530SW149C
     VntLpu.btic.cttA.on tu.e. ^on EPA
    and State. Sotid Watte. Management Agencx.e-6
   ALTERNATIVES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

       IN THE  INORGANIC  CHEMICALS  INDUSTRY
                (SW-I49c) deAc.su.bu
     the. Fe.de.tiat &oJUid watte, management piogiam
          undeA contract no. 6&-01-4190
and -U, ^epioduced out, ?ie.c.eA.ve.d faom the. c.ontnac.ton
        Copies will be available from the
     National Technical Information Service
           U.S. Department of Commerce
          Springfield, Virginia    22161
      U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                      1977
                              PRorECN

-------
This report as submitted by the grantee or contractor has been technically
reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Publication
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of EPA, nor does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement by the tkS. Government.

An environmental protection publication (SW-149c) in the solid waste
management series.

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section

1.0       INTRCDUCTION	   1-1

          1.1  Project Scope	   1-1
          1.2  Project Objective	   1-2
          1.3  Project Background	   1-2
          1.4  Project Methodology	   1-3
               1.4.1  Data Acquisition	   1-4
               1.4.2  Develop Data Base	   1-4
               1.4.3  Treatment Process Selection	   1-4
               1.4.4  Process Information Analysis	   1-5
               1.4.5  Cost Analyses of Selected Treatments ....   1-6
               1.4.6  Cost Analysis of Land Disposal	   1-6
               1.4.7  Cost Comparisons	   1-7

2.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	   2-1

          2.1  Introduction	   2-1
          2.2  Alternative Treatment Processes 	   2-1
          2.3  Costs for Land Disposal Options	   2-3
          2.4  Cost Comparisons of Alternate Treatment Processes
                 to the landfill Options	   2-7
          2.5  Effect of Treatment Cost on Product Price	   2-7

3.0       MAJOR .''.OLID WASTE PROBU-M AREAS IN THE INORGANIC
            CHEMICALS INDUSTRY 	   3-1

          3.1  Introduction	   3-1
          3.2  Identification of Problem Areas	   3-1
          3.3  Description and Characterization of Potentially
                 Hazardous Waste Streams 	   3-2
               3.3.1  Chlor-Alkali Manufacture	   3-2
               3.3.2  Sodium Manufacture	   3-3
               3.3.3  Titanium Dioxide, Chloride Process	   3-8
               3.3.4  Chrome Colors and Inorganic Pigment
                        Manufacture	   3-11
               3.3.5  Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacture	   3-18
               3.3.6  Boric Acid Manufacture 	   3-18
               3.3.7  Aluminum Fluoride Manufacture	   3-18
               3.3.8  Antimony Oxide Manufacture	   3-21
               3.3.9  Sodium Silicofluoride Manufacture  	   3-21
               3.3.10 Chrcmate Manufacture 	   3-21
               3.3.11 Nickel Sulfate Manufacture 	   3-25
               3.3.12 Phosphorus Manufacture, Furnace Process  .  .   3-25
               3.3.13 Phosphorus Pentasulfide Manufacture  ....   3-28
               3.3.14 Phosphorus Trichloride Manufacture 	   3-28
                                  111

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section                                                             Page

4.0       GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED FOR
            TREATING INORGANIC WASTES  	   4-1

          4.1  Introduction	   4-1
               4.1.1  Calcination	   4-1
               4.1.2  Dissolution	   4-1
               4.1.3  Distillation	   4-7
               4.1.4  Electrolysis	   4-7
               4.1.5  Evaporation	   4-7
               4.1.6  Filtraton	   4-8
               4.1.7  High Gradient Magnetic Separation (HGMS)  .  .   4-8
               4.1.8  Neutralization and pH Control	   4-8
               4.1.9  Precipitation	   4-9

5.0       TREATMENT PROCESSES SELECTED FOR A GIVEN WASTE STREAM.  .   5-1

          5.1  Introduction	   5-1
               5.1.1  Waste Streams 1 and 2, Brine Purification
                        Mud and Mercury Wastes from Treatment and
                        Cleaning - Mercury Cell Process, Chlor-
                        Alkali Manufacture 	   5-2
               5.1.2  Waste Stream 4, Asbestos Separator Wastes -
                        Diaphragm Cell Process 	   5-22
               5.1.3  Waste Stream 5, Lead-containing Wastes -
                        Diaphragm Cell Process 	   5-32
               5.1.4  Waste Stream 6, Metallic Sodium/Calcium
                        Wastes - Down's Cell Process 	   5-40
               5.1.5  Waste Stream 7, Wastevater Treatment Sludges,
                        Titanium Dioxide, Chloride Process ....   5-55
               5.1.6  Waste Stream 8, Wastevater Treatment Sludges,
                        Chrome Color and Inorganic Pigment Manu-
                        facturing  	   5-59
               5.1.7  Waste Stream 9, Gypsum Waste Sludges - HF
                        Acid Manufacture .	   5-81
               5.1.8  Waste Stream 11, Wastevater Treatment
                        Sludges - Aluminum Fluoride Manufacture.  .   5-84
               5.1.9  Waste Stream 13, Wastewater Treatment
                        Sludges - Sodium Silicofluoride Manu-
                        facture  	   5-96
               5.1.10 Waste Stream 14, Chromate Contaminated
                        Wastewater Treatment Sludges - Chromate
                        Manufacture	   5-99
               5.1.11 Waste Stream 15, Nickel-containing Wastes
                        from Wastewater Treatment - Nickel
                        Sulfate Manufacture  	   5-106
                                  IV

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section

               5.1.12 Waste Stream 16A, Calcium Fluoride
                        Bearing Wastes from Phosphorus
                        Manufacture	   5-118
               5.1.13 Waste Stream 16B, Phossy Water -
                        Phosphorus Manufacture 	   5-121
               5.1.14 Waste Stream 18, Arsenic Chloride Wastes
                        from Phosphorus Trichloride Manufacturf. .   ^-1.29

6.0       LAND DISPOSAL OPTION COSTS	   6-1
          6.1  Types of Land Disposal Facilities Considered  . . .   6-1
               6.1.1  landfill Design Basis	   6-1
          6.2  Cost Basis for Land Disposal Options	   6-4
               6.2.1  Capital Costs	   6-4
               6.2.2  Operating Expenses	   6-7
          6.3  Costs for Plant Operated Sanitary and Chemical
                 Landfills	   6-8
               6.3.1  Streams 1 and 2 - Brine Purification Muds
                        and Mercury-Bearing Sludge from Wastewater
                        Treatment - Mercury Cell Process 	   6-8
               6.3.2  Waste Streams 3, 4 and 5 - Chlorinated
                        Hydrocarbons, Asbestos Separator Wastes
                        and Lead-Bearing Sludges - Diaphragm Cell
                        Process	   6-10
               6.3.3  Waste Stream 6 - Metallic Sodium-Calcium
                        Wastes - Down's Cell Process	   6-12
               6.3.4  Waste Stream 7 - Wastewater Treatment
                        Sludges - Titanium Dioxide, Chloride
                        Process	   6-13
               6.3.5  Waste Stream 8 - Wastewater Treatment
                        Sludges - Chrome Color and Inorganic
                        Pigment Manufacture  	   6-15
               6.3.6  Waste Stream 9 - Gypsum Waste from Hydro-
                        fluoric Acid Manufacture	   6-17
               6.3.7  Waste Stream 11 - Wastewater Treatment
                        Sludges from Aluminum Fluoride Manu-
                        facture  	   6-20
               6.3.8  Waste Stream 13 - Fluoride Wastes from
                        Sodium Slilcofluoride Manufacture  ....   6-22
               6.3.9  Waste Stream 14 - Chromium Contaminated
                        Wastewater Treatment Sludges from
                        Chromate Manufacture 	   6-24
               6.3.10 Waste Stream 15 - Nickel-Containing Wastes
                        from Wastewater Treatment,  Nickel Sulfate
                        Manufacture	   6-24
                                    v

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
 Section

                6.3.11 Waste Streams 16A and 16B - Fluoride
                         Waste and Phossy Water - Phosphorus
                         Manufacture  ...............   6-26
                6.3.12 Waste Stream 17 - Arsenic and Phosphorus
                         Wastes - Phosphorus Pentasulf ide Manu-
                         facture  .................   6-30
                6.3.13 Waste Stream 18 - Arsenic Chloride Waste -
                         Phosphorus Trichloride Manufacture ....   6-33

 7.0       COMPARISON STUDIES ...................   7-1

           7.1  Capital Investment and Operating Cost Canparisons
                  Between Alternate Treatment Methods and the Two
                  Land Disposal Options ..............   7-1
                7.1.1  Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing Plants  .....   7-1
                7.1.2  Sodium Manufacturing Plants - Waste
                         Stream 6 .................   7-2
                7.1.3  Chloride Process, Titanium Dioxide Plants -
                         Waste Stream 7B  .............   7-2
                7.1.4  Chrome Color and Inorganic Pigments Manu-
                         facturing Plants - Waste Stream 8  ....   7-2
                7.1.5  Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacturing Plants -
                         Waste Stream 9 ..............   7-3
                7.1.6  Aluminum Fluoride Manufacturing Plants -
                         Waste Stream 11  .............   7-3
                7.1.7  Sodium Silicofluoride Manufacturing Plants -
                         Waste Stream 13  .............   7-3
                7.1.8  Chromates Manufacturing Plants - Waste
                         Stream 14  ................   7-3
                7.1.9  Nickel Sulfate Manufacturing Plants - Waste
                         Stream 15  ................   7-3
                7.1.10 Elemental Phosphorus Manufacturing Plants -
                         Waste Streams 16A and 16B  ........   7-3
                7.1.11 Phosphorus Trichloride Manufacturing Plants -
                         Waste Stream 18  .............   7-4
           7.2  Effect of Treatment Cost on Product Price .....   7-19
           7.3  Effect of Land Disposal Cost on Product Price . . .   7-19
           7.4  Product Recovery Economics  ............   7-19

 8.0       REFERENCES .......................   8-1

 9.0       GLOSSARY ........................   9-1

10.0       ACKNOWTjaXl^ENTS  ....................  10-1

                  x r .......................   r-i
                                    vi

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS  (continued)








Section                                                             Page




          APPENDIX II	H-l



          APPENDIX TIT	III-l
                                  VII

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS   (continued)

                             LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

 1        Chlor-Alkali Manufacture, Mercury Cell Process	3-7
 2        Chlor-Alkali Manufacture, Diaphragm Cell Process  ....  3-9
 3        Sodium and Chlorine Manufacture Down's Cell
            Process	3-10
 4        Titanium Dioxide Manufacture by the Chloride
            Process Using Rutile Ore or Ilmenite Ore	3-12
 5        Chrome Yellow Manufacture  	  3-13
 6        Molybdate Chrome Orange Manufacture  	  3-14
 7        Zinc Yellow Manufacture	3-15
 8        Chrome Green Manufacture	  .  3-16
 9        Iron Blues Manufacture	3-17
10        Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacture	3-19
11        Boric Acid Manufacture	3-20
12        Aluminum Fluoride Manufacture	3-22
13        Sodium Silicofluoride Manufacture	3-23
14        Sodium Silicofluoride Manufacture from an Impure
            Phosphoric Acid Stream	3-24
15        Sodium Dichrortiate and Chromate Manufacture	3-26
16        Nickel Sulfate Manufacture	3-27
17        Phosphorus Manufacture	3-29
18        Phosphorus Pentasulfide Manufacture  	  3-30
19        Phosphorus Trichloride Manufacture 	  3-31

20        Mercury Recovery by Sodium Hypochlorite Dissolu-
            tion (system 01100)  	5-5
21        Mercury Recovery by Roasting of the Sludge
            (system 01200)	5-17
22        Asbestos Detoxification by Fusion (system 04100)   ....  5-29
23        Recovery of Lead by Smelting of Dewatered Sludge
            (system 05100)	5-37
24        Recovery of Sodium Metal by Electrolysis (system
            06100)	5-47
25        Detoxification of Metal Hydroxides by Calcination
            (system 07100)	5-56
26        Detoxification of Metal Hydroxides by Calcination
            (system 08100)	5-66
27        Detoxification of Metal Hydroxides by Evaporation
            and Asphalting (system 08200)  	5-74
28        Treatment of Gypsum Waste Containing Calcium
            Fluoride by Evaporation and Asphalting
            (system 09100)	5-82
29        Treatment of Calcium Fluoride Bearing Sludges by
            Evaporation and Asphalting (system 11100)  	  5-89
30        Treatment of Calcium Fluoride Bearing Wastes by
            Evaporation and Asphalting (system 13100)  	5-97
31        Detoxification of Chromate Wastes by Calcination
            (system 14100)	5-104
                                  Vlll

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS   (continued)

                              LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                              Page

32        Recovery of Nickel Hydroxide by High Gradient
            Magnetic Separation  (system 15100) 	  5-112
33        Treatment of Calcium Fluoride Bearing Wastes
            by Evaporation and Asphalting (system 16A100)  ....  5-119
34        Recovery of Phosphorus by Heat Treatment and
            Distillation  (system 16^100)	5-126
35        Recovery of Arsenic Trichloride by Distillation
            (system 18100)	5-135

36        Extrapolated Material Price Through 1981 	  7-24
                                   xx

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS  (continued)

                             LIST OF TABLES

Table

 1        Summary of Technically Demonstrated Alternative
            Treatment Systems	2-2
 2        Summary of Conceptual Alternative Treatment
            Systems	2-4
 3        Summary of Cost for Land Disposal Options	2-6
 4        Cost Comparisons for Alternate Treatment Systems
            and Landfill Options 	  2-8
 5        Effect of Treatment and Land Disposal Costs on
            Product Price  	  2-9

 6        The Characteristics and Composition of Solid
            Waste Streams Generated by the Inorganic
            Chemicals Industry 	  3-3

 7        Matrix for Comparing Unit Processes  	  4-2

 8        Benefit Analysis	5-7
 9        System 01100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-11
10        Capital Cost and Annual Operating Costs for
            Treatment System 01100	5-15
11        System 01200, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-23
12        Treatment System 01200 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost . . '	5-26
13        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 01200
            Based on Multiple-Hearth Roaster Operation
            (Scheme 01200A)  	5-27
14        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 01200
            Based on Fluidized Bed Roaster Operation
            (Scheme 01200B)  	  5-28
15        System 04100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions .	5-33
16        Treatment System 04100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-35
17        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 04100  .  .  .  5-36
18        System 05100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-41
19        Treatment System 05100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-44
20        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 05100  .  .  .  5-45
21        System 06100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-51
22        Treatment System 06100 - Total Capital and Annual
            Operating Costs	5-53
23        System 07100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-60
                                   x

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS   (continued)

