do not allow shipping goods out
for finishing and then carrying inventory, or there are no
acceptable outside finishing services. A closure decision
for such plants has to be viewed, therefore, in light of the
operating constraints of the production cycle:
Cost of the pretreatment system relative to
prior capital investments in metalfinishing
Age and size of the in-house finishing operation with
respect to its capital replacement requirements
-30-
-------
Operating budget for finishing with respect to its
proportion of total value added by finishing
Importance of the finishing operation with respect
to the total production flow
In sum, the closure test for captive operations is
whether a firm is "free" to divest its captive operations.
The analysis focuses on the likelihood that a firm could
economically as well as operationally divest itself of its
finishing given its present commitment to the process.
Firms likely to divest rather than make the investment in
requisite treatment systems are those which among other
things:
Have the freedom to send out finishing work or
produce goods with an alternate finish
Produce relatively few metalfinished goods, and
for which the added value of finishing is minor
(1) Seven Variables Are Key to the Captives
Closure Model
Given that the rationale for a captives closure
is based on "freedom to divest", the study requirement
was to gather the data capable of identifying such
firms. There are seven key information items that
permit this analysis. They are the following:
Plant value added by metalfinishing: com-
puted as the product of the respondent's
answers to three items:
-31-
-------
Annual sales at the plant
Percent of goods receiving metalfinishing
Cost of metalfinishing as percent of the
total cost
Corporate value added by metalfinishing:
computed as the product of answers to the
following:
Annual sales of corporation
Percent of goods receiving metalfinishing
Cost of metalfinishing as a percent of
the total cost
Estimated pollution control annualized cost:
computed from flow rates, metals present,
production processes and value of equipment
in place.
Estimated annual increase in the metalfinish-
ing budget: computed as the ratio:
Estimated pollution control cost
Metalfinishing annual budget
Estimated increase in metalfinishing value
added due to the cost of the pollution con-
trol equipment computed as the ratio:
Estimated pollution control cost
Plant value added by metalfinishing
Estimated increase in sales price of goods
receiving metalfinishing due to the cost of
the pollution control equipment: computed
as the term:
Pollution control Percent of all
cost X goods receiving
Sales at plant metalfinishing
Estimated risk factor, which is the increment-
al increase in the metalfinishing equipment
base represented by the investment in pollu-
tion controls: computed as the ratio:
Pollution control capital cost
cap]
valx
Replacement value of
metalfinishing equipment
-32-
-------
(2) The Seven Variables Yield Five Important Matrices
Data from the seven variables permit distribution of
all respondents along a scoring dimension. Combining
two scoring dimensions yields a matrix. All respond-
ents can then be assigned to a specific cell in a
matrix. Five unique matrices were considered particu-
larly important for characterizing captives operations.
They are:
Plant sales x value added
Plant sales x WMF employment
Value added x WMF employment
Plant value added x plant sales
Value added x risk factor
(3) Those Operations that Fall Consistently in
Certain Cells Are the Candidates to Divest
the Finishing Operation
From the preceding, a working hypothesis for
identifying a closure is that a closure should occur
in:
Any plant for which the pollution control
cost is large with respect to the plant
value added by finishing; as well as large
with respect to the total prior capital
investment in finishing
The sample of respondents is cast in succession across
the five tables holding the results of the prior run
constant. This yields the number of captives with
-33-
-------
low value added and low sales, high investment, high
risk and high price increase. Running the analysis
sequentially yields the estimate of all cases that fit
all the criteria. The analysis is not applying a
closure model, as much as it is building a closure
profile.
6. METHODS FOR LINKING SAMPLE CLOSURE RATES TO THE
POPULATION WERE TESTED; THE METHOD USED IS
EXTRAPOLATING BY DIRECT PROPORTIONALITY
A critical issue in a sample survey study is establish-
ing the link between sample findings and the population.
In normal survey work, this is handled by the techniques of
sampling design and inferential statistics. In economic
impact analysis the problem of linking the sample to the
population is particularly acute because survey results
are to represent the probable economic viability of an
entire industry. Therefore, it is necessary to establish
that:
Sample selection is unbiased
Respondents are similar to non-respondents
Test cases, e.g., model plants used for the closure
analysis reflect the wider sample
Model plant findings, e.g., closure rates, can
be extended systematically to the population
-34-
-------
The first three concerns are covered both in prior
points in this chapter as well as in Appendix D. The
focus of this section is the last point: the derivation
of the method for extrapolating sample plant closure rates
to the total industry. Analytically, the steps undertaken
to derive the method were the following:
Identifying the elements that distinguish
closures from non-closures
Testing the predictive power of those distin-
guishing elements
Establishing the mechanism that serves to
extrapolate sample findings
(1) Comparison of Model Plant Closures With
Nonclosures Identified 26 Potential
Discriminating Variables
During the period that the automated closure
routine was being developed, closures were computed
manually for a subset of 36 model plants. These 36
plants were chosen at random from all models on which
there were complete and consistent financial state-
ments.
All variables on which data had been gathered
were examined to compare and contrast probable clo-
sures and non-closures. Additionally, new variables
-35-
-------
were created for the analysis built from the ratios
of technical to economic and financial measures.
Applying tests for differences between means, 26
variables were identified that had the capability to
separate a plant judged likely to close from one that
should not.
Exhibit IV, on the following page, presents these
data. Nine of these variables seemed particularly
promising for further analysis because their mean dif-
ferences were statistically significant at the .95
confidence level.
Of these nine "best" potential discriminators,
only one (metalfinishing employment) covers the en-
tire sample. All the remaining variables are plant-
specific calculations which cannot serve as general
links from sample results to industry results.
(2) Results of a Multiple Step-Wise Regression
Yielded Three Variables Capable of Linking
Sample Results to the Population
Building on the preceding, a step-wide multiple
regression was run on the first plus 9 additional
potential predictors of a closure. All 18 potential
predictors were selected for strength of their t-value,
The dependent measure chosen for the regression was
-36-
-------
EXHIBIT IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
t-STATISTICS* FOR ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL VARIABLES
TESTED COMPARING CLOSURES AND NON-CLOSURES
(n = 36)
Sales -1.45
Total Employment -0.83
Metal Finishing Production Employment -1.87 •
Total Production Employment -0.97
-Percent Metal Finishing -1.38
Water Use, Total 0.32
Water Use, Metal Finishing 1.42
Coverage Ratio -2.03 •
Fixed Asset Turnover -0.58
Cash Flow/Sales -0.72
Cash Flow/Total Assets 1.56
Profit After Tax/Sales -1.62
Profit After Tax/Total Assets -2.37'
Profit After Tax/Net Worth -0.53
Profit After Tax and Owners Compensation/Net Worth 0.52
Cash Flow/Capitalization -2.32
Current Ratio -0.37
Debt Percent 0.96
Debt/Equ ity 1.49
Borrowing Power** -3.05 •
Sales/Total Employment -1.06
Fixed Assets/Total Employment 0.71
Water Use, MF/MF Employment 2.43*
Water Use, MF/Sales 2.55*
Water Use, MF/Total Assets 2.11s
Water Use, MF/Net Worth 2.39»
*The t-statistic applies to the difference between the mean values
for the subsamples of probable closures and non-closures across the
variables listed above. Negative statistics result where the "mean
for probable closures is less than the mean for non-closures.
**Net Worth minus long term debt, i.e., the amount of additional debt
that would yield a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.0.
Note;
•Significant at the 95 percent confidence level for nl+n2-2 degrees of
freedom, where nl=the number of probable closures and n2=the number
of non-closures.
-------
borrowing power because its t-value was large (-3.05)
and because it is the closest surrogate measure of the
firm's capacity to make an investment in pollution
control equipment.
A step-wise regression has the capability to
select from among a cluster of independent variables
that one, single variable which, by itself, best pre-
dicts to the dependent variable. Holding that first
variable constant, the program searches for the sec-
ond next best independent variable, which in combina-
tion with the first, predicts to the dependent variable.
The program continues in this step-wise fashion until
100% of the variance about the criterion variable is
explained, or until the combined net predictive power
of all the independent variables is exhausted. The
results of the regression appear in Table 1-4, on the
following page. Several outcomes of the regression
are quite important:
Total employment was the very poorest
predictor.
Total sales 'is the single best predictor.
Of the 10 best predictors, 3 are sample wide
data items:
Sales
Wetfinishing employment
Wetfinishing water
These three, however, are only the first,
sixth, and ninth best predictors. All the
-37-
259-718 O - 78 - 5
-------
TABLE 1-4
RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION
ALL CLOSURE
FILE DATA* CCREATION DATE = 03/10/77) EP/-BA6H METAL FINISHING STUDY- FINANCIAL UPDATE
*********************** MULTIPLE REGRESSION *****
DEPENDENT VARIABLE.. BORROW BORROWING POWER
VARIABLE
00
' DOLLAR
DBPR
XPATSAL
XPATASS
XCFCAP
WFEMP
MFWTA
MFWSAL
MFWDAY
MFWNW
FATURN
PCOV
XCFTA
MFWWFE
SALTEMP
DBEQR
TEMP
(CONSTANT)
SALES IN DCLLARS
DEBT PERCENT
ADJ PAT-SALES
ADJ PAT-TOTAL ASSETS
ADJ CASH FLOW CAPITALIZATION
WET FINISHING EMPLOYMENT
METAL FINISHING WATER TOTAL ASSETS
METAL FINISH WATER- SALES
METAL FINISHING V.ATER- NET WORHT
FIXED ASSET TURNOVER
PROJECTED CCVERAGE RATIO
ADJ CAS FLCW-TOTAL ASSETS
METAL FINISH WATER- W F EMPLOYMENT
SALES-TOTAL EMPLCYMENT
DEBT- EQUITY RATIO
TOTAL EMPLCYMENT
SUMMARY TABLE
MULTIPLE R R SQUARE RSO CHANGE SIMPLE R
0.6S448
0.80929
0.81513
0.82572
0.82950
0.83169
0.83237
0.84690
0. 84966
0.05663
0.85837
0.859*4
0.85979
0.8599*
0.86008
0.86016
0.86020
0.48230
0.65496
0.66451
0.68181
0.68806
0.69170
0.69234
0.71723
0.72193
0.73382
0.73765
0.73864
0.73924
0.73950
0.73974
0.73987
0.73994
0.48230
0. 17266
0.00956
0.01730
0.00625
0.00364
0.00113
0.02440
0.00469
0.01189
0.00384
0.00099
0.00060
0.00025
0.00024
0.00013
0.00007
0.69448
-0.36603
0.17097
0.04631
-0.02421
0.62868
-0.02644
-0.00503
0.29379
-0.09856
-0.02408
0.31489
-0.01223
0.00674
0.06592
-0.29170
0.61504
-------
others are plant specific calculations which
cannot link sample findings to industry
parameters.
Based on the preceding, three sample variables have
been identified as appropriate and potentially useful
for predicting sample closure results to the popula-
tion. The next step was to test their predictive
power.
(3) Chi Square Analysis Rejected the Use of Any of
the Three Variables as Predictors of Closure
Later in the analysis, model plant closures were
available under a variety of price, cost, and regula-
tory scenarios. These closure results were then
arrayed as a function of sales, wet metalfinishing
employment, and metalfinishing (process) water use
intervals. In addition, cross tabulations on these
variables were run so that closure levels within cells
could be tested. A Chi Square analysis revealed that
there was no systematic movement of closure rate by
sizing interval. This means that the probability of a
plant's closing is independent of how large that firm
is with respect to its sales, production employment
or process water use.
-39-
-------
Four summary conclusions are particularly
relevant for the remainder of this analysis:
Using plant descriptor variables (i.e.,
sales, people, water) to array closure
levels is only a data organization mecha-
nism, no predictive capacity is intended.
Because data for both the sample and the
population can be organized around these
three basic descriptor variables, they are
highly useful for the display of all find-
ings.
Because closure rates are insensitive to
changes in the descriptor variables, no
means of making differential or weighted
extrapolation by size is suggested.
Overall closure rates for the sample must
stand for the presumed closure rate of the
population.
This completes the presentation of the study
methodology. Industry description is contained in
the next chapter.
-40-
-------
II. THE INDUSTRY
-------
II. THE INDUSTRY
This section of the report presents the descriptive
information on the metalfinishing industry that was
gathered through the surveys. Metalfinishing is an ex-
tremely common production operation with hundreds of fin-
ishing processes commonly used. But not all finishing
processes are relevant here since the scope of this anal-
ysis is limited to the processes enumerated under the
Electroplating Point Source Category (SIC):
Electroplating of common metals
Electroplating of precious metals
Anodizing
Coatings, i.e., phosphating, chromating or
immersion plating
Chemical etching, milling and engraving
Electroless plating
Printed board manufacturing
Not only is the scope of this study limited to that
sector of the industry doing the seven specific metalfinish-
ing processes, it is also limited to those individual firms
that are Indirect Dischargers. These are firms that dis-
charge their spent liquid wastes to a municipal sewer or
Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW's). All such firms
-41-
-------
are to comply with a Best Practicable Pretreatment standard,
and are the sole focus of analysis. The balance of the in-
dustry discharges its wastes directly to surface waters
and are identified as Direct Dischargers. They are beyond
the scope of this effort.
In the industry description that follows the distinc-
tion is drawn clearly between types of dischargers. The
distinction must also be drawn between the separate eco-
nomic entities or industry segments that comprise the
metalfinishing industry. There are three:
Independent metalfinishing job shops (referred
to hereafter as the job shops). These are often
fairly small operations averaging fewer than 10
production employees and selling below $500,000
annually. These firms cluster in the major
manufacturing areas, and there are some 2,900
such firms of which approximately 2,700 are
covered here.
Independent manufacturers of Printed Wiring
Boards (referred to hereafter as Printed Boards)
are also relatively small businesses. Typically,
these firms have some 30 production employees
and tend to cluster in areas noted for electronic
goods manufacture. The industry is quite small
estimated to be 400 firms altoaether of which 327
are of interest.
Captive metalfinishing operations (referred to
hereafter as captives) are in-house operations
found in many durable goods manufacturing estab-
lishments. Although found in firms of several
hundred to thousands of employees, the captive
operation itself is quite comparable in size
to a job shop employing some 20 men. There are
an estimated 6,000 such operations doing processes
covered under the Electroplating Point Source
Category of which some 3,500 are Indirect Dis-
chargers.
-42-
-------
In the next two major sections, the demographics of
these three industry segments will be presented. Primary
focus is given to the job shop sector: see Appendices B and
C for supplemental descriptions of the Printed Board and cap-
tive sectors.
1. THE SIZE AND ECONOMIC VISIBILITY OF THE METALFINISHING
INDUSTRY IS DRIVEN BY THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
CAPTIVES SECTOR
In this section the demographics of the metalfinishing
industry performing processes covered by the regulations of
the Electroplating Point Source Category are presented.
(1) Job Shops Are Small Producers Numbering Below
3000 Establishments
Census of Manufactures uses two SIC codes (3471
and 3479) to group manufacturing establishments whose
primary line of business is metalfinishing. These
firms are the independent producers or the job shop
sector of the industry.
Prior reports have maintained a distinction be-
tween these two SIC groups. This was due to the fact
that firms in SIC 3471 are major consumers of common
plating metals (i.e., copper, zinc, nickel, chromium)
whereas firms in SIC 3479 are distinguished by their
technical production processes (anodizing, phosphatiz-
ing, precious metal plating, etching, etc.) The
-43-
-------
guidelines for the industry promulgated by the Agency
(July 1977) reinforced this distinction by establish-
ing standards for each separate process group:
A - Electroplating of common metals
B - Electroplating of precious metals
C - (Reserved)
D - Anodizing
E - Coatings
F - Chemical etching
G - Electroless plating
H - Printed Circuit Board manufacturing
Isolating the sectors in this fashion serves the
requirements of effluent regulation because it allows
a modular approach to issuing industry guidelines.
Maintaining these separate groupings for economic impact
purposes is unwarranted because at the plant level such
process distinctions are blurred.
Very few firms, regardless of being classified
in SIC 3471 or 3479, perform just one metal-
finishing process (A through H).
Most firms perform 2 or more separate processes
and may derive revenues equally from each.
This precludes labeling a multiprocess firm as
primarily a member of any one process group.
Effluent characteristics of the various pro-
cess groups do contain unique contaminants,
but identified pollution abatement technolo-
gies do not vary by these contaminants. Costs
are driven more by flow volumes than by type
of chemical found in the wastes. The only
exception is process group H, Printed Board
manufacturers which is treated as an inde-
pendent economic entity.
-44-
-------
For the above cited reasons, there is no analytic
purpose served in maintaining six process distinctions
(A through G). Findings and impacts on the job shop
sector of the metalfinishing industry are reported
irrespective of the distribution of production pro-
cesses within the sector.
The summary characteristics of the job shop
sector are the following:
Both the data base of the 1977 Dun's Market
Identifiers File and the 1972 U.S. Census of
Manufactures estimate the population of job
shops at approximately 5,000 firms. By
the pattern of responses to the job shop
survey (Appendix A) more than half, or 2,941
firms do processes covered by these regula-
tions.
On the basis of total employment, these 2,941
firms employ 65,000 people of which 40,200
are production employees in wetmetalfinish-
ing.
Only 14% of the job shops sell $1 million
or more annually with 72% of all firms
selling $0.5 million or less a year. Aver-
age sales at the plants are $580,000 with
total industry output estimated at $1.7 bil-
lion annually.
At the plant level, a job shop uses water on
average at the rate of 38,700 gallons per day
of which 83% or 32,300 gallons per day is
water used directly in metalfinishing produc-
tion processes. For the industry as a whole
total plant water use is on the order of
114 million gallons per day with 95 million
gallons per day taken by production processes.
-45-
-------
(2) Printed Circuit Board Manufacturers are a
Small but Relevant Sector of the Industry
Presently, no single industrial classification
available through Census of Manufactures covers ade-
quately independent producers of Printed Circuit Board
(PB's). Census data (1972) for the industry appear
confined to SIC 3679 (Electronic Components not else-
where classified) which account for some 1,800 inde-
pendent establishments with total sales of $3.0 billion/
But included in this estimate of establishments are
producers of many non-PB products; phonograph needles,
magnetic recording media, relays, transducers, ear-
phones and headsets. Identifying just the PB segment
from census data is not possible.
The survey of this sector, as described in the
methodology section estimated the total population of
independent Printed Board firms at 400. Key descrip-
tive parameters of this segment appear below.
Given that process group H of the regula-
tions of the Electroplating Point Source
Category is for Printed Board manufacturers,
all identified firms in the population (400)
are affected by this guideline.
Printed Board shops are reported to be, on
average, larger than the typical job shop.
Mean total employment is 60 men with 35 in
production finishing. For the industry as a
whole this accounts for some 23,300 men with
13,700 men producing the Printed Boards.
-46-
-------
These independent manufacturers have larger
per plant sales than do the job shops. Only
34% sell under $0.5 million annually with
68% selling over a million. Plant sales on
average are $1.5 million with total indus-
try sales estimated at $610.4 million.
The mean total plant water use of this sector
is 21,900 gallons per day. Of this amount
86% or 18,800 gallons per day are from produc-
tion processes. For the industry as a whole
8.7 million gallons per day are used of which
7.5 million gallons are for metalfinishing
processes.
(3) The Captives Sector Drives the Economic
Description of the Industry
Manufacturing establishments that house their own
internal (captive) metalfinishing operations tend to be
very large firms. The magnitude of the captives' con-
tribution to the metalfinishing industry is illustrated
below.
Survey results suggest that 47% of all cap-
tive operations do processes covered by these
regulations. This defines a population of
6,077 firms.
Mean total employment of these firms is
660 men for a plant work force of slightly
more than 4 million men. But with 20 men
per firm assigned to metalfinishing, the pro-
duction work force of interest is some 120,000
men.
Total sales at the plant level are $20.1 million,
Of this amount, however, 54% reflects sales
of goods with metalfinishing. Therefore,
sales of metalfinished goods are $10.9 million.
Given, that the finishing cost of these goods
was found to be 6% of the total production
-47-
-------
cost, the value added by metalfinishing is
estimated at $650,000 per plant. For the
total industry, this is $3.9 billion annually,
In terms of plant water use, a firm with a
captive operation uses 808,000 gallons per
day. Of this total, 35% or 277,000 gallons
is used by the captive finishing operation.
On a daily basis, all 6,077 establishments
with captives use 4.9 billion gallons with
the captive operations requiring 1.7 billion
gallons.
2. ALMOST ALL INDEPENDENT METALFINISHERS AND SLIGHTLY
MORE THAN HALF THE CAPTIVES WILL BE AFFECTED BY
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS
Identifying just that portion of the industry discharg-
ing to a municipally owned industry sewer (POTW) is the
second key step in setting up the economic impact analyses
of the pretreatment regulations. If a firm only discharged
its effluent wastes to a sewer or to a navigable body of
water, the problem would be straightforward. But many firms
discharge in a manner that combines the options, as sum-
marized below.
Some captives report their effluent going to a
holding tank then to the POTW. Others report
using lagoons or settling beds, while others
report using both the river and the POTW.
Because 58% of all relevant respondents report
discharging to the POTW only, that defines the
subpopulation of interest for captives; i.e.,
58% of 6,077 or 3,525 firms subject to pretreat-
ment regulations.
Printed Board makers reported fewer discharge
options. Of the sample, 4% discharge directly
to navigable waters, 13% to leaching ponds, 2%
wouldn't say and 81% discharge to the POTW. Of
the total estimated population of 400 PB
-48-
-------
manufacturers, 327 are identified as subject to
this pretreatment regulation. (This value is not
strictly 81% of 400 because all the larger firms
were known to be indirect dischargers.)
Job shops report the proportion of dischargers to
POTW's over a range from 63% to 96% depending on
the size of the firm. Generally, the larger the
firm, the more likely that it discharges directly
rather than to a POTW. The overall figure
weighted by the size of all firms is that 93% of
the industry is covered by pretreatment regulation.
This yields a propulation of interest of 2,734
(93% of 2,941).
For ease of presentation, Tables II-l, 2, and 3 on the
following pages array the three industry populations for
analysis. To help illustrate the relative size of each
population, data are arrayed by a sizing measure: wetmetal-
finishing employment. This serves to show how tightly
clustered each industry is to the smaller end of the scale.
Most-finishing firms or operations are truly small with
respect to total wetfinishing production employment.
Now that the key sizing descriptors of the metalfinish-
ing industry have been developed and displayed, the balance
of this chapter will be devoted to characterizing the oper-
ations and general market economics of each sector.
3. MOST METALFINISHING FACILITIES PERFORM BASICALLY
SIMILAR FINISHING OPERATIONS IN WHICH PROCESS WATER
FLOW IS KEY TO APPRECIATING POLLUTION ABATEMENT NEEDS
This section provides a brief introduction to the
manufacturing processes of the industry. The purpose is
to describe metalfinishing generically, to illustrate the
-49-
-------
Table II-i
Distribution of
Metalfinishing Job Shops
Wetmetal-
finishing
Employment
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
Total
Number of Firms
Total
1,156
682
546
357
159
41.
2,941
Dischargers
to POTW
1,045
658
524
339
142
26
2,734
Wetmetal-
finishing
Employment
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
Total
Total
7,629
9,345
11,579
16,221
13,434
7,064
65,272
Number of Employees
Dischargers
to POTW
6,866
8,971
11,116
15,410
11,690
4,451
58,504
-50-
-------
Table II-2
Distribution of
Printed Board Makers
Wetmetal-
finishing
Employment
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Total
Number of Firms
Total
16
62
78
171
57
12
4
400
Dischargers
to POTW
13
50
63
139
46
12
4
327
Wetmetal-
finishing
Employment
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Total
Number of Employ
Disch
ees
Total
447
517
2,088
10,846
6,211
2,067
1,140
23,316
argers
to POTW
438
418
1,620
9,678
5,311
2,067
1,140
20,672
-51-
259-718 O - 78 - f
-------
Table II-3
Distribution of
Captive Metal Finishers
Distribution of Pretreatment Impacts
Wetmetal-
finishing
Employment.
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Total
Number of Firms
Total
2,372
1,164
1,103
955
271
157
55_
6,077
Dischargers
to POTW
1,376
675
640
554
157
91
3,525
Wetmetal-
finishing
Employment
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Total
Number of Employees
Total
809,000
553,000
847,000
838,000
434,000
322,000
193,000
3,997,000
Dischargers
to POTW
469,000
321,000
491,000
486,000
252,000
187,000
112,000
2,318,000
-52-
-------
prevalence of specific processes across sectors, and to
introduce the pollution control requirements of the indus-
try. All of this information is presented in greater
detail in Chapter III, Pollution Abatement Requirements
and Costs.
(1) Metalfinishing Is a Process of Applying a Coating
to a Base Substance in an Aqueous Medium
The electroplating industry applies a surface
coating typically by electrodeposition to a base mate-
rial in order to enhance its corrosion protection,
heat resistence, anti-frictional characteristics or
decorative appearance. The electroplating of common
metals includes the processes in which a ferrous or
nonferrous basis material is electroplated with copper,
nickel, chromium, zinc, tin, lead, cadmium, iron, alu-
minum or combinations thereof. Precious metals electro-
plating includes the processes in which a ferrous or
nonferrous basis material is plated with gold, silver,
palladium, platinum, rhodium, or combinations thereof.
Electroless plating on metals is not a separate
industry but an integral part of a number of industries,
such as aircraft manufacture and repair, shipbuilding,
automotive and heavy machinery. It is associated, in
general, with industries whose products have to with-
stand unfavorable conditions or significant wear and
-53-
-------
abrasion. Electroless plating on plastics for both
functional and decorative purposes is most prevalent in
several major industries: automotive, furniture, appli-
ance and electronics.
(2) Plating and Finishing Processes Occur in
Production Lines
For the purpose of this document, a plating line
is defined as a row of tanks in which one or more coat-
ings are applied. A process is the accumulation of
steps required to bring about a plating result. A
rinse is a step in a process used to remove excess
solution from the work following immersion in a process
bath. A rinse may consist of several steps such as
successive countercurrent rinsing or hot rinsing fol-
lowed by cold rinsing.
Conceptually, an electroless or electroplating line
may be broken down into three steps: pretreatment involv-
ing the preparation of the basic material for plating,
actual application of the plate and the post-treatment
steps. As discussed previously, the electroplating or
electroless processes apply a surface coating for func-
tional or decorative purposes. In electroplating, metal
ions in either acid, alkaline or neutral solutions are
reduced on cathodic surfaces, which are the workpieces
being plated. The metal ions in solution are usually
-54-
-------
replenished by the dissolution of metal from anodes or
small pieces contained in inert wire or expanded metal
baskets. Replenishment with metal salts is also practiced,
especially for chromium plating. In this case, an inert
material must be selected for the anodes. Hundreds of
different electroplating solutions have been adopted com-
mercially, but only two or three types are utilized widely
for a particular metal or alloy. Cyanide solutions are
popular for copper, zinc, brass, cadmium, silver and gold,
for example, yet non-cyanide alkaline solutions containing
pyrophosphate or another agent have come into use recently
for zinc and copper. Zinc, copper, tin and nickel are
plated with acid sulfate solutions, especially for plat-
ing relative simple shapes. Cadmium and zinc are some-
times electroplated from neutral or slightly acid chloride
solutions.
The electroplating process is basically an oxida-
tion reduction reaction. Typically, the part to be
plated is the cathode, and the plating metal is the anode.
Thus, to plate copper on zinc parts, the zinc parts are
the cathodes, and the anode is a copper bar. On the ap-
plication of electric power, the copper bar anode will
be oxidized, dissolving it in the electrolyte (which
could be copper sulfate):
Cu = Cu++ + 2e-
-55-
-------
The resulting copper ions are reduced at the
cathode (the zinc part) to form a copper plate:
Cu++ + 2e- = Cu
With one exception, notably chromium plating, all
metals are electroplated in a similar manner. In chrom-
ium plating, the typical anode material is lead, and
the chromium is supplied to the plating baths as chromic
acid.
(3) Wastewater Contaminants Requiring Treatment Come
From All Steps of the Production Processes
Wastewater from plating processes comes from clean-
ing, surface preparation, plating, and related operations,
The constituents in this wastewater include the basis
material being finished as well as the components in the
processing solutions. Predominant among the wastewater
constituents are copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, lead,
tin, cadmium, gold, silver, and platinum metals, as well
as ions of phosphates, chlorides, and various metal
complexing agents.
A large proportion (approximately 90 percent) of
the water usage in plating is for rinsing. The water
is used to remove the process solution from the surface
of the work pieces. As a result of this rinsing, the
water becomes contaminated with the constituents of the
process solutions and is not directly reusable. Dilute
-56-
-------
rinse water solutions of various process chemicals re-
sult from each operation.
(4) Finishing Processes Appear With Similar Frequency
in Each Sector
Interesting parallels exist between the captives
and jobbers with respect to their basic production
processes. Fully three-quarters (77.7%) of all job
shops work with common metals (copper, nickel, chrome,
zinc). Not quite one-quarter (24%) do electroplating
of precious metals with another one-quarter (24%)
indicating that they do anodizing. More than half
(55%) do a coatings process. These are not mutually
exlusive categories. Any one shop can do more than
one process and the majority do. Typically, a plater
of heavy metals also does chromating, perhaps combin-
ing the chromating with a bright dipping operation.
Almost every facility plating with heavy metals also
indicated the finishing operations of polishing,
buffing and grinding.
Captives also report heavy usage of the four
common plating metals. Most frequently reported are
nickel and copper, indicated by 63% and 51% of the
sample respectively. Gold and silver are also
reported for almost one-quarter of the sample (24%
and 18% respectively). Coatings, particularly
-57-
-------
phosphating and chromating, appear in approximately
half the respondents (56% and 49% respectively).
Clearly, irrespective of economic sector, metal-
finishing processes assume a specific hierarchy; heavy
metal plating, coatings (phosphating, chromating) fol-
lowed by anodizing and precious metals plating.
Printed Board manufacturers, due to the more
specialized nature of their product show a different
array of metals usage. Almost all respondents (85% -
95%) are heavy users of copper, nickel, gold and
solder. Chromium is used in only 13% of the cases.
Showing up in printed board operations is a much
higher prevalence of tin (72%) than in the other
sectors, and the presence of chelates (26%).
(5) Total Water Requirements of Metalfinishing Process
Operations Are a Small Portion of Daily Industrial
Demand
On a daily basis, the independent producers re-
quire approximately 114 million gallons of total plant
water. Of this total, some 80% is required for metal-
finishing process operations, yielding a total finish-
ing water usage of 95 MGPD. Of this total, 88 MGPD
goes to POTW's.
Manufacturing plants with captive operations use
finishing water at a rate that is an order of magnitude
-58-
-------
greater than for jobbers. On a daily basis, captives
are estimated to use a total of 4.9 billion gallons,
of which 35% is used in metalfinishing operations.
This yields a process water use of 1.7 BGPD, of this
total, 980 MGPD goes to POTW's. Printed Board makers
account for an additional 8.7 MGPD of which 7.5 MGPD
is for process water. This contributes an additional
6 MGPD to POTW's. The metalfinishing industry as a
whole demands a total of 5.0 BGPD of which 1.8 BGPD
is process water. As a basis of comparison, 1975
Census data show a total national industrial water
use of 63.6 BGPD. The metalfinishing industry, then,
accounts for 7.7% of all industrial water, with metal-
finishing process water representing 2% of the daily
•national total.
Comparing the job shop sector water use esti-
mates (114 MGPD) to 1972 industry reports yields an
interesting comparison. Using 250 days a year for
process work, the job shops should use 28.5 billion
gallons in a year. The estimate from Census is 12.7
billion gallons per year (U.S. Census of Manufactures,
1972, p. SR 4-22, Water Use in Manufacturing). There
is an inconsistency. Half the number of firms (2,900
versus 4,800) yield an estimate that is twice that
reported (28.5 BG versus 12.7 BG) in Federal data. It
is possible that in the several years between Census
-59-
-------
survey efforts (1971-1972) and this one (1976) water
use has, in fact, increased. Alternative explanations
rest in the fact that the sampling designs are differ-
ent, and the means of extrapolating sample results to
the presumed population are different. At best, water
use for the job shops is not less than 10 billion
gallons per year, and as much as 30 billion gallons.
Focusing the discussion on water use in the indus-
try serves two ends. It illustrates the volumes, in
absolute terms, of effluent wastes generated by metal-
finishing. It serves as well to illustrate that at
the plant level there will be a core group of contami-
nants to be treated irrespective of the unique processes
performed at the plant. Costs for the pollution abate-
ment systems required for pretreatment will be shown
to rest primarily with volumetric flows through the
treatment components, rather than with processes or
base materials plated or finished.
4. LOCAL MARKET CONDITIONS COUPLED WITH THE FIRM'S
FINANCIAL CONDITION WILL AFFECT COMPLIANCE AND
CLOSURE RATES
Selected data from the job shop survey are presented
here because they illustrate two major determinants of
pretreatment investment impacts on the industry:
General financial condition of firms
Market demand and price behavior for the industry
-60-
-------
The first point is important as it pertains to the general
cash flow situation of firms or their capacity to support
further debt. The second is important because it suggests
the pricing freedoms firms might have with respect to
decisions to pass on costs. Depending on the nature of
local markets, the costs of pollution control investments
may have to be borne (partially) by the shop since a price
rise could decrease sales. Where competition is less
intense or demand highly inelastic, then sales volumes can
remain relatively unaffected by incremental changes in
price. These issues are developed in some detail below;
first data on finances, and then data on market conditions.
(1) Few Job Shops Appear To Be in a Strong Cash Flow
or Profitability Situation
The tables presented below are from the survey
and are sample specific findings. While highly indic-
ative of industry conditions, no attempt to extrap-
olate these data to the population has been made. As
used throughout these tables, the term SD stands for
standard deviation, e.g., the dispersal of values
about a computed average. The letter "K" represents
"thousands."
Of the 344 firms providing profit data, the
mean profit before tax was $30.IK (SD = $95K)
and the mean after tax profit was $15.6K
(SD = $42K).
-61-
-------
Not all plants providing financial informa-
tion had a profit in 1975. There were 60
plants reporting an operating loss, an
average of $4.4K (SD = $23.7) before tax,
and an after tax loss of $3.4K (SD = $16.3).
In reconstructing balance sheet information
from the sample, data are available for
approximately 300 respondents. Information
is arrayed in Table II-4 below for the total
sample, and then for three collapsed size
intervals.
Table II-4
Typical Balance Sheet Items
Employment
Size Total 8 41 150
Item Sample (SD) 1-19 20-99 100+
(000's Dollars)
Current Assets $200 $524 $103 $253 $1,470
Fixed Assets 176 302 69 277 768
Current Liabilities 115 276 53 170 612
Long-Term Debt 70 192 25 107 453
Net Worth 212 477 102 278 1,688
The table shows a linear relationship
between size of firm and magnitude of
dollars. To test whether larger firms are
more economical, these values can be divided
by the mean employment for the intervals to
reflect dollars on a per-employee basis. In
Table II-5, following this page, the inter-
vals have been divided by the mean employ-
ment (8, 41, and 155 employees).
-62-
-------
TABLE II-5
Value of Selected Balance Sheet Items
on a Per Man Basis
Dollars Per Man
By Size Interval
Item 1-19 20-99 100+
(000's Dollars)
Current Assets $12.9 6.2 11.2
Fixed Assets 8.6 6.7 4.9
Current Liabilities 6.6 4.1 3.9
Long-Term Debt 3.1 2.6 2.9
Net Worth 12.8 6.8 10.9
It would now appear that smaller firms are
not appreciably different from larger ones
in their capital structure. They are quite
similar on current assets and net worth. Tje
key to appeciating the potential problem
for some of the smaller firms is in their
debt levels.
On a per-man basis, liabilities plus long-
term debt are 30% higher in smaller shops
than in large ones. As will be shown in
Chapter IV, obtaining equity funds is key
to compliance, and the poorer a firm's
borrowing power, the more likely it is to
close.
One other basis for appreciating the capital
structure of the industry is to look at a
firm's fixed assets and its planned invest-
ments in those assets. These data are pre-
sented in Table II-6, following this page.
It is interesting to note that all firms
attach comparable life to their assets,
but the magnitude of those assets is quite
different by the intervals.
-63-
-------
TABLE II-6
Distribution of Selected Capitalization
Items by Size of Firm
Employment
Size Total
Item Sample 1-19 20-99 100+
(000's Dollars)
Building Book Value $ 96 $ 50 $141 $173
Equipment Book Value $134 $ 53 $215 $481
Remaining Life of Building 15 yrs. 15 yrs. 16 yrs. 12 yrs.
Remaining Life of Equipment 6 yrs. 6 yrs. 6 yrs. 6 yrs.
Planned (5 year) Building
Investment $ 38 $ 14 $ 62 $105
Planned (5 year) Equipment
Investment $ 12 $ 4 $ 22 $ 15
Once again, converting these tables to a per-
employee basis reveals some interesting
patterns. Omitting the asset life, we note
in Table II-7 below that small firms have
invested more in the past and will invest
more in their plants (on a per-man basis)
than larger plants.
TABLE II-l
Selected Capitalization Items
on a Per Man Basis
Item 1-19 20-99 100+
Building Value
Equipment Value
Next Building Investment
Next Equipment Investment
$6.2
6.6
1.7
.5
(000 's Dollars)
$3.4 $1.1
5.2 3.1
1.5 .6
.5 .1
(2) Most of the Firms in the Industry Are Competitive
Job Shops But Market Conditions Should Support
Moderate Price Increases
Prior assumptions about the dynamics of the metal-
finishing marketplace seem to be borne out by the
-64-
-------
results of the survey. Prior reports, lacking primary
data on market conditions built the following paradigm:
Price competition in the industry is intense
because barriers to entry are low and new
entrants tend to price low to win business.
Competition is tight and as prices are bid
down, prevailing prices can disrupt the
profit margins and operating efficiencies
of larger shops.
In light of new, incremental costs (pollution
abatement expenses), firms could raise prices
and maintain business volume if:
Substitution of other finishes is not
feasible.
Foreign imports cannot pick up the
volume.
Metalfinishing is indispensable to
customers' needs.
Customers are unlikely to invest in
captive, in-house finishing.
These reports concluded that demand for plating should
be inelastic with respect to price since the above
listed conditions probably held true. Based on addi-
tional assumptions about pricing set by least cost
producers, requisite price increases on the order of
11% to 16% were incorporated into closure analyses.
Field data can now replace presumption. All of
the critical issues on the dynamics of the market-
place were cast into specific survey questions. In
-65-
-------
this final section characterizing the metalfinishing
industry, data will be presented covering:
Competition in the marketplace
Pricing freedoms
Customer response to price
Respondents were asked to describe their firm
with respect to their customers, products, and compe-
tition. This set of items was "forced-choice." Two
possible answers were given and the respondent had
to select the one answer that best fits his firm.
There were five items with answers scored as a one or
as a two. The predicted pattern for the industry if
it were filled with competitive job shops should be
2, 2, 1, 2, 1. The specific items and their results
appear in Table I1-8, on the following page. As can
be seen, the data do show flexible, diversified, and
competitive shops. The one item that is not as
clearly distinguished as the others is Item B, Number
of Customers. Job shops were presumed to sell to
many different customers and, in aggregate, they do.
But a fair number of respondents rely heavily on a
few, steady ones. If this proves to be the case for
many firms, then regardless of their required price
increase, they may not have a large enough customer
base across which to distribute those incremental
costs.
-66-
-------
TABLE II-8
Survey Responses to the "Job Shop" Questions
Does your firm specialize in services to a major
industry (i.e., automobile, aerospace, etc.) or
do you service many different industries?
Specialize in service to an industry
23.2%
Service many industries
76.8%
During the year are most of your sales to a few
steady customers or to many different customers?
Few steady customers
Many different customers
Do your customers send you many different kinds
of products (all shapes and sizes) or do you
get basically the same products most of the
time?
Many different products
Basically the same products
D. Do you generally attract customers because you
can offer low prices or because you can take
on any assignment?
Do you face a lot of competition for your
customers or relatively little
Lot of competition
Relatively little
42.3%
57.7%
76.2%
23.8%
Offer low prices
Take any assignment
1 29.2%
2 70.8%
72.6%
27.4%
-67-
259-718 O - 78 - 7
-------
More than 90% of the sample provided data on past
and future price behavior. Within these several survey
questions on price, there were several different
study questions:
Amount of most recent past price increase
Customer reaction to that past increase
Estimate of maximum future price increase
The survey data on this issue are arrayed in Table
II-9 below.
TABLE 11-9
Distribution of Price Behavior
by Size of Firm
Size
Price
Past Rise
Future Rise
Total
1-19
9.4%
13.6%
Employment
20-99 100+
8.8% 7.5%
11.8% 9.3%
The key item in this section on marketplace behavior
is customer response to past price increases. There
are not sufficient historical data on the industry to
allow a demand coefficient to be derived empirically.
One can be imputed from a qualitative assessment of
the marketplace data that the survey furnished.
All respondents were asked to judge what their
customers might do if they did not wish to support a
price increase. Five customer options were listed,
-68-
-------
and the respondents circled one code number for each
item representing the probability or likelihood of
that option. Table 11-10 below presents these data.
The value in each cell is the percent of all respon-
dents who selected that likelihood. Data were pro-
vided by 426 respondents.
TABLE 11-10
Metalfinishers Judgment of Their
Customers' Reactions to Price Increases
Very Very
Unlikely Unlikely Maybe Likely Likely
Customers might buy more
from captives
Customers might eliminate
metal finishing from their 23.2 18.7 22.1 17.1 12.4
products
Customers might start
their own inhouse, cap- 19.5 22.3 23.0 15.8 11.7
tive lines
Customers might shop around 2>& 2>4 6_? ^^ ^^
more for the best price
Customers might use some
other finish for metal- 10.0 13.9 21.3 23.2 25.8
finishing
For ease of presentation, the two categories at each end
of the scale ("very") have been collapsed.
30.6% think customers might buy more from
captives; 24.5% think it's likely, with 38.6%
saying unlikely. If the "maybe" category is
disregarded, then the industry does not expect
volume to be displaced to captive operations.
-69-
-------
41.9% are confident that customers could not
or would not eliminate metalfinishing from
their products. Only 29.5% expect them to
do so.
41.8% do not expect their customers to start
inhouse captive finishing operations. Only
27.5% think it is a strong possibility.
83.8% recognize that their customers would
have to shop more for the best price. Only
5% believe that customers would readily meet
any price increase.
49.0% grant that their customers would con-
sider substituting for metalfinishing. Only
23.9% believe their customers do not have that
option.
These data are a clear qualitative statement of the
metalfinishers marketplace:
It is a highly price competitive, price
sensitive market.
Metalfinishing in some form is probably
indispensable but substitutes are possible.
Starting inhouse operations in light of
rising independent prices is not perceived
as a viable customer option.
With respect to demand (in light of price increases),
these data suggest that if everyone had to raise prices,
business volume would probably not fall off. The elas-
ticity of demand with respect to price is probably highly
inelastic.
-70-
-------
This concludes the presentation of key survey findings
with respect to the structure and composition of the indepen-
dent sector of the metalfinishing industry. Comparable pre-
sentations are contained in Appendices B and C for the other
sectors.
There do not appear to be any striking reversals to in-
dustry characterization developed in earlier reports. Much
of the data reinforce prior efforts, although the key appli-
cation of the data is yet to come. That occurs in Chapter
IV when the survey's primary financial data are incorporated
in the closure analysis.
-71-
-------
III. POLLUTION ABATEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS
-------
III. POLLUTION ABATEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS
This chapter defines the technology applicable for pre-
treatment, identifies the alternative compliance scenarios
developed by the Agency and arrays the anticipated costs for
each industry sector. In the methodology chapter, the rules
for developing investment costs per treatment component were
presented. Of interest here is the application of those
rules; i.e., the cost allocation program designed to specify
components and costs as a function of processes and water use
in individual plants.
Five major sections are contained in this chapter. They
are:
Definition of Pretreatment Technologies
Alternative Regulatory Scenarios
Cost Allocation Rules
Component Costs
Industry Costs
1. PRETREATMENT IS DEFINED AS THE CONTROL OF CYANIDE,
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM, LEAD, CADMIUM AND OTHER METALS
Individual treatment technologies used in the industry
(electroplating, electroless or Printed Boards) are well
documented. Among the more common control applications are:
Chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium
pH adjustment
Clarification
-72-
-------
2. PLANT PROCESS WATER VOLUME IS A CRITERION FOR THE
APPLICABILITY OF ONE PRETREATMENT SCENARIO, THE SECOND
PRETREATMENT SCENARIO IS INDEPENDENT OF WATER USE
The first scenario recognizes that metalfinishing plants
are not all alike, and that larger operations are more likely
to generate more process water and, probably, more contami-
nates than smaller plants. The working definition of a small
plant is one using below 10,000 GPD of process water. Scenario
one is defined as follows:
The treatment technology for pretreatment consists of
the destruction of cyanide amenable to chlorination by
single stage alkaline chlorination and the reduction
of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent state for
plants whose total daily metal finishing process flow
is less than 10,000 gallons per day. The technology
for plants with higher daily flows consists of the
oxidation of cyanide in two stage alkaline chlorina-
tion, reduction of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent
form, and precipitation and clarification of metals.
.All plants, regardless of flow, were required to remove
lead and cadmium if they were present.
Scenario two is precisely the same as that specified
above for plants using more than 10,000 GPD but applies to
all plants, regardless of water use.
Both scenarios for all three industry sectors were
costed. Industry impacts were also computed under both sce-
narios. Given that both costs and impacts were found to be
less severe under scenario one, that was the one defined as
the regulation by the Agency and the one proposed in the
Federal Register.
-73-
-------
Many methods for handling metalfinishing wastes exist:
Diatomaceous earth filtration
Flotation
Oxidation by chlorine of cyanide
Oxidation by oxygen
Deep bed filtration
Ion exchange
Evaporation
Reverse osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Electrochemical recovery
Sludge dewatering
For Pretreatment, however, the Agency has defined a Best
Practicable Pretreatment Technology that consists of the
following:
Reduction of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent
form
Destruction (oxidation) of cyanide
Precipitation and clarification of metals
This Pretreatment technology is to be applied to all
firms discharging to a POTW and performing one or more pro-
cesses regulated under the Electroplating Point Source Cate-
gory. There is, however, recognition on the part of the
Agency that application of this technology can vary somewhat
by the characteristics of specific firms. Two scenarios have
been developed by the Agency, one of which reflects a plant
size criterion in the application of the Pretreatment
technology.
-74-
-------
3. PRETREATMENT SCENARIOS WERE COSTED FOR PLANTS USING AN
AUTOMATED SYSTEM INCORPORATING FLOW ALLOCATION RULES
PER TREATMENT COMPONENT
Once the technology is defined and the compliance sce-
narios articulated, the task becomes one of systematically
developing rules for costing abatement systems. The follow-
ing discussion points explain the costing rationale used in
the study.
(1) Application of Technologies Must Fit the
Production Processes
Each of the individual treatment technologies can
be combined to form systems capable of meeting the pro-
posed limitations of both direct and indirect dischargers.
However, the specific elements of a treatment system
must be appropriate to the chemical and metal constitu-
ents of a plant's process wastewater. Chromium reduction
and cyanide oxidation are used only if the wastewater
contains chromium or cyanide. Clarification includes
pH adjustment, precipitation, flocculation, and sedi-
mentation, which may be carried out in one or more ves-
sels or pits. Chelated wastes, if present, should be
clarified separately to prevent the chelates from tying
up metals in other waste streams. Sludge drying may be
carried out in the sludge drying beds or in a vacuum
filter, and contractor removal of sludge may sometimes
be replaced with landfilling on company property. Addi-
tion of a sludge thickening step following clarification
-75-
-------
is often desirable. In addition, final neutralization
(pH adjustment) of the wastewater before discharge may
be needed to meet the pH limitation, particularly if
nickel salts are removed effectively by clarification
at a relatively high pH.
(2) Focus for This Study is End-of-Pipe Technology
Pollution abatement controls can be introduced as
in-line alterations to the production process through
the placement of water conservation equipment. Alter-
natively, controls can be introduced at the end of the
production process prior to discharge. It is this lat-
ter end-of-pipe approach that occupies this study. A
prototypical system appears in Exhibit V on the next
page.
There are many alternative end-of-pipe applications
of control technologies. The listing in the prior
section should not be viewed as the universal or unchang-
ing definition of control technology applicable to metal-
finishing process wastes. Many alternative techniques
have been encountered in the field. These alternatives
range from the use of a settling lagoon to replace the
clarifier to the use of reverse osmosis, ion exchange,
membrane filtration, diatomaceous earth filtration, and
multiple stage rinsing to reduce discharge of pollutants,
Although not found as commonly as clarification, most
-76-
-------
0)
3
U-l
EXHIBIT V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
BEST PRACTICABLE TREATMENT SYSTEM
<1
1
0 rH
^^' id *- .__
r^ ^^ Ł* ^^1
o o o o ~ -c
c/i t; en ;4 c^ -
^_
^ >
C C
o go
O -rl 3 -rH
•^3 4J -iH ^J
•H (3 SO
C ^3 O 3
*3 "*H M r3
>i x ^ y
O O CJ CJ
j » j t
4J
G
0 Ł
rH 3
1 ^
U)
o
to
?
4J
C
o
10
3
•r~
r3
_
a
tn
4J
(A
n
3;
rjj
(LI
) D1 (3 -H W OJ 4J
3Cw >eo naj ro
H-rlfl) (flO4J QJ4J ^
l^J-1 xijtn .cm a
3<3W a)Łfo -JJrj A
?« rt KUS 03 U
L
-------
of the individual technologies described earlier are
in general use through this industry. The use of any
particular component or system will depend on the wastes
to be treated, space constraints, funding availability,
and other factors which involve management judgment.
(3) Estimating the Industry's Investment Needs Requires
Data on Four Key Variables
In the next section the industry's costs are developed
and arrayed for purposes of economic impact analyses. At
this point, part of the methodology for developing those
costs will be presented. A full presentation of the cost-
ing routine and logic is found in Appendix G of this
report.
Pollution abatement costs were generated for each
respondent to our survey as a function of the following
descriptive information:
Metals present in the wastestream
Process water flow through each discrete
finishing operation
Amount, type and value of existing pollution
abatement equipment
Availability of physical space either inside
or outside the plant for locating the pre-
scribed system
The first two variables are predictors of the type
and size of the firm's required pollution abatement
-77-
-------
components. The second two variables serve as moderators
on the total dollar estimate of the prescribed system.
As summarized in the second section of this chap-
ter the majority of finishers use the four common metals
plus additional processes in which cyanide frequently is
a key agent. This generally requires the application
of a Best Practicable Pretreatment Technology that
includes:
Oxidation of cyanide
Reduction of chromium
Clarification-filtration of metals
Before the costs of these individual components comprising
this treatment technology are generated, two additional
steps occur in the automated cost routine:
Individual treatment components, if presently
in place, override the specification from the
program output. If the individual components
in place are not identified, but their capital
replacement is, that dollar value is credited
to (e.g., subtracted from) the new estimated
cost.
Full installed cost of the treatment system
depends on the location and ease of the in-
stallation. All interior space constrained
firms are costed with an outdoor clarifier
with attendant estimates of construction and
land costs included. If interior space is
available and metals removal is required,
the system specifies a diatomaceous earth
filter.
-78-
-------
(4) Pollution Abatement Component Costs Were Developed
by Correlating Flow Volumes to Costs
Developing pollution abatement component costs
requires two operations. First, it is necessary to
produce reliable estimates based on a set of known
cases. Second, those estimates must be tested against
an external source for validation. Running a regres-
sion of flow volume to costs provides only the first
product, i.e., a series of internally reliable equa-
tions of costs. In Appendix G, the results of the
external validity test are presented.
To yield a set of internally consistent equations,
it was necessary to array (regress) the costs developed
by the Technical Contractor against a second, continu-
ous variable. In this case the variable is process flow
volume.
As shown in Exhibit VI and Exhibit VII, on
the following pages, the log of total invest-
ment costs for full BPPT requirements corre-
lates somewhat with the log of system
capacity.
For clarifier plants, the correlation
coefficient is about 0.68.
For filtering plants, the correlation
coefficient is about 0.76.
The experimental scaling factors are the
following:
Clarifier plants scale with system
capacity with an exponent of 0.46.
Filtering plants scale with system
capacity with an exponent of 0.47.
-79-
-------
10'
,6,-
105
CO
K
O
a
to
CO
O
o
a.
5
10'
10°
EXHIBIT VI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CAPITAL COST OF FILTRATION UNITS
10'
102
10J
10"
FILTRATION CAPACITY (GALLONS PER HOUR)
SOURCE: BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON INC.
259-718 O - 78 - 8
-------
10'
v>
ec
§
§
o
SI
<
o
10
10
EXHIBIT VII
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CAPITAL COST FOR CLARIFIERS WITH pH ADJUSTMENT
102
10°
10"
CAPACITY (GALLONS PER HOUR)
105
SOURCE: BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON INC.
-------
Both of those scaling factors are slightly less than
the 0.6 factor traditionally used; the difference
is attributed to the large fixed costs for instrumen-
tation which does not scale with capacity.
The variation of the data points around the
least squares regression line is due to the
fact that BPT systems may not require all
the system components:
- pH adjustment
Hexavalent chromivn reduction
Cyanide destruction
Clarification or filtration
Exhibits VIII through XI, on the following
pages, plot the estimated investment for
major BPPT system elements versus the waste
water treatment flow of that element. The
exhibits show:
Correlation of investment versus
capacity for cyanide destruction is
approximately 0.9.
Correlation for hexavalent chromium
reduction units is about 0.8.
Correlation between investment and flow for
the solids removal equipment is also very
good, about 0.9.
(5) Given the High Correlation of Flow to Cost, Flow
Based Equations Were Programmed into an Automated
Costing Routine
All of the prior exhibits on flow volumes to com-
ponent costs demonstrated strong linear association
between the variables.
The equations account for between 60 and 80%
of the variability between investment costs
estimates and volume of water treated in
their appropriate regression of flow.
-80-
-------
2oo,ooor
180,000 -
160,000 -
140,000 -
120,000 -
co
cc
O
Q
100.000 -
<
OL
80,000-
60.000-
40,000 -
20,000
EXHIBIT VIII
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CAPITAL COSTS FOR CYANIDE OXIDATION UNITS
1,000
5,000 10.000
UNIT CAPACITY (GALLONS PER HOUR)
SOURCE: BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON INC.
-------
EXHIBIT IX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CAPITAL COSTS FOR HEXAVALENT CHROME REDUCTION
105
S
-------
EXHIBIT X
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RELATIONSHIP OF TOTAL SYSTEM FLOW RATE
TO INVESTMENT FOR LEAST COST (1) INDOOR
PLANTS-FILTER MODE
1.000 i-
z
100 -
1,000
SYSTEM FLOW RATE
(GALLONS PER HOUR)
(1) INVESTMENT REPRESENTS BPPT - BPT - NO SMALL PLATER EXEMPTION,
NOTHING IN PLACE
SOURCE: HAMILTON STANDARD, BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON INC.
-------
EXHIBIT XI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RELATIONSHIP OF TOTAL SYSTEM FLOW RATE
TO INVESTMENT FOR LEAST COST OUTDOOR
PLANTS-CLARIFIER MODE
100
<
O
Q
LL
O
O
I
w
LJJ
I 10
J
100
1,000
SYSTEM FLOW RATE
(GALLONS PER HOUR)
10,000
100,000
(1) INVESTMENT REPRESENTS BPPT - BPT - NO SMALL PLATER EXEMPTION,
NOTHING IN PLACE
SOURCE: HAMILTON STANDARD, BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON INC.
-------
The pH adjustment equation was derived from
the computer model cost estimates as well
as from industry sources such as manufac-
turers and distributors of neutralization
systems because the computer model did not
separate pH adjustment costs from costs for
combined pH adjustment/batch clarification
equipment used in low flow situations.
On a per component basis, the flow relationships to
the costs of cyanide destruct units and hexavalent
chromium reduction units are both strong: for cyanide
units, the average absolute difference is 17%, with the
equations 7% lower than reported costs. For hexavalent
chromium units, the regression equation predicts costs
about 16% higher than generated by the Technical
Contractor.
These results, plus the validation runs cited in
Appendix G, support the use of regression equations
for applying characteristic treatment components and
costs for all model plants available in the survey.
4. INVESTMENT COSTS FOR 244 JOB SHOPS, 40 PRINTED BOARDS
PLUS THE CAPTIVES WERE DEVELOPED AND FORM THE DATA
BASE FOR SUBSEQUENT INDUSTRY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Each of two regulatory scenarios was costed for each
segment of the metalfinishing industry. For job shops,
Printed Board manufacturers, and captives, pollution abate-
ment cost estimates exist for installing:
Cyanide oxidation, chromium reduction and
clarification (full BPPT)
-81-
-------
Full BPPT above 10,000 GPD, amenable cyanide
oxidation with no metal removal below 10,000 GPD
For estimating captives' investments the basic job shop cost
method was somewhat altered:
Data on individual processes and line descriptors
were not available; however, operations and fin-
ishing metals were. This enabled treatment com-
ponents to be invoked for specific trace metals
and chemicals.
Space availability data were not available, the
operating decision rule was to assign all cap-
tives indoor diatomaceous earth filters.
Specific treatment components already in place
were not identified for captives—only their
dollar costs. This value was subtracted from
the new, projected investment cost before
assigning costs.
Summaries of these costs are presented below:
(1) Job Shops for Full BPPT Compliance Face Investment
Requirements Approaching $100,000 on Average
Two tables are presented below for job shop capital
requirements to meet a BPPT scenario. Table III-l dis-
tributes the mean investment cost by sales intervals.
Table III-2 distributes the cost by metalfinishing
employment categories.
-82-
-------
TABLE III-l
Mean Investment Capital To Meet a BPPT
System Arrayed Across Sales Categories
Size of Firm
$250,000
$250K - $499K
$500K - $999K
$1,000,000 and above
# of
Cases
76
62
63
43
Average
Costs
($000's)
$ 67.1
80.2
102.1
120.0
S.D.
($000's)
$ 40.1
59.1
76.0
113.7
244 $ 88.8 $ 72.4
TABLE III-2
Mean Investment Capital To Meet a BPPT System
Arrayed Across Metalfinishing Employment Categories
(226 Job Shops)
Size of Firm
1 - 4
5 - 9
10 - 19
20 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 249
# of
Cases
61
40
58
46
18
3
Average
Costs
($000's)
$ 59.7
65.8
103.5
110.6
149.3
148.0
S.D
($000
$ 38
38
77
84
115
52
»
's)
.2
.5
.4
.3
.0
.0
226 $ 90.7 $ 73.8
A cross tabulation of these same two variables is
a particularly useful means of arraying the investment
costs. It serves not only to illustrate the movement
of the costs across cells, but also to cost the sample
descriptors into the dimensions used subsequently for
industry extrapolations. Table III-3 on the following
page contains these data.
-83-
-------
TABLE III-3
Mean Investment Capital To Meet a BPPT System
Arrayed by Sales and Wetfinishing Employment
($000's)
Employment Intervals
Sales
Intervals 1-4
$250,000 $58.0
42
$250K - $499K $74.5
12
$500K - $999K $44.4
7
$1,OOOK and above $ 0.0
Column $59.7
61
5-9
$77.4
18
$57.6
13
$52.9
8
$64.7
$65.8
40
10-19
$80.2
10
$103.2
30
$133.9
13
$ 74.2
$103.6
58
20-49
$ 0.0
0
$ 29.5
1
$115.3
29
$107.4
$110.7
46
50-99
$ 0.0
0
$ 0.0
0
$169.4
2
$146.9
$149.4
18
100-
244
$ 0.0
0
$ 0.0
0
$ 0.0
0
$148.0
$148.0
3
Row
$ 66.2
70
$ 85.2
56
$104.4
59
$120.7
$ 90.7
226
It is interesting to note from this table that certain
cells are underrepresented for purposes-of analysis.
Cells with fewer than 10 cases do not allow for statisti-
cal comparison, and this situation pertains in seven of
seventeen cases for which there are data. These sample
results can be extrapolated to population estimates, but
the limits of the estimate must be borne in mind. This
point is amplified in Section 5 of this chapter and again
in Chapter VI, Limits of the Analysis.
