v°/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
r
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-80-188 Feb. 1981
Project Summary
Cost Comparisons of
Treatment and Disposal
Alternatives for
Hazardous Materials
Volumes I and II
Warren G. Hansen and Howard L. Rishel
Life cycle cost information is an
important element in selecting haz-
ardous waste treatment and disposal
technologies. This project evaluates
the technologies and costs of wastes
from the organic/inorganic chemicals,
and the electroplating and metal fin-
ishing industries for 16 alternative
treatment and 5 alternative disposal
methods. Capital and operation/
maintenance costs were calculated
for each process by using computer
models. Final cost comparisons of
treatment/disposal technologies for
similar waste streams were then made.
Risks associated with each technol-
ogy were qualitatively assessed in
terms of susceptibility to catastrophic
events, unexpected downtime, and
adverse environmental impacts.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Cincin-
nati, OH, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully
documented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report order-
ing information at back).
Introduction
This study details hazardous waste
treatment and disposal technologies
and costs. Guidance is provided for
making conceptual cost estimates for
selected technologies and making
comparisons among alternative
processes when more then one option is
available. Specific project objectives
were to:
Assemble available data on the
costs of technologies for treatment
and disposal of hazardous wastes.
Upgrade existing information from
literature sources and equipment
manufacturers.
Rank treatment and disposal
processes according to their cost
effectiveness for environmental
protection.
Provide assessments and compar-
isons of the risk for adverse envi-
ronmental impacts and complexity
of implementing each technologi-
cal process.
Comparisons of effectiveness are
based on criteria developed by the U S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste, for controlling hazardous
wastes as promulgated under Subtitle C
of RCRA (P.L 94-580).
-------
Treatment and Disposal
Technologies
The treatment and disposal of aque-
ous hazardous wastes produced by
organic and inorganic chemicals in the
electroplating and metal finishing
industries are addressed The types of
chemicals contained in the waste
streams of these three industries are
listed in Table 1. Considerable attention
must be given to selecting treatment
and disposal technologies compatible
with the chemical constituents of vari-
ous waste streams
Initial work on the cost-effectiveness
models involved identifyingthetechnol-
ogies and waste streams. Each treat-
ment and disposal process was rated
according to these criteria.
Applicability within industry cat-
egories.
Presence in typical off-site or mu-
nicipal treatment processes.
Availability of cost and perform-
ance data.
Determination of whether the
technique is destructive or in-
volves indefinite fixation/storage
Sixteen treatment and five disposal
technologies were selected for study
(Table 2). Detailed analyses of each of
these technologies yielded descriptions
and process flow schematics. In Table 2,
the 21 treatment and disposal technolo-
gies are related to the equipment/process
needed to achieve treatment/disposal.
Table 1. Chemicals Contained in Waste Streams of Three Industries
Industry
Hazardous
Waste
Category
Organic
Chemicals
Metals, Metal
Salts, Complexes,
etc.
Organic
Chemicals
Phenols and creso/s,
ethers, halogenated
aliphatics, polycyclic
aromatic hydro-
carbons, monocyclic
aromatics, nitrosa-
mines, PCBs,
phthalate esters
Misc. (used in
catalysts)
Inorganic
Chemicals
Chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Hg. HgCI, HgS, Pb,
Cr, Cu, Ni. Sb.
chromates, sodium-
Electroplating/
Metal
Finishing
Degreas/ng
solvents,
chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Pb, Cr, Cu, Ni,
An, Cd. Pd
Non-Metal
Inorganics
Acids
Caustics
Pesticides
Various
Misc. acids
Misc. caustics (used
in production
reactions]
Certain halogenated
aliphatics
calcium, calcium-
fluoride, ferric
ferrocyanide, ferric
arsenate, arsenic
chlorides, nickel
hydroxide, lead salts,
arsenic trisulfide
Asbestos
Phosphorus sulfide
Phosphorus
trichloride
Hydrofluoric acid
Sulfuric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Caustics
Inorganic pesticide
manufacture
(mainly metals; Cu,
Pb, Zn)
Cyanides
Fluorides,
Sulfuric acid
Hydrochloric
acid Caustics
Chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Costs
Additional data collections and
assessments produced (1) a compilation
of comprehensive cost files for each
technology and individual component,
and (2) cost and performance equations
that relate the cost of components to
scaling factors and system variables
This information along with the execu-
tive programs (described m full in the
report) were then coded and entered in a
modified Fortran IV format for analysis.
Cost data are sufficiently detailed so
that equipment and size of the operation
can be modified, and a specific cost esti-
mate can be derived. Table 3 summa-
rizes the life cycle costs for the 16 treat-
ment and the 5 disposal technologies
addressed in this study. These cost esti-
mates consider.
Capital Costs:
Costs of purchased equipment
required for the processes,
including contingencies and con-
tractor's profit.
