United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Water Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-85/075 Aug. 1985
c/EPA Project Summary
Centralized Treatment of
Metal Finishing Wastes
at a Cleveland Resource
Recovery Park:
Part I: Design and Costs
Part II: Financing
Part III: Site Investigation
E. H. Comfort, P. Crampton, G. H. Cushnie, D. S. Harrison,
J. Kresky, C. G. Roberts, and R. D. Smith
This report, in three parts, describes
the characteristics of the Cleveland,
OH, area electroplating operations and
an approach and design for a central-
ized facility to treat cyanide and heavy
metal wastes generated by this indus-
try. This facility is termed the Resource
Recovery Park (RRP).
Part I examines the technical feasibil-
ity of the concept, assessing the wastes
of a number of platers in considerable
detail and designing the treatment and
recovery processes to be applied to
those wastes. Part II presents the re-
sults of a marketing study intended to
determine the incentives for individual
plating shops to participate in the sys-
tem. Part II also details the proposed
management and financing plan pro-
jecting an attractive rate of return to
investors. Part III describes an investi-
gation of a particular site and the ac-
companying design and costs.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Water Engineering Re-
search Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, to
announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in a
separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
In 1982, when this study was made,
the metal finishing industry in greater
Cleveland was composed of approxi-
mately 100 plants (76 within city limits),
the vast majority of which were small
electroplating job shops. These shops
discharged an average of 18,500 gal/day
of rinsewater that contained dilute con-
centrations of cyanide and various
heavy metals used* in the electroplating
process. EPA's pretreatment standards
require that the discharge of these pol-
lutants were to have been reduced by
April 27, 1984. In addition to the rinse-
water, electroplating shops generate
spent process solutions. Although the
volumes of these solutions are rela-
tively small (typically 300 gal/wk), the
concentration of heavy metals is quite
significant, often exceeding 1,000 mg/L.
EPA has listed spent solutions from
electroplating operations as RCRA haz-
ardous wastes.
The typical solution for compliance
with electroplating pretreatment regula-
tions is to install conventional physical/
chemical treatment consisting of
cyanide oxidation, hexavalent chromi-
um reduction, metals precipitation, and
-------
sludge dewatering. The conventional
system produces a sludge that is classi-
fied by EPA as hazardous and that re-
quires disposal in an approved landfill.
The EPA estimated capital and annual
operating waste treatment costs for an
average job shop complying with EPA
regulations in 1984 are $87,400 and
$22,400, respectively. This exceeds the
monetary capabilities of many electro-
plating shops; in fact, EPA estimates
that 20 percent of job shops will be
forced to close. Industry estimates on
job shop closures will be much higher.
With compliance, the disposal of
treatment sludges is also a financial
burden for many platers because of the
high cost of disposal and a lack of ap-
proved landfills. Sludges often must be
transported more than 100 miles to
landfills where the charge for disposal
may exceed $0.50 per gallon.
In 1977, EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD), anticipating the
potential impact to industry resulting
from compliance with wastewater and
solid waste regulations, began investi-
gating alternatives to on-site waste
treatment. The most promising alterna-
tive discovered to date is centralized
treatment. The primary assets of this
approach are economy of scale and im-
proved waste management. When re-
source recovery is included in the cen-
tral treatment system, not only are
operating costs reduced by the value of
the recovered materials, but the volume
of waste treatment residuals is de-
creased, thereby reducing the need for
hazardous waste disposal capacity. No
other alternatives were considered at-
tractive at this time.
Earlier studies have established the
economic feasibility of the Centralized
Waste Treatment (CWT) concept, its
successful application in the Ruhr Val-
ley in Germany, and its potential use in
five, widely differing municipalities.
The focus of this three-part report is
on defining the components of the
planned RRP. The results of the analysis
and design are presented, and a discus-
sion of the benefits of the proposed RRP
for the Cleveland metropolitan area and
the participating electroplaters is devel-
oped.
Design and Costs
In January 1981, the present CWT
project was initiated to develop a cen-
tral treatment facility design. To gather
data for the design, engineering visits
were made to 30 of the major electro-
plating shops in the area. Estimates
were then made of the waste volumes
and characteristics each shop would
contribute to the RRP, after application
of in-plant concentrating techniques.
A study to characterize the Cleveland
electroplating industry and to deter-
mine the local impact of environmental
regulations determined that all of the
shops would be required to meet the
federal pretreatment standards and that
the local publicly owned treatment
works plans to enforce its own pretreat-
ment standards. It was found that for
shops discharging 10,000 gpd or more,
the federal standards are the controlling
limits. For shops discharging less than
10,000 gpd, however, the federal limits
regulate the discharge of only cyanide,
lead, and cadmium. For these shops,
the local standards will be used for
other metal parameters such as nickel,
chromium, copper, and zinc.
The RRP treatment process design is
a conventional system with ion ex-
change regeneration capabilities. Metal
and cyanide recovery were not included
in the initial design because of technical
and economic considerations. A sche-
matic of the RRP operations as they may
eventually develop is given in Figure 1.