-84-
-------
(2) Pollution Abatement Costs Using the 10,OOP GPP
Cut-off Yield Comparable Investment Levels
A second regulatory scenario was to apply a full
BPPT system for all plants using at least 10,000 GPD
of process water and applying hexavalent chromium
reduction and amenable cyanide oxidation to everyone
below 10,000 GPD. These costs are summarized in
Table III-4, below, and arrayed against sales intervals,
TABLE III-4
Mean Investment Capital To Meet BPPT Above
10,000 GPD, and Chromium Reduction and
Oxidation of Amenable Cyanide Below 10,000 GPD
($000's)
Water Use
Sales
$250,000
$250K - $499K
$500K - $999K
$1,000,000 and above
Totals
Below
10,000
GPD
$13.7
51
$13.6
28
$11.1
14
$ 8.2
8
$12.9
101
Above
10,000
GPD
$ 96.5
25
$107.9
34
$124.1
39
$138.9
35
$118.7
133
All
$ 40.9
76
$ 65.3
62
$ 94.3
53
$114.6
43
$ 73.0
234
-85-
-------
It is apparent from Table III-4 that the elimina-
tion of a metals removal step for the smaller water
use firms yields a compliance burden that is quite
small (x = $12.9K, S.D. $10.IK). But, as will be
shown in the next chapter, applying these minimal
capital requirements (i.e., less than $20,000) still
yields a cluster of firms (on the order of 10%) that
might not be able to manage the investment.
(3) Printed Board Manufacturers Face Pretreatment
Costs Slightly Lower Than Job Shop Costs
The mean capital cost to jobbers for a full BPPT
system was approximately $90,000. Small firms face a
$60,000 investment and the larger operations face, on
average, a $150,000 expense. Printed Board manufac-
turers face different equipment requirements and
thereby slightly different costs. Few firms require
a hexavalent chromium reduction unit, whereas almost
all need a separate clarifier for the chelated waste
streams. Table III-5, on the following page, arrays
these capital costs by the wetmetalfinishing sizing
intervals.
-86-
-------
TABLE III-5
Mean Investment Capital To Meet a BPPT System
Arrayed Across Metalfinishing Employment Categories
(38 PB Firms)
Size of Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
# of
Cases
1
5
9
15
8
38
Average
Costs
($000's)
$89.8
49.1
61.6
77.9
64.5
$69.6
S.D.
($000's)
$ -
12.9
50.8
51.9
23.4
$34.6
Splitting the sample by the regulatory option
yields BPPT estimates for firms above and below 10,000
GPD of process water. Again these means are presented
by the wetmetalfinishing employment sizing variable,
-and displayed in Table III-6 below.
TABLE III-6
Mean Investment Capital for Printed
Board Firms by Regulation
Size of Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
Above
10,000
GPD
($000's)
89.8
103.0
115.9
51.7
76.8
$ 87.4
Below
10,000
GPD
($000's)
_
8.8
8.1
8.9
-
$8.6
All
C$000's)
34.5
46.5
50.9
26.1
42.4
$50.7
-87-
-------
(4) Captive Facilities Face BPPT Costs that are Twice
that of Jobbers
Of the total 1,614 respondents to the captives
survey, not all provided sufficient data for costing
a treatment system. There were 497 cases that did not
provide water use data. There were also 381 cases
that were predicted to face a $0 investment because
of prior expenditures for pollution abatement equip-
ment. For purposes of displaying future investments,
the 381 prior investment cases were dropped and cost
data are displayed for 733 cases.
Table III-7 below presents the total capital cost
of a BPPT system for captive establishments arrayed
against wetmetalfinishing employment categories. Note
that overall the mean capital is $191,000 with one
noticeable aberation in the 10-19 man interval
TABLE III-7
Mean Investment Capital To Meet a BPPT System
Arrayed Across Metalfinishing Employment Categories
(733 Captive Facilities)
Size of Operation
1- 4
5- 9
10- 19
20- 49
50- 99
100-249
250+
Total
-88-
# of
Cases
273
155
139
113
31
14
8
733
Mean
Cost
($000's)
$ 51.2
103.3
576.8
140.6
248.0
206.9
407.9
$190.8
S.D.
($000's)
$ 47.0
266.7
999.9+
212.8
446.7
184.2
289.6
$237.3
-------
This one aberration is due to the extremely large
water use (6,000,000 GPM) found in one 10-19 man opera-
tion. Arraying the same data by water use allows a
better appreciation of the data's linearity. This
display of mean capital by plant water use appears in
Table III-8 below.
TABLE III-8
Mean Investment Capital To Meet a BPPT System
Arrayed Across Process Water Use Categories
(733 Captive Facilities)
# of Mean
Size of Operation Cases Cost S.D.
(Gallons per Day) ($000's) ($000's)
2,000 125 $ 27.9 $ 14.1
to 9,999 152 42.5 21.2
to 49,999 210 66.7 35.9
to 99,999 76 109.9 51.9
to 499,999 134 157.2 115.7
to 999,999 19 427.5 280.9
1,000,000 17 461.2 1,536.1
Total 733 $190.8 $237.3
A final means of arraying the BPPT investment for
captive operations is to cast the data in a cross-
tabulation of key variables. Two variables that are
important to a captives closure analysis are the risk
category (the ratio of the new pollution control invest-
ment to prior investments in metalfinishing equipment)
and the plant sales level.
-89-
-------
Table III-9 that appears below converts the total
capital required into an annualized cost and arrays
the cost by sales and risk. The advantage of this
array is that specific calls in which the new invest-
ment might be a problem become apparent.
TABLE II1-9
Annualized BPPT Cost Arrayed By
Plant Sales and Risk Categories
(716 Captive Operations)
($000's)
Risk Category
Sales
$1.0M
$ l.OM - 4.9M
$ 5.0M - 9.9M
$10.OM - 50.OM
$50.OM +
Column 27.3 25.3 35.7 32.2 148.5 58.1
The closure analysis of the next chapter will pick
up the significance of these data. But at this point,
the focus of attention can be defined as all cases with
a risk factor of at least .50 and plant sales of under
$5.0 Million. In terms of numbers, these six cells
account for 125 respondents or 17% of the sample being
costed.
.01-
.24
$11.3
14.3
19.6
23.1
59.1
.25-
.49
$18.1
19.3
35.8
26.9
27.1
.50-
.74
$20.3
42.9
21.9
36.3
60.9
.75-
.99
$19.5
38.2
49.9
31.6
20.3
1.00+
$16.6
22.2
31.6
392.5
94.5
Row
$16.5
22.5
26.8
101.1
56.9
-90-
259-718 O - 78 - 9
-------
(5) Due to the 10, OOP GPP Option, Total Capital
is Significantly Reduced for 28% of the Sample
In the sample receiving costs, 28% (169 of 591)
report less than 10,000 GPD of process water for their
metalfinishing operation. For these 169 cases a BPPT
system that eliminates the metals removal step and
requires oxidation of amenable cyanide plus hexavalent
chromium reduction represents a sizable savings.
Whereas a full BPPT system for this group averaged
$35.9K (S.D. = $17.6K) now the required capital reduces
to $15.IK (S.D. = $7.2K). On an annualized basis, the
full BPPT represented $10.7K (S.D. = $5.3K). Now,
with the under 10,000 GPD scenario the annualized costs
for this group reduce to $4.5K (S.D. = $2.IK).
5. TOTAL INVESTMENT FOR THE INDUSTRY APPROACHES $0.5 BILLION
This section extrapolates the pollution capital costs
generated for the sample to the universe of POTW dischargers.
Due to the fact that the best sizing measure for displaying
closures is wetmetalfinishing employment, that will also be
the variable by which costs are arrayed.
Each sector of the industry has in effect a high-low
estimate. This is due to the 10,000 GPD option. Therefore,
this section will array costs for three sectors in sequence:
Job Shops
Printed Boards
Captives
-91-
-------
(1) Job Shops Face a Capital Burden of $134 Million
to $220 Million
The table below, Table 111-10, arrays the job
shop capital requirement for a full BPPT system for
all cases discharging to a POTW.
TABLE III-10
Total Investment Capital Required
by the Job Shops Discharging to
a POTW To Meet a BPPT Schenario
Size of Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
# of
Cases
1,045
658
524
339
142
26
2,734
Mean
Capital
($000's)
$ 59.7
65.8
103.5
110.6
149.3
148.0
Total
Capital
(Millions)
$ 62.4
43.3
54.2
37.5
21.2
3.8
$222.4
This BPPT requirement represents a $222 million
capital burden for the 2,734 jobbers discharging to a
POTW. In Table III-ll, on the following page, the small
and large water use cases are computed separately and
their results factored into a total population estimate
of costs. This reduces the total industry capital bur-
den substantially. Total capital goes from $222 million
to $134 million with the regulation (40% reduction).
-92-
-------
TABLE III-11
Total Investment Capital Required by the
Job Shops Allowing a 10,000 GPD Cut-off
Firms Below 10,000 GPP Firms Above 10, OOP GPD
Size of # of Mean # of Mean
Firm Cases Capital Total Cases Capital Total
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
1
898
373
177
77
21
-
,546
($000
$13.
13.
13.
10.
11.
-
•s) (Millions)
OM
6
6
5
5
$11
5
2
$20
.6
.1
.4
.8
.2
.1M
147
285
347
262
121
26
1,188
($000
$ 59
65
103
110
149
148
's)
.7
.8
.5
.6
.3
.0
(Millions)
$ 8
18
35
28
18
3
$114
,8M
.7
.9
.9
.1
.8
.2M
(2) Printed Board Manufacturers Represent Several
Additional Millions
For the Printed Board sector, the total capital
burden of investment in pollution controls is a small
fraction of that faced by the rest of the industry.
Tables 111-12 and 111-13, on the following page,
represent the BPPT and 10,000 GPD option for this
sector. While the average investment costs per
interval parallel those of the job shop sector, in
an absolute sense, the total amount is much smaller
since there are so few independent printed board
producers.
-93-
-------
TABLE 111-12
Total Investment Capital for Printed Board
Firms To Meet a Full BPPT Standard
(Arrayed by Wetmetalfinishing Size)
(Millions of Dollars)
Size of Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
# of
Firms
13
50
63
139
46
12
4
327
Mean
Capital
(SOOO's)
$ 89.8
103.0
115.9
51.7
76.8
—
-
Total
Capital
(Millions)
$ 1.2
5.2
7.3
7.2
3.5
_
—
$24.4
TABLE III-13
Total Investment Capital for Printed Board
Firms by the Regulation
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Firms Below 10,000 GPD
Firms Above 10,000 GPD
# of
Firms
8
30
38
83
28
7
3_
197
Mean
Capital
($000's)
$ 8.7
8.8
8.2
8.9
20.3
Total
Capital
(Millions)
$ 0.1
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.6
$ 2.0
# of
Firms
5
20
25
56
18
5
1
Mean
Capital
($000's)
$140.0
100.0
144.0
180.0
133.3
-
-
Total
Capital
(Millions)
$ 0.7
2.0
3.6
10.1
2.4
—
-
130
$18.8
-94-
-------
(3) For Captives Discharging to POTW's, the Capital
Burden of Pretreatment is in the Hundreds of
Millions of Dollars
Again, two treatment scenarios have been costed
for the sample and each represents a separate estimate
of the population's total investment requirement.
Tables 111-14 and 111-15, below and on the following
page, portray total capital costs for captives arrayed
by wetmetalfinishing employment categories. The first
table reflects a full BPPT scenario for all POTW cases,
and yields a compliance estimate of $314 million. The
next table shows costs for large and small water users
and yields a combined compliance estimate of $305
million.
TABLE III-14
Total Investment Capital Required by
the Captive Sector To Meet BPPT
Size of
Operation
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
* Includes $0 cost for 381 cases
# of
Firms
Mean
Cost*
($000's)
1,376
675
640
554
157
91
32
3,525
$ 40
75
364
74
114
76
217
.5
.9
.4
.2
.7
.2
.6
Total
Cost
(Millions)
$ 55
51
233
41
18
6
6
$413
.7
.2
.2
.1
.0
.9
.9
.0 Mi
-95-
-------
TABLE III-15
Pretreatment Total Investment Capital Required
by Captives Allowing a 10,000 GPD Cutoff
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Firms
f ot
Cases
1,157
402
263
148
19
14
-
2,003
Below 10,
Mean
Capital
($000's)
$14.3
16.2
17.7
16.1
15.1
22.1
-
000 GPD
Total
(Millions)
$16.5
6.5
4.7
2.4
0.3
0.3
-
$30. 7M 1
Firms
f of
Cases
219
273
377
406
138
77
32
,522
Above 10 ,
Mean
Capital
($000's)
$ 53.8
83.8
439.5
90.8
148.5
127.2
237.5
000 GPD
Total
(Millions)
$ 11.8
22.9
165.7
36.9
20.5
9.8
7.6
$275. 2M
This is a combined capital burden of $305.9 million
for captive operations discharging to a POTW. As in the
case of job shops introducing the regulation reduces total
capital significantly; in this case by some 26%.
(4) Annualized Costs for the Industry Are on the
Order of $125 Million'
Annual costs reflect capital charges at 10%, with
a 10-year payback period. Also included within the
figure are costs for utilities, labor and maintenance
(averaging 12% of total capital). In Table 111-16, on
the following page, annual costs are reflected for
each industry sector against the capital costs of the
regulation.
-96-
-------
TABLE III-16
Annualized Cost to the Industry
of the Pretreatment Regulation
(Arrayed by Wetmetalfinishing Employment)
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Job Shops
5.7
6.6
10.8
8.4
5.1
1.1
—
Printed
Board
Makers
.2
.6
1.1
3.0
.8
-
—
Captives
8.0
8.2
47.7
11.0
5.7
2.8
2.1
Total
13.9
15.4
59.6
22.4
11.6
3.9
2.1
37.7 5.7 85.5 128.9
This completes the presentation of the industry's
Pretreatment compliance costs. Sample closures due to
these costs appear in the next chapter.
-97-
-------
IV. SAMPLE CLOSURE RESULTS
-------
IV. SAMPLE CLOSURE RESULTS
This chapter presents the predicted closure rates for
firms in the metalfinishing industry. Results for the job
shop sectors proceed directly from the automated closure
routine. Results for captive operations proceed from inspec-
tion of key cross-tabulation tables.
All results presented within this chapter are sample
specific: i.e., no industry-wide estimates are offered.
In the next chapter, Economic Effects, sample results
are extrapolated to the total industry. In that chapter,
the method for correcting closure rates for baseline
closures as well as the method for yielding weighted
population impacts are presented.
For ease of presentation, this chapter is organized
into the following four sections:
Investment scenarios
Job shop closures
Printed Board closures
Captive sector closures
-98-
-------
1. BECAUSE ALTERNATE INVESTMENT SCENARIOS PRODUCE
DIFFERENT CLOSURE RATES, FOUR BASIC SCENARIOS WERE
CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS
The financial closure model permits closure rates to
be estimated under a variety of different price, cost and
investment conditions. As these modeling parameters change,
so, too, do the attendant closure rates. In order to present
useful and representative findings, several decisions were
made on freezing these modeling parameters at specific values:
Two regulatory scenarios are used: full BPPT
for everyone; and then BPPT using the 10,000
GPD criterion.
Two financial burden schedules are used: a nor-
mal condition of 5 year repayment at a 10% cost
of capital, and a special loan program (e.g. SBA)
with a 20-year repayment at a 7% cost of capital.
A mid-range cost pass through is allowed. Here
each firm raises its prices by exactly that
amount corresponding to the incremental annual-
ized cost of the investment.
Equity infusion to a firm that fails the 1.5
coverage ratio criterion is limited to the value
of total full-time owner's compensation plus
profits after tax, minus $15,000.
These parameters were selected to represent the best
approximators of probable compliance requirements for the
industry and the likely financial constraints on firms.
-99-
-------
2. JOB SHOP CLOSURE RATES CLUSTER AT 15% - 20% OF THE
SAMPLE
Four different closure scenarios have been run for the
job shops. They are:
Full BPPT, normal payback
Modified BPPT, normal payback
Full BPPT, long-term payback
Modified BPPT, long-term payback
In the presentation of results that follow, each set of
closures is run using the 1.5 coverage ratio, plus the in-
vocation of the equity infusion rule.
(1) For Full BPPT, 84 Closures (33%) Are Predicted
For all 244 model plants costed under this scenario
the following was found:
84 closures
135 non-closures
16 saved by equity infusion
9 faced $0 capital cost
In absolute terms, 47% of all closures appear in the
smallest firms (fewer than 9 men, under $500K in sales).
On a proportionate basis, closures appear equally fre-
quent across all cells.
-100-
-------
(2) When Firms Are Costed Under the Regulation,
Closure Levels Fall to About 25%
In arraying closures under this condition, the
best-cross tabulation is water use by employment cate-
gories. This is based on the fact that small water use
plants face a different treatment requirement than lar-
ger plants and have a smaller capital burden.
Interestingly, for the under 10,000 GPD group the
mean total capital burden is $13.6K (S.D. = $10.OK)
whereas for all other cases above 10,000 GPD, the capi-
tal burden is $28.6K (S.D. = $21.IK).
Note in Table IV-1 below that closure rates for
the below 10,000 GPD category are reduced markedly, but
overall, closure rates are still 25% for the sample.
Table IV-1
Model Plant Closures
For the 10,000 GPD Option
Using Water Use and WMF
Employment Categories
Water
Employment
1- 4
5- 9
10- 19
20- 49
50- 99
100-249
Total
Less than
10,000
5
.10
5
.23
2
.22
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
.13
10K-
19K
1
.20
6
.66
3
.23
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
.37
20K-
29K
2
1.0
1
.25
2
.18
2
.66
0
0
0
0
7
.33
30K-
39K
1
1.0
0
0
3
.50
1
.10
1
1.0
0
0
6
.30
40K-
49K
0
0
2
.66
2
.40
1
.25
1
.50
0
0
6
.40
Above
50,000
0
0
1
1.0
4
.28
7
.33
5
.41
1
.33
18
.34
Total
9
.15
15
.37
16
.28
11
.23
7
.46
1
.33
59
.26
-101-
-------
The table below shows the total number of sample
closures within each cell along with a closure frac-
tion figure based on the total number of cases in that
cell. Due to the cross tabulation of sales by em-
ployees, 8 cases drop out due to missing data. This
yields a cross-tabulation on 76 closures.
Table IV-2
Model Plant Closures
Under a BPPT Scenario
Arrayed by Sales and
WMF Employment Intervals
Employment
Sales
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99 100-249 Total
$250K
$250K-
499K
$500K-
999K
$1,000,000+
Total
17
.40
3
.25
2
.28
0
0
22
.36
12
.66
4
.30
2
.25
1
1.00
19
.47
3
.30
8
.26
5
.38
0
0
16
.27
0
0
0
0
7
.24
4
.25
11
.23
0
0
0
0
2
1.00
5
.31
7
.38
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.-33
1
.33
32
.45
15
.26
18
.30
11
.26
76
.33
Due to the very small number of cases in most cells,
projecting industry closure rates on a per cell basis is
unwarranted. The closure rate for the scenario at this
time can be best represented as 33% of the sample.
-102-
-------
(3) Under an SBA Loan Program, Closure Rates for
the Sample Are Below 15%
The total number of closures among the model plants
drops significantly when an SBA-type loan program is in-
troduced. Total plant closures on the basis of a full
BPPT scenario for 244 costed models drops to 33 cases
or 14% of the sample. When the 10,000 GPD regulation
is introduced, total closures are unaffected producing
32 candidates for closure, or 13%.
All of the closure results reported thus far for
the job shops are uncorrected for baseline closures.
In the next chapter, baseline closures are removed and
industry extrapolations drawn. Closure rates under
corrected conditions are on the order of 20% for the
full BPPT case with straight financing and 7% with
the regulation and SBA financing.
3. PRINTED BOARD MANUFACTURERS SHOW CLOSURE RATES
COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF THE JOBBERS
Forty cases out of a sample of 100 Printed Board firms
gave all financial data for impact purposes. Of the 40 models
under a full BPPT scenario there were 11 predicted closures
for a sample closure rate of 27.5%. Under the regulation,
the sample splits into two water use groups. There are 26
plants below 10,000 GPD and 14 above. Sample closure rates
-103-
-------
for the two groups, uncorrected for baseline closures,
are 31% and 21% respectively. As will be shown in the
next chapter, after correcting for baseline closure rates,
the overall PB closure rate under the regulation is 17%.
4. VERY FEW CAPTIVE ESTABLISHMENTS ARE LIKELY TO DIVEST
THEIR METALFINISHING OPERATION
Of all 1,614 respondents to the captives survey, fully
380 cases receive a $0 capital cost because they already
have a treatment system in place for their metalfinishing
wastes. This holds both for the full BPPT case as well as
for the 10,000 GPD regulation. Since the focus of study is
on the potentially disruptive effects of waste control in-
vestments, these 380 cases are not included in the data
base and some 736 cases are costed. In sum for these cases,
the key financial data on the full BPPT case are as follows:
$191,000 mean pollution control cost
$ 57,300 mean annualized cost
4.0% price increase on finished goods
(1) Very Few Cases Fall in the Vulnerable Groupings
Under the BPPT condition, 74% of all costed cases
face price increases for their finished goods of up to
1%. Another 21% are in the 1-10% category. Altogether
there are 38 cases or 2.4% of the sample that might be
-104-
-------
impacted by virtue of facing price increases in excess
of 10%. This group is the focus of further analysis.
From the cross-tabulation of price increase to
sales category, we note that 27% of these 38 cases sell
below $1 million, 8 are in the $4.9 million interval,
with 3 in firms selling more than $5 million. There-
fore, these 27 cases are firms that are quite small
captive operations and by the operational definitions,
they constitute the subset of interest.
A second cross break of the same cases is against
the risk category. Of all 38 cases of interest, the
pollution control investment increases by 50% the
prior finishing capitalization for 25. This narrows
the potentially affected universe to 25 cases or 3.3%
of the sample.
(2) All Vulnerable Captives Face Smaller Than Average
Capital Burdens
The 25 cases are now clearly the small captives,
with relatively large necessary price increases. In
addition, 24 of these 38 have 1-4 people in wetmetal-
finishing. This supports further the possibility that
this group of 24-25 cases could divest finishing with-
out displacing large numbers of production workers.
259-718 O - 78 - 10
-------
For the sample as a whole, not 100 production people
might be affected were these firms to divest their
finishing function.
Turning to the pollution investment for this group,
the mean investment is $58,000 (S.D. = $59,300). On
an annualized basis, this reduces to approximately
$15,400 (S.D. = $15,500). The qualitative issue here
is whether these cases which need to increase their
operational budget by under $20,000 would choose to do
so or not. The data show this group has:
Only 3 men in finishing
Done finishing for 20 years
Invested $40,000 in finishing equipment
Finishes 54% of all its goods
Operates on a $68,000 finishing budget
This information, particularly the budget item (for
which a 30% increase would be needed) supports a
conclusion that these 25 firms could opt to divest.
(3) No Captive Closures Are Predicted for Small
Water Users Installing the Modified BPPT System
This section analyzes probable captive closures
for the sub-group of captives using below 10,000 GPD.
There are 386 cases that fall below 10,000 GPD of which
-106-
-------
169 could be assigned costs. Given that the closure
analysis relies on the variable "pollution control
costs," the focus of analysis is restricted to those
169 cases.
For all 169 cases, the mean capital is $15.IK
with estimated increases in the metalfinishing budget
of 21% and in the selling price of finished goods of
2.0%. Of the 169 cases, 131 need a break-even price
increase of not more than 1%, with 23 more cases need-
ing 1% - 10%. There are only 7 cases (4% of the
costed sample) that face estimated price increases
greater than 10%. This group represents the sub-sample
of interest.
When this group is arrayed in a cross-tabulation
of risk by price increase, the probability of a closure
sector reduced to zero. For analysis sake, the inter-
sect of risk factors greater than 50% arrayed against
price increases greater than 10% has defined the vul-
nerable quadrant. In this scenario 2 of the 158 cases
so arrayed fall in the quadrant of interest. At this
point, further analysis is trivial. The conclusion is
offered that no captive operation using below 10,000
GPD installing amenable cyanide oxidation and a
-107-
-------
hexavalent chromium reduction system should seek to
close down or divest the operation due to investment
cost considerations.
(4) Above 10, OOP GPP a Small Number of Captive
Operations Might Divest
Of the total sample of captives there are 739 re-
spondents with a metalfinishing process water use in
excess of 10,000 GPD. Of the 739, 422 could be costed.
The mean pollution control cost is $304,000 (S.D. =
$3,125,000). The magnitude of this estimate is driven
primarily by 17 cases whose process water use exceeds
1,000,000 GPD and whose average estimated investment
is $4.6 million. On an annualized basis, the invest-
ment cost for these 422 cases averages $91,300 (S.D. =
$940,000). Again the average is driven by the largest
water use category. For the balance of the sample, the
annualized cost is on the order of $37,000.
For these 422 cases, the estimated increase in their
metalfinishing budget is 35% and the increase in the
selling price of their finished goods is 5.8%. Of the
422 cases, 321 need a break-even price increase of 1% or
less with 66 cases falling in 1% - 10% price increase
range. There are 18 cases (4% of the costed sample)
requiring more than a 10% price rise.
-108-
-------
This sector, when arrayed by price increase and
risk factor shows 10 cases are still vulnerable. This
is the group that both needs at least a 10% price in-
crease and has at least a 50% risk factor. There are
67 wet metalfinishing employees in these 10 potentially
affected firms. On average, these establishments have
done in-house finishing for 27 years and seven of the
10 have invested only $125,000 in their metalfinishing
equipment. Three cases in this vulnerable group have
sunk capital in excess of $900,000.
It appears sound to grant that seven of the cases
(1.6% of the costed sample) and perhaps all 10 (2.3% of
the costed sample) might close their captive finishing
operations.
This concludes the presentation of sample closure
rates for the three sectors of the industry. In the
next chapter, corrected closure rates are extrapolated
to the total universe of indirect dischargers.
-109-
-------
V. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
-------
V. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This chapter extends the closure results of the prior
chapter to the population of all firms affected by the metal-
finishing regulations. To do so requires some consideration
of the alternate methods of extrapolating the sample results.
The discussion requires, as well, clarification of closures
due to the Act as opposed to closures due to the pressures
of the marketplace. In sequence, then, the subjects of this
chapter cover:
Extrapolation methods
Baseline closures
Industry impacts
The sample results were presented by job shops, Printed
Boards and captives; the industry economic impacts will be
presented in the same order.
Because detailed financial data are available on the
independent firms, i.e., job shops and Printed Boards, a
very important corrective step can be introduced prior to
making sample extrapolations to the industry. Some survey
respondents provided all the data needed to assign costs
and yield closures but they are clearly marginal economic
entities. These firms are defined as baseline closures in
Section 2, and subtracted from the population. This holds
-110-
-------
for both the job shops and Printed Board firms. A comparable
corrective step for captives could not be performed due to
the absence of detailed financial operating data.
1. SAMPLE CLOSURE RATES CAN SERVE AS STRAIGHT
PROPORTIONAL CLOSURE RATES FOR THE POPULATION
Appendix D presents the detailed analysis of the re-
lationship between survey data and population parameters.
Within that analysis, several important points were developed:
Model plants and non-model plants show sufficient
similarity to allow closures for the models to
stand for the sample as a whole.
Total sample respondents show some key differences
on sales and net worth values in comparison with
the non-sampled universe. There is the sugges-
tion that the sample respondents are financially
stronger than the average for the industry.
Due to the oversampling of smaller firms in the
telephone follow-up, on average that group of non-
respondents is consistently smaller (employment,
water use and sales) than the mail respondents.
This suggests that the group available for costing
may represent the larger production operations
but it is not apparent that they necessarily
represent more or less financially secure firms
than the non-respondent sample.
Closures had always been found or presumed to
reside within the smaller operations. This set
of treatment options and costs does not re-
produce that finding. Although there is a trend
within the data to suggest smaller operations
are somewhat more likely to be impacted than
larger firms, the trend is not statistically
significant. Closures are predicted as a constant
throughout the sample.
Recent analyses within the Agency arrayed job shop
closure rates across water use categories, sales
and employment intervals. The result of that
Chi Square analysis rejected the hypothesis of
independence between rows or columns and left the
conclusion that the sample overall result can stand
for any row or column by which the sample is arrayed,
-111-
-------
All of the preceding supports the approach of representing
industry impacts in the same proportion as sample impacts.
Now that precise information is available on the direction
of systematic differences between the sample and the popu-
lation, weighted estimates of closure rates to the size
strata of the population will be made.
2. BASELINE CLOSURES INDEPENDENT OF THE FINANCIAL
REQUIREMENTS OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT INVESTMENTS
CAN BE FACTORED OUT OF THE SAMPLE SO THAT CLOSURE
ESTIMATES ARE THOSE DUE TO THE ACT
It is unacceptable to project all sample closure rates
directly to the population without making a set of necessary
corrections. One correction involves taking into account
closures that should occur independently of future pollution
abatement investments.
Two methods are available for dealing with the number
of probable baseline closures in the existing data base.
One, is to compare financial profiles of known closures to
those of models and cull all "matches" within the sample.
Second, raw financial data of the models can be evaluated
on a "pre-investment basis" and through the application of
a decision rule, firms unlikely to remain in business to
make the investment can be spotted.
Originally the first method was to be employed. How-
ever, data retrieval problems coupled to cost precluded the
approach. Baselines were segregated from the model plants
through a single criterion. If the pre-investment financial
-112-
-------
condition of the plant showed a negative cash position, then
the model was called a baseline closure and dropped from the
impact analysis. This approach reduces the job shop models
by 18, and the Printed Board models by 4.
Correcting for baseline closures in the sample is one
important step prior to extrapolating sample results to the
population of independent establishments. There is a sec-
ond corrective step that should be made with respect to
just the sample of job shops. This corrective step is
necessitated by the initial sampling design.
As discussed in the first chapter on the study
methodology, added to the sample frame of 2,221
firms were 40 firms on which the agency had data.
Of these 40 firms not only did some 18 return
questionnaires but of that number, 10 qualified
as model plants for costing and closure analysis.
To allow those 10 to remain in the 244 models
distorts the understanding of closure results on
the industry as a whole. For effect, there is no
systematic way of reflecting those 10 across the
population nor of accounting for their closure
rates.
For extrapolation purposes, there are 234 not 244
models on which industry closure results will be
arrayed.
3. TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ARE FELT MOST DIRECTLY BY THE
INDEPENDENT PRODUCER SEGMENT OF THE INDUSTRY
In the presentation of industry impacts two sets of
results are arrayed for job shops and Printed Board firms.
Thev are:
Impacts by the two regulatory scenarios
Impacts by two financing assumptions
-113-
-------
Captives results are not based on purely financial invest-
ment criteria, and do not involve, therefore, an SRA financing
consideration.
(1) Job Shops Could Experience a 20-30% Loss in Capacity
The first table below, Table V-l, presents total
plant closures under a straight BPPT scenario with no
allowance for water use. The industry closure rate
here is 28% on a weighted basis.
Table V-l
Total Plant Closures in the Job Shop
Sector Under a BPPT Scenario Arrayed
by WMF Employment Intervals
Number of Firms
Total
1,156
682
546
357
159
41
2,941
Dischargers
to POTW
1,045
658
524
339
142
26
2,734
Possible
Closures
293
184
147
95
40
7
766
Size of
F irm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
Total
Table V-2, on the following page, shows the industry
impacts due to the second regulatory option which al-
lows for the 10,000 GPD cut off in pretreatment. This
is called the "regulation." Under this condition,
the weighted closure rate is 21% of all firms.
-114-
-------
Table V-2
Total Plant Closures in the Job Shop
Sector Under the Regulation Arrayed
by WMF Employment Intervals
Number of Firms
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
(2) Impacts
Total
1,156
682
546
357
159
41
2,941
for the Job
Sales and Displaced
Dischargers
to POTW
1,045
658
524
339
142
26
2,734
Shops Will Be Felt
Labor
Possible
Closures
223
141
112
72
30
6
584
for Lost
The total number of plant closings due to the
-pretreatment scenarios also represents impacts on
sales and employment. In Table V-3, on the
following page, the lost sales and lost employment
of the first scenario are presented.
-115-
-------
Table V-3
Sales and Employment Losses Due to
BPPT Job Shop Closures Arrayed
by WMF Employment Categories
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
Closures
293
184
147
95
40
7
766
Lost
Sales*
(Millions)
$ 74.5
58.1
100.0
108.3
72.0
36.0
$448.9
Lost
Employment*
(Thousands)
2.0
2.5
3.2
4.4
3.3
1.3
16.7
* Taken by multiplying the closures by the mean
value for the interval.
Given that the industry subject to pretreatment
regulation represents sales of $1.6 billion and employ-
ment of 58,500, this scenario has the potential of
dislodging 26% of the sales volume and 29% of the'
labor.
Table V-4, on the following page, arrays the
same impacts, only this time due to the regulation.
-116-
-------
Table V-4
Sales and Employment Losses Due to the
Regulation Job Shop Closures Arrayed
by WMF Employment Categories
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
Closures
223
141
112
72
30
6
584
Lost
Sales*
(Millions)
$ 57.3
44.7
66.9
83.3
55.4
27.7
$335.3
Lost
Employment*
(Thousands)
1.5
1.9
2.4
3.3
2.5
1.0
12.6
* Taken by multiplying the closures by the mean
value for the interval.
This regulatory scenario has the effect of dis-
lodging 20% of the industry's production volume and
22% of its employment.
(3) An SBA Loan Program for Job Shops Could Mitigate
Impacts Substantially
There is the possibility that individual firms
may succeed in their application for special Federally
supported funds (SBA). In this event, the loan
repayment period is extended to 20 years and interest
cost reduced to 7%.
Under the regulation and after baseline firms
are removed, 18 models or 8% of the cases are pre-
dicted to close. On an industry-wide basis, this
-117-
-------
means 210 of 2,734 job shops discharging to a POTW
might close due to Pretreatment requirements. A
summary of these impacts appears in Table V-5 below.
Table V-5
Sales and Employment Losses Due to the
Regulation Job Shop Closures, SBA Financing
Arrayed by WMF Employment Categories
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
# in
Population
1,045
658
524
339
142
26
2,734
# of
Closures
80
51
40
26
11
2
210
Lost
Sales
(Millions)
$ 20.5
16.1
23.8
30.0
20.3
9.2
$119.9
Lost
Employment
(OOO's)
.5
.7
.9
1.2
.9
.3
4.3
SBA financing has the effect of reducing total
plant closures by 64% (584 to 210), reducing lost
sales by 65% ($335M to $119M) and lost employment by
66% (12,600 to 4,300) .
(4) Printed Board Manufacturers Face Impacts Close
to Those Expected in the Job Shop Sector
The presentation of industry-wide impacts for
the Printed Board sector will parallel that of the
job shops. Under the full BPPT scenario, closure
rates weighted and corrected for baseline closures
are 21%. Under the regulation, closure rates are
17%.
-118-
-------
Table V-6 immediately below arrays closures under
the full BPPT scenario. As was found in the review of
job shop closures, there are no significant differences
in closure rates by size intervals. The population
receives a 21% closure across all sizing intervals.
Table V-6
Estimated Plant Closures for
Printed Board Makers Full BPPT
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Total
16
62
78
171
57
12
4
400
Dischargers
to POTW
13
50
63
139
46
12
4
327
Possible
Closures
3
11
13
29
10
0
0
66
The economic significance of these 66 estimated
closures is summarized in Table V-7, on the following
page. These data show that as many as 3,660 people
and sales of $41 million could be displaced.
-119-
259-718 O - 78 - 11
-------
Table V-7
Sales and Employment Losses
for Printed Board Makers
Full BPPT
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
Possible
Closures
3
11
13
29
10
66
Lost
Employment
92
88
340
2,033
1,115
3,668
Lost
Sales
($000's)
$ 351
1,800
3,275
21,500
14,000
$40,900
Under the regulation, overall closure rates are
found to be 17% of the industry. Plant closings under
the regulation appear in Table V-8 below.
Table V-8
Estimated Plant Closures for
Printed Board Makers Under the Regulation
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Total
Total
16
62
78
171
57
12
4
400
Dischargers
to POTW
13
50
63
139
46
12
4
327
Possible
Closures
2
9
11
25
8
0
0
55
-120-
-------
Industry impacts under this scenario are dis-
played as both lost sales and employment in Table V-9
below.
Table V-9
Sales and Employment Losses
Under the Regulation
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
Possible
Closures
2
9
11
25
8
55
Lost
Employment
80
75
290
1,740
950
3,135
Lost
Sales
($000's)
$ 300
1,540
2,800
18,400
12,000
$35,040
For the industry, the potential closure of 55
independent producers of Printed Boards means employ-
ment losses of 3,100 jobs and lost sales of some
$35 million.
(5) An SBA Loan Program for Printed Board Makers
Would Reduce Impacts
Under the 20 year and 7% interest rate assump-
tions of an SBA loan program, the total number of
model plant closures is 3 out of 40 plants. The
industry closure rate, then becomes 7.5% rather than
17% as in the regulation. Were this to be the case,
of the 327 Printed Board firms discharging to a POTW,
-121-
-------
25 might shut down. This could have the net effect of
displacing 1,750 employees and $19 million in sales.
4. CLOSURES IN THE CAPTIVE SECTOR ARE ESTIMATED TO BE
SMALL BUT MEASURABLE
Closures for the captive sector were derived through
a partially qualitative assessment of firms likely to
divest the operation. That analysis identified those firms
facing high investment costs, with low plant sales and
large predicted price increases (10%+).
Under the full BPPT scenario, some 25 cases out of
736 were identified as potential closures. Under the small
water use case, the number of potential closures reduced to
zero due to the large number of captives using below 10,000
GPD.
In many respects, projecting out captive closures is
trivial but the exercise does serve to illustrate a modest
set of economic consequences for industrial manufacturers.
Table V-10, on the following page, arrays sample cap-
tives by wetmetalfinishing intervals and displays the total
number of captive closures by interval. Sales and finish-
ing employment losses are projected in Table V-ll, follow-
ing Table V-10.
-122-
-------
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Table V-10
Projected Total Captive
Closures by the Regulation
Number of Firms
Total
2,372
1,164
1,103
955
271
157
55
6,077
Dischargers
to POTW
1,376
675
640
554
157
91
32
3,525
Vulnerable
Operations
42
17
8
0
0
0
0
67
Table V-ll
Employment and Sales Effects of
Captive Closures Due to the Regulation
# of
Closures
42
17
8
67
Mean
Sales*
(Millions)
$ 6.5
13.6
2.2
$22. 3M
WMF
Employees
107
110
105
322
Size of
Firm
1-4
5-9
10-19
Were these 67 captives to divest their finishing operations,
322 wetmetalfinishers would be in the labor pool and some
$22.3 million of finishing work added to the demand side
of the job shops.
-123-
-------
5. COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATION REPRESENTS A DIRECT
BUT GENERALLY MANAGEABLE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON THE
INDIRECT DISCHARGING SEGMENT OF THE METALFINISHING
INDUSTRY
As a summation of the specific industry impacts of
the regulation for the metalfinishing industry. Table V-12
below arrays total costs, closures and employment losses
by size of establishment (WMF employment).
Table V-12
Size of
Firm
Total Economic Impacts of Pretreatment
Compliance for the Metalfinishing
Industry by the Regulation
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Total
Investment
Costs
(Millions)
$ 49.5
55.3
212.7
80.0
41.7
13.9
7.6
Annual
Costs
(Millions)
$ 13.9
15.4
59.6
22.4
11.6
3.9
2.1
Plant
Closures
267
167
131
97
38
6
0
Lost
Employment
(OOO's)
1.7
2.1
2.8
5.0
3.5
1.0
0.0
$460.7
$128.9
706
16.1
On the macro level, the study findings mean the
following:
Price for metalfinishing goods and services is
expected to rise on the order of 5%. This is
a level that is required on average by the indus-
try to pass on the incremental annual costs of the
abatement system for pretreatment. The figure is
on the order of 4% for Printed Board makers and
less than 1% for all other manufacturing estab-
lishments with in-house finishing operations.
-124-
-------
For the independent segment of the industry
(jobbers plus Printed Board makers) 19% of all
firms now in business might close as a result of
the investment requirement of meeting the pretreat-
ment standard. Given that demand remains high
and that product substitution is unlikely, the
following should hold:
Some new firms will enter the marketplace,
perhaps begun by production managers of a
captive operation
Each remaining firm in the industry can
probably either raise his price more than
5% or expand his production capacity to
meet the demand
Predicted closures will be less than
calculated if
Abatement equipment is homemade
Production equipment can run long
past its depreciated life
If plant closings do occur, it is not anticipated
that they will be felt directly within the com-
munity or region. Metalfinishing job shops do
not represent a large proportion of the total
production employment within any one city.
Were closings to occur, some job transfers to the
surviving firms would have to occur.
At the national and international level, economic
shifts in the domestic metalfinishing industry
are not expected to have any noticeable effect
on trade balances. A somewhat different condition
holds on Printed Board products. This is so for
two reasons. First, finished boards are being
imported and second, domestic manufacturers send
out and then reimport their own finished wiring
boards. Depending on trade policies, domestic
production of Printed Boards could increase despite
the incremental cost of pretreatment.*
*"An Analysis of the Market for Printed Boards and Related
Materials." 1976 Technical Marketing Associates, prepared
for the Institute of Printed Circuits
-125-
-------
VI. LIMITS OF THE ANALYSIS
-------
VI. LIMITS OF THE ANALYSIS
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss those issues
that bear upon the utility of the study: in effect, the
limits of this analysis. This review is organized around
the following points:
Utility of data
Analytic methods
Strength of conclusions
Each point will now be developed in sequence. Key to this
review is one central fact: study results derive from a
microeconomic model. Therefore, the applicability of re-
sults rests with how well the data, logic and assumptions
of the model mirror the realities of actual plant opera-
tions.
1. DATA HAVE TO BE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF QUANTITY
AND QUALITY
In this section, we treat two data related issues:
sources of data and the quality of data.
(1) The Data From the Survey
Appendix D is devoted to an exhaustive review
of the development of survey instruments, response
-126-
-------
rates and sample bias. Here the focus is directed
more toward the implications for the analysis of data
limitations rather than a review of methodological
issues. In this vein, the following needs to be made
explicit.
Although the respondents to the survey pro-
vide sufficient data for analysis, the 444
can be viewed as one slice drawn from the
population. Had a different set of firms
chosen to respond, the results conceivably
could be different. Random selection
theory says that in enough trials, sample
data must converge to the population's para-
meters. But although sample selection was
designed to be random, patterns of respond-
ents might contain biases.
The phone survey to non-respondents was de-
signed to test this issue explicitly. The
follow-up effort focused special attention
on smaller firms. Finding differences be-
tween the respondents and non-respondents
was inevitable. But financial data were
not sought since they were too sensitive,
and no conclusion can be drawn on whether
respondents are more or less financially
sound than non-respondents.
Identifying 234 model plants for the closure
analysis did not fit the rigorous random
selection rules for the sample as a whole.
These cases were used because they provided
all requisite data for analysis, not because
they necessarily reflected the sample.
Analyses, however, on models and non-models
as well as on respondents and the entire bal-
ance of the targeted sample suggest that the
models are a strong cross-sectional repre-
sentation of the industry.
Data are from a single point in time. There
is little capability to appreciate trends
over time or to reflect the changing capac-
ity of any one firm to handle the pollution
-127-
-------
control investment. An approximator is to
cost part of the system as a model of invest-
ment over time, but this is clearly not the
same as having a dynamic closure model that
varies sales, profits, taxes, long-term
debt and cash flows.
Costs are an important analytic component.
We have not utilized the specific computer
generated cost estimates of the Technical
Contractor. Rather, we have built his cost
data into our own linear regressions and
developed cost equations on a per component
basis. The linear regression is a simplified
A to B relationship of cost to water usage.
As shown in the Appendix, however, compari-
sons of cost estimates to outside vendors
yield generally good agreement and we are
confident of being within the +30% interval
for engineering estimates.
(2) Quality of the Data
There are two primary considerations in discussing
data quality; their reliability and their validity.
Reliability is satisfied by knowing that the same re-
spondent would provide the same response to a question
at Time2 that he did in Time,. Resurveying the sample
in six months to assess the reliability issue is impos-
sible. But if data are valid, they are, by definition,
reliable.
Answering the question of data validity requires
exploring a set of data interrelationships. This is an
approach to establishing validity by judging how well
independent estimates agree (convergent validity).
Data from our survey on certain known items
tend to agree with prior estimates. Our
-128-
-------
sample provided information on employment
and sales which, when extrapolated to the
population, are not significantly different
from estimates on the same variables avail-
able from the U.S. Department of Census.
All survey data were compared against des-
criptive data elements available on the in-
dustry through Dun & Bradstreet records.
The strong agreement on data items within a
group (i.e., model plant data in 1975 and
1977) as well as across groups (i.e., re-
spondents are not significantly different
from the balance of the sample universe)
supports the presumption of valid response
data to the survey.
Throughout the analysis, limitations of the data
are cited and the analytic assumptions introduced to
the computations are made explicit. In addition,
study results if in error should err on the side of
conservatism. Decision rules were generally estab-
lished to be more, rather than less, stringent. Were
additional information provided at a later date, then
subsequent estimates should be less rather than more
severe than those presented here.
i
\
\
This would hold if subsequent information were to
demonstrate that:
Allowable price increases are greater than
assumed.
Owners have capital assets in excess of that
allowed by the model.
Owners stay in business at $10,000 or $7,500
per year, not $15,000.
-129-
-------
More, rather than fewer, firms have treatment
.equipment in place.
Most firms engineer their own treatment sys-
tem or purchase second-hand equipment rather
than purchase outright from an industrial
waste treatment supplier.
Use of a coverage ratio of 1.5 presumes the owner's
guarantee on the loan. If there is no personal guaran-
tee, a ratio of 2.0 or 2.5 might be required. Were
this the case, the estimates reported might understate
industry closure rates.
2. THE FINANCIAL CLOSURE METHODOLOGY IS BUILT ON DATA
AND LOGIC BUT IS NOT ENTIRELY FREE OF ASSUMPTION
A model is a set of decision rules incorporating data,
designed to yield an outcome. Appreciating the model's
decision rules is as important to accepting the outcomes
as assessing the quality of the model's input data. With-
out critically reviewing each part of a model, it is not
possible to judge the credibility of the model's estimates.
(1) The Requirements of the Model Complement
the Quality of the Analytic Data
Considerable effort was made to balance the
analytic requirements of the economic closure model
with the quality of the source data available from
the field. Just as the pollution control cost program
-130-
-------
could not generate component costs without a full set
of technical information, so too the economic model
needed adequate financial data. But certain simplify-
ing steps were taken in the interests of obtaining re-
sponses that unavoidably limited the input data.
No previous year's financial statements were
available. Only the sales trend for the
firm is known. As a consequence, there is
a limitation in the ability to tell if any
one firm is at the beginning, middle, or
end of a boom or bust.
Completely detailed financial reports could
not be requested because of the time limita-
tions of a self-administered survey. The
statements were abbreviated and omitted cer-
tain line items that might have altered the
calculations of debt, profitability, and
return.
Coverage ratios, rather than a pure cash
flow measures, were the key closure criter-
ion. Although the use of coverage as a pre-
dictor can be justified, other measures for
which we had no data could also have been
used. Closure estimates might be different
were a different criterion variable used.
Return to the owner is an important economic
criterion and was set using a combination of
Profit After Tax plus owner's compensation.
Clearly, there are opportunity costs to
staying in metalfinishing and to alterna-
tive uses of capital. As a consequence,
there is no proof that all predicted clo-
sures will choose to close, nor that all
designated non-closures will opt to make
the investment to remain open.
-131-
-------
(2) Some Elements of a Closure Analysis Have Not
Been Included
At this point, there is no impact analysis of
new sources: firms likely to enter the marketplace
to provide the displaced supply of the closures. That
analysis is to follow in the BAT analysis of the indus-
try.
Also omitted, as of now, is the user charge com-
ponent of pretreatment costs. User charges are to be
developed by POTW's and applied through appropriate
formulae to the various point sources using the muni-
cipal system. That cost component is absent now, and
will be factored into subsequent cost/impact analyses.
To the extent it increases the costs of compliance for
pretreaters, total compliance may be somewhat under-
stated. However, through prior surveys, User Charges
are known to be a small component of the total operat-
ing expense of a plant. Relative to the burden im-
posed by a capital expenditure, user charges should
not alter closure levels.
(3) Some Assumptions Had to be Made
In the logic and calculations of the financial
closure model, a specific set of assumptions had to
be made for the sake of analysis. Certainly, this is
-132-
-------
true for any analysis. In some respects, appreciating
the magnitude of the findings is dependent on accept-
ing some of these assumptions:
For the sake of calculating closures/ it
was necessary to introduce the decision
rule on equity infusion by the individual
full-time owners. This was done in order
to prevent inclusion of a firm as a closure
if it lacked several hundred to several
thousand dollars in investment capital.
But by so doing, survey results indicating
the unwillingness of many owners to reduce
their compensation was ignored. Again, the
actual decision-making preferences of indi-
vidual firm owners is not known. It is pos-
sible that no set of questions could pre-
dict that behavior; perhaps the owner him-
self will not know until the decision is
imminent.
All firms with reported equipment in place
were not costed for the impact analysis if
their equipment matched the treatment re-
quirements of each pretreatment scenario.
It is not known whether existing installed
equipment performs up to the standards of
the equipment costed by the Technical Con-
tractor. If it does not, a certain num-
ber of firms might have to be added to the
closure analysis and closure estimates could
increase.
(4) Baseline Closures Have Been Treated Somewhat
Judgmentally
The basic function of the economic impact analysis
is to relate the capital burden of abatement compliance
to the viability of the industry. Such an analysis
requires mechanisms for distinguishing industry im-
pacts due to the Act, from those other market/economic
-133-
259-718 O - 78 - 12
-------
factors that also determine success and closure rates
in the industry. This might be accomplished by identi-
fying segments of the industry already quite marginal
and likely to close for reasons totally separate from
the incremental operating burden of pollution control
investments. Such firms are labeled "baseline closures."
After this group is factored out of the population, all
subsequent closures can be attributed to the effects
of compliance.
The method used to cull baseline closures from the
sample was to identify all models showing a negative
cash flow situation prior to the investment. This ap-
proach eliminated 18 jobbers and 4 Printed Board firms.
While there is no proof that these marginal firms truly
will close, it is interesting to note that the estimate
parallels some other data. These 22 baseline models are
7.7% of all independent firms. As a percent, this baseline
closure rate matches closely the annual turnover rate
found in the Dun & Bradstreet industry files for SIC 3471
and 3479 (10% annually 1975-1977).
3. CLOSURE ESTIMATES FROM MODELING ARE QUITE ROBUST AND
CAN SERVE AS POPULATION PREDICTORS
It is at this point that the overall assessment of
the study effort is drawn. In light of the method selected,
the tests applied and the results generated in virtually all
-134-
-------
respects, the effort met its goals. In sum, the following
elements support this conclusion:
Primary field data for characterizing the indus-
try were sought. To this end, three separate
surveys were commissioned and executed. Response
rates for the mail efforts were on the order of
39% for the captives and 45% for the jobbers.
The core data for analysis is, therefore, the
largest base for analysis ever available.
Estimates of impacts were to be derived through
the application of an automated routine using
actual field data of representative plants.
This analysis is dependent on three factors:
Accurate Costs
Valid financial reports
Comprehensive variable modeling
Estimates of pollution abatement costs were
verified for internal consistency and external
accuracy. They satisfied both.
Eliminating probable baseline closures from the
sample results has the effect of limiting impacts
just to the cost burden of the Act. Culling the
18 cases from the data base of 244 models (234
if only models from the survey frame are used)
yields more than 200 models. Tests of models and
non-models, and then respondents to non-respondents
established the legitimacy of these 200+ cases
for drawing population estimates.
Applying an automated financial closure routine
introduces many advantages and a few drawbacks.
The primary drawbacks to the routine are two-
fold: (1) the model is more a static than a
dynamic model, and (2) it is limited to a pure
capital decision matrix. The implications are as
follows:
- Time trends cannot be appreciated,
- Interactive effects of key variables
cannot be measured.
"Soft" variables are not part of the routines'
specification, i.e., owner's attitudes,
local markets or enforcement policies are
not reflected in the logic of the model.
-135-
-------
Results of the routine, however, show a basic
insensitivity to minor variations in input speci-
fications. As an example, overall closure results
are about the same whether sales or profits go
up or down 10%, whether price pass through is
5%, 10% or 15%, or coverage ratio 1.4, 1.5 or
1.6. In sum, the model is robust with respect to
alternative variables and insensitive to minor
shifts in data values.
All plants, regardless of process water volume,
are required to treat their lead and cadmium.
Any plant predicted to close might survive if it
could productively divest its lead and cadmium
plating. There are no data on this possibility.
In addition, there are no predicted closures
below 10,000 GPD due to putting in a clarifier,
but that might change were all such plants
required to invest in metals removal equpipment.
This chapter has presented the limits of the analysis.
The Appendices that follow provide detailed discussions on
the field surveys, the costing model and the study design.
-136-
-------
APPENDICES
A. THE METALFINISHING JOB SHOP
SECTOR SURVEY
B. THE PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD INDUSTRY
SURVEY
C. THE CAPTIVE METALFINISHING INDUSTRY
SURVEY
D. SAMPLE DESIGN AND SURVEY ISSUES
E. AUTOMATED FINANCIAL CLOSURE
METHODOLOGY
F. THE POLLUTION ABATEMENT COST
GENERATING PROGRAM
G. VALIDATION OF THE POLLUTION ABATEMENT
COST ESTIMATES
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
THE METALFINISHING JOB SHOP SECTOR SURVEY
This appendix presents the survey results, instrument
and data for the metalfinishing job shop sector survey and
arrays the pooled results of the respondents. In Appendix
D, all the validity tests and extrapolation rules are dis-
cussed at length so they are not covered here.
For purposes of presentation, this Appendix is orga-
nized in three sections:
Sample results
Survey questionnaire
Raw response data
All data, other than capital costs, are presented here so
that the reader might appreciate directly the findings
and conclusions presented in the text.
1. APPROXIMATELY HALF OF ALL METALFINISHING JOB SHOPS
LISTED IN THE DMI ARE PROJECTED TO FALL WITHIN THE
REGULATIONS OF THE ELECTROPLATING CATEGORY
More than 5,500 metalfinishing establishments are
listed in the DMI. Our projections, based on the survey
results, show that 2,941 firms or 54% of the population
do regulated processes.
A-l
-------
The total size of the universe subject to regulation
was derived by extrapolating the survey results in the
following manner:
Eligibility returns from the phone follow-ups
were extrapolated to all survey non-respondents.
These data were added to the eligible responses
from the mail survey to form the total eligible
sample.
Combined results were than multiplied by the
original fixed interval sampling value of 2.5
to yield the estimate of the projected population.
The data for the extrapolation are presented in
Table A-l below.
Table A-l
Estimate of the Universe of
Metalfinishing Job Shops in
the Electroplating Category
(Arrayed by Metalfinishing Size)
Size
Interval
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
Missing
Total
Mail
Results
65
80
109
111
46
12
0
21
Phone
Results
53
32
28
10
18
3
0
0
Weighted
to DMI
1,089
643
515
337
150
39
0
169
Corrected
1,156
682
546
357
159
41
-
-
444
144
2,941
2,941
The total estimated population of job shops affected by
the regulations of the Electroplating Point Source Category
is 2,941 firms. The largest cluster of firms is in the 1-4
man interval with almost 40% of the total.
A-2
-------
More than 80% of the industry consists of firms em-
ploying fewer than 20 men in metalfinishing production.
Table A-2 below, arrays the industry on key descriptive
elements. Shown here are employment, sales and plant water
use. All entries have been extrapolated by weighted means
multiplied by cell frequencies.
Table A-2
Total Industry Employment
Sales & Water Use (000!s)
Size
Interval
1-4 7.6 $ 30.0 13.9 MGPD
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
65.3 $170.0 113.9
This extrapolation yields an industry picture as follows:
65,000 people work in job shops with an average shop
having 22 employees
Sales for the industry are $1.7 billion with the
average shop selling slightly more than a half
million ($580,000).
On a daily basis the industry uses 114 million gallons
of which 90 million is for metalfinishing production
use.
Total
Employment
7.6
9.3
11.6
16.2
13.4
7.0
Total
Sales
$ 30.0
22.7
27.9
42.1
28.1
19.2
Total
Plant Water
13.9
15.3
17.7
38.7
22.6
5.7
A-3
-------
2. SAMPLE FINDINGS PROVIDE A VALUABLE APPRECIATION OF THE
METALFINISHING INDUSTRY AND ITS PROBLEMS
A respondent was included in the study if he performed
any of the following processes:
A—Electroplating (common metals)
B—Precious metals
C—Reserved
D—Anodizing
E—Coatings
F—Etching, engraving
G—Electroless plating
H—Printed Circuit Boards
To clarify our understanding of the mix and prevalence
of these production processes, each survey respondent was
asked to check off all metalfinishing processes performed at
his plant.
Fully 77% of all survey respondents do at least
electroplating of common metals. The second most frequent
process is Coatings (55%), followed by Polishing and Grinding
(44%).
Regardless of the size of an establishment, these same
three processes occur most frequently. Table A-3, on the
following page, arrays the processes against the entire sample,
and then by the six size intervals.
A-4
-------
Table A-3
-Frequency of Performed Process
By Size of Firm
Firms With Employment of
Processes
Electroplating
Precious
Anodizing
Coatings
Etching
Printed Boards
Polishing
Number of
Respondents
Total
Sample
77.7%
23.6
23.9
55.3
24.5
2.4
44.0
440
1-4
71.9%
2,3.4
12.5
35.9
18.8
1.6
57.8
67
5-9
77.6%
31.8
17.6
49.4
22.4
5.9
38.8
85
10-19
77.1%
14.4
22.0
59.3
21.2
—
41.5
118
20-49
82.9%
28.8
35.1
64.0
27.9
2.7
47.7
111
50-99
71.7%
23.9
30.4
65.2
39.1
2.2
32.6
46
100-249
76.9%
15.4
38.5
46.2
23.1
7.7
53.8
13
Exploring the potential significance of produc-
tion processes resulted in cutting the data in two ways;
Separating single versus multiple process
firms
Identifying total number of processes done
On the first point, the data showed that only
19% of the sample (82 firms) did just one process.
Of these 82 firms doing just one process, 50 (61%)
do just electroplating.
More than three-quarters of the sample does no
more than three separate production processes.
A-5
-------
(1) Ownership Patterns Both Describe the Industry and
Affect the Decision Rules of the Impact Analysis
Prior economic impact analyses modeled owner-
investment decision making with respect to meeting the
costs of pollution abatement controls. In these analy-
ses, the following assumptions were made:
That an owner would reduce his compensation
to stay in business
That his compensation was large enough to
allow a significant equity infusion
There were sufficient numbers of owners will-
ing to do so to make a difference in the
estimated closure r^ates.
The survey provides data on all these items.
Since the variable "ownership structure" pertains first
to an understanding of the industry's composition, and
then to an appreciation of the potential economic im-
pacts upon it, data are ordered by:
Ownership patterns
Owner's compensation
Owner's attitudes
For the entire sample, the median number of owners in
a firm is 2, of whom 1.5 work at the establishment full
time. Individuals own about one-third of the firms (31%)
as do families (34%) and small groups (31%). Fully 90%
of all firms are owned by four people or fewer.
A-6
-------
Larger firms tend to be owned by families or
groups whereas smaller establishments are much more
likely to be held by an individual, small business man.
Ownership patterns are presented in Table A-4 below.
Table A-4
Ownership Patterns by Size
of Metalfinishing Establishment
Size
Ownership
Individual
Family
Small Group
Another Firm
Total Employment
1-4
52.5%
27.1
18.6
1.7
5-9
32.9%
38.0
26.6
1.3
10-19
33.6%
29.0
33.6
2.8
20-49
22.0%
37.0
38.0
2.0
50-99
18.6%
41.9
27.9
11.6
100-
249
25.0%
-0-
41.7
33.3
Total
99.9% 98.8% 99.0% 99.0% 100%
100%
In order to characterize more accurately individual
owner's compensation, the number of owners working full
time in each type of establishment must be identified.
Data were gathered on total number of owners, those
working full or part time, and the dollar value of the
owner's compensation. One assumption that must be made
for this analysis is that the bulk of the value given for
owner's compensation is distributed evenly across each
owner working full time. To the extent that owners work-
ing part time at the facility draw sizable portions of
the reported compensation, our estimates will overstate
the full-time owner's compensation.
A-7
-------
Table A-5, below, arrays firms by size, total
number of owners and the reported total compensation for
all owners.
Table A-5
Owner's Compensation by Firm
Size and Number of Owners
Total Employment
1-4
5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99
100-
249
(Total Owner's Compensation $000's)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8+
$17.1
23.5
35.6
74.5
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
$26.1
25.2
36.3
34.7
70.1
22.5
-0-
-0-
$26.1
48.0
36.3
37.6
40.9
36.0
-0-
-0-
$37.2
56.3
77.1
69.7
46.7
30.0
86.4
-0-
$ 45.3
58.0
82.3
61.1
103.1
-0-
-0-
98.6
$ 66.1
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
453.0
Individual
Family
Small
Group
From related calculations on the survey returns, the
number of full-time owners by type of establishment
is the following:
Virtually all firms owned by one person have
just one full-time owner. Therefore, com-
pensation for full-time owners will remain
the same as the first line of Table A-S.
