&EHV
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Researc
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-81-143 Sept. 1981
Project Summary
Group Treatment
Evaluation for Metal Finishers
E. Comfort, D. Harrison, and D. Sherman
Group treatment is one alternative
for firms faced with the problem of
compliance with pretreatment regula-
tions. A preliminary study of the
concept as applied to the plating firms
within Huntington Industrial Park,
Providence, Rl, was conducted. It was
found that, with the assumed 10 par-
ticipating firms, substantial savings
could be realized. The effects of
financing cost and wastewater haul-
ing charge on savings achieved were
investigated, as were the benefits of
installation of a piped wastewater
collection system. The most cost-
effective decision for each partici-
pating firm was identified. An
approach to financing the proposed
facility is outlined.
This Project Summary was develop-
ed by EPA's Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati. OH,
to announce key findings of the
research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
This work was performed during the
period February-June 1980. It was
Work^ffort No. 2 under EPA Contract
No. 68-03-2907. The objective of the
undertaking was the determination of
the feasibility of group treatment for
Huntington Park, and the establishment
of a protocol thereby for conducting
such feasibility studies.
Various economic evaluations have
shown that joint treatment offers signif-
icant savings in capital and operating
cost for manufacturing facilities that
have similar wastes and that are located
within a reasonable distance. Although
many factors affect the economics,
generalized studies show that substan-
tial savings can be attained when
greater than 10 facilities are combined.
One method of achieving this is
through regional centralized treatment.
This concept is being investigated
through other IERL activities. Another
important option, private group treat-
ment, exclusive of any region-wide
activity, also appeared to have merit.
Previous studies of group treatment
have shown that intercompany and
other institutional barriers have inter-
fered with firms reaching a mutually
satisfactory joint arrangement. Ques-
tions related to allocating basic waste
loads, allocating costs, and appropriate
siting, interfered with the implementa-
tion of these plans.
Since these earlier studies, many
additional incentives for group treat-
ment have arisen. New government
financing alternatives and the in-
creased likelihood of significant pre-
treatment requirements combined with
RCRA requirements for sludge disposal
have all increased the incentives.
This study has aimed at providing a
financial and technical package de-
signed to minimize economic penalties
for Group Treatment participants by
utilizing:
-------
• The most advantageous financing
• The most economic and effective
technology
• A structure for the financing and
technology which meets the
needs of all participants.
Summary of Results
Each potential participant was sur-
veyed and wastewater sampled. Results
were entered into a joint treatment
model used to size the Group Treatment
Facility (GTF). Results (when all 10
potential participants were included in
analysis) are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
The capital required was estimated at
$300,000 to $800,000. The SBA
Pollution Control Financing Guarantee
Program was shown to be very
attractive for such amounts, particularly
when combined with an issue of tax-
exempt bonds.
The Group Treatment Facility at
Huntington Industrial Park was found to
require a permit from the State of Rhode
Island authorizing it to operate as a
Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility.
Truck hauling of the wastewater would
be required to comply with applicable
regulations concerning the transport of
hazardous wastes. The GTF will, in addi-
tion, be faced with the cost of disposing
of the dewatered sludge in an environ-
mentally safe manner, in an approved
hazardous material landfill (assuming
that such sludges are classified as
hazardous). These costs were not con-
sidered in the analysis of savings to be
achieved" through group treatment,
since the sgrne costs, proportionately,
would have to be borne by the partici-
pants were they to choose to treat their
wastes individually. It was reported that
the GTF may, in fact, effect some
savings here since it would be shipping
to the landfill by 20 cubic yard truck
loads rather than by the drum.
Conclusion
The proposed GTF was shown to be
feasible for Huntington Industrial Park
and to effect considerable cost savings
for the participants when compared to
their costs of complying with the pre-
treatment regulations individually.
Installation of an industrial sewer
system within the park, while more than
doubling the demands for initial capital,
would be cost-effective in the long run.
While the analysis performed consider-
ed only conventional treatment
Table 1. Investment Required With and Without Group Treatment
In-plant Investment Without
Group Treatment $1,229.864
In-plant Investment With
Group Treatment $215,673
Capital Cost of the GTF 287,991 503,664
Capital Savings $ 726.200
Table 2. Group Treatment Facility Capital Cost Breakdown
Chemical Oxidation
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Sludge Dewatering
Storage
Laboratory, Shelter, etc.
72,496
Total
$ 23,059
42,772
36,066
113.598
$287.991
processes, further study is warranted to
investigate the benefits of recovery
technology for copper and nickel at the
'GTF. The process capacities at the GTF
were arrived at by considering the
needs of the group treatment partici-
pants within the park. Relatively small
additional investment would allow
process capacities to be increased so
that the same facility could accept
similar wastes from some of the very
small job shops in the region, those
which otherwise would be most
severely impacted by the pretreatment
regulations.
E. Comfort, D. Harrison, andD. Sherman are with CENTEC Corporation, Reston,
VA 22090.
Alfred B. Craig, Jr. is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Group Treatment Evaluation for Metal Finishers,"
(Order No. PB 81-232 506; 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
A U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1981 — 757-012/7354
-------
-------
United States Center for Environmental Research Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Information
Agency Cincinnati OH 45268 Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED _. . „,
Third-Class
Bulk Rate
------- |