                             LIST OF TABLES

Table

24        Treatment System 07100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-63
25        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 07100  ,.  .  .  5-64
26        System 08100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-69
27        Treatment System 08100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-71
28        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 08100  .  .  .  5-72
29        System 08200, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Opo.mt.inq Conditions	5-77
30        TreatitiMU. System OH200 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-79
31        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 08200  .  .  .  5-80
32        System 09100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-85
33        Treatment System 09100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-87
34        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 09100  .  .  .  5-88
35        System 11100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-92
36        Treatment System 11100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-94
37        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 11100  .  .  .  5-95
38        System 13100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-100
39        Treatment System 13100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-102
40        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 13100  .  .  .  5-103
41        System 14100 - Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-107
42        Treatment System 14100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-109
43        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 14100  .  .  .  5-110
44        System 15100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-115
45        Treatment System 15100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-116
46        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 15100  .  .  .  5-117
47        System 16A100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions	5-122
48        Treatment System 16A100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-124
49        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 16A100 .  .  .  5-125
50        System 16B100, Equipment Needs, Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	  5-130
51        Treatment System 16B100 - Total Installed Capital
            Cost	5-133
52        Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 16B100 .   .  .  5-134
                                  XI

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS  (continued)

                             LIST OF TABLES
          System 18100,  Equipment Needs,  Specifications and
            Operating Conditions 	   5-139
          Treatment System 18100 - Total  Installed Capital
            Cost	5-140
          Annual Operating Costs for Treatment System 18100  .  .  .   5-141

56        Material Costs for Plastic Liners (1976) 	   6-6
57        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Mercury
            Cell Process, Alkalies & Chlorine	6-9
58        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Diaphragm
            Cell Process, Alkalies & Chlorine  	   6-11
59        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Down's
            Cell Process, Alkalies and Chlorine	6-14
60        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Titanium
            Dioxide Pigment, Chloride Process  	   6-16
61        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Chrome
            Pigments and Iron Blue	6-18
62        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Hydro-
            Fluoric Acid Manufacture	6-19
63        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Aluminum
            Fluoride Manufacture 	   6-21
64        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Sodium
            Silicofluoride Manufacture 	   6-23
65        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Chromate
            Manufacture	6-25
66        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Nickel
            Sulfate Manufacture  	   6-27
67        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Phosphorus
            Manufacture	6-29
68        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Phosphorus
            Manufacture	6-31
69        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Phosphorus
            Pentasulfide Manufacture	6-32
70        Costs for Sanitary and Chemical Landfill - Phosphorus
            Trichloride Manufacture  	   6-34

71        Comparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at a Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plant	7-5
72        Comparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at a Diaphragm Cell Chlor-Alkali Plant 	   7-6
73        Comparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at a Downs Cell Metallic Sodium Plant	7-7
74        Comparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at a Chloride Process Titanium Dioxide Plant 	   7-8
75        Comparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at a Chrome Color and Inorganic Pigment Manu-
            facturing Plant	7-9
                                   Xll

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS  (continued)

                             LIST OF TABLES

Table

76        Comparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at a Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacturing Plant	7-10
77        Comparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at an Aluminum Fluoride Manufacturing Plant	7-11
78        Ccnparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at a Sodium Silicofluoride Manufacturing Plant ....  7-12
79        Comparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at a Chromates Manufacturing Plant	7-13
80        Ccnparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at a Nickel Sulfate Manufacturing Plant	7-14
81        Ccnparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at an Elemental Phosphorus Manufacturing Plant ....  7-15
82        Comparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at an Elemental Phosphorus Manufacturing Plant ....  7-16
83        Comparison of Treatment Costs for Waste Generated
            at a Phosphorus Trichloride Manufacturing Plant  ...  7-17
84        Comparison Studies - Annual Operating Costs and
            Energy Requirements	7-18
85        Effect of Treatment Cost on Product Price  	  7-20
86        Effect of Land Disposal Option Cost on Product Price .  .  7-21
87        Resource Recovery Treatment Systems - Recovered
            Material Current Break-even Point  	  7-22
88        Resource Recovery Treatment Systems - Comparison of
            Current and Five-year Projection Recovered
            Commodity Price Against Break-even Point 	  7-23

89        Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide on Humans	1-6

90        EPA Supplied Cost Items	II-2

-------
1.0  INTRODUCTION

     1.1  Project Scope

          This report is the result of a study caiuu-ssioned by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) to assess the alternatives to land
disposal for the treatment/disposal of industrial wastes generated by the
inorganic chemicals industry and which have been identified as "potentially
hazardous" in an earlier EPA study conducted under Contract No. 68-01-2246.

          This study, referred to as "The Alternatives Study", identifies
technically feasible treatment techniques for potentially hazardous wastes.
These treatment techniques accomplish resource recovery, waste detoxifica-
tion or reduce the volume of waste for ultimate disposal.  According to the
priority developed by EPA, resource recovery techniques are preferred to
detoxification or destruction methods, which in turn are preferred over land
disposal.

          Versar, Inc., General Technologies Division, began this project
for the EPA's Office of Solid Waste  (OSW) on September 1, 1976.  This
report contains the essential elements of the technical information in five
major sections.  The results are summarized in the Executive Summary,
Section 2.0.

          Section 3.0- Major Solid Waste Problem Areas in Inorganic
                        Chemicals Industry

            Identifies the potentially hazardous waste streams under
            study and characterizes the industries which generate these
            wastes with regard to the number, location, size and their
            production capacity.

          Section 4.0 - General Description of Technologies Appropriate
                        for Treating Inorganic Wastes

            Discusses technologies applicable for treating inorganic
            waste streams.

          Section 5.0 - Treatment Processes Selected for a Given Waste
                        Stream

            Identifies, describes, analyzes and costs the processes selected
            for the treatment of a given waste stream.

          Section 6.0 - Land Disposal of Wastes

            Defines land disposal options and estimates the cost of
            implementation of plant operated individual sanitary and
            chemical landfills for each waste stream.
                                  1-1

-------
          Section 7.0 - Comparison Studies

            Compares the cost of the proposed treatment process to sanitary
            and chemical land disposal for each waste stream.

          The individual elements of each of these phases are presented in
detail in their respective sections of this report.

     1.2  Project Objective

          The objective of this project is to identify and cost promising
resource recovery and detoxification oriented treatment techniques which
are applicable to the potentially hazardous wastes generated by the
inorganic chemicals industry.  The purposes of this investigation are
threefold:

          (1) To provide information on technically feasible alternatives
to current inadequate disposal methods.  These alternatives may be needed
if current practices are to be restricted by legislation.

          (2) To assemble data needed by industry in its effort to deal with
increasing volumes of potentially hazardous solid wastes.

          (3) To identify research and development needs for selected treat-
ment processes showing a potential for improved waste management.

     1.3  Project Background

          This study is a follow-on to two prior studies sponsored by the
Office of Solid Waste.  These are:

          (1) "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practice,
          Inorganic Chemicals Industry" conducted under EPA Contract
          68-01-2246.  This study characterized the industries, identified
          the types, quantities, and sources of potentially hazardous
          wastes generated by the industry and assessed the current
          disposal/treatment technologies utilized by the industry.
          Certain wastes were classified as being potentially hazardous.
          No final judgments were passed as to this classification.  It
          was recognized and understood that additional information would
          be required regarding the actual fate of such materials in a
          given "disposal" environment.  An in-depth analysis of this
          industry revealed that most of these wastes are land disposed
          in poorly designed facilities and are being handled in an
          environmentally unacceptable manner.
                                  1-2

-------
          (2)  "Application of Physical, Chemical and Biological Treatment
          Techniques to Hazardous Waste Management" conducted under EPA
          Contract 68-01-2288.  Using literature searches, plant visits
          and personal interviews, the "Treatment Study" provided a
          comprehensive, in-depth, state-of-the-art study of 43 chemical,
          physical and biological unit processes that could treat
          potentially hazardous wastes.  While the "Treatment Study"
          offers a useful orientation regarding the general potential
          utility of the various unit processes for the design and
          implementation of resource recovery, detoxification and volume
          reduction systems, it is not aimed to provide detailed designs
          of such systems for specific waste streams; rather, it is aimed
          to provide background information that would aid subsequent
          "Alternative Study" contractors in selecting relevant treat-
          ment processes for specific waste streams.

          These two previous efforts form the backbone of the "Alternatives
Study".  This study focuses on  (a) the nineteen waste streams identified
as potentially hazardous in EPA Contract 68-01-2246 and  (b) the 43 physical,
chemical and biological treatment techniques identified in EPA Contract
68-01-2288 as having potential utility for waste treatment.  According to
EPA's directive, any treatment technology which was not covered by the
"Treatment Study" was to be considered outside of the scope of work in this
study.

     1.4  Project Methodology

          The conduct of the project can be described in terms of the
following work phases:

          (1)  data acquisition,

          (2)  develop data basis for the physical form of the waste
              streams, waste quantities and chemical composition,

          (3)  select treatment processes for each waste stream,

          (4)  process information analysis,

          (5)  cost analysis of selected treatment processes,

          (6)  cost analysis of land disposal,

          (7)  cost conparison.
                                 1-3

-------
          1.4.1  Data Acquisition

          The data needed for this study were obtained by five different
methods.  The first was by reviewing published information in the technical
literature and government documents made available by OSW.  These references
are cited throughout this report and listed in Section 8.0.

          The second method involved the utilization of in-house data com-
piled during the previous work on assessment of industrial hazardous waste
practices and effluent limitations guidelines studies on the inorganic
chemicals industry for the EPA.

          A third method involved trade association participation.  The
Chlorine Institute in New York City and the Manufacturing Chemists Associa-
tion in Washington, D.C., were contacted for assistance.

          The fourth method of data acquisition was by contacting various
plants and knowledgeable personnel of inorganic chemical manufacturing
establishments to generate missing data on waste streams and obtain detailed
process information on several full scale, operational resource recovery
processes.  Names of individuals contacted are also cited in this report.

          The fifth method was to utilize the consultation services of the
"Treatment Study" contractor, provided by EPA, to transfer expeditiously
the expertise gained on various unit operations relative to this study.

          1.4.2  Develop Data Base

          At the onset of the project, it was recognized that a well
organized data base on the subject of potentially hazardous waste streams
was essential to formulate meaningful conclusions regarding opportunities
for resource recovery, detoxification and volume reduction.  Therefore,
an initial objective of the project was taken to be the assembly of a
base set of solid waste characterization information.  Emphasis was placed
upon the review of in-house information and collection and assessment of
missing data to bridge the gaps.  Accordingly, the industry and several
trade and professional organizations were contacted and the necessary data
assembled and compiled.  The waste streams under consideration were then
characterized in terms of their physical form, chemical composition and
were quantified in terms of metric tons per day of each identified waste
component based on a typical plant size of the manufacturing establishment
which generates these wastes during the course of their production.

          1.4.3  Treatment Process Selection

          After waste stream characterization, an intensive effort was
directed toward a detailed literature search and reviewing and analyzing
information presented in the document entitled "Analysis of Potential
Application of Physical, Chemical and Biological Treatment Techniques to
Hazardous Waste Management".  The first criterion used in process selection
was to eliminate inappropriate processes from consideration at the earliest
stage possible.  Most of the 43 processes identified in the "Treatment
Study" as treatment processes are unit operations, several of which would
                                     1-4

-------
normally have to be combined in series to form a complete treatment system for
a given waste stream.  Twenty of these processes were found to have no
potential application to inorganic chemical industry wastes.  This left
23 as potentially useful processes to be investigated.  Subsequently,
wastes were matched with treatment processes.  Factors considered
essential and used in comparing attractive individual processes were:

          (1)  the physical form of the waste stream and the feed
               requirement of the individual unit processes,

          (2)  the potential of individual applicable processes for
               material recovery, energy recovery, detoxification or
               immobilization,

          (3)  the expected environmental impact from each suitable
               unit process,

          (4)  the developmental state of the applicable unit processes,

          (5)  the technical feasibility of the applicable processes
               without consideration of economic aspects.

          For each waste stream, characterized by its physical form and
hazardous components, the matrix criteria presented in Section 4.0 were
used to select potentially applicable treatment processes.  This matrix also
provided guidance for eliminating processes that were inapplicable to a
given waste  stream.  Because of the treatment priority order defined  by OSW,
the first attempt was to look for those processes which would either  lead
directly to  a reusable resource or would convert the waste to a form  from
which resources might be more easily recovered.  Detoxification and volume
reduction were considered only if the waste stream did not lend itself to
resource recovery.

          Based on in-house expertise 'and upon information provided by the
"Treatment Study" document, an attempt was made to identify several
innovative resource recovery or detoxification possibilities for each waste
stream.  These treatment possibilities were then discussed and reviewed
with the pertinent "Treatment Study" contractor staff members during  joint
sessions at  their offices.  The processes identified as having the best
potential to treat each of the wastes were submitted to EPA for review
and approval.

          1.4.4  Process Information Analysis

          Subsequent to treatment process selection, details on each  pro-
cess were compiled and the process was translated into specific major unit
operations and equipment for system evaluation and cost estimating efforts.

          An inventory of major identifiable equipment was prepared for
each process under study.  Flow diagrams, equipment lists and factual
information  lists were compiled.  In the equipment lists, each identified
unit process or unit of equipment is indexed for grouping equipment in a
treatment train.  Each equipment item is assigned a 5-digit identification
                                     1-5

-------
number; the first two digits identify the waste stream  (01 through 18) ;
the third digit defines the treatment train alternative  (1 or 2) and the
last two digits identify each unit operation or unit of equipment in the
process train.

          For those processes which are known and proven technologies,
material balance and heat requirement information was obtained from industry
and appropriate adjustments were made based on plant sizes.  For processes
which were highly conceptual in nature, available efficiency information on
each unit of equipment and engineering judgements were used to generate
material balances.  The equipment inventories were used as working lists
in preparing cost estimates for the fixed equipment and energy requirements.

          1.4.5  Cost Analyses of Selected Treatments

          Cost information contained in this report was assembled directly
from industry, engineering firms, equipment suppliers, various cost curves
in the literature, various chemical process plant cost publications and
cost curves developed by the Contractor based on actual industrial installations.
Cross-checks were made whenever information was available from different
sources.  The estimates presented were prepared on an engineering basis,
using accepted engineering format.

          The most referred to cost references in this study (other than
direct information from companies using the particular processes and
vendors of the particular machinery) were:

(1)  Miller, H.E. "Costs of Process Equipment."  Chemical Engineering
     March 16, 1974

(2)  Parker, C.L. "Estimating the Cost of Wastewater Treatment Ponds."
     Pollution Engineering, Nov. 1975.

(3)  Perry, R.H. and C.H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers Handbook, 5th
     Edition, McGraw Hill Book Co., N.Y., N.Y., pp. 19-72 to 19-86,
     pp. 20-23 to 20-44, pp. 20-120 to 20-121.

(4)  Richardson Engineering Services, Process Plant Construction Estimating
     Standards, Vol. 4, 1975.

          Appendix II details the cost bases for the cost analysis tasks.
It should be noted that seventeen cost items were standardized and supplied
by EPA.  This was done to allow cost comparisons of similar "alternatives
studies" being conducted by other contractors for different industries.