Cost of equipment delivery, field
erection, installation, piping, con-
crete, steel, instrumentation,
electrical insulation, and all ap-
purtenances required for proper
operation of the processes.
Prime contractor engineering for
the technology.
Licenses and fees.
Construction overhead.
Costs of buildings when required
for proper process function or
protection from weather
Land costs.
Working capital.
Allowance for funds during con-
struction.
Operating and Maintenance
Costs:
Utility costs.
Labor.
Chemical costs (transported t
site and prepared for use)
Maintenance.
Product or residuals (salabl
commodities as well as furthe
disposal costs).
Administrative overhead.
Debt service and amortization.
Real estate taxes and insurance
The risk assessment process consider
the probability of catastrophic event
occuring (this can be related to geograph
ical location); downtime risks associate
with system reliability, unexpected equip
ment damage, and in some cases, prob
lems independent of the technolog
selected (e.g., chemical supply or labo
problems); and adverse environme«
-------
Table 2. Unit Process Modules Comprising the Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Technologies
\^
\i^
\.
\ .9.5
\ 3
Treatment and \^ O-.S
Disposal \
Precipitation
Coagulation/ Flocculation/
Sedimentation
Filtration
Evaporation
Distillation
Flotation
Oil /Water Separator
Reverse Osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction
Hydrolysis
Aerated Lagoon
Trickling Filter
Waste Stab. Pond
' naerobic Digestion
.arbon Adsorption
Activated Sludge
Evaporation Pond
Incineration
Land Disposal
Chemical Fixation
Encapsulation
^
0)
Flocculator
Flash Mixer
Jacketed Flash Mix
X X
X
X
Aerated Lagoon
Aerated Basin
Sludge Digestor
Trickling Filter
Waste Stab. Pond
Chemical Fixation
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
Incinerator
Sedimentation Basil
X
X
X
X
X
X
fe
tl
p.
t
Clarifier
Rotary Drum Vacuu
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
Air Flotation
X
X
j^
Oil /Water Separate
X
OJ WO
§ i |
£ l.s §
* 1 2 3 | 5 .
c *: to D i: ,; tu
i £ * S i£ § c
t; > Q Q> ^ -o ^
1 3 1 £ £ 1 3
§ Q uj et ^ cj Q
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5 T3
to .5- "5
Chemical Storage: (
Chemical Storage: L
Chemical Storage: i.
X X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
\ Sludge Equalization
tu
4^
$>
O
o
Q.
Haz. Waste Land Di
Encapsulation
Deaerator
X
X
X
X
Evaporation Pond
Steam Generator
Sludge Digestor
X
X
X
X
X
factors (emphasizing the existence or
absence of potential causes of such
impacts).
Evaluations of each of the 2] treat-
ment/disposal technologies included the
following engineering/design information:
Technology description proces-
ses, flow diagram, design detail.
Changes in technology configura-
tion with scale.
Application (hazardous waste
streams treated and/or disposed
of according to industry and
waste type).
Cost:
Summary of capital cost
Changes in capital costs with
scale.
Summary of first year operating
costs.
Changes in operation and
maintenance costs with scale
Life cycle average costs.
Life cycle average costs accord-
ing to scale.
Computed costs were typical of waste
discharge rates from the three industries
studied. Costs given are for mld-^BlQ
a nd are based on unit costs as they apply
in Chicago, Illinois.
Example
An example evaluation procedure for
one of the selected treatment technolo-
gies (reverse osmosis) follows; the report
includes similar assessments for the re-
maining 20 alternative treatment and
disposal technologies.
Technology Description
The basic unit for an industrial waste
treatment process that uses a reverse
osmosis plant is the reverse osmosis
process. The modules are assembled in
a rackhke configuration to accommodate
the desired waste flow rate. Theoretically,
reverse osmosis is induced by applying
high pressure to a suitable membrane
that, at the same time, rejects the salt
molecules and produces a relatively
salt-free water stream. The remaining
salt solution is concentrated and re-
moved from the system
Care must be exercised with reverse
osmosis systems to ensure that waste
does not contain certain colloidal sub-
stances or heterogeneous matter,
otherwise, these may, in time, reduce
the permeability of the membrane and
subsequently reduce the quantity of
effluent produced.