A-8
-------
Fpr all firms owned by families, e.g., those
having 2, 3, and 4 owners, the mean number
of full time owners is 1.79 (S.D. = 0.9).
These data range from 1.6 full-time owners
in small shops to 2.1 in the largest.
In firms owned by small groups, e.g. , those
with 5, 6, 7, or 8+ owners, the mean number
of full-time owners is 2.3 (S.D. = 1.4).
ey introducing these corrective terms for full- time
ownership, Table A-5 can be recomputed to yield the
mean compensation for each full time owner across the
different firm size categories. In Table A-6, below,
the reported total owner's compensation has been recom-
puted to yield the individual full-time owner's
compensation.
Table A-6
Total Annual Compensation for
Individual Owners Working Full Time
Ownership
Size
^\
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1-4
$17.
14.
21.
45.
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Individual Owner's Compensation
5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249
1
4
8
7
$26.
15.
22.
21.
39.
22.
-0-
-0-
1
6
5
5
8
5*
$26.1
25.8
19.5
20.2
21.0
36.0*
-0-
-0-
$37.
30.
41.
37.
20.
30.
37.
-0-
2
6
9
8
1
0*
2
$45.3
28.1
39.9
29.6
26.9
-0-
-0-
25.8
$66.
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
98.
1
4
*Unadjusted
259-718 O - 78 - 13
A-9
-------
(2) Owner Attitude Data Do Not Support the Assumption
of Reduced Compensation To Stay in Business
There were 286 respondents who answered the item:
"What is the likelihood that you might reduce the owner's
compensation to help secure a bank loan (for a waste-
water treatment system)?"
The scoring ranged from "very unlikely" to "very
likely." Presented below is a summary of attitudes:
For all 286 respondents, 183 or 64% said it
was very unlikely, or unlikely. Only 46 or
16% scored it likely or very likely.
Splitting the sample by size or type of firm
did not change the response pattern by much:
88 respondents (31%) already have some
treatment equipment in place. Fully
68% of them say it was very unlikely or
unlikely that they would reduce compensa-
tion to help pay for more.
- 198 respondents (69%) have nothing in
place. Of these 198, 133 or 67% also
say it is very unlikely or unlikely
they would reduce compensation to pay
for a system.
Owners of larger firms are just slightly
more likely to consider reducing their
compensation than are owners of smaller
shops. On the following page, is a
summary table of the responses to the
question by size of firm. The answers
"unlikely" or "very unlikely" have been
recombined to a single "No" response.
There are only 272 rather than 286 cases
because 14 respondents gave no employ-
ment size data.
Table A-7, on the following page, summarizes
just the negative attitudes.
A-10
-------
Table A-7
Proportion of Sample Indicating Reluctance
To Reduce Owner's Compensation
1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 Total
Number
Answering 31 52 73 74 31 272
Combined
"No's"
Percent
20
64.5
30
57.6
48
65.7
46
62.1
23
69.7
174
77.7 64%
This presentation of owner attitudes toward
compensation, reduction must close with a caveat.
People who returned the questionnaire could have had
many different motivations for participating, two of
which could be:
They were sufficiently on target with abate-
ment requirements that they felt comfortable
describing themselves to the EPA.
They felt themselves so vulnerable that the
survey provided them a vehicle to bring their
plight to the attention of the agency.
There is a strong possibility that the responses to
the item on reducing owner's compensation are biased:
biased in the direction of showing vulnerability to
the regulations through restricted personal freedoms
to absorb the incremental costs of compliance. It is
not surprising that many reported they would not or
could not reduce their compensation if many respondents
A-ll
-------
judge the compliance process as punitive, burdensome,
and disruptive.
This concludes the summary of selected survey findings.
The next sections contain the survey instrument and the study
data.
A-12
-------
.[NATIONAL ANALYSTS
I Division ol Booz, Allen & Hamilton
1 Philadelphia, Pa.
Study #1-557
Fall, 1976
METALFINISHING STUDY
Respondent's Name:
Title:
\ Organization:
Street Address:
I City:
State:
Zip:
I
i
Instructions
There are six sections in this questionnaire dealing with your
firm; its products, markets and operations. Please answer all
questions in each section. If you are not certain about a question
perhaps one of your staff knows the answer. Make every effort
to return the completed questionnaire to us as soon as possible.
A postage paid return envelope is provided. If you have questions
that we can answer, feel free to place a collect call to
Mr. Nat Greenfield at the Booz, Allen Office in Washington. He
can be reached at (202) 293-3689.
Fnr purposes of confidentiality, please answer the following
question. Do your answers include material you consider
confidential, and that you do not wish revealed to anyone ?
(C1KCJLE APPROPRIATE CODE) "Tss 1
No 2
1
!
l
i
i
i
-------
SECTION I: PLANT DESCRIPTORS
The four questions in this section deal with the products and characteristics of your
firm. Your answers are important to our understanding of the diversity of the metal-
finishing industry.
1. From the list of metalfinishing activities shown below, please circle the codes
for all the activities normally performed in your firm.
NOTE
(CIRCLE
CODES)
Electroplating of common metals (for example,
copper, nickel, zinc, chromium, cadmium)
Electroplating of precious metals (for example,
gold, silver, platinum)
Anodizing
Coatings (for example, chromating, phosphating,
or immersion plating)
Chemical etching, milling, and engraving
Printed circuit
boards
Polishing, grinding
Other (Please Explain):
1
2
• 3
4
5
6
7
0
IF YOUR SHOP ONLY DOES POLISHING AND GRINDING WITH .NO
WET METALFINISHING PROCESSES, THEN ANSWER NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS AND PLEASE MAIL BACK THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN
THE SELF -ADDRESSED ENVELOPE.
2. Please indicate the total number of people working full-time at this location.
Then give us the number of employees working just on the wet metalfinishing
lines by each shift.
(PLEASE
WRITE
NUMBER OF|
EMPLOYEES!
HERE) i
Total # of full-time people =
Shift 1 wet metalfinishing production employees =
Shift 2 wet metalfinishing production employees =
Shift 3 wet metalfinishing production employees =
-1-
-------
Please describe your physical plant in terms of the following uses of floor space
(in square feet).
(PLEASE
WRITE IN
NUMBER OF
SQUARE
FEET)
Total area of the plant
Total area used by all production
operations
Total area used by waste water
treatment facilities
Total area available for expansion
inside the plant
Total area available for expansion
outside the plant
Many shops in the xnetalfinishing industry that discharge an effluent may already
be covered by a regulatory agency. Which of the following types of authorities
regulate your effluent?
(CIRCLE ALL
THE CODES
THAT APPLY)
Local (including city, county
or region)
State
None of the above
Don't know
V
-2-
-------
SECTION 2: MARKET CONDITIONS
The five questions in this section deal with
Your answers to these questions will help us
finishing industry is.
1. Each of the following items has two po:
that best fits your firm. You may find
or that neither is quite right. Try to a
closest. (PLEASE CIRCLE CODE NUI
A. Does your firm specialize in ser
aerospace, etc. ) or do you servi
B. During the year are most of youi
many different customers?
C. Do your customers send you mac
and sizes) or do you get basicall.
D. Do you generally attract custozne
because you can take on any assi
E. Do you face a lot of competition
F. Do you think captive operations ;
the market in which your firm operates.
understand how competitive the metal -
ssible answers. Indicate only the one
that sometimes both answers are true,
elect just the one that comes the
VIBER)
vices to a major industry (i. e. , automobile,
ce many different industries?
Specialize in service to an
industry
Service many industries
1
2
• sales to a few steady customers or to
Few steady customers
Many different customers
1
2
ty different kinds of products (all shapes
Y the same products most of the time?
Many different products
Basically the same products
1
2
srs because you can offer low prices or
gnmenti?
Offer low prices
Take any assignment
1
2
for your customers or relatively little?
Lot of competition
Relatively little
1
2
ilso compete for your customers?
Yes, they do
No, they don't
1
2
-3-
-------
2. The last time you raised your price (for whatever reasons) what percent price
increase did that represent?
3. As a result of that price increase, did your business volume fall or remain the
same?
Fell off
Remained the same
4.
Today. IF YOU AND ALL YOUR COMPETITORS had to raise prices, how much
do you think you could raise them before your business might be badly hurt?
(PLEASE GIVE YOUR ANSWER AS A PERCENT)
% Price Rise
5.
If business fell after a price increase, your customers could be doing several
different things. Below is a list of five things they might do. Please judge how
likely each one is by circling a. number next to each possibility.
Very
Unlikely
Unlikely
Maybe
Likely
Very
Likely
Customers might buy more from
captives
Customers might eliminate metal-
finishing from their products
Customers might start their
own inhouse, captive lines
Customers might shop around
more for the best price
Customers might use some other
finish for metalfinishing
SECTION 3: PRODUCTION OPERATIONS
The fourteen items in this section will help us understand the different activities that
occur in metalfinishing plants. We are aware that many shops handle many different
operations. Sometimes you may have to give us your best estimate for some of the
questions.
1. Altogether how many total hours per day are spent in wet plating and/or wet
finishing operations:
Hours /Day
2. Altogether how many days per week are spent in wet plating and/or wet
finishing?
Days/Week
- 4 -
-------
3. We would like to know the degree of automation in your operation. From the
list below, please circle the code that best fits your plant.
Programmed control
Fully automated
Semi-automated
Manual
4. From the list of electroplating operations shown below, please check off all the
ones that you normally do.
Electroplating
A. Copper Solder Platinum metal group
Nickel Lead Iron
Chromium Tin Brass
Cadmium Gold Bronze
Zinc Silver Other (write in)
From the list of other metalfinishing operations shown below, please check off
all the ones that you normally do.
|
I Other Finishing Processes
B. Anodizing Electroless on plastics Bright Dip
I Coloring Electroless on metals Chemical Etching
i Phosphating Chemical milling Electrochemical
Chromating Non-aqueous plating Milling
Stripping
For each metalfinishing operation checked off above, please indicate the metals
! you etch, mill, strip, or plate electrolessly.
C. Copper Solder Platinum metal group
Nickel Lead Iron
Chromium Tin Brass
Cadmium Gold Bronze
Zinc Silver Other (write in
-5-
-------
5. How many cleaning, plating, finishing and rinse tanks do you have on your
floor(s)?
# of Process Tanks
Howr many separate production lines do you have set up normally to handle
your metalfinishing operations ?
# of Production Lines
For each production line identified above, we would like a description of what
is finished and how it is done. Please enter the finishing sequence (i. e.,
copper, nickel, chrome), whether rack or barrel, time, and the total number
of tanks set up for the line. An example has been provided as a guide.
Line #
Example]
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
Plating /Finishing Sequence
gffgavt^ /ruucAtLjjyyivrKts
Rack or Barrel
(Circle One)
Si B
R B
R B
R B
R B
R B
R B
R B
R B
Hours/Day
in Operation
Ł.
Total Tanks
on the Line
h I0-
8. For each production line, we would like a description of how you finish the
products run on that line. Since different jobs are run on the same line, please
use average or typical values for time and thicknesses.
Line f .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Immersion Time*
(Typical)
Thickness of Finish**
Applied or Removed
(Typical)
Amperage of
Finishing
Tanks***
* In minutes
** In mils or thousandths
*** Put NA if not applicable
-6-
-------
9.
If you have any data on area plated or finished, it would be very useful to us
in our effort to describe industry operations. Please write in your area data
below, or attach it to the back of the questionnaire.
Line
Area Plated. Finished
or Removed
Area in sq. units / Unit Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total Plant
10. Please fill in the table below showing your plant's water use for a typical day
during 1975. Use gallons per day (GPD) if available. If your information is
in cubic feet, please note it in the table.
Water Use
'Total Plant
Metal Finishing-
Processing Water
Other:
Cooling
Boiler
Sanitary
GPD
-7-
-------
11. Now please indicate where your discharge water goes.
A. (CIRCLE THE CODE WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR ANSWER)
Municipal sewer system 1
River, lake, pond, other 2
Both 3
B. Do you have the option of switching from your present means of water
discharge to another?
If yes, please describe
Yes 1
No 2
the nature of your option:
12. If you discharge to a municipal sewer system, would you please write in your
1975 total sewer costs and the name of the agency, department, or authority
that sets the formula for sewage rates?
$
Sewer Cost
13. How many pounds of sludge
14. How is the sludge disposed?
3 Agency Name
do you produce a month?
# of Pounds /Month:
(CIRCLE ALL
THE CODES
THAT APPLY)
Land fill 1
Into water or sewer 2
Incinerator 3
Lagoon 4
Trash pickup 5
Other (Write in): 0
Don't know V
-8-
-------
SECTION 4:
FINANCIAL ISSUES
The four questions in this section deal primarily with the financial condition of firms
in the industry. Most of the items can readily be answered by using your 1975 balance
sheet and prof it-and-loss statement. Remember that your answers will be held
strictly confidential, if you indicate so.
How many of these
How many owners owners work:
1. Would you please indicate how your fi
(CIRCLE
CODE
Who owns it? NUMBER)
An individual
A family
A small group
Another firm
Other (PLEASE WRITE EM):
1
2
3
fy
0
are there? Full-time
Part-time
From 1972 to 1975, how would you describe the changes in your annual sales?
(CIRCLE THE CODE NUMBER)
Sales were increasing steadily
Sales were decreasing steadily
Sales moved in cycles
Sales were about the same
1
2
3
4
For the six items shown below, please enter the 1975 year-end values from your
cneac vor cesi estimate;.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sales
Rent or lease payments
Owner's/officer's compensation
(include salary, bonus, and
dividends)
Depreciation (building and
equipment)
Profit before tax
Profit after tax
1975 Dollars
$
$
$
$
$
$
-9-
-------
Listed below are five items found in your balance sheet. Please enter the
1975 year-end values (or best estimates).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Current assets
Fixed and other assets
Current liabilities (include
accounts payable, working
capital loans from banks, etc. )
Long-term debt
Company net worth
1975 Dollars
$
$
$
$
$
Many shops have made capital investments in their plant (e.g., building, land,
and production equipment). From your balance sheet, please enter the book value
shown for these assets, and indicate how much more you plan to invest over the
next five years (please do not include planned investments for pollution control
equipment).
a. Building
b. Production equipment
c. Land
Book
Value
$
$
$
Remaining
Life
yrs.
yrs.
Expected Investment
Over Next
Five Years
$
S
$
SECTION 5:
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
NOTE
ONLY FIRMS HAVING A WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM NOW (OR
EXPECTING TO HAVE ONE IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS) NEED TO COMPLETE
TTTT5 SreCTTON. ALL OTETERS MAY GO ON TO SECTION 6.
This section will let us see how many firms already have invested in a pollution control
system. It also will clarify the industrywide effects the guidelines could have on
metalfinishers.
1.
Shown below are the features of a wastewater treatment system. Please circle
the code number for each feature that makes up your system.
pH adjustment
Flow equalization
Chromium reduction
Cyanide destruction
Pr e cipitator - clarification
1
2
3
4
5
Lagoon
Separate cyanide stream
Separate hexavalent-chrome stream
Countercurrent rinse
Reverse osmosis, evaporation, ion
exchange or other advanced treat-
ment technologies
6
7
8
9
0
-10-
-------
Please provide the following information about your wastewater system.
A. How much did it cost to purchase and install?
$
B. In what year did you make the last major addition to the system?
Year:
C. What is its designed treatment capacity? Please record in gallons per day.
Gallons/Day Capacity:
D. How much does it cost each year to operate? (Include costs for labor,
energy, chemicals and upkeep.)
Annual Cost to Operate $
F. Did you contract for any part of the design, construction and installation
of the system or did you do it all yourself?
(CIRCLE
CODE
NUMBER)
Contracted for some
Did all myself
1
2
G. Did you reduce your water use to put in the system?
(CIRCLE
CODE
NUMBER)
Yes
No
Don't know
1
2
V
NOTE
IF YOU MAY HAVE TO UPGRADE OR EXPAND YOUR WASTEWATER SYSTEM
IN THE NEAR FUTURE (I.E., 2 TO 3 YEARS), PLEASE GO ON AND COMPLETE
SECTION 6. IF YOUR EXISTING SYSTEM COMPLIES FULLY WITH THE REGU-
LATIONS, YOU HAVE FINISHED THE QUESTIONNAIRE. YOU ARE INVITED TO
ADD COMMENTS ON THE BACK PAGE BEFORE MAILING THIS BACK TO US IN
THE ENCLOSED SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE.
-11-
-------
SECTION 6:
INVESTMENT OPTIONS
NOTE
FIRMS HAVING NO WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM NOW. AND FIRMS
THAT MIGHT ADD TO THEIR SYSTEM IN THE FUTURE ARE REQUESTED
TO FILL IN THIS SECTION.
The five questions in this section help us understand how the guidelines will affect you,
and the entire industry. Remember that your answers will be kept strictly confidential
if you wish. We are not asking what your firm will spend for pollution control. We
only want to know how you are approaching the investment decision.
1. You may have an estimate for the design, purchase, and installation of a new
wastewater system or to add to the one you already have. If so, please write
in that estimate below.
$
Purchasing a wastewater system could depend on the ability of your firm to
raise capital. From the list below please circle all the code numbers for
sources of capital open to you for the purchase.
Source of Capital
(CIRCLE ALL
CODES
THAT APPLY)
Profits (cash flow) from the business
Personal funds (increase equity)
Loan from customers /suppliers
' Small Business Administration Loan
Commercial bank loan
Other (PLEASE SPECIFY):
None
1
2
3
4
5
0
9
-12-
259-718 O - 78 - 14
-------
3. Purchasing a system coi
list below please circle
4. If you lacked space to ac
might be open to you. I
likely each one is by cir
a.
b.
c.
5. If you
right
sibilit
each j
a.
b.
c.
d.
uld also depend on having a place to install it. From the
the code number (s) of the spaces available for a system.
(CIRCLE ALL
THE CODES
THAT APPLY^
On presently available floor space
On space presently used for plating or
finishing operations
On specially constructed facility in
the plan, e.g., balcony
Outside the plant on my property
Outside the plan on land I would have
to buy
No place to put it
id to, or to ins
Jelow is a list
cling a mimbei
Take out a production line
to free up floor space
Pay to alter the facility, for
example, by knocking out walls
or building a balcony
Pay to relocate to
facility with more
had the room to pi
now, you might sti
ies. Please judge
>ossibility.
a bigger
floor space
ut in a wa stews
11 have severa
how likely ea<
Add to working capital by
selling off some of the assets
of the business
Reduce the owner's compensa-
tion to help secure a bank loan
Close down the business,
retire or do something else
Try to find a buyer for the
business, or set up a merger
1
2
3
4
5
6
tall, a wastewater system, several options
of three possibilities. Please judge how
• next to each possibility.
Very
Unlikelv
1
1
1
Unlikelv
2
2
2
Maybe
3
3
3
Likelv
4
4
4
Very
Likelv
5
5
5
iter system, but couldn't raise the capital
L options. Below is a list of four pos-
:h one is by circling a number next to
Very
Unlikely
1
1
1
1
Unlikely
2
2
2
2
Maybe
3
3
3
3
Likely
4
4
4-
4
Very
Likely
5
5
5
5
-13-
-------
SECTION 7:
OPINIONS AND IMPRESSIONS
#e wish to encourage you to make comments in this section. Please take this
opportunity to express your opinions on:
This questionnaire:
The economies of your firm:
The regulatory process:
EPA's policies:
THANK YOU VERY -MUCH. PLEASE PUT THIS IN
THE SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE AND RETURN TO US.
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS ^
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-1)
PURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.I-1 WHICH OF THESE METAL-
FINISHING ACTIVIT'F? A«F NORMALLY
PERFORMED IN YOUR FIRM7
TOTAI,
NO ANSWER
NUMBFR ANSWERING
ELECTRQP.iAIlHfi_QF_-CQMMQN.
METALS
ELECTROPLATING OF- PRECIOUi-
METALS
ANODIZING
COATINGS
CHEMICAL ETCHING* MILLING 6
ENGRAVING
PRINTED CIRCUIT-. BOARDS.
-. -POLISHING! GRINDING
OTHFR
001
TOTAL
461
461
100.0
398
77.7
109.
23.6
110
23.9
25J_
55. 3
113
24.5
. 11
2.4
203
44.0
.36.-
7.8
- -
1-4
_ 64
_ - 64
100.0
,.4.6-
71.9
IS
23.4
a
12.3
2}
5-9
- .. as
as
100.0
66
77.6
27
31.6
15
17.6
42
35.9 49.4
12 .19
18.8
. 1
1.6
37
57.8
2
3.1
-
22.4
.5
5.9
33
38.8
_.3
3.5
NUMBER
10-19
-_ 118
_ 118
100.0
11
77.1
17
14.4
2t
22.0
70
39.3
25
21.2
49-
41.5
5
4.2
OF FULL-TIM
20-49
. 111_.
..Ill
100.0
. 9Z
82.9
32
28.8
39
35.1
7i
64.0
31._
27.9
.-3
2.7
53
47.7
_13__
11.7
50-99
46
46
100.0
S3
71.7
11
23.9
1*
30.4
30
65.2
._ 18
39.1
1
2.2
1*
32.6
7.
15.2
100— 2^J0— 7/5CMjfi
249 . 4»'9 I' MCfrtE
U
13V
100.0
10
76*9
t
15.4
5
38.5
6
46.2
3
23.1
1
7.7
7
53.8
3
23.1
UNDER I1QQM
HOOM -249M
94 89
54 89
100.0 100.0
42 66
77.8 74.2
14 27
25.9 30.3
6 19
11.1 21.3
21 93
38.9 59.6
11 18
20.4 20.2
1 4
1.9 4.5
59.3 39.3
4
4.5
S2SOM
-499M
92
92
10Q.O
75
81.5
15
16,3
24
26.1
94
58.7
27
29.3
1
1.1
38
41.3
a
8.7
JJiQQM-
-999M
86
86
100.0
65
75.6
24
27.9
25
29.1
52
60.5
21
24.4
3
3.5
40
46.5
a
9.3
E S -
Sl.MIL
-2.4
49
49
100.0
40
81.6
12
24.5
14
28.6
30
61.2
16_
32.7
18
36.7
7
14.3
12.5
MIL*
13
13
100.0
10
76.9
4
30.8
3
23.1
5
38.5
3
23.1
2
15.4
5
38.5
3
23.1
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
S"ftVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.I-2A TOTAL NUMBER OF FULL-
TIME EMPLOY"?
100- 250- 5006
TOTAI, 1-4 S-9 10-19 20-49 10-99 249 499 MORE
TOTAL 461 64 85 118 111 46 13
NO ANSWER 21
NUMBER ANSWERING 440 64 85 lie 11.1 46 13
100.0 IQO.o 10Q. 0 100,0 1OO.O 100,0 1OO,0
NONE 3
r^
1-4 64 64
14.5 100.0
5-9 85 85
19.3 100.0
10-19 118 118
26. B 100.0
20-49 111 111
25.2 100.0
50-99 46 46
10.5 100.0
100-249 13 13
3.0 100.0
250-499
500 OR MORE
AVERAGE 25 3 7 14 32 70 155
002
UNDER S100M S250M S500M
S100M -249M -499M -999M
54 89 92 86
2444
52 85 88 62
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 1
3.8 1.1
34 10 1
65.4 11.8 1.2
15 41 9 2
28.8 48.2 10.2 2.4
1 32 53 12
1.9 37.6 60.2 14.6
1 25 59
1.2 28.4 72.0
1 8
1.2 9.8
4 10 16 32
E S — — —
S1MIL S2.5
-2.4 MIL*
49 13
2 1
47 12
100.0 100.0
1 1
2.1 8.3
12
25.5
29 4
61.7 33.3
5 7
10.6 58.3
66 138
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS A
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.I-2B NUMBER OF WET METAL-
FINJ1HING PROtHlfTION FMPIOYEPS ON SHIFT 1
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
NONE
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
TOTAL-
461
46
415
100.0
6
1,4
156
91
21.9
90
21.7
61
14,7
10
2.4
1
.2
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE TOTAL SAL
100- 250- 5006 UNDER S100M S250M S500M
1-4. 5r9. 10rl9 20-49 50-99 248 A99 MORE S100M -249M -499M -999M
64 85 118 111
10 9 9 4
54 76 109 107
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3 1
5.6 U3 .....
51 49 41 10
94.4 64.5—37.6 9.3..
26 34 22
. 34,2 31.2 20.6
34 42
91.2 3«t3
33
30,8
46
2
44
100.0
1
2.3
4
?_.L
13
13
13
100.0
1
7.7
20 7
45.5 53.8
6
13.6
4
30.8
1
7.7
54 89 92 86
7896
47 81 83 80
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
8.5
39 47 25 13
B3.0 58. O 30.1 16.3
4 25 26 16
8.5 30.9 33.7 20.0
9 28 25
11.1 33.7 31.3
2 25
2.4 31.3
1
1.3
Ł S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
3
46
100*0
1
2.2
1
2.2
16
34.8
23
50.0
5
10.9
*2.5
MIL+
13
1
12
100.0
1
8.3
2
16.7
1
8.3
4
33.3
3
25.0
1
8.3
500 OR MORE
AVERAGE
11
15 28 45
8 15 26 40
003
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-1)
5"RVEY PARTICIPANT*
QUESTION NO.I-2C NUMBER OF WET METAL-
.. ._ FINISHING PRODUCTION EMPLOYEE,* QN SHIFT 2
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
NONE
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
TOT*L 1-*
461 64
47 10
414 54
100.0 100. 0
249 54
6Q.L_1QO. Q_
69
_16i7_
45
10.9
31
7.S
20
4.8
- - NUMBER
85 118
9 8
76 110
100. 0_ 100.0
63 69
B2.9_ 62.7
13 34
11.1 30.9
7
. 6.4
OF FULL-TIMf
20-49 50-99
111
4
107
.100.0
48
44.9
16
29
-27.1-
13
12.1
1
.9
46
1
45
100.0-
10
22.2
2
• 4.4
7
15.6.
18
.40*0
a
17. a
100- 230-
249 499
13
13
100.0
1
7.7
1
7.7
11
84.6
5006 UNDER -S100M S250M SSOOM
MORE S100M -249M -499M -999M
54 89 92 86
7896
47 81 83 80
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
44 59 54 40
93.6 72.8 65.1 50.0
3 19 20 11
6.4 23.5 24.1 13.8
3 9 19
3.7 10. 8 23.8
9
11.3
1
1.3
E S -
C1MIL
-2.4
49
3
46
100.0
6
13.0
2
4.3
9
19.6
17
37*0
12
26.1
S2.5
MIL*
13
1
12
100.0
2
16.7
2
16.7
1
8.3
2
16.7
5
41.7
100-249
250-499
500 OR MORE
AVERAGE
3
1
4
11
26
1 1 4
13
ia
00.4_
-------
C NATIONAL ANALYSTS ~"\
METAL FINISHING STUDY (357-1)
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.I-2D NUMBER OF WET METAL-
FINISHING PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES ON SHIFT 3
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE
100- 250-
TOTAL 1-45-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 249 499
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
NONE
1-4
3-9
10-19
20-49
461 64 85
50 10 9
411 54 76
100.0 100.0 100.0
352 54 73
85.6 100.0 96.1
25 3
6.1 3.9
13
3.2
14
3.4
7
1.7
118 111 46
941
109 107 45
100.0 100.0 100.0
102 87 24
93.6 81.3 53.3
7 11 3
6.4 10.3 6.7
9 3
11
24.4
4
8.9
13
13
100.0
5
38.5
1
7.7
1
3
23.1
3
23.1
5006 UNDER J100M S250M S500M
MORE S100M -249M -499M -999M
54 89 92 86
7 9 10 6
47 80 82 80
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
46 76 75 65
97*9 95.0 91.5 81.3
1477
2.1 5.0 8.5 8.8
6
7.5
2
2.5
*1MIL
-2.4
49
3
46
100.0
24
52.2
4
8.7
5
10.9
9
19.6
4
8.7
12. 5
MIL*
13
1
12
100.0
7
58.3
1
8.3
2
16.7
2
16.7
30-99
100-249
250-499
500 OR MORE
AVERAGE
1
1 5
10
1
5
7
005
-------
C NATIONAL ANALYSTS ^
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO. 1-2 NUMBER OF WET METAL
FINISHING PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES ON
SHIFTS 1.2. AND 3
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
NONE
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500 OR MORE
AVERAGE
- - - - NUMBER OF FULL-TIME
TOTAL
461
44
417
100.0
6
1.4
129
30.9
81
19.4
96
23.0
75
18.0
25
6.0
1.2
16
1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49
64 85 118 111
10 9 8 4
S4_ ,7.6. 110 _J07
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3 1
5.6 1.3
51 39 26 9
94.4 51.3 23.6 8.4
36 31 8
47.4 28.2 7.5
53 35
48.2 32.7
55
51.4
2 4 9 20
50-99
46
1
45
100.0
I
2.2
2
4.4
6
13.3
16
20
44.4
43
100- 250-
249 499
13
13
100.0
1
7.7
2
15.4
5
38.5
J8.S
80
5006 UNDER' S100M S250M
MORE S100M -249M -499M
54 89 92
779
47 82 83
100.0 100.0 100.0
4
8.5
36 38 18
7 29 20
14.9 35.4 24.1
15 43
18.3 51.8
2
2.4
3 6 10
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
6
80
100.0
10
10
12.$
20
25.0
38
47.5
2
2.5
20
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
2
47
100.0
1
6
12.8
21
44.7
18
38.3
2.1
43
S2.5
MIL*
13
1
12
100.0
1
1
8.3
1
8.3
3
2S.U
2
16.7
4
33.3
65
-------
C NATIONAL ANALYSTS ~
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1337-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO. 1-3 A WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF
SQUARE FEET OF FLQOR SPAeŁ_»L THE. TOJAL
AREA OF THE PLANT?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LFSS THAN Si 000 SO. FT.
Si 000 TO 9t999
10(000 TO 19*999
20(000 TO 39.999
40(000 OR MORE
AVERAGE
NUMBER OF FULL-TIM
TOTAL
461
17
*44
100.0
10J
23.2
.110
24.8
lie
26.6
63
14.6
48
10.8
15815
1-4
64
4
60
100.0
*2
70.0
12
20.0
6
~nr.o
4273
3-9
85
«L
. .83.
100.0
31.8
. 31
37.3
9
10. B
3406
10-19
US
1
117
100.0
9
7.7
46
39.3
49
41.9
8
6.8
3
4.3
12338
20-49
_H1_
5
106
100.0
2
1.9
16_
13.1
41
38.7
36.
34.0
11
10.4
20484
50-99
..._*6
3
43
100.0
6
14.0
14
32.6
23
33.5
39114
100- 250-
249 499
13
13
100*0
1
7.7
5
38.5
7
53.8
55592
5006 UNDER*
MORE SIOOM
34
1
93
100.0
41
77.4
9
17.0
2
3.6
1
1.9
4138
SIOOM
-24VM
89
2
87
100.0
29
33*3
34
39.1
23
26.4
1
1.1
6966
S2SOM
-499M
92
1
91
100.0
9
9.9
34
37.4
39
"42.9
8
~ 8.8
1
1.1
10878
S500M
-999M
86
4
62
100.0
2
2.4
9
11.0
37
"45~rr
24
29.}
10
12.2
20707
E S -
SIMIL
-2.4
49
2
47
100.0
1
2tl
5
10.6
21
44.7
20
42.6
36206
S2.5
MIL*
13
13
100.0
1
7.7
2
15.4 -
10
76.9
63307
007
-------
( NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.I-3B WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF
SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE IN TOTAL
AREA USED BY ALL PRODUCTION OPERATIONS?
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 25
1-4
64
6
NUMBER ANSWERING 436 96
100.0 100.0
LESS THAN 5*000 SO. FT. 155 49
39.6
5.000 TO 9*999 109
25.0
10*000 TO 19*999 96
22.0
20*000 TO 39*999 53
12.2
40*000 OR MORE 23
5.3
AVERAGE 11750
64.5
6
NUMBER
5-9
65
5
60
100.0
58
72.5
19
10.3 23. 8
3 3
5.2
3146
3.8
3970
10-19
118
4
114
loo. 6"
27
u. r
48
"4271
32
28.1
5
4.4
1.6
8956
OF FULL-TIME
20-49
111
5
106
T.W.5
12
11*3
23
21.7
45
42.5
18
17.0
8
~ T7S~
16253
50-99
46
3
43
100*0
3
7.0
6
18.6
23
$3.5
9
20.9
27363
100- 250-
249 499
13
13
100.0
2
15*4
2
15.4
5
38.5
4
30.6
36657
500& UNDER S100M
MORE S100M -249M
54 69
1 4
53 65
100.0 100.0
49 48
92.5 56.5
4 26
7.5 30.6
11
12.9
2679 5118
A L
S250M
-499M
92
3
89
100.0
24
27.0
34
38.2
28
91*5
3
3.4
6298
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
5
61
100.0
5
6.2
18
22.2
36
44.4
16
19.6
6
7.4
16179
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
1
48
100.0
6
J2.5
10
20.8
24
50.0
6
16.7
25862
"
$2.5
MIL-*-
13
13
100. o
2
19.4
1
7.7
4
30. a
6
46.2
44695
006
-------
C NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (597-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.I-3C WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF
SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE IN TOTAL AREA
USED BY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
NONE
1-99 SO, FT.
100-499
500-999
l,000-4>999
S.OOO OR MORE
AVERAGE
TOTAL
461
49
416
100.0
169
39.7
«
7.9
70
16.6
42
10.1
69
21.4
17
1-4
64
11
_ »3_
100.0
27-
90.9
6
11.3
13
24.9
9.4
2
3.6
4.1
940 197
• NUMBER OF FULL-TIME
9-9
69
9
76
100.0
36
90.0
10
13.2
16
23.7
.2
2.6
6
10.9
21 i_
10-19 20-49
116 111
10 9
10S 106
100.0 100.0
42 36
36.9 39.8
8 8
7.4 7.9
16 10
16.7 9.4
12 13
90-99
46
6
40
100- 290-
249 499
13
2
11
100.0 100.0
IP 1
29.0
4
10.0
11.1 12.3 19.0
23 30 19
21.3 28.3
3 7
4.6 6.6
_B89 1_42J_
37.9
9
12.5
.2243
9.1
3
27.3
2
16.2
9
49.9
1284
9006 UNDER
MORE SIOOM
94
6
48
100.0
26
94.2
6
12.9
7
14.6
4
8.3
9
10.4
219
SIOOM
-24 9M
89
a
81
100.0
39
43.2
9
11.1
IB
22.2
6
9.9
9
11.1
2
2.9
429
r A L SAL
S290M S300M
-499M -999M
92 86
4 6
88 80
100.0 100.0
37 39
42*0 43.8
9 6
3.7 7.9
16 9
18.2 11.3
9 9
10.2 11.3
19 16
21.6 20.0
2 9
2*3 *«3
742 1020
E S -
I1MIL
-2.4
49
3
46
100«0
7
19*2
1
2*2
3
6.9
9
19.6
20
43(9
6
13*0
2889
S2.9
MIL*
13
1
12
100.0
2
16.7
1
8.3
7
98.3
2
16.7
2621
009
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (5S7-1I
SOftVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO. 1-30 WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF
-SQUARE-F EET-OE-F LOCIR-SeACE-1 N-10 T AU ARE A
AVAILABLE FOR EXPANSION INSIDE THE PLANTt
- - - - NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE ---- --.-TOTAL SALCS---
IPO- atO- «QOfc UMBER «1OOM «»8OM MQOM »1M»I «».
TOTAL 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 30-99 249 499 MORE J100M -249M -499M -999M -2.4 MIL*
-XOXAI 461 64 IS 111 111 46 13 **• >9 93 ««, *.« 1»
_MO_ANSWER 34 • -10 3
-NUMBER-ANSWERING 42S 36 7S -US 106. 62 14 »a «». 9O 1Q 4J U_
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
93 77 3J I 11 61 76 56 31 6_
73.2 76. »
l-99f SO* FT. 2) }
1.9 7.1
«. 000-9. 999 12 1
7.» 5.4
10 1 000 OR MORE 1| 1
AVERAGE 1034 763
69.3
3
11
14.7
6
1.0
1
•0.9
4
•
7.0
J
6.1
. .*_
793 M6
72.6
6
9
7.3
9
t.5
73.*
3
11.9
)
11.9
1
1397 1170
• !.•
1
9*1
1
3709
76*0
6
12.0
2
4.0
3
6*0
1
2*0
749
73.9
5
6.0
9
10.1
3
6.0
1
1*2
673
•4.4
2
2*2
3
3.6
9
3.6
2
2*2
501
70.0
6
7.3
•
10*0
6
7.3
4
3.0
1314
70.2
1
2.1
6
12*1
6
12. •
, I
2*1
1215
54.3
4
36.4
1
9.1
4*91
010
-------
C NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-1)
QUESTION NO.I-3E WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF
SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE__UUOT>L AREA ... .
AVAILABLE FOR EXPANSION OUTSIDE THE PLANT?
- - - — NUMBER OF FULL— TIME PEOPLE
100-
TOTAL 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 249
TOTAL 461 64 85 118 111 46 13
NO ANSWER 47 12 10 6 11 6
NUMBER ANSWERING 414 52 75 112 100 40 13
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
NONE 240 36 51 65 50 19 8
58.0 69.2 68.0 58.0 50.0 47.5 61.5
1.999 SQ, ET. Ifl 1 64 5 1
.4.3 1.9 8.0 3.6 5.0 2.5
lfOOO-7.999 2J 5 5 10 2 1
5.6 9.6 6.7 8.9 2.0 2.5
J.000-9i999 52 7 6 15 17 4
12.6 13.5 8.0 13.4 17.0 10.0
10.000 OR MORE 81 3 7 IB 26 15 5
19.6 5.8 9.3 16.1 26.0 37.5 38.5
AVERAGE 9873 2801 4397 7882 13820 16716_217U_
Oil
V
250- SOOfr UNDER
499 MORE SIOOM
54
7
47
100.0
34
72.3
2
3
6.4
4
8.5
4
8.5
5275
SIOOM S250M S500M S1MIL S2.5
-249M -499M -999M -2.4 MIL*
89 92 86 49 13
10 5 8 4
79 87 78 45 13
100.0 100*0 100.0 100.0 100.0
44 57 43 19 6
55.7 65.5 55.1 42.2 46.2
6622
4 5 4
5.1 5.7 5.1
11 12 10 8 1
13.9 13.8 12.8 17.8 7.7
14 7 19 16 6
17.7 8.0 24.4 35.6 46.2
9314 3101 10438 17415 28708
J
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (SS7-1I
SURVtY—PA«T-IC-IPAM«
QUESTION NO.I-4 MANY SHOPS IN THE METAL-
LIN 14WNS-rN&UST*Y—JHAT-O15CHAR5E AN
EFFLUENT MAY ALREADY BE COVERED BY A
REGULATORY AGENCY. WHICH TYPE OF AUTHORITY
TOTAL
—TOJAI
461
- - NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE - ---TOTAL SALES
100- 290- 9001 UNDER S100M S290M S900M S1MIL S2.9
J,-4 5-9 1Q-19-20-49 ..50-99 ?48 499 MORE I1QQM -249M -499M -999M -2.4 M|L*
64
69 118
111
13
89
92
86
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
92 87 92 86 49 13
100.Q 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
LOCAL 367
•0.7
STATE 167
?A,7
DON'T KNOW 34
7.s
NONE OF THE ABOVE t
1.1
40
_6L»e
16
10*9
12
20.3
66
61iO
33
-3 9-. 3.
6
7.1
4
A. a
101
_95.6
37
31.4
9
7.6
92 39 11
82.9 76.1 64.6
43 24 7
11.7 s?.2 sa.a
4 1
9.6 2.2
1
.9
41
78.8
16
lO.fl
7
13.5
1
1.9
71
81.6
33
37.9
7
8.0
1
1.1
79
89.9
27
29.3
9
4.4
72
83.7
26
id. 2
5
s.a
2
2.3
40 12
81.6 92.3
27 6
SS.l 46.2
012
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS A
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-1)
QUESTION NO.II-1A DOES YOUR FIRM SPECIALIZE
IN SERVICES TO A MAJOR INDUSTRY OR 00 YOU
SERVE MANY DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
SPECIALIZE IN SERVICE TO AN
INDUSTRY
SERVICE MANY INDUSTRIES
TOTAL
461
1?
449
100.0
104
23.2
345
76.8
1-4
._. 64
8
100.0
19
26.8
41
73.2
• NUMBER OF FULL-TIM
5-9
..83
1
84
100.0
.... 19
17.9
82.1
10-19 20-49
118.. .ill
..116 111
100.0 100.0
33 18
30.2 16.2
• 1 93
69.8 83.8
$0-99
46_
100.0
10
21.7
36
78.3
100- JSO-
249 499
13
13
100.0
5
38.5
a
61.5
SQOi UNDER
MORE S100M
34
4
50
100.0
12
24.0
38
76.0
S1QQM
-249M
89
1
88
100.0
16
18.2
72
81.8
JL250M.
-499M
92
92
100.0.
21
22.8
71
77.2
S50OM
-999M
86
86
100.0
21
24.4
65
75.6
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
49
100.0
10
20.4
39
79.6
MIL*
13
13
100.0
6
46.2
7
53.8
013
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
QUESTION NO.H-1B DURING THE YEAR ARE
MOST. OF YOUR.SALES.-IO.-A-FEM STEAD*
CUSTOMERS OR TO MANY DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS!
-TOTAL-
TOTAL
- - - - NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE - -
LOO- Z3fl=.
1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 249 499 MORE S100M -249M -499M -999M -2.4
TOTAL SALES---
UNPER S1QOM «2*DM SSOQM tIMIL S?.i
MIL*
___ -111
*6
92
a&
49
4SWEA-
-J.—
NUMBER-ANSWERJNG-
_EŁW STEAOX-CUS-TOMFRS
_MANY_DaEEERENl_CUSJQME8S.
63-
.112 111 *(
-12-
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
_193 32 35
42.3 50.a 46.4 51.3 30.6 26.1 56.3
_60
34
_263 3l._
57.7 49.2 53.6 48.7 69.4 73.9 41.7
J>4_
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
-31.
_4_Q_
-3JL
58.5 44.9 42>4 38*4 31.3 30.8
_4J 5J_
53
33
41.5 55.1 57.6 61.6 68.8 69.2
014
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY
Ptor icJ.BAN.IS-
1557-U
QUESTION NO.It-K DO YOUR CUSTOMERS SEND
S .QE_P.RODUC1S_QR
DO YOU GET BASICALLY THE SAME PRODUCTS
MOST OF THE TIMEt
TOTAL
NUMBFH OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE
TOTAL SALES---
TOTAL 1-4
100- 250- SOOt UNDER S100M J250M *500M S1MIL S2.S
3-9 10-19 2Of49 $0-99 249 499 MORE S100M -249M -499M -999M -2*4 MIL*
64
es
na 111
46 13
54
89
92
86
49
1)
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
458 63 85 117 110 46 13
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
54 89 91 86 49 13
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
MANY DIFFERENT PRODUCTS
349 41 62 91
76.2 65.1 72*9 77.6
90
81.8
38 9
82.6 69.2
BASICALLY THE SAME PRODUCTS
109 22 23 26 20 8 4
23.8 34.9 27.1 22.2 18.2 17.4 30.8
36 64 78 67 41 8
66.7 71.9 65.7 77.9 83.7 61.5
18 25 13 19 8 5
33*3 28.1 14.3 22.1 16.3 38.5
015
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (337-1)
^v
QUESTION NO.II-1D DO YOU GENERALLY ATTRACT
CUSTOMERS BECAUSE YOM CAN °FFER L°W PHICES
OR BECAUSE YOU CAN TAKE ON ANY ASSIGNMENT?
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
Mft AMCUFD 9*
NUMBER ANSWERING **"
100.0
nrrfa \_c\v oaii^fs, ISB
29.2
TAKF ANY ASSIGNMENT 310
70.6
1-4
6*
7
57
100.0
19
33.3
3a
•66.7
• NUMBER
5-9
•9
J5
100.0
19
22.4
66
77.6
10-19
11«
7
11 i.
100.0
34
30.6
77_
69.4
OF FULL-TIMf
20-49
111-
2
__109_
100.0
IQ
27.9
79
72.5
50-99
*t
a
43
100.0
16
37.2
3JL
62.8
\no- ]«o-
249 499
JS
13
100.0
6
46.2
7
53.8
•inns, UNDER
MORE S100M
«4
6
48
100.0
19
39.6
29
60.4
k]OOM
-249M
§9
1
SB
100.0
22
25.0
66
75.0
r A L
S24OM
-499M
92
5
87
100.0
26
29.9
61
70.1
SAL
S4QOM
-999M
86
86
100.0
20
23*3
66
76.7
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
1
'»8
100.0
16
33.3
32
66.7
S3. 4
MIL*
1*
1
12
100.0
7
58.3
s
41.7
016
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.II-IF 00 YOU THINK CAPTIVE
OPERATIONS ALSO COMDfTF FnR YOUR rg^TOMFR&f
TOTAL 1
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 14
NUMBER ANSWERING 447
100,0 100
YES 284
63. S S3
NO 163
36.5 46
- NUMBER
64 85
2 3
62 82
.0_100«0_1
33 41
«2__5Q.Q_
29 41
118
5
OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE - -
100- 230-
20-49 SO-99 249 499
111 46
2
1
113 109 45
00. 0_1QO.OLJJBQ. 0_
74 76 37
39
33
30.3
8
17.8
13
13
10O.O
8
61.5
5
38.5
SOOfr UNDER
MORE S1QOM
54
1
53
100.0
26
49.1
27
50.9
•TOTAL
S100M S250M
-249M -499M
89
3
66
1OO.Q
49
37.0
37
43.0
92
2
90
10O.O
56
62.2
34
37.6
SAL
SSOOM
-999M
86
2
84
100.0
64
76.2
20
23.8
E S -
ilMIL
-2.4
49
1
48
100.0
35
72.9
13
27.1
*2.5
MIL-f
13
13
100.0
10
76.9
3
23.1
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (537-1)
SUPUFY PAPTtrtPAMTS
QUESTION NO.It-1 SUMMARY
TOTAL
461
- - - - NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE
TOTAL SALES
TOTAL 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99
100- 230- 300* UNDER S100M S230M S500M S1MIL »2.3
249 499 MORE S100M -249M -499M -999M -2.4 MIL*
64
83 lit
111
46
13
34
89
92
86
49
13
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
459 63 83 117 111 46 13
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
54 89 92 86 49 13
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TYPE 1 COMPANY
TYPE 2 COMPANY
ALL OTHER
112
24.4
5 18 33 31 19 2
7.9 21.2 28.2 27.9 41.3 15.4
3
1.1
3
2.6
342 58 67 81 79 27 11
74.5 92.1 78.8 69.2 71.2 58.7 84.6
3 21 2.5 23 20 2
3.6 23.6 27.2 29.1 40.8 15.4
1
1.1
1
1.1
1
1.2
1
7.7
51 67 66 60 29 10
94.4 75.3 71.7 69.8 59.2 76.9
019
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY J557-1I
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO. 11-2 THE LAST TIME YOU RAISED
JtOUH PHICE-JFOR UMAJŁVEa_RŁASONSJ WHAI_
PERCENT INCREASE DID THAT REPRESENT?
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 22
NUMBER ANSWERING 439
100.0
IFSS THAN * PCT. 23
5.2
S-7 PCT. 153
34.9
B-12 193
44.0
13rl7 .. 44
10.0
18-22 19
23 PCT. OR MORE 7
1.6
AVERAGE 9*06
-
1-4
64
6
51
100.0
. 8
13. a
13
22.4
26
44.8
t
a. 6
4
2.
NUMBER
5-9
19
• 2
100.0
5
6.1
19
23.2
3?..
47.6
10
12.2
6_
3
3*4 3.7
9.36 AO. 33
10-19
—lie
4
114
100.0
6
5.3
45
39.5
45
39.5
11.4
.. 4
1
OF FULL-TIME
20-49 50-99
111 46
9 4
106 42_
100.0 100.0
1
.9
40 21
37.7 50.0
51 18
48.1 42*9
11 3
10.4 7.1
2
1.9
1
.9 .9
8.68 9.17 7.79
100- 250- 900&
249 499 MORE
li
13
100.0
1
7.7
6
46.2
5
38.5
1
7.7
7.46
JUNCE&-
S100M
54
1
53
100.0
10
18.9
11
20.8
22
41.5
5
9.4
4
1
1.9
8.60
S100M
-249M
89
2
87
100.0
4
4.6
30
34.5
37
42.5
9
10.3
6
1
1.1
9.36
S250M
-499M
92
1
91
100.0
2
2.2
36
39.6
37
40.7
12
13.2
3
1
1.1
9.14
SSOOM
-999M
86
4
82
100.0
2
2.4
30
36.6
40
48.8
6
7.3
3
1
1.2
9.09
E S
S1MIL S2.5
-2.4 MIL*
49 13
3
46 13
100.0 100.0
1
2.2
20 8
43.5 61.5
20 5
43.5 38.5
5
10.9
8.02 6.92
020
. _ .
' - •
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (537-1)
SURUEX-EABT-lClEAtllS
QUESTION NO.11-3 AS A RESULT OF THAT
_PaiŁE_lNCBEASEj_IUD_YQUB
FALL OR REMAIN THE SAME*
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE .-TOTAL SALES
100- 250- 5006 UNDER S100M »250M tSOOM tlHIL 12.5
TOTAL 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 249 499 MORE tlOOM -249M -499M -999M -2.4 MIL*
JOIJU 461 64 85 ..118. 111 4.6 13 S4 951 82 86 49 13
-NO-ANSWER 25 _7_ .
NUMBE8..ANSWER.INJ3 436 S7_ |Q. __113 107 44 13 46 67 92 84 45 13
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
_FELL_QŁF U0_ 19 17 21 33 19 4 10 22 22 23 19 1
27.5 31.6 21.3 23.9 30.6 43.2 30.8 21.7 25.3 23.9 27.4 42.2 7.7
-JEM/UJHEO-JME SAME 113 39. 63 15. 74 -_JZ3 8 16 65 70 61 2ft 12
72.2 68.4 78.S 75.2 69.2 56.8 69.2 78*3 74.7 76.1 72.6 57.8 92.3
-INCREASED 1
021
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
SURVEY PARTI("ID»WT«
QUESTION NO. 1 1-4 TODAY* IF YOU AND ALL
WUIP rnupETlTOBS HAq TO BA.ISE_ERKESj
HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK YOU COULD RAISE
THEM BEFORE YOUR BUSINESS MIGHT BE BADLY
UIIPTt
TOTAL 1-4
TOTAL 461 64
NO ANSWER 37 12
NUMBER
5-9 10-19
85
7
NUMBER ANSWERING 424 52 76
100.0 J 00. 0_ 100.0.
LESS THAN 9 PCT. 36 8
9.0 IS. 4
3-7 PCT. 91 9
— - 21.5 9.6
8-12 128 16
.30.2. .10.8.
7
_ 9..0
12
15.4
20
-23, 6..
13-17 52 10 7
--. 12.3 19.2 .. 9.O..
18-22 58 7
I»f7 I?T»
23 PCT. OR MORE 57 6
13.4...11.9.
AVERAGE 12.78 11.90
118
6
112
JLOO.O
11
_9_.«
27
_24.1_
30
13
13 16
16»_7_ .14.3.
19
24.4
15.14
15
-ISjt'L
12.46
OF FULL-TIMf
111 46
4
8
107 38
JLQQ.o_ios,e_
6 2
5.6 5.3
21
42
39t3
14
13
—1.4 j2_
12
5
13.2
12 4
11.2 10,5
12
11.2
12.20
2
5.J
10.84
PEOPLE
100- 250-
249 499
13
13
100.0
2
15.4
6
^46.2
2
15.4
1
7.7
1
7.7
1
7.7
9.31
5006 UNDER
MORE ilOOM
54
6
48
100.0
9
16.8
^ 4
8.3
12
25.0
8
16*7
5
10,4
10
20.8
13.46
-TOTAL
S100M $250M
-249M -499M
89
5
84
100.0
6
7.1
14
16.7
25
29.8
13
15.5
13
15.5
13
15.5
14.42
92
2
90
100.0
4
4.4
22
24.4
29
32.2
10
11.1
13
14.4
12
13.3
13.18
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
4
82
100.0
5
6.1
15
18.3
31
37.8
a
9.8
10
12,2
13
15.9
13.09
E S -
S1MIL
—2.4
49
5
44
100,0
5
11.4
14
31.8
12
27.3
5
11.4
5
11.4
3
6.8
10.97
S2.5
MIL*
13
1
12
100,0
1
8,3
6
50,0
3
25.0
1
8.3
1
8.3
8.67
Q22
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
HETAL FINISHING STUDY (957-1)
SURVEX-PARHC4PAMT-S
QUESTION NO.11-9 SCALE RATING OF DEGREE
-OP-UKEL1HOOO. JE-BUSmSS-EELU-AF-TER-A
PRICE INCREASE* THE POSSIBILT1ES THAT
YOUR CUSTOMERS MIGHT BUY MORE FROM CAPTIVES
i _-_-!_.i_ NUMBER-flF- -EULLrHME-REQRLE-
TOTAL
.
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1997-11
SURVEY— PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO. 1 1-9 SCALE RATING OF DEGREE
aE-L-lJCEL-LMOOCU—IE BUAIMESS_ EELL AFTFP A
PRICE INCREASE* THE POSSIBILTIES THAT
YOUR CUSTOMERS MIGHT ELIMINATE HETAL-
F|»U SWING FROM THEIR PRODUCTS
TOTAL 1-4.
TOTAL 461 64
NO ANSWER 30 10
NUMBER ANSWERING 431 94
1 00.0. 100 tO
1-VERY UNLIKELY 107 17
2-UNLIKELY 86 9
20.0 9.?
3-MAYBE 102 11
.-23.1 20.4.
4-LIKELY 79 12
3-VERY LIKELY 97 9
13. 2. .16. 7.
MEAN 2.75 2.63
• N
- ^-9_
89
4
81
-iQo.a
22
27.2
16
J 9. 8.
16
19.8.
19
8
_.?.».
2.69
JMBER OF FUL
I0=a9_20=4.9_
lie 111
9
109
>QO_.Q_
32
23. *..
24
.22.0
30
27.9
13
10
^_9»2_
2.90
4
107
IQQt Q
20
_ie«Li_
27
25.2
23
21.9 _
18
19
11. 8_
2.90
L-TIME PEOPLE - -
100- 290-
SD-99 249 499
1
45
ISQ-iSL
13
Jtfli?
6
13.3
11
_2 4. 1 A_
10
5
11.1
2.73
13
13
100.0
6
3
1
7.7
3
23.1
3.08
9006 UNDER
MORE tlOOM
54
3
91
100.0
15
29.4
t
9*8
9
17.6
13
25.5
9
17.6
2.92
•TOTAL
S100M S290M
-249M -499M
89
5
92
6
84 86
100,0 100.0
21
25.0
13
15.5
23
21i4_
16
-J!i4_
11
2.80
18
20,9
23
26.7
24
27. »
12
14.0
9
10.5
2.66
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
2
84
100.0
21
25.0
20
?3«S
16
19.0
17
20.2
10
11.9
2.70
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
49
100,0
8
16.3
7
_1A«.3_
11
22<4
13
10
20t4
3.20
S2.9
13
13
100,0
1
7.7
4
30.8
3
23.1
3
23.1
2
15.4
3.06
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS ^\
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANT;
QUESTION NO. 11-5 SCALE R
OF LIKELIHOOD. .IF BUS1NE
PRICE INCREASE. THE POSS
YOUR CUSTOMERS MIGHT STA
INHOUCEt CAPTIVE LINES
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
l^VERY UNLIKELY
2 -UNLIKELY
3 -MAYBE
4-L1KELY
5-VERY LIKELY
MEAN
»T ING OF DEGREE
SS_EŁLL-AETEH *.. ......
IB1LTIES THAT
)T THEIR OWN
TOTAL
461
35
426
100.0
90
21.1
103
24.2
106
24.9
73
17-1
34
12-7
2.76
• ••
64
11
53
.100. 0_
12
22.6
16
30.2
13
24.5
3
9.4
7
2.60
1-9
85
3
80
100.. 0.
19
23.8
11
13,8
20
Jt9*o
19
23.6
11
.13.8
2.90
HUMBER OF FUl
-10-19. 20-=*9_
118 111
9 6
100- 250- 5006 UNDER
90-99 249 499 MORE S100M
46 13
1
109 105 43 13
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
26 23 7
23.9 21.9 15.6
27 26
24.8 24.8
27 26
24.8. ?4,8.
16 15
1.4.7 14*3
13 15
.11.9 14.3.
2.66 2.74
11 7
24.4 53.8
12 2
26.7 15.4
9 3
20.0 23.1
6 1
2.91 2.85
54
3
49
100.0
12
24.5
10
20.4
16
32.7
4
8.2
7
14.3
2.67
S100M
-249M
89
5
84
100.0
17
20.2
20
23.8
20
23.8
19
22.6
8
9.5
2.77
r A L
S230M
-499M
92
8
84
100.0
15
17.9
24
28.6
19
22.6
13
11. 5
13
1S.S
2.82
SAL
S500M
-999M
66
2
64
100.0
22
26.2
14
16.7
25
29.8
15
17.9
8
9.5
2.68
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
1
48
100.0
4
8.3
14
29.2
9
18.8
11
22.9
10
20.8
3.19
S2.5
MIL*
13
13
100.0
1
7.7
4
30.8
2
15.4
5
38.5
1
7.7
3.08
_025_
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
SURVEY PARTICIBAMtS
QUESTION NO. 1 1-5 SCALE RATING OF DEGREE
OF IIKFLfMOnn. IF BUSIMFSS FFLl 4FTFB 1
PRICE INCREASE* THE POSSIBILTIES THAT
YOUR CUSTOMERS MIGHT SHOP AROUND FOR THE
•GST PRICE
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 21
NUMBER ANSWERING 440
100.0
1-VERY UNLIKELY 12
2.7
2-UNLIKELY 11
2.5
1-4
64
9
95
_9^5_
1
1.6
3-MAYBE 31 3
7.0 ».S
• - - NUMBER
5--9-10-19-
65 116
1
64
AOO.O
2
_2.4_
3
J.6_
6
110
OQQ.O_
2
1
.9
10 11
11.9 10.0 .
4-LIKELY 111 13 22
29*2 23, « 26.2
9-VERY LIKELY 27i
62.5
MEAN 4.42
35
tl.t
4.36
47
.56. ft.
4.30
29
_JZ«.4_
67
..MfJL.
4.44
100- 250-
JQ-49 90-99 949 499
111 46
2
109 46
100.0_lUOjO_
1 2
.9 4.3
4
3.7
4 2
3.7 4.3
29 12
_26»9_Z9jl_
71 30
M.tl 45j2_
4.51 4.46
13
11
100.0
1
7.7
1
7.7
1
7.7
10
76.9
4.46
3006 UNDER
MORE «]QQM
54
2
52
100.0
2
3.8
2
3.8
3
5.6
16
30.8
29
55.6
4.31
•TOTAL
S100M S250M
-249M -499M
89
3
86
100.0
2
2.3
2
2.3
6
7.0
19
22.1
57
66.3
4.48
92
7
65
100.0
3
3.5
2
2.4
8
9.4
23
27.1
49
57.6
4.33
SAL
S500M
-999M
66
66
100.0
4
4.7
6
7.0
22
25.6
54
62.8
4.47
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
1
48
100.0
1
2.1
1
14
29.2
32
66.7
4.58
S2.5
MIL*
13
13
100.0
1
7.7
3
23*1
9
69.2
4.46
_02(k_
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY
SURVEY PARTICIPAMTS-
(557-11
QUESTION NO.I1-5 SCALE RATING OF DEGREE
-Of HEEL!MOOD«-4E-BUSINESS FELL AFTER A
PRICE INCREASE* THE POSSIBILTIES THAT
YOUR CUSTOMERS MIGHT USE SOME OTHER FINISH
fOU MiTAlMNUHtMG
TOTAL
- NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE ---- TOTAL SALES---
100- 250- SOOt UNDER S100M S250M S500M S1MIL S2.5
-19 JQ-49 80-99 249 499 MORE tlQQM -249M -499M -999M -2.4 MIL*
• 5
118 111
11
89
92
86
13
NO ANSWER
27
NUMBER ANSWERING
1-VERY UNLIKELY
2-UNLIKELY
1 -MAYBE
4-LIKELY
3-VERY LIKELY
434
1OO.O
46
1O.&
64
98
22.6
107
35
1QO.&.0
6
1O.9
14
12
11
20.0
119 12
J7.4 21.8
81 110
100.O_100.0_
12 11
_14.8 1.0. 0_
13 16
18 24
22,2 21.8
17 29
21.0 26.4
21 30
.25..! _2I. 3.