          1.4.6  Cost Analysis of Land Disposal

          Two land disposal options are costed in this study; sanitary landfill
and chemical landfill, both operated by the waste generator.  The land
disposal costs are specific for each waste stream being generated by a
typical size plant.  The detailed design bases for both sanitary and chemical
landfills for each waste stream are presented in Section 6.0 of this report.
Sample calculations for land disposal options are presented as Appendix III.
                                    1-6

-------
          1.4.7  Cost Comparisons

          Capital investment and operating cost comparisons were made between
selected treatment methods and the two land disposal options.  These are
discussed in detail in Section 7.0.
                                      1-7

-------
2.0  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

     2.1   Introduction

           The manufacturing facilities in the  inorganic chemicals  industry
were found to be disposing on land over  2 x 106 metric tons  (dry basis)
of potentially hazardous wastes annually.  This was determined during EPA
Contract 68-01-2246, where nineteen potentially hazardous waste streams were
identified.  More recently, EPA has sponsored  another study aimed  at defining
possible alternative waste handling procedures (Contract No.  68-01-2288).
While this latter study defines the potential  utility of the  various unit
processes  for the design and inplementation of resource recovery,  detoxifica-
tion and volume reduction processes, it  does not provide detailed  designs of
such systems.  This study does provide background  information that will aid
subsequent investigators in selecting relevant treatment processes for specific
waste streams.

           The purpose of the present investigation is to assess alternatives
to land disposal for potentially hazardous wastes  generated by the inorganic
chemicals  industry.  The objective is to identify  and analyze promising re-
source recovery and detoxification oriented treatment techniques which are
alternatives to currently practiced disposal methods.

     2.2   Alternative Treatment Processes

           Table 1 summarizes information on those  processes which  have already
been technically demonstrated.  All four treatment trains in  this  table are
resource recovery processes.  Processes  01100  and  01200 are for mercury bearing
wastes (streams 1 and 2) generated by mercury  cell plants in  the chlor-alkali
industry.  Process 01100 is currently in use by one plant and process 01200
was used by another plant and shut down  because of mechanical difficulties.
The recommended process 01200 contains modifications to alleviate  the mechanical
difficulties and would require demonstration to ascertain its technical viability.
Process 06100 is for sodium/calcium wastes (stream 6) generated by the Down's
cell process used for sodium manufacture.  This treatment process  was used by
one sodium manufacturer but was discontinued because of personnel  safety
and waste  handling problems.  The basic  process, with some modification,
is currently employed by another sodium  plant.  However, process details
were not divulged.

          Process 16B100 is a combination of several individually  proven
unit operations used by  plants in the phosphorus  industry.   It is believed
that this system would be technically viable and workable in  the sequence
of operations as proposed.
                                  2-1

-------

S   I
t t
g ^ 1
E8I
t u -
o !
C ^4-
i c









^ '
m in
a> >
^i1"-.
!
'


"5 u-
3 <^ O
.S
[)>!
||
CO
j
>
^
1
ocesses
3
-
-
3 QJ X
j -u cn
fication
Nirfcer
^ H *
t U o
z w z
^ r -;
1
o
.H Vi *M O
v-  D -1 > U  4 ><4^1>,4-*C>iO
iT" H "H **"* t 'Ij **"' c c ^ . 5 t i ""'
QJ C ft, c r; c t CJ C, n. t K o re C u Q1 u c *<  2 JC ,
z.D-2fcsio ic^fiSiu i/joic'jZ^O' taxi
1-4 fN r^i rH rs, fi i  rv r^i ^H (N
K >
U> "* II
'cl u
S c: f '
n > 4J fC
C tn QJ
i-i * I I C fc
&. I C-
jj
->  E >-> 1i>
C- pt C-  -
t/)U (- f- C t- C _
ii"* i! * 5^^
t fc." '5 U C fc." U U C."
in C^ ^H > c ^ t
OO U.C- LJU UU
li; sr- il i:-
LI in r^ f*
CO
8 g 8 1
 1  i m fe
O C O ^H
fN (N
M
^H ^1 \C '-'
| 5
?? & ^
/iES ^r |P
Nf
t; S
_f jj i
1 t' S
*fc* *H i?
1 ^


 o 
r C-
 *" w-

T iff
f L i
?li



p|-=
S*'B
3 X E
C. tn
B S -S
"wS n

u ^ 6
,?
d. C C

r
C'
t
1
^
ig-lls!




c s ^ f u *
 I'lcfi
i i i i i i
?f=M
i- <  U J- Ci







IT.
g-s

1|lle
Spil
^-i QJ ^H r, i,
r3 -H ^ E CT
O 1C C ft C







K

tr


C *r
"*" *
si
re D"
L
V.
i;
|
.i jj
o c
||
f? ^
0

l|
                                                                               li'fg
                                                                                   LT g
                                                                               c Z . t

                                                                               ""? p JJ


                                                                               Ills
                                                                               1C U

                                                                               -H C   H
                                                                                 v **- x: E
                                                                               D ft O *J re
                                                                               it JJ     (D

                                                                               13 c.g gi)

                                                                               S | S 2 "
                                                                               tr, JZ ffj ir O
                                                                               (0   NO-*-'


                                                                               |{I|i

                                                                               a. L t c" w

                                                                               JJ C 'c cr, ^


                                                                               's c- ^ " . '
u !,'
~ 6 
                                                                                                 -
Ig   II
  BO C JJ JJ
  is 6 re n
-M jj -. jj Jj
-> 3 JJ C -<
ID  1C 2 C.



3 w ^ -r C
            5 



            "e 





            g'?
            fN 4J
            < C
            15


            II
                                                     2-2

-------
          Table  2 presents  the  remaining  selected treatment processes which
are  all of conceptual nature.   These processes  incorporate unit operations
which represent  technology  transfer from  other  industries.  Prior to imple-
mentation of any of these processes, research and development would be
required  to confinn their technical feasibility and establish their economic
viability.  Processes 04100 and 05100  are treatment processes for asbestos
separator waste  and lead-containing waste, respectively, both generated by
diaphragm cell plants in the chlor-alkali industry.   The lead-containing
wastes can be eliminated by the use of dimensionally stable anodes (DSA)
which are gradually replacing their graphite counterparts  in  existing plants.
The  asbestos wastes will be eliminated when  plastic microporous separators,
currently being  tested  by at least two facilities, become  commercially
practicable.  However,  according to the Chlorine  Institute, transition  to
plastic separators will not be  practical  in  the foreseeable future.

          Of the sixteen treatment processes presented in  Tables 1 and  2,
seven (01100, 01200, 05100, 06100,  15100,  16B100  and 18100) offer both  re-
source recovery  and detoxification.  However, with the exception of process
16B100, phosphorus recovery from phossy water streams, resource recovery
is not a viable  incentive to use the recommended  processes for  hazardous
waste management in this industry.  This  is  predicated on  the low economic
value of the small quantities of resources recovered.  These  treatment
processes can only be justified with potentially  hazardous waste detoxi-
fication as a prime objective and  resource recovery as a secondary issue.

      2.3  Costs  for I^nd Disposal  Options

          Table  3 summarizes costs of  sanitary  and chemical landfills for
the disposal of  potentially hazardous  waste  streams  generated by typical
plants in the inorganic  chemicals  industry.   As required,  these costs were
developed on the assumption that the landfills  would be constructed and
operated by the  waste generator.   The  land disposal  cost estimates for
waste stream 6 (sodium/calcium  wastes) are presented for information only
because the highly explosive nature of this  waste would preclude its dis-
posal  in this manner.  With the exception of two  proprietary  treatment
processes, these wastes  are currently  ocean  dumped.

          Table  3 generally indicates  that the  disposal costs for a given
waste  stream in  a chemical  landfill are greater than those in a sanitary
landfill.  The incremental  annual  operating  costs of the chemical landfill
over  those of the sanitary  landfill are relatively small for  waste streams
being  generated  at a rate less  than three metric  tons per  day (waste streams
3, 4 and 5 combined and waste streams  8,  15,  17 and  18).  However,  for  larger
waste  streams, the ratio  of annual operating costs of the  chemical landfill
to the sanitary  landfill  is in  the order  of  2 to  4:1.
                                 2-3

-------
i

I
B
b
'S 4-> tX a
P S? i*"
t-. O */> O
4.' QJ 1/1
u, J ri
F ^ .-,.
(-< h- 1A J A

1
fl
u-i
S
i. >/>

I
r,
t/i
1 ~
I
4-1 -H
H

>.
n
E *C C1 *X
B f -2 &
I1"
 4J 4J C
!l.
Waste Genera t-
| IN 2
I IT tt-
1 2 2
f E -i 6
*' P1 i.' ?* I.1
[T . ^ C' ^
i ^ (E C
? n- ! .JJ.il jj
ij t tfj tfy 4-1 Ifi
(U t J ( 1 fN
iii l
i i
[_, t O -H  -U >
1 flu Q&C fc
1  U U. U I/- t-
S 8> |>
i fi.Pt.cT t. oT
S
fN CO CO
rg m rs
E
J 8 8 
d 5? in r-
^00 0
m ^ irt r-
I-H a> 
fi 12 
'sl '^
u (c S t
r SS ^^
6 P6
o
in rg \ 1
R K ^ |
S S P 1
.i 6 ^ ., i c
i! isi! il! !
rH (N -t (N H fNJ
II 1 !
II 1 1
II 1 1 1
J-" 4-'
5. O tl C* JH I
u c P c f- I
life if!- :
fsj CN O
.  CM
I
g   S
S IN -H -rt
ffi CO OS E
00 0 -S
U
CX) OD ff< O
| ? O 
 "3  ^ rj
                                                                     f
                                                                       jf "i
                                                                        1
                                                                       *-' i
                                                                      t- V 0'
                                                                      _i
                                                                    ^ffcr'

                                                                                ft (0  1C
&    I
c 

Illlf
i iJ *C 4J C
                                                                                      -P- Q,
                                                                                      J (_) >

                                                                                      :  B


                                                                                      i!
ai
N
C C
                                                                     t p- J5
                                                                      Iii
                                                                     *D W
                                                                     6 1C .
                                                                     4J H 
                                                                     K U
                                                                      jiifi   !
5'
ha1
                                                                         IT    JT 0) -M 5 C1
                                                                        j K S   i S u  
                                                                        ) -^t *J 
                                                                                       fr*
                                                                                       k tt
                                                                               ^oCiS^  IP
                                         2-4

-------



continnpd)
SYRTFMS (
|
fc
N -
a 
C S-
f 1
2
ccMT.rniAi
SlfffWRY (F



Product
Cost Irj-act
$Akg
of prod1 ict
4^ Q) n
t w i^ in
O ffi JM IJI
E o 	
3 * 4
Benefits Porivcd
:>
fj
*T
I
J-
.5
IS
U) rg
u
SFI
in
jj
i i 
E -*H -H i-l
43 4J JJ rn
ffl JlJ O *c
!
in C 
JI " fl
jf in 2
|
''*3Ste General- -
i irq Industry
OD
r*- I to ^ in *C i ^^
 I "> in r>. fi i
tt
r- - ^ 
 | v rs rM in i P
O^ 1 (N r-, ^. ,_< | fc
r*- i r- in IN ^
1 1C 1 C *& 1 1 |
 a .-*oa *c-^-ta J-
v- **- ^ c, ^Hung;tMKiM w- *-.  t i__
-^ c A p -H^JCiicn 44jp-^- czir *-
Oc5re C-_5C^J'BC^'CC C C  5 Sr*
*.' 0  4- -^h T o    4-1 *c >, j-1 *j 0 -H j! i tf
Q "* 7 W i' V "-1 D U EL i,  > O1 t  - U1 i t ^ >
ov(Z&) C.+>v, KCK CTc D^^fc iC
a S ^ n S o 6 c B 'E f fl *3 ^ c ftP^w."^ P-C
tr, 4- D *- u w *-* u; C * u* t/j 4-1 w L 0 f' *J w *- b w w tr *j *" t
EtS S5Sui;  5  5 &  5 SEtSi: SEl'fe
*rN ^-irNrn B^(N^-*fNi ^nrs ^?C
l 11 it i i i
l It ll l ! }
1
i i| II l I,
i i 1 ll : i | i
4J (t!
ire (fCi " S^ !C& it"S
c>- i pv ic-C- c>* r t
tlP i .- OUS&. tP P
j
". .> *. . * j -. .> . 1
^"i & S & ". ' " ^ i
.
U  O 00 fsj
tf1 ft; (N C ^
fil g 5 !
1 51  1 a 11
a fas SJQ 2 .5
<-*
t;
H ps*n ^-m \c r^-co
* ^5
 t . c^i  5 i 
o D"OF> la c z c.  p p-
C ^ 3^ r 3 S f EZ
6 C "^  "  EiO-S
2-5

-------

neration
w
H






^j
Cj
C
S
8

g
D









-H
-H
U-l
.
|
1












JJ
-a ""' ^
IB

S w 2
ees
o
i) fi
*fj *' js

r1
_> V,

4^
g

c S
.
0.
b o

s|



^
OJ
s t! pi
g c *


|
is
H tM
D 0
3|




O
CD
5


I
i
I
8
(0
S
"o
JJ
I

Ul

l/j
t/1

&


in
01
s




i.
"B
B.
o
a
1
1
.2
i
jj
*

5
g
rc
w



I Industry

i i "~< i i ii ' i i i i ii i
i  i i i i i
! ! o 1 i 1 ! 1 1 i i 1 i 1 i

1 1 0 1 1 II 1 1 1 I 1 II 1
i i s i i ii i!!!! i 1 i

u.~*,r, P- *

. . . . . o< *r o>  u,' if> f*"! rw-w



2 ,
oo^CDO'C o m p* CD as \& ff\
*4


1

 \c r* cc co
TT^nvrioi *O in m in -^ t t in r- j I


in O o
O m O O
- in
i-HOOOO IN *-( rg (N i-H r- -l r-iOCC O
} ^ ^ ^
Z* ^H In i?
^H CD ** f*^
glSs p sS : s P 2  sIS 

z?
 H O O
r-r-rsjr-i -ON . n CM -02 mo j |
ffl
in in vc
** *
PJ in *
he ^ ^ ** < CO
  C3 ^Hf^^ffin^^r^cD
O ft1
CJ  O
3W-I ^1
> ' h
^ b PC
C 'D OJ 0 to **
3C1 O'-Ht.'fc'U.*-* ^^ E E 
^0 O'^L' "^ 3?r?
? ^-S ^ 5 L! S s ^ w 5  | | I
TJiiiC "p ^bC'^S'pH'O Q 0 2
6 & P6MS'2d5Oz  E S
                                      H *H -H
2-6

-------
           Contract incineration of waste stream 3 (chlorinated hydrocarbons)
 appears  attractive because it is a relatively low cost operation and centralized
 facilities or on-site incinerators are sometimes available.   The chlorinated
 hydrocarbon waste stream is formed from the reaction of chlorine with the
 binders  in graphite anodes and will  be reduced with the use  of dimensionally
 stable anodes.                              ;

      2.4  Post Comparisons of Alternate Treatment Processes  to the
           landfill Options


           Table 4 presents capital investment and annual operating costs
 for the  alternate treatment processes  and compares them to the costs for
 plant operated landfills.