-------
Table 3. Cost Comparisons Among Treatment and Disposal Technologies: Standard Units
Technology
Life Simple Average Cost ($ per 1,000 gal.f Life Cycle Average Cost ($ per 1,000 gal.f
at gpm at gpm
1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 5,000 1,000 2,000 3.000 4,000 5.000
Precipitation/ Flo cculation/
Sedimentation
Filtration
Evaporation
Distillation
Flotation
Oil/ Water Separator
Reverse Osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction
Hydrolysis
Aerated Lagoon
Trickling Filter
Waste Stab. Pond
Anaerobic Digestion
Carbon Adsorption
Activated Sludge
Evaporation Pond
Incineration
Land Disposal
Chemical Fixation With Solids
Chemical Fixation Without Solids
Encapsulation
10
10
5
5
10
10
7
7
5
5
15
15
5
10
7
10
20
5
20
NA
NA
7
2.65 2.16 1.94 1.85 1.79 1.72 1.40 1.26 1.20 1.16
3.66 3.12 2.75 2.54 2.43 2.31 1.97 1.74 1.61 1.54
10.33 9.43 9.12 8.98 8.89 8.48 7.74 7.49 7.37 7.30
15.86 16.36 16.37 16.36 16.40 13.02 13.39 13.41 13.40 13.43
1.98 1.62 1.43 1.33 1.27 1.26 1.04 0.92 0.85 0.81
0.76 0.51 0.44 0.44 0.48 0.48 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.30
9.05 9.40 9.61 9.62 9.79 6.71 6.97 7.12 7.13 7.25
4.04 3.36 361 3.61 3.76 3.02 2.51 2.70 2.70 2.81
5.31 4.56 4.52 5.23 6.22 4.36 3.74 3.71 4.29 5.10
0.99 0.83 0.75 0.74 0.76 0.82 0.69 0.62 0.62 0.63
5.30 3.81 3.31 3.89 4.35 2.62 1.89 1.64 1.93 2.15
4.70 3.82 3.63 3.30 3.19 2.37 1.93 1.84 1.68 1.63
4.45 3.94 3.71 3.63 3.54 3.70 3.28 3.09 3.02 2.95
7.88 6.91 6.53 6.41 6.28 5.14 4.53 4.29 4.21 4.13
27.43 16.43 12.69 10.96 9.89 20.26 12.14 9.38 8.10 7.31
4.84 3.54 3.11 4.02 4.84 3.08 2.28 2.00 2.57 3.10
8.99 8.20 7.90 7.75 7.75 4.01 3.71 3.60 3.54 3.54
Simple Average Cost ($ per 1,000 lbs.)a Life Cycle Average Cost ($ per 1,000 Ibs.f
at Ibs/hr at Ibs/hr
1,000 2,000 3,000 4.000 5,000 1,000 2.000 3.000 4,000 5.00O
309.90 298.23 295. 10 293.34 293. 64 256.55 246.91 244.34 242.88 243. 15
389.94235.14178.08149.40132.36154.34 91.26 68.37 56.86 50.01
90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.0O (
61.99 56.90 46.62 42.87
a«/l nnn nat = >t/m3
*$/1,000 Ibs. = $/t x 0.453
Changes in Configuration
with Scale
Additional banks of modules are used
to accommodate increased flow rates.
Applications
The following applications are docu-
mented for reverse osmosis:
Separation of plating salts.
Reclamation of rinse waters for
reuse.
Reclamation of metals from
plating.
Removal of residual total dis-
solved solids.
Removal of certain trace organic
compounds (e.g., pesticides).
Costs
The capital and first-year operating
costs for the example facility are calcu-
lated with the use of the capital and
operating/maintenance cost files and
the computer model cost equations. First
year operating costs for a 1,000 gpm
Chicago-based facility (including admin-
istrative overhead, debt service and
amortization, real estate taxes, and
insurance) are approximately $871,000.
The life cycle average costs for the
example facility (assuming a life cycle of
7 years) are calculated to be $6.71 per
1,000 gallons of waste treated. No econ-
omy of scale was observed over the range
of design flows that were studied. In
fact, for reverse osmosis treatment, the
average life cycle cost increases. This
increase is attributed to the need for
larger and more complex module arrange-
ments, support facilities, and increased
chemical costs.
Volume II
Volume II contains the following:
Appendix A, Section 250.45 of the Re-
source Conservation Act; Appendix B,
Capital Unit Cost File; AppendixC, Oper-
ation and Maintenance Unit Cost File;
Appendix D, Curve Fitting for Cost Files;
Appendix E, Module Descriptions; and
Appendix F, System Variable Equations.
Risk Assessment
The risk assessment concludes that
some potential loss may occur from (1)
catastrophic events (e.g., earthquakes,
floods, tornadoes, or fires), and (2) unex-
pected downtime (e.g., membrane clog-
ging). Potential adverse environmental
impacts are assessed, and, in most in-
stances, it is determined that only mini-
mal impacts are likely.
-------
Warren G. Hansen and Howard L. Rishell are with SCS Engineers, Redmond,
WA 98052 and Long Beach, CA 908O7, respectively.
Oscar W. Albrecht is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete reports, entitled "Cost Comparisons of Treatment and Disposal
Alternatives for Hazardous Wastes: Volume I and Volume II," (Order Nos.
PB 81-125 814; Cost: $20.00 and PB 81-128 522; Cost: $9.50, subject to
change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
ft U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1961-757-012/7001
-------
United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, S300
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
U.
23')
i Librar;,-
. Environmental Protection A yjri:
S. I ' oa rbo r n St.
a-o, IL 6J60/.
EPA-353 (Cin) (Rev. 11-80)
------- |