108
ina.o_
9
a. a
13
_J2jO_
27
25.0
26
33
43
ifla.o_iflfl
4
6
13.3 7
10
22.2 23
10
13
13
.0
1
1
.7
3
,1
6
.2
2
50
100.0
9
18.0
7
14.0
12
24.0
10
20.0
12
24.0
85
_IQJUO_
7
8.2
11
12.9
23
27.1
22
23.9
22
25.9
87
100.0
7
14
16.1
16
18.4
27
31.0
23
26.4
84 49
100.0 100.0
11 2
11 3
13.1 10.2
18 10
21.4 20.4
18 13
21.4 26*5
26 19
31.0 38.8
13
100.0
1
7t7
2
15.4
4
30.8
4
30.8
2
15.4
MEAN
3.44 3.1* 3.27 3.46 3.56 3.58 3*54
3.18 3.48 3.52 3.44 3.86 3.31
037
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUD* (557-11
SURVEY-PAR T-IC-l BANT-&
QUESTION NO.lII-1 ALTOGETHER MOW MANY TOTAL
WOUHS PEH-DAY ABE-SPENT. 1N-WE.I-PLATING
-9 .I0_
I WET FINISHING OPERATIONS?
TOTAL
L 461
NSWFR 20
ER ANSWERING 441
100.0
HDURS 211
47. a
& 149
33.8
?4 HOURS 81
18.4
NUMBER OF FULL-TIM
1-4 5
64
J
_. 59
100.0 100
58
84.7 72
9
15.3 23
3
-9
85
85
.0
62
.9
20
.5
3
.5
10-19 20-49
118 111
108
100.0
48
44.4
47
43.5
13
12.0
3
.108
100.0
31
29.6
41.7
31
28.7
50-99
46
1
_ 45
100.0
8
17.8
35.6
21
46.7
100- 250-
249 499
13
100.0
3
23.1
10
76.9
5QQ&_UNOŁR_
MORE ilOOM
54
1
53
100.0
40
75.5
12
22.6
1
1.9
JUBQM.
-249M
89
4
85
100.0
57
67.1
23
27.1
5
5.9
S2SOM J50OM
-499M -999M
92 a&
3 4
89 82
100.0 100.0
37 32
41.6 39.0
40 30
44.9 36.6
12 20
13.5 24.4
E S -
ilMIL
-2.4
2
47
100.0
4
8.3
16
34.0
27
57.4
MIL*
13
100.0
6
46.2
7
53.8
AVERAGE 1U4_6.61_8.94 J1.31 !3t8JJ JL7tl«_ 2QiH 7.43 9.76 11.35 13.22 18,55 19.23
028
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1597-11
tURVI Y-CAM ICtRANTS
QUESTION NO.II1-2 ALTOGETHER HOW MANY
OA*S-P«R-WiEK_ARE-SeENT—IN. WEI-PLATING
AND/OR WET FINISHING?
-JOTAL-
..NO—ANSWEIU
JIVERAGE-
029
- --- NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE
TOTAL SALES---
«IM;I
TOTAL 1-4 9-9 10-19 20-49 90-99 249 499 MORE S100M -249M -499M -999M -2.4 MIL*
461 64 63 116_m 46 IS S4 B9 92 afc *9 11
__i S2. _ 60
81 __ 117 ___ 11 1
i6_
1.1 3.3 1.2 1.8
_4.94._>.90__4..99_ 9.03 9.0a_._.5.09_3_.QB_
93
86
91
66
l*SS THAN 1 niV
6 DAYS
7 SAYS
100.0
4
.9
408
90.3
35
7.7
*
100.0
4
6.7
5?
66.7
2
3.3
i.
100.0
74
91.4
6
7.4
1
100.0
- 107-
91.9
10
8.9
100.0
99
89.2
10
9.0
.1
100.0
91.3
4
8.7
100.0
11
64.6
2
15.4
100.0
3
9.7
46
90.6
2
3.6
100.0
80
93.0
6
7.0
100.0
62
90.1
7
7.7
2
100.0
76
88.4
9
10.5
1
100.0
43
87.8
6
12.2
100.0
92.3
I
7.7
2.2 1.2
4.42 4.98 9.05 9.05 9.10 9.08
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (997-1)
SURVEY—»A*T4C4RANT~S
QUESTION 111-3 WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF
JkUtOMAJtOM—IN-XOUR-PLANT OPERATION?
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE ---- TOTAL SALES
100- 290- 9006 UNDER IIOOM S2SOM I900M S1MIL S2.9
TOIAt 1-4 5f?9 10rl9..20-49. 30-89 249 499 MORE HQQW -249M -499M -999M -2.4 MtL +
TOTAL 461 64 69 118 111 46 13 94 89 92 66 49 1)
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
PROGRAMMED CONTROL
FULLY AUTOMATED
SEMIAUTOMATED
MANUAL
494
100,0
IS
2.9
34
.. 7.5
103
32.7
304
67.0
59 89
100.0 100.0
1
1.2
6 14
10«Z 16.5
93 70
89.8 82.4.
117
100.0
6
.9.1
9
. JL.7.
27
23. L
75
64.1.
110
100.0
3
Jj7_
11
31
78.2
65
59.1
46
10Q.O_100
3
6.9
9
_i5L«6. 3J
13
za»a 30
21
13
.0
9
.5
4
.8
4
.8
92
100.0
6
11.5
46
88.5
89
100.0
1
1.1
1
1.1
17
19.1
70
78.7
91
3
3.3
6
6.6
20
22.0
62
68.1
69
100.0
4
4.7
5
5.9
30
35.3
46
54.1
49
100.0
4
8.2
12
24.5
13
_i6jL5
20
13
100.0
1
7.7
3
23.1
4
30.8
5
38.5
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY
CURVX Y-
1557-11
QUESTION NO.III-* TYPES OF FINISHING
_Op«RAT-I ONS -JHORMALLX-OONE
JOUL
__!-*.
- NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE ---- ---TOTAL SALES---
100- 250- 5006 UNDER *100M »2SOM S500M S1MIL S2.5
j-9 10-10 20-49 JQ.09 JAP __ 490 MOPE «1OQM' -?49M -409M -999M -?.fc MIL*
TOTAL
65 us
111
13
89
92
86
49
13
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
459 61 85 118 111 45 13
_lQQ.Q_100.0_lCft.Q_100J,Q_lQO<0_lfift,0_lflO..O__.
54 89 92 86 49 13
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 IQOiO 100.0
ELECTROPLATING ONLY
76
NON-ELECTROPLATING ONLY
88
_1S.2 1T
OTHERS
295
_6A J _ 69
IS
22
IB.6.
12 5
10. 8 llii.
4
so.a
12
14
15.7
1Z
13.0
12
14.0
8
16.3
2
15.4
14 26 IB 12
.16. j_ 22.0 16.2_26V7_
8
14.8
17
19.1
17
la.s
19
22.1
9
IB. 4
3
23.1
56
70
81
28
6
46.2
34 58
63.0 65.2
63
68.5
55 32
64.0 69.3
8
61.5
031
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (957-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.III-5 HOW MANY CLEANING,
PLATING, FINISHING ANO RINSE TANKS DO
YOU HAVE ON YOUR FLOOR! SIT
TOTAL
TOTAL • ' *^l
NO ANSWER ~ 1 1
NUMBER ANSWERING ( '*0'
100.0
20.4
11-39 194
43.1
40-99 129
28.7
Irtp OR MORE SS
7.8
AVERAGE 41
1-4
64
.2
62_
100.0
27
43.5
33
- - NUMBER
5-9
85
L_
84
100.0
22
26.2
40.
53.2 47.6
2 21
3.2
14
25.0
1
1.2
_30.
10-19
.*
114
100.0
24
21.1
59
48.2
35
30.7
,30
OF FULL-TIME
20-49
111
3
108
100.0
7
6.5
38
35.2
41.7
18
16.7
Si
50-99
46
100.0
4
8.7
. 13
28.3
17
37.0
12
26.1
Ifc_
100- 250-
249 499
1
12
100.0
1
8.3
3
25.0
4
33.3
4
33.3
104
_50Qt_UNDŁB_
MORE SIOOM
54
1
53
100.0
21
39.6
29
54.7
2
3.8
1
1.9
23
9
-ilQflM.
-249M
89
3
86
100.0
16
18.6
47
54.7
23
26.7
26
JiifiM.
-499M
92
1
91
100.0
16
17.6
36
39.6
39
42.9
35
S500M
-999M
86
1
85
100.0
8
9.4
33
38.8
31
36.5
13
15.3
51
Ł S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
2
47
100.0
2
4.3
11
23.4
19
40.4
15
31.9
86
S2.5
MIL*
13
1
12
100.0
2
16.7
4
33.3
1
8.3
5
41.7
109
032
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.111-6 HOW MANY SEPARATE
PRODUCT ION LINES DO YOU HAVE SET UP .......
NORMALLY TO HANDLE YOUR METALFINISHING
OPERATIONS?
TOTAL
- NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE
TOTAL SALES---
TOTAL 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99
100- 250- 500& UNDER S100M S250M S500M tlMIL S2.J
249 499 MORE S100M -249M -499M -999M -2t4 MIL*
85
118 111
46
13
54
89
92
86
49
NO ANSWER
19
NUMBER ANSWERING
NONE
1 TO 3
4 TO 6
442 56 82 113 107 46 13
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
24 10
5.4 17.2
9.8
4
3.5
264 45 55 75 49 It 7
59.7 77.6 67.1 66.4 45.8 32.6 53.8
102
23.1
2 14 28 36 16 4
3.4 17.1 24.8 33.6 34.8 30.8
50 86 89 85 49 13
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100*0 100.0
16.0
6
7.0
5
5.6
37 61 52 46 14 8
74.0 70.9 58.4 54.1 28.6 61.5
5 14 25 22 19
10.0 16.3 28.1 25.9 38.8
1
7.7
7 OR MORE
AVERAGE
52
11.8
1
1.7
5
6.1
6 21 15 2
5.3 19.6 32.6 15.4
3.12 1.53 2.56 2.77 4.10 4.89 3.77
5
5.B
7 T7 16 4
7«9 20.0 32.7 30.8
1.58 2.63 3.07 3.78 5.12 4.23
033
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
QUESTION NO.111-9 REQUEST FOR DATA ON
J^REA PLATED t FINISHED OR REMOVED _
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE TOTAL—SALbS "
100- 250- 5006 UNDER.S100M S250M S500M S1MIL $2.5
I.QIAU lr* _Sr9J_0-19 20-49 50-99 249 499 MORE tlOOM -249M -499H -999M -2.4 MIL+
TOTAL 461 64 85 118 111 46 13 54 89 92 86 49 13
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING 461 64 85 118 111 46 13 54 89 92 86 49 13
loj>_jLo_!op.o_i<>p_,oL_i5o«P^_ipo.o^_iooiq_Loo_.o 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
YEo, SOME DATA ARE ENTERED OR 125 13 16 33 36 11 6 6 26 29 26 14 8
_S_UPELIŁD 11.1__20_.3_ 1 B_. 6 2_8.0 32.4 23.9 46.2 11.1 29.2 31.5 30.2 28.6 61.5
NO. NO DATA PROVIDED 336 51 69 85 75 35 7 48 63 63 60 35 5
72.9 79.7 81.2 72.0 67.6 76.1 53.8 88.9 70.8 68«5 69.8 71.4 38.5
034
-------
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-1)
QUESTION NO. 111-10 WHAT IS YOUR PLANT'S
WATER USE FOR A TYPICAL DAY DURING 1975
FOR TOTAL PLANT T
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
NONE
LESS THAN 4.000 GAL. PER DAY
5*000 TO 19t999
20*000 TO 49*999
50 i 000 TO 99(999
100*000 OR MORE
AVERAGE 1 HUNDREDS)
TOTAL
461
75
186
1-4
64
13
51
100.0 100.0
1 1
.3
119
30.6
94
24.4
75
19.4
49
12.7
46
12.4
525
2.0
42
62.4
6
TT7§-
1
2.0
1
2.0
54
NUMBER OF FULL-TIM!
5-9
. . »5
15
70
100.0
38
54.3
26_
^7.1
3
4.3
1
1.4
2
2.9
330
10-19 20-49
.118 ..ill
27 9
91 102
100.0 100.0
19 10
20.9 9.6
27 23
29.7 22.5
27 36
29.7 33.3
11 22
12.1 21.6
7 11
7.7 10.6
445 44$
50-99
46
4
42
100.0
3
7.1
*
9.5
5
11.9
9
21.4
21
50.0
1555
100- 230-
249 499
13
1
12
100.0
1
6.3
2
16.7
1
6.3
2
16.7
6
30.0
1767
5QO&_yNOER
MORE SIOOM
54
10
44
100.0
1
2.3
35
79.5
6
18.2
30
SIOOM
-249M
69
14
73
100.0
29
36.7
31
41.3
13
17.3
2
2.7
123
r A L
S250M
-499M
92
13
79
100.0
21
26.6
23
29tl
22
27.8
10
12.7
3
3.6
366
SAL
S500M
-999M
66
8
78
100.0
9
11.5
18
23.1
24
30.8
17
21.8
10
12.8
447
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
3
46
100.0
2
4.3
5
10.9
4
8.7
15
32.6
20
43.5
1510
S2.5
MIL*
13
1
12
100.0
1
8.3
3
25.0
2
16.7
1
8.3
5
41.7
1518
033
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (357-1)
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
X
QUESTION NO.III-10 WHAT IS YOUR PLANT'S
WATER USE FOR A TYPICAL DAY DURING 1775
FOR METALF1NISH1NG PROCESSING WATER?
TOTAL
TOTAL 4*1
NO ANSWER 163
NUMBER ANSWERING 298
100.0
NONE 3
1.0
LESS THAN 5.000 GAL. PER DAY 105
35.2
5jOOO TO 19»999 6B
22.6
20(000 TO 49t999 57
19.1
50*000 TO 99(999 32
10.7
100(000 OR MORE 33
11.1
AVERAGE (HUNDREDS) 456
NUMBER
1-4 5-9 10-19
64 85 118
31 30 42
33 55 76
100.0 100.0 100.0
2
6.1
28 33 22
84.8 60.0 28.9
2 20 21
6.1 36.4 27.6
1 1 20
3.0 1.8 26.3
i e
1.8 10.5
5
6.6
21 74 433
OF FULL-TIM!
20-49
1JLL
35
76
100.0
1
1.3
11
14.5
16
21.1
27
35.5
15
19. 7~
6
7.9
399
50-99
_-4.6_
35
100.0
5
14.3
3
8.6
5
14.3
5
14.3
17
48.6
1369
10.0- 280-
249 499
13
2
11
100.0
1
9.1
2
18.2
1
9.1
2
18.2
5
45.5
1667
SOOt UNDER1 SIOOM *250M
MORE JIOOM -249M -499M
54 89 92
24 29 25
30 60 67
100.0 100.0 100. 0
1
3.3
24 29 20
80.0 48.3 29*9
5 20 21
16.7 33.3 31(3
10 18
16.7 26.9
I 5
1.7 7.5
3
4.5
32 99 395
S500M S1MIL
-999M -2.4
86 49
32 11
54 38
100.0 lOOtO
1
1.9
11 4
20.4 10.5
9 3
16.7 7.9
18 4
33.3 10.5
10 11
18. 5 28.9
5 16
9.3 42.1
369 1338
S2(5
MIL*
13
1
12
100.0
2
16.7
3
25.0
2
16.7
5
41.7
1348
036
-
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS ^
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1997-11
QUESTION N0.1II-11A WHERE DOES YOUR
DISCHARGE HATER <5ftt
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM
RIVER* LAKE, POND, OTHER
BOTH
TOTAL
461
8
493
100.0
392
49
10.1
12
2.6
64
9
99
.100.0.
49
J3.1.
7
11.9
3
_l»l.
- - - NUMBER
— 3-9- 10-19.
89 118
1
84 118
100.0 100.0
72 108
85.7 91. S
12 9
14.1 7.6
1
.8
OF FULL-TIME
.2O^49_90«99__
111 46
1
110
100.0.
99
86. 4.
10
S.l.
9
_4.9.
46
-L00.0J
36
78.3
7
14. t
3
6,J
100- 290-
249 440
13
13
100. 0
12
92.3
1
7.7
900* UNDER
MORE flOOH
94
4
90
100.0
49
90.0
4
8.0
1
2.0
•S100M S290M
89 92
89 92
100.0 100.0
80 89
89.9 92.4
7 7
7.9 7.6
2
2.2
SAL
S900M
-Q9OM
86
86
100.0
71
82.6
12
14.0
3
3.9
E S -
S1MIL
-J.t
49
49
100. (L
37
79.9
9
IS. 4
3
6,1
M 8V
*2.»
M(l 4.
13
13
100.0
13
100.0
_OJ7_
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
SURU«Y--
QUESTION NOtlll-llB DO YOU HAVE THE
OPJUON-OE-SWIICHING-EKOM-YOUJl-PRESENT
MEANS OF WATER DISCHARGE TO ANOTHER?
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE ---- __.-TOTAL 5ALES---
100- 250- gQQfc UNDER IlQQM 83SOM S5QOM S1MTL
TOTAL 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 249 499 MORE SIOOM -249M -499M -999M -2.4 MIL*
-TOTAL -461 64 85 118 -—111 46. 13 54 B.S 9.2 86 49 13
NO-ANSWER 9 3 2 3. 1_
NUMBER ANSWERING *52 61 83- —116— 110 ___46 13 il BB 91 86 49 11
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
.YES- 13 1 1 J 5_
2.9 1.6 1.2 2.6 4.5 4.3 7.7 3.9 2.2 7.0 2.0 7.7
__439_ 60 82_ _.113 .105 *4 12 49 88 89 60 48 12
97.1 98.4 98.8 97.4 95.5 95.7 92.3 96.1 100.0 97.8 93.0 98.0 92.3
038
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-1I
SURVEY-PAR tlC IB AHI5
QUESTION NO.III-11B1 (IF 'YES'i Q.11BI
-WHAV— J-S— int— HAIUKC_ur tuvw— irc
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
TO GROUND VIA FILTER BEDS
TO RIVER* LAKE* STREAM* ETC.
OTHER OPTIONS
- - - - NUMBER
TOTAL 1~4 5—9 10—19
19 1 1 3
19 1 1 9
_100.0 100.0 100.0 lOOjO
5 1
»§.» 13.3
1112
OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE - -
100- 250-
20-49 50-99 2*9 *«»
5 2 1
9 2 1
100.0 IQO.O 100.0
3 1
*O,0 100.0
2 2
-- TOTAL SAL
9006 UNDER. S100M S250M S500M
none nooM'-2*8M -*o9n -999**
2 26
2 26
100.0 100.0 100.0
3
50.0
2 23
100.0 100.0 50.0
E S - - -
S1MIL S2.5
-2.4 MIL*
1 1
1 1
100.0 100.0
1
100.0
1
100*0
.03?
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
^
QUESTION NO. 1 1 1-12 (IF DISCHARGE WATER
GOES TO—MUNICIPAL- SEWER SYSTEM. 0.11A)
WHAT WERE YOUR 1975 TOTAL SEWER COSTS?
TOTAL
TOTAL 404
un AMCUFD 1 ??
NUMBER ANSWERING 2*2
100.0
LESS THAN *»00 102
36.2
f5QQ TO SO99 35
12.4
tl.QQO TO 17,994 69
24.5
11.3
16.000 OR MORE 44
IS. 6
AVERAGE 3437
1-4
52
14
38
100.0
30
• - - NUMBER OF FULL-TIME
5-9
72
26
46
100.0
26
78.9 56.5
6 8
IS. 8 17.4
i 7
5.3
28}_
15.2
5
10.9
10-19 20-49
__ 109 ._ 100
34 29
._.. 75 71_
100.0 100.0
27 14
36.0 19.7
10 5
13.3 7.0
24 25
32.0 35.2
9 _14
12.0 19.7
9 U
6.7 18.3
1727. -3608
50-99
39
12
_27_
100.0
1_
3.7
14.8
4
14.8
3
11.1
1$
55.6
100-- -250r
249 499
1?
1
n
100.0
2
18.2
1
9.1
8
72.7
16017
5006 UNDE8_'
MORE S100M
46
13
33
100.0
25
75.8
6
18.2
2
6.1
345
-I IQQM SJSQM SSQQM
-249M -499M -999M
B2 85 74
-2A-
6JL
100.0
29
47.5
10
16.4
14
23.0
7
11.5
1
1.6
1119
22
63
100.0
17
27.0
10
15.9
25
39.7
8
12.7
3
4.8
1738
22
52
100.0
12
23.1
6
11.5
E S -
~*1M1L.
-2.4
40
a
32
100.0
6.3
1
3.1
4
30.8 12.5
11 2
21.2
7
13.5
3558
6.3
33
71.9
13236
MIL-f
13
5
a
100.0
i
12.5
7
87.5
15050
040
-------
r NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO. 111-13 HOW MANY POUNDS OF
SLUDGE DO YOU PRODUCE IN A MONTH?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
NONE
1 TO 99
100 TO 999
1.000 TO 9,99?
10 i 000 OR MORE
TOTAL
461
179
282
100.0
98
34. B
70
24.8
61
21.6
36
12. B
17
6.0
1-4
64
19
- - - NUMBER
- 6=9- 10-19
89
30
118
49
49 95 69
JOO.O 100.0_100.0
21 21 19
46.7 38.2 27.9
17
37.8
7
19.6
22
40,0
9
16.4
2
3.6
1
1.8
OF FULL-TIME
20-4?. 50-99
111
48
63
-IQO.o
21
33.3
17 9
24.6 14.3
22
31.9
8
11.6
3
4.3
13
20.6
13
20.6
7
11.1
46
19
31
JtOOjOJ
9
29.0
4
12.9
9
16.1
9
29.0
4
12.9
PEOPLE - -
100- 250-
249 499
13
8
9
LOO.O
1
20.0
1
20.0
1
20.0
2
40.0
9006 UNDER
MORE SlOOli
94
17
37
100.0
14
37.8
20
94.1
3
8.1
-TOTAL
S100M S250M
-249M -499M
89 92
30 39
99 93
100.0 100.0
21 18
39.6 34.0
18 12
30.5 22.6
17 16
28.8 30.2
2 4
3.4 7.9
1 3
1.7 9.7
SALES-
S900M S1M1L
-999M -2.4
86 49
30 21
96 28
100.0 100.0
23 8
41.1 28.6
8 1
14.3 3.6
8 4
14.3 14.3
12 11
21.4 39.3
9 4
8.9 14.3
S2.9
MIL*
13
7
6
100.0
1
16.7
4
66.7
1
16.7
AVERAGE
041
2240
99 878 972 9607 4268 4440
27 446 2149 4960 9003 1867
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS "S
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-1)
SURVFY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO. 1 1 1-14 (IF SLUDGE PRODUCED,
Q.13.1 HQW_IS THE. SUUP6E DJSPOSECT
TOTAL
TOTAL
184
1-4
24
• - - NUMBER
- S-9_10-19
34 50
OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE
100- 250-
20-4 S 50-99 249 499
42
22
4
5006 UNDER
MORE S100M
23
• T 0
S100M
-249M
38
F A L SAL
S250M $500M
-499M -999M
35 33
E S -
S1M1L
-2.4
20
$2.5
MIL*
5
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LAND FILL
INTO WATER OR SEWER
INCINERATOR
LAGOON
TRASH PICKUP
REFINERY
RECYCLED
OTHER
DON'T KNOW
184 24
100,0 100.0
76
41.3
27
14.7
1
• 9
8
4.3
90
46.9
3
1.6
6
3.3
2
1.1
1
.5
7
29.2
3
12.5
1
4.2
13
54.2
1
4.2
34 50
100,0 100.0
14 It
41.2 30.0
6 5
17.6 10.0
1
2.0
1
2.0
20 29
58.6 56.0
1
2.9
2
4.0
1
2.9
42
_100,OL
22
52.4
9
21.4
1
2.4
13
31.0
1
2.4
1
2.4
1
22
100.0
13
59.1
3
13.6
5
22.7
6
36.4
1
4.5
4
100.0
1
23.0
1
25.0
3
73.0
1
25.0
23
100.0
7
30*4
4
17.4
1
4.3
12
52.2
1
4.3
38
100.0
12
31.6
9
23.7
1
2.6
1
2.6
22
57.9
1
2.6
35 33
100.0 100.0
13 20
37.1 60.6
4 5
11.4 15.2
1
3.0
18 13
51.4 39.4
3
6.6
1
3.0
1
J.O
20
100*0
13
65.0
2
10.0
3
15,0
5
25,0
1
5.0
5
100.0
3
60.0
1
20,0
2
40.0
1
20.0
J>42.
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (5»7-ll
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-1A WHO OWNS YOUR FIRMT
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER .41
NUMBER ANSWERING 420
100.0
AN INDIVIDUAL 131
31.2
A FAMILY 141
33.6
A SMALL GROUP 129
30. 7
ANOTHER FIRM 16
3.8
OTHER 3
.7
1-4
64
a
56
100*0
29
51.6
15
26. a
11
19.6
1
i.a
• - - -1
9-9
as
6
79
100.0
26
32.9
30
38.0
21
26.6
1
1.3
1
1.3
«UM0ER
10-19
118
11
107
100*0
36
33.6
. 31
29.0
36
33.6
3
2. a
i
.9
.OF- FULLsIJMt
20-49 SO-99
111
11
100
100.0
22
22.0
37
37.0
38
38.0
2
2.0
1
1.0
46
>
43
100*0
a
18.6
ia
41.9
12
27.9
3
11.6
: PEOPLE -
100- 25C
249 49?
13
1
12
100.0
3
25*0
5
41.7
4
33.3
SOOt UNDER
MORE SIOOM
54
4
JO
100.0
22
44*0
16
32.0
11
22.0
1
2*0
SIOOM
.-249M
89
7
82
100.0
27
32.9
. 33
40.2
19
23.2
2
2.4
1
1.2
*250M
-499M
92
»
87
100*0
26
29.9
27
31.0
x 33
*7.9
1
1.1
S500M
-999M
86
6
ao
100.0
20
25*0
27
33.8
30
37. 5
3
3.8
Ł S -
SIMIL
-2.4
49
2
47
100*0
9
19.1
ia
38.3
13
27.7
7
14*9
*2.5
MIL*
13
1
12
100.0
3
25.0
2
16.7
»
41.7
2
16.7
043
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-1)
SUgVEX-BAB-TICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-1B HOW MANY OWNERS ARE
TMFBFS
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE TOTAL SALES---
100- 250- 5006 UNDER. S100M S250M J500M *1MJL *2.5
IOIAI -1=* 5-9_10=19_20-49_50j=L9» 249 499 MORE ilQQM -?49M -499M -999M -a.4 MIL*
TOTAL 461 64 85 118 111 46 13 54 89 92 86 49 13
NO ANSWER 46 4 4 14 10
NUMBER ANSWERING 415 60 81 104 101 37 9 53 85 86 81 40 11
IflO *0_JUI 0.Q_10fl. Q_ 1 Oft, 0__lfflO . Q._XO.g.O 10.Q tS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1-3 337 54 71 85 ~78 24 5 48 74 72 61 26 6
81.2—90.f 0—ft!. 7_iJJlt.7 litZ 6Ju5 i?,& 90»6 87.1 83.7 75.3 65.0 54.5
4-7 65 5 9 15 '20 10 3 4 10 13 16 10 3
15*7 8O__ll.i __l*.t4_19.J_:27.,«7_13j3 7.5 11.8 15.1 19.8 25.0 37.3
8 OR MORE 13 1143.31 111442
3«i -lal_ 1.2_ 3.ft. 3.0__8jl—IJjl L..2 1.2 1.2 4.9 10.0 18.7
AVERAGE 2.46 1.95 2.21 2.37 2.77 3.14 3.22 1.94 2.21 2.30 2.84 3.25 4*00
044
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY tai-lt
5HRVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-1C HOW MANY OF THESE
OWNERS WORK fULI-TIMET
100- 290- 5006 UNDER -HOOM S250M
TOTAL 1~4 >-9 10-19 20-49 *0-°9 249 499 MOPF flOOM -2*PM -i9««
TOTAL 461 64 85 lid 111 46 13 54 89 92
NO ANSWER 51 78 12 895 285
NUMBER ANSWERING 410 57 77 106 103 37 8 52 81 87
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
NONE 22 84541 481
5.4 14.0 5.2 4.7 3.9 2.7 7.7 9.9 1.1
1-3 367 47 72 97 95 30 » *8 70 84
•9. 5 82. 5 93.5 91.5 92.2 81.1 62.5 92.3 86.4 96.6
4-7 19 2 1 4 4 5 2 32
4.6 3.5 1.3 3.8 3.9 13.5 25.0 3.7 2>3
8 OR MORE 2 11
.6 2.7 12.5
AVERAGE 1.66 1.19 1.45 1.57 1.83 2.30 3.25 1.27 1.37 1.67
044
S500M S1MIL S2.5
_OOOM -•} .L. Mil *
86 49 13
393
83 40 10
100.0 100.0 100.0
2 2
2.4 5*0
76 31 8
91.6 77-5 80.0
561
6.0 15*0 10.0
1 1
2.5 10.0
1.86 2.28 3.10
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY C557-1I
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-1D HOW MANY OF THESE
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 101
1-4-
64
12
NUMBER ANSWERING 360 52
100,0 100.0
NONE 270
75.0
1-3 88
24.4
4-7 2
• OR MORE
AVERAGE .34
40
J6t9_
12
23.1
• 29
• NUMBER OF FUI
-_5-9. 10-1S_20=49
85 118 111
16
69
.100.0.
50
72. 5_
19
21*5
.35
25
26
93 85
.IOQJ.tt_lQO.Q
70
_li.a_
23
_J4_,7_
.31
62
77t5L
22
2i,9_
1
1.2_
.38
-L-TIME PEOPLE - -
100- 250-
§0-99 249 499
46 13
13 5
33 8
100. 0 100.0
24 8
72.7 100.0
8
24.2
1
3.0
.48
500* UNDER
MORE SIOOM
54
7
47
loo.o
36
76.6
11
23*4
• 30
-TOTAL
SIOOM S250M
-249M -499M
89
14
75
10O.O
53
70.7
22
29.3
.41
92
16
76
_lfiQjQ_
57
75.0
19
25.0
.28
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
16
70
loo.o
52
74.3
17
24.3
1
1.4
.39
E S -
SIMIL
-2.4
49
16
33
_LQO_iŁL
25
75*8
7
21.2
1
3iO
.45
•v
S2.3
MIL*
13
3
10
1OO.O
9
90.0
1
10.0
• 10
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY C557-1I
SURVEY—PARTICIPANT*
QUESTION NO.IV-2 FROM 1972 TO 1975i HOW
-WOULt- YOU -DESCRIBE- .THE- CHANGES -I It-YOUR -
ANNUAL SALE57
TOTAL
- - NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE
100-=—;
1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 249 499
TOTAL SALES-
I1M1L >3.
TOTAL
_NO- ANSWER
118 111-
h61 64
445 62 83112 107 45_
NUMBER.AMSWERING_
SALESJd
SALES WERE_fiECREA51MG 5JEADJLLY_ 3ft 8 8 7 U_
8.5 12.9 9.6 6.3 10.3
13
IDO.O'IOO.O 100.6 100.0 00.0 100.0 100.0
21 25 40 34 IB 4
___SAUES_MQyED_lN_ŁYC.L!S_
SALES WERE ABOUT THE SAME
164 14 28 41
~36 .9~2T."6~i3. 7 "3676"
84 16 18 24
Hni9"Z5.-« -21.-7—ai;r
47
I 2_
2.2 15.4
6
21
f677"
15 5
I4.IJ—im
7.7
_NOT_IN.BUS1NESS_ALL OR PART
OF THIS TIME PERIOD
0*7
MORE »100M -2*9M -499M -999M -2.4
S4 *9 92 86 4
MIL*
_2_
1
1
S4 67 91 85 49 13
100.O 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
17
26
38
28
17
10
6.1
rrr-
12 35 30 36 23 4
22.2 40.2 33.0 42.4~4Ti^ 30.6
13 18 19 11 6
"2^71—Z3T7—2579 1T77 1172"
nsTS"
2
~27T~
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-1)
SUBUFV
QUESTION NO.IV-3 WHAT IS YOUR 1975 YEAR-END
VALUE FROM YOUR PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT
FROM SALESt
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE -- - TOTAL SALES---
QOj: 250- SOOt UNDER »100M S2SOM tSOOM IIMIL »2.5
IQTAL_
TOTAL 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 249 499" MORE *100M -249M -499M -999M -2.4 MIL*
64 85 118 111 46 13 54 89 92 86 49 13
-NgMBEB-ANSWEHIltCL
18 1
67 100
1A.
JL
97
42
12
loo.b ioo.o ioo.o'Too.o T66.o~ioo.o"loo;o
UNDER JlOOtOOO
tlOO.OOO TO *24j>»999
_54 »4 15 1
14.1 75.6 22.4 lio
89 1.0 _ 41 32 1 1
23.2 22.2 61.2 32.0" 1.62.4
_
24.0
5L 5S 25
13.4 53.0 25.8
. ISOOjOOO. J.Q «999i.!9«_
96 1 _Z 12 5? |
22.5 2.2 3.0 12.0 60.8 19.0
J1 JiOOO ,90ft TO__»ZjA9_9_, ?S?_
12.8
il
3.4
| 12 ._29 5_
1.0 12.4 69.0 41.7
- 1-
1.0
9.5 58.3
AVERAGE < THOUSANDS I 676 89 170 441 691 1638 3776
048
54 89 92 66 49 13
100.0 100.0 106.0 100*0 100.0 100*0
54
~n>o.o
89_
~TO~0~7o
100.0
100*0
49
100*0
13
100.0
64 174 346 692 1461 5932
-------
r NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
4URveY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-3 WHAT IS YOUR
VALUE FROM YOUR PROFIT AND LOS
FROM RENT OR LEASE PAYMENTS!
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN SliOOO
SltOOO TO $4.999
SStOOO TO S9»999
SlOtOOO TO $35»999
S3 6 t 000 OR MORE
AVERAGE 1 THOUSANDS)
1975 Yf
S_5IATI
:AR-END
.MEHT
NUMBER OF
TOTAL 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-
461 64 «i 118 1
107
354
100.0
70
22 25
42 60
100.0 100.0
6 9
19.8 14.3 15.0
57 18 16
16.1
71
— zo~;r
118
3J.~3"
38
10.7
16
42.9 26.7
19 20
~T5.'7~~32T.J
3 15
7.r TS;O
4 7
94
100.0 100
22
21.4 re
12
12.8 6
22
FULL-TIME
49
11.
20
91
.0
17
6
.6
12
50-99
8
38
100.0
8
1
2.6
23.4 13.2
34 45 12
"JS.2 — WiS— STii"
4 11 17
4.3 12
12
.1
20
44.7
38
100- JSO- «00Ł UNDER
249 499
13
1
12
100.0
2
16*7
4
33.J
6
90.0
43
MORE ilOOM
54
8
46
100.0
9
19.6
24
52.2
9
19.6
4
8*7
4
'S100M
-249M
89
9
80
100.0
11
13.8
20
25.0
27
33>8
22
27.5
7
r A L
S240M
-499M
92
7
85
100.0
22
25*9
7
8.2
25
29*4
28
32*9
3
3*5
9
SALES-
14QOM klMIL
-999M -2.4
86 49
2 3
84 44
100.0 100.0
16 11
19.0 25.0
5
6.0
8
9.5
46 14
54.8 31.8
9 19
10.7 43.2
20 36
N
S2.S
MIL*
13
1
12
100.0
1
8.3
4
33.3
7
58.3
68
049
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1597-1)
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-3 WHAT IS YOUR 1979 YEAR-END
_VALUE_ERQM_ YQUR-PBOEIl_ANP_k9SS_ST>tEMENT_
FROM OWNER'S/OFFICER'S COMPENSATION?
TOTAL
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE - - - - ---TOTAL SALES---
0- 290- 900k UNDER'$100M $290M $900M $1M1L »2.9
._ -• - --- ~^ =—-- MI~~
TOTAL 1-4 9-9 10-19 20-49 90-99 249 499
,461 64 89 118 111 46 13.
MORE S100M -249M -499M -999M -2.4 MIL*
94 89 92 86 49 13
NO ANSWER
-__117_._26 27 29 20 ?__
_LL
JLO_
-NUMBER ANSWEH1NG._
-LE$S-IHAJi_f29i.QO_q
-3.44-
38.
_98 93
91
_ !9_
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
86_ 22_ _1? 22 9 3 9
29.0 97.9 32.8 23.7 9.9 8.1 90.0'
_$2P±000._TO__$J?,??9 113 10 27 36 _ 27_ 6
32.8 26.3 46.6 3».7 29.7 16.2
10.0
S40.000 TO J59.999
$60.000 TQ $79.999
_ 58
16.9
44
12.8"
7.1
2
9.3
8.6 18.3
20 9 1
22".6 " 2473 "1676"
5 10 16 10
e.6~16.8~~l7.6~27.0
$80.000 OR MORE 43 1
12__ ^.^
3.1
-AVERAGE (THOUSANDS) 49 24 29
8 19 9 3
8.6 2e.9~2*.i—Jo7
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1957-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-3 WHAT IS YOUR 1975 YEAR-END
VALUE FROM YOUR PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT
FROM DEPRECIATION?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $1.000
SI. 000 TO $9*999
$10*000 TO $29.999
$30*000 TO $59.999
$60*000 TO $99*999
$100*000 OR MORE
AVERAGE 1 THOUSANDS!
NUMBER OF FULL-TIMt
TOTAL
461
140
321
100.0
13
4.0
123
38.3
107
33.3
39
12.1
21
6.3
18
5.6
32
1-4
64.
33
Too'o
5
16.1
22
"71.6
3
9.7
1
3.2
7
5-9
85
53
~To6.o~
4
7.5
39
73.6
9
17.0
1
r.9'
7
10-19 20-49
118 111
34 20
84 91
100.0 100.0
2 1
2.4 1.1
36 16
W.J 17. 6~
33 51
39*3 96.0
8 15
9.5 16.5
1 4
1.2 4.4
4 4
4.8 4.4
23 29
50-99
46
11
35
100.0
2
T.T
5
14.3
11
31.4
12
34.3
5
14.3
72
;00- 250-
249 499
13
3
10
100.0
1
10*0
3
30*0
2
20.0
4
40.0
206
SOOfr UNDER
MORE S100M
54
14
40
100.0
7
29
72.5
2
9*0
1
2.5
1
2.5
6
$100M
-249M
89
21
68
100.0
2
46
67.6
16
23*5
1.
1.
2.
15
r A L
$2SOM
-499M
92
12
80
100.0
2
34
42. 5
39
48.8
2
2.5
1
1.3
2
2.5
17
SAL
$SOOM
-999M
86
8
78
100.0
1
13
16.7
43
55*1
17
21*8
2
2*6
2
2.6
25
E S -
$1MIL
-2.4
49
5
44
100.0
1
2*3
6
13*6
17
38*6
13
29*5
7
15*9
76
$2.5
MIL*
13
3
10
100.0
1
10.0
1
10*0
3
30.0
5
50. O
228
051
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-1)
QUESTION NO.IV-3 WHAT IS YOUR 1975 YEAR-END
VALUE FROM YOUR PROFIT ANP LOSS STATEMENT
FROM PROFIT BEFORE TAX?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $10,000
$10,000 TO $24,999
$25,000 TO $74,999
$75»000 TO $149,999
$150,000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
TOTAL
461
118
343
100.0
200
98.3
56
16.3
62
16.1
13
3.8
12
3.5
30
- -
1-4
64
27
37
100.0
27
73.0
4
10.8
6
16 • 2
9
NUMBER
5-9
_85
29
56
100.0
40
71.4
10
17.9
5
8.9
1
1.8
B
10-19
UB
21
91
100.0
55
60.4
20
22.0
13
14.3
1
1.1
2
2.2
25
OF FULL-TIME
20-49
111
19
92
100.0
45
48.9
14
15.2
25
27.2
5
5.4
3
3*3
28
50-99
46
8
38
100,0
19
50.0
6
15.8
7
18.4
4
10.5
2
5.3
57
100- 250-
249 499
13
2
11
100.0
6
54.5
1
9.1
4
36.4
170
500t UNDER
MORE tlOOM
54
10
44
100.0
35
79. b
6
13.6
3
6.8
6
$100M
-249M
89
15
74
100.0
53
71.6
12
16.2
8
10.8
1
1.4
9
r A L
S250M
-499M
92
9
83
100.0
46
55.4
18
21.7
17
20.5
1
1.2
1
1.2
17
SAL
$500M
-999M
86
3
83
100.0
39
47.0
15
18.1
24
28.9
4
4.8
1
1.2
25
E S -
$1MIL
-2.4
49
3
46
10O*0
23
50.0
5
10.9
9
19.6
7
15.2
2
4.3
40
$2.5
MIL*
13
2
11
100.0
2
18.2
1
9.1
8
72.7
376
"052
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
QUESTION NO.IV-3 WHAT IS YOUR
VALUE FROM YOUR PROFIT AND LOS
FROM PROFIT AFTER TAX?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $10.000
$10.000 TO $24.999
$25.000 TO S74.999
J75.000 TO S149.999
$150.000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
1975 YE
4J5IATE
TOTAL
461
122
339
100.0
212
66.4
93
15.6
43
12.7
5
... 1
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1597-1)
SUBVFY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-3 WHAT IS YOUR 197$ YEAR-END
VALUE FROM YOUR PROFIT AND LO_S.S__STATEMENT
FROM LOSS BEFORE TAXt
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING.
LESS THAN SlOtOOO
»10.000 TO S24I999
*25tOOO TO $74.999
$75.000 TO $149.999
SI 50. 000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
-
TOTAL 1-4
. 461 64
165 29
296 ... 3§
100.0 100.0
275 33
92.9 100.0
7
2.4
3.4
2
.7
2
.7
4 1
- NUMBER
5-9 10-19
85 118
15 42
50 76.
100.0 100.0
50 73
100.0 96.1
2
2~.6
i
1.3
2
OF FULL-TIMI
20-49
_11J
30
8L
100.0
71
8?.T~
2
2.3
7
8.6
1
1.1
6
50-99
46
18
28
100.0
22
71.6
2
7.1
3
10.7
1
3.6
11
100- 250-
249 499
13
4
9
100.0
7
77.8
1
11.1
1
11.1
35
SOOfr UNDER S100M
MORE $100M -249M
54 89
13 25
41 64
100.0 100.0
41 63
100.0 98.4
1
S250M
-499M
92
21
71
100.0
69
97.2
1
1
1.4
1
S500M
-999M
86
13
73
100.0
62
84.9
3
8
11.0
5
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
13
36
100.0
30
83.3
1
1
2.8
2
5.6
2
5.6
22
$2.5
MIL*
13
4
9
100.0
8
66.*
1
2
034
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (997-11
&UBVFV PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-3 WHAT IS YOUR 1979 YEAR-END
VALUF FROM YOUR PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT
FROM LOSS AFTER TAXt
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $10*000
$10.000 TO $24.999
$29.000 TO $74,999
$79.000 TO $149*999
SJSO.OOO OR MOPE
AVERAGE 1 THOUSANDS 1
- - - - NUMBER OF FUt
TOTAL 1-4 9-9
. .461. 64 89...
167 30 36
294 34 49
100.6 100.0 100.0
277 34 49
94.2 100.0 100.0
7
2.4
6
2.0
1.4
3 1
10-19 20-49
—LIB WL
41 30
77 61
100.0 100,0
76 71
4
4.9
9
6.2
1 1
ni~ i.r
2 9
100- 250-
90-99 249 499
46 13
19 4
27 9
100.0 100.0
22 6
01.5 66.9
3
11.1
1
3.7
1 1
3.7 11.1
6 17
3006 UNDER 6100M S230M
MORE $100M -249M -499M
54 69 92
19 29 20
39 64 72
100.0 100.0 100.0
39 64 71
100.0 100.0 98.6
1
1.4
.1
S900M
-999M
66
14
72
100.0
62
06.1
5
6.9
9
6.V
9
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
13
36
100.0
30
S3. 3
2
5.6
4
11.1
15
*2.J
MIL*
13
4
9
100.0
9
100.0
1
099
-------
r NATIONAL ANALYSTS , ,
METAL FINISHING STUDY I557-1J
SURVFY PARTICIPANT*
QUESTION NO. IV-* WHAT IS THE 197$ YEAR
END VALUE F08 «(1TEM) FOUND IN YOUR
BALANCE SHEET?
•CURRET ASSETS
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 141
NUMBER ANSWERING 320
100.0
LESS THAN $20*000 34
10.6
$20.000 TO *99.999 136
42.5
SlOOtOOO TO §199,999 75
23.4
1200,000 TO 1499,999 55
17.2
SSOOtOOO OR MORE 20
6.3
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS) 210
1-4
64
33
31
100.0
" Ie
56.1
12
38.7
1
3.2
26
- - N
5-9
65
36
49
100.0
8
16.3
39
79.6
2
4.1
43
UMBER
10-19
lie
33
85
100.0
4
4.7
52
61.2
22
25.9
6
7.1
1
1.2
165
.QF._FU_LLrllME_PEOPk
100-
20-49 50-99 249
111
18
93
100.0
26
26.0
39
41.9
Ł5
26.9
3.2
177
46
10
36
100.0
8
22.2
19
52.8
9
25.0
448
13
4
9
100.0
3
33.3
6
66.7
1740
250- 5006 UNDER
499 MORE S100M
54
17
37
100.0
17
45.9
19
51.4
1
2.7
30
•TOTAL
S100M
-249M
89
22
67
100.0
12
17.9
49
73.1
6
9.0
50
1250M
-499M
92
12
80
100.0
2
2.5
47
58.8
2?
33.6
4
5.0
97
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
6
80
100*0
1
1.3
is
22.5
37
46.3
23
26.6
1
1.3
168
E S -
tIMIL
-2.4
49
8
41
100.0
4
9.8
27
65.9
10
24.4
444
S2.5
MIL*
13
4
9
100.0
9
100.0
2560
056
-------
f NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1957-1)
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
'
QUESTION NO. IV-* WHAT IS THE 1979 YEAR
PNQ VALUE FOR »(ITEM) FOUND IK YOUR
BALANCE SHEET?
•FIXED AND OTHER ASSETS
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 147
NUMBER ANSWERING 314
100.0
LESS THAN $20*000 90
19.9
$20*000 TO $99*999 119
37.9
$100*000 TO $199*999 70
22.3
$200*000 TO $499*999 90
19.9
$900*000 OR MORE 29
8.0
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS) 176
1-4
64
35
29"
100.0
13
44.8
14
48.3
2
6.9
33
• - - J
3-9
89
36
49
100.0
20
40.8
23
46.9
~5
10.2
1
2.0
41
DUMBER
10-19
118
34
84
100.0
7
8.3
48
97.1
18
21.4
10
11.9
1
1.2
98
20-49
111
19
92
100.0
6
6.9
25
27.2
35
38.0
22.8
5
5.4
176
90-99
46
11
39
100.0
2
5.7
7
20.0
37.1
13
37.1
542
"~100-
249
13
4
9
100.0
1
11.1
' 3'
33.3
5
99.6
768
290- 900t UNDER
499 MORE $100M
94
18
36
100.0
20
33.6
15
41.7
1
2.8
23
• T_ 0 ]
$100M
-249M
89
23
66
100.0
17
25.8
38
57.6
9
13.6
2
3.0
97
$250M
-499M
92
13
79
100.0
7
8.9
42
53.2
22
27.8
7
8.9
1
1.3
95
$500M
-999M
86
9
77
100.0
4
5.2
23
29.9
29
37.7
16
20.8
5
6.5
168
E S -
$1MIL
-2.4
49
8
41
100.0
6
14.6
24
58.5
11
26.8
495
$2.5
MIL-f
13
4
9
100.0
1
11.1
8
88.9
1038
057
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
QUESTION NO.IV-4 WHAT IS THE 1975 YEAR
_EHB._y.M.UE.- FQR_
BALANCE SHEET?
•CURRENT LIABILITIES
TOTAL
TOT A L
TOTAL
_- -_• -NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE - - - -
100- 250- 500
1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 249 499 MORE S100M -249M -499M -999M -2.4
SALES---
UNDER S100M S250M S500M J1U1L S2.5
MIL*
461
64
65
118 111
46
13
54
89
92
86
49
13
NO ANSWER
U2
32
35
31
20
12
16
21
12
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN szotooo
319 32 50 87 91 34 9
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
106 23 30
33.2 71.9 60.0
36 11
1.4 12.1
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS!
115
15
21
85
102 351
612
38 68 80 78 40 9
100*0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
30 41 26
78.9 60.3 32.5
7
9.0
S20.000 TO S99.999
SlOOtOOO TO $199.999
$200.000 TO S499>999
S500.000 OR MORE
130
40.8
40
12.5
31
9.7
12
3.8
6
25.0
3.1
20 43
40.0 49.4
4
4.6
2
2.3
2
2.3
44
48.4
24
26.4
" 12
13.2
7
20.6
23.5
13"
38.2
6
17.6
1
11.1
1
11.1
3
33.3
4
44.4
7
18.4
1
2.6
26
38.2
1
1.5
48
60.0
6
7.5
39
50.0
19
24.4
12
15.4
1
1.3
7
17.5
13
32.5
16
40.0
4
10.0
2
22.2
7
77.8
13
22
40
117
295 1142
Oi8
-------
r NATIONAL ANALYSTS ^
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-4 WHAT IS THE 1975 YEAR
END VALUE FOR »I1TEMI FOUND IN YOUR
BALANCE SHEET?
•LONG TERM DEBT
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 136
NUMBER ANSWERING 325
100.0
LESS THAN (20(000 177
54.5
»20(000 TO *99(999 94
28.9
S100(000 TO J199.999 31
9.5
1200(000 TO S499(999 14
4.3
S 5 00 (000 OR MORE 9
2.8
1-4 5-9
64 85
30 34
34 51
100.0 100.0
24 32
70.6 62.7
10 19
29.4 37.3
NUMBE8_OF_EU1
10-19 20-49
118
31
87
100.0
39.6
25
28.7
16
11.5
111
20
91
100.0
47.3
32
35.2
10
11.0
4.4
2
2*2
.L-TIME PEOPLE - *
50-99
46
10
" 36
100.0
~TF
41.7
4
11.1
4
11.1
22.2
3
13.9
100- 230-
249 499
13
4
100.0
2
22.2
3
33.3
2
22.2
2
22.2
5006 UNDER
MORE S100M
54
14
40
100.0
29
72.5
11
27.5
•TOTAL
S100M
-249M
89
4o
69
100.0
' 42
60.9
20
29.0
6
8.7
1
1.4
$2SOM
-499M
92
12
100.0
45
56.3
30
37.5
9
6.3
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
8
74
100.0
38
48.7
26
33.3
11. »
5.1
1
1.3
E S -
SIMtL
-2.4
49
8
41
100.0
16
39.0
9
12.2
7
17.1
7
17.1
6
14.6
$2.5
MIL*
13
*
9
100.0
2
22.2
i
33.3
i
22.2
2
22.2
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
70
19
33
61 222
453
215
059
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1597-1)
SURVFV PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO. IV-* WHAT IS THE 1975 YEAR
END VALUE FOR M1TEMI FOUND IN YOUR
BALANCE SHEETT
•COMPANY NET WORTH
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 150
NUMBER ANSWERING 311
100.0
LESS THAN S20.000 47
15.1
$20.000 TO $99*999 116
37.3
S100>000 TO $199,999 64
20.6
$200*000 TO 1*99.999 58
18,6
$500,000 OR MORE 26
a. 4
1-4
64
31
33
100.0
19
49.9
16
48.5
2
6.1
- - - N
5-9
85
38
47
100.0
9
19.1
28
59.6
8
17.0
2
4.3
LUMBER
10-19
118
31
87
100.0
10
11.9
38
43.7
24
27.6
14
16.1
1
1.1
OF_fULL-TIME PEOPLE - - - -
20-49
111
24
87
100.0
5
9.7
20
23.0
23
26.4
29
33.3
10
11.3
90-99
46
14
32
100.0
6
18.8
3
9.4
5
15.6
9
28.1
9
28.1
100-
249
13
5
8
100.0
1
12.9
2
29.0
5
62.9
250- 9006 UNDER
499 MORE $100M
54
19
39
100.0
15
42.9
18
51.4
1
2.9
1
2.9
•TOTAL
$100M
-24 9M
89
19
70
100.0
14
20.0
41
98.6
13
18.6
2
2.9
$290M
-499M
92
13
79
100.6
a
10.1
31
39.2
29
31.6
19
19>0
SAL
$500M
-999M
86
13
73
100.0
6
8.2
17
23.3
20
27.4
26
35.6
4
9.5
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
11
38
100.0
3
7.9
4
10.5
5
13.2
12
31.6
14
36.8
$2*5
MIL*
13
4
9
100.0
1
11.1
a
SB. 9
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
244
368
060
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
1557-1)
QUESTION NO.IV-4 WHAT IS THE 1975 YEAR
END VALUE FOR Ml TEH) FOUND IN YOUR
BALANCE SHEETt
•LOSS
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 120*000
$20.000 TO $99.999
$100,000 TO $199.999
TOTAL 1-4
461 44
» 1
456 63
100.0 100.0
490 63
98.7 100.0
4
.9
2
.4
• - - NUMBER
5-9 10-19
as 110
1
•5 117
100.0 100.0
• 5 115
100.0 98.3
.9
1"
.9
QE..FUI
20-49
111
1
TUT
100.0
107
97.3
1.0
1
.9
100- 250-
50-99 249 499
46 13
2
44 13
100.0 100.0
43 13
97.7 100.0
1
2.3
500* UNDER >100M
MORE S100M -249M
54 89
1 2
53 87
100.0 100.0
53 86
100.0 98.9
1
1.1
S230M S500M
-499M -999M
92 66
1
92 85
100.0 100.0
90 83
97.8 97.6
2 1
2.2 1.2
I
1*2
E S -
S1M1L
-2.4
49
1
48
100.0
47
97.9
1
2.1
S2.S
MILt
13
13
100.0
13
100.0
$200.000 TO $499.999
S 5 00 i 000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
1
2
2
2
1
1 3
2
061
-------
QUESTION NO.IV-5 WHAT IS THE BOOK VALUE
OF YOUR BUILDING?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN SlOOiOOO
4100,000 TO S499t999
S500.000 OR MOPE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
TOTAL 1-4
461 64
326 34
133 10
100.0 100.0
91 9
68.4 90.0
39 1
29.3 10.0
3
2.3
96 34
NUMBER
5-9 10-19
65 118
65
20
joo.o_
17
85.0
3
15.0
44
84
34
100.0
28
82.4
6
17.6
58
OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE
100- 250-
20-49 50-99 249 499
111
68
43
100.0
28
65.1
15
34.9
92
46
33
13
100.0
3
23.1
7
53.8
3
23.1
301
13
8
5
100.0
2
40.0
3
60.0
173
5006 UNDER
MORE S100M
54
42
12
100.0
11
91.7
1
8.3
43
•TOTAL SAL
S100M S250M S500M
-249M -499M -999M
89
63
26
100.0
22
84.6
4
15.4
48
92 86
53 57
39 29
100.0 100.0
33 17
84.6 58.6
6 12
15.4 41.4
51 93
E S -
11MIL
-2.4
49
29
20
100.0
3
15.0
14
70.0
3
15.0
289
S2.S
MIL*
13
9
4
100.0
2
50.0
2
50.0
101
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
1357-H
062
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS ~\
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-1)
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-5 WHAT IS
LIFE OF YOUR BUILDING?
THE REMAINING
TOTAL 1-4
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
10 YEARS OR LESS
11 TO 19 YEARS
20 TO 39 YEARS
40 YEARS OR MORE
461
353
108
100.0 100
43
39.8 40
64
54
10
.0
4
27 4
25.0 40.0
34
31.5 20
4
3,7
2
.0
- NUMBER
5r9 10-19
as lie
68 88
17 30
100,0 100.0
10 11
_5_fi»8 36j7_
4 7
2At$__2!j3
3 11
17.6 36.7
1
3.3
OF FUI
_2S-4_9_
111
82
29
.100.0
11
3?.9
8
27.6
9
31.0
1
3.4
.L-TIME PEOPLE
100- 250-
30-99 249 499
46
36
10
100.0
3
30.0
1
10.0
4
40.0
2
20.0
13
7
6
100.0
2
33.3
2
33.3
2
33.3
5006 UNDER
MORE S100M
54
45
9
100.0
4
44.4
2
22.2
3
33.3
- T 0
tlOOM
-249M
89
64
25
100.0
11
44.0
7
28.0
7
28.0
r A L
S250M
-499M
92
60
32
100.0
16
50.0
7
21.9
7
21.9
2
6.3
SALES-
S500M S1MIL
-999M -2.4
86 49
65 36
21 13
100.0 100.0
8 2
38.1 15.4
5 2
23.8 15.4
8 8
38.1 61.5
1
7.7
S2.5
MIL*
13
7
6
100.0
2
33.3
2
33.3
1
16.7
1
16.7
AVERAGE
15.29 14.00 11.65 16.77 14.90 20.90 12.67
14.67 13.76 14.72 14.52 20.92 15.83
064
-------
r NATIONAL ANALYSTS ">
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-1)
SURVEY PlUrif IPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-5 WHAT IS THE REMAINING
LIFE OF YOUR PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
5 YEARS OR LESS
6 TO 9 YEARS
10 TO 19 YEARS
20 YEARS OR MORE
AVERAGE
TOTAL
461
242
219
100.0
123
56.2
48
21.9
45
20.5
1.4
6.33
IT*.
64
41
23
100.0
12
52.2
5
21.7
5
21.7
1
4.3
6.65
~5-9
85
55
30
100.0
21
70.0
4
13.3
5
16.7
5.67
NUMBER OF FU
.I9rl8_20-*?
118 111
56
62
100.0
35
56.5
10
16.1
16
25. B
1
1.6
6.27
51
60
100.0
36
60.0
14
23.3
10
16.7
6.15
LL-TIME PEOPLE - -
100- 250-
_JO.-99 a** 499
46
21
25
100.0
11
44.0
9
36.0
4
16.0
1
4.0
7.40
13
6
7
100.0
3
42.9
2
28.6
2
28. 6
5.86
500* UNDER
MORE HOOK
54
31
23
100.0
11
47.8
5
21.7
7
30.4
6.61
•TOTAL
S100M S2SOM
-249M -499M
89
38
51
100.0
31
60.8
7
13.7
12
23.5
1
2.0
6*47
92
38
54
100.0
31
57.4
15
27.?
7
13.0
1
1.9
5.78
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
37
4
49
100.0
34
69.4
7
14.3
8
16.3
5.86
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
17
32
100.0
12
37.5
12
37.5
7
21.9
1
3.1
7.59
S2.5
MIL*
13
6
7
100.0
3
42«9
2
28.6
2
28.6
6.14
065
-------
C NATIONAL ANALYSTS ~\
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-5 WHAT IS THE EXPECTED
INVESTMENT OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS FOR
BUILDING?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS 'THAN SIS. 000
$15.000 TO *99.999
SlOOiOOO TO S499.999
S500.000 OR MORE
(AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
- - - - NUMBER
TOTAL
461
334
127
100.0
78
61.4
v>
22.8
19
15.0
1
.8
38
1-4
64
54
10
100.0
10
100.0
5-9
85
6_3
22
100.0
17
77.3
2
9.1
3
13.6
. 18
10-19
118
.87,
100.0
20
64.5
11
35.5
16
OF FULL-TIME
20-49
73
38
100.0
19
50.0
10
26.3
9
23.7
57
50-99
46
34
100.0
6
50.0
2
16.7
3
25.0
1
0.3
78
100- 250-
249 499
13
7
6
100.0
2
33.3
1
16.7
3
50.0
105
5006 UNDER
MORE S100M
54
42
12
100.0
11
91.7
1
8.3
5
S100M
-249M
89
59
30
100.0
19
63.3
8
26.7
3
10.0
24
*250M
-499M
92
62
30
100.0
22
73.3
6
20.0
2
6.7
19
S500M
-999M
86
60
26
100.0
15
57.7
6
23.1
5
19.2
46
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
29
20
100.0
6
30.0
6
30.0
8
40.0
72
*2.S
MIL*
13
10
3
100.0
2
66.7
1
3S.3
83
066
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (957-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.IV-5 WHAT IS THE E
INVESTMENT OVER THE NEXT FIVE
PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN SlOiOOO
SlOtOOO TO S29t999
SSOiOOO TO S99i999
1100,000 TO $499i999
S500»000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
XPECTEC
VfAR!LI
TOTAL
461
361
100
100.0
• 6
86.0
5
5.0
7
7.0
1
1.0
1
~I.O
12
»
•OR
- - - - NUMBER
1-4 5-9
6* 85
56 68
8 17
100.0 100.0
8 14
100.0 82.4
1
9.9
2
11.8
9
10-19
-U8..