      2.5  Effect of Treatment Cost on  Product Price


           Table 5 presents the effect  of treatment and land  disposal costs
 on product prices assuming that these  costs would be passed  on to the
 consumer.   With the exception of one calcination system (07100)  and three
 evaporation and asphalting systems (09100,  13100 and 16A100)  which are
 highly energy intensive  and require  large capital outlays, the incremental
 increase on product price  would be under 10%.   In eleven of  the sixteen
 treatment  systems,  the incremental increase in product price would be under
 5V..   In  one treatment system (09100) where the incremental increase is of
 the order  of  40*.,  it is  highly questionable that evaporation and asphalting
 would be practical.   This  system would consume enormous quantities of
 asphalt  which may be unavailable in  the future because of current petroleum
 shortages.  There would  also be a need for new landfills to  dispose of the
 asphalted  solids,  if this  material proves to be unsuitable for use as road
 paving aggregate.

           Comparison of  the effects  on product price of treatment,  sanitary
 landfilling and chemical landfilling costs indicate that:

           (a)   the  ratios  of treatment costs to sanitary landfilling
                costs  range from 1.8  to 83:1 with the average ratio
                4.3:1

           (b)   the  ratios  of treatment costs to chemical landfilling
                costs  range from 1  to 34:1 with the  average ratio 2.4:1

The notable exception is waste  stream  16B where the ratios of  treatment costs
to land disposal option costs are considerably less than one;  0.17  and 0.056
for sanitary  landfilling and chemical  landfilling,  respectively.

          When comparing the two land disposal options chemical  landfilling
costs increase product costs more than  sanitary  landfilling by an average
factor of about 2.

                                 2-7

-------
I
I
I
1
c
ft

<

V,
1
OTFRATItr
TVUJWV

V,
fc
jj
C-


4J
S


 -
!!
fr~
JJ c-
II
If
ft
rt1 


g 
S 
^ t/}
1
lit
IT. C
c- 1
IP
Aiusrum
S F 5 f? '  S, S 5 R ?  g
w^ror^rC U U f~ -w 1- C f\ r% v r-
u u' p u u ' r r f \  **' f* <" i . i a-. <%
"w^-fvtc. I-H * P r p r-g ^r VCtCN
c-coooc- cc g c c c oo c o c*X
coccccr-r-cc> r-r- r- ^r u  m*C QPO
Curr^Oo I^ r  if - a a *~ r^ v
C c u if' *-' i/i tr i/i c o o ^- C F '
r^frN-HC -^^.ar- \iu C f C
CCCC V CC f.C C ^ C -f  C
s
E > "=
^^H* r* cccc P1 ^* ^^ T in  \-l
r- 1 O G,1
fH a> ^ w a) T*
n-3 u 6 s 2 "
su | - 5 T u o 5
Sxft a'0.-Ht)5 j
^fa^ Cy-^ T1
.-.CB'SoC ^S  t-
i bEina 6  u- !f' o- C 
? * 1 if g II 1 S i i f
g-c-wgg T " "a 6 u C B
S H a 6  < K t * t t
                                                it
                                                
-------






in
1






t*~
c
J
E "5 > t*
P 5 * v
t
 p *H
*" ikj
, i 5 "' P
b  | "" c
0. 5 ~ I_ O
t
p c
C- C fj
0'. U t- C-
0
,
? ^ $ u
C E K
Jw O ^J
0 POO
! lit
 f u"
F
i
t i 1
(- r i!
 s
j-> i/>
TJ VC
P ^
M P">
CM <-l
tj
* in
-H  o o oo-. C'Or^'-ec(NO-^-irnoo
fN(^co ^-eD^vcc-irr-mmop^-tHoe
CD i-H O
&ODVf OCC'tf'tfr'^'ODfNfSf^^tf'ff'Ow
oooc cr,oorsjotr,*-ooc-cco

c- % i o tf- cc
! . fft | .
ivt ou^-vtrccrrsjf^r-^rv^-r^^
 fN fN ^H ^H ~^ ^7
, -^ *c
D & C C 5
-cwiou-^"  t3
 jjjJ  Z ^
g -iEt _
5 7 f* c ~ t
 ^ ' 3. i s
! Ilip I
0 *  S
 t IT *H X.
o- -o - w- - K
2 55 LC f
i^tiri 
Sj5=:g i
c. o c >^-^ i
c-i ^ c  **   >
C (C t'J C **- 
 u >Jli E
*r  u r c
^e|-fc i
c -r - L c T
  ic r f.
IS t.-Zi E
5 -c i c. c
^ -* H J-1 IT & C
CT ^ S IT; f U C
A ! C L
01 <" S T * k-
5  I If i b - -
f'Sl^flr:if
 -^ k ^ V c i
^^HL^^
^FC^
5^57 ji^lfil
3u|5 S E w =
ji^E j^-=:
S 1 R p 1 a -E E c
f,cl-t;J-r
S| P^-|t  E4
C---' Z3^4-J[/',
c x; *J c c
'SfcOii-cBC
  ^ c c E
pC I3^t^-Hjl^
C C rH ^-i 5 ff r
IH (C G/ O 51 I W 00
*->OH4-'Ei~HC
O o *J v. BKoiJJl
fSii^til
-i^i&i;h
ctti'k._ot4/_2
o^  E"2^1' S E
oi^l'tt":ir. ^
.. ^  - t-i n U) ~*i
0 'B o1 *^ it 
SSoCfPjif'
s^fSfBiet
2-9

-------
3.0  MAJOR SOLID WASTE PROBLEM AREAS IN THE INORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY

     3.1  Introduction

          The inorganic chemicals industry is comprised of those facilities
manufacturing products categorized according to SIC Codes 2812, 2813, 2816
and 2819.  Hundreds of products and processes are involved and facilities
range from small specialty chemical operations producing one or two chem-
icals to large integrated facilities producing many products.

          Within this industry, there are about 20 product classifications
which are responsible for most of the potentially hazardous land destined
wastes generated.  In an earlier study under EPA Contract No. 68-01-2246,
an in-depth study of this industry was performed characterizing the wastes
and describing presently used technology for handling and disposal of these
wastes.  The problem areas identified in the inorganic chemicals industry
are discussed below.

     3.2  Identification of Problem Areas

          Within the inorganic chemicals industry there are several major
land-destined solid waste problem areas where improvements in disposal
or reuse practices could significantly reduce the amounts of potentially
hazardous materials currently disposed of in landfills.  Major problem areas
identified under Contract No. 68-01-2246 are listed below:

          Stream 1 - Mercury contaminated brine purification muds -
          mercury cell process, chlor-alkali production;

          Stream 2 - Mercury-rich wastes from treatments and cleanings -
          mercury cell process, chlor-alkali production;

          Stream 3 - Chlorinated hydrocarbons - diaphragm cell process,
          chlor-alkali production;

          Stream 4 - Asbestos separator wastes - diaphragm cell process,
          chlor-alkali production;

          Stream 5 - Lead-containing wastes - diaphragm cell process,
          chlor-alkali production;
          Stream 6 - Metallic sodium and calcium filter cake - Down's
          cell process, metallic sodium production;

          Stream 7 - Sludges from wastewater treatment - chloride process
          titanium dioxide production;
          Stream 8 - Sludges from wastewater treatment - chrome color
          and inorganic pigment production;

          Stream 9 - Fluoride-containing gypsum waste - hydrofluoric
          acid production;

          Stream 10 - Arsenic-containing sludges - boric acid production;

          Stream 11 - Fluoride-containing wastewater treatment sludge -
          aluminum fluoride production;
                                     3-1

-------
          Stream 12 - Antimony waste stockpile - antimony production;

          Stream 13 - Fluoride wastes - sodium silicofluoride production;

          Stream 14 - Chromate contaminated wastes - chromate production;

          Stream 15 - Nickel wastes from wastewater treatment - nickel
          sulfate production;

          Streams ISA and 16B - Fluoride bearira sludge from phosphate
          rock calcining kiln and electric furnace and phossy water from
          phosphorus condenser, respectively - furnace process, phosphorus
          production;

          Stream 17 - Arsenic and phosphorus wastes - phosphorus penta-
          sulfide production; and

          Stream 18 - Arsenic trichloride waste - phosphorus trichloride
          production.

          The characteristics and composition of these waste streams from
typical plants in each industry category are summarized in Table 6.  A brief
description of each stream follows, accompanied by mass balanced flow diagrams
quantifying inputs and outputs on the basis of 1,000 mass units of the prin-
cipal product.

      3.3  Description and Characterization of Potentially Hazardous Waste
          Streams

          3.3.1  Chlor-Alkali Manufacture

          3.3.1.1  General Characterization of  the Industry

          There are  34 companies in 66  locations engaged in  chlorine  and
sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide manufacture by either  the mercury  cell
process or diaphragm cell process.  The total annual capacity  of these plants
is 20,483 kkg (22,513 tons).

          3.3.1.2  Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste  Streams

          a.  Mercury Cell Process

              The typical mercury cell  plant has a production  rate of 250  kkg
 (275  tons) per day and is 5  to 30 years old.  There are several waste streams
generated by  this process, two of which are considered to be potentially
hazardous:

          1.  Brine purification muds - These are often contaminated  with
              mercory in a typical amount of 0.05 kg/kkg of  chlorine
              produced with  a range of  0 - 0.15 kg/kkg.  Whether or not
              these muds are potentially hazardous varies from plant  to


                                    3-2

-------
  PTrS
  ..  -e c. .0
i 1 E1 b
S S-st
  SS
  2:
9 3
  fe  S_
  ?  7 '
  S   -
     rt*.
     M C *D ^
     ISiS
Straw
ption

                     1 =


                    5,
                                S 5
                                O  O
                                o  d
Hazardous
ponents.
ty on dry
kkq/day
                                          I   1

                                           olofc
                                            -H ft JJ
                                          i-t m o  11^
                                                                  e 6 BO.'
W
As
Til
of
                                     3-3

-------
	
o


0
C ,
1 I i

^ "p !' S c
i/, C f -- ' "< 
"< 5 tfj *n -H CJ.
f- L^ S 5 i/J ^
p

C
u i -i
i >JIU
% C "' i Z
" Tl K  ^

IT1






fXJ

ii 5  "i. I
P
s
< C' JJ

rr (t Sj ! *-3
S * ' <
(r.


y* i ^ L
o 1 3 S' .
j B C 5 fe (?
S ^ 0 wz
fe
g
H 1 *0
E 1 ft
C' B/ *' ft '
U, Cii U. CT1
g frffcl!
S B , feu^
fe i 0 JJ 3'c E
1 |!{ 111
| E iP6a


p --I


i  t; E 5 - a
s|lii!1
Si^H gi;-


I 6

S r
fifi


~






c








CD







e



S
S
l/j
)d
0) QJ
 1
l






1
u.












V





CX; BUTT3I.




S

a
(N





ICO lptl|rt pR
si
(C  i
U 1C l-
^, L C.'
^r

IT.
rsj ^-<





TO ^UOHT^IIF sa







r-




1S^*^*
rain ur
sacri pus Tp^;ia:i'K; wc;: "^ pefereop BT^ Ansico
KC, 'peacjauaS jaiuoT fj ET moariE vysv> rnc.



1

(T




1
5




1
r,


|
E






f
"


C
kt*

Physical




e-
"





0
-



a



K






8


"it
ll
f- C71
4J
S IB
S 'a.



0
fN
"
-. ^
>; -5
1C O1
^ j& -t *-'
*f t c 5
o >.
o-g


.
r-
=v -
55 Q ~
(M *O O -< O
o o o o o


m


B
is
o


in S
W C ' -H
luS-^i

5
0 jT^ 5
o
"" "

5

v ID -<
C t- C
VT 5
"^ r^ .
O M-l C*
- ID

n| -*H n
s s
fM
1.  fc
^.8^5
 5  S
(D
CM r-
-H O
8
*D OJ
"5 3


fl^ -H n t Q)
lull's
1A 0 W O O
  t ^ r\
(N VD O < V


1-;
Li *-'
"! C





vc
"



"
O
"^
O



O
rs



ri






o
"


1
*3 ^*
ill







fVJ












ft





?
(M
0



S



m






O
in
I
*l
ll
i) Ol
Ibtal 5
imlstur
kkg/day




^








-i





*














** 1








(N





wj in
3-4

-------
M

E
t
S
I
te

6
*-i
fc
D
fc
o>
i
SE
i

01
*t *3 i
5 ""'
"| IT,

it
*s
fe"'
Hi'
lj
cllf

1 ti
3*$**
ZE 5 Is

i
m S Oj
43 9 4J
^ S i
B > D
 c C cr
6fi*S
Waste Stream
Description

V






r



5





in





^
*H
Waste Stream 1
Nlirtjer
j
1
1


1
I
6

in
-6
fc
4J
S
Br
i
I
05


I
1C

I
O

**
n
1
. t
B

g
ec"
in





5
m
m



5

s



0,





fM
CD
Bfe-
>I
^
S "S-

i

j.
*e i
tn DJ
j!
^ E* &


n or
3
t

IN
CD
CD

II
>S
o
s
1 o
ii 6

in in
(N O
o 5
0 0
llazardcJ5 |
OJI^HMltS, |
3>wntity on |
dry basis
kkg/day j
is
n n
'tr-Z,
IT)

| -,
n
w S
it

0
I
Iss
6*6 '
sc
O f^
CD o tn  
^H in v f*> m
s-"6
jifiJi
in 5 in
o 5 o
1 s-I-
ii!nS|*M
&iu-2^*rj 2-jj
n^ fi n*S n rH ? $
t>"H D y o (0 UJ ^ *
S K
*fi to
III


e






-



o>

S


m
0





g
1*3tal Stream,
dry basis
kkq/day

li
E




t
1
i



S

BD



-





|
total Streaw,
"olature Included
Vkr,Ai~y

*



f*.


1 |





e-


^


I

1C
w


I!
                                    3-5

-------
              plant in this industry depending on process details.  They
              range fron no mercury content to 5000 ppm.

          2.  Mercury sludges from treatment of effluent wastewaters to
              remove entrained elemental mercury.  The mercury is
              generally precipitated as the sulfide.  The mercury content
              is typically 0.058 kg/kkg of chlorine.

          The chlorinated hydrocarbon problem is being solved at mercury
cell plants by replacing graphite anodes by coated metal anodes [dimen-
sionally stable anodes  (DSA)].   However, the use of DSA nay not completely
eliminate this problem because equipment may still contain rubber lining
and other sources of trace quantities of hydrocarbons that could react with
chlorine.