The capital and operating costs for
the 76-plant design were determined.
The total RRP investment cost is
$1,560,000. An additional $1,240,000
would be required to purchase ion ex-
change modules. It was assumed that
these modules would be owned by the
RRP system and leased to the plating
shops. Therefore, the total capital re-
quired by the 87-plant-capacity RRP is
$2,800,000. The operating costs for this
capacity design were calculated to be
$705,000. The resulting waste treatment
fee for the RRP is $0.085 per gallon of
waste received or per gallon of ion ex-.
change regeneration solution—the
amount needed to regenerate receiving
modules.
Financing
Part II presents the results of market-
ing, financial, and economic analyses of
the proposed RRP. The incentives for
participation, the proposed manage-
ment structure, the planned sources of
financing, and pro forma operating re-
sults are described.
The great majority of electroplating
shops in Cleveland would find it eco-
nomical to participate. All but the four to
six largest shops can pretreat their
wastes cheaper by joining the RRP than
they could by installing in-plant treat-
ment. Financing by a combination of
private equity capital and commercial
debentures is proposed, with owner-
ship in the hands of a private corpora-
tion. The return on investment to the
providers of the equity is shown to be
very attractive. Proposed fees are calcu-
lated based on a criteria of complete
capital recovery in 10 years at a cost of
funds of 20 percent in addition to a
profit of 10 percent of total annual costs
(including capital recovery). On this
basis, operating results are projected
for 10 years showing that revenues are
sufficient to achieve investment goals.
Although the proposed facility would
have the potential of providing addi-
tional economic benefit through recov-
ery of resources and cogeneratfon of
electricity and process heat, that benefit
is not included in the analysis pre-
sented.
Site Location
Part III of this report presents the re-
sults of an analysis of a specific site as a
potential location for the RRP. The anal-
ysis covers engineering and cost
aspects as well as ownership, manage-
ment, marketing, and financing con-
cerns.
The potential site has a number of sig-
nificant advantages that would increase
the likelihood of a successful RRP oper-
ation. The location and size of the site
and the availability of existing struc-
tures are primary assets.
The market evaluation for the specific
site indicates that for 54 of the 76 Cleve-
land electroplating shops the facility
could provide a savings when com-
pared with on-site treatment. The pro-
posed facility will have the potential of
providing additional economic benefit
through recovery of resources and co-
generation of electricity and process
heat.
A combination of a loan secured from
the program established by Ohio's Sen-
ate Bill 313 and the private placement of
stock appears to be the preferred
method of obtaining capital. The return
on investment to the providers of the
equity is shown to be approximately
13.1 percent.
Conclusions
For most industrial cities, major sav-
ings in total pollution control costs
could be obtained if a centralized facility
is established to treat the concentrated
wastes of a number of manufacturers.
This concept has been in practice in the
-------
3
Administrative
Office
Analytical
Laboratory
Area for
Treatment
Chemical
Receiving
Q) Truck Q
O
Roofed Waste
Receiving Area
Area Secured by Fencing
Recovered
Material
to Market
Discharge Solids Hauled
to City to Disposal Site
Sewer
Figure 1. Central processing facility.
Ruhr Valley of Germany for over 10
years, with almost complete success.
The facilities have been funded both pri-
vately and by municipalities (using their
credit and capital). In all cases, they are
fully supported by fees charged to those
sending wastes to the facility; yet fees
represent major savings to the partici-
pating industries over building individ-
ual facilities.
The concept of centralized waste
treatment offers relief for only one of
the problems facing most platers. The
problems of replacing outdated equip-
ment, obtaining cheaper energy, and in-
corporating cost-saving automation re-
main. The Cleveland RRP would not
only provide waste treatment for all
local users and those within a practical
shipping range, but would offer the fol-
lowing additional features:
• Facilities for recovering compo-
nents of wastes, where economi-
cally feasible
• Sites for relocating and moderniz-
ing facilities where the current loca-
tion is limited
• Low cost steam and electricity
through a central boiler-cogeneration
facility
• Centralized laboratory facilities
• Distributed computing services
• A pool of credit for qualifying partic-
ipants
• Centralized shipping services
Private financing of the proposed RRP
is shown to be a viable and attractive
venture. The steps being taken in Cleve-
land to achieve this goal should serve as
a model for other U.S. industrial com-
munities.
The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract No. 78-03-2907 by
CENTEC Corporation under the spon-
sorship of the U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
-------
E. H. Comfort, P. Crampton, G. H. Cushnie, D. S. Harrison, J. Kresky, C. G. Roberts,
andR. D. Smith are with Centec Corporation. Reston, VA 22090-5281.
Alfred B. Craig, Jr. was the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Centralized Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes at
a Cleveland Resource Recovery Park: Part I. Design and Costs, Part/1. Financing,
Part III. Site Investigation," (Order No. PB 85-217 651 /AS; Cost: $23.50,
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:
Water Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S2-85/075
------- |