94
I*
100.0
23
95.8
1
4.2
3
OF FULL-TIMf
20-49
111
82
29
100.0
25
86.2
3.4
3
10.3
7
50-99
46
36
10
100.0
7
70.0
16.0
10.6
1
10.0
67
IOJ>- 250-
249 499
13
8
5
100.0
3
60.0
1
26.6
20.0
15
9006 UNDER
MORE SIOOM
34
45
9
100.0
8
68.9
1
11.1
2
SIOOM
-249M
89
67
22
100.0
20
90.9
2
9.1
6
r A L
S250M
-499M
92
64
28
100.0
24
85.7
2
7.1
2
"~T~.l
6
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
68
18
100.0
15
83. 3
2
11.1
1
5*6
14
E S -
J1MIL
-2.4
49
34
15
100.0
13
86.7
1
6.7
1
6*7
5
">
S2.5
MIL*
»
10
3
100.0
2
66.7
1
33*3
8
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS ~\
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-1)
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.V-1 WHICH OF THESE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FEATURES MAKE UP YOUR SYSTEM? , ,
TOTAL
TOTAL
461
1-4
64
- - - NUMBER (OF FULL-TIME PEOPUE - -
100- 250-
5-9 10-19\20-49 50-99. 249 499
85
118 111
46
13
5006 UNDER
MORE *100M
54
•TOTAL SAL
S100M S250M 500M
-249M -499M 999M
89
92
86
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
S2.5
MIL*
13
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
A- PH ADJUSTMENT (
B- FLOW EQUALIZATION
C- CHROMIUM REDUCTION
D- CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
E- PRECIPITATOR-CLARIFICATION
F-LAGOON
G- SEPARATE CYANIDE STREAM
H- SEPARATE HEXAVALENT-CHROME
STREAM
I- COUNTERCURRENT RINSE
J- REVERSE OSMOSIS* EVAPO-
RATION, ION EXCHANGE. ETC,
NOME
A ONLY
A, B, AND C ONLY
461
JQO.O
146
11 J 7
52
, 84'
18.2
79
17.1
77
16.7
30
6.5
36
7.8
40
8.7
79
_17«1
29
280
60, 7_
17
3.7
1
.2
64
100, 0_
8
2
3..L
4
6.3
4
16.3
1
1
1.6
2
3.1
1
1.6
2
J..1-
1
1.6
51
79. 7_
2
3.1
1
1.6
85
100^0
17
20.0
7
.8.2
11
12.9
10
11.8
9
10.6
3
3.5
5
5.9
6
7.1
9
,10,6
1
. 1.2
61
71.8
2
2.4
118 111
lOOjO .00.0
34 50
28.8 45.0
7 23
5.9 20.7
IB 31
15.3 27.9
16 29
13.6 26.1
17 28
14.4 25.2
3 9
2.5 8.1
9 12
7.6 10.8
9 15
7.6 13.5
17; 29
14.4 26.1
4 / 13
3.4 J1..7
77 52
65t3 46.8
5 6
4.2 5.4
46
100.0
23
50.0
13
100.0
7
53.8
7 2
15.2 15t4
13
28.3
12
26.1
It
32.6
9
19.6
6
13.0
6
13.0
13
Ł8.3
8
.17.4.
21
45.7
1
2.2
4
30.8
3
23.1
4
30.8
2
15.4
3
23.1
2
15.4
5
38.5
2
15.4
3
23.1
54
100.0
3
5.6
2
3.7
2
3.7
4
7.4
1
1.9
2
3
5.6
47
87.0
89
100.0
23
25.6
6
6.7
10
11.2
11
12.4
6
6.7
2
7
7.9
6
6.7
10
11.2
2
2.2
59
66.3
7
7.9
92
100.0
27
29.3!
10
10.9
13
14.1
12
13.0
18
19.6
3
6
6.5
6
6.5
15
16.3
2
2.2
59
64.1
3
3.3
86
00.0
35
40.7
18
20.9
22
25.6
20
23.3
17
19.8
8
9
10.5
11
12. 8
21
24.4
9
LO. 5
46
>3.5
3
3.5
49
100.0
28
57.1
9
18.4
20
40.8
18
36.7
20
40.8
12
24.5
9
18.4
8
16.3
20
40.8
12
24.5
15
30.6
13
100.0
7
53.8
2
15.4
2
15.4
2
15.4
1
7.7
2
15.4
2
15.4
2
15.4
1
7.7
6
46.2
1
7.7
V (CONTINUED) j
-------
r (CONTINUED PAGE 2)
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.V-1 WHICH OF THESE
TREATMENT FEATURES MAKE UP YOUR
At Bt Ci D AND E ONLY
At Bt Ct Dt E* Gt AND H ONLY
I ONLY
J ONLY
ALL OTHER COMBINATIONS
WASTEWATER
SYSTEM?
tOTAL 1-4
5
1.1
1
.2
4 1
.9 1.6
4
.9
145 a
11.5 12.5
- - NUMBER
5-9 10-19
1
1.2
1 1
1.2 .a
18 15
21.2 29.7
100- 250-
20-49 50-99 249 499
5
4.5
1
.9
2 2
1.8 4.1
45 22 10
40.5 47.8 76.9
---TOTAL SAL
5006 UNDER S100M S250M S500M
MORE 8100M -249M -499M -999M
1
3.5
1 1
1.9 1.1
2
2.3
5 22 29 32
9.3 24.7 31.5 37.2
e s -
S1MIL
-2.4
1
2.0
1
2.0
32
65.1
">
m ^
S2.5
MIL*
6
46.2
068
-------
r NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.V-2A HOW MUCH DID YOUR WASTE-
WATER SYSTEM COST TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL7
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN tio.ooo
SlOtOOO TO S24»999
SZStOOO TO S74.999
S75.000 TO §1*9.999
»150,000 OR MORE
- NUMBER
461
308
15,
100.0
44
28.8
38
24.8
36
23.5
19
12.4
16
10.5
64
53
11
100 tO_
6
54.5
4
36.4
1
9.1
85
64
21
J.00,0
11
52.4
4
11,0
5
23.8
1
4.8
118
84
34
IPOjO
15
44U
11
32.4
7
20.6
1
2.9
OF FULL-TIME
_20-49_.10-3»_
111 46
59
52
100,0
9
17.3
13
25.0
10
19.2
12
23.1
8
15.4
24
22
104.0-
2
9.1
3
13.6
6
27.3
6
27.3
5
.22.7-
PEOPLE - -
100- 250-
24« 499
13
6
7
100.0
1
14.3
5
71'. 4
1
14.3
-- TOTAL SAL
SOOt UNDER S100M S250M S500M
MORE S100M -/49M -499M -999M
54 89
49 67
5 22
100.0 100.0
3 14
60.0 63.6
2 3
40.0 13«6
5
22.7
92 86
63 51
29 35
100.0 100.0
10 8
34.5 22.9
9 12
31.0 34.3
9 4
31.0 11.4
1 6
3*4 17.1
5
14.3
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
18
31
100.0
2
6.5
5
16.1
9
29.0
8
25.8
7
22*6
S2.5
MIL*
13
7
6
100.0
1
16.7
3
50.0
1
16.7
1
16.7
AVERAGE I THOUSANDS!
50
10
21
21
71
96
49
15
23
50
105
57
069
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS ' ^
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.V-2B IN WHAT YEAR DID YOU
MAKE THE LAST MAJOR ADDITION TO THE
SYSTEM?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
1968 Oft EARLIER
1949
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1973
1976
TOTAL
461
297
164
100.0
9
5.5
2
1.2
4.3
4
2.4
3.3
9
5.5
26
15.9
' 38
23.2
60
36.6
1-4
64
53
11
NUMBER
3-9 10-19
85 118
63 83
22 33
100.0 100.0 100.0
2 2
9.1
1
9.1
-9.K
3
27.3
4
36.4
1
9.1
1
2.9
2 1
9.1 2.9
1
4.5~
2 2
9.1 5.7
1 3
4.9 8.6
3 2
13.6 5.7
4 9
18.2 25.7
7 13
31.6 '42.9
OF FULL-TIMf
20-49
. Ill
55
56
100.0
2
1
l.J~
2
"I.S
2
3.6
2
3.6
13
23.2
14
as.o
20
35.7
30-99
46
21
23
100.0
3
12.0
~ 4TO~
2
8.0
1
4.0
2
8.0
4
16.0
12
48.0
100- 250-
249 499
13
3
8
100.0
2
25*0
25.0
1
12.5
2
25.0
1
12.5
500V UNDBR SIOOM
MORE SIOOM -249M
54 89
49 65
5 24
100.0 100.0
1
4.2
1
20.0
2
2
B.3
1 1
20.0 4.2
1
4.2
4
16.7
3 4
60.0 16.7
9
37.5
: A L
S290M
-499M
92
61
31
100.0
2
6*5
1
3.2
1
1
3.2
2
6.5
2
6.5
5
16.1
5
16.1
12
38.7
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
48
38
100.0
2
5.3
1
1
2.6
1
2.6
2
5.3
8
21.1
9
23.7
. 14
36.6
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
16
33
100.0
3
9.1
1
2
6.1
2
6.1
3
9.1
8
24.2
14
42.4
>2.5
MIL-*-
13
6
7
100.0
2
»..
1
14.3
2
29.6
2
28.6
070
-------
f NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
-v
QUESTION NO.V-2D HOW MUCH DOES IT COST
EACH YEAR TO OPERATE?
TOTAL
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 336
NUMBER ANSWERING 129
100.0
LESS THAN *5,000 37
29.6
$5,000 TO $14,999 30
24.0
SIS, 000 TO $49,999 44
. 35.2
$50,000 TO $99,999 9
7.2
$100,000 OR MOPE 5
4.0
AVERAGE 21
- NUMBER
64
57
7
100.0
3
42.9
3
42.9
1
14.3
6
85
70
15
100.0
8
53.3
5
33.3
2
13.3
5
118
91
27
100.0
13
48.1
10
37.0
4
14.6
7
OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE -
100- 250- 5004 UNDER
20-4.9 JLO-??^ J4V 499 MORE SIOOM
HI
69
42
100.0
10
23.8
8
19.0
19
45.2
5
11.9
23
46
27
19
100.0
1
..5.3
12
63.2
2
10.5
4
21.1
51
»
5
8
,00.0
1
12.5
4
50.0
2
25.0
1
12.5
41
54
50
4
100.0
1
25.0
2
50.0
1
25.0
8
•TOTAL
SIOOM S2SOM
-249M -499M
89
72
17
100.0
8
47.1
7
41.2
2
11.8
6
92
67
25
100.0
14
56.0
8
32.0
3
12.0
6
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
59
27
100.0
5
18.5
7
25.9
13
48.1
2
7.4
21
E S -
S1MIL
49
25
24
100.0
2
8.3
1
4.2
13
54.2
4
16.7
4
16.7
45
$2.5
MIL*
13
6
7
100.0
1
14.3
4
57.1
1
14.9
1
14.3
41
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1597-1)
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.V-2F DID YOU CONTRACT FOR
ANY PART OF THE DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION
AND INSTALLATION OF THE SYSTEM OR DID
YOU DO IT ALL YOURSELFT
NUMBER OF FULL-TIM
TOTAL SALES---
TOTAL 1-4
100- 250- 500* UNDER SIOOM S250M S500M S1MIL 12.5
5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 249 499 MORE SIOOM -249M -499M -999M -2*4 MIL*
TOTAL
461
64
•5 118
111
46
54
92
86
49
1J
NO ANSWER
293
52
62
84
53
21
49
64
61
48
16
NUMBER ANSWERING
168 12 23 34 58 25 9
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
CONTRACTED FOR SOME
125 8 IS 26 43 20 8
74.4 66.7 65.2 76.5 74,1 '80.0 88.9
DID ALL MYSELF
43 4 8 8 15 5 1
25.6 33.3. 34.8 23.5 25.9 2P.O 11.1
5 25 31 38 33 7
100.0 100.0 100*0 100*0 100.0 100.0
3 17 26 26 28 5
60.0 68.0 83.9 68.4 84.B 71*4.
2 8 5 12 5 2
40.0 32.0 16.1 31*6 15.2 28.6
072
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1597-lt
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.V-26 DID YOU REDUCE YOUR
WATER USE TO PUT IN THE SYSTEM7
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
TOTAL
461
291
no
100.0
1-4.
64
51
11
100.0
100- 290- 500& UNDER S100M S250M SiOOM S1MIL S2.S
9-9 10-19 20-49 90-99 249 499 MORE SIOOM -249M -499M -999M -2.4 MIL*
89
60
25
100.0
lie 111
S3 53
39 98
100.0 100.0
46 13 54 89 92 86 49 13
21 6 47 63 60 48 16 7
25 7 7 26 32 38 33 6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
YES
115 8 15 27 40 17 4
67.6 61.5 60.0 77.1 69.0 68.0 57.1
073
5 18 23 28 23 4
71.4 69.2 71*9 73.7 69.7 66.7
NO
DON'T KNOW
39
22.9
16
9.4
3
23*1
2
19.4
7
28.0
3
12.0
7
20.0
1
_2.»
12
20.7
6
10.3
4
16.0
4
16.0
3
42.9
1
14.3
1
14.3
5
19.2
3
11.9
8
25.0
1
3.1
7
18.1.
3
7.9
6
18.2
4
12.1
2
33>3
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY i 557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.VI-1 WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT FOR THE DESIGNi PURCHASE AND
INSTALLATION OF A NEW WASTCWATER SYSTEHT
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $10.000
$10.000 TO $19.999
S20.000 TO $49.999
$50*000 TO $99.999
*100,000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS!
TOTAL 1-4
46L 64
268 47
193 17
NUMBER
3-9 10-19
85 1.1 B_
57 70
26 48
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
65 9 10 21
33.7 52.9
20 3
38 2
19.7 11. a
34 2
17.6 11.6
36 1
18.1 5.9
61 18
39.7 43.8
4 6
11 8
39.3 16.7
3 5
i0.7~~16.4
16.7
21 37
OF FULL-TIMI
20-49
111
54
100.0
14
24.6
4
9
15.8
17
I9.J
13
il.i
75
50-99
20
26
100.0
4
15.4
1
9
19.2
19*2
11
42 i 3
136
100- 250-
249 499
13
6
7
100.0
3
42.9
1
1
14.3
2
28.6
104
3006 UNDER
MORE $100M
54
38
16
100.0
a
50.0
2
12.5
3
18.8
3
is. a
19
S100M
-249M
89
S3
36
100.0
13
36.1
6
16.7
12
33.3
2
5.6
3
8.3
26
r A L
S250M
-499M
92
50
42
100.0
17
40«5
4
9*3
6
14.3
10
23*8
5
11.9
36
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
39
47
100.0
14
29.8
5
10.6
9
19.1
10
21*3
9
19.1
54
E S -
S1MIL
-2«4
49
22
27
100.0
4
14.8
1
3*7
3
11*1
6
22.2
13
48*1
156
$2.3
MIL*
13
5
6
100.0
3
37.5
1
12«5
1
12t5
3
37.5
135
074
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS ~\
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-1)
SURVfY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.V1-2 WHAT ARE ALL THE SOURCES
OF CAPITAL OPEN TO YOUR FIRM FOR THE
PURCHASE OF A WASTEWATER SYSTEM?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
PROFITS FROM THE BUSINESS
PERSONAL FUNDS
LOAN FROM CUSTOMERS/SUPPLIERS
... SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.
LOAN
COMMERCIAL BANK LOAN
WILL CLOSE BUSINESS
OTHER
NO SOURCES OPEN
PROFITS * PERSONAL
FUNDS ONLY
PROFITS* PERSONAL FUNDS.
AND COMM. BANK LOAN ONLY
PROFITS AND COMMERCIAL
BANK LOAN ONLY
ALL OTHERS
TOTAL 1-4
461 64
117 19
344 45
100.0 100.0
201 . 19
58.4 42.2
66 7
19.2 15.6
12 2
3.5 4.4
118 8
34.3 17.8
223 22
'64.8 48.9
3
.9
13
3.8
25 8
~T.3 "T7.8
10 2
2.9 4.4
25 1
61 6
17.7 13«3
223 28
64.8 62*2
NUMBER
5-9 10-19
85 118
26 30
59 88
100.0 100.0
,3* ,90
57.6 56.8
17 17
28.8 19.3
I 2
1.7 2.3
26 26
U.l 29.5
36 . 60
61.0 68.2
1 1
1.7 l.T
1 3
1.7 3.4
5 5
8.5 5.7
3 2
5.1 2.3
4 6
6 17
10.2 19.3
41 58
69.5 65.9
OF FULL-TIME
20-49
111
25
86
100.0
61
70.9
19
22.1
6
7.0
38
44.2
62
4
4.7
3
3.5
3.5
11
17
19.8
52
60.5
50-99
46
10
36
100.0
20
65.6
4
11.1
14
38.9
26
72.2
4
11.1
2
a
22.2
26
72.2
100- 250-
249 499
13
1
12
100.0
9
75.0
2
16.7
2
16.7
8
66.7
1
8.3
2
U.7
1
5
41.7
4
33.3
SOOfr UNDER
MORE S100M
54
9
45
100.0
19
42.2
11
24.4
1
2.2
13
28.9
ii
51.1
1
2.2
7
15.6
2
1
2.2
2
4.4
33
73.3
S100M
-249M
89
26
63
100.0
34
54.0
17
27.0
3
4.8
23
36.5
40
63.4
1
1.6
7
11.1
3
6
9.5
9
14.3
38
60.3
J250M
-499M
92
20
72
100.0
43
59.7
12
16.7
1
1.4
26
36.1
51
70.8
2
2.8
6
8.3
1
6
8.3
15
20.8
44
61.1
S500M
-999M
86
17
69
100.0
48
69.6
14
20.3
6
8.7
31
44.9
49
71.6
4
s. a
i
1.4
3
4.3
6
8.7
13
18.8
46
66.7
E S -
tlMIL
-2.4
49
10
39
100.0
21
53.8
S
12.8
1
2.6
16
41.0
26
66.7
3
7.7
2
5.1
3
7.7
6
15.4
28
71.8
S2.3
MIL*
13
1
12
Ioo.o
9
75.0
1
8.3
1
8.3
11
91.7
2
16.7
7
58.3
5
41.7
075
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (997-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.V1-3 WHAT ARE THE
SPACES FOR THE INSTALLATION 01
IF IT WERE PURCHASED*
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
AVAILABL
L_A_51SJE
TOTAL
461
19
442
E
M
1-4
64
4
60
100.0 100.0
ON PRESENTLY AVAILABLE FLOOR 102 11
SPACE
ON SPACE PRESENTLY USED FOR
PLATING/FINISHING OPERATIONS
ON SPECIALLY CONSTRUCTED FA-
CILITY IN THE PLANT
OUTSIDE THE PLANT ON MY
PROPERTY
OUTSIDE THE PLANT OH LAND I
WOULD HAVE TO BUY
NO PLACE TO PUT IT
23.1
82
18.6
37
8.4
127
28.7
26
9.9
7}
16.1
18.3
9
19.0
2
3.3
12
20.0
3
9.0
13
21.7
- - - NUMBER
9-9
89
4
81
100.0
19
18.9
17
21.0
7
"' SiTF
19
23.5
4
4.9
14
17.3
10-19
118
6.
112
100.0
23
20.9
18
16.1
8
— 7.r
32
28.6
9
8.0
2L
18.8
OF FULL-TIM
20-49
_lll_
2
109
100.0
30
27.9
24.8
13
•11.9
39
32.1
4
3.7
14
12.6
90-99
_Jt*
46
100.0
14
»0.4
7
19.2
4
— e~.~T
18
39.1
4
8.7
4
6.7
100- 290-
249 499
13
1
12
10U.O
3
29.0
2
16.7
2
16.7
6
< 90.0
1
8.3
2
16.7
9006 UNDER
MORE S100M
94
3
51
100.0
13
29.9
IS
29.4
2
3.9
12
23.9
2
8
19.7
S100M S290M
-249M -499M
89 92
3 4
86 68
100.0 100.0
17 19
19.8 21.6
14 14
16.3 19.9
4 7
4.7 4.0
27 21
31.4 23.9
3 9
IS 22
17.4 29.0
SAL
S900M
-999M
86
2
84
100.0
22
26.2
20
23.8
12
14.3
28
33.3
3
10
11.9
E S -
*1MIL
-2.4
49
1
48
100.0
19
31.3
8
16.7
7
14.6
19
39.6
4
4
8*3
*2t9
MIL*
13
I
12
100.0
6
90.0
16.7
2
16.7
6
90.0
1
1
8.3
076
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.VI-4 IF YOU LACKED SPACE TO
- ^*QQ._iat__Qfi IQ_1MS.ULL_A_WASIEWATER.SYSI.EM, .
WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU MIGHT
TAKE OUT A PRODUCTION LINE TO FREE UP
P| nne <;pACF?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
1-VERY UNLIKELY
- «
TOTAL 1-4
461 64
222 34
239 30
100.0 100.0
127 14
• NUMBER
5-9 10-19
85 118
41 54
44 64
100.0 100.0
29 34
S3, 1. 46.7 65,9. 53, \_
2-UNLIKELY
3-MAYBE
4-LIKELY
5-VERY LIKELY
32 6
13.4 20.0
30 5
12.6 16.7
24 2
10.0 6.7
26 3
10.9 10.0
2 7
4.5 10.9
2 6
4.5 9.4
7 9
15.9 14.1
4 8
9.1 12.5
OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE - - •
20-49
111
51
60
100.0
29
.48,3
9
15/0
11
18. J
5
8.3
6
10.0
50-99
46
23
23
100.0
11
100- 250-
249 499
13
6
7
100.0
2
47.8 28.6
4
17.4
3
13.0
1
4.3
4
17.4
3
42.9
2
28.6
5006 UNDER
MORE S100M
54
21
33
100.0
19
57.6
3
9.1
4
12.1
4
12.1
3
9.1
•TO
S100M
-24VM
89
46
43
100.0
25
58.1
4
9.3
4
9.3
7
16.3
3
7.0
A L
S250M
-499M
92
33
59
100.0
28
47.5
9
15.3
8
13.6
6
10.2
8
13.6
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
38
48
100.0
23
47.9
6
12.5
7
14.6
4
8.3
8
16.7
Ł S -
S1M1L
-2.4
49
24
25
100.0
10
40.0
6
24.0
4
16.0
2
8.0
3
12.0
_ _
S2.S
MIL*
13
5
8
100.0
5
62.5
2
25.0
1
12.5
MEAN
2.12 2.13 1.98 2.22 2.17 2.26 2.00
077
2.06 2.05 2.27 2.33 2.28 1.50
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVFV PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO. VI-* IF YOU LACKED SPACE TO
AOP TP« OR TO INSTALL A W*ŁTŁHATER SYSTEMi
WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU MIGHT
PAY TO ALTER THE FACILITY* FOR EXAMPLE*
BV KNOCK |N5 18.6
2 8
6.3 18.6
2.19 2.74
92 86 49
33 40 21
59 46 28
100.0 100.0 100.0
26 14 6
44.1 30.4 21.4
ail
13.6 2.2 3.6
10 16 7
16.9 34.8 25*0
773
11.9 15.2 10.7
8 « 11
13.6 17.4 39.3
2.37 2.87 3.43
S2.5
MIL*
13
5
8
100.0
2
25.0
2
25.0
2
25.0
2
25.0
3.25
078
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS A
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.VI-4 IF YOU LACKED SPACE TO
ADD TO. OR TO INSTALL A WASTEWATER SYSTEM,
WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU MIGHT
PAY TO RELOCATE TO A BIGGER FACILITY
UfTH MORF FLOOB SP4CF*
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
1-VERY UNLIKELY
2-UNLIKELY
3-MAYBE
4-LIKELY
5-VERY LIKELY
TOTAL
461
233
- - - - NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE - -
100- 250-
1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 SO-99 249 499
64
37
228 27
100.0 100.0
142
62.3
22
9.6
30
13.2
15
6.6
19
8f3
85
41
118 111
58 55
44 60 56
AP.g,o iooto_ipo,p_
14 28
_51,9 63,6
3
11.1
3
11.1
3
11.1
4
2
4.5
8
18.2
3
6.8
3
6.8
38 38
63.3 67.9
4 8
6.7 14.3
8 4
13.3 7.1
5 3
8.3 9.4
5 3
8.3 3.4
46
23
23
100.0
14
60.9
1
4.3
6
26.1
1
4.3
1
4.3
13
6
7
100.0
4
57.1
2
28.6
1
14.3
500t UNDER
MORE S100M
54
23
31
100.0
20
64.5
3
9.7
4
12.9
2
6.5
2
6.5
• T 0
tlOOM
-24»M
89
48
41
100.0
25
61.0
1
2.4
7
17.1
4
9.8
4
9.8
r A L SAL
S250M S500M
-499M -999M
92 86
36 40
56 46
100>0 100.0
35 31
62.5 67.4
6 4
10.7 8.7
7 6
12.5 13.0
4 2
7.1 4.3
4 3
7.1 6.5
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
25
24
100.0
14
58.3
5
20.8
4
16.7
1
4.2
S2.5
MIL*
13
5
8
100.0
6
75.0
1
12.3
1
12.5
MEAN
1.89 2.26 1.89 1.92 1.66 1.87 1.86
1.81 2*05 1.86 1.74 1.71 1.88
079.
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (557-1)
SURVEY PARTIflPANTS
QUESTION NO.VI-5 IF YOU HAD THE ROOM TO PUT
IN A WA5TEHATER SYSTEMt BUT COULDN'T RAISE
THE CAPITAL, WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU
MIGHT ADD TO WORKING CAPITAL BY SELLING OFF
SOME OF THE ASSETS OF THE BUSINESS!
- - NUMBER
TOTAL 1-4 5-9 10-19
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
1-VERY UNLIKELY
2 -UNLIKELY
3-fAYBE
4-LIKELY
5-VERV LIKELY
461
177
284
100.0
220
77.5
64 85
32 35
32 50
100.0 100.0
24 42
75.0 84.0
39 5 6
13.7 15.6 12.0
IB
6.3
4
1.4
3
1.1
3 1
9.4 2.0
1
2.0
118
45
73
100.0
53
72.6
16
21.9
3
4.1
1
1.4
OF FULL-TIM!
20-49 50-99
111 46
37
74
100.0
59
79.7
8
10.8
6
8.1
1
1.4
14
32
100.0
22
68.8
2
6.3
3
15.6
1
3.1
2
6.3
• PEOPLE
100- 250-
249 499
13
4
9
100.0
7
77.8
2
22.2
SOOt UNDER
MORE S100M
54
17
37
100.0
30
81.1
4
10.8
2
5.4
1
2.7
•TOTAL
S100M S2SOM
-249M -499M
•9
38
51
100.0
38
74.5
7
13.7
3
5.9
2
3.9
1
2.0
92
24
68
100.0
51
75.0
16
23.5
1
1.5
SAL
SSOOM
-999M
86
28
58
100.0
46
79.3
5
8.6
t
8.6
1
1.7
1
1.7
E S -
»1MIL
-2.4
49
17
32
100.0
22
68.8
4
12.5
6
18.8
S2.S
MIL*
13
4
9
100.0
8
88.9
1
11.1
MEAN
1.35 1.34 1.22 1.94 1.32 1.72 1.22
1.30 1.45 1.29 1.38 l.SO 1.22
080
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1997-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.VI-9 IF YOU HAD THE ROOM TO
-------
C NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1597-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
X
QUESTION NO.VI-3 IF YOU HAD THE ROOM TO PUT
IN A WASTEWATER SYSTEMi BUT COULDN'T RAISE
THE CAPITAL* WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU
MIGHT CLOSE DOWN THE BUSINESS* RETIRE OR
DO SOMETHING ELSE?
TOTAL 1-4
TOTAL 461
NO ANSWER 151
NUMBER ANSWERING 308
100.0
1-VERY UNLIKELY 51
16.6
2 -UNLIKELY 26
8.4
3-MAYBE 87
28.2
4-LIKELY 55
17.9
5-VERY LIKELY 89
28.9
MEAN 3.34
64
24
40
100.0
*
10.0
4
10. 0
10
_Z»._o
6
15.0
16
40.0
3.65
• - - NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE - -
100- 290-
5-9 10^19_ 20-49 50-99 249 499
85 118
26 38
59 80
100.0 100.0
9 11
15.3 13.8
2 6
3.4 7.5
11 28
18.6 35.0
11 16
18.6 20.0
26 19
44.1 23.8
3.73 3.33
111
37
74
100.0
16
21.6
11
_14.9_
20
__H»CL
9
12.2
18
24.3
3.03
46
15
31
100.0
6
19.4
3
9.7
12
38.7
6
19.4
4
12.9
2.97
13
4
9
100.0
4
44.4
2
22.2
2
22.2
1
11.1
2.56
5006 UNDER
MORE S100M
54
13
41
100.0
3
7.3
2
4.9
10
24.4
8
19.5
18
43.9
3.88
•TOTAL
$100M S250M
-249M -499M
89
27
62
100.0
10
16.1
2
3.2
14
22.6
11
17.7
25
40.3
3.63
92
19
73
100.0
7
9.6
9
12.3
26
35.6
14
19.2
17
23.3
3.34
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
29
57
100.0
13
22.8
7
12.3
14
24.6
11
19.3
12
21.1
3.04
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
19
30
100.0
6
20.0
3
10.0
11
36.7
6
20.0
4
13.3
2.97
S2.S
MIL*
13
4
9
100.0
5
55.6
3
33.3
1
11.1
2.00
082
-------
C NATIONAL ANALYSTS ^
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1557-11
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION NO.VI-5 IF YOU HAD THE ROOM
IN A WASTEWATER SYSTEM* BUT COULDN'T
TO PUT
RAISE
THE CAPITAL* WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU
MIGHT TRY TO FIND A BUYER FOR THE BUSINESS*
no SET UP A MERGER?
NUMBER
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
TOTAL
461
159
302
1-4
64
28
36
100.0 100.0
1-VERY UNLIKELY
90
S
16.6 13*9
2-UNLIKELY
3-MAYBE
4-LIKELY
5-VERY LIKELY
28
9.3
81
26.8
71
23.5
72
23.8
3
8.3
12
33.3
4
11.1
12
33.3
6-9
85
32
53
100,0
10
18 19_
4
7.5
12
22.6
10
18.9
17
32.1
..19r_19
lie
37
81
Ipo.o
11
13.6
8
9.9
21
25.9
26
^32.1
15
18.5
OF FULL-TIME PEOPLE •
20-49 50-99
111 46
36 14
75 32
100.0 1C) 0.0
14 4
18.7 12.5
7 4
9.3 12.5
28 5
37.3 15.6
11 12
14.7 37.5
15 7
20.0 21.9
100- 250-
249 499
13
4
9
100.0
2
22.2
2
22.2
2
22.2
2
22.2
1
11.1
5006- UNDER
MORE S100M
54
17
37
100.0
4
10.8
3
8.1
9
24.3
7
18.9
14
37.8
•TOTAL
S100M
-249M
89
31
58
100.0
11
19.0
3
5.2
11
19.0
14
24.1
19
32.3
S250M
-499M
92
23
69
100.0
10
14.5
5
7.2
24
34.8
21
30.4
9
13.0
SAL
S500M
-999M
86
26
60
100.0
13
21.7
6
10.0
20
33.3
12
20.0
9
15.0
E S -
S1MIL
-2.4
49
17
32
100.0
4
12.5
5
15.6
9
26.1
8
25.0
6
18.8
— -
S2.5
MIL*
13
4
9
100.0
3
33.3
1
11.1
3
33.3
2
22.2
MEAN
3.29 3.42 3.38 3.32 3.08 3.44 2.78
3.65 3.47 3.20 2.97 3.22 3.00
083
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
THE PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD INDUSTRY SURVEY
This appendix presents the methodology and results
of our survey of manufacturers of Printed Circuit Boards.
Part 1 of this appendix describes how we defined the
sample and secured the data. All of the second part is
devoted to the findings. The last part of this appendix
presents the survey instrument used in the gathering of
data.
B-l
-------
THE METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY
The starting point of any survey is to define a uni-
verse and sample from it. In preparing the survey of
Printed Board manufacturers, the concern was that no defin-
itive listing of eligible firms appeared readily available.
Printed Board manufacturers do not appear as a ho-
mogeneous SIC listing with the Department of Commerce.
Firms belonging to the Institute of Printed Circuits tend
to be the larger producers, and are not exclusively in-
dependent producers.
A solution was provided when the EPA furnished a list-
ing of some 600 manufacturers of Printed Boards that had
submitted their products to Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
for approval. We asked Dun and Bradstreet to run a com-
puter match of this UL listing against their industrial
file. There were 508 "matches." DMI yielded a listing of
357 independent, domestic Printed Board producers. Given
the lack of any alternate, readily available list of firms,
we are prepared to treat the DMI list as an approximator of
the universe of independent Printed Board manufacturers.
B-2
-------
1. A SELECT SAMPLE OF PRINTED BOARD FIRMS WAS IDENTIFIED
FOR CONTACT
Through the earlier work on the metalfinishing industry,
we were heavily aware of the importance of good financial
data to complement the analytic data base of our closure
model. Equally keen was our awareness that gathering fi-
nancial data in survey work is difficult because of the
sensitivity and confidentiality of the information. We
needed the financial data but did not have time for a full
mail survey. A decision was made to order the latest fi-
nancial reports on approximately half the identified pop-
ulation. This yielded a randomly generated group of 190
firms all possessing financial records. Perusal of these
records showed slightly more than 100 provided values for
enough account categories to develop complete and consis-
tent balance sheets as well as sales and profit data.
All firms for which sufficient financial records
existed were defined as the segment of the universe to be
contacted. This pre-screening of the sample assumed two
risks. One, there is a certain probability of under-rep-
resenting smaller firms since they seem to be less likely
to volunteer their statements to D&B. A second is the
possibility that those firms offering data are overstating
their condition since no validation or certification of
the records is offered by D&B. While these biases could
be self-canceling, the fact remains that the sample is
B-3
-------
neither fully stratified nor randomly drawn. All subsequent
results will have to be interpreted accordingly.
2. DIRECT PHONE INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED
The attached telephone interview guide was developed
by Booz, Allen & Hamilton and the client. In addition, the
Technical Contractor was consulted for guidance on the pro-
duction and process items. Brevity guided the effort. Each
interview took fewer than 20 minutes to complete.
A team of special Booz, Allen & Hamilton consultants,
working for a week, made all the calls. Each call went
directly to the individual shown on the D&B listing as the
owner, president or chief officer.
Calls from the list of 190 continued until 100 inter-
views were completed. Reviewing all financial and tech-
nical data for accuracy yielded a sub-sample of 40 plants
that will be used for estimating compliance burdens for
the population.
B-4
-------
RESULTS OF THE PRINTED CIRCUIT
BOARD INDUSTRY SURVEY
This section of the report presents the results of our
telephone survey of independent Printed Circuit Board manu-
facturers (PB's). For purposes of comparability, as many
of the dimensions used to describe the metalfinishing job
shops will be used for the PB's as well. The dimensions
are:
Size of the industry
Mix of processes
Role of metalfinishing
Pricing practices
Capital structure
Attitudes toward investment
Each is now developed in sequence.
1. ALL RESPONDENTS ARE COVERED BY THE GUIDELINES AS WILL
ALL 400 FIRMS ESTIMATED IN THE POPULATION
All survey results for PB manufacturers will be extrap-
olated to a population of 400 independent firms. Wherever
possible, our industry characterization will be compared
with other source estimates to illustrate convergence of
findings. Although there is the possibility that two inde-
pendent sets of estimates can both be wrong, agreement of
findings is one test for validity. In the absence of ob-
jective complete information, it is the best that can be
done.
B-5
-------
(1) On Average, the PB Industry Is a Larger Sales,
Smaller Water-Using Industry Than the Job Sho^s
Whereas 42% of the job shops were structured with
up to 10 full-time people, for PB's only 11% of the
sample has 1-9 employees. Fully 70% of PB firms are
in the (20-49) and (50-99) man intervals, while for
job shops, 33% of the population fell in the same
intervals.
The total employment of the PB industry is taken
by multiplying mean employment within categories by
the number of firms in that category and then summing
across categories. Table B-l below presents these
estimates.
Table B-l
Total Estimated Full Time Employment in the PB Industry
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
"50-99
100-249
250+
No. in
Sample
1
10
8
45
25
6
5
No. in
Pop.
4
40
32
180
100
24
20
Mean
Employ .
3.0
7.2
11.8
30.9
64.3
135.0
414.4
Total Est.
Employ.
12
288
378
5,562
6,430
3,240
8,288
Total 100 400 24,198
The industry-wide mean employment is 60.5 (SD=90.6)
persons. The total employment is 24,200.
The next table displays the estimate of total metal-
finishing/printed board employment for the industry.
B-6
-------
We note that, on the average, if a typical PB firm has
61 full-time people, it also has 35 people working
directly in the production of PB's.
Table B-2
Total Estimated Production Employment in the PB Industry
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250+
No. in
Sample
4
15
20
43
14
3
1
No. in
Pop.
16
60
80
172
56
12
4
Mean
Employ .
3.5
6.6
15.1
29.9
64.8
179.7
310.0
Total Est.
Employ .
56
396
1,208
5,143
3,629
2,159
1,240
Total 100 400 13,831
Production employment is estimated to be on the order
of 13,800 with the mean employment per firm at 35 men
(SD=43.8).
It is on sales that we have the first source of
convergent information. From our sample results, the
estimated total sales for the PB industry are $610
million, with a per firm sales figure of $1.5 million.
Table B-3
Industry Total Sales
Total Industry
$
1,
Sales
Up To
250,000
499,999
999,999
000,000
No. in
Sample
18
11
19
36
Mean
Sales
$ 131,300
338,000
676,200
3,037,000
Sales
(millions)
11.2
17.7
61.1
520.4
Total 84 $1,530,000 $610.4M.
B-7
-------
A report prepared for the Institute of Printed Circuits
estimates the total market (1975) at greater than $1
billion with independent producers projected at a 40%
share. This yields their industry estimate at $400
million compared with our calculation of $610 million.
The final two industry sizing measures that we
have been using are total plant water use and metal-
finishing process water use. In our survey, 72 re-
spondents gave data on plant water use. For the sample
as a whole, the mean total plant water use is 21,900
gallons per day. This is approximately one-half the
water use found in the metalfinishing job shop survey.
Metalfinishing process water is reported to be 86% of
the total plant figure or 18,800 gallons per day per
firm. Again this process water use ratio approximates
that found in the metalfinishing industry, although
in absolute terms, it is one-half the job shop value.
In terms of total usage, we can group the plant
water use by several sizing categories and extrapolate
across. These water use data appear below.
Table B-4
Industry Total Water Use
Gallons
Per Day
Under 1,000
1,000-4,999
5,000-19,999
20,000-49,999
Above 50,000
Total
No. in
Sample
12
20
19
12
9
72
B-8
Mean
Use
174
2,442
11,880
30,290
103,800
21,900
Total
Use
(000 's)
11.5
269.6
1,245.9
2,006.4
5,156.7
8,690.1
-------
Our extrapolation suggests that the PB industry de-
mands 8.69 million gallons of water per day (one-
twentieth the job shops) of which 86% or 7.47 million
gallons per day is for metalfinishing process water.
Only 4% of the sample discharged directly to
navigable waters; 81% discharged to POTW's, 13% to
leaching ponds and 2% did not say.
(2) Basically, One Production Process Predominates
Several questions were asked during the telephone
survey about the production processes used by the firm.
In addition/ the type of board and quantity produced
were also explored. We found that:
Two percent did just multilayer boards, 12%
did single-sided and 33% did double-sided.
Fully 53% do a combination of boards.
Eighty-six percent said the boards are through
hole plated, and the subtractive process is
employed eight times as prevalently as the
additive or semi-additive process (76% to
9%) .
Fifty percent of the sample produce 500 or
fewer boards a day. Another 25% do as many
as 1,000 per day. Only 10% of the sample
produces 3,000 or more finished boards in a
day.
The average size of a board is less than
one square foot.
B-9
259-718 O - 18 - 20
-------
(3) Virtually Every Firm Contacted Falls Into the
Electroplating Guidelines
We askdd each respondent to list the character-
istic metals and materials consumed in the course of
producing his finished boards. Below is a list of
trace materials and the proportion of the total sample
answering "yes," the metal/substance is present.
Copper 98%
Nickel 88%
Solder 86%
Tin 72%
Chrome 13%
Cyanide 18%
Gold 95%
Silver 11%
Fluorides 40%
Phosphorous 13%
Chelates 26%
2. MANY FIRMS SHOULD BE ABLE TO PASS ON THE INCREMENTAL
COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL
There are two considerations we investigated as part
of an analysis of the cost pass through characteristics of
the industry. One was a description of how dependent the
firm was on its metalfinishing work. The other was a re-
guest for information on perceived pricing freedoms open
to the firm to recover the cost of putting in a pollution
control system.
B-10
-------
(1) Metalfinishing Is Integral to the Success of
Printed Board Manufacturers
Prior results from the job shop survey suggested
that some independent producers are market dependent
job shops, whereas others are independent producers who
manufacture for resale and own their inventories.
We asked two questions on this point:
Whether 100% of all company sales came from
the manufacture of PB's (if not, what was
the percent)
Whether the firm could divest itself of its.
metalfinishing work and still be economi-
cally viable
The answers were as follows:
Two-thirds of the sample (69%) derives 100%
of its sales from PB's.
Only 12% of the sample derives 50% or less
of its total sales from PB's. Whereas 85%
of the sample enjoys at least three-quarters
of all its revenue from the sale of PB's.
There is little doubt that the vast majority of the
sample are direct manufacturers of boards. Confirming
this position is the fact that 80% of the sample said
"No, we cannot remain productive without metalfinishing.
(2) The Sample Reports a 10% Price Increase
Possibility
Price increase was self-reported and targeted
specifically to raising prices to cover pollution
B-ll
-------
control investment costs. We found that 39% of the
sample indicated a zero price increase, with another
21% indicating a l%-9% price rise. Fully 40% of the
sample said at least 10% with the sample mean at 11.2%
and an S.D. of 17.6%. On the average, this predicted
future price use is on the same order of magnitude as
that reported by the job shop survey.
3. PB MANUFACTURERS APPEAR TO BE FINANCIALLY STRONGER THAN
JOB SHOPS
A key point in appreciating the capital structure of
the PB industry is to have a reference for comparison; in
this case the survey data from the job shops can serve.
Before arraying the sets of data, however, an important
qualifier must be introduced. The PB firms may be biased
in favor of the better capitalized ones because they are
the ones most likely to provide financial data to Dun and
Bradstreet. Although income statement items were not taken
from the D&B but requested orally, we want to introduce the
awareness of potential bias in the reader.
Table B-5, following this page, arrays income and
balance sheet items for the two samples.
In every line item the PB sample is not only larger,
but by analysis, it is stronger. The sales to fixed assets
ratio is higher for PB's (6.8 vs. 3.8) as is the profit to
B-12
-------
Table B-5
Selected Financial Items
Job Shops PB Firms
(n=344) (n=100)
Income Items ($000's) ($000's)
Sales $676.0 $1,520.0
Profit BT 30.1 64.6
Profit AT 15.6 25.1
Balance Sheet Items
Current Assets $210 $ 400.2
Fixed Assets 176 222.9
Current Liabilities 115 279.7 N = 40
Long Term Debt 70 101.5
Net Worth 212 283.1
B-13
-------
total assets (10% vs. 8%). In terms of leverage, i.e., debt
to equity, the groups are rather similar (36% vs. 33%) al-
though the total debt percent of the PB's is higher (57%
vs. 47%). It would seem that the cash flow situation of
PB's is superior to that of the job shops and they may
have more options toward absorbing new investments; either
through profits or debt.
4. PB ESTABLISHMENTS MAY BE BETTER PREPARED FOR MEETING
PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS THAN THE JOB SHOPS
In addition to the financial condition of PB establish-
ments relative to their future investments in pollution
control, two other factors pertinent to the issue assume
importance.
Amount of pollution control equipment currently
in place
Owner attitudes toward the investment
Data were gathered on each issue and will be developed
here.
(1) Various Water Conservation and Control Systems
Are Currently in Place
We asked two different types of questions on water
control systems. One had to do with conservation,
the other, with pollution control. On the first
issue, we found the following:
49% used water control series rinse, 74%
indicated spray rinse and 54% said they had
still rinse.
B-14
-------
Of advanced systems, 21% had ion exchange
systems in place, 12% had reverse osmosis,
7% practiced evaporative recovery.
Of the total sample, 54% indicated the pres-
ence of some end-of-pipe control. The com-
ponents listed by this 54% of the sample
are as follows:
Neutralization—42%
Clarification—28%
Chemical reduction—23%
Chemical precipitation—17%
Oxidation—6%
Flotation—7%
Sedimentation—0%
Filtration—29%
Approximately 62% of all equipment in place
is 3 years old or newer. The mean invest-
ment in pollution control equipment is
$44,476, with an S.D. of $74,490.
As was done with job shops, when pretreatment
systems are costed and applied to the PB industry,
credit will be given to the components already in
place.
(2) The Investment in Equipment Is Viewed as a
Necessary Business Loan
Of interest was the question of where an owner
would obtain the investment capital for a pollution
control system. Not surprisingly, 60% of the sample
anticipate a commercial bank loan. Only 4% would plan
to use owner's funds, whereas 10% see the funds coming
from profits or the cash flow generated by the business,
There were 14 respondents who said they did not believe
they could obtain any funds.
B-15
-------
5. A CLOSURE ANALYSIS OF PB FIRMS IS ALMOST IDENTICAL
TO THAT OF JOB SHOPS
The same financial closure model run for job shops
was applied to PB firms. There was one exception. No
data were obtained in the interviews on number of owners
or on owner's compensation because of its sensitive nature.
As a consequence, the issue of equity infusion as part of
the closure analysis will have to be based on a modeling
assumption rather than on survey data. In all other re-
spects, the analysis proceeded in the same manner. Because
many PB firms in the survey report equipment in place, and
appear to be well capitalized, compliance impacts on the
Printed Board industry are less than those estimated for
the metalfinishing job shop sector.
This section has presented an industry characteriza-
tion of Printed Board manufacturers. In the next section,
the survey instrument used for gathering the data is
presented.
B-16
-------
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
-------
PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD
TELEPHONE SURVEY
Date:
Interviewer:
Plant I. D. Number:
Company Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
Principal Name:
SIC's:
Status:
Completed
Incomplete
Terminated
Call back
Day, Time, Individual:
-------
PRINTED BOARD PROTOCOL
Instructions
- Call directly and ask for the individual identified on the cover
sheet.
- If the identified individual is not available, establish whether he
or she will be available today or tomorrow.
- If he will be available in a day, mark it a "call back" and go on
to your next call.
- If the individual is out of the office for several days, then request
the name of another person in the firm able to comment on the
size and operations of the firm.
- Enter the name of this individual on the cover sheet and
continue with the introductory remarks.
-------
I. SCALE OF OPERATIONS
1. What is the total employment at your plant?
# of plant employees
2. At any typical time, how many production
employees work directly in the manufacture
of printed boards?
# of printed board employees
3. How many hours of the 24-hour day are spent on
printed boards?
# of hours
5. How many plating/finishing lines are set up
for your printed board production?
# of lines
6. Are 100% of your company sales from printed
boards?
") Yes (go to 9) ( ) No (go to 7)
7. What % of all your sales come from Printed Board
work? %
8. Could you list the other production activities at
your plant that generate revenues? How many
employees in each?
Activity Employees
-------
II. TYPE OF OPERATION
1. What type of boards do you make?
Single sided 1
Double sided 2
Multilayer 3
2. Are the boards through hole plated?
Yes 1
No 2
Varies 3
3. Which production process do you use most frequently?
Additive 1
Subtractive 2
Semi-additive 3
Varies 4
For a typical order, what quantity of boards do
you produce in a day?
boards per day
What is the total immersed area of a board?
square inches or
square meters
6. How much water does your plant use in a day?
Gallons/day
or
Cubic feet/day
-------
7. How much of the plant's water is from the
printed board production lines?
% of plant total
or
Gallons per day
8. From the list of metals and chemicals found in
printed board operations, please identify the
ones found in your plant.
Copper Chrome Fluorides
Nickel Cyanide Phosphorous
Solder Gold Chilating
Tin Silver Agents
III. WATER TREATMENT
1. Where does your plant's discharge water go?
River or lake
Municipal sewer
Leaching Pond
2. Many plants practice water control. Do you use
any of the following?
Yes No
Countercurrent rinse
Series rinse
Running rinse
Spray rinse
Still rinse
3. Some plants have recovery systems in place.
Do you have:
Yes No
Ion exchange
Reverse osmosis
Evaporation
Some plants are now treating their end-of-pipe
discharge water. Do you have any treatments
in place?
( ) Yes (go to 5) { ) No (go to Section IV)
-------
5. Would you list the components of the system?
Neutralization
Clarification
Chemical Reduction
Chemical Precipitation_
Oxidation
Flotation
Sedimentation
Filtration
6. How old is the system, and how much did it cost
installed?
Age in years
Installed cost
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
"Now I would like to ask you a few questions about your
company's financial position. The EPA is quite concerned
with the ability of the Printed Board industry to manage
the investment in pollution control equipment. For us
to make that determination, we need to know the finan-
cial condition of affected firms.
"May I ask you about your firm's financial condition?
Is there any other person in your firm able to com-
ment on your finances?"
(After an appropriate respondent is on, we ask)
-------
1. There are five items from your income statement
that are important. From your latest fiscal year-end
statement, what were your company's:
Sales $
Depreciation
interest
Profit (Loss) Enter Loss
before Tax in parenthesis)
Profit (Loss) Enter Loss
after Tax in parenthesis)
2. There are also six items from your balance sheet
for the same period. We would like to know:
Current Assets $
Fixed Assets
Other Assets
Current Liabilities
Long Term Debt
Company Net Worth
(Owners Equity)
B. OPTIONS
1. If you and all your competitors were to install
pollution control equipment, what is the maximum
you could raise prices before your business volume
might fall off significantly?
% maximum price increase
-------
Where would the capital come from to purchase
the pollution control equipment?
Bank loan
Owner's funds
Cash flow/profits
Other:
Can't get it
If the cost of pollution control equipment were a
serious problem, could your firm remain productive
doing no metal plating at all?
( ) Yes ( ) No
259-718 O - 78 - 21
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
THE CAPTIVE METALFINISHING INDUSTRY SURVEY
This appendix presents the method, instrument, and
findings of the captive metalfinishing operations survey.
Detailed data on the financial condition of these opera-
tions were not gathered because a financial closure analysis
was not planned for this sector. Rather, the issue for cap-
tives is one of resource allocation and management decision-
making rules. A closure decision for captives depends on
process operations, alternatives to in-house work, and mar-
ginal increases in operating costs; more than on capital
availability and owner sacrifice.
The key points of this appendix are:
Study method
Data gathering instrument
Findings
1. ALL IDENTIFIED ESTABLISHMENTS LIKELY TO USE
METALFINISHING WERE MAILED A QUESTIONNAIRE
As in the study of the Printed Circuit Board industry,
the key starting point in the survey of captive operations
was to define the universe. Essential to any sample design
is knowing the totality of all cases defining the population
from which a sample can be drawn.
C-l
-------
There appears to be no definitive list of manufacturing
establishments known to house their own internal (captive)
metalfinishing operation. Industry experts said that
Products Finishing magazine was widely read in the metal-
finishing industry; that its subscription list probably in-
cludes a majority of businesses concerned with finishing, and
some prior survey data from the readership indicated the
finishing processes used by each subscriber. Inasmuch as
this readership list also served as the source data for
the National Commission on Water Quality's estimate of
60,000-80,000 captives, the list seemed appropriate as
the population of firms for our survey.
The editor of Products Finishing magazine provided full
cooperation with our effort under the following two condi-
tions:
Names and addresses of firms were not to be seen
by the Agency, or by BA&H. Mailing labels
would be provided only if we agreed not to see,
record, or identify respondents in any fashion.
This we agreed to.
Mailing was to occur at a single point, with no
means for second mailings, follow-ups or sub-
sequent contact. We agreed to this as well.
From the magazine's subscription list, approximately 8,800
firms (out of 22,000) were identified as currently involved
in finishing or plating operations defined under the Electro-
plating Point Source category. In early March, we sent a
C-2
-------
questionnaire to all 8,800 rather than to a selected sample.
By Friday, April 8, we closed down the effort with returns
from approximately 3,400 firms. Almost 40% of the population
returned a questionnaire. Of this total group of returns,
slightly fewer than half (47%) acknowledged doing a regu-
lated process. We have data on 1,610 captive operations.
The closure method and the planned analyses are pre-
sented in the next section.
2. A MODIFIED CLOSURE ANALYSIS WAS DEVELOPED FOR
CAPTIVE METALFINISHING ESTABLISHMENTS
To aid response rates and also because of the presumed
fiscal complexity of these firms, we did not solicit informa-
tion on income or balance sheet information. The closure
analysis cannot be a financially calculated routine. Such
financial data would have been of limited use because the
decision for captives is not whether the owner (or banker)
of a small firm considers the investment worthwhile, but
rather if a large firm, with presumed capital access would
find the investment worthwhile based on an analysis of alter-
natives: modifying the products or using jobbers.
Closures are estimated by inference. Of particular
importance to this qualitative closure analysis are the fol-
lowing issues:
Age and size of the finishing operation
C-3
-------
Criticality of the operation with respect to
production activities
Operating budget for finishing as a proportion
of total sales
Percent value added of finishing with respect
to the value of all finished goods sold
Amount of metalfinishing equipment in place
In sum, the closure test is whether a firm is "free"
to divest its captive operations. The analysis focuses on
the likelihood that a firm could economically as well as
operationally divest itself of its finishing given its
present commitment to the process. Firms likely to divest
rather than make the investment in requisite treatment sys-
tems are those which among other things:
Have the freedom to send out finishing work or
produce goods with an alternate finish
Produce relatively few metalfinished goods, and
for which the added value of finishing is minor
The full closure methodology for captives is presented in
Section 4 of this appendix.
3. SURVEY DATA YIELD A DETAILED PROFILE OF ESTABLISHMENTS
WITH CAPTIVE METALFINISHING OPERATIONS
There are four sequential steps to be taken in order to
characterize the captive sector of the metalfinishing indus-
try. They are the following:
C-4
-------
Arraying the respondents across the information
elements of the survey to appreciate frequency
patterns
Calculating mean scores for all continuous
variables in order to test for differences in
patterns
Applying alternative treatment scenarios to the
captives to appreciate marginal changes in costs
Incorporating sets of decision rules to identify
clusters of firms more or less burdened by the
investment.
Each of these steps has been followed and the results
for the 1,600+ respondents appear below.
(1) Captives Are Large Establishments in Which the
Captive Operation Appears Minor
In almost one-half (49.7%) of the cases, the plant
with the finishing operation sells at least $5 million.
The most heavily represented sales sector is $10M - $50M
with 35% of all respondents.
In terms of employment, facilities with captives
are far larger than job shops. One-sixth of all respon-
dents (16.7%) report having at least 1,000 total employ-
ees, with 57% having between 100 and 999 men. When the
employment data are tabulated by wetfinishing employ-
ees, the picture is far different. Less than 10% of the
sample (8.4%) has more than 50 people in finishing.
C-5
-------
More than half (53%) report between 5 and 49 men with
fully 38% of the sample reporting 1-4 men in wetfinish-
ing.
An additional means of appreciating the impact of
the in-plant value of metalfinishing is computing its
incremental cost as a percent of the total cost of the
finished good. On this variable, the pattern of re-
sponses suggests that metalfinishing is particularly
costly for one-quarter of the respondents; 24% report
that metalfinishing is at least 10% of the cost of the
final product. For 40% of the sample, the cost is 3%
and less. As will be shown in the closure methodology
section, it is within this low cost sector that the pos-
sibility for divesture exists most strongly. Interest-
ingly, when this variable is cross-tabulated against
employment, 22% of all respondents (376 cases) have 1-4
finishing employees and a 3% or under cost factor. As
employment increases along with finishing cost, divesti-
ture may be less likely. But for 376 cases eliminating
a low employment, low cost function seems an easier
management decision.
C-6
-------
(2) The Continuous Data Items Provide an
Appreciation of the Economic and
Environmental Significance of Captives
Sales and total employment at the plant move in
the expected linear fashion. While the sample overall
mean employment is 661 people, for firms selling
below $1,000,000 mean total employment is 177 people;
at plants selling in excess of $50,000,000, plant level
employment increases to 2,445.
Wetfinishing employment shows a similar linear
trend with sales but at a much reduced scale. For the
smallest sales interval, the mean wetmetalfinishing
employment is 5 people. At $50,000,000 in sales, wet-
metalf inishing rises to 54 people. Sample wide, wet-
metalf inishing employment accounts for 20 people per
firm.
On some other production indices, captive opera-
tions do not differ significantly from job shop opera-
tions.
On average, captives run 4.9 days a week,
with only firms at the largest sales inter-
val averaging more than 5 days a week.
There is no significant difference within
the sample on years in finishing. The
sample as a whole has done finishing for
23.6 years. Small sales plants have had
captives for 21.5 years and large sales
plants for 25.6 years.
C-7
-------
With respect to hours per day of captive
operations, jobbers and captives are quite
comparable. Smaller firms run 8.3 hours a
day and large ones run 16.5. Overall, the
sample reports 12.8 hours which is compara-
ble to the mean work time of job shop
operations.
On key issues pertinent to the pollution abatement
issue, there are striking differences between the
jobbers and captives samples.
On average, captive operations have made
a $740,000 capital investment in their metal-
finishing production equipment. By sales
intervals, this ranges from $170K for the
smallest group to at least $1 million for the
largest.
On average, captive operations operate on an
annual budget that closely parallels their
prior capitalization. Specifically, for
the entire sample the annual budget is
$736,000 with the small plants operating on
$127K with the largest exceeding $1 million.
On metalfinishing process water use, the size
of captive operations is most vivid. Each
day on average, the captives use 371,000
gallons of process water. Smaller firms
are at 34,900 with the largest at 555,000.
Captives reported their future capital in-
vestments for pollution controls over the
next 2 and 5 years. Overall, the sample
reported $140,000 in the next 2 years and
$340,000 in the next 5. Small firms report
short-term capital investments on the order
of $26K with the largest firms reporting
$400K.
Interestingly, the projected pollution control costs
for the sample under the full BPPT scenario represents
no conflict with the self reported investment plans
C-8
-------
with one exception. That exception rests with the
smallest plants.
For the total sample, the projected pollution
control capital is $194,000, not far removed
from the sample data of $140,000. The
largest plants will need approximately
$300,000 which falls within their estimation
of $340,000.
Small plants, those selling below $1,000,000,
are projected to need $55,000 for a system
and that is twice their reported planned
investment.
Clearly, the captives as a sector are quite large.
But the evidence suggests the smaller operations may
experience problems not dissimilar to those of some
job shops.
4. A CAPTIVES CLOSURE ANALYSIS USES AN INFERENTIAL
MODEL THAT IDENTIFIES FIRMS LEAST COMMITTED AND
CONSTRAINED TO KEEP THEIR FINISHING FUNCTION
Several new analytic variables were created from the
core questions of the captive's survey instrument. These
new variables are items that could not be asked outright
because they are not readily answered by respondents; or
they were created outside the instrument because they are
interactive; i.e., they build on the results of prior answers,
As examples, it is important to know the economic value of
the finishing operation with respect to the revenues gener-
ated by the final finished good. The question was
asked: what percent of the total value added of all goods
C-9
-------
produced at the plant is due to the value of the metalfin-
ishing? We were not optimistic that respondents could give
accurate estimates. Additional questions were built into
the instrument so that the same item could be computed from
those answers. Seven of these items are particularly key
to the closure analysis. They are the following:
Plant value added by metalfinishing: computed as
the product of the respondent's answers to
three items:
Annual sales at the plant
Percent of goods receiving metalfinishing
Cost of metalfinishing as percent of the
total cost
Corporate value added by metalfinishing: computed
as the product of answers to the following:
Annual sales of corporation
Percent of goods receiving metalfinishing
Cost of metalfinishing as a percent of the
total cost
Estimated pollution control annualized cost: com-
puted from flow rates, metals present/ production
processes and value of equipment in place.
Estimated annual increase in the metalfinishing
budget: computed as the ratio:
Estimated pollution control cost
Metalfinishing annual budget
Estimated increase in metalfinishing value added
due to the cost of the pollution control equip-
ment computed as the ratio:
Estimated pollution control cost
Plant value added by metalfinishing
C-10
-------
Estimated increase in sales price of goods receiv-
ing metalfinishing due to the cost of the pollution
control equipment: computed as the term:
Pollution control cost percent of all goods
Sales at plant receiving metal-
finishing
Estimated risk factor, which is the incremental
increase in the metalfinishing equipment base rep-
resented by the investment in pollution controls:
computed as the ratio:
Pollution control capital cost
Replacement value of
metalfinishing equipment
In the following sections, the means for applying these
variables in a captives closure analysis will be presented.