          A general process diagram showing waste sources is given in
Figure 1.


          b.  Diaphragm Cell Process

              The typical diaphragm cell plant has a production rate of
450 kkg  (500 tons) per day.  However, the trend in recent times has been
to very large plants with capacities greater than 907 kkg  (1,000 tons) per
day.  The typical plant, while also 5 to 30 years old, is relatively newer
than a mercury-cell plant.  There are three potentially hazardous waste
streams  (streams 3, 4 and 5) being generated at these plants:

          1.  Chlorinated hydrocarbon wastes - These arise from reaction
              of chlorine with carbonaceous materials in the electrodes,
              oils and greases present in the equipment and other hydro-
              carbons present.  These materials are presently separated
              from the product and are disposed of either by landfilling
              in sealed drums, deep well disposal or incinerated.  An
              approach currently used by industry to reduce this waste
              stream is the use of dimensionally stable metal anodes.
              This approach has been implemented at several facilities.
              However, based on discussions with industry, complete change-
              over may not be attained for at least a decade.  Because the
              chlorinated hydrocarbons generated at these plant sites are
              mixed materials with a consistency of oily to tar-like
              material, they are not amenable to resource recovery.  The
              best technology for control of these wastes is incineration.
              Since incineration is not one of the 43 treatment processes
              studied under Contract No. 68-01-2288, this waste stream is
              being eliminated from further consideration in this study.

          2.  Asbestos  separator wastes from cell diaphragms -  These
              wastes arise from disposal of spent diaphragms which are
              normally used in the industry.  An approach currently
              being considered by industry to eliminate this waste stream
              is to replace asbestos with plastic membranes.  However,
              based on discussions with the industry, these replacements
              will not be practicable in the foreseeable future.
                                     3-6

-------
                                      in
                                      it
3-7

-------
          3.  Lead salts resulting from wastewater treatment -  The
              lead arises in the effluent due to cell breakdown and
              corrosion.  Treatment of the waterborne wastes precipi-
              tates lead carbonate, which is then land disposed as a
              sludge.  Conversion to DSA would also eliminate this
              waste.

          A flow diagram for the diaphragm cell process, showing waste
sources, is given in Figure 2.

          3.3.2  Sodium Manufacture

          3.3.2.1  General Characterization of the Industry

          There are 3 companies in 5 locations engaged in sodium manufac-
ture by the Down's Cell process.  The total annual capacity of these plants
is 343,000 kkg (378,000 tons).88   The typical sodium plant has a production
rate of 140 kkg (154 tons) per day.

          3.3.2.2  Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams

          There are several wastes generated by the manufacture of sodium
by the Down's Cell process.  However, only one is considered potentially
hazardous.  This waste, a sodium-calcium filter cake, arises from the fil-
tration of product sodium and typically amounts to 2.2 kkg (2.4 tons) per
day.  This waste is considered extremely hazardous because of its violent
reactivity with water and must be disposed of under carefully controlled
conditions to avoid explosions or fires.  The flow diagram for the Down's
Cell process, showing waste sources, is given in Figure 3.

          3.3.3  Titanium Dioxide, Chloride Process

          3.3.3.1  General Characterization of the Industry

          There are 5 companies in 8 locations engaged in the manufacture
of titanium dioxide by the chloride process.  The total annual capacity of
these plants in 1975 was 492,600 kkg (544,000 tons).92  A typical chloride
process titanium dioxide plant has a production rate of 100 kkg  (110 tons)
per day.

          3.3.3.2  Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams

          The manufacture of titanium dioxide by the chloride process
involves the chlorination of rutile or ilmenite ore in the presence of coke,
oxidation of intermediate titanium tetrachloride, and further purification
and finishing steps.  This process generates two solid waste streams.  How-
ever, only the sludge, containing heavy metal hydroxides, is considered
potentially hazardous.  This sludge is generated by the treatment of the
acidic, heavy metal salt-containing waterborne waste streams and typically
contains 0.13 kkg  (0.14 tons) per day of chromium hydroxide.  Although the
use of either rutile or ilmenite ore results in about the same quantity of
this hazardous component in the waste stream, the amounts of non-hazardous
components generated from ilmenite are much greater and cause additional
                                    3-8

-------
3-9

-------
                          en

                          C/3

                          UJ
                      tr
                     5 o
                     o )
                     c x
                       ii
                       2


                       5
                               8
                               c
                               
                               >,
                               II

                               a
                               n
3-10

-------
treatment problems.  Only this larger waste stream is considered in this
study.  A flow diagram for this process is given in Figure 4.

          3.3.4  Chrome Colors and Inorganic Pigment Manufacture

          This industry subcategory includes two broad groupings of pigments;
chrome colors and other inorganic pigments.  The chrome colors include chrome
yellows and oranges, molybdate chrome orange,  zinc yellow, anhydrous  and
hydrated chrome oxide greens, chrome green and iron blue  (not a chrome pigment,
but usually produced in chrome pigment complexes).  The other inorganic
pigments include barium sulfate, cadmium colors, colored lead pigments,
cobalt colors, iron oxide pigments, carbon black and mercury sulfide.

          The manufacture of all pigments in the chrome color group and iron
blues generates potentially hazardous wastes destined for land disposal.  Only
cadmium colors of the other inorganic pigment group contribute potentially
hazardous wastes.  However, this latter waste is normally recycled back to
the process in those facilities manufacturing only cadmium colors.

          3.3.4.1  General Characterization of the Industry

          The chrome colors and iron blues industry consists of about 13
companies, many of which produce several of these chemicals.  A typical
plant has a daily production capacity of 23 kkg  (25 tons).

          3.3.4.2  Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams

          Flow diagrams for the manufacture of various chrome colors  and
iron blues are given in Figures 5 through 9.  As shown, practically all
of the land destined waste streams are sludges resulting from wastewater
treatment.  In most cases, the wastewaters are chemically treated  to
remove chromates, lead and zinc.  These materials are precipitated as lead
chronate, chromium  (III) hydroxide and lead and zinc hydroxides, carbonates
or sulfides.  The handling of these solids varies considerably.  In sane
cases, they are left in settling lagoons, while in others, they are land-
filled.  The land destined wastes from a typical plant could contain  the
following hazardous components:

          0.2 kkg  (0.22 tons)/day Cr(OH)3

          0.6 kkg  (0.66 tons)/day PbCrO.,

          0.06 kkg  (0.066 tons)/day Pb(OH)2

          0.1 kkg  (0.11 tons)/day Zn(OH)2

          0.06 kkg  (0.066 tons)/day Pe*[Fe(CN)6]3
                                    3-11

-------
                           1
                                 
                                D
3-12

-------
               S3
                         ecu,
                        ' O
                         o t>
              t A
                                u 3 i
                                  I
                                28'
MIXING
AND
OEVEUOPMENT

OXIDE
            tr>
            s
T t.
     ^^
     sy
 o 5
? I ||
                           s   "Z

                           **  I
                       2*
                        UO
                             ,
                           |f

                           D TJ
                           "*1 X


                           O ft)
                                  s q
                                    K

                                    3
                3-13

-------
I
p5S

i  I
o5
            LJ

            5
         m
                      I

                      I
                              P 
 cc

 UJ

 X
	 i

xi
S
f
DISSOLVER
       UJ




       8
       CO

       S
     I
                    li
frfl^I
.- A b. D ^
 0. O O C.

S o o -,
                             4J
                             tn
                             01
                             o
                             10

                             J

                             SB
                             JJ Ul

                              
             3-14

-------
               5N U
                S CO
                IM 
                              UJ
                               i
                            o;
                            O
                               LU
                               >-
                                    8
                                    o
                                     ft
                                     E
                                    5
                                     C m
                                     i' 01
                                     !
3-15

-------
8i!i!8
555
I









0"C i
l^s^
Si-<2

i ,
>-
tr
o
i .

c
UJ
!j

U.

s
 UJ
z'i ^
'* jc
js 5
a.-
_J *"
If!

UJ .-
0 ^
*y 2.
li5
3 => UJ
O UJ
^ cc
f>)
W'
UJ
t t S 1
3 .
 g-
1 *
(0
eg

ec
UJ ^
X
CO
<

i >


P
c
ttt
1 au a
= c? 0) 0
t:i a
i  -i 2 a
Sl "3.
2 o M1
-1 5 "
U M 
a~q 8.
flN
01 -H 53 -H
8"
M *H 
-------







-r fe!
BUJ.O<
1^1"
w&5 g
1 t
IT
UJ
>-
g

1


L,
"^
1^
I- A 5
i hd . i
 S z z  *b
1 ^5 p  a . . 5



CC ^-
*
1
. o- " K y is ^
r ._ K ^* of
| "* 5 1 "
<  i ? 5 j1 _J
W LJI D 5 ''V mZ CD
* _^st|lt'^ 2
, "^^SSK^ot 5
i ^|^5S8S e
i Vt   
<5 
UJ 
cc
li't1
1  
si  w
S S e i 
5 i  5 i
S  u | 5
en C I g 0
t S ? ! 1
                                         g
                                         K
                                         g
                                         5S
                                           01

                                         ^s

                                         51
fSJ  O
"  ?l

t  1"
                    3-17

-------
          3.3.5  Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacture

          3.3.5.1  General Characterization of the Industry

          There are 12 companies in 16 locations engaged in hydrofluoric
acid manufacture.  The total annual capacity of these plants is  369,000  kkg
(407,000 tons).  The typical hydrofluoric acid plant has a daily production
rate of 64 kkg (70 tons).

          3.3.5.2  Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams

          In the production of hydrofluoric acid, gypsum contaminated with
hydrofluoric acid  (HF), is generated as a waste.  This material  is  generally
sluiced with water from the reactors to the treatment ponds, where  it is
lime treated to convert free HF to calcium fluoride.  The solids are then
recovered and either stored on-site or landfilled.  The land destined waste
material consists mostly of gypsum with minor amounts of calcium fluoride
and other impurities such as silica.  Calcium fluoride is considered as  the
potentially hazardous component in this waste which is typically generated
at a daily rate of 7 kkg  (7.7 tons).

          A process diagram for the manufacture of hydrofluoric  acid is
given in Figure 10.

          3.3.6  Boric Acid Manufacture

          3.3.f).J  ("erie-M-rtJ Characterization of the Industry
          There are 3 companies engaged in boric  acid manufacture.   However,
only one plant uses a feed stock which is contaminated with arsenic.   A
typical boric acid plant has a production rate of 110 kkg  (121  tons)  per
day.

          3.3.6.2  Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams

          A flow diagram for the manufacture of boric acid is given in
Figure 11.  The wastewaters at one plant contain  small amounts  of
dissolved arsenic compounds.  Treatment and filtration of  this  raw waste
stream generate a filter cake containing arsenic  as  ferric arsenate.   The
quantity of filter cake varies from  0.2 to 0.5 kkg/day  (0.22 to 0.55 tons/
day) with an arsenic concentration of 100 to 1,000 ppm.  Currently this
waste is packed in drums and landfilled.  Recommended treatment technique
for this waste is encapsulation.

          3.3.7  Aluminum Fluoride Manufacture

          3.3.7.1  General Characterization of the Industry

          There are 4 companies in the U.S. engaged  in aluminum fluoride
manufacture.  The typical aluminum fluoride plant has a daily production
rate of 145 kkg  (160 tons).
                                   3-18

-------
I I I
                                                            9
                                                            o
                               3-19

-------
                    J
                    tt

                    il
                     CD
                          O .' tJ


                          !s*
                          "S  K
                           1C tt

                          O
                          3
                            o)
                          0) tn i
                          |  1
3-20

-------
           3.3.7.2   Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams
                                            >'
           In the production of aluminum fluoride,  treatment of scrubber
 liquor,  used to scrub vent gases, generates a waste which is an impure
 calcium fluoride contaminated with gypsum,  silica  and other inert materials.
 The average quantity of calcium fluoride in the waste generated by the
 typical plant is 12 kkg (13.2 tons)  per day.

           Presently,  this waste is either left in  ponds,  land stored or
 londfilled.   A process diagram for the manufacture of aluminum fluoride is
 given in Figure 12.

           3.3.8 Antimony Oxide Manufacture

           There are six plants in the U.S.  producing antimony oxide.   At
 five facilities, process wastes containing  residual antimony are further
 treated for resource recovery and these sites do not generate potentially
 hazardous solid waste material.   One site,  which was stockpiling antimony
 waste containing small quantities of arsenic  sulfide,  has recently changed
 their raw material  and is currently using an  impure antimony oxide which
 does not contain arsenic.   Therefore,  there are presently no potentially
 hazardous waste materials generated by this segment of the industry.   Waste
 stream 12, antimony waste stockpile,  has been eliminated  from this study.

           3.3.9  Sodium Silicofluoride Manufacture

           3.3.9.1  General Characterization of the Industry

          There are 4 companies engaged in the manufacture of sodium silico-
fluoride.  The typical sodium silicofluoride plant has a production rate of
45 kkg  (50 tons) per day.

           3.3.9.2  Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams

          There are two processes by which sodium silicofluoride can be
manufactured.  In both cases, solid waste streams containing calcium fluoride
are generated by wastewater treatment, which consists of precipitation with
lime and settling or filtering of solids.  Process flow diagrams are given
in Figures 13 and 14.

           3.3.10  Chromate Manufacture

           3.3.10.1  General Characterization of the Industry

          There are six companies engaged in the manufacture of chromates.
The typical plant produces 182 kkg  (200 tons)  per day.

          3.3.10.2   Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams

          In the manufacture of chromates, the bulk of the wastes originates
from the undigested portions of the ores used.  Generally, these wastes are
treated with reducing agents such as sulfur dioxide, sulfides or ferrous
                                  3-21

-------
    2
2 "
\
 I UJ

<
  o
o3
  8


Z
oo
oz
z-1  "*




PRODUCT
COLLECTION
AND STORAGE
i ,
cr
LU
_i
O
0
u
''
cr
o
K
CJ
LU
cr


cr
LU
1






cr
LU
m
cr
in
,
LU
_J
CJ
O
LU
cr
^.
o
H- U.
..._ 	 __ Q ^ ^
^ "" Si w I
	 ,  f s u g
i _ Iliffi i |
f ^"s I
f |
ii <
o
o

n
_j
<

o
cr
o
   LU
   O
   O
   cr
   Q
                                            b
                                            *
                                            s
                                            ^
                                            ^ 5
c --)
C JJ
 01
C O
 -o
CD
    vo
    in
                      3-22

-------
TTT
< K 
u Si
a 6 o
1
_J O
u, co

CT) 0
   C\J
             2 w
E
UR
FIG


SODIUM SILICOF
   t
  ID
     3-23

-------
oV
2.
V Ld
m >
oj
  or
  UJ

  i"















CO
UJ r
co
^
0
\ _
J .1
cr
UJ
ry-
LL L
U
CO
a
LU
>-
I
CD
C
O
CO
~ ^<
^0
g lo 5
3T cy O
O O CC
_* Z CL
t






a:
UJ
u.
CO
CO
<
1
^J
(J
i i
CO
I.I
to
<
o
>
UJ
2 CO
O 0
t i
 ^

a:
UJ
>-
cr
0

i i


.<__,._<_.,... ........ Ui^^,
^ |6
ou is
I0 *st
fe^g
I^P-

SOLIDS
SEPARATION
1
X t- ' 	 1 	 '
Q. co (
^0
tD.
-------
chloride to reduce chromates to chromium III.  The solid wastes generated
are either ponded, stockpiled or disposed of in landfill operations.  The
constituents in these wastes, depending on treatment used, may include iron
oxides, sulfides, chromium  (III) oxides and hydroxides and small amounts of
residual chrcroates.

          The typical plant wastes produced daily, contains 0.025 kkg  (0.0275
tons) of chromium hydroxide and 0.005 kkg  (0.0055 tons) of chronate.  Process
flow diagrams for the manufacture of sodium dichromate and chromate are
given in Figure 15.

          3.3.11  Nickel Sulfate Manufacture

          3.3.11.1  General Characterization of the Industry

          There are 6 companies in 7 locations engaged in nickel sulfate
manufacture.  A typical nickel sulfate plant has a daily production rate
of 9 kkg (10 tons).

          3.3.11.2  Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams

          In the manufacture of nickel sulfate, solid wastes are produced
from filtration of product solutions prior to evaporation and from the
treatment of spent plating solutions.  A typical nickel sulfate plant
generates 1 kkg (1.1 tons) per day of solid waste containing about 0.7
kg (1.5 Ib)  of nickel hydroxide.  A process diagram is given in Figure 16.

          3.3.12  Phosphorus Manufacture, Furnace Process

          3.3.12.1  General Characterization of the Industry

          There are 6 companies in 9 locations that are engaged in the manu-
facture of phosphorus by the electric furnace process.  The typical phos-
phorus plant has a production rate of 136 kkg (150 tons)  per day.

          3.3.12.2  Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams

          In the production of elemental phosphorus, there are two types
of solid wastes generated:

          (1)   Treatment of scrubber wastewater generates sludges containing
calcium fluoride along with other material (waste stream 16A).  These solids
are generally either pond stored or land disposed.

          (2)   Colloidal phosphorus settles from the water used to condense
the phosphorus in the process.   This waste is handled in two ways:

          (a)   the entire wastewater stream is impounded and the phos-
               phorus settles out in the pond, where it is destroyed
               by the addition of lime.  A slow reaction occurs in the
               presence of air to yield calcium hypophosphita.

          (b)   the "phossy water" stream (waste stream 16B)  is treated
               with flocculants and the colloidal phosphorus is recovered
       i        and recycled.  The treated "phossy water" stream is

                                   3-25

-------
                  ii
                  o o
                         z
                         HI
                  Si's
                  !s**
                                          UJ
                                          UJ
- o

UJ O


c uj

  5
  X  0)

  o  t!
  O  i
3-26

-------
t
0 g
2 
t

H
Z 
2

H-
UJ^"~
>

O
z
>-
K
O
1 >
ill
|  S

5
UJ g






z
o
H_j -
-i-
  i
DIGESTER
'
Ul>g
K>5
"zffi
H n2S
L^S| lia
 t  ' ^* tfi
$ It S
"2 fc o
 - iss
" *t ^ipli
ji Zf ST.-
S1S15
1 85-c
1 ^8
r  s
1 8
 si   i* i
 s i < 5 i 1
58 s S 33 I
                                                                   UJ
                                                                   oc
                                                                   Ul
                                                                o
                                                                tl
                                                                            1
i
CSJ taP-
(JlOoD
ro  V
                           3-27

-------
               then iupounded and residual phosphorus, which settled in
               the ponds, is either stored in the ponds or treated as
               in (a) above.

          A process diagram is given in Figure 17.

          3.3.13  Phosphorus Pentasulfide Manufacture

          3.3.13.1  General Characterization of the Industry

          There are three companies in seven locations engaged in the manu-
facture of phosphorus pentasulfide.  A typical plant has an annual produc-
tion rate of 55,000 kkg  (60,600 tons).

          3.3.13.2  Description of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams

          Phosphorus pentasulfide  (P2Ss) is made by reaction of phosphorus and
sulfur.  The potentially hazardous wastes from reactor water seals, still
residues, and dust collection equipment are arsenic sulfide, phosphorus,
phosphorus trisulfide, phosphorus pentasulfide dust, glassy phosphates,
iron sulfide and carbon disulfide.  In addition to the potential environ-
mental hazards, the reactivity of this waste necessitates special handling.
The P2S5 waste constituent results from equipment cleanout.  A typical
plant generates an annual average of 119 kkg (131 tons) of solid waste
containing 3 kkg  (3.3 tons) arsenic pentasulfide and 8 kkg  (8.8 tons)
phosphorus/phosphorus sulfides.  A process diagram is given in Figure 18.

          The only  possible treatment for  this  stream is encapsulation
because arsenic  and phosphorus sulfides behave  in a similar manner chemically
and do not  lend  themselves to separation and recovery.   Since encapsulation
is not one  of the 43 treatment processes under  consideration, this waste
stream will not  be  considered further in this report.

          3.3.14 Phosphorus Trichloride Manufacture

          3.3.14.1   General Characterization of the Industry

          There  are five companies in 6 locations engaged in the manufac-
ture of phosphorus  trichloride in the U.S.   A typical plant has an annual
production  rate  of  58,000 kkg (64,000 tons).

          3.3.14.2   Description of Potentially  Hazardous Waste Streams

          In the manufacture of phosphorus trichloride,  the product is
generally purified  by distillation.   Still bottoms,  which contain both
unrecovered phosphorus trichloride and arsenic  chlorides, are usually
collected,  treated  to convert them to less reactive sulfides and are then
drummed and buried  at controlled landfill  sites.   A process diagram is
given in Figure  19.
                                   3-28

-------
                                              UJ
                                              (T
                                              O
                                           LJ 2
o
                                              en

                                              K
                                              O

                                              a
                                              to
                                              O
                                               I
                                               a
3-29

-------
T
CONDENSING,
CASTING,
CRUSHING
1
3 -J
1) -i
y H-
2*
1 1
REACTOR




1 1 WATER-BORNE
PHOSPHORUS * WASTE
TES (FROM SCRUBBER
:TOR WATER P2o5+so2
RESIDUES, AND
.LECTOR)
1
ARSENIC 8
WAS
(FROM RE/
SEALS, STILL
DUST COL
CONTAINS
005 As2S5
0.15 Rt+R,S3
P2 S5 DUST
FeS2+CS2
GLASSY PHOSPHATES
                                                                  cr

                                                                  t
                                                                  o

                                                                  2

                                                                  z
                                                              UJ
                                                              tr

                                                                  c/i

                                                                  a:
                                                                  o

                                                                  
                                                                  to
                                                                  O

                                                                  Q.
TT   en
CM   r-
i^-   PJ
                 3-30

-------
n
                                                  |

                                                  <
                                              UJ
                                              o:
                                              =>
                                              o
                                                  _J
                                                  x
                                                  cr
                                                  o
                                                  V)
                                                  o

                                                  Q.
cr

3
X
(J

00
         cr
         o
         i
         CL
         CO
         O

         a.


         (>
         OJ
         evi
          3-31

-------
4.0  GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED FOR TREATING INORGANIC WASTES

     4.1  Introduction

          Forty-three waste treatment technologies were examined under
EPA Contract 68-01-2288.  Of the 43 unit operations, only 23 were determined
to be applicable to waste streams in the inorganic chemicals industry.  Of
these 23, only 9 were finally selected to be used for the waste streams
under consideration.  The approach used in selecting treatment alternatives
involved the initial elimination of inappropriate processes and the
selection of combinations of the remaining processes for further investigation.
Using information contained in the draft report of Contract 68-01-2288, a
matrix for comparing unit processes was prepared.  This matrix, shown in
Table 7, served as a general work sheet for expeditious screening and
selecting of treatment possibilities.  However, in all cases, the final
choice of treatment processes for a particular waste stream was based on
engineering judgment.

          The following sections include brief descriptions of those tech-
nologies found appropriate for treating the potentially hazardous land
destined waste streams in this industry.

          4.1.1  Calcination

          Calcination is a thermal decomposition process, generally operated
at atmospheric pressure.  It can be applied to aqueous slurries, sludges
and tars to drive off volatiles and to produce a dry powder or calcined
solid.  Typical calciners include the open hearth, rotary kiln and fluidized
bed types.

          Calcination is particularly useful when a one-step process is
required to deal with a complex waste, as it will destroy organic components
and leave inorganic components in a more acceptable form for recovery or
landfill.  Calcination may be used to decompose salts or other compounds
to form an oxide that will be more stable or reusable.  Typical examples
are the calcination of carbonates, hydroxides, sulfites, sulfides, sulfates
and nitrates to the corresponding oxides with evolution of carbon dioxide,
water, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, respectively.

          4.1.2  Dissolution

          Dissolution may be defined as the complete or partial transfer
of one or more components in a solid to a liquid phase in contact with
the solid.  The reaction involves some degree of chemical transformation,
such as solvation, ionization or oxidation.  The solids are contacted by
the reagent in a mixer and the insolubles are then separated.  Heat may be
applied to speed the process and provide increased solubility.  Solids can
be treated sequentially with different reagents to remove components
selectively.  The products oro a wastewater stream that requires further
treatment, and residual solids that may be suitable for disposal, reuse or
further treatment.
                                     4-1

-------
k fc
  i

._
ll
;-
SE
P^

F


g
t-. /.

E*
^ .
 C t i
4J -H > U
* S*P
c _ c
"~ |  8
1 " ^?
i s u c
U t
1 "<
I




a





3 X

H

s
f o

ft
k p
c. C

~





T

B
p
d



X


L.
O


'3 S
^ H
^^

ft
 b
.
>t-

"| t,
i t U
T V '- ~
1-^ ^3&ftx
 >  re 
P-- &1

r- fr

ii C.
c
gl^s
5 3 6

|
4J
L.
-H
> &1
1 "H JJ >t '
II ^cl15^!
If-^l 83||2

p|
1


w
2






8

1
rr
C

II
-*cu SP>UU U
 H Ul -H -* -















4J
i1
T


fN
El pi
- E_
"
^ tn
(N ~*
5 ?















"in
!
Centrifi.
g^tion




6





X













S ^ f\
"S ^ 1 B
= ~ ^ 8
-



_
"^ C1
5^

K 4J > '
S -5 y> -J fi;

5 o a"?  ?

>
-

ii




i
V,
C
                                 4-2

-------
         .5 It
              3

              I
              21
              0|
i
                  8  I

                  JJ I 1C

                  25 fc
                  H U* C


                  ~l1
                  * * .5
                                         I  I


                                         ill
                                         V *B ^
                                         * C K
                                         fls S <
3i5
                               O fH  O W

                               
-------
M
   I; li
E
      i?
 i
 B
       SI

      A

       01
            g i
"2 \

!H
                    X   X
              h

              "So
               H O
         
        r^: .
         s s B
        ET5- :fe

        Jlal

        K ^ ^- 
purif

1 iqui
                    ^ H

                   IE.S.
                   3 c
                                I U-
                                 I!
                        S1
                        O O C
                                  B -

                                  s 
                                    8
                              e
                              "5.
                                     . B.

                                     *
                     4-4

-------
 3f
                  i
                                            o  6
                                            - Srt"a 
 ^ *H I
 u tnl
ii
     88
                            83S
     ]|  3-5

"^ "" P B1? "6. E .2 **
3o o B'C*'^ &!S i
                          1
                        83
           i   i
g .  i .    g
                        Is
                             I18
                  8-S rf -H
                  AI n B
                     4-5

-------
           * S   a
           51 SB
            y -H U
                               3 g_
                               ||_8
,5
1
                31
                                    -   -i

                                    Sg 3

                                    	 *J 
                                    r- nj rj
                                     Li 
                                    T3   '
                                    ffl   U
                                    H   O
                                               -       -
                                             _^ S fe-^^
                                             p-i n rrt B (N n i
                                              ill JS O  
purifieo

liquids
              a
                       3 a
                    -.f-< TT ^ JJ

                    j  -J i/i -^ 3

                    :  i- u ^ IT;
                    T, 
                    Sr 3
              2
> Q ^_,

  w
                   I
                                      m S
                                    y v o
s

ions
                                      


                                    .5 8
                                                l   N
                                                 C li
                                                 re ^ c
                               C  u Q
                               a tr>  
                               - c ^  -
Ja



  cn
S'S



       1
-i   JJ  m
                                       4-6

-------
          In theory, dissolution may be applied to any solid containing a
species of interest capable of being dissolved.  Forms of solids that are
acceptable include metallic wastes, dry powders, ashes and scrubber slurries.

          4.1.3  Distillation

          Distillation is the boiling of a liquid solution and condensation
of the vapor for the purpose of separating solution components.

          In the distillation process there are two phases, the liquid phase
and the vapor phase.  The components which are to be separated by distillation
are present in both phases but in different concentrations.  If there are
only two components in the liquid, one concentrates in the condensed vapor
(condensate) and the other in the residual liquid.

          In the treatment of wastes, distillation is primarily used for
the recovery of organics in liquid waste streams.  It can also be used
for separating certain inorganic chemicals from waste streams.  Distillation
is currently in use as part of the manufacturing process for certain inorganic
chemicals such as hydrofluoric acid and phosphorus trichloride.

          4.1.4  Electrolysis

          Electrolysis refers to the reactions of oxidation or reduction
that take place at the surface of conductive electrodes immersed in an
electrolyte, under the influence of an applied potential.  Electrolytic
processes may be used in reclaiming heavy metals, including toxic metals
from concentrated aqueous solution and for polishing dilute metallic waste-
waters.  They are not generally useful for viscous and tarry liquids.

          4.1.5  Evaporation

          Evaporation is the only method of general usefulness for the
separation and recovery of dissolved solids in water.  All others either
involve merely concentration (reverse osmosis) or introduce contaminations
to subsequent operations (demineralizer regenerants and chemical precipi-
tations) .

          The evaporation process is well known and well established in
the inorganic chemical industry.  Separations, product purifications and
solution concentrations are commonly accomplished by evaporative techniques.

          On the other hand, evaporation is a relatively expensive operation.
To evaporate one kilogram of water, approximately 550 kilogram-calories of
energy is required and the capital cost for the evaporating equipment is
not low.  For these reasons, industrial use of evaporation in treating waste-
water has been minimal.