(1) All Captives Can Be Described by Five Key
Les
All Capt
Variable
Given that no financial data are available for an
investment closure analysis, the method for estimating
closures tends to be qualitative.
From the analysis of the independent sector several
variables serve well as descriptive or sizing dimen-
sions. Two of these variables are common to both cap-
tives and jobbers; total plant sales and total metal-
finishing employment. Three of the sizing variables
are unique to this sector; they are value added by metal-
finishing, plant value added and the computed risk factor.
Combining and cross tabulating all firms within the
matrices created by these variables enables the closure
analysis to proceed.
C-ll
-------
(2) Potential Closures Can Be Identified by Cell
Frequencies Within Matrices
Using these five sizing dimensions enables all
respondents to be scored and assigned to a specific
cell in a matrix. Not all possible combinations of the
variables are relevant and for purposes of this analysis,
5 matrices have been generated. They are:
Plant sales x value added
Plant sales x WMF employment
Value added x WMF employment
Plant value added x plant sales
Value added x risk factor
As suggested previously, there will be a certain
number of plants which on their position in a matrix
could be candidates to divest their in-house finishing
capacity. As an example, there will be a certain number
of firms that are characterized in the following terms;
they have:
Few wetmetalfinishing employees
Finish few of their products
Low value added by finishing
High capital costs (risk factor)
Operational freedom to send out work
Were this the pattern for a firm, the prima facie
case could be made that it would chose to divest. These
are less economic predictions than estimates of cases
that satisfy a succession of cut-off criteria.
C-12
-------
Once this core group of candidates for divestiture
has been identified, the economic significance of such
divestitures can be computed. These calculations
involve projecting the total number of production em-
ployees affected, volume of finishing water curtailed,
shifts in total value added by finishing across pro-
duction sectors and incremental effects on pricing in
the job shop sector.
Estimates of captive operations that might choose
to divest are presented in the next major section.
5. FEW SURVEY RESPONDENTS APPEAR TO SATISFY
THE COST AND PRICE CRITERIA TO ALLOW DIVESTITURE
OF THE CAPTIVE OPERATION
Two treatment scenarios were costed for the captive
operations. They are the same ones utilized in both the job-
bers and Printed Board sectors:
Full BPPT for all; cyanide oxidation, hexavalent
chromium reduction, clarification or filtration
for metals removal
Full BPPT for firms using at least 10,000 GPD
of process water with oxidation of amenable
cyanide and chromium reduction with no metals
removal for all firms below 10,000 GPD
For each cost scenario, the 5 matrices were generated,
and cases arrayed. These matrices were used to identify clus-
ters of vulnerable operations.
C-13
259-718 O - 78 - 22
-------
(1) Under Full BPPT 1% - 3% of All Cases Could
Choose To Divest
If investing in pollution controls adds signifi-
cantly to the total capitalization of the finishing
function, but the value added by finishing is quite
small, then a plant may judge the investment to be
unwarranted. Such a firm is then a candidate to divest.
In the sample, 84 out of 1,467 cases would at
least double their total capitalization in finishing
by the investment (risk factor — 1.00) but also report
a value added by finishing that is less than 1% the
value of all finished goods. This group is 5.7% of
all respondents. By broadening the categories to in-
clude all cases for which the risk factor is at least
.75 and for whom the value added is up to 3%, there
are 206 cases or 14% of the sample. These cases de-
fine the potential divestiture group.
Because the divestiture group is derived from
meeting a series of linked criteria, before closure
estimates can be finalized the behavior of these cases
on other key items must also be examined.
For the group of plants in which the value added
by finishing is less than 3% of the finished good, data
also exist on the requisite price increase of the
C-14
-------
finished goods needed to pass on the annualized invest-
ment burden. If a plant might divest because its risk
factor is hicfh and its value added low; it may choose
not to (divest) if the requisite price increase of
finished goods is low.
Fully 75% of all firms with a metalfinishing value
added of up to 3% also face price increases on their
finished goods of not more than 1%. Should 75% of the
206 cases with high risk and low value added feel free
to pass on a 1% price increase, then the maximum number
of estimated divestitures falls to 51 or 3% of the
sample. Under the more stringent case of a value added
of > 1%, fully 72% need a price increase of > 1%. This
yields a closure estimate of 24 firms or 1.6% of the
total.
Presuming very modest price increases on the order
of 1% or less has the effect of almost precluding cap-
tive closures.
(2) Under a Modified Abatement Scenario Closures
Are Essentially Unchanged
Introducing a modified abatement scenario aimed
at firms using not more than 10,000 GPD of process water
has relatively little impact on captives. There were
1,125 respondents providing process water use data and
C-15
-------
386 (34%) fall below 10,000 GPD. There still remain
so many large water users receiving full BPPT systems
that average capital costs here are 95% of what they
are for the full-up case ($105K vs. $110K).
There are now 13% of all cases (200 of 1,461) that
fall in the cross-product of high risk (.75+) and low
value added (up to 3%). For this group, 77% can pass on
their pollution control costs by raising the price of
their metalfinished products not more than 1%. Should
this prove to be the case, then total estimated closures
are fewer than 50 or 3% of the sample. When the focus
is restricted to just those firms facing a risk factor
(<1.) and value added of under 1%, closures are limited
to 1% of the sample.
This completes the presentation of findings. The
instrument and data follow.
C-16
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
March 2, 1977
Dear Sir:
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is studying the effects
its regulations could have on the metal finishing industry. As
part of this effort we are sending the enclosed questionnaire to
some 10,000 firms who are thought to do metal finishing. Your
answers to the enclosed questions will help us to better understand
the economics of the industry.
You and other people in the industry have the best information on
the needs and capabilities of firms affected by EPA regulations. It
is vital for you and all firms surveyed to provide as much information
as possible so that potential economic problems can be more carefully
considered by the Agency.
You are not being asked to sign the questionnaire or in any way to
identify yourself or your firm. Your answers are anonymous and there
will be no way to connect the answers you give with you or your firm.
Only summary information such as "average sales of firms employing
ten to twenty people" will be used in reports.
Your cooperation in this survey is important to us, to the industry,
and most of all to you. With your help, we are confident that final
regulations will best balance the needs of all concerned.
Please answer all questions. If you are not certain about a question
perhaps one of your colleagues knows the answer. Please return the
completed questionnaire to National Analysts, the company conducting
the survey for us, by Friday, March 25. A postage paid return envelope
is provided. If you have any questions, feel free to place a collect
call to Mr. Nat Greenfield in Washington. He can be reached at
(202) 293-7933.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Gamse, Director
ic Analysis Division
Enclosure
-------
When filling in this questionnaire, please think of the word "plant" as
meaning the building or group of buildings in which your metal finishing
can "be found.
1. Please circle a code number for each of the types of (CIRCLE AS
electroplating activities done at this plant. I'1ANY AS
APPLY)
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
Cadmium
Zinc
Solder
Lead
Tin
Gold
Silver
Platinum metals group
Iron
Brass
Bronze
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
2.
Please circle a code number^ for each of the types of
finishing activities done at this plant.
(CIRCLE AS
MANY AS
APPLY)
Anodizing
Phosphating
Chromating
Chemical Milling/Etching
Printed Circuits
Electrochemical Milling
NOTE: IF YOUR PLANT DOES NONE OF THE ABOVE METAL FINISHING PROCESSES,
THEN PLACE A "CHECK" IN THE BOX, ANSWER NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, AND
PLEASE MAIL BACK THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE.
SCALE OF OPERATION
We wish to know in this section how extensive your in-house metal
finishing operation is.
Remember when we use the word "plant" in this questionnaire we mean the
building or group of buildings all at the same mailing address in which
your metal finishing can be found.
3. What is the total employment at your plant?
f OF PLANT EMPLOYEES: .
-------
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
At any typical time, how many production employees work in plating or
finishing activities?
# OF METAL FINISHING EMPLOYEES:
Typically, how many hours of the 24-hour day are spent doing metal
finishing at the plant?
# OF HOURS OF METAL FINISHING:
Typically, how many days of each week are spent doing metal finishing?
# OF DAYS PER WEEK:
How many years has this plant done metal finishing?
# OF YEARS OF METAL FINISHING:
If today you were to replace all of the metal finishing production
equipment at your plant, how much would it cost? (Do not include costs
of pollution control equipment.) Please estimate to the best of your
ability.
REPLACEMENT VALUE: $
TYPE OF OPERATION
This section is concerned with your use of metal finishing, your customer:
capacity and the like.
9. There are many reasons why a firm does in-house metal finishing.
Which of the reasons listed in the table below are factors in your
decision to do metal finishing in-house? Please circle a code number
for each reason which is a factor.
10. Now choose the two most important reasons for doing metal finishing
in-house. P
reason and a
lease put a "1" in the column for t
he most impo
rtant
"2" in the column for the second most important reason.
No job shops in the area to send
work to
Job shops are not responsive to
our needs
Less expensive to do it in-house
Our work flow does not allow for
the interruption caused by sendinc
work out
Always have done our metal finish-
ing in-house
Reasons for
In-House
1
2
3
4
5
Two Most
Important
Reasons
-------
11.
Thinking about all of the metal finishing you do in-house/ what
percent of that work is done with parts produced at your plant?
What percent is done with parts sent in from other units of the
firm? What percent is done with parts from outside customers?
Parts produced here at
our plant
Parts sent to us from
other units of the firm
Parts from outside
customers
% of Total
In-House Volume
100%
Think of the last three yeara when answering Questions 12-15.
12,
Please estimate the average annual sales of all goods produced at this
plant. Your estimate should include the total value of the goods made
at this plant and the total value of the metal finishing done with
parts from outside this plant.
(CIRCLE
CODE)
Under $1,000,000
$1,000,000 to $4,99$,999
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999
$10,000,000 to $50,000,000
More than $50,000,000
13.
What are the average annual sales of the whole corporation of which
you are a part?
(CIRCLE
CODE)
Under $1,000,000
$1,000,000 to $4,999,999
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999
$10,000,000 to $50,000,000
More than $50,000,000
14. What percent of all goods produced at this plant receive some metal
finishing?
% RECEIVE METAL FINISHING
- 3 -
-------
15.
On the average, for the products made at your plant, how much of the
total cost to manufacture a product is due to the cost of metal
finishing?
(CIRCLE
CODE)
Less than 1%
1% to 3%
4% to 6%
7% to 9%
10% or more
Don't know
V
16.
Do you compile or receive on a regular basis a cost breakdown for the
metal finishing operation?
{CIRCLE
CODE)
Yes, for just this plant
Yes, but includes this plant
plus other locations
No, costs handled elsewhere
No, costs not recorded
17.
If records are kept for the metal finishing operation, please circle
the code numbers for all the items accounted for on a (CIRCLE AS
regular basis.
AS
APPLY)
Total water
Process water
Area plated
Jobs processed
Amp hours
Chemical use
Factory overhead
Direct labor
Person hours
Revenues generated
10
18.
CIRCLE CODE IF NONE OF THE ABOVE ITEMS IS ACCOUNTED FOR
In 1976, what was your total operating budget for doing metal
finishing at your plant?
METAL FINISHING BUDGET: $
V
- 4 -
-------
19. Please break down your 1976 metal finishing budget, showing the
dollar values of the following items:
Dollar
Value
Direct labor
Chemical
Water
Energy and utilities
Other
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
The questions in this section all deal vfith your plant's water vuse, metal
finishing, waste and pollution control measures.
20.
21.
22,
Please fill in the table below showing your plant's water use for a
typical day during 1976. Use gallons per day (GPD) if available.
If your information is in cubic feet or some other measurement,
please note it in the table.
Water Use
GPD
Total plant
Metal finishing
process water
Other production
process water
Now please indicate where your metal finishing discharge water goes.
(CIRCLE THE CODE WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR ANSWER)
Municipal sewer system
River, lake, pond, other
surface water
Both of the above
Holding tanks
Do you treat the effluent from your metal finishing operations at
this plant?
CONTINUE
GO TO NEXT SECTION
Yes
No
- 5 -
-------
23.
24.
How much have you spent to buy all of your water pollution control
equipment at the plant? (Use actual costs, not book or replacement
value.)
(CIRCLE
CODE)
Under $100,000
$100,000 to $249,999
$250,000 to $499,999
$500,000 to $1,000,000
More than $1,000,000
How much of this total capital investment represents the cost of
treating metal finishing wastes?
(CIRCLE
CODE)
100% - All of it
75% - Most of it
50% - About half
25% - Little
0% - None
ABATEMENT DECISIONS
This section is to be filled in by all respondents whether or not your
plant has a water pollution control system. The concern here is how your
plant did approach, or might approach, its investment decision.
25. Many issues, both of cost and production, may be part of a decision
to invest in pollution control. From the issues listed below;
please identify the three issues your plant judged most 3 MOST
important. IMPORTANT
ISSUES
Size of required investment
Potential cost impacts of the investment
Feasibility of changing finishing processes
Feasibility of sending out metal finishing
Deciding on what system to install
Deciding how and when to install the system
Relocating metal finishing operations
Changing from or to a municipal sewer system
- 6 -
-------
26.
If you have not participated in planning meetings for pollution
control and/or your plant does not have water pollution controls,
please review the list of reasons below and circle all items that
apply.
(CIRCLE
CODES)
Other people are responsible for it
It is not considered a problem
Pollution control planning is low priority
Other (WRITE IN:
27.
Based on your best estimate, how much will your plant spend on pollu-
tion control equipment during the next 2 years? During the next 5
years?
2 YEARS $
5 YEARS $
THIS COMPLETES THE QUESTIONNAIRE. THANK YOU. PLEASE
MAIL IT BACK IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE.
- 7 -
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1815-2)
QUESTION NO.l WHICH TYPES OF ELECTRO-
PLATING ACTIVITIES ARE DONE AT THIS
PLANT?
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TQTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MOKE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER $1 MIL- *5 MIL- HO-50 THAN
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
COPPER
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
CADMIUM
ZINC
SOLDER
LEAD
TIN
GOLD
SILVfR
PLATINUM METALS GROUP
IRON
BRASS
TOTAL
1614
480
1134
100.0
579
51.1
709
62.5
459
40.5
282
24.?
400
35.3
152
13.4
54
4.8
228
20.1
272
24.0
209
IB. 4
71
6.3
31
2.7
143
12.6
i per
254
108
146
100.0
67
45.9
61
41.6
49
33.6
34
23.3
40
27.4
18
12.3
5
3.4
36
24.7
28
19.2
25
17.1
9
6.2
2
1.4
5
3. 4
PCT
400
121
279
100.0
127
45.5
148
53.0
39
31.9
77
27.6
110
39.4
37
13.3
10
3.6
64
22.9
55
19.7
49
17.6
12
4.3
13
4.7
25
9.0
^CT
270
76
194
100.0
77
39.7
120
61.9
79
40.7
48
24.7
70
36.1
21
10.8
10
5.2
23
11.9
38
19.6
34
17.5
8
4.1
4
2.1
14
7.2
PCT
155
52
103
100.0
47
45.6
67
65.0
44
42.7
32
31.1
51
49.5
16
15.5
4
3.9
28
27.2
23
22.3
21
20.4
e
7.8
4
3.9
21
20.4
MOKE
394
90
304
100.0
198
65.1
240
78.9
143
47.0
50
16.4
66
28.9
46
15.1
18
3.9
54
17. a
94
30.9
48
15.8
26
8.6
7
2.3
62
20.4
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9*9 MIL MILL I OH 150 MIL
175
57
113
100.0
65
55.1
80
67.8
40
33.9
24
20.3
25
21.2
19
16.1
it
3.4
20
16.9
40
33.9
20
16.9
10
S.5
3
2.5
12
10.2
367
125
242
100.0
123
50.8
172
71.1
78
32.2
47
19.4
66
28.1
30
12.4
10
4.1
35
14.5
67
27.7
43
17.8
21
8.7
7
2.9
44
18.2
233
79
154
ioo.o
76
49.4
93
60.4
69
44.8
32
20.6
60
39*0
22
14.3
5
3.2
21
13.6
33
21.4
25
16.2
7
4.5
2
1.3
20
13.0
565
143
422
100.0
IBB
44.5
230
54.5
163
3EI.6
107
25.4
168
39. U
'. 0
9.5
1»
4.5
90
21.3
66
15.6
70
16.6
13
3.1
13
3.1
51
12.1
237
68
169
100.0
111
65.7
115
68. 0
97
57.4
65
38.5
70
41.4
37
21. V
15
8.9
58
34.3
54
32.0
45
26.6
18
10.7
6
3.0
12
7.1
-------
(CONTINUED PACE 2)
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1815-21
QUESTION NO.l WHICH TYPES Of ELECTRO-
PLATING ACTIVITIES ARE DONE AT THIS
PLANT?
BRONZE
HOT DIP GALVANIZE
TOTAL
43
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MORE
THAN l'-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER $1 MIL- S5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
1 PCT PCT PCT PCT MORE SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION *50 MIL
2
1.4
8
2.9
*
2.1
6
5.8
20
&.«•
4
3.4
8
3.3
5
3*2
18
4.3
7
4.1
001
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO.2 WHICH TYPES OF FINISHING
ACTIVITIES ARE DONE AT THIS PLANT?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
ANODIZING
PHOSPHATING
CHROMATING
CHEMICAL MILLING/ETCHING
PRINTED CIRCUITS
ELECTROCHEMICAL MILLING
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS "OK*
THAN i-? 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER *i MIL- *5 MIL- *io-5o THAN
TOTAL
1614
329
1285
100.0
310
24.1
718
55.9
634
49.3
279
21.7
191
14.9
59
4.6
1 PCT
254
58
196
100. 0
29
14.8
118
60.2
17
39.3
45
23.0
26
1?. 3
13
6.6
PCT
400
75
325
100.0
69
21.2
200
61.5
177
54.5
56
17.2
S7
17.5
17
5.2
PCT
270
46
224
100.0
58
25.9
119
53.1
113
50.4
45
20.1
28
12.5
9
4.0
PCT
155
27
128
100.0
29
22.7
81
63.3
73
57.0
74
18.8
12
9.4
6
4.7
MORE
394
97
297
100.0
79
26.6
135
45.5
127
42.8
76
25.6
48
16.2
8
2.7
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION 150 MIL
175
58
117
100.0
25
21.4
46
39.3
47
40.2
25
21.4
29
24.8
5
4.3
367
97
270
100.0
66
24.4
123
45.6
125
46.3
50
18.5
39
14.4
2
.7
233
44
189
100.0
43
22.8
93
49.2
68
46.6
38
20*1
19
10.1
3
1.6
565
100
465
100.0
105
22.6
295
63.4
239
51.4
82
17.6
45
9.7
23
4.9
237
ie
219
100. O
67
30.6
147
67.1
123
56.2
7U
35.6
54
24.7
24
11.0
002
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.3 WHAT IS THE TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT AT YOUR PLANT?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
1 TO 49 EMPLOYEES
50 TO 99 EMPLOYEES
100 10 199 EMPLOYEES
200 TO 499 EMPLOYEES
500 TO 999 EMPLOYEES
ItOOO TO 1>999 EMPLOYEES
2»000 OR MORE EMPLOYEES
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
THAN 1-3 4-6 7<-9 10 OR
-TOTAL PLANT SALES-
MURE
UNDER SI MIL- $5 MIL- *10-iO THAN
TOTAL
1614
45
1569
100.0
222
14.1
178
11.3
266
17.0
379
24.2
262
16.7
133
8.5
129
8.2
1 PCT
254
9
245
100.0
28
11.4
16
6.5
37
15.1
61
24.9
46
IB. B
23
9.4
3*
13.9
PCT
400
13
387
100.0
52
13.4
35
9.0
62
16.0
90
23.3
78
20.2
41
0.6
29
7.5
PCT
270
10
260
100.0
33
12.7
27
10.4
45
17.3
74
28.5
45
17.3
20
7.7
16
6.2
PCT
155
2
153
100.0
17
11.1
26
17.0
31
20*3
40
26.1
20
13.1
10
6.5
9
5.9
MORE
394
5
389
100.0
70
18.0
63
16.2
69
17.7
99
25.4
42
0.8
22
5.7
24
6.2
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION $50 MIL
175
6
169
100.0
121
71.6
19
11.2
11
6.5
6
3.6
7
4.1
2
1.2
3
1.8
367
6
361
100.0
76
21.1
128
35.5
120
33.2
25
6.9
a
2.2
3
.8
1
.3
233
6
227
100.0
9
4.0
19
8.4
93
41.0
86
37.9
12
5.3
2
.9
6
2.6
565
19
546
100.0
7
1.3
5
.9
34
6.2
246
45.1
195
35.7
55
10.1
4
.7
23?
5
232
loo.o
3
1.3
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.4 AT ANY TYPICAL TlMEi HOW
MANY PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES WORK IN PLAT-
ING OR FINISHING ACTIVITIES?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
1 TO * EMPLOYEES
5 TO 9 EMPLOYEES
10 TO 19 EMPLOYEES
20 TO 49 EMPLOYEES
50 TO 99 EMPLOYEES
100 TO 249 EMPLOYEES
250 TO 499 EMPLOYEES
500 OP MORE EMPLOYEES
AUTOMATED SYSTEM
AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MOKE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER SI MIL- *5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
15
1599
100.0
699
38.1
293
18.3
293
18.3
267
16.7
75
4.7
45
2.8
9
.6
6
.4
2
.1
1 PCT
254
2
252
100.0
176
69.8
35
13.9
24
9.5
13
5.2
3
1.2
1
.4
PCT
400
3
397
100.0
200
50.4
84
21.2
47
11.8
48
12.1
13
3.3
5
1.3
PCT
270
1
269
100.0
97
36.1
59
21.9
58
21.6
34
12.6
14
5.2
5
1.9
1
.4
1
.4
PCT
155
3
152
100.0
30
19.7
28
18.4
3%
23.0
46
30.3
b
3.9
b
3.9
1
.7
MORE
39*
5
389
100.0
67
17.2
67
17.2
92
23.7
94
25.2
29
7.5
24
6.2
8
2.1
3
.8
1
.3
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9*9 MIL MILLION S50 MIL
175
1
174
100.0
115
66.1
32
18.4
18
10.3
7
4.0
2
1.1
367
3
364
100.0
191
52.5
79
21*7
58
15.9
31
8.5
4
1.1
1
.3
233
233
100.0
88
37.8
48
20.6
50
21.5
32
13.7
10
t.3
4
1*7
1
.4
565
8
557
100.0
159
28.5
103
18.5
120
21.5
125
22.4
31
5.6
16
2.9
i
.4
1
• i
237
3
234
100.0
42
17.9
26
11*1
39
16*7
65
27*8
28
12.0
23
9. a
5
2.1
5
2.1
1
.4
20.18
5.50
11.17 17.13 23.96 37.30
5.25
7.70
14.54 21.13
53.79
004
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.3,4 PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS
IN METAL FINISHING
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 25 PERCENT
25 TO 49 PERCENT
50 TO 7* PERCENT
75 PERCENT OR MORE
AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT S A L Ł S -
LESS riOKt
TMAM 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER $1 MIL- S5 rtIL- *10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
58
1556
100.0
1421
91.3
63
4.0
31
2.0
41
2.6
I PCT
254
11
243
100.0
240
98.8
1
• 4
2
.8
PCT
400
15
385
100.0
368
95.6
4
1.0
6
1.6
7
1.8
PCT
270
10
260
100.0
252
96.9
2
.8
2
.8
4
1.5
PCT
155
5
150
100.0
138
92.0
8
5.3
1
.7
3
2.0
MORE
394
10
384
100.0
309
80.5
42
10.9
18
4.7
15.
3*9
$1 NIL 4.9 MIL 9*9 ML MILLlOrt S50 MIL
175
7
168
100.0
126
75. 0
17
10.1
8
4.8
17
10.1
367
10
357
100.0
317
U8.8
20
5.6
11
3.1
9
2.5
233
6
227
100.0
206
90.7
14
6*2
3
1*3
4
i.a
565
25
540
luO.O
521
96.5
7
1.3
6
1.1
6
1.1
237
7
230
1CO.O
223
97.0
3
1.3
2
.9
2
.9
9.17
2.58
6.46 9.90 16.82 21.36 11*33
9.26
5.75
4.20
005
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (615-2)
QUESTION NO.5 HOW MANY HOURS OF THE
24-HOUR DAY ARE SPENT DOIN6 PETAL
FINISHING AT THE PLANT?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN i HOUR
i TO e HOURS
9 TO 16 HOURS
17 TO 24 HOURS
AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MOKE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER $1 MIL- S5 MIL- S10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
15
1599
100.0
5
.3
709
44.3
563
35.2
322
20.1
1 PCT
254
1
253
100.0
4
1.6
147
5B.1
73
28.9
29
11.5
PCT
400
3
397
100.0
1
.3
191
48.1
136
34.3
69
17.4
PCT
270
5
265
100.0
119
44.9
89
33.6
57
21.5
PCT
155
2
153
100.0
57
37.3
69
45.1
27
17.6
MORE
394
1
393
100.0
142
36.1
134
34.1
117
29.8
$1 MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION $J>0 MIL
175
3
172
100.0
2
1.2
121
70.3
43
25.0
6
3.5
367
3
364
100.0
1
.3
221
60.7
103
28. 3
39
10.7
233
2
231
100.0
111
49.1
81
35.1
39
16.9
t>65
6
559
100.0
I
.4
\ti
34.2
216
38.6
150
26. b
237
1
236
100.0
46
19.5
107
45*3
83
35.2
12.82 10.51 12.32 13.17 13.32 14.18
8.33
10.43
12.42 14.4«:
16.59
006
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.6 HOW MANY DAYS OF EACH WEEK
ARE SPENT DOING METAL FINISHING?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN i DAY
1-5 DAYS
6 DAYS
7 DAYS
AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MORE
THAN 1-3 4-6 '-9 10 OR UNDER SI MIL- *5 MIL- S10-50 THAN
TOTAL
161*
10
1604
100.0
5
.3
1*52
90.5
126
7.9
21
1.3
1 PCT
254
5
249
100.0
3
1.2
230
92.4
14
5.6
2
.8
PCT
400
1
399
100.0
1
.3
371
93.0
27
6.6
PCT
270
1
269
100.0
231
93.3
17
6.3
1
.4
PCT
155
1
154
100.0
1
.6
138
89.6
11
7.1
4
2.6
MORE
394
2
392
100*0
336
85.7
44
11.2
12
3.1
SI MIL 4*9 MIL 9*9 MIL MILLION S50 MIL
175
175
100.0
2
1.1
168
96.0
2
1.1
3
1.7
367
4
363
100.0
2
• 6
334
92.0
23
6.3
4
1.1
233
1
232
100.0
219
94.4
12
5.2
1
.4
565
2
563
100.0
1
.2
512
90. V
44
7.8
6
1.1
237
2
435
100.0
185
78.7
43
IB. 3
7
3.0
4.88
4.57
4.85
4.87
4.94
5.06
4.31
4.76
4.94
5.00
5.IB
007
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO.7 HOW MANY YEARS HAS THIS
PLANT DONE METAL FINISHING?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 10 YEARS
10 TO 19
20 TO 29
30 TO 39
40 TO 49
50 YEARS OR MORE
AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS rtOKE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER $1 MIL- S5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
27
1587
100.0
265
16.7
446
28.1
410
25.8
202
12.7
97
6.1
167
10.5
1 PCT
254
7
247
100.0
41
16.6
72
29.1
77
31.2
24
9.7
14
5.7
19
7.7
PCT
400
4
396
100.0
80
20.2
109
27.5
102
25.8
41
10.4
26
6.6
38.
9.6
PCT
270
5
265
100.0
46
17.4
72
27.2
57
21.5
42
15.8
17
6.4
31
11.7
PCT
155
2
153
100.0
18
11.8
40
26.1
44
28.8
23
15.0
11
7.2
17
11.1
MORE
394
6
388
100.0
64
16.5
112
28.9
91
23.5
52
13.4
22
5.7
47
12.1
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION »50 MIL
175
2
173
100.0
40
23.1
47
27.2
44
25.4
16
10.4
8
4.6
16
9.2
367
7
360
100.0
79
21.9
113
31.4
69
19.2
35
9.7
24
6.7
40
11.1
23J
4
229
1UO.O
38
16.6
60
34.9
50
21.8
26
11.4
7
3.1
28
12.2
565
6
i>59
100.0
76
13.6
149
26.7
159
28.4
73
13.1
4.2
7.5
60
10,7
237
4
233
100.0
24
10.3
49
21.0
7b
33.5
44
13.9
15
6.4
23
9.9
23.90 21.97 22.63 24.30 25.35 25.45 21.67 23.26 23.10 24.81 25.91
008
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO.8 IF TODAY YOU WERE TO
REPLACE ALL OF THE METAL FINISHING PROD-
UCTION EQUIPMENT AT YOUR PLANTi HOW
MUCH WOULD IT COST?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $10,000
$10*000 TO 449,999
$50.000 TO $99,999
$100,000 TO $499.999
S500.000 TO $999,999
$1,000,000 TO $4,999»999
$5,000,000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 1C OR
-TOTAL PLANT SALES-
MOKE
UNDER $1 MIL- $5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
52
1562
100.0
93
6.0
222
14.2
165
10.6
591
37.6
18b
12.0
246
15.7
57
3.6
1 PCT
254
10
244
100.0
45
18. 4
66
27.0
40
16.4
68
27.9
7
2.9
15
6.1
3
1.2
PCT
400
10
390
100.0
24
6.2
70
17.9
47
12.1
157
40.3
42
10.8
44
11.3
6
1.5
PCT
270
6
264
100.0
12
4.5
32
12.1
32
12.1
107
40*5
37
14.0
39
14.8
5
1.9
PCT
155
5
150
100.0
1
.7
12
a.o
1C
6.7
63
42.0
26
17.3
29
19.3
9
6.0
MORE
394
13
381
100.0
7
1.8
32
8.4
27
7.1
139
36.5
56
14.7
93
24.4
27
7.1
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION $50 MIL
175
14
161
100.0
28
17.4
54
33.5
24
14.9
46
28.6
5
3.1
3
1.9
1
.6
367
12
355
100.0
35
9.9
68
19.2
56
15.8
156
43.9
27
7.6
12
3.4
1
.3
233
8
225
100.0
4
1.8
38
16.9
24
10.7
96
42.7
33
14.7
27
12.0
3
1*3
565
io
555
100.0
20
3.6
44
7.9
49
8.8
221
39.8
88
15.9
116
20.9
17
3.1
237
7
230
100.0
3
1.3
11
4.8
12
5.2
56
24.3
29
12.6
84
36.5
35
15.2
56
280
495
593
1135
1188
169
2)7
505
801
2102
009
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO.9 WHAT ARE THE REASONS WHICH
ARE FACTORS IN YOUR DECISION TO DC METAL
FINISHING IN-HOUSf?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
NO JOB SHOPS IN THE AREA TO
SEND WORK TO
JOfi SHOPS ARE NOT, RESPONSIVE
TO OUR NEEDS
LESS EXPENSIVE TO 00 IT
IN-HOUSE
WORK FLOW DOESN'T ALLOW INTER-
RUPTION OF WORK SENT OUT
ALWAYS HAVE DONE CUR METAL
FINISHING IN-HOUSE
OTHER REASONS
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MOKE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNOEK SI MIL- S5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
29
1585
100.0
350
22.1
654
41.3
1207
76.2
1332
04.0
663
43.1
8
.5
1 PCT
254
2
252
100.0
52
20.6
93
36.9
183
72.6
212
84.1
87
34.5
2
• 8
PCT
400
2
398
100.0
90
22.6
163
41.0
315
79.1
332
83.4
140
35.2
PCT
270
2
• 268
100.0
62
23.1
102
38.1
217
81.0
220
82.1
115
42.9
2
.7
PCT
155
155
100.0
37
23.9
61
39.4
124
80.0
137
88.4
78
50.3
1
.6
MORE
394
14
380
100.0
81
21.3
180
47.4
274
72.1
317
83.4
196
51.6
1
.3
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9*9 MIL MILLION S50 MIL
175
13
162
100.0
37
22.8
66
40.7
99
61.1
118
72.8
66
40.7
1
.6
367
6
361
100.0
76
21.1
153
42.4
262
72.6
293
81. 2
152
42.1
4
1.1
233
3
230
100,0
53
23.0
85
37.0
182
79.1
186
80.9
105
45.7
565
i
i>63
100.0
127
22.6
232
41.2
457
81.2
«»94
87.7
236
41.9
2
• 4
237
2
235
100.0
50
21.3
99
42.1
luo
76.6
217
92.3
115
48.9
1
.4
010
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (615-21
QUESTION NO.10 WHICH OF THESE IS THE
MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR DOING METAL
FINISHING IN-HOUSE7
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
NO JOB SHOPS IN THE AREA TO
SEND WORK TO
JOB SHOPS ARE NOT RESPONSIVE
TO OUR NEEDS
LESS EXPENSIVE TO DO IT
IN-HOUSE
WORK FLOW DOESN'T ALLOW INTER-
RUPTION OF WORK SENT OUT
ALWAYS HAVE DONE OUR METAL
FINISHING IN-HOUSE
OTHER REASONS
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
-TOTAL PLANT SALES-
MORt
TOTAL
1614
191
1423
100.0
51
3.6
133
9.3
460
33.7
68*
48.1
70
4.9
4
.3
THAN
1 PCT
254
26
226
100.0
10
4.4
18
7.9
60
26.3
135
59.2
4
1.8
1
.4
1-3
PCT
400
38
362
100.0
19
5.2
38
10.5
124
34.3
170
47.0
11
3.0
4-6
PCT
270
30
240
100.0
6
2.5
21
8.8
96
40.0
112
46.7
4
1.7
i
.4
7-9
PCT
155
13
142
100.0
5
3.5
10
7.0
48
33.!
68
47.9
10
7.0
1
.7
10 OR
MORE
394
59
335
100.0
9
2.7
32
9.6
122
36.4
140
41.8
32
9.6
UNDER SI MIL- S5 MIL- S10-50 THAN
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION 450 MIL
175
45
130
100.0
14
10. 8
13
10.0
31
23.8
58
44.6
14
1C. 8
367
46
321
100.0
14
4.4
35
10.9
101
31.5
153
47.7
16
5.0
2
.6
233
23
210
1OO.O
7
3.3
17
8*1
80
38.1
90
42.9
16
7*6
565
.52
51J
100.0
12
2.3
40
7. a
193
3d. 6
249
43.3
14
2.7
1
,2
237
15
222
100.0
2
.9
22
9.9
*0
27.0
127
57.2
10
4.5
1
.5
Oil
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (813-2)
QUESTION NO.10 WHICH OF THESE IS THE
SECOND MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR DOING
METAL FINISHING IN-HOUSE?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
NO JOB SHOPS IN THE AREA TO
SEND WORK TO
JOB SHOPS ARE NOT' RESPONSIVE
TO OUR NEEDS
LESS EXPENSIVE TO 00 IT
IN-HOUSE
WORK FLOW DOESN'T ALLOW INTER-
RUPTION OF WORK SENT OUT
ALWAYS HAVE DONE OUR METAL
FINISHING IN-HOUSE
OTHER REASONS
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED - -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LE5S MURE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER SI MIL- *5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
246
1368
100.0
84
6.1
235
i7.2
460
33.6
419
30.6
168
12.3
2
.1
1 PCT
254
35
219
100.0
15
6. 6
46
21.9
63
37.9
43
19.6
30
13.7
PCT
400
52
348
100.0
26
7.5
59
17.0
122
35.1
108
31.0
33
9.5
PCT
270
35
235
100.0
18
7.7
31
13.2
76
32.3
72
30.6
37
15.7
1
.4
PCT
155
la
137
100.0
6
4.4
17
12.4
54
39.4
46
33.6
14
10.2
MORE
394
78
316
100.0
13
4.1
61
19.3
89
28.2
117
37.0
35
11.1
1
.3
$1 MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION S30 MIL
175
56
119
1CO.O
9
7.6
26
21.8
35
29.4
33
27.7
15
12.6
1
.8
367
62
305
100.0
19
6.2
61
20.0
1C2
33.4
85
27.9
33
12.5
233
28
205
100.0
13
6.3
28
13.7
68
33.2
66
32.2
30
1'».6
565
65
500
100.0
28
5.6
81
16.2
163
32.6
170
34.0
57
11.4
1
.2
237
23
214
100.0
15
7.0
33
15.4
85
39.7
55
25.7
26
12.1
012
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUOV (815-21
QUESTION NO.11 THINKING ABOUT ALL OF THE
METAL FINISHING fOU DO IN-HOUSEi WHAT
PERCENT OF TrIAT WORK IS DONE WITH
PARTS PRODUCED HERE AT OUR PLANT?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 25 PERCENT
25 TO 49 PERCENT
50 TO 74 PERCENT
75 PERCENT OR MORE
AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALtS-
LESS MOHE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER *l MIL- S5 MIL- S10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
37
1577
100.0
85
5.4
32
2.0
92
5.8
1368
86.7
1 PCT
254
8
246
100.0
16
6.5
5
2.0
11
4.5
214
87.0
FCT
400
9
391
100.0
14
3.6
7
1.8
19
4.9
351
89.8
PCT
270
4
266
100.0
12
4.5
5
1.9
13
4.9
236
88.7
PCT
155
1
154
100.0
3
1.9
2
1.3
14
9.1
135
87.7
MORE
394
8
386
100.0
30
7.8
10
2.6
27
7.0
319
82.6
SI MIL *.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION S50 MIL
175
3
172
100.0
32
18.6
9
5.2
9
$.2
122
70.9
367
9
358
100.0
14
3.9
9
2.5
20
5.6
315
88.0
233
7
226
100.0
7
3.1
3
1.3
14
6.2
202
89.*
5S5
5
560
100.0
21
3.4
6
l.i
31
5.5
502
89.6
237
6
231
100.0
9
3.9
5
2.2
15
6.5
202
87.4
75.88 70.26 78.71 79.02 82.27 71.97 51.95 75.68 80.06 80.10 80.13
013
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.11 THINKING ABOUT ALL OF THE
METAL FINISHING YOU DO IN-HOUSEi WHAT
PERCENT OF THAT WORK IS DONE WITH
PARTS SENT TO US FROM OTHER UNITS OK
THE FIRM?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 25 PERCENT
25 TO 49 PERCENT
50 TO 7A PERCENT
75 PERCENT OR MORE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 1C OR
-TOTAL PLANT SALES-
MONt
UNDER SI MIL- $5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
45
1569
100.0
1476
94.1
46
2.9
20
1.3
27
1.7
1 PCT
254
12
242
100.0
229
94.6
5
2.1
2
.8
6
2.5
PCT
400
10
390
100.0
365
93.6
9
2.3
10
2.6
6
1.5
PCT
270
5
263
100.0
255
96.2
6
2.3
1
.4
3
i.i
PCT
155
1
154
100.0
142
92.2
10
6.5
2
1.3
MORE
394
11
383
100.0
355
92.7
13
3.4
6
1.6
9
2.3
$1 MIL 4.9 NIL 9«9 HIL MILLION $50 MIL
175
5
170
100.0
161
94.7
3
i.a
2
1.2
4
2.4
3b7
11
356
100.0
339
95.2
7
2.0
5
1.4
5
1.4
233
10
223
100.0
210
V4.2
11
4.9
1
.4
1
• 4
565
6
559
100.0
525
93.*
19
3.4
7
1.3
a
1.4
^37
6
231
100.0
214
92.6
5
i.i
5
itZ
7
3.0
AVERAGE
4.09
3.13
4.00
3.03
4.37
5.34
3.81
3.27
3.16
4.23
5.76
014
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO. 11 THINKING ABOUT ALL OF THE
METAL FINISHING YOU 00 IN-HOUSE •
PERCENT OF THAT WORK IS DONE WITH
PARTS FROM OUTSIDE CUSTOMERS/VENDERS?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 25 PERCENT
25 TO 49 PERCENT
50 TO 74 PERCENT
75 PERCENT OR MORE
AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9
-TOTAL PLANT s A L c s -
TOTAL
1614
46
1560
100.0
1425
90.9
44
2.8
51
3.3
48
3.1
1 PCT
254
12
242
100.0
219
90.5
7
2.9
10
4.1
6
2.5
PCT
400
10
390
100.0
368
94.4
5
1.3
10
2.6
7
1.8
PCT
270
5
265
100.0
240
90.6
7
2.6
10
3.6
8
3.0
PCT
155
1
154
100.0
145
94.2
6
3.9
2
1.3
1
.6
MJRE
394
11
383
100.0
337
88.0
15
3.9
14
3.7
17
4.4
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9(9 MIL MILLION S50 MIL
175
5
170
100.0
127
74.7
7
4.1
10
5.9
26
15.3
367
11
356
100.0
324
91.0
11
3*1
13
3.7
8
2.2
233
10
223
100.0
208
93.3
5
2.2
5
2.2
5
2.2
565
b
559
100.0
521
93.2
16
2.9
14
2.5
8
1.4
237
7
230
100.0
216
93*9
5
2.2
a
3.5
1
.4
6.14
5.45
4.63
7.30
5.03
7.48 12.96
5.43
5.02
5.42
015
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO.12 IN THE LAST THREE YEARSt
WHAT WAS THE AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES OF ALL
GOODS PRODUCED AT THIS PLANT?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
UNDER $1,000,000
$1.000,000-4 999.999
$5,000,000-9.999.999
S10»000»000-50»000»000
MORE THAN $50,000,000
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR
-TOTAL PLANT SALES-
MORE
UNDER $1 MIL- $5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
37
1577
100.0
175
11.1
367
23.3
233
14.8
565
35.8
237
15.0
1 PCT
254
8
246
100.0
27
11.0
36
14.6
32
13.0
101
41.1
50
20.3
PCT
400
9
391
100.0
39
10.0
96
24.6
43
11.0
152
38.9
61
15.6
PCT
270
270
100.0
27
10.0
61
22.6
54
20.0
98
36.3
30
11.1
PCT
155
1
154
100.0
11
7.1
40
26.0
29
18.8
53
34.4
21
13.6
MORE
394
7
387
100.0
53
13.7
109
28.2
61
15.8
121
31.3
43
11.1
$1 MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION $50 MIL
175 367 233 565 237
175 367 233 565 237
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
175
100.0
367
100.0
233
100*0
565
100.0
237
100.0
016
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.13 WHAT ARE THE AVERAGE
ANNUAL SALES OF THE WHOLE CORPORATION
OF WHICH YOU ARE A PART?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
UNDER $1,000,000
$1.000.000-*i999.999
»5»000,000-9,999,999
t10,000»000-50,000,000
MORE THAN $30,000,000
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MURE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER $1 MIL- S5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
41
1573
100.0
106
6.7
227
14.4
126
8.0
271
17.2
843
53.6
1 PCT
254
4
250
100.0
15
6.0
23
9.2
19
7.6
34
13.6
159
63.6
PCT
400
6
394
100.0
20
5.1
51
12.9
26
6.6
78
19.8
219
55.6
PCT
270
3
267
100.0
17
6.4
35
13.1
22
8.2
44
16.5
149
55.8
PCT
155
3
152
100.0
7
4.6
22
14.5
15
9.9
34
22.4
74
48.7
MORE
394
10
384
100.0
38
9.9
82
21.4
34
8.9
63
16.4
167
43.5
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9*9 MIL MILLION *50 MIL
175
3
172
100.0
102
59.3
26
15.1
9
5.2
14
8.1
21
12.2
367
7
360
100.0
3
.8
193
53.6
37
10.3
55
15.3
72
20*0
233
3
230
100.0
4
1.7
74
32*2
51
22.2
101
43.9
565
4
561
100.0
1
.2
5
.9
144
25.7
411
73.3
237
Z
235
100.0
1
• 4
4
1.7
230
97.9
017
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1819-2)
QUESTION NO. 14 WHAT PERCENT OF ALL GOODS
PRODUCED AT THIS PLANT RECEIVES SOME
METAL FINISHING?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 25 PERCENT
25 TO 49 PERCENT
50 TO 74 PERCENT
75 PERCENT OR MORE
AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MORE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER $1 MIL- *5 MIL- HO-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
42
1572
100.0
292
18.6
168
12.0
219
13.9
873
55.5
1 PCT
254
10
244
100.0
124
50.8
28
11.5
21
8.6
71
29.1
PCT
400
8
392
100.0
79
20.2
57
14.5
56
14.3
200
51.0
PCT
270
2
268
100.0
41
15.3
38
14.2
42
15.7
147
54.9
PCT
155
2
153
100.0
16
10.5
17
11.1
25
16.3
95
62.1
MORE
394
4
390
100.0
14
3.6
37
9.5
59
15.1
280
71.8
$1 MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION 450 MIL
175
6
169
100.0
50
29*6
13
7.7
20
11.8
06
50.9
367
8
359
100.0
53
14.8
51
14.2
56
15.6
199
55.4
233
2
231
100.0
41
17.7
25
10.8
29
12.6
136
58.9
565
10
555
100.0
90
16. 1
65
11.7
84
15.1
316
56.9
237
7
230
100.0
53
23.0
30
13.0
27
11.7
120
52.2
54.17
27.15 51.22 56.83 65.67 69.37 43.53 57.73 50.59 56.53 48.07
018
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO.15 ON THE AVERAGEt FOR THE
PRODUCTS MADE AT YOUR PLANT HOW MUCH OF
THE TOTAL COST TO MANUFACTURE A PRODUCT
IS DUE TO THE COST Of METAL FINISHING?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 1 PERCENT
1 PERCENT TO 3 PERCENT
it PERCENT TO 6 PERCENT
7 PERCENT TO 9 PERCENT
10 PERCENT OR MORE
DON'T KNOW
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR
-TOTAL PLANT SALES-
MOKt
UNDER SI MIL- $5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL 1 PCT PCT PCT PCT MORE
161* 254 400 270 155 394
23
1591 254 400 270 155 394
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
254 254
16.0 100.0
400 400
25.1 100.0
270 270
17.0 100.0
155 155
9.7 100.0
394 394
24.6 100.0
lie
7.4
»1 MIL 4.4 MIL 9*9 MIL MILLION *50 MIL
175
6
169
100.0
27
16.0
39
23.1
27
16.0
11
6.5
53
31.4
12
7.1
367
3
364
100.0
36
9.9
96
26.4
61
16. 0
40
11.0
109
29.9
22
6.0
233
2
231
100.0
32
13.9
43
18.6
54
23.4
29
12.6
61
26.4
12
5.2
565
4
561
100.0
101
18.0
152
27.1
96
17.5
53
9.4
121
21.6
36
6.4
237
3
234
100.0
50
21.4
61
26.1
30
12.0
21
9.0
43
18.4
29
12.4
019
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION N0.12«14»15 PLANT VALUE ADDED
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMJER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 450.000
$50.000 TO $99.999
ilOO.OOO TO $459,999
»500.000 TO 1999.999
ll.uOO.OOO TO $4.999.999
$5.000(000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
- PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
-TOTAL PLANT S A L E. i -
MORE
TOTAL
1611
189
1425
100. 0
3b6
27.1
154
10.8
363
25.5
134
9.4
329
23.1
59
4.1
THAN
1 PCT
254
16
238
100.0
167
70.2
20
8.4
42
17.6
9
3.b
1-3
PCT
400
16
384
100.0
144
37.5
38
9.9
95
24.7
68
17.7
39
10.2
4-6
PCT
270
2
268
100.0
48
17.9
32
11.9
33
31.0
IB
6.7
78
29.1
9
3.4
7-9
PCT
155
3
152
100.0
16
10.5
11
7.2
39
25.7
20
13.2
53
34.9
13
8.6
10 0!!
MORE
394
11
383
100.0
11
2.9
53
13.8
104
27.2
19
5.0
159
41.5
37
9.7
UNDER
$1 MIL
175
20
155
100.0
110
71.0
45
29.0
Jl MIL-
4.9 MIL
367
31
336
100.0
133
39.6
58
17.3
145
43.2
$5 MIL-
9.9 MIL
233
16
217
100.0
50
23.0
14
6.5
82
37.8
34
15.7
37
17.1
$10-50
MILLION
565
49
516
100.0
6U
13.2
30
5.6
114
22.1
74
14.3
230
44.6
THAN
$50 MIL
237
36
201
100.0
25
12.4
7
3.5
22
10.9
26
12.. 9
62
30. a
59
29.4
34U
65
365
802
1478
2545
27
133
396
1356
3658
020
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (615-2)
QUESTION NO.13*14,15 CORPORATE VALUE ADDED
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MORE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER SI MIL- S5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL 1 PCT PCT PCT PCT MORE SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION *50 MIL
TOTAL
1614
254
400
270
155
394
175
367
233
565
237
NO ANSWER
190
13
13
13
21
37
19
38
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $50.000
S50tOOO TO $99,999
$100,000 TO $499,999
$500,000 TO $999,999
$1,000,000 TO $4,999,999
S3t030•000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
1424
100.0
255
17.9
113
7.9
288
20.2
131
9.2
402
26.2
235
16.5
241
100.0
130
53.9
20
8.3
64
26.6
27
11.2
387
100.0
81
20.9
26
6.7
76
19.6
54
14.0
150
38.8
265
100.0
26
9.8
23
0.7
43
16.2
22
8.3
115
0.4
36
13.6
150
100.0
10
6.7
3
2.0
26
17.3
13
8.7
51
34.0
47
31.3
381
100. 0
8
2.1
4i
10. B
79
20.7
15
3.9
86
22. 6
192
39.9
154
100.0
79
51.3
40
26.0
15
9.7
4
2.6
13
8.4
3
1.9
330
100.0
76
23.0
45
13*6
120
36.4
22
6.7
48
14.5
19
5.8
214
100.0
30
14.0
8
3*7
43
20.1
26
12.1
73
34.1
34
15.9
514
100.0
42
8.2
12
2.3
86
16.7
50
9.7
204
39.7
120
23.3
199
100.0
25
12.6
6
3*0
22
11.1
26
13.1
62
31.2
58
29.1
2541
132
800
2046
3199
5919
499
1224
2649
3570
3654
021
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO.16 DO YOU COMPILE OR RECEIVE
ON A REGULAR BASIS A COST BREAKDOWN FOR
THE METAL FINISHING OPERATION?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
YESt FOR JUST THIS PLANT
YESt BUT INCLUDES THIS PLANT
PLUS OTMES LOCATIONS
NO* COSTS HANDLED ELSEWHERE
N0» COSTS NOT RECORDED
TOTAL
161*
17
1597
100,0
913
57.2
63
3.9
213
13.3
4oe
25.5
LESS
THAN
1 PCT
25*
1
253
IUG.O
96
38.7
7
2.6
33
13.0
115
45.5
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED •
1-3 4-6 7-9
PCT PCT PCT
400
1
399
100.0
209
52.4
14
3.5
63
is. a
113
28.3
270
2
266
100.0
170
63.4
a
3.0
38
14.2
52
19.4
155
1
154
100.0
105
68.2
10
6.5
14
9.1
25
16.2
10 OR
MORE
394
3
391
100.0
276
70.6
21
5.4
30
7.7
64
16.4
MORE
UNDER *1 MIL- *5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION S50 MIL
175
2
173
100.0
06
49.7
5
2.9
14
8.1
68
39.3
367
4
363
loo.o
206
56.7
13
3.6
31
8.5
113
31.1
233
1
232
loo.o
146
62.9
5
2.2
30
12.9
51
22.0
565
4
56i
100.0
333
59.4
24
4.3
83
14.0
121
21.6
237
2
235
100.0
126
53*6
14
6*0
50
21*3
45
19.1
022
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1815-2)
QUESTION NO.17 IF RECORDS ARE KEPT FOR
THE METAL FINISHING OPERATION! WHAT ITEMS
A HE ACCOUNTED FOR ON A REGULAR BASIS'?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
TOTAL WATER
PROCESS WATER
AREA PLATED
JOBS PROCESSED
AMP HOURS
CHEMICAL USE
FACTORY OVERHEAD
DIRECT LABOR
PERSON HOURS
REVENUES GENERATED
NOME UF THE ABOVE ITEMS is
ACCOJ.4TED FOR
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MORE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER *1 MIL- S5 MIL- SlO-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
121
1493
100.0
635
42.5
401
26.9
274
18.4
817
»4.7
193
12.9
1056
70.7
915
61.3
11»7
00.2
836
56.0
283
19.0
202
13.5
1 PCT
254
31
223
100.0
45
20.2
34
15.2
19
8.5
91
40. 8
9
4.0
122
54.7
97
43.5
146
65.5
96
43.0
15
6.7
58
26.0
PCT
400
32
368
100.0
131
35.6
83
22.6
61
16.6
184
90.0
28
7.6
254
69.0
213
57.9
278
75.5
195
53.0
43
11.7
63
17.1
PCT
270
17
253
100.0
113
44.7
68
26.9
43
17.0
144
56.9
36
14.2
187
73.9
163
64.4
2*2
87.7
147
58.1
36
14.2
22
a. 7
PCT
155
7
148
100.0
81
54. T
48
32.4
28
18.9
96
64.9
23
15.5
117
79.1
109
73.6
132
89.2
95
64.2
35
23.6
11
7.4
MORE
394
19
375
100. O
217
57.9
136
36.3
103
27.5
234
62.4
63
22.1
240
77.3
261
69.6
320
85.3
23«
63.5
134
35.7
30
8.0
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION SSO MIL
175
21
154
100.0
45
29.2
22
14.3
19
12.3
64
41.6
18
11.7
41
52.6
72
46.8
103
66.9
76
49.4
43
27.9
02
27.3
367
36
331
100.0
119
36*0
63
19.0
61
18.4
166
50.2
45
13.6
204
61.6
192
38.0
247
74.6
169
51.1
35
25.7
58
17.5
233
10
223
100.0
107
48.0
65
29.1
44
19.7
132
59.2
22
9.9
161
72.2
151
67.7
183
02.1
117
52.5
41
18.4
24
10.8
565
30
535
100.0
257
48.0
170
31.8
100
18.7
301
56.3
73
13.6
412
77.0
340
63.6
451
84.3
321
60.0
71
13.3
54
10.1
237
17
220
100.0
96
43.6
75
34.1
43
19.5
137
62.3
30
13.6
177
80.5
144
65.5
192
87.3
137
62.3
40
18.2
19
8.6
023
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO.ia IN 1976. WHAT WAS YOUR
TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR DOING METAL
FINISHING AT YOUR PLANT?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN J100.000
tlOO.OOO TO S499»999
4500.000 TO $999.999
SI.000.000 TO S4.999.999
i5.QUOi000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
- PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LE5S MOKE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER SI MIL- $5 MIL- 110-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
562
1052
100.0
391
37.2
383
36.4
125
11.9
121
11.5
32
3.0
1 PCT
254
104
150
100.0
101
67.3
40
26.7
5
3.3
3
2.0
1
.7
PCT
400
127
273
100.0
121
44.3
101
37.0
28
10.3
20
7.3
3
1.1
PCT
270
88
182
100.0
69
37.9
74
40.7
21
11.5
16
B.8
2
1.1
PCT
155
42
113
100.0
28
24.8
49
43.4
21
18.6
12
10.6
3
2.7
MORE
394
119
275
100.0
51
18.5
99
36.9
45
16.4
38
21.1
22
8.0
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION 150 MIL
175
61
114
100.0
76
66.7
31
27.2
6
5.3
1
.9
367
129
238
100.0
140
58. Q
74
31.1
17
7.1
7
2.9
233
at)
145
100.0
50
34.5
62
42.8
22
15.2
10
6.9
1
.7
563
172
393
100.0
96
24.4
174
44.3
52
13.2
61
15.5
10
2.5
237
d6
151
100.0
24
15.9
38
25.2
27
17.9
41
27.2
21
13.9
637
198
3/9
419
663
1265
111
194
301
686
1875
024
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.19 WHAT IS YOUR 1976 BUDGET FOR
DIRECT LADOR?
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED - -TOTAL P L A * T SALES-
LESS MORt
THAN 1-9 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER si MIL- *5 MIL- sio-50 THAN
TOTAL i PCT PCT PCT PCT MORE si MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION sso MIL
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN S20»000
»20.000 TO *49'»999
»50»000 TO S99.999
UOO.OOO TO S499.999
S5GO.OOO TO S999i999
$1.000.000 OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS) 269 90 161 224 309 407 65 82 151 24« 009
1614
675
939
100.0
140
14.9
189
20.1
172
18.3
337
35.9
.52
5.5
49
5.2
254
125
129
100.0
43
33.3
39
30.2
21
16.3
21
16.3
4
3.1
1
.8
400
156
244
100.0
56
23.0
63
25.6
36
14.8
75
30*7
7
2.9
7
2.9
270
118
152
100.0
20
13.2
33
21.7
30
1».7
55
36.2
9
5.9
5
3.3
155
49
106
100.0
4
3.8
16
15.1
23
21.7
53
50.0
5
4.7
5
4.7
394
139
255
100. a
9
3.5
31
12.2
51
20.0
111
43.5
23
9.0
30
11.8
175
81
94
100.0
31
33*0
25
26.6
17
18.1
20
21.3
1
1.1
367
176
191
100.0
46
24.1
62
32.5
35
18.3
45
23.6
2
1.0
1
.5
233
112
121
roo.o
14
11.6
31
25.6
29
24.0
44
36.4
1
.8
2
1.7
565
1U6
379
100.0
42
11.1
55
140
78
20.6
160
42.2
27
7.1
17
4.5
237
93
144
100.0
6
4.2
12
8.3
12
8.3
65
45.1
20
13.9
29
20.1
025
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
MCTAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
TOTAL
QUESTION NO.19 WHAT IS YOUR 1976 BUDGET FOR
CHEMICAL?
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED - -TOTAL PLANT SALtS-
LESS MOKE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER $1 MIL- $5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL 1 PCT PCT PCT PCT MORE il MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION »50 MIL
400
270
155
39<»
175
367
233
565
237
NO ANSWER
719
133
163
130
50
147
89
181
114
206
100
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $20.000
$20.000 TO $49.999
$50.000 TO $99*999
$100.000 TO $499.999
$500.000 TO $999»999
11,000.000 OR MORE
695
100.0
281
31.4
173
19.3
133
14.9
248
27.7
39
4.4
21
2.3
121
100. 0
7V
65.3
21
17.4
6
5.0
14
11.6
1
.8
237
100.0
86
36.3
55
23.2
36
15.2
5<>
22.8
3
1.3
3
1.3
140
100.0
38
27.1
34
24.3
24
17.1
39
27.9
4
2.9
1
.7
105
100.0
30
28.6
20
19.0
15
14.3
34
32.4
4
3.8
2
1.9
247
100.0
35
14.2
34
13.8
43
17.4
94
38.1
27
10.9
14
5.7
86
100.0
57
66.3
17
19.8
9
10.5
3
3.5
186
100.0
91
<»8.9
38
20.4
23
12.4
31
16.7
3
1.6
119
loo.o
34
^U.6
31
26.1
16
13.4
36
30.3
1
.8
1
.8
359
100.0
76
21.2
67
18.7
65
18.1
121
33.7
23
6.4
7
1.9
137
100.0
22
16.1
18
13.1
19
13.9
53
38.7
12
a.b
13
9.5
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
170
117
97
120
152
317
21
60
96
176
463
026
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.19 WHAT IS YOUR 1976 BUDGET FOR
WATER?
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MORE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER »i MIL- ss MIL- *io-so THAN
TOTAL i PCT PCT PCT PCT MORE si MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION »5o MIL
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN S20»000
»20>000 TO $49»999
»50.000 TO *99»999
SlOOiOOO TO $499*999
S500.000 TO $999*999
»ltOOOtOOO OR MORE
1614.
922
692
100.0
526
76.3
102
14.7
39
5.6
17
2.5
4
.6
2
.3
254
ISO
74
100.0
67
90.5
5
6.8
2
2.7
400
216
184
100.0
148
80.4
25
13.6
6
3.3
2
1.1
2
1.1
1
.5
270
161
109
100.0
88
80.7
1*
12.8
4
3.7
3
2.8
155
67
88
100.0
66
77.3
13
14.8
6
6,6
1
1.1
394 175
192 112
202 63
100.0 100.0
130 63
64.4 100.0
40
19.8
19
9.4
11
5.4
1
.5
1
.5
367
221
146
100.0
131
69.7
13
8.9
2
1*4
233
144
89
100.0
77
86.5
a
9.0
2
2.2
1
1.1
1
1.1
565
281
2*4
140.0
199
70.1
56
19.7
22
7.7
7
2.5
237
130
107
100.0
56
52.3
24
22.4
13
12,1
9
8.4
3
2.8
2
1.9
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
32
49
17
22
43
16
19
132
027
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
OUESTION NO.19 WHAT IS YOUR 1976 BUDGET FOR
ENERGY AMD UTILITIES?