          Almost always, the treatment of wastewater streams by evaporation
has utilized the principle of multi-effects to reduce the amount of steam
or energy required.  Thus, the theoretical limitation of carrying out the
separation of a solute from its solvent is the minimum amount of work
necessary to effect the particular change, that is the free energy change
involved.  A process can be made to operate with a real energy consumption
not cjreatly exceeding this value.  The greater the concentration of soluble
                                    4-7

-------
salts, the greater is the free energy change for separation, but, even for
concentrated solutions, the value is much lower than the 550 kg cal per
kilogram value to evaporate water.  Multi-effect evaporators use the heat
content of the evaporated vapor stream from each preceding stage to effi-
ciently (at low temperature difference) evaporate more vapor at the
succeeding stages.  Thus, the work available is used in a nearly reversible
manner, and a lower energy requirement results.  However, a large capital
investment in heat transfer surface and pumps is required.

          4.1.6  Filtration

          Filtration is the most versatile method for removal of water-
borne suspended solids.  It is used for applications ranging from dewatering
of sludges to removal of the last traces of suspended solids to give clear
filtrates.

          Filtration is accomplished by passing the wastewater stream
through solids - retaining screens, cloths, or particulates such as sand,
gravel, coal or diatomaceous earth using gravity, pressure or vacuum as
the driving force.

          Filtration equipment is of various designs including plate-and-
frame, cartridge and candle, leaf, vacuum rotary, and sand or mixed media
beds.  All of these types are currently used in the treatment of water-
borne wastes in the inorganic chemical industry.

          4.1.7  High Gradient Magnetic Separation  (HOG)

          HOVE is a technique for separating magnetic or weakly para-
magnetic particles or other nonmagnetic materials (down to colloidal
particle size) from slurries, sludges, and (after chemical treatment) from
solutions.  The feed stream is passed through a fine ferromagnetic filter
which, when magnetized, collects the magnetic material.  The filter is
periodically cleaned, with the magnetic material recovered by a simple wash
procedure.  The removal of nonmagnetic material requires the feed to be
treated with a magnetic seed (e.g., magnetite).

          HOB may be operated as either a cyclic or a continuous operation.
Cyclic units are preferable when  (1) the material being removed is a small
percentage of the total volume passing through the system, and  (2) high
operating pressures are needed.  Continuous operation may be preferable
when  (1) high operating pressures are not needed, and  (2) the material
being removed is a large percentage of the total volume passing through the
system.

          Current commercial applications of HCM3 include beneficiation of
hematite and the processing of molybdenum ore to remove iron impurities.

          4.1.8  Neutralization and pH Control

          Neutralization is the process by which acids and caustic wastes
are reacted either with each other or with additional acid or caustic to
form neutral salts.  The resulting salts are usually less hazardous than
either of the reactants.  Also, the resultant salt may be insoluble and
                                    4-E

-------
precipitate from the solution.  Calcium salts derived from low cost lajmestone
or lime are particular examples of limited solubility.

        ,  The control 
-------
5.0  TREATMENT PROCESSES SELECTED FOR A GIVEN WASTE STREAM

     5.1  Introduction

          Subsequent to the coirpletion of the waste characterization and
consultation phase of the study two facts became apparent:   (1) it was
recognized that the best technology for the treatment of several of the
waste streams was either incineration or encapsulation, which were not
covered under the "Treatment Study" and were considered to be out of the scope
of work of this study; and  (2) it was discovered that one of the potentially
hazardous waste streams (stream 12) is  no longer generated.  Accordingly,
upon EPA's approval, four of the original nineteen waste streams, identified
as being potentially hazardous in an earlier study (EPA contract No.
68-01-2246), were eliminated from consideration in the alternative treatment
study.  These streams are:

            Stream 3, chlorinated hydrocarbons - diaphragm cell chlor-
             aUcali plants.

            Stream 10, arsenic-containing sludges-boric acid manufacture.

            Stream 12, antimony waste stockpile-antimony manufacture.

            Stream 17, arsenic and phosphorus wastes - phosphorus
             pentasulfide manufacture.

          Supporting rationale for the elimination of these streams is
offered below:

          Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

          The chlorinated hydrocarbon waste stream from diaphragm cell
chlor-alkali plants is characterized by the industry as a variable waste
stream ranging in consistency from oily to tar-like material.  This waste
arises from the reaction of chlorine with organic material in the carbon
anode and elsewhere in the cell.   The composition of this stream varies within
a given operational day depending on the condition of the cell anode or the
operating condition of the chlorine purification system where the waste
collects.

          The contractor's consensus is that since this waste is a mixed
and poorly defined material, it is not amenable to resource recovery by
any of the 43 processes in the "Treatment Study".  The best available
technology to treat this stream,  which is currently practiced by at least
five plants,  is destruction by incineration.   There are a maximum of 30
plants that generate chlorinated hydrocarbons averaging 70 kkg/yr per plant.
This quantity of waste is not large enough to warrant installation of
individual incinerators, therefore, contract incineration is recommended in
an incinerator equipped with a scrubber for the combustion gases.

          Additionally, the quantity of this waste can be reduced by
replacing the graphite anodes by coated metal anodes (dimensionally stable
anodes,  DSA).  This waste has been minimized at mercury cell plants by
use of DSA.  Conversion is proceeding at a much slower pace at diaphragm
cell plants.
                                     5-1

-------
          Arsenic Bearing Wastes from Boric Acid Manufacturing

          This waste stream is currently produced as a filter cake containing
 arsenic  in  one of its least soluble forms (as ferric arsenate).   There is
 only one plant in the U.S. generating this  waste.   The quantity of this waste
 varies from 0.2  to 0.5 kkg/day and the waste has an arsenic concentration of
 100  to 1,000 ppm.

          The contractor's consensus  is  that the only possible treatment
 for  this waste stream is  encapsulation.   Ferric  arsenate  is in trace
 quantities  co-mixed with  a relatively large volume of filter aid.   The
 filter aid  adsorbs tho ar:.;pnat;o and minimizes serration.

          Antimony Waste  Stockpile

          This waste  stream is no longer generated.   Contact with the sole
 producer in the  U.S.  on September 14,  1976,  revealed that the manufacturer
 had  changed their raw material and was no longer processing antimony  sulfide
 which contained  the hazardous  component  [arsenic sulfide  (As283)].  The
 current  feed stock is an  impure antimony oxide that does  not contain  As2S3.

          Arsenic and Phosphorus Wastes  from Phosphorus Pentasulfide  Manufacture

          This waste  is currently being  produced as dry residue  by  seven
 U.S. plants.  The quantity of  this waste is  an average of 119 kkg/yr  per
 plant, containing 108 kkg/yr of glassy phosphate and iron sulfide,  3  kkg/yr
 of arsenic  pentasulfide and 8  kkg/yr  of  phosphorus/phosphorus sulfide.

          The contractor's  consensus  is  that  the only possible treatment for
 tliis wante ntriMin  is  encapsulation.  Arsonic  sulfide  and  phosphorus
 sulCide behave chemicalJy  in a  similar manner and  do  not  lend themselves
 to separation and  recovery.

          A  process consisting of encapsulation  of this waste stream  in
 butadiene resin, molding  the resulting product in  individual blocks and
 coating  the  blocks with polyethylene, was recommended for this waste  stream.
 However, this process was  not  approved by EPA since encapsulation was not
 among the processes to  be  considered  in  our  study.

          The "Butadiene  Encapsulation"  process, developed by TRW under
 a contract with  EPA Cincinnati,  is  considered by the  contractor  to be the
 best technology  for treating this waste  stream.

          Nc  further discussions are offered in this section on the  above
 four waste streams.   The  following  sections  include process analysis
 information  and waste data of  the treatment  schemes  selected for the
 remaining fifteen  waste streams.
          5.1.1  Waste Streams 1 and 2, Brine Purification Mud and Mercury
                 Wastes from Treatment and Cleaning - Mercury Cell Process,
                 Chlor-Alkali Manufacture         '                  ~~~~

          Two resource  recovery processes were selected to treat the two
waste streams generated by the mercury cell process.  These are:

                                     5-2

-------
 (1)  recovery of mercury by sodium hypochlorite dissolution and (2) recovery
 of mercury by roasting of the sludges.  Both schemes process the combina-
 tion of the two waste streams 1 and 2.  Both are known and demonstrated
 technologies.
           5.1.1.1  Treatment Scheme 1 -  Recovery of Mercury by Sodium
                   Hypochlorite Dissolution

           5.1.1.1.1   Process Description and Material Balance

           The dissolution of the  brine purification mud (stream 1)  and the
 dewatering and separation of the  solids  are operated in a continuous
 manner.   The incorporation of the filtrate from this operation with the
 wastewater treatment sludges (stream 2)  and subsequent treatment for mercury
 recovery are conducted in a batch operation.

           The brine purification mud,  containing about 23 weight percent
 solids,  is acidified with 'spent sulfuric acid  (70 percent)  to a pH  level of
 approximately 2 to promote the growth and precipitation of  calcium  carbon-
 ate crystals.  The acidified waste stream is next treated with sodium hypo-
 chlorite in an agitated tank to a  pH  level of  6  to  7 to dissolve the mercury
 chloride and elemental mercury in  the waste sludge.   The product from the
 sodium hypochlorite dissolution tank  is  vacuum filtered to  separate the waste
 solids.   The filtrate is  allowed to settle in  a  clarifier and is then collected
 in a receiver for subsequent mercury  recovery.   The filter  cake is  combined
 with the clarifier underflow, monitored  and landfilled.  This waste sludge
 contains less than 40 ppm of mercury  on  a dry  basis  (about  15 ppm,  wet basis).

          All subsequent  downstream operations are  run in a batch manner.
 The clarified filtrate from the receiver is combined with other mercury-
 containing waste streams  (stream 2) generated  at the plant  and treated
 with sodium bisulfite  (NaHSO3), sulfuric acid  (H2SOO  and sodium hydro-
 sulfide  (NaSH), respectively, in a 16-hour cycle batch reactor for  mercury
 sulfide  precipitation.  The purpose of NaHSOs  addition is to destroy
 residual chlorine in the wastewaters.  The wastewater is   then acidified  to
 a pH level  to 3 to 3.5 and  treated with  NaSH to  effect the  precipitation of
 mercury  sulfide.  The effluent from the  treatment tank is passed through
 a horizontal leaf filter  in a batch manner (ten batches per week).   Once a
week, the filter leaves are pulled out and the mercury sulfide  filter cake
 is placed in the sodium hypochlorite redissolution tank where it is reacted
with sodium hypochlorite  to a pH level of  8  to 9.  The duration of  this
operation is  two hours, after which the  resulting solution, containing sodium
oxychloride mercury ions, is returned to the main plant brine circuit.

          The filtrate from the leaf filter  is sent  to a neutralization tank
where the pH  is adjusted to  a level of 7 to  9 by the  addition of caustic.
The effluent  from this tank  is monitored for mercury  (less  than  0.045 kg
of mercury/day)  prior to discharge.  Wastewater with too high a mercury
content  is returned to the treatment tank  for processing.

          The chlorine vapors from the vacuum filter  circuit  and hydrogen
sulfide vapors generated from the treatment tank are pulled through a
caustic scrubber prior to venting.  The scrubbing liquor is recirculated
and replaced once a week.  The spent caustic is returned to the brine puri-
fication mud sump.

                                    5-3

-------
          figure 0 shows a detailed flow sheet and material balance for
a treatment plant'to process waste sludges  (streams 1 and 2) generated by
a typical 250 kkg/day mercury cell chlor-aUcali plant.  Material balances
and recovery values shown are prorated from a 154 kkg/day existing operation.
The only adaptation made throughout the process is the assumption that the
wastewater treatment sludges  (stream 2) instead of the raw wastewater will
be combined with the filtrate from the vacuum filter operation prior to
NaHS03/NaSH treatment and mercury sulfide precipitation.  The existing plant
has no separate wastewater treatment system.  Plants which do have a sulfide
treatment system and generate wastewater treatment sludges  (stream 2) could
combine this sludge with waste stream 1 prior to sulfide precipitation.  In
stream 2, at most plants, mercury is in the sulfide form and can be readily
processed for recovery.

          5.1.1.1.2  Applications to Date

          a.  Full-scale Treatment Installation

          This treatment process is currently being used by BASF Wyandotte,
Inc. in Port Edwards, Wisconsin.  The process installation was completed
in late 1973.  The plant has been operating essentially trouble free since
start-up.  The treatment plant handles brine purification mud and other
mercury-containing wastewaters from cell room operation from a 154 kkg/day
chlor-aUcali mercury cell operation.  Mr. Brian Johnson is the key contact
at the plant.

          Additionally, the sodium hypochlorite extraction of mercury from
brine sludges has been used by four chlor-alkali plants in Japan.  The Japanese
process, which is similar to the BASF method, has been marketed in the United
States since 1970 by Crawford & Russell, who claim the process will remove more
than 85 percent of the mercury from the brine sludge.21*

          In a more recent publication, Crawford & Russell claimed a reduction
of mercury in the dry sludge from 50-4,000 ppm to 0.1 ppm using the sodium
hypochlorite leaching process with pH adjustment.90

          b-  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operations

          The initial work on extracting mercury from brine sludge was per-
formed using sodium hypochlorite.  This method was known to remove mercury
as early as 1924 from Glaeser's work.30  Extensive work has been done on
sodium hypochlorite leaching of mercury from low grade ores by Parks,6 8'6 9
Town86 and others.   Although Parks achieved good recovery (96.4 per cent)
there still was 10 ppm mercury left in the residue.  Tokana85 found that
multi-staging the extraction process could increase the mercury recovery
to 99 percent with eight stages.

          Laboratory work based on sodium hypochlorite leaching of mercury has
also been conducted by Georgia-Pacific Corporation in Bellingham, Washington.
Experiments involved test runs with one liter of brine sludge to 250 ml of
sodium hypochlorite.  The maximum mercury recovery achieved during these runs in
one stage has been reported to be 86 percent.90  Several experiments were
subsequently conducted using multi-stage leaching systems.  It was concluded
that, due to the difficulty and expense required to separate the liquid

                                    5-4

-------
5-5

-------
from the fine solids at each stage, a practical system may be restricted
to a maximum of two-stage operation, with a mercury recovery of less than
90 percent.

          r,aboratory work performed by BASF Wyandotte has indicated that
the key to the success of high  level mercury recovery by sodium hypochlorite
leaching is control of brine mud particle size and pH adjustment during
various steps of the treatment  process.

          c.  Pilot or Full-scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          None known.

          5.1.1.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis  Information

          The benefits resulting from sodium hypochlorite treatment of
mercury bearing wastes  (streams 1 & 2) from mercury cell chlor-alkali
plants are:

               (1)  mercury recovery,

               (2)  solid waste  reduction and

               (3)  solid waste  detoxification.

          For the typical plant, this system achieves mercury recovery at
a rate of 39.2 kg/day.  Using a price of $9.10 per kilogram of mercury pur-
chased, this treatment process  would incur an annual resource recovery value
of $130,000 or $1.42 per metric ton of chlorine produced.