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9
1 PCT f'CT PCT PCT
254
400
270
155
-TOTAL PLANT SALtS-
MORt
10 OR UNDER $1 MIL- *5 MIL- S10-50 THAN
MORE *1 MIL 4.9 MIL 9*9 MIL MILLION *50 MIL
394
175
367
233
565
237
NO ANSWER
862
171
209
151
59
170
97
205
132
270
125
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN S20tOOO
»20iOOO TO
*SO»000 TO *99.999
HOO.OOO TO *499i999
*5UO.OOO TO S999i999
tlfOOO.OOO OR MORE
752
100.0
360
47.9
153
20.3
102
13.6
112
14.9
14
1.9
11
1.5
83
luo.o
56
67.5
16
19.3
6
7.2
5
6.0
191
100.0
114
59.7
30
15.7
27
14.1
18
9.4
2
1.0
119
100.0
56
47.1
29
24.4
15
12.6
18
15.1
1
.6
96
100.0
35
36.5
28
29.2
13
13.5
16
16.7
4
4.2
224
100.0
82
36.6
39
17.4
36
16.1
50
22.3
10
4.5
7
3.1
78
100.0
63
80.8
13
16.7
2
2.6
162
100.0
109
67.3
27
16.7
19
11.7
7
4.3
101
100.0
43
42.6
33
32.7
16
15.8
8
7.9
1
1.0
295
100.0
116
39.3
5o
19.7
56
19.0
54
18.3
a
2.7
3
1.0
112
100.0
27
24.1
21
18. B
11
9.B
40
35.7
5
4.5
8
7.1
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
90
24
41
54
117
171
12
24
41
88
295
028
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO.19 WHAT IS YOUR 1976 BUDGET FOR
OTHER ITEMS?
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MOKE
THAN, 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER *1 MIL- «5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL 1 PCT PCT PCT PCT MORE SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION S50 MIL
TOTAL
1614
254
400
270
155
175
367
233
565
237
NO ANSWER
1070
197
256
176
95
235
127
267
167
335
142
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $20*000
120.000 TO S49.999
>50tOOO TO $99t999
SlOOtOOO TO S499»999
S500tOOO TO S999t999
Sit000i000 OR MORE
544
100.0
169
31.1
98
la.o
64
11.8
141
25.9
40
7.4
32
5.9
57
100.0
23
40.4
16
28*1
7
12.3
9
15.6
1
l.B
1
1.8
144
100.0
55
38.2
27
18.8
21
14.6
30
20.8
6
4.2
9
3.5
94
100..0
30
31.9
16
17.0
13
13.8
27
28.7
6
6.4
2
2.1
60
100.0
17
28.3
9
15.0
6
10.0
19
31.7
4
6.7
5
8.3
159
100.0
33
20.8
24
15*1
15
9.4
49
30.8
20
12.6
18
11.3
48
100.0
26
54.2
9
18.8
6
12.5
7
14.6
100
100.0
49
49.0
17
17*0
10
10.0
19
19.0
4
4.0
1
1.0
66
100.0
18
27.3
11
16.7
8
12*1
22
33.3
4
6.1
3
4.5
230
100*0
57
24.8
47
20.4
33
14.3
61
26.5
18
7.8
14
6.1
95
100.0
17
17.9
14
14.7
7
7.4
29
30.5
14
14.7
14
14.7
AVERAGE ITHOUSANDSI
272
77
174
161
312
497
54
90
192
290
591
029
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.20 ON A TYPICAL DAY IN 1976
HOX MUCH WATER DID YOUR TOTAL PLANT USE?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 2.000 GALLONS
2.000 TO 9.999
10,000 tO 49.999
50,000 TO 99.999
100.000 TO 499.999
aOO.OOO GALLONS OR M03E
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
-TOTAL PLANT
MUKt
TOTAL
1614
441
1173
100.0
82
7.0
10.6
254
21.7
152
13.0
357
30.4
204
17.4
THAN
1 PCT
254
67
187
100.0
17
9.1
21
11.2
38
20.3
27
14.4
49
26.2
35
18.7
1-3
PCT
400
107
293
100.0
19
6.5
33
11.3
58
19.8
42
14.3
89
30.4
52
17.7
4-6
PCT
270
82
188
100.0
13
6.9
25
13.3
39
20.7
27
14.4
56
29.8
28
14.9
7-9
PCT
155
41
114
100.0
7
6.1
7
6.1
25
21.9
23
20.2
34
29.8
18
15.8
10 OR
MORE
394
90
304
100.0
21
6.9
33
10.9
74
24.3
24
7.9
105
34.5
47
15.5
UNDER *1 MIL- *5 MIL- SlO-bO THAN
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION *SO MIL
175
76
99
100.0
31
31.3
25
25.3
23
23.2
6
6.1
12
12.1
2
2.0
367
148
219
100.0
27
12.3
65
29.7
81
37.0
22
10.0
18
8.2
6
2.7
233
71
162
100.0
10
6.2
9
5.6
S3
32.7
27
16.7
53
32.7
10
6*2
565
101
464
10O.O
10
2.2
20
4.3
82
17.7
79
17.0
206
44.4
67
14.4
237
26
211
100.0
2
.9
3
1.4
13
6.2
16
7.6
61
28.9
116
55.0
808
787
691
288
1500
917
241
205
494
823
1950
030
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (B15-2)
QUESTION NO.20 ON A TYPICAL DAY IN 1976
HOW MUCH WATER 010 YOUR METAL FINISHING
PROCESS USE7
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 2*000 GALLONS
2*000 TO 9*999
10,000 TO 49,999
50,000 TO 99,999
100,000 TO 499,999
500,000 GALLONS OR MORE
TOTAL
1614
4I|9
1125
100.0
188
16.7
- 198
17.6
305
27.1
138
12.3
239
21.2
57
5.1
LESS
THAN
1 PCT
254
95
159
100.0
55
34.6
33
20.8
37
23.3
Ib
11.3
13
8.2
3
1.9
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED •
1-3 4-6 7-9
PCT PCT PCT
400
121
279
100.0
49
17.6
54
19.4
90
32.3
27
9.7
48
17.2
11
3.9
270
82
188
loo.o
32
17.0
31
16.5
54
28.7
20
10.6
45
23.9
6
3.2
155
37
118
100.0
14
11.9
19
16.1
30
25.4
19
16.1
25
21.2
11
9.3
10 OR
MORE
394
97
297
100.0
30
10.1
47
15.8
67
22.6
44
14.8
87
29.3
22
7.4
rtUKE
UNDER SI MIL- S5 MIL- 410-50 THAN
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9,9 MIL MILLION S50 MIL
175
81
94
100.0
41
43.6
22
23.4
24
25.5
3
3*2
3
3.2
1
1.1
367
150
217
100.0
59
27.2
67
30.9
55
25*3
23
10.6
7
3.2
6
2.8
233
75
158
100.0
23
14.6
32
20.3
49
31.0
26
16.5
27
17.1
1
• 6
565
116
449
100.0
50
11.1
59
13.1
137
30.5
62
13.8
Hi
27.2
19
4.2
237
48
189
100.0
11
5.8
17
9.0
36
19.0
20
10.6
76
40.2
29
15.3
AVERAGE (THOUSANDSi
277
50
162
78
423
621
30
118
339
358
356
031
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
3UESTION NO.20 ON A TYPICAL DAY IN 1976
HOW MUCH WATER 3ID YOUR OTHIR PRODUCTION
PROCESS USE?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN 2.000 GALLONS
2*000 TO 9.999
10*000 TO 49,999
50,000 TO 99,999
100*000 TO 499*999
500i000 GALLONS OR MORE
AVERAGE (THOUSANDSI
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS "ORE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER si MIL- $5 MIL- sio-so THAN
TOTAL
1614
572
1042
100.0
368
35.3
127
12.2
211
20.2
96
9.2
161
17.4
59
5.7
1 PCT
254
100
154
100.0
56
36.4
16
10.4
34
22.1
14
9.1
23
14.9
11
7.1
PCT
400
143
257
100.0
86
33.5
34
13.2
45
17.5
29
11.3
45
17.5
IB
7.0
PCT
270
98
172
100.0
63
36.6
23
13.4
34
19.8
17
9.9
25
14.5
10
5.8
PCT
155
45
110
100.0
39
35.5
13
11.8
20
18.2
9
8.2
20
18.2
9
8.2
MORE
394
120
274
100.0
98
35.8
34
12.4
65
23.7
18
6.6
51
18.6
8
2.9
SI MIL
175
86
89
100.0
67
75.3
10
11.2
7
7.9
3
3.4
2
2.2
4.9 MIL
367
176
191
100.0
99
51.8
55
28.8
23
12.0
8
4.2
4
2.1
2
1.0
9.9 MIL I"
233
88
145
100.0
52
35.9
21
14.5
41
28.3
14
9.7
16
11.0
1
.7
ULL10N 1
565
147
410
100.0
112
26.8
36
8.6
108
25.8
57
13.6
88
21.1
17
4.1
.50 MIL
237
52
185
100.0
29
15.7
5
2.7
31
16.8
14
7.6
69
37.3
37
20.0
384
446
486
124
1214
147
99
67
36 J
1174
032
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (615-2)
QUESTION NO.21 WHERE DOES YOUR METAL
FINISHING DISCHARGE WATER GO?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM
RIVER* LAKE i POND. OTHER
SURFACE WATER
30TH OF THE ABOVE
HOLDING TANKS
MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM AND
HOLDING TANK
NATURAL SURFACE WATER AND
HOLDING TANK
CHEMICAL TREATMENT PLANT
COMBINED MUNICIPAL* NATURAL*
AND HOLDING
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MOKE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7r9 10 OR UNDER «1 MIL- $5 MIL- S10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
32
1582
100.0
955
60.4
250
15.0
76
4.9
174
11.0
98
6.2
23
1.5
1
.1
3
.2
1 PCT
254
12
242
100*0
156
64.5
40
16.5
t
2.5
24
9.9
15
6.2
1
.4
PCT
400
5
395
100.0
230
56.2
62
15.7
21
5.3
42
10.6
30
7.6
7
1.8
1
.3
2
.5
PCT
270
3
267
100.0
169
63.3
34
12.7
10
3.7
36
13.5
12
4.5
6
2.2
PCT
155
4
151
100.0
90
59.6
21
13.9
11
7.3
18
11.9
8
5.3
3
2.0
MORE
394
4
390
100.0
225
57.7
64
16.4
24
6.2
47
12.1
24
6.2
6
1.5
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION S50 MIL
175
1
174
100.0
115
66.1
22
12.6
3
1.7
26
14.9
5
2.9
3
1.7
367
6
359
100.0
223
62.1
40
11.1
16
4.5
43
12.0
27
7.5
10
2. a
233
7
226
100. 0
136
60.2
37
16.4
10
4.4
22
9.7
17
7.5
3
1.3
1
.4
565
9
556
100.0
339
61.0
93
16.7
30
5.4
54
9.7
31
5.6
7
1.3
i
.4
237
3
234
100.0
123
52.6
54
23.1
16
6.8
25
10.7
15
6.4
1
.4
033
-------
NATIuNAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUOY (815-21
SUCST10N NO.22 DO YOU TREAT THE EFFLUENT
FROM YOUR METAL FINISHING OPERATIONS AT
THIS PLANT?
T01AL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
YES
NO
- - - PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED - - - -TOTAL PLANT S A L t S -
LESS ilOKt
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER SI MIL- $5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
33
1581
100.0
941
59,5
640
40.5
1 PCT
254
10
244
100.0
116
47.5
12B
52.5
PCT
400
7
393
100.0
216
55.0
177
45.0
PCT
270
5
265
100.0
149
56.2
116
43.8
PCT
155
2
153
100.0
101
66.0
52
34.0
MORE
394
4
390
100.0
261
66.9
129
33.1
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION SbO MIL
175
6
169
100.0
70
41.4
99
58.6
367
11
356
100.0
189
53.1
167
46.9
233
4
229
100.0
130
56«a
99
43.2
565
5
560
100.0
355
63.4
205
36.6
237
3
234
100.0
172
73.5
6
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY 1015-21
QUESTION NO.23 (IF EFFLUENT IS TREATED*
0.221 HOW MUCH HAVE YOU SPENT TO BUY ALL
OF YOUR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
AT THIS PLANT?
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR
i PCT PCT PCT PCT MORE
116
216
149
101
261
-TOTAL PLANT SALES-
MORE
UNDER SI MIL- S5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLIUN $50 MIL
70
Ib9
130
355
172
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
UNDER $100.000
S100tOOO~S249<99%
i250.000-S499«999
»5COtOO-*1.000,000
MORE THAN »i .000.000
934
100.0
463
49.6
214
22.9
122
13.1
71
7.6
64
6.9
111
lOOtO
66
57.9
10
15. B
9
7.9
0
7.0
13
11.4
216
100.0
109
50.5
57
26.4
23
10.6
14
6.9
13
6.0
148
100.0
79
53.4
32
21.6
24
16.2
8
5.4
5
3.4
101
100.0
47
46.5
21
20.8
16
15.8
12
11.9
5
5.0
258
100.0
114
44.2
67
26.0
38
14.7
21
8.1
18
7.0
69
100.0
59
85.5
5
7.2
4
5.8
1
1.4
188
100.0
135
71.8
43
22. V
9
4.8
1
.5
128
100.0
73
57.0
30
23.4
18
14.1
5
3.9
2
1.6
355
100,0
151
42.5
95
26.8
S3
17.7
41
11.5
5
1.4
170
100.0
34
20.0
33
19.4
25
14.7
25
14.7
53
31.2
035
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
MFTAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.24 HOW MUCH OF THIS TOTAL
CAPITAL INVESTMENT REPRESENTS THE COST
OF TREATING METAL FINISHING WASTES?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
ICO PERCENT-ALL OF IT
75 PERCENT-MOST PF IT
50 PERCENT-ABOUT HALF
25 PERCENT-LITTLE
0 PERCENT-NONE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT S A L t S -
LESS MOKE
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER $1 MIL- >5 MIL- S10-50 THAN
TOTAL
941
22
919
100.0
486
52.9
155
16.9
75
B.2
178
19.4
25
2.7
1 PCT
116
6
110
100.0
29
26.4
12
10.9
8
7.3
50
45.5
11
10.0
PCT
216
3
213
100.0
99
46.5
40
18.8
24
11.3
46
21.6
4
1.9
PCT
149
2
147
100.0
89
60.5
25
17.0
9
6.1
20
13.6
4
2.7
PCT
101
2
99
100.0
57
57.6
23
23.2
7
7.1
11
11.1
1
1.0
MORE
261
5
256
100.0
164
64.1
37
14.5
15
5.9
38
14.8
2
.8
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION *50 MIL
70
5
65
100.0
32
49.2
7
10.8
7
10.8
16
24.6
3
4.6
189
5
184
100.0
106
57.6
14
7.6
It
8.2
43
23.4
6
3.3
130
4
126
100*0
83
65*9
10
7.9
8
6.3
22
17.5
3
2*4
J5&
2
353
100.0
190
53.8
74
21.0
20
5.7
62
17.6
7
2.0
172
5
167
100.0
61
36.5
47
28.1
22
13.2
32
19.2
5
3.0
036
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (615-2)
QUESTION MO.25 WHICH OF THEoE ISSUES OF
COiT AMD PRODUCTION WOULD BE THE THREE
M05T IMPORTANT IN INFLUENCING YOUR PLANT'S
DCCISION TO INVEST IN A WATER POLLUTION
CONTRJL SYSTEM?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
SUE OF REQUIRED INVESTMENT
POTENTIAL COST IMPACT OF THE
INVESTMENT
FEASIBILITY OF CHANGING
FINISHING PROCESSES
FEASIBILITY OF SENDING OUT
METAL FINISHING
DECIDING ON WHAT SYSTEM TO
INSTALL
DECIDING HOW AND WHEN TO
INSTALL THE SYSTEM
RFLCCATING ME.TAL FINISHING
OPERUIOMS
CHANGING FROM OR TC A IIUNIC-
P*L SfWER SYSTEM
OThCR ISSUES
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
tESS MORt
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDER %l MIL- $5 MIL- S10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
80
1534
100.0
1161
75.7
921
60.0
469
30.6
420
27.4
756
49.4
436
28.4
119
7.8
229
14.9
11
.7
1 PCT
254
20
234
100. o
178
76.1
126
53. «
62
35.0
92
39.3
94
40.2
57
24.4
20
8.5
42
17.9
1
.4
PCT
400
21
379
100.0
277
73.1
227
59.9
124
32.7
124
32.7
184
48.5
96
25.9
27
7.1
65
17.2
2
.5
PCT
270
12
258
10U.O
190
73.6
166
64.3
81
31.4
66
25.6
134
51.9
It
26.7
18
7.0
32
12.4
1
.4
PCT
155
1
154
100.0
121
78.6
89
57.8
50
32.5
40
26.0
75
48.7
39
25.3
16
10.4
22
14.3
MORE
394
15
379
100.0
297
78.4
245
64.6
92
24.3
68
17.9
203
53.6
124
32.7
26
6.9
tt
14.5
6
1.6
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION 150 MIL
175
15
160
100.0
127
79.4
98
61.3
44
27.5
50
31.3
62
38*8
42
26.3
18
11.3
27
16.9
1
.6
367
25
342
loO.O
263
76.9
223
65.2
9b
26.1
104
30.4
154
45.0
78
22.8
26
7.6
45
13.2
3
.9
233
13
220
100.0
176
UO.O
132
60.0
57
25.9
66
30.9
107
48.6
55
25*0
22
10.0
30
13.6
3
1.4
565
15
550
100.0
417
75.8
329
59.8
Id,!
33.1
142
25.8
291
52.9
140
26.9
38
6.9
«4
15.3
1
• I
237
5
232
100.0
155
66*8
12/
54.7
80
34.5
49
21.1
126
54.3
103
44.4
12
5.2
3V
16. a
3
1.3
037
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-2)
QUESTION NO.26 IF YOU HAVE NOT PARTICIPATED
IN PLANNING MEETINGS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL
AND/OR YOUH PLANT DOES NOT HAVE WATER
POLLUTION CONTROLS. WHAT REASONS WOULD
ACCOUNT FOR THIS?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
OTHER PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE
F03 IT
IT IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROBLEM
POLLUTION CONTROL PLANNING IS
LOW PRIORITY
PRESCNT PLANNING OF PROCEDURES
HAVE COMPLIED. HAVE FACILITIES
WAITING F03 PENDING GOVERN-
MENTAL REGULATIONS
OTHER REASONS
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED
LESS
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR
-TOTAL PLANT SALES-
MUKt
UNDER $1 MIL- S5 MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
921
693
100.U
00
11.5
416
60.0
71
10.2
121
17.5
32
4.6
19
2.7
1 PCT
254
116
138
100.0
15
10.9
103
74.6
13
9.4
15
10.9
2
1.4
2
1.4
PCT
400
216
184
100.0
22
12.0
122
66.3
17
9.2
22
12.0
10
5.4
3
1.6
PCT
270
161
109
100.0
12
11.0
65
59.6
12
11.0
23
21.1
3
2.8
1
.9
PCT
155
91
64
100.0
7
10.9
35
54.7
7
10.9
16
25.0
3
4.7
3
4.7
MORt
394
247
147
100.0
15
10.2
65
44.2
17
11.6
36
24.5
13
8.8
8
5.4
SI rflL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION *50 MIL
175
62
113
100.0
13
11.5
83
73.5
8
7.1
9
8.0
1
.9
4
3.5
367
174
193
100.0
19
9.8
126
66*3
22
11.4
17
8.8
10
5.2
8
4.1
233
122
111
100.0
16
14.4
61
55.0
13
11.7
27
24.3
3
2.7
1
.9
565
361
204
100.0
17
0*3
114
55*9
20
9.0
50
24.5
11
5.4
6
2.9
237
177
60
100.0
12
20.0
23
38.3
6
10.0
15
25.0
7
11.7
03«
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (815-21
QUESTION NO.27 HOW MUCH WILL YOUR PLANT
SPEND ON POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
DURING THE NEXT 2 YEARS?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $10.000
ftlOiOOO TO 149(999
$50.000 TO $99.999
S100i000 TO $499t999
$500.000 OR MORE
- - - PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED - - - -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LESS MOKE
THAN 1-3 4-* 7-9 10 OR UNDEK $1 MIL- $s MIL- $10-50 THAN
TOTAL
1614
334
12«o
luo.o
397
31.0
377
29.5
187
14.6
250
19.5
69
5.4
1 PCT
254
52
202
100.0
84
41.6
55
27.2
22
10.9
31
15.3
10
5.0
PCT
400
91
309
100.0
116
37.5
85
27.5
37
12.0
56
18.1
15
4.9
PCT
270
41
229
100.0
63
27.5
77
93.6
40
17.5
38
16.6
11
4.8
PCT
155
30
125
100.0
32
25.6
36
28.8
22
17.6
29
23.2
6
4. a
MORE
394
85
309
100.0
70
22.7
99
32.0
50
16.2
74
23.9
16
5.2
$1 MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MILLION >50 MIL
175
59
116
100.0
70
60.3
32
27.6
7
6.0
5
4.3
2
1.7
367
104
263
100.0
130
49.4
82
31.2
28
10.6
21
8.0
2
.8
233
42
191
100.0
61
31<9
61
31.9
26
13.6
39
20.4
4
2.1
365
39
47b
100.0
110
23.1
160
33.6
d9
18.7
9tf
20.6
19
4.0
237
24
213
loo.o
25
11.7
35
16.4
35
16.4
77
36.2
41
19.2
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
138
187
116
125
169
108
37
30
107
105
427
039
-------
NATIONAL ANALYSTS
METAL FINISHING STUDY (615-2)
QUESTION NO.27 HOW MUCH WILL YOUR PLANT
SPEND ON POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
DURING THE NEXT 5 YEARS?
TOTAL
NO ANSWER
NUMBER ANSWERING
LESS THAN $10,000
HO.OOO TO *49»999
$50,000 TO $99,999
$100.000 TO $499,999
S500.000 OR MOPE
PERCENTAGE VALUE ADDED -TOTAL PLANT SALES-
LCSS MOKt
THAN 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 OR UNDEK $1 MIL- $5 MIL- S10-50 THArt
TOTAL
1614
455
1159
100,0
244
21.1
220
19.0
183
15.8
355
30.6
157
13.5
1 PCT
254
72
162
100.0
60
33.0
40
22.0
23
12.6
40
22.0
19
10.4
PCT
400
113
287
100.0
69
24.0
60
20.9
43
15.0
79
27.5
36
12.5
PCT
270
65
205
100.0
40
19.5
51
24.9
30
14.6
61
29.0
23
11.2
PCT
155
42
113
100.0
18
15.9
16
14.2
23
20.4
36
31.9
20
17.7
MORE
394
114
280
100.0
33
11.8
42
15.0
51
18.2
110
39.3
44
15.7
SI MIL 4.9 MIL 9.9 MIL MlLLlOu 150 MIL
175
74
101
100.0
47
46.5
27
26.7
13
12.9
10
9.9
4
4.0
367
134
229
100.0
77
J3.6
63
27.5
36
15.7
49
21.4
4
1.7
233
76
157
luO.O
37
23.6
27
17.2
32
20.4
51
32.5
10
6.4
565
100
459
100.0
6H
14.8
d9
19.4
79
17.2
162
35.3
61
13.3
237
3S
19V
100.0
15
7.5
13
6.5
22
11.1
7b
33.2
73
36.7
AVERAGE (THOUSANDS)
293
336
273
271
332
264
82
66
209
204
923
040
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
SAMPLE DESIGN AND SURVEY ISSUES
INTRODUCTION
Executing a successful mail survey of the job shop
sector of the metalfinishing sector required careful pre-
planning. No matter how well conceived, in practice every
survey must confront and satisfy several critical questions
in order to accept the results as valid. The questions are
these:
Is the basic sampling frame sound, e.g., free from
systematic sample selection bias?
Was a sound procedure employed to account for
non-respondents in order to assess the general
representativeness of the findings?
Do the response rates and data patterns permit
extrapolation of sample results to the population?
The purpose of this appendix is to present all the analytic
steps taken to satisfy these key questions.
1. A FIXED INTERVAL, RANDOM SELECTION DESIGN WAS
USED TO IDENTIFY THE SAMPLE; TWO*MAILINGS PLUS
FOLLOW-UP PHONE CALLS WERE MADE
The approach taken in this survey was a mail question-
naire followed by a follow-up telephone interview to a sample
of establishments not responding to the mail phase. A mail,
rather than a telephone or personal survey, was planned be-
cause of the nature of the data elements sought in the in-
quiry. We needed detailed and comprehensive information re-
garding production line configurations, water usage, employ-
ment statistics, and financial data. Such figures are not
D-l
-------
normally readily accessible in an interview situation and
often require review and consultation with others. The mail
approach affords respondents an opportunity to search out
and to consider thoughtfully their written replies. Pre-
vious studies among members of this industry have shown the
respondents can and do answer even the most detailed and
searching questions in a mail survey. The telephone follow-
up with non-respondents was included as an essential second
step to determine whether or not these establishments differed
along key parameters from those responding to the mail survey.
If the non-respondents could be shown to be no different from
respondents, then it would be reasonable to generalize the
survey data to all independent metalfinishing establishments.
If systematic differences were found between first and second
mail-backs, or between all mail respondents and telephone re-
spondents, then a means of weighting mail results to reflect
population parameters is needed.
(1) The Dun's Market Identifiers File Defined the
Metalfinishing Universe to be Sampled
Firms providing electroplating and metalfinishing
services are listed in SIC (Standard Industrial Classifi-
cations of the Department of Commerce) 3471 and 3479.
Therefore, the universe under investigation in the study
was defined as all firms listed in the two SIC's that
currently perform those manufacturing processes covered
by the regulations.
D-2
-------
The most recent and complete listing of such firms
available to us at the start of the study was the Dun's
Market Identifiers File (DMI) purchased by the U.S.
EPA from Dun and Bradstreet. Contained in the DMI were
5,551 names of organizations whose primary SIC is either
3471 or 3479.
This listing of 5,551 was ordered first by the size
of the company (using number of employees) and then alpha-
betically by state within size category.
A survey design was employed that systematically
sampled from the universe using a fixed interval and a
random starting point. By employing a 2.5 interval and
going through the list, a sample universe of 2,221 estab-
lishments was derived. An additional 70 firm names were
provided us by the Agency for inclusion in the sample.
They were included because they provided data previously
and effects over time could prove interesting.
(2) Great Care Went Into the Development of the Data
Gathering Instrument
Prior analyses, client discussions, and coordina-
tion with the metalfinishing industry reinforced our
understanding of how much information was needed for
systematic economic impact analysis. The data would
D-3
-------
have to be gathered via the mail. The instrument had
to be a convenient self-administered questionnaire.
To this end, we did the following:
Solicited descriptors of technical and pro-
duction variables from the technical con-
tractor. In this way, data would be gathered
from which pollution control costs could be
developed.
Provided drafts of the instrument to the
industry's association, the NAMF (National
Association of Metal Finishers). Their com-
ments contributed directly to the form, con-
tent, and length of the final instrument.
Reviewed the early drafts with our sampling
survey division, National Analysts. Their
contribution went far beyond the duties of
administering, coding, and scoring the re-
turns. On early drafts, they reviewed
critically the language, format, and lucid-
ity of all items.
Prior to the first mailing subsample, the
instrument was tested on a subsample of 12
firms located in New Jersey. This effort
was conducted to ensure that directions were
self-explanatory, items clear, and data ob-
tainable. Valuable information was gathered
by sitting with a respondent and "walking him
through" all items. Several changes in the
instrument's form and length were made as a
result of this pre-test.
By this point, the instrument had gone through six
drafts. It represented the most extensive, clear, de-
tailed, and balanced questionnaire we were able (at the
time) to create.
D-4
-------
(3) Two Separate Mailings Were Made
At the end of this development phase the final
instrument was 14 pages long (see Appendix A) and
covered the topics of:
Production activities
Market conditions
Technical operations
Financial conditions
Treatment requirements
Investment options
In October, all 2,221 establishments plus 40 of the
70 EPA firms were mailed a questionnaire with cover
letters from both the NAMF and the Agency. A postage
paid return envelope was enclosed. Replies were moni-
tored as received by National Analysts and when the re-
sponse levels diminished to fewer than two to three a
day, a second mailing went out to the non-respondents.
Again, a cover letter and a return envelope accompanied
each questionniare.
(4) Telephone Interviews Were Conducted With a
Sub-Set of Mail Non-Respondents
By the end of the mail phase, more than 1,400 firms
identified for the sample had not responded. To identify
as much as possible about these non-respondents, it was
decided to telephone and interview some of them directly.
D-5
-------
First, a shorter version of the mail instrument
was devised for use as a telephone protocol. Not only
was some language changed to make the questions more
conversational/ but many production and financial items
were omitted for the sake of a limited (10-15 minute)
interview.
At the time, the subsample of non-respondents was
to be selected, 150 sample firms were known to be inactive
(e.g., mail returned as undeliverable, notes written on
questionnaires stating firm no longer in business, and
the like). In addition, not all active organizations
were subject to regulation and, therefore, not eligible
to complete a questionnaire. Of those returning a
questionnaire, only 68% were engaged in work involving
regulated processes. Moreover, this eligibility rate
varied by size of company.
Because of this differential eligibility, it was
decided that the subsample for follow-up should be
selected in such a way as to yield a specified number
of eligible firms within each size category.
D-6
-------
Operationally, the following seven steps were
executed:
Eight strata of company size were established
(7 groupings based on known employment and 1
in which the number of employees was unknown)
and the number of mailouts in the original
sample determined.
The number of firms in each stratum was ad-
justed proportionately by the 150 known to be
out of business. This reduced the total
sample universe of 2,221 to an eligible universe
of 2,071.
The percentage of eligible returns within each
stratum was calculated on the base of active
firms only.
The projected size of each stratum was derived
by multiplying the number of eligible firms
within each stratum by the eligibility rate
for the stratum. This stratum size estimate
was then divided by the sum of all strata
(1,345) to yield the relative size of a
stratum (as a %) .
The total number of eligible firms to be con-
tacted in a sample of 600 was computed using the
computed relative size of each stratum. This
yielded a proportionate eligible sample of
follow-ups based on patterns of mail respondents,
The difference between the total eligible firms
(613) to be contacted and the number of eligible
returns from the mail phase (419) was deter-
mined for each stratum. This figure was then
multiplied by the eligibility rate for the
stratum to identify the total number of non-
respondents to be drawn for telephone follow-up.
A systematic sample with random start was taken
for each stratum to select the non-respondents.
D-7
-------
These steps are summarized in Tables D-l and D-2, on
the following pages. The number of telephone contacts
was targeted at 326; when the sample was drawn, 332
firms were included due to rounding in the selection process.
3. RESULTS OF THE TELEPHONE FOLLOW-UP SURVEY
PRECIPITATED EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF SURVEY RESPONSES
Expecting that the smaller establishments were of primary
importance to the economic impact study, they were oversampled
in the telephone follow-up survey. Results of the follow-ups,
particularly eligibility levels were combined with eligibility
levels from the mail effort to yield total size strata levels
for the population.
Table D-3, following Exhibit D-3, presents a distribution
of results from both the phone and mail surveys.
Since all phone follow-ups were based on expected eligibility
rates, the proportions of usable returns between the surveys
should be the same. For the phone effort, 44% of the sample is
regulated and cooperated but for the main survey 24% are regu-
lated and cooperated. Combining telephone and mail responses
to yield a population estimate of regulated firms required
matching the samples to known population parameters.
Once eligibility rates were computed for both mail and
telephone respondents, the task became one of weighting respon-
dents and extrapolating out to the population. All data were
D-8
-------
TABLE D-l
Determining the Size of the
Eligible Population by Correcting
for Eligibility Rates
Size
Strata
1-4
5-9
10 - 19
20 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 249
250+
Unknown
Total
Mai louts
563
478
435
373
111
43
7
211
2,221
Out of
Business
51
36
13
7
3
2
0
38
150
Total
Returns
108
139
143
146
35
13
1
32
617
Usable
Returns
51
88
103
117
30
13
1
16
419
Eligibility
Rate
.47
.63
.72
.80
.86
1.00
1.00
.50
Total
Eligibles*
241
280
304
293
93
41
7
86
1,345
* [Eligibility rate x Eligibles in business]
D-9
259-718 O - 78 - 26
-------
TABLE D-2
Determining the Size of the
Telephone Sample by Strata
Eligibility Levels
Less Total
**
Size
Strata
1-4
5-9
10 - 19
20 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 249
250+
Unknown
Total
Eligible
(Mail)
241
280
304
293
93
41
7
86
1,345
Relative
Size
(Mail)
.18
.21
.23
.22
.07
.03
.01
.06
1.01
Total
Eligible
(Population)
110
128
139
134
42
18
3
39
613*
Prior Mail
Returns
59
40
36
17
12
5
2
23
195
to be
Telephoned1
125
63
50
21
14
5
2
46
326
* 613 = perfectly proportionate population for follow-up
** Computed for each strata from the eligibility rate
of that strata and the relative size of the strata
D-10
-------
TABLE D-3
Total Distribution of Types
of Respondents to the
Phone and Mail Surveys
Mail Phone
Survey Survey
Usable 444 143
Self-selected Out 243 112
Unlocated* 143 37
Refusal - 28
Not contacted 1,059
Unclassifiable 12
Totals 1,889 332 = 2,221
* Mergers, firms known to be out of business
and firms that could not be reached
D-ll
-------
by sizing intervals. All eligible main respondents were
given a factor weight of (1). The eligible telephone respon-
dents were given a weight ranging from (3.1) to (11.5) depend-
ing on size strata. By summing over the weighted respondents
(444 mail, 144 telephone), the eligibility total of the orig-
inal sample frame (2,221) was found. This figure was then
multiplied by the original sample section interval (2.5) to
yield the population of eligible firms (2,941).
D-12
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
AUTOMATED FINANCIAL CLOSURE METHODOLOGY
A. DEVELOPMENTAL ISSUES
An automated financial closure routine was developed
for predicting firms least able to support an investment in
a pollution control system. The routine described below
was developed principally for the job shops and applied,
with minor revision to the printed board manufacturers.
The automated closure routine was not applied to the data
base of captive establishments.
Special features of this routine deserve special
mention here. Any combination of interest rates, payback
periods and abatement systems can be specified, costed and
closures predicted. The model uses a two-stage decision
rule; screening candidates for closure both by capital
availability through commercial sources, and then by equity
infusion by private (owner) sources. In addition, by alter-
ing the assumptions on pay back period, sales and coverage
ratio, a cash-flow approach to the investment can be
simulated.
During the development period of the closure model
the point was borne in mind that the outputs of the pro-
gram will receive intense scrutiny. Therefore, great care
went into defining the model's data elements; its decision
logic and criteria, and its capacity to withstand shifts
E-l
-------
in objective functions and still yield discriminating results,
In the following sections the capabilities, requirements and
products of the model are presented.
1. NINE SEQUENTIAL STEPS OCCUR IN THE MODEL
Exhibit E-I, on the following page, presents the eight
sequential steps of the program. The program begins with
costs, applies costs to all appropriate cases, assigns
models to various categories of fiscal strength, and yields
the number of cases that fail the financial tests. In
sequence, a brief description of each step appears below:
Analysis of Pollution Control Costs—The techni-
cal descriptors and the pollution control capital
and operating costs developed for the 82 model
plants by the EPA's technical contractor were
analyzed using correlation techniques. A re-
gression formula was developed that predicts pol-
lution control capital costs based on
finishing production water use.
Selection of Survey Respondents Having
Complete and Consistent Financial Data—
Because the financial model requires detailed
financial data, only those respondents that
answered all the financial questions and had
a balance sheet that balanced (within a 5%
range of error) were analyzed within the fi-
nancial closure methodology.
Assignment of Pollution Control Costs to
ignipi
244
the 244 Selected Respondents—Pollution con-
trol costs were established as follows:
Capital costs were set to the value pre-
dicted by the regression formula (dis-
cussed in step one) for those pieces
of equipment needed by the respondent
E-2
-------
EXHIBIT E-I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FINANCIAL CLOSURE METHODOLOGY
1. Analysis of pollution control costs of the model plants
2. Selection of survey respondents having complete and consistent
financial data
3. Assignment of pollution control costs to the selected respondents
4. Initial selection of appropriate interest rates and allowable
price increases
5. Operation of automated financial model
6. Classifications of firms based on projected profitability and
capital access
7. Further investigation of marginal firms
8. Prediction of candidates for closure among the selected firms
-------
Operating costs were calculated as a
percentage of capital costs, using the
average ratio calculated for the 82
model plants, i.e., 12% of total capital
Initial Selection of Appropriate Interest
Rates and Allowable Price Increases—A num-
ber of possible pricing and interest rate
scenarios were developed and analyzed in
order to yield three cases: best, worst
and mid-range. The cases are described in
the next section.
Operation of the Automated Financial Model—
The financial model was used to calculate the
current financial performance and to estimate
the projected financial performance of each
firm for the three different cases. The auto-
mated financial model is described in detail in
the next section.
Classification of Firms Based on Projected
Profitability and Capital Access—Based on the
calculated financial measures, firms were
grouped into four categories for further
analysis:
Good capital access and good profitability
Good capital access but poor profitability
Poor capital access but good profitability
Poor capital access and poor profitability
Further Investigation of Marginal Firms—Firms
that could not be classified clearly as candi-
dates for closures or nenclosures based on the
preceding analysis were analyzed further.
Several analytic techniques involving profit-
ability and owners compensation were used to
determine:
Which firms with good capital access but
poor profitability might elect to close
Which firms with poor capital access but
good profitability might remain open if a
reasonable amount of additional equity were
invested by the owners.
E-3
-------
Which firms considered candidates for clo-
sure might have been expected to close re-
gardless of the pollution control invest-
ment decision (Vulnerable Firms on a pre-
investment basis).
Prediction of Candidates for Closure Among the
Selected Firms—The results of the preceding
analyses were combined to estimate which of
the 244 selected firms are likely candidates
for closure.
2. FINANCIAL CLOSURES ARE THOSE THAT FAIL ON
PROFITABILITY AND CAPITAL ACCESS CRITERIA
The automated financial model was designed to project
cash flows under different assumptions and then prepare pro
forma financial statements. The inputs, variables and out-
puts contained in the model are listed in Exhibit E-II, fol-
lowing this page. The basic operation of the model for a
survey respondent includes these steps:
Calculation of current financial measures
using the respondent provided balance sheet
and income statement data, with an assumed
repayment schedule for reported long term
debt
Calculation of a modified, i.e., projected,
income statement using an:
Adjustment to sales due to a postulated
price increase to recover some portion
of expected pollution control costs
Increase in operating costs equal to
pollution control operating costs, de-
preciation of pollution control equip-
ment (over five year period) and in-
terest on a loan to purchase the pollu-
tion control equipment
E-4
-------
1. RESPONDENT PROVIDED DATA
EXHIBIT E-II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
COMPUTERIZED FINANCIAL MODEL
Balance Sheet Data Income Statement Data Other Information
Current Assets Sales Depreciation Ownership
Fixed and Other Assets Owners Compensation Forecast Maximum Allowable
Profit (Loss) Before Taxes Price Increase
Current Liabilities Profit (Loss) After Taxes Number Of Owners Who Work Full Time
Long Term Debt
Net Worth
2. ADDITIONAL INPUT/VARIABLE DATA
Inputs Variables
Pollution Control Capital Cost Interest on Outstanding Debt
Pollution Control Operating Costs Interest on Pollution Control Loan
Allowable Price Increase
Possible Equity Infusion
3. OUTPUTS
Coverage Ratio (cash flow divided by fixed obligations)
Profit after tax as percentage oft
Sales
Total assets
Net worth
Profit after tax plus owners compensation ast
A percentage of. net worth
Dollars per owner who works full time
Financial ratios such ast
Debt percent
Current ratio
-------
Increase in profit after tax due to the
above changes and the investment tax
credit received for purchase of pollu-
tion control equipment
Formulation of a projected balance sheet re-
flecting the purchase and operation of pollu-
tion control equipment
Calculation of financial measures using the
updated balance sheet, income statement and
cash flow calculations
Determination of the amount of additional equity
capital that a profitable firm with capital
access problems would have to invest to qualify
for a loan for the remainder of the pollution
control capital cost
The resultant financial measures predicted by the model
are used to identify the firms with potential capital access
»
or profitability problems. The three most important predic-
tive measures are:
(Profit after tax)/(net worth), which is the basic
return on equity measure used in analyzing business
investment decisions
(Profit after tax) plus (owner's compensation/number
of working owners), which is the total salary and
return that a working owner received from running
his firm
(Cash Flow)/(Fixed Obligation), the coverage ratio.
which is a standard banking measure of the pro-
jected ability of the borrowers to repay a loan
These and three other output measures are illustrated in
Exhibit E-III, following this page. This form is generated
by the model for each respondent.
E-5
-------
EXHIBIT E-III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
STANDARD DATA ELEMENTS FOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
OF MODEL PLANTS
Model Identification:
Projected:
Assets
Current
Fixed + Other
Totals
Difference (%)
Present:
Liabilities
Current
LTD
Net Worth
Assets
Current
Fixed + Other
Totals
Difference (*)
Liabilities
Current
LTD
Net Worth
Sales
Depreciation
Profit Before Taxes
Profit After Taxes
Cash Flow
Coverage Ratio
Operating Ratios:
Fixed Asset Turnover:
Cash Flow/Sales:
Cash Flow/Total Assets:
Profitability:
Profit After Taxes/Sales:
PAT/Total Assets:
PAT/Net Worth:
PAT+Owners Comp/Net Worth
Cash Flow/Capitalization:
Liquidity.
Current Ratio:
Leverage:
Debt Percent:
Debt to Equity:
Pollution Control Costs:
Least Cost Option:
Capital Cost:
OSM Cost:
Energy Cost:
Equity Infusion:
Percent of PCC Borrowed:
Cost Pass-Through:
Return to Working Owner:
Closure Category:
Sales
Depreciation
Profit Before Taxes
Profit After Taxes
Cash Flow
Coverage Ratio
Operating'Ratios:
Fixed Asset Turnover:
Cash Flow/Sales:
Cash Flow/Total Assets:
Profitability:
Profit After Taxes/Sales:
PAT/Total Assets:
PAT/Net Worth:
PAT+Owners Coup/Met Worth
Cash Flow/Capitalization:
Liquidity:
Current Ratio:
Leverage:
Debt Percent:
Debt to Equity:
Profitability Changes
Profit After Taxes/Sales:
PAT/Total Assets:
PAT/Net Worth:
PAT+Owners Coup/Net Worth
-------
B. VERIFICATIONS
From all of the preceding it should be clear that the
outputs of the financial closure model are a set of solu-
tions to specific independent (or input) variables. The
identified vulnerable firms are those which failed to meet
a set of empirical criteria and objective functions. In
order to accept the program's outcomes as valid estimates
of economic consequences for firms in the industry, objec-
tive reviews of the findings are required. There are two
compelling reasons for this verification step:
A financial investment closure model is one
specification of economic behavior. Any model
is limited by the set of variables it includes
for prediction and by the values it assigns to
those variables. Because changes to these vari-
ables might change the outcomes, it is critical
to establish the predictive power of the model,
e.g., its capacity to make predictions that
agree with other, non-model data.
Assessing the fiscal strength of a particular
firm by using self-reported financial data also
requires confirmation. Financial data can be
interpreted differently by different analysts,
and not all parties would necessarily agree on
precisely what constitutes an economically non-
viable firm.
To deal with these issues we conducted a series of
special follow-up analyses on the data. Collectively these
steps constitute a verification of the automated closure
model, and covered the following:
A core group of predicted closures was analyzed
by inspecting all the available information on
E-6
-------
the returns. This review incorporated items such
as planned capital investments for productive
assets, computation of financial ratios other
than the ones of the model, and an assessment of
whether the plant might be a baseline closure
independent of the incremental investment in pol-
lution controls.
Closures were predicted in plants that sell in
excess of a million dollars annually. This find-
ing seemed counter-intuitive because such firms
were presumed to enjoy scalar economies as well
as a stronger capital base. For these cases
complete financial reports were purchased from
Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) and detailed financial
(closure) analyses were run using those data.
Concerns existed that our base year (1975) was
atypical and that it represented a poor sales
year for basing industry financial closures.
In addition, there was the point that bank lend-
ing rules differed from those of the model.
Third, the concern was expressed that the raw
data of the survey may vary from that given
other sources (D&B) and conclusions drawn from
the model might be in error. Special follow-up
surveys coupled with the most recent D&B data
dealt with this group of potential problems.
Each potential problem coupled to its verification step
is presented below.
1. FROM THE FIRST GROUP OF CLOSURES 90% WERE FOUND TO BE
TRULY NON-VIABLE ECONOMIC ENTITIES
To test whether the closure model made accurate selec-
tions of financially vulnerable firms, a special cost-
closure scenario was run for all models. This specifica-
tion was one of the least expensive options possible, i.e.,
oxidation of amenable cyanide only. With a mean capital
requirement of under $20,000, 19 cases were predicted to
close. These 19 were reviewed in detail to pinpoint
E-7
-------
precisely what constituted their vulnerabilities. The
following was found:
Most of the 19 reported either a loss before or
after tax. On the basis of cash flows none of
the firms generated sufficient profits to sup-
port a loan.
Almost all cases (17) fell considerably below
the projected coverage ratio of 1.5. Two cases
were calculated at 1.40-1.49. These two cases
were judged "swing" cases in the sense that
minor reductions in their investment (•» $2,500)
would result in computed coverage ratios of at
least 1.5.
2. SPECIAL ANALYSIS OF LARGER FIRMS CONFIRMED THAT SOME
MIGHT NOT SUCCESSFULLY SUPPORT ADDED CAPITAL BURDENS
From the survey returns there were 13 firms with em-
ployment of at least 100 men and sales of at least $1 mil-
lion. Based on the completeness of those returns, seven
cases qualified as models. In a full BPT investment case
there were three closures for a closure rate of 23% for
the group.
Several questions arose:
Are the 13 respondents truly representative of
most large firms?
Are the seven models a good cross-sectional
representation of such firms?
Are the three identified closures unique or
representative?
E-8
258-718 O - 78 - 27
-------
The only means of answering these questions was to
test the model's predictions against an alternate data base
and determine whether the observed closures are aberrant
cases or not. To this end the following was done:
From the Dun & Bradstreet file on the industry
70 large firms were identified and their finan-
cial records requested. This yielded 42 usable
reports.
Of the 42 reports, 19 clearly were not job shops.
Of the remaining 23 cases, 16 lacked all the nec-
essary information for comparable analysis.
This left seven cases for comparison with the
seven models.
These 7 D&B cases were compared with the 13 sur-
vey respondents as a whole, and then with the
7 models and 6 non-models. Specifically noted
were agreement on mean sales, sales per man,
debt levels, and a series of financial ratios.
No significant disagreements were noted. The
conclusion here is that the 13 survey respondents
are a good representation of the financial char-
acteristics of large job shops.
On these seven D&B cases, a modified closure
analysis was run using financial ratios reflect-
ing the firm's relative capacity ot take on debt:
Long-Term Debt/Net Worth
Net Worth/Employee
Total Assets/Net Worth
In the group of seven D&B firms, there were two
and perhaps a third firm that had extraordinary
debt levels that precluded assuming more for
pollution controls.
This comparison of seven new D&B cases to seven study
models is more a support than a proof of the model's find-
ings. Were better financial data available for all 42
cases, there would be greater confidence in the projected
E-9
-------
closure rate of 23% for the group. At best, we have es-
tablished that our 13 respondents are not fundamentally
different from other cases in the group and that identify-
ing 2 of 7 firms as financially vulnerable can be repli-
cated with a second group.
3. A SERIES OF SPECIAL SURVEYS LENT SUPPORT TO BOTH THE
ASSUMPTIONS AMD UTILITY OF THE FINANCIAL CLOSURE
MODEL
Several additional concerns were raised during the
course of the study that required a response. These con-
cerns come down to three generic issues:
1975 may not be a typical year for the industry
and conclusions based on data for 1975 could
misrepresent the industry's capabilities.
Bankers may or may not use a 1.5 coverage ratio.
To the extent banks use unique criteria for as-
sessing loan recipients, the predictions of the
model may be in error.
Base data received via the survey may be dif-
ferent from that given other sources. Poten-
tially the raw data of the study could be
biased and of questionable use in an economic
impact study.
During the life of the study each issue was addressed
in a manner that both satisfies methodological rigor and
lays the potential criticism to rest.
(1) 1975 Was a "Typical" Year for the Industry
Shortly after the raw data were in hand and pre-
liminary analyses run it was apparent that a means to
E-10
-------
assess the "goodness" of 1975 would be desirable.
Financial data over-time were omitted from the survey
in hopes of boosting response rates. There was no
built-in mechanism for interpreting each firm's rela-
tive performance in 1975 against prior years. A first
step in addressing this issue was to pull a sampling
of 100 job shop respondents for follow-up contact.
A short phone protocol was developed in which the key
question was:
Looking back to your plant's financial per-
formance in 1975, would you judge that year
to be: (1) above average, (2) about average,
or (3) below average?
Responses split evenly across the item. There
were as many people (33) who judged 1975 to be above
average as those (34) who judged it to be below. On
the basis of this follow-up survey, 1975 serves as
well as any year in which to project the economic
consequences of compliance on the industry.
The second step in judging the suitability of
using 1975 survey data was to match updated D&B fi-
nancial reports to the survey data. More than 300
financial reports were purchased for our core group
of 461 respondents. Of the firms not contacted by
phone, we assembled a cluster of 150 firms that pro-
vided both financial data to use in 1975 and to D&B
in either 1976 or early 1977.
E-ll
-------
We noted that more than half the cases (80) gave
the same data to use as they did to D&B in 1975 or
early 1976. Fully one-quarter of the cases reported
1976 data that were within + 10% of the 1975 data.
Of the remaining 50 cases there were not more than
10 that reported a 1976 or 1977 line item from the
balance sheet that was more than 50% greater than in
1975.
Not only is the agreement between survey infor-
mation and D&B information quite strong, but the op-
erating changes are slow to be reflected within the
company balance sheet. This helps support two
conclusions:
Respondents provide consistent financial
information to us and to D&B. There was
no systematic distortion in the survey.
Closure rates computed for 1975, all things
being equal, should reflect industry via-
bility as well as any other year.
(2) Bankers Supported the Use of Coverage Ratio
Calculations
A major component of the automated closure rou-
tine is the incorporation of commercial lending rules.
Here there are two potential errors; either a cover-
age ratio calculation is irrelevant to the loan pro-
cess, and/or our threshold value of 1.5 is inappropri-
ate. We found neither to be the case.
E-12
-------
Prior attempts to contact banks familiar with
the financial needs of metalfinishers had proven of
limited value. Without knowing the specific banks -
in specific cities in which finishers conduct their
business, a survey of commercial bankers becomes a
stab in the dark.
From the same D&B financial reports utilized in.
comparing 1975 to recent financial conditions we noted
the name of the company's banker, and selected a dis-
tribution of 25 cases for contact. This is an ad-
mittedly small sample, but it is drawn with the knowl-
edge that each bank is actually serving a firm in the
industry.
No question that identified a particular respon-
dent to the survey was posed. The focus was specif-
ically the bank's lending rules for the industry, the
prevalence of requests for pollution control invest-
ments, and the applicability of a 1.5 criterion for a
coverage ratio calculation. Not surprisingly, each
commercial lending officer maintained that loan ap-
plications are treated as unique cases and universal
lending rules are not applied. Each did acknowledge,
however, that a calculated coverage ratio is one im-
portant predictor of a firm's condition and the higher
the value the better. Our use of 1.5 to split
E-13
-------
probable loan rejections from loan approvals was
generally confirmed in our conversations with com-
mercial lending officers.
E-14
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
THE POLLUTION ABATEMENT
COST GENERATING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
This appendix describes the methodology employed by
the technical contractor (Hamilton Standard) for estimating
wastewater treatment costs for 82 electroplating job shops.
These model plants were selected by the economics contractor
and supplied to the technical contractor. Technical and
production data on these plants were used as input data to
the contractor's cost estimating program.
Hamilton Standard has revised and updated this pro-
gram during the past several years. At this time it may
be the most sophisticated tool of its type. It is capable
of generating equipment specifications and costs for direct
and indirect dischargers, reflecting cases with partial
equipment-in-place as well as alternative treatment
scenarios.
1. AN AUTOMATED POLLUTION CONTROL COST ESTIMATING
PROGRAM IS INDISPENSABLE FOR MANAGING COMPLEX TECHNICAL
INFORMATION
As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency commis-
sions technical development documents in support of guide-
lines limitations and standards for industrial point source
dischargers, an immediate problem is the management of com-
plex technical data. Not only are large quantities of data
F-l
-------
generated for plant flows, concentrations and contaminants,
but also systematic cost estimates must be derived for all
abatement components designed to meet established or recom-
mended limitations.
Calculations are made for both the effluent dimensions
and for the pollution control systems. Designing, develop-
ing, and applying automated cost generating programs for
these data are critical to the expeditious discharge of the
regulation setting mission of the Aaency.
To this end, Hamilton standard has developed two com*
puter routines to facilitate such calculations. The rou-
tines have been used successfully in two separate EPA
studies over the past few years and have been updated to
reflect critical comments and new base line data.
2. THE COST PROGRAMS INCORPORATE SYSTEMATICALLY ALL
RELEVANT TECHNICAL DATA
The first step in computerized analysis of the col-
lected data for an EPA project is the formation of a plant
tape data file. Information on the data tape for each plant
typically consists of raw and effluent stream flows and pol-
lutant concentrations, production processes performed, pro-
duction rates for each production subcategory or factors
from which production rates can oe determined (such as hours
per day of operation, floor area in production, water dis-
charge from production subcategories, etc.), and waste
F-2
-------
treatment equipment employed. A separate tape file is
typically generated for each industry due to variations
in the type of data collected. Exhibit F-I, following
this page, shows a typical plant data file for a plant
performing painting or similar surface treatment.
The next step in computerization is the generation
of the analysis programs. The analysis programs calculate
the actual plant effluent as either grams per day or in
terms of a production-related parameter such as mg/square
meter of surface processed. The first analysis program
brought into play is the statistical analysis program.
This program calculates the actual discharge from each sub-
category through the use of flow data and concentrations
or by using an apportioning formula. A set of pass/fail
criteria is established in the program. These pass/fail
criteria may l?e the average of all data, current regulations
for the industry under study or some value established on
the basis of water use per unit of production times an ac-
ceptable concentration. The pass/fail gate allows the com-
puter to display the distribution of data points relative
to the gate. Those data points not passing the gates are
listed along with the company identification number (ID).
These "flagged" data points are examined to ensure that the
input data to the computer are correct, that the laboratory
analysis is correct and consistent and that the raw waste
and treated effluent are reasonable. If no apparent errors
F-3
-------
EXHIBIT F-l (1)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
TYPICAL PLANT DATA FILE
HAMILTON STANDARD DIVISION OP UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
DATA COLLECTION SURVEY FOR THE SURFACE TREATMENT AND CHEMICAL COATING SEGMENT
OF THE MACHINERY AND MECHANICAL PRODUCTS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
MANUFACTURING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
t.O MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENT DATA
ID NUMBER 6-6T4-12-0
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
PLANT PERSONNEL CONTACTEOl
SHOP TYPE! CAPTIVE DISCHARGEI MUNICIPAL
NO. SURFACE TRTMT WORKERS 210
TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 4200
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION 9429
PRINCIPLE PRODUCTS SURFACE TREATED BUILDING HARDWARE
PRINCIPLE RAM MATERIALS CONSUMED
SULFUR1C ACID
TOT ORGANIC CARBON
PHOSPHATING CHEMICAL
ENAMELS
TSO.O IB / DAY
108.0 L8 / DAY
24.0 LB / DAY
SS.O GAL / DAY
PRINCIPLE WASTE TREATMENT CHEMICALS CONSUMED
HONE LISTED
2.0 WATER SUPPLY AND USE
2.1 MATER SUPPLY SOURCE
fYPE
MUNICIPAL
WELL
QUANTITY 6PH
TIOOO
43125
2.2 WATER USAGE
TYPE
DOES PLANT PRODUCTION LEVEL AFFECT HATER USACET
QUANTITY sr« PERCENT RECYCLE
TES
TOTAL PROCESS
SANITARY
COOLING
TOTAL NONPROCESS
1)2500
4617
2BTM
3343*
0
0
IT
0
3.0 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OR REGULATIONS!
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE FOR DISCHARGE
-------
VtS'O
•cz
**********
90 '0
•*•(***<»«**
**********
**********
*•*••*•***
**********
00*61
00*991
•«**•*****
**********
**********
**•»•*«•**
***••*•**•
•**•*••*•*
•**•*•**•*
09*8
011*0
**********
***••••»•»
*•**••***»
•1
•**••**«*«
1(0*0
•**•**•*•*
100*0
*•*••*••••
010*0
199*0
••***•**«*
06*0
•ot
**********
•*«***•***
**********
6EO*0
*****•*•**
•zt
(00*0
SOO'O
**********
600*0
•*******••
**********
»******•*•
06Z*0
61'0
9161 *6Z Nnr
31ISdH03 XHB
ZZOdd3 IN Id
9NIVOO AVMdS
6Ą*0
•it
269*0
**********
90*0
**********
**********
••*•****•*
*•••*•*••*
*•**«**••*
OO'fZ
00*89t
**********
**********
»•******•*
**********
**********
••••*•****
***•***•••
OfSt
f91*0
**•*•*****
**********
*••*•**•**
•6
**********
210*0
•••***•**•
100*0
•**«••***•
BtfO
OOZ'l
**********
Ofl
•ot
**********
••*****•••
*«•*•••*••
91V*0
•**•*•**•*
*B6
610*0
500*0
**********
100*0
**********
**********
**********
012*0
61*0
9161 'sz Nnr
31ISdH03 VH8
ZZOddS INId
9N1V03 AVMdS
**«••*«***
•99
Z9VO
**********
90*0
**********
•**••••***
*•**•**•*•
•••*•****•
•'*••****•*
00*992
00*1156
«••**•«•*•
**********
**•*«•****
*•••****••
**********
***«•**•*»
***••****•
08 *Ł
IZl'O
•*«*««*••*
**********
••***•****
•ot
**********
490*0
***«*•••**
100*0
**********
050*0
000 *OS1 t
****••**•*
zz*o
•ot
**********
**********
**********
osro
**********
•IBS
SifO
500*0
**********
800*0
**********
**********
**********
OZ1*0
wo
9i6i'6Z Nnr
31ISdh03 »H8
0 <103H«J1NI
9N1V03 AVMdS
28*9
•0501
091*6
**********
90-0
**»•*•*«*•
**********
**********
*****«**«*
**********
OO'BlBt
00*616
•*••*«•*••
•**«*«*•**
*•*•****••
•••*****«*
••***•***•
**********
**«•**•***
OS'O
88Z*0
•*•***••*•
•*****«**•
**********
•Z69
**********
ezi'o
**•**•*•*•
100*0
*•**••*••*
006*Z
OOZ'tZ
••****•••*
06*Z
•t
**********
•**«*•***•
**********
008*81
•*•******•
•VI
itl'O
SOO'O
**********
100*0
**********
**********
**********
**********
BZ*6
9161 *6Z NOT
31dMVS OVM9
0 <31SVM MtM
9N1V03 AVMdS
*««*•••*•*
•ooot
OOZ'O
**********
90*0
**********
**********
*«******••
**********
**********
OO'ZBl
00*V91
•***•***•*
**********
• ***»***•**
***«•*•***
•«••**••••
**********
•*•*••**•*
05*0
***•**•*••
**********
**********
**********
•I
**********
110*0
**********
100*0
**********
060*0
052*1
**********
06'Z
•ot
**********
**********
**********
001*0
**********
•0956
660*0
600*0
**********
100*0
**********
**********
**********
«*«*******
11*1
9i6i »5Z Nnr
jldHVS BVU9
ZZ<1-U3 INId
9N1V03 AVMdS
95*0
*0919
Z66'0
**********
80*0
**********
**********
••*«««•«**
**********
**********
00*266
00*9618
**********
**********
**«****«*•
*«***•*•**
•••***•**•
•******•*•
**********
08 *C
60 VO
**********
**********
**«*****•*
•BIZ
**«*«**•**
BZO'O
*««•*••*•«
100*0
••****•*•*
(9Z*0
080*1
•**•****••
oz*t
•61
********••
*«**•*••*•
**********
OtS'Z
**********
"20191
000 'Z
000*2
•*»******«
(00*0
**********
**********
**********
612*0
06*0t
9161*62 Nnr
31dMVS 8V MO
0 <31SVN MVM
9N1V03 AVMdS
**********
*Z9
291*0
*•»••*••**
60*0
*•*••***••
**********
••••*••**«
«*«««*•***
*••*•****•
00*09t
00*9911.
*«*•**•««•
**********
•••**»«*«»
•**•**•*•*
**********
**********
•****•••**
06*6
«***•*«•««
******««**
««*•******
****•***•*
•09t
*****«••**
t»0*0
•**•*«••**
100*0
**********
111*0
000*1
**•«•*•«••
06*2
•ot
**********
**********
**********
01VZ
•****«•**•
•fltVSl
068*1
068*1
**********
900*0
**********
**********
**********
•••*•*****
06*6Z
9161 *6Z Nnr
SldHVS 8V M9
22<1dd3 INId
9N1V03 AVMdS
C9*l
•(219
08ft
*••*•**•*•
90*0
•*•**•**•*
**********
••••**«*••
*«•*******
••••**•*•*
00*6211
OO'ZZB
*•***•»*»•
**********
*••••**•*•
**********
•«••••*•**
••«•*****•
***•***•*«
02*2
19%*0
«*•»***•**
*•*«•**•••
*•*••**•*•
•6091
**********
BZO'O
•«*•»*••*•
100*0
••*»*•*«**
16Z*0
OIC'Z
•«••***••*
OB*t
•t
*****»•*••
**********
**********
ItZ'O
**««****•*
*9t16t
160*0
BZO'O
**********
100*0
»***•*•*•«
**********
**********
068*0
61*Z
9i6i'6Z Nnr
31ISdH03 MH8
0 <31SVM MVM
9N1V03 AVMdS
N390M1IN THVOim
N08MV3 3INV9HO 10J
3NIZ
NniNVlll
Nil
4 930 9«niVM3dN31
SlNV13VdMnS
$301 dins
S31Vdin$
SOI10S illlVlOA *101
•SOS 030N3dSOS *101
sonos OAIOSSIO *ioi
sonos ivioi
SOIIOS 918V31113S
V3A1IS
V3I1IS
WniOOHM
Nnissviod
NflNJ IV Id
SflVOHdSOHd
SIONJHd
INIIVXIV Mid
310 13V 'H4
Mniaviivd
9SV3M9 '110
S31VM1IN
13M3IN
NONSOBAION
AM03M3H
NOIS3N9VN
OV31
NOMl
OJ09
saoiMomd
INdOl MO Id
N39AXO 03A10SSIO
11 101 * 30 1 NV A3
V01H3 01*NHV 30INVA3
M3dd03
N3/OHMO 33NV10nQN03
*0 *0 *3
IVIOI'HOI WOBH3
!N31VAVX3H'NniHO»HD
VV30HOAH 031VN1U01H3
Nni HOV3
NOMUB
•0 »o *8
HOIMV8
VINOMHV
wnNiMmv
SlN3nill$N03
IAM1N3 ON S31V310NI **••«*»*••)
1V101 SV
0-Z1-619-9 «3BHnN 01
$H313NV«Vd
SMV3M1S 40 NOIllSOdMtt Z*t
(z) i-
-------
9.9 WASTE TREATMENT COST INFORMATION
EXHIBIT F-I (3)
TREATMENT SYSTEM
IDENTIFICATION
CONVENTIONAL
BAKER BROS. CHROME UNIT
CONVENTIONAL
OIL SEPEAATION
CONVENT IONAL
NEW FLAT INC TREATMENT
RECYCLE
WASTES AVER DISTILLATION
RECYCLE
ECO-TEC
DATE CAPITAL OPERATING RAW WASTE
INSTALLED COSTS COSTS STREAMS TREATED
III U/YRI
MASTE ENERGY
REDUCTION REQUIREMENT
Itl IKW*HRI/YR
1973
1975
19T7
1975
1976
50000
22000
1250000
60000
45000
12*8 CHROME RINSE
. 0 NON-SOLUBLE OILS
0 PLATING ACIDS AND RINSE
0 CYANIDE PLATING WASTE
0 CHROME
0
100
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
4.0 WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
METHOD I.D.NO. TECHNIQUE
24 CHEMICAL REDUCTION
25 PH ADJUST IFINALI
93 MIXER NODE 1
2 CONTINUOUS
12 EVAFORATION
91 BRANCH NODE 2
T5 PROCESSING FOR REUSE
91 BRANCH NODE 2
95 MIXER NODE 1
2 CONTINUOUS
24 CHEMICAL REDUCTION
11 ION EXCHANGE
25 PH ADJUST IFINALI
92 BRANCH NODE 3
T3 PROCESSING FOR REUSE
92 BRANCH NODE 3
95 MIXER NODE 1
1 BATCH
24 CHEMICAL REDUCTION
29 CHEMICAL OXIDATION
25 PH ADJUST IFINALI
93 BRANCH NODE 4
70 SANITARY SEMER
21 EMULSION BREAKING
90 BRANCH NODE I
.2 CONTRACT REMOVAL-OIL
90 BRANCH NODE 1
96 MIXER NODE 2
75 PROCESSING FOR REUSE
6.0 SURFACE TREATMENT PROCESSES
DESCRIPTION
PAINT LINE NO. 1
HR/OAV
16.0
LB/HR CPLX
250.0 0
•ASE MATERIAL
IRON
-------
are found, further checks are made. Historical data, when
available, is compared to the "flagged" data. Often the
company is called and asked if this data point is consistent
with past samples of the same parameter. Whenever possible,
an explanation is developed for each "flagged" data point.
A second analytical program is used in many industry
studies. This second program calculates the actual plant
discharge in grams per day, the allowable discharge based
on the established or tentative regulations, and compares
the two numbers for each pollutant. This program also al-
lows the combination of multiple regulations to provide a
pass/fail test of a multiple use plant.
A log diagram is shown in Exhibit F-n, following this
page, which depicts the basic steps used in the programs.
The first set of analytical programs developed used
all available concentration values for all parameters.
Since then, many refinements have been incorporated. The
first unique feature of the programs is that they do not
use values for pollutants which do not exist in the plant.
A search is made of the plant description and raw material
file to determine if a particular pollutant material is used
in the plant. If no use of the pollutant is found, the
values are not normally used in calculating the minimum
and mean values for all plants. The exception to this rule
is used when the concentration value is abnormally high or
F-4
259-718 O - 78 - 28
-------
EXHIBIT F-I (4)
OPERATION
tS ELECTROSATtC SWUV
'>5 DRYING
SOLVENT BASE ENAMELS
FTZ.'MR
63.80
63. 80
DESCRIPTION
PAINT LINE NO.
HR/OAT
16.0
LB/HR CPLX
625.0 0
BASE MATERIAL
IRON
OPERATION
9 PHOSPHATING
II I STAGE RINSE
II I STAGE RINSE
4) ELECTPOSATIC SPRAY
9* OTHER POSTTREATNENT
WATER BASE PHOSPHATING CHEMICAL
FIXED ORIFICE
FIXED ORIFICE
SOLVENT BASE ENAMELS
DESCRIPTION
PICKLE LINE
HR/OAV
16.0
LB/HR CPLX
44000.0 0
BASE MATERIAL
IRON
OPERATION
61 ACID PICKLE/OESCALE
61 ACID PICKLE/OESCALE
61 ACIO PICKLE/DESCALE
11 1 STAGt RINSE
11 I STAGE RINSE
B9 DRYING
MATER BASE SULFURIC ACIO
WATER BASE SULFURIC ACIO
HATER BASE SULFURIC ACIO
FIXED ORIFICE
FIXED ORIFICE
FT2/HR
3375.00
3379.00
3375.00
3.»T".00
3375.00
3379.00
GAL/HR
3.40
0.0
GAL/HR
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
0.0
0.0
FT2
140.
690.
FT2/HR
159.90
19". 50
159.50
159.50
159.50
GAL /HR
0.0
30.00
30.00
0.0
0.0
FT2
760.
760.
760.
760.
530.
FT2
3TO.
370.
370.
370.
370.
370.
-------
the production related value exceeds the gate. Another
unique feature of the programs is the ability to use mul-
tiple gates (usually an existing regulation and a set of
proposed changes). This feature allows comparison of the
allowable discharges from various plants to quickly ascer-
tain the impact of the changes. Comparisons have been run
with all parameters as well as just a selected list of the
critical ones.
The analytical programs currently in use can analyze
treatment effluent as reported (usually monthly) or as an
average for all reported values of a parameter. Raw waste
analysis can also be done on the same basis. Finally, in-
dividual selected types of streams can be analyzed for
particular features. A comparison feature has also been
included to provide the percent removal accomplished for
each pollutant parameter.
These analytical programs can handle up to 77 pollu-
tant parameters and 8 months of sample data. Table F-l,
following this page, shows 67 parameters currently pro-
grammed and there are 10 open boxes for other pollutants.
Also, since data is received from many sources, such as
self sampling, compliance data from regulatory agencies,
and sampling programs conducted by the EPA, the source of
the data is coded to show who supplied the information.
F-5
-------
EXHIBIT F-II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SIMPLIFIED LOGIC DIAGRAM POLLUTANT
ANALYSIS PROGRAM
ANALYSIS | PLANT OMIT
OPTIONS 1 LIST
OMIT
I 1
PLANT STREAM 1 r,*™*tt»
DATA 1 DATA
DATA INCOMPLETE 1
{READ NEXT PLANT
|
PLANT ] TAPE DATA | |
READ NEXT PLANT 1 CHECK j
f
PLANT CHECK CONTAINS
ACCEPT/JILL ID
ACCEPTED PLANTS
CALCULATE PRODUCTION I
RATE IN PIJOPER UNITS 1
M
a
APPORTION POLLUTANT
MASS TO SUBCATEGORY
CALCULATE EFFLUENT
MASS PER SUBCATEGORY
PER UNIT OF PRODUCTION
COMPARE TO STORED OR
CALCULATED REGULATORY
VALUES
ALL PLANT FILES READ
CALCULATE MEAN FOR
ALL PLANTS BY POLLUTANT
AND SUDCATCGORY
I CALCULATE FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION
PRINT OUTPUT
1.
PLANT REPORT WITH
FAILURES LISTED
2. STATISTICAL REPORT WITH
PLANT FAILURES LISTED
-------
TABLE F-l (1)
Pollutant Parameters
Parameter
PH
Turbidity
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Residual Chlorine
Acidity
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS)
Color
Sulfide
Cyanides
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Phenols
Conductance
Total Solids
Total Suspendable Solids
Settleable Solids
Aluminum
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Fluoride
Iron, Total
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Oil, Grease
Hardness
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Algicides
Total Phosphate
Polychlorobiphenyls
Pottassium
Silica
Sodium
Sulfate
Sulfite
Titanium
Zinc
Units
pH units
Jackson units
Degrees C
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter CaC03
mg/liter
mg/liter
chloroplatinate units
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
micromhos/cm
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter CaC03
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
F-6
-------
TABLE F-l (2)
Parameter
Arsenic
Boron
Iron, Dissolved
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
Nitrite
Selenium
Silver
Strontium
Beryllium
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Total Volatile Solids
Surfactants
Plasticizers
Antimony
Bromide
Cobalt
Thallium
Tin
Units
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
F-7
-------
When using these programs, several options are avail-
able. These include the selection of:
Discharge Destination—All surface dischargers,
all municipal dischargers, or all dischargers
may be selected and used. With sewer dischargers,
pretreatment standards are used. When all dis-
chargers are combined, the programs use the sur-
face discharge regulations.
Type of Analysis—Raw waste, treated waste or
special.
Analysis of Individual Stream or Plant Average—
On a stream basis, actual mass dischargers from
each appropriate stream are used as individual
data points. When analyzed by plant, the actual
mass dischargers for all of the appropriate
streams are averaged to provide a single data
point for the plant.
Type of Output—Either the statistical format
showing minimum, maximum and mean values by sub-
category, or the plant performance format showing
individual plant allowable and actual discharge.
The calculation of actual discharge is quite straight-
forward. Effluent flow times the concentration provides
the actual mass discharged. Calculation of the allowable
discharge is more complex and depends on the industry and
the regulations involved. The simplest of the allowable
calculations is for Machinery and Mechanical Products.
Here a fixed factor (mg/m^ of floor area) for each sub-
category is multipled by the existing floor area devoted
to the operations in the subcategory. The procedure is
repeated for each subcategory and summed to show the total
allowable discharge for the plant.
F-8
-------
3. A SEPARATE PROGRAM (THE SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS PROGRAM)
GENERATES COST ESTIMATES FOR EQUIPMENT
A second major problem facing the U.S. EPA is consistent
estimates of cost of treatment. Each new effluent limita-
tion requires an estimate of the cost of the Best Practica-
ble Technology (BPT) and Best Available Technology (BAT)
wastewater treatment systems necessary to meet the standards.
A mathematical model or set of correlations was de-
veloped for each individual wastewater treatment technology
commonly found in industry. A list of the programmed pro-
cess is contained in Table F-2, on the following page. In
general, these correlations relate equipment size to influent
flow rate and pollutant concentrations and, in turn, relate
cost to equipment size.
(1) All Data Comes From Authoritative Sources
The basic cost data came from a number of primary
sources. Some of the data were obtained during on-site
surveys. Other data were obtained through discussions
with waste treatment equipment manufacturers. Another
block of data was derived from previous EPA projects
which utilized data from engineering firms experienced
in the installation of waste treatment systems. These
data for wastewater flow rates, corresponding equip-
ment size and cost, were related by means of a separate
computer program. This program was developed to cor-
relate the data by regression analysis, utilizing
F-9
-------
TABLE F-2
Programmed Processes
Spray/Fog Rinse
Countercurrent Rinse
Vacuum Filtration
Gravity Thickening
Sludge Drying Beds
Raw Wastewater Pumping
Holding Tanks (lined or unlined)
Centrifugation
Equalization (concrete or earth)
Contractor Removal (wet or dry)
Reverse Osmosis
Landfill
Chemical Reduction of Chromium
Chemical Oxidation of Cyanide
Neutralization
Clarification (settling tank or tube settler)
API Oil Skimming
Emulsion Breaking
Membrane Filtration
Filtration (with or without alum, precoat)
Ion Exchange-In-Plant Regeneration
Ion Exchange-Service Regeneration
Flash Evaporation
Climbing Film Evaporation
Atmospheric Evaporation
Sanitary Sewer Discharge Fee
Cyclic Ion Exchange
Ultrafiltration
Submerged Tube Evaporation
Flotation/Separation
Wiped Film Evaporation
Preliminary Treatment
Preliminary Sedimentation
Aerator - Final Settler
Tricking Filter - Final Settler
Chlorination
Flotation Thickening
Multiple Hearth Incineration
Aerobic Digestion
Post Aeration
Sludge Pumping
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Copper Cementation
F-10
-------
first order arithmetic equations, first order logarith-
mic equations, and multiple order equations as
appropriate.
Subsequent to the initial programming, reviews
have been conducted by the EPA and at least two Eco-
nomic Analysis Contractors. These reviews questioned
some assumptions and provided some valuable sugges-
tions for further updating. The capability for the
computer to select the least cost approach has been
incorporated. Large flows use a full treatment sys-
tem, but, as the flow decreases, batch treatment and
finally contractor wet haul of all wastes becomes the
most economical. Also for large flows, a concrete
tank (clarifier, etc.) is cheapest but as flow de-
creases, steel tanks become the more economical. This
type of variation plus constant review of the cost
equations provides an accurate method of estimating
impact of treatment on an industry as well as provid-
ing the EPA with a consistent result from industry
to industry.
The System Cost Analysis program was generated
to perform both the system cost estimate and perfor-
mance calculations. The needed cost estimates in-
clude the system required investment and total annual
cost break-down. Wastewater treatment system perfor-
mance must also be modeled to determine if the treatment
F-ll
-------
system being costed satisfies the proposed effluent
limitations. To provide the broadest modeling tool
possible, the following techniques were incorporated
into the program logic:
Generalized, "black-box," wastewater treat-
ment process definition to allow flexibility
in the variety of wastewater treatment sys-
tems that can be described
"Decision" fields for each individual treat-
ment process so that process design para-
meters such as hydraulic loadings, reten-
tion times, or operating mode decisions can
be varied
Multiple raw waste stream allocations so
that stream segregation treatment tech-
niques can be described
Generalized wastewater stream pollutant
parameter definition to model various wastes
and to perform intermediate system perfor-
mance calculations
Generalized costing factors so that material
or localized cost estimates can be made for
any desired dollar base period
(2) Five Data Elements Have to be Specified
To execute the System Cost Analysis program, a
definition must be provided for the following five
items:
The treatment processses to be used and
their interconnection
The "decision" parameters for each process
used
The raw waste steam flow and pollutants
for each influent stream
F-12
-------
The costing factors for the treatment system
The tolerance bands for any recycle loops
in the system
Up to 24 individual wastewater treatment processes
can be modeled into a single system. A simplified
logic diagram is shown in Exhibit F-III, on the fol-
lowing page, depicting the basic steps taken by the
program. Table F-2 on page 10, presented a list of
the currently programmed treatment processes. The
connecting stream locations and the "decision" para-
meters for each of the wastewater treatment processes
being incorporated into the system model must also
be specified.
The raw waste streams entering the treatment sys-
tem must be specified either manually or from the raw
waste analysis program previously described. Anywhere
from 1 to 10 influent streams can be defined. A
typical treatment system with six raw waste streams is
shown in Exhibit F-IV, following Exhibit F-III. Flow
and up to 67 pollutant parameter values are specified
for each raw waste stream. Table F-l in the Effluent
Analysis Program section presented a list of those
pollutant parameters which can be entered as raw waste
and for which performance calculations are made.
Data are also required for each wastewater treat-
ment system to define costing factors at a desired
F-13
-------
EXHIBIT F-III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SIMPLIFIED LOGIC DIAGRAM—SYSTEM COST
ANALYSIS PROGRAM
(NON-RECYCLE
SYSTEMS)
INPUT
A) RAW WASTE DESCRIPTION
B) SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
C) "DECISION" PARAMETERS
D) COST FACTORS
PROCESS CALCULATIONS
A) PERFORMANCE - POLLUTANT
PARAMETER EFFECTS
fc) EQUIPflENT SIZE
C) PROCESS COST
(RECYCLE. SYSTEMS)
CONVERGENCE
A) POLLUTANT PARAMETER
TOLERANCE CHECK
(NOT WITHIN
TOLERANCE LIMITS)
(WITHIN TOLERANCE LIMITS)
COST CALCULATIONS
A) SUM INDIVIDUAL PROCESS
COSTS
B) ADD SUBSIDIARY COSTS
C) ADJUST TO DESIRED DOLLAR
BASE
OUTPUT
A) STREAM DESCRIPTIONS -
COMPLETE SYSTEM
B) INDIVIDUAL PROCESS SIZE
AND COSTS
C) OVERALL SYSTEM INVESTMENT
AND ANNUAL COSTS
-------
Factory
Hater Returned For Keuae
"* 1 /
Spill* i Special / Holding \ j I
Tank Dumpi 1 Tank I | 1
CHROMIUM HASTEHATER REDUCING ^-f^ 1 ~" J
i*°| T Backwa.h 1 I
1 I -1- — -v
1
CHROMIUM |
REDUCTION 1
Acid and
Alkaline Wa«te H
CYANIDE
HASTEHATER 1
CYANIDE
OXIDATION
Wastewatcr
containing
free oil
waitewater
'containing ^
emul.ified oil
Burn
1 1 1
'• i " S
atcr fc Tank ^ " ' ' •»!
I , it \
, ^" /
1
Oily Sludge ^
t
Emu 1 lion
Breaking
Free Oil Haul away
EXHIBIT F-IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
TYPICAL SYSTEM WITH SIX PAIR WASTE SYSTEMS
Flocculation
t
Sludge
Drying
Discharge
-------
reference time. Such items as Construction Cost Index,
Wholesale Price Index, depreciation period, rate of
interest, cost of land, cost of labor, and cost of
electrical energy all must be specified. The option
exists to use any dollar base desired. The reference
time used for programming the various process costs
was January 1971.
The computer program main routine accepts the
control specifications and accesses all other routines.
Each wastewater treatment process is described by a
separate sub-routine which computes the performance and
cost of the individual process step (clarification,
oil skimming, etc.). The main routine iterates the
raw waste load data to a system component until the
last iteration is within the tolerance of the next to
last iteration. For example, the clarifier has a
sludge output to sludge dewatering. The water removed
from the sludge is put back to the clarifier, changing
the input concentration. This cycling is repeated
until the tolerances are met. When the system itera-
tion is complete, the main routine accesses a cost
summation routine.
The cost summation routine sums all the-process
costs and calculates the least cost treatment option.
They may be omitted if only process costs are desired.
F-14
-------
This routine also adjusts all costs to the speci-
fied year dollar base. Capital costs are adjusted by
the Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index.
Operation and maintenance costs are related to the
proper dollar base by use of the Wholesale Price Index
for "Industrial Commodities" and by use of the hourly
labor'rate for non-supervisory workers in water, stream
and sanitary systems.
When the cost summation routine is complete, the
output routine is accessed. Output consists of a
process connection listing, a complete presentation
of the input and calculated stream pollutant parameter
values at the various stream locations, a summariza-
tion of all costs and performance by process, and an
overall system cost and effluent concentration table.
The output cost table shown in Exhibit F-V, on
the following page, includes: investment cost, de-
preciation, cost of capital, operating and maintenance
cost (less energy and power) and energy and power costs
as a function of effluent flow. The effluent concen-
tration table presents the selected parameters with
their respective wastewater treatment system influent
and effluent concentration expressed in units of
milligrams per liter.
F-15
-------
EXHIBIT F-V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
TYPICAL OUTPUT COST TABLE FOR WATER
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS-BPT
COST
Flow Rate (Liters/Hr)
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy & Power Costs
Total Annual Cost
7,885 15,771 39,427 157,708
$344,936 $398,924 $527,008 $1,063,173
25,839 52,127
52,701 106,317
49,965 103,675
10,064 20,139 50,383 201,531
$ 95,676 $118,041 $178,887 $ 463,650
16,912
34,494
34,207
19,559
39,892
38,451
PERFORMANCE
Effluent Pollutant
Parameters
pH
Total Suspended Solids
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Oil & Grease
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Phosphates
Zinc
Typical
Haste Load
Typical Effluent
Discharge Level
9.2
1220
2.4
18.9
4.5
8.5
9.0
2.0
3.4
668
3087
10.0
7.1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
8.5
15.0
0.12
0.4
0.2
2.0
0.5
0.1
0.2
5.8
92.6
2.6
0.5
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
rag/1
mg/1
mg/1
259-718 O - 78 - 29
-------
4. TWO TYPES OF COST ASSUMPTIONS ARE INTEGRAL TO THE"
PROGRAM'S OUTPUTS'
This section presents the two types of cost assumptions
underlying the cost estimating routines described in the
prior section. There are process cost assumptions which
specify and size the abatement components, and there are
system cost assumptions which also affect the magnitude of
costs.
(1) Process Costs
The following process cost elements are built into
the modeling capability of the program:
Cyanide Oxidation
The cyanide oxidation tank is sized as an
above-ground cylindrical tank with a reten-
tion time of four hours based on the process
flow. Since cyanide oxidation is considered
to be of the batch type for the cost estima-
tion program, two identical tanks are used
and priced by the program.
Cyanide removal is accomplished by the addi-
tion of sodium hypochlorite as needed to main-
tain the proper pH level. A 60 day supply
of sodium hypochlorite is stored in an in-
ground covered concrete tank, 1 foot (.305
meters) thick. A 90 day supply of sodium
hydroxide is also stored in an in-ground
covered concrete tank, 1 foot (.305 meters)
thick.
When using a continuous system for batch
cyanide treatment, the system includes:
2 immersion pH probes and transmitters
2 immersion ORP probes and transmitters
F-16
-------
2 pH and ORP monitors
2 2-pen recorders
2 slow process controllers
2 proportional sodium hypochlorite pumps
2 proportional sodium hydroxide pumps
2 mixers
3 transfer pumps
1 maintenance kit
2 liquid level controllers and alarms,
and miscellaneous electrical equipment
and piping
A complete manual control system is costed
for the batch treatment alternative. This
system includes:
2 pH probes and monitors
1 mixer
1 liquid level controller and horn
1 proportional sodium hypochlorite pump
1 on-off sodium hydroxide pump and PVC
piping from the chemical storage tanks
Manpower estimates for operation and main-
tenance reflect the varying schemes for con-
tinuous and batch operation.
Mixer power requirements for both continuous
and batch treatment are based on 2 horsepower
for every 3,000 gallons of tank volume.
The mixer is assumed to be operational 25
percent of the time that the treatment sys-
tem is operating.
Chromium Reduction
For both continuous and batch treatment, sul-
furic acid is added for pH control. A 90
day supply is stored in the 25 percent aqueous
F-17
-------
form in an above-ground, covered, concrete
tank 1 foot (.305 meters) thick. A constant
power requirement of 2 horsepower is assumed
to mix the chemicals.
For batch chromium reduction, the dual chro-
mium reduction tanks are sized as above-
ground cylindrical concrete tanks, 1 foot
(.305 meters) thick, with a 4 hour retention
time, and an excess capacity factor of 1.2.
Sodium bisulfite is added to reduce the hex-
avalent chromium.
For continuous chromium reduction, the single
chromium reduction tank is sized as an above-
ground cylindrical concrete tank with a 1
foot (.305 meters) wall thickness, a 45
minute retention time, and an excess capacity
factor of 1.2. Sulfur dioxide is added to
convert the influent hexavalent chromium to
the trivalent form.
The control system for continuous chromium
reduction consists of:
1 immersion pH probe and transmitter
1 immersion ORP probe and transmitter
1 pH and ORP monitor
2 slow process controllers
1 sulfonator and associated pressure
regulator
1 sulfuric acid pump
1 transfer pump for sulfur dioxide
ejector
2 maintenance kits foi electrodes, and
miscellaneous electrical equipment and
piping
A completely manual system is provided for
batch operation. Subsidiary equipment
includes:
1 sodium bisulfite mixing and feed tank
1 metal stand and agitator collector
1 sodium bisulfite mixer with disconnects
F-18
-------
1 sulfuric acid mixer with disconnects
1 sulfuric acid pump
2 immersion pH probes
1 pH monitor and miscellaneous piping
Manpower estimates for operation and main-
tenance reflect the varying schemes for
continuous and batch operations.
Clarification
Clarification is employed for solids removal
where land is available outside the plant for
a treatment system. Clarification may be
either continuous or batch treatment. Lime
and sodium sulfide are added for metal and
solids removal and pH adjustment.
For continuous clarification with an influent
flow rate greater than or equal to 2600
gallons per hour (9,857 liters per hour),
costs include a concrete flocculator and its
excavation, and two centrifugal sludge pumps.
The flocculator size is based on a 45 minute
retention time, a length to width ratio of
5, a depth of 8 feet (244 meters), a thick-
ness of 1 foot (.305 meters), and an excess
capacity factor of 1.2. A mixer is included
in the flocculator. The settling tank is
sized by a design hydraulic loading of 33.3
gallons per hour per square foot (1356.7
liters per hour per square meter), a 4 hour
retention time, and an excess capacity fac-
tor of 1.2.
For continuous clarification with an infludnt
flow rate less than 2,600 gallons per hour
(9,857 liter per hour), the flocculator and
settling tank are each replaced with an above-
ground conical, unlined carbon steel tank
with a 4 hour retention time. The dual
centrifugal sludge pumps are retained.
The sludge pumps are assumed operational 1
hour for each 12 hours of production opera-
tion and have 20% excess pumping capacity.
Costs include motors, starters, alternators,
and necessary piping.
For batch clarification, the dual centrifugal
sludge pumps and the chemical demands are
identical to continuous clarification. The
F-19
-------
flocculator and settling tank, however, are
replaced with dual above-ground cylindrical
carbon steel tanks, each tank with an 8 hour
retention time, an excess capacity factor of
1.2, and a mixer that operates 1 hour for each
8 hours that the tank is being used. All
power requirements are based on data from
major manufacturers.
Diatomaceous Earth Filtration
Diatomaceous earth filtration is used in
place of clarification for those plant models
which have no land available outside the
plant for a treatment system. Unit cost is
based on one filter station comprised of one
filter, one mix tank, two pumps, and asso-
ciated valving. The unit is shut down one
hour each day of operation for cleaning and
filter pre-coating. Diatomaceous earth ad-
dition rates, power requirements, and man-
power requirements are based on manufacturer's
data.
pH Adjustment
pH adjustment is used for treatment at plants
that discharge to a municipal treatment sys-
tem. When used, the pH adjustment tank is
an in-ground concrete tank with a 5 minute
retention time. The tank has a width ratio
of 5, a depth of 8 feet (2.44 meters), a
thickness of 1 foot (.305 meters), and an ex-
cess capacity factor of 1.2. A mixer and
tank excavation are included in the costs.
Lime is added to obtain the desired effluent
pH. Mixer power is based on a representa-
tive installation with 1 turnover per minute.
Sludge Drying Beds
Sludge drying beds are sized by a drainage
rate of 0.0078 gallons per hour per square
foot (0.318 liters per hour per square meter)
with a bed excavated to a depth of 4 feet
(1.2 meters) and an excess capacity factor
of 1.5. Costs include berms, underdrain
piping, and all required gravel and sand.
The unit is not sized for any influent flow
rate less than 50 gallons per day (189 liters
per day) as the bed area becomes too small
to warrant construction.
F-20
-------
Contractor Hauling
A flat rate of $42 per pick-up with a 15
cubic yard (11.5 cubic meters) capacity truck
is charged for a January 1976 dollar base.
This charge assumes that an appropriate
landfill is available at no charge and no
further treatment of the wastes is required.
Hauling costs are applied to the solids exit-
ing from the solids removal devices in con-
tinuous and batch treatment systems and are
applied to the total wastewater discharge
flow when analyzing "haul" as a least cost
system option.
(2) System Cost Assumptions
Section (1) presented the individual process
cost elements. Subsidiary costs, however, must be
included for any wastewater treatment system to be
complete. This section presents all system sub-
sidiary cost assumptions incorporated in the routines.
Each cost assumption can be modified in use to satisfy
any alternative set of conditions or assumptions.
Dollar Base
A dollar base of January 1976 is used for all
costs. Investment costs are adjusted to this
dollar base by use of the Sewage Treatment
Plant Construction Cost Index from Reference
4. The national average of the Construction
Cost Index for January 1976 is 256.7.
Supply costs, such as chemicals, are related
to the dollar base by the "Industrial Com-
modities" Wholesale Price Index presented
in Reference 5. For January 1976, this index
is 177.3.
To relate operating and maintenance labor
costs, the hourly wage rate for non-supervisory
F-21
-------
workers in water, stream, and sanitary sys-
tems is used from Reference 6. This wage
rate is $5.19 per hour in January 1976.
This wage rate is then applied to estimates
of operational and maintenance man-hours
required by each process to obtain process
direct labor charges. To account for in-
direct labor charges, 15% of the direct
labor costs is added to the direct labor
charge to yield estimated total labor costs.
Such items as Social Security, employer con-
tributions to pension or retirement funds,
and employer-paid premiums to various forms
of insurance programs are considered indi-
rect labor costs.
Energy and Power
Energy and power requirements are calculated
directly within each process. Estimated
costs are then determined by applying a rate
of approximately 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour.
The electrical charge for January 1976 was
corroborated through consultation with the
Energy Consulting Service Department of the
Connecticut Light and Power Company. This
electrical charge was determined by assuming
that any electrical needs of a waste treat-
ment facility would be satisfied by an ex-
isting electrical distribution system; i.e.,
no new meter would be required.
Capital Recovery
Capital recovery costs are divided into de-
preciation and cost of capital. Deprecia-
tion is programmed for a straight line 5
year depreciation period consistent with the
faster write-off (financial life) allowed
by the IRS for these facilities, even though
the equipment life is in the range of 20 to
25 years. Cost of capital is calculated by
use of the capital recovery factor at a 10%
annual interest rate applied for a period
of 5 years.
The capital recovery factor (CFR) is normally
used in industry to help allocate the initial
F-22
-------
investment and the interest to the total
operating cost of the facility. The (CFR)
is equal to the interest rate plus the in-
terest rate divided by A-l. A is equal to
the quantity 1 plus the interest rate raised
to the n^n power, where n is the number of
years the interest is applied. The annual
capital recovery (ANR) is obtained by multi-
plying the initial investment by the CFR.
The annual depreciation (D) of the capital
investment is calculated by dividing the
initial investment by the depreciation
period N, which is assumed to be five years.
The annual cost of capital is then equal to
the annual capital recovery (ANR) minus the
depreciation (D).
Line Segregation
These costs account for plant modifications
to segregate waste if the wastes are present
in the wastewater discharge. The maximum
number of streams to be segregated is 1 less
than the total number of waste streams en-
tering the treatment system. This assumes
that one general wastewater discharge point
already exists at the plant. For example,
if a plant has cyanide bearing wastes, chro-
mium bearing wastes, and general wastewater,
2 lines would be the maximum number of
streams to be segregated. If the plant
model, however, indicates that either cyanide
oxidation or chromium reduction is already
in place, line segregation costs for this
process (es) already in place are ignored.
The investment costs of line segregation in-
clude placing a trench in the existing plant
floor and installing the lines in this trench.
The same ditch is used for all pipe and a
gravity feed to the treatment system is as-
sumed. The piping is assumed to run from
the center of the floor to a corner. Plant
floor area is related to discharge flow by
the results of an analysis of 300 plants
visited for which flow and floor area are
available. This data indicated that .05
gallons per hour of wastewater is discharged
per square foot of floor area (2.04 liters
per hour per square meter).
F-23
259-118 O - 18 - 30
-------
Administrative and Laboratory Facilities
This item is the cost of constructing space
for administration, laboratory, and service
functions for the wastewater treatment sys-
tem. All the plant models executed for
electroplating economic impact analysis al-
ready had an existing building and space
for administration, laboratory, and service
functions. Therefore, there is no invest-
ment cost for this item.
Garage and Shop Facilities
For the industrial waste treatment facili-
ties being costed, the garage and shop in-
vestment cost is assumed to be part of the
normal plant costs and was not allocated to
the wastewater treatment system.
Laboratory Operations
An analytical fee of $80 (January 1976 dol-
lars) is charged for each wastewater sample,
regardless of whether the laboratory work
was done on or off site. This analytical
fee is typical of the charges experienced
by Hamilton Standard during the past several
years of sampling programs.
The frequency of wastewater sampling is a
function of wastewater discharge flow and
is presented in Table F-3, on the follow-
ing page. This frequency was suggested by
the Water Compliance Division of the USEPA.
Yardwork
The yardwork investment cost item includes
the costs of general site clearing, inter-
component piping, valves, overhead and un-
derground electrical wiring, cable, light-
ing, control structures, manholes, tunnels,
conduits, and general site items outside
the structural confines of particular indi-
vidual plant components. Th:j.s cost is
typically 9-18 percent of the installed com-
ponent investment costs. For these cost
estimates, an average of 14 percent is
utilized. Yardwork operation and mainte-
nance costs are considered a part of normal
plant maintenance and are not included in
these cost estimates.
F-24
-------
Table F-3
Wastewater Sampling Frequency
Wastewater Discharge Flow Sampling Frequency
(gallons per day)
0 - 10,000 once per month
10,000 - 50,000 twice per month
50,000 - 100,000 once per week
100,000 - :2'50,000 twice per week
250,000 + thrice per week
F-25
-------
Land
The wastewater treatment system land require-
ments are calculated allowing a 10-foot (3-
meter) perimeter around each treatment sys-
tem component and a 5-foot (1.5-meter)
perimeter around each chemical storage tank.
Land is then bought in 5,000 square foot
(464.5 square meter) segments to satisfy the
land requirements. If a plant already has
land available for its wastewater treatment
system, this land cost is set to $0.
The locale of the plant also affects land costs,
The following local relationships, as shown in
Table F-4 below, are assumed to determine land
costs.
Table F-4
Locale - Land Cost Relationships
Locale $/acre (January 1976 dollars)
Urban 75,000
Suburban 10,000
Rural 2,000
Engineering
Engineering costs include both basic and
special services. Basic services include
preliminary design reports, detailed design,
and certain office and field engineering
services during construction of projects.
Special services include improvement studies,
resident engineering, soils investigations,
land surveys, operation and maintenance
manuals, and other miscellaneous services.
Engineering cost is a function of process
installed and yardwork costs as presented
in Reference 7. This charge has also been
substantiated by data supplied by the Con-
necticut Engineers in Private Practice.
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative
These costs relate to planning and construc-
tion of wastewater treatment facilities and
include such items as preparation of legal
F-Z6
-------
documents, preparation of construction con-
tracts, acquisition of land, etc. These
costs are a function of processes installed
yardwork, engineering, and land costs.
Interest During Construction
The dollar value calculated for this item
consists of the interest cost accrued on
funds from the time payment is made to the
contractor to the end of the construction
period. The total of all other project
costs: (processes installed, yardwork,
land, engineering, legal, fiscal and admin-
istrative) and the applied interest affect
this cost.
An interest rate of 10% is used to determine
the interest cost for these estimates.
5. THERE ARg SEVERAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS, IF NOT
LIMITATIONS, TO THE ROUTINE'S APPLICABILITY
The results of the cost program generally agree with
known costs to within + 20 percent. Comparisons of the
program estimates to actual plant data (for comparable
wastewater treatment equipment) have been conducted for
the Agency within the last year. Consistently, the sets
of costs show high levels of agreement.
In addition, the sensitivity of the cost estimates
to several variables is demonstrated in the program output,
The variables reviewed include plant size (as modeled by
wastewater discharge), treatment-in-place, and applied ef-
fluent discharge standards (as modeled by the various
estimation modes).
F-27
-------
There are, however, certain limitations associated with
extrapolating the model plant cost estimates to the universe
of job shop electroplaters. These limitations are discussed
in detail below.
The cost program calculates a nationwide, general
cost of wastewater treatment system installation
and operation applicable for average situations.
Costs of unusual construction requirements, such
as foundation piling, rock excavation, or dewater-
ing, have not been included in the general cost
estimates. Any one plant could experience instal-
lation costs far different from those estimated
by the program.
Plant alteration costs have only been estimated
in part. Line segregation costs have been esti-
mated per the procedure discussed in Section 2,
above, and are dependent on the floor area, floor
plan, and distance to the wastewater treatment
facilities.
Special plant alteration costs, such as the build-
ing of a mezzanine, the removal of a wall, or the
strengthening of a floor were not estimated due
to the special, unique nature of this type of
alteration for each plant. Again, high cost
variability on this item would be expected.
The haul costs calculated by the program include
transport costs only. It was assumed that a
suitable landfill was available at no cost and
that no further treatment of the wastes was re-
quired. The transport cost was corroborated by
a local Connecticut hauler. To the extent that
there is an added cost for treatment, then the
program will understate the full costs of that
treatment mode.
This appendix has presented the logic, methodology
and limitations of the computerized cost estimating routine
developed by Hamilton Standard. Use of this program has
F-28
-------
enabled the present economic impact study to incorporate
highly reliable estimates of pollution abatement system
costs.
F-29
-------
APPENDIX G
-------
VALIDATION OF THE POLLUTION
ABATEMENT COST ESTIMATES
This appendix presents the methodologies employed by
Booz, Allen for interpolating technical contractor's cost
estimates for the initial 74 model plants. As stated in
the methodology chapter, several analytic steps were re-
quired to derive generalized predictor equations from these
74 model plants for use on all models of the impact anal-
ysis. Specifically, the following was done:
Operations were grouped by common processes to
find basic treatment equipment requirements
Flow allocation rules were derived on a per
treatment component basis
Cost equations were developed on a water flow
sizing measure
Costs derived by the equations were tested
against the routine and outside sources
The next four sections provide the data and analyses
of each activity.
1. TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENT
The four exhibits which follow, G I-IV, contain the
raw data from which treatment equipment requirements rules
G-l
-------
367
169
377
52
115
334
152
353
347
355
302
Electroplating Operation
Ni. Cr, Gold
Cadmium
Cu. Ni. Solder. Tin.
Gold. Silver, Cobalt
Cu, Ni. Cadmium. Zn.
Tin
EXHIBIT G-I
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
PLANTS WITH CLAHIFIER ONLY
Treatment Equipment
Finishing Operation
Anodizing
Chemical milling and
chemical etching
Bright dip. stripping
Chromating
Anodizing, coloring,
phosphating. chromat-
ing. non-aqueous plating.
bright dip. chemical
etching, stripping
Chemical milling, chemi-
cal etching, stripping
Phosphating
Chemical etching
Phosphating. stripping
Phosphating. chemical
etching
Anodizing, coloring
Electroless on metals and
plastics, bright dip. chemi-
cal etching. stripping
Anodizing, coloring, phosphat-
ing, chromating, electroless on
metals, bright dip, chemical
etching, stripping
Previously Installed
pH adjustment, Cr, separate
hex Cr stream
CN, countercurrent rinse
pH "adjustment, flow equaliza-
tion , Cr, separate hex Cr
stream, countercurrent rinse
pH adjustment, lagoon
pH adjustment, flow equaliza-
tion, Cr. lagoon
pH adjustment, clarifier, lagoon
pH adjustment, clarifier.
countercurrent rinse
pH adjustment. CN, separate Cl
stream, advanced treatment
pH adjustment, Cr, CN
Source: Booz, Allen S Hamilton Inc.
-------
Plant »
364
142
423
308
271
34
111
66
123
162
94
Electroplating Operation
Cu/Ni,/Cr
Ni/Cr
Ni/Cr
Ni, Cr, Zn
Finishing Operation
Anodizing, coloring,
phosphating, chromat-
ing, bright dip, chemi-
cal etching, stripping
Anodizing, coloring,
bright dip, chemical
etching, stripping
Stripping
Anodizing, coloring,
chromating, bright dip,
chemical etching, strip-
ping
Chromating, chemical
etching
Anodizing, coloring,
chemical etching, strip-
ping
Chromating
Anodizing, coloring,
phosphating, chromating,
chemical etching
Anodizing, coloring,
chromating, bright dip,
chemical etching, strip-
ping
EXHIBIT G-II
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
FLANTS WITH CHROME REDUCTION
AND CLARIFTER
Treatment Equipment
Previously Installed
pH adjustment
Lagoon
pH adjustment, Cr, clarifier
pH adjustment, Cr, clarifier,
countercurrent rinse
pH adjustment, flow equalization
Cr, lagoon, separate hex Cr stre.
pH adjustment, flow equalization,
lagoon
-------
EXHIBIT G-II (2)
Plant
231
14
47
15
303
414
331
281
391
128
159
316
187
Electroplating Operation
Cu, Ni, Cr
Cr
Cr, Zn
Cu. Ni, Cr
Cu, Ni. Cr
Cu, Ni, Cadmium, 7n, Tin
Finishing Operation
Stripping
Stripping
Phosphating, chromat-
ing
Phosphating, chromat-
ing, chemical milling,
bright dip, chemical
etching, stripping
Anodizing, coloring,
bright dip, chemical
etching
Phosphating, chromat-
ing
Anodizing
Treatment Equipment
Previously Installed
Anodizing, coloring,
chroma ting
Flectroless on plastics
Anodizing, coloring,
phosphating, chromating
Anodizing, coloring,
bright dip
pH adjustment, flow equalization,
CN
countercurrent rinse, advanced
treatment
pH adjustment, lagoon
pH adjustment, flow equalization
lagoon, separate CN stream, coui
current rinse
pH, Cr, lagoon, separate hex Cr
stream, countercurrent rinse
-------
EXHIBIT G-II (3)
Plant #
215
348
212
149
Electroplating Operation
Ni, Cr, Cadmium. Zn
Cu, Ni, Cr
Finishing Operation
Anodizing, bright dip
Anodizing, chromat-
ing, stripping
Anodizing
Treatment Equipment
Previously Installed
pH adjustment, CN, clarifier,
countercurrent rinse
Source: Booz, Allen S Hamilton Inc.
-------
Plant #
79
30
59
332
44
45
39
Electroplating Operation
Cu, Ni, Gold, Silver
Platinum
Cu, Ni, Tin, Gold, Silver,
Brass
Cu, Ni, Tin, Gold, Silver,
Platinum
Cu, Ni, Cr, Gold, Silver,
Brass
Cu, Ni, Cadmium, Zn
Cadmium, Zn
Finishing Operation
Stripping
Electroless on metals,
bright dip, stripping
Electroless on metals
Electroless on plastics
EXHIBIT G-III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PLANTS WITH CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
AND CLARIFIERS
Treatment Equipment
Previously Installed
Anodizing, coloring
phosphating, bright
dip
Clarifier, countercurrent rinse,
advanced treatment
Cr, separate hex Cr'stream,
countercurrent rinse, advanced
treatment
pH adjustment, Cr
Source: Booz, Allen 6 Hamilton, Inc.
-------
Plant »
289
80
151
25
46
287
392
305
164
373
345
Electroplating Operation
Cu. Ni, Cr. Tin. Silver,
Brass and Bronze
Cu, Ni, Cadmium, Zn,
Tin, Brass and Bronze
Cu, Ni, Cr, Cadmium,
Bronze
Cu. Ni, Cr, Gold
Cu, Zn
Cu. Ni. Cr, Gold. Silver.
Brass
Cu, Ni, Cr, Zn, Gold, Brass
Cu, Ni, Cr, Cadmium, Zn,
Tin
Cu, Ni, Cr, Cadmium, Zn,
Tin, Gold, Silver, Brass,
Bronze
Ni-, Cr, Cadmium, Lead,
Tin. Silver
Cu, Ni, Cr, Cadmium, Zn,
Tin. Gold, Silver, Platinum
Finishing Operation
Bright dip, stripping
Phosphating, chromating,
bright dip, stripping
Chromating, electroless
on metals, stripping
Chromating, bright dip,
stripping
Stripping
Chromating, bright dip
Anodizing, coloring,
phosphating, chromating,
bright dip, chemical etch-
ing, stripping
Electroless on metals
Coloring, phosphating,
chromating, electroless
on metals, bright dip,
chemical etching, strip-
ping
EXHIBIT G-IV (1)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agencj
PLANTS WITH FULL BPT SYSTEMS
Treatment Equipment
Previously Installed
pH adjustment, flow equalizatlol
Cr, CN, clarifier, countercurrei
advanced treatment
, countercurrent rinse
188
Ni, Cr, Zn
Chromating. stripping
Advanced treatment
-------
EXHIBIT G-IV (2 )
Plant #
386
110
26
235
129
358
344
76
55
143
346
Electroplating Operation
Cu, Ni, Cr, Cadmium, Zn,
Solder, Tin
Ni, Cr. Zn
Cu, Ni. Cr
Cu, Ni, Cadmium, Solder,
Tin, Gold, Silver, Platinum
Cadmium, Zn
Cu, Ni, Cr, Brass
All electroplating
Zn
Cu, Ni, Cr, Cadmium, Zn,
Gold, Silver, Platinum, brass
Cadmium, Zn, Lead, Brass
Cadmium, Zn
Finishing Operation
Anodizing, coloring,
chromating, phosphat-
ing, electroless on
metals, chemical etch-
ing, stripping
Chromating
Anodizing, coloring,
chromating, electroless
on metals, bright dip,
stripping
Chromating
Stripping
Chromating. electroless
on plastics and metals,
bright dip, milling, strip-
ping
Anodizing, coloring, phos-
phating, chromating, bright
dip, chemical etching, strip-
ping
Anodizing, coloring, chromat-
ing . electroless on metals, bright
dip, stripping
Phosphatirig, chromating,
bright dip
Anodizing, coloring, chromat-
ing , bright dip, chemical etch-
ing, stripping
Treatment Equipment
Previously installed
pH adjustment
pH adjustment, flow equaliza-
tion, clarifier
pH adjustment, clarifier
pH adjustment, flow equaliza-
tion, Cr, CN, clarifier. separate
CN stream, separate hexa-stream
pH adjustment, clarifier
-------
EXHIBIT G-IV (3)
136
Electroplating Operation
Ni. Cr. Zn, Brass
Cr, Zn
Cu, Ni. Cr, Zn, Cadmium
Finishing Operation
Chromating, stripping
Phosphating, chromat-
ing
Phosphating, chromating,
electroless on metals,
chemical milling, stripping
Treatment Equipment
Previously Installed
pH adjustment, Cr, CN, lagoon,
separate stream, countercurrent
rinse
Have everything
Source: Booz, Allen 6 Hamilton Inc.
-------
were derived. Inspection of these exhibits provided the
basis for developing the following decision rules:
Plants involved only in sulfuric acid anodizing,
and/or nonelectroplating metalfinishing opera-
tions (except chromating and bright dipping)
were likely to require pH adjustment only to
meet BPT requirements.
Plants involved only in copper, tin, cadmium,
zinc, precious metal plating or bright dipping
or a combination thereof were likely to require
cyanide destruction and pH adjustment equipment.
Plants involved only in chromium plating, chro-
mic acid anodizing, chromating or a combination
thereof were likely to require hexavalent chro-
mium reduction and pH adjustment equipment.
Other plants doing combinations of these opera-
tions were likely to require all three major
systems: cyanide destruction, hexavalent chro-
mium reduction, and pH adjustment.
Line segregation was assumed to be required when
two or more pieces of equipment were required.
In cases where only two pieces of equipment were
required or because of previously installed
equipment, one-half of the total estimated line
segregation costs was likely.
The exhibits also show the treatment equipment which
the survey respondents indicated had been installed at
their shops. Again inspection of the exhibits shows that
the decision rules for predicting equipment appear to be
reasonably consistent with practice in the field.
2. FLOW ALLOCATION RULES
Exhibits G V-VIII on the following pages show the flow
of process ^ater through the pollution abatement units.
G-2
-------
EXHIBIT G-V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PERCENTAGE OF FLOW TO CYANIDE
DESTRUCTION UNIT FOR PLANTS INSTALLING
CYANIDE DESTRUCTION AND pH ADJUSTMENT EQUIPMENT
332
44
45
91
18
39
Percenc of
Metal Finishing
Water to Cyanide Unit
69.5
62.1
62.9
20.1
78.0
15.6
67.4
73.8
Operations
Average percentage to Cyanide Destruction Unit
Standard Deviation
Copper, Nickel, Gold, Silver
Copper, Nickel, Tin, Gold, Silver Brass,
electroless on metals, bright dip
Copper, Nickel, Tin, Gold, Silver, Platinum,
electroless on metals
Copper, Nickel, Chromium, Gold, Silver
Brass, electroless on plastics, (Chrome
Reduction Unit already installed)
Copper, Nickel, Cadmium, Zinc
Brass, Bronze, flemish oxidizing
bright dipping, chromating
Copper, Nickel, Cadmium, Zinc, chromating,
bright dipping, chemical etching
Cadmium, Zinc, anodizing, phosphating,
bright dip (Chrome reduction unit
previously installed)
56.2%
24.3%
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
EXHIBIT G-VI (1)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PERCENTAGE OF FLOW TO CHROME REDUCTION
UNIT FOR PLANTS INSTALLING HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
REDUCTION AND PH ADJUSTMENT EQUIPMENT
Percentage of
Metalfinishing Water
Plant
No.
364
142
308
271
34
111
66
162
94
14
47
15
To Hexavalent Chromium
Reduction Unit (%)
33.4
43.8
9.9
24.1
19.9
9.9
37.2
20.2
37.2
6.3
26.0
2.9
Operations
Anodize, color, phosphating, chromating, bright dip
chemical etch
Anodize, color, bright dip, chemical etch
Nicke1, Chromium
Anodize, color, chromating, bright dip, chemical etch
Chromating, chemical etch
Nicke1, Chromium
Anodize, color, chemical etch, strip
Anodize, color, phosphating, chromating chemical etch
Anodize, color, chromating, bright dip, chemical etch,
strip
Chromium, strip
Phosphating, chromating
Phosphate, chromating, chemical mill, bright dip,
chemical etch, strip
-------
EXHIBIT G-VI (2)
303
414
331
281
391
128
159
316
187
348
149
Average Percentage
Standard Deviation
23.7
8.9
58.9
4.5
6.3
46.7
6.7
6.6
56.7
1.7
37.3
of Flow
Anodize, color, bright dip, chemical etch
Phosphating, chromating .
Anodize
Chromium, Zinc (CN destruct in place)
Copper, Nickel, Chromium (Advanced treatment
Anodize, Color, Chromating
replace)
Copper, Nickel, Chromium, electroless on plastics
Copper, Nickel, Cadmium Zinc, Tin, anodize, color
phosphating, chromating (CN destruct in place)
Anodize, color, bright dip
Nickel, Chromium, Cadmium, Zinc (CN destruct
Anodize
to Hexavalent Chromium Reduction Unit = 23.0%
= 17.8%
in place)
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
EXHIBIT G-VII (1)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PERCENTAGES OF FLOW TO CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
AND CHROME REDUCTION UNITS FOR FULL BPPT SYSTEMS
— COMPLEX PLANTS
Percentage of Metal Finishing Water to
Cyanide Destruction Chrome Reduction
(%) (%) Operation
19.0 2.9 Copper, Tin, Nickel, Chromium, Silver,
Brass, Bronze, bright dip, strip
61.0 - Copper, Nickel Cadmium, Zinc, Tin,
Brass, Bronze, phosphating, chromating,
bright dip, strip (Chrome reduction
previously installed)
151 64.7 3.9 Copper, Nickel, Chromium, Cadmium, Bronze,
Chromating, electroless on metals, strip
392 66.3 0.7 Copper, Nickel, Chromium, Zinc, Gold,
Brass
305 61.0 2.9 Copper, Nickel, Chromium, Cadmium, Zinc,
Tin, Chromating, bright dip
373 79.9 0.2 Nickel, Chromium, Cadmium, Lead, Tin,
Silver, electroless on metals
345 56.2 3.5 Copper, Nickel, Chromium, Cadmium, Zinc,
Tin, Gold, Silver, Platinum, coloring,
phosphating, chromating, electroless
on metals, bright dip, chemical etching,
strip
-------
386
235
344
55
346
64.2
71.1
64.7
76.0
57.1
7.7
6.4
0.2
5.4
11.4
EXHIBIT G-VII (2)
Copper, Nickel/ Chromium, Cadmium,
Tin, Silver, Zinc, anodizing, coloring,
chromating, phosphating, electroless
on metals, chemical etching, strip
Copper, Nickel, Cadmium Solder, Tin,
Gold, Silver, Platinum, anodizing,
coloring, chromating, electroless on
metals, bright dip, strip
All electroplating and metal finishing
operation
Copper, Nickel, Chromium, Cadmium, Zinc,
Gold, Silver, Platinum, Brass, anodizing
coloring, chromating, electroless on
metals, bright dip, strip
Cadmium, Zinc, anodizing, coloring,
bright dip, chromating, chemical etching,
strip
Average Percentage of Flow to Cyanide Destruction Unit = 61.8%
Standard Deviation = 15.2%
Average Percentage of Flow to Hexavalent Chromium Reduction Unit = 4.1%
Standard Deviation = 3.4%
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
EXHIBIT G-VIII
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PERCENTAGE OF FLOW TO CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
AND CHROME REDUCTION UNITS FOR FULL BPPT
SYSTEMS—SIMPLE PLANT CONFIGURATION
Percentage of Metal Finishing Water to
Plant Cyanide Destruction Chrome Reduction
No. (_%) (%) Operation
287 9.8 4.6 Copper/ Nickel, Chrome, Gold, Silver,
188 3.4 12.6 Nickel, Chrome, Zinc, chromating, strip
110 9.9 17.9 Nickel, Chrome, Zinc, chromating
26 5.9 9.6 Copper, Nickel, Chrome
340 9.2 3.2 Nickel, Chrome, Zinc, Brass, chromating
82 10.2 10.9 Chrome, Zinc, phosphating, chromating
Average Percentage of Flow to Cyanide Destruction Unit = 8.1%
Standard Deviation = 2.8%
Average Percentage of Flow to Hexavalent Chromium Reduction Unit = 9.8%
Standard Deviation = 5.4%
Source:Booz, Allen, Hamilton Inc.
-------
Inspection of the flow volumes provided the basis for the
following allocation rules:
Plants requiring installation of cyanide de-
struction and pH equipment tend to have about
56% of their metalfinishing water flowing to
the cyanide destruction unit.
Plants requiring installation of hexavalent
chromium reduction and pH adjustment equipment
tend to have about 23% of their metalfinishing
water flowing to the chrome reduction unit.
Plants requiring installation of full BPPT sys-
tems fall into two categories:
Plants which perform more than six opera-
tions tend to have about 62% of their
metalfinishing water flow in the cyanide
destruction unit and about 4% of their
metalfinishing water flowing to the hexa-
valent chromium reduction unit.
Plants with six or fewer operations tend
to have about 8% of their metalfinishing
water flow to the cyanide destruction unit
and about 10% flowing to the hexavalent
chromium reduction unit.
In all cases all the metalfinishing water flows
through the pH adjustment unit.
3. COST EQUATIONS
Computer cost estimates were regressed against flow
volume in gallons per hour. This process was repeated for
each individual component. In this manner each component
had its own cost predictor equation. The regression lines
and the formulae appear in Chapter II. Only the basic cost
equations are repeated here in Exhibit G IX, on the next
page.
G-3
-------
Subsystem
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
Cyanide Destruction
pH Adjustment
Line Segregation
Clarifier
Diatomaceous Earth. Filter
*Notes on Equations
EXHIBIT G-IX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EQUATIONS RELATING ESTIMATES OF INVESTMENT FOR
HATER TREATMENT WITH GALLONS PER HOUR OF WATER TREATED
Equation*
Investment ($) = 8,400 GPH 0.17
Investment ($) = 19,000 + 15.2 GPH
Investment ($) = 14,700 + 1.0 GPH
Investment ($) 210 GPH 0.5
Investment ($) = $16,000 GPH 0.15
Investment {$) = $4,065 GPH 0.33
1. Investment value in 1977 dollars.
2. GPH is the metalfinishing water to specific unit.
3. GPH is the total metalfinishing water of the plant.
Correlation^ Statistic
0.8
0.9
0.9
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
4. TESTING OF DERIVED COST ESTIMATES
Given that the regression equations are best fit re-
lationships to the costs reported by the technical con-
tractor, they tend to agree closely with those estimates.
The utility of the cost equations rests not with how well
they predict back to the data base, but rather with how
well they predict to external sources.
Exhibit G X on the next page shows a comparison of
supplier generated quotations and regression equation
costs on a per component basis. This limited survey of
equipment suppliers yields the following:
At worst, the budgetary quotation from small
capacity hexavalent chromium reduction units
exceeds the model estimated cost by 33%.
For hexavalent chromium reduction units, the
average percentage difference between model
estimates and budget quotes was 13%.
For cyanide oxidation units, the average per-
centage difference between model estimates and
quotes was about 7%.
For clarifiers, the average percentage dif-
ference between model estimates and budget
quotes was about 13%.
Given that the Technical Contractor's original com-
ponent costs come from suppliers, and the regression
equations agree closely with the computer generated costs,
there is every reason to believe that the study can accu-
rately predict a firm's pollution abatement costs.
G-4
-------
EXHIBIT G-X
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
COMPARISON OF SELECTED ESTIMATED
COST FOR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
AND BUDGETARY QUOTES BY SUPPLIERS
Equipment
Item
Chromium Reduction
Cyanide Oxidation
Clarifier
Capacity
(GPH)
300
1,400
2,000
3,000
5,000
300
500
1,000
1,500
3,000
1,000
10,000
Model Estimated Cost
(Thousand)
20
28
32
35
40
24
17
33
36
94
46
66-105
Budgetary Quotes by Supplier
(Thousand)
30
30
35
32
38
29
30
33
35-41
94
60
82
(1) Two suppliers provided quotes in chromiua reduction equipment. Three suppliers provided quotes on
cyanide oxidation equipment. One supplier provided quotes on clarifiers.
Source; Booz, Allen & Hamilton
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA 230/1-78-001
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Economic Analysis of Proposed Pretreatment Standards
for Exis'ting Sources of the Electroplating
Point Source Category
5. REPORT DATE
December 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
WH-586
AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIO
EPA 230/1-78-001
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Analysis and Evaluation
Water Econmics Branch
1+01 M Street, S.W.
Wa.Hhinp-hnn , T).C. POU^O
10. PROGRAM CLEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-U3H8
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Planning & Standards
1+01 M Street, S.W.
Washington, P.P.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
700/01
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
This study is designed to analyze the economic impact on the electroplating industry
of the costs of pretreatment requirements under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act amendments of 1972. This reports contains, in order, a description
of the methodology used in the study, an overview of the electroplating industry,
impact analyses by in dustry segments, and an explanation of the limits of the
analyses. The section on methodlogy also contains the sources of data used in
the study. The overall electroplating industry situation is examined because of the
number of factors that are common to all of the studied segments of the industry.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS ITMsReport)
ECURITY CLASS (II
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
Uoo
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • 1978 O - 259-718
------- |