          The treatment plant will also achieve an annual cost savings of
$7,885 resulting from the volume reduction of land destined wastes  (excluding
treatment process costs).  The  quantity of the solid waste generated by the
treatment plant will be 8.4 kkg/day as compared to the original 12.0 kkg/day
solid waste destined to landfills.  Additionally, the solid waste will be
essentially detoxified.  The original waste contains 8,420 ppm mercury on
a dry basis.  The treated waste will contain less than 40 ppm mercury on a
dry basis.  This corresponds to a 99.5% reduction in mercury content of the
land destined solid waste.

          A summary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 1 of Table 8 which summarizes the benefit analyses for all treatment
processes considered in this study.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There are air emissions, waterborne waste and land destined wastes
generated by this treatment process.  However, in general, this process
presents a minimal threat to the environment and personnel safety.  Nearly
all chemicals used in this treatment process are readily available onsite
such as sodium hypochlorite which is generated by the main process as a
result of chlorine  tail gas scrubbing.

                                    5-6

-------
8
      'S g
       85
               \S
               a.!
8
      rH Q
      O B
      O M
                                                      o
                                                      00

                                                                           .
                                                                           Ji
r-
0
      -H 2 W
      Q 0 (X
                         Sg

                         S3
o
o
vo
o
                     s
                     m
*fi



>H rH

B-qJ
05 U
s
\C (N f
                                       0
                                       o
                                                      i
                                                                           -S
s
rH
in
o
               S
         P-

         &
                       in
                       vo
                       o
                             O

                             o
                     I.
                             0

                             0
                           o
                           x
                           00
                                                      o
                                                      IN
                                                      00
                                                     in
                                                     oo
                                                     oo
                                                                 in
                                                                 m
                                                                 I
                                                                       a * g
                                                                         5C
                                                                          8
                                                                                     (Q CD


                                                                                   -H Jj 4J

                                                                                   H B o

P  ^ii
O  X CO
              88
                                      ~* >
                                      nj V
                                                  IJ
                                                  rt
                                                         X. V
                                                               2J IB
                                                               & X
                          5-7

-------
10
rH



rH







2





(N
rH




r-4

O











Col urns
CO
rH



rH

3
rH




in
rH





^T
rH




2

rH











Waste
Stream
8
CO
rH


O
0
rH
VD
rH

O
O
rH
<
\&


O
rH
in
rH



0
o
rH




O
o
rH

S
rH




O
c

o


Treatment
System
Phosphorus
Chloride
Manufactur-
ing

S
2
M
UH

.|
in



OJ
-H s y
rH *J (T3
 "i
u <

Treatment
Process
S
IS

sg

1

1
1
1


4
H
d) O
A; w
||


















i
i



Material
Recovered
rH
0
o



rH
rH

I
1
1



J?
CM X
O C
0 
0 nn 2


1
1
1




!

j






1
I



Amount
Recovered
kkg/D
Negligible



o
o
rH
(N
r"t

1
1
1





O
m


I





I

I







1



Resource
Recovery
Value $Ar
Negligible



o
in
vo

|

i




rH
C
c


1
1
I




1

1
1







1


en
Resource
Recovery
Value S/kk
produce
0)
1
-H
rH
I



I

c
(N
C

f^


0
rH

	

C
O
in
cT
o
v>


c
in
in
rsl

i
r-
co


N

C
o
rH

CO
rH


5 
 
Essentially
100%


a
f
OP -5 m
CM t/3 ro
CJN ** fX



o




OP
r*
Cft



OP
o
O



C

I







o
c



Percent
Hazardous
Conjxnent
Reduction
5-8

-------
          Air Pollution

          Small quantities of air emissions emanate  from the scrubber which
is used to control the chlorine vapor from the vacuum filter and the hydrogen
sulfide vapor from the treatment tank.  Emissions  from this stationary  source
have proven to be negligible and well within the limits  of applicable regulations.

          Water Pollution

          The waterborne waste generated  by this treatment process is the
filtrate from the leaf filter operation which is neutralized and monitored
for mercury content prior to discharge.  The daily maximum mercury discharge
from this operation is 0.045 kg  (0.1 Ib)  [0.00018  kg/kkg of product]  which
is within the applicable NPDES permit range of 0.0000724 to 0.00286  kg/kkg
[0.000145 to 0.00571 Ib/ton] for mercury cell chlor-alkali plants

          Solid Waste

          There are 8.4 kkg/day of land destined waste removed from the
settling tank and the vacuum filter.  This waste contains less than  40  ppm
of mercury on a dry weight basis which represents  a  99.5 percent reduction
of the hazardous component in the land destined waste.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          There are no major personnel safety hazards associated with this
treatment process. Chlorine vapors from the vacuum filter and hydrogen
sulfide vapors from the treatment tank are scrubbed  and  closely monitored.
The recovered mercury product is in a dissolved form and presents no  health
hazard.  Details on the occupational and health effects  and information on
applicable OSHA limitations for mercury and its salts, hydrogen sulfide and
chlorine gas are given in Appendix 1.

          5.1.1.1.4  Costs for Treatment System 1

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in  estimating costs
for this process are:

              (1)   Mercury-bearing sludges from a  typical 250 kkg/day (275.5
tons/day)  mercury cell chlor-alkali plant would be processed in this  treatment
plant at a rate of 0.81 kkg/hr (0.89 tons/hr), 24 hours per day, 365  days per
year.

              (2)   A complete chemical reaction between the mercury present
in the 18.5 kkg/day (20.4 tons/day)  of brine purification muds, and 16 kkg/day
(17.6 tons/day)  of sodium hypochlorite reagent occurs forming a complex
chloride ion in solution.

              (3)   Rotary vacuum filtration is used to effect reropval f
8.4 kkg/day (9.3 tons/day)  of inert solids from the mergury chloride  solution,
The solids contain a maximum mercury concentration of 4Q ppm. (dry basil) QF
15 ppm (wetbasis).

                                    5-9

-------
               (4)  Precipitation of mercuric sulfide from the mercury chloride
solution is effected by the addition of sodiumhydrosulfide.  At  this point,
the mercury-bearing sludge from the plant's wastewater treatment  operation
(stream 2) is combined with the feed to the precipitation reactor.   The  process
operates batchwise in succeeding operations.

               (5)  The insoluble mercuric sulfide in the  sulfide-treated waste
is recovered as filter cake [a total of 32.2 kg  (70.8 Ib) HgS per batch  is
processed] .  The treated wastewater is within EPA discharge limits on mercury
[<0.045 kg/day  (<0.1 Ib/day)] and is then routed to the plant outfall.

               (6)  Reaction of the insoluble mercuric sulfide with fresh sodium
hypochlorite redissolves mercury which is recycled to the chlor-alkali
process.  The average Hg recycle rate is 0.04 kkg/day  (0.44 tons/day).

          b.  Costing Methodology Used

          For this process  (system 01100), the total capital cost for the
mercury recovery system was supplied by BASF Wyandotte.   Cost for the typical
plant was obtained by prorating the BASF cost on plant capacity using a  0.6
exponential scaling factor.  Capital cost estimate was then changed  from 1974
basis to 1976 by using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Indices.

          The annual plant chemical, water, power and labor requirements were
estimated from BASF-supplied information.  However, EPA supplied  standard
cost factors, as discussed in Appendix II, were used to generate  the operating
costs.  Costs for sampling, testing and miscellaneous other costs were pro-
rated from BASF-supplied costs by using appropriate prorating and updating
factors.

          c.  Cost Summary and Energy Requirerrent

          The estimated total capital cost for system 01100 is $1,540,000.
The system annual power requirement is 1,300,000 kwh.  The annual process
heat requirement is negligible.  The unit operating costs (including credit
for recovered mercury) are as follows:

          $6.9  per kkg ($6.2/ton) of chlorine product

          $361 per kkg ($328/ton)  of waste (dry basis)
          $89 per kkg ($81/ton) of waste (wet basis)

          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table 9 covers details on equipment sizes and operating conditions
for this process.  Capital cost and annual operating cost breakdowns  for
this plant ore presented in Table 10 .
          5.1.1.2  Treatment Scheme 2 - Recovery of Mercury by Roasting of
                   the Sludge

          5.1.1.2.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          The process consists of dewatering the sludge and roasting the
mercury-bearing solids at 730 C to 760 C  (1,350 F to 1,400 F) to
vaporize and recover mercury from the sludge.
                                     5-10

-------
                               TABLE  9

 SYSTEM 01100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment
No.
Quantity   Equipment Specifications     Operating Conditions
01101
01102
01103
01104
01105
01106
01107
01108
01109
           18.9 1/min (5 gpm) centri-
           fugal transfer pump - cast
           iron construction
           113,550 liter (30,000 gal)
           surge tank - FRP*construc-
           tion
           5,678 liter (1,500 gal)
           spent acid storage tank -
           FRP construction
           J.78  1/min (1 gpm) acid
           metering pump - high sili-
           con iron construction

           10 HP SS turbine agitator
Pumps slightly acidic  slurry
containing approximately
23% solids at 25C  (77F)
at head of approximately
30.5 ra  (100 ft)

Tanks operate at  25C  (77F)
and 1 atm.  Tanks can  each
hold approximately one
week's supply of  brind mud

Tank operates at  25C  (77F)
and 1 atm.  Tank  holds approxi-
mately 1 day's supply  of 70%
sulfuric acid

Pumps 70% sulfuric acid at
25C  (77F) at head of
approximately 30.5 m  (100  ft)

Operates at 25C  (77F).
Maintains uniform suspension
of approximately  15% solids
in tank
           37.85 1/min (10 gpm)  centri- Pumps acidic, 15% solids
           fugal transfer pump - cast   slurry at 25C  (77F) at
           iron construction            head of approximately 30.5 m
                                        (100 ft)
           15,140 liter (4,000 gal)
           sodium hypochlorite storage
           tank - FRP construction
           11.36  1/min (3 gpm)
           metering pump - cast iron
           construction
           568   liter (150 gal)
           treatment tank - FRP
           construction
Tank operates at 25C  (77F)
and 1 atm.  Tank holds
approximately 1 day's supply
of sodium hypochlorite  (7-8%
available chlorine loading)

Pumps sodium hypochlorite
solution at 25C (77F) at
head of approximately 30.5 m
(100 ft)

Tank operates at 25C  (77F)
and 1 atm.  Provides 30 minutes
residence time
FRP = fiberglass reinforced plastic
                                     5-11

-------
                         TABIE  9   (continued)
Equipment
No.
Quantity   Equipment Specifications
Operating Conditions
01110
01111
01112
01113
01114
01115
01116
           5 HP SS turbine agitator
           37.85 1/min  (10 gpm)
           centrifugal transfer
           pump - cast iron construc-
           tion
Operates at 25C  (77F).
Maintains uniform suspension
of approximately 10% solids
in tank

Pumps 10% brine muds slurry
at 25C (77F) and head of
approximately 30.5 m  (100 ft)
           11.148 sq m  (120 sq ft)      Operates at 25C  (7?F) and
           rotary vacuum filter rubber- 38.1 cm  (15 in) Hg vacuum.
           covered steel construction,  Dewaters solids to approxi-
           polypropylene filter cloth   mately 30% moisture content
           1,890 liter  (500 gal)
           settling tank - FPP con-
           struction
           37.85 1/min  (10 gpm)
           centrifugal transfer
           pump - cast iron con-
           struction

           37,850 liter  (10,000 gal)
           collection tank - FKP
           construction
           37.85 1/min  (10 gpm)
           centrifugal  transfer
           pump - cast  iron con-
           struction
Tank operates at 25C  (77F)
and 1 atei.  Provides 1 hour
residence time for any resi-
dual solids to settle to
bottom of tank

Pumps clear liquor from top
of settling tank at 25C  (77F)
and head of approximately
30.5 m  (100 ft)

Tank operates at 25C  (77F)
and 1 atm.  Provides storage
capacity for 1 batch of
liquor to be treated in the
next stage

Pumps liquor from collection
tank to sulfide treatment
tank.  Operates at 25C  (77F)
and head of approximately
30.5 m  (100 ft)
                                      5-12

-------
                          TABLE  9   (continued)
Equipment
NO.
Quantity   Equipment Specifications
Operating Conditions
 01117
           37,850 I/rain  (10,000 gal)
           .treatment tank - steel
           'w/rubber lining con-
           struction
 Tank operates at 25C (77F)
 and 1 atm.   Hydrogen sulf ide
 vapor generated,is drawn
 through tank vent to scrubber
 01124 using vacuum pump on
 rotary filter.   Treatment
 cycle length is approximately
 16 hours during which succes-
 sive additions of sodium bi-
 sulfite, sulfuric acid and
 sodium hydrosulfide result
 in precipitation of mercuric
 sulfide
01118
01119
01120



01121

01122



01123
           1,140 1/min (300 gpm)
           centrifugal transfer
           pump - high silicon iron
           construction
           30.2  sq m (325 sq ft)
           horizontal pressure leaf
           filter - rubber-lined
           steel construction
    1      3,030 liters (800 gal) re-
           dissolving tank - poly-
           propylene construction

    1      1 HP turbine agitator

    1      189  1/min (50 gpm)
           centrifugal transfer pump-
           cast iron construction

    1      19 1/min (5 qpm)
           centrifugal transfer pump-
           cast iron construction
Pumps HgS bearing liquor
to horizontal pressure leaf
filter.  Pump operates at
pressures up to 5 atm and
25 8C  (77 P)

Before filter is operated,
filter leaves are preccated.
Approximately 10 batches per
week of slurry frcm treatment
tank 01117 are pumped thrcugh,
after which leaves are pulled
and the cake dropped into re-
dissolving tank 01120

Tank operates at 25C (77F)
and 1 atra pressure
Operates at 25C  (77F)

Operates at 25C  (77F) and
head of approximately 30.5 m
(100 ft)

Operates at 25C  (77F) and
head of apprcximatelv 30.5 m
(100 ft)
                                   5-13

-------
                         TABLE  9   (continued)
Equipment
No.
01124
Quantity
1
Ecuiarent Specifications
1,500 liters (400 gal)
Operating Conditions
Operates at 25 C (77 F)
01125
01126
01127
01128
01129
01130
                        packed scrubber - FRP
                        construction
19 1/min (5  gpm)  centri-
fugal transfer pump - cast
iron construction

Treated brine sludge
storage bin, storage
capacity is  7 cu m
(250 cu ft)(1 day's
production of brine puri-
fication solids) -mild
steel construction

37,850  liters  (10,000 gal)
effluent holding tank -
FRP construction
01131
190  1/min  (50  gpm)
centrifugal recirculating
purp - cast iron con-
struction

190  1/min  (50  gpm)
centrifugal effluent dis-
charge pump - cast iron
constraction

2,300   1/min  (800 SGTM)  at
0C (32F), 1 atm
mechanical vacuum pump
with 53.5 cm  (23 in)  Eg
vacuum capacity - steel
construction
5 KP SS turbine agitator     Operates at 25C  (77F)
with gas phase under negative
pressure (gases are pulled
through scrubber using
vacuum pump 01130

Operates at 25C  (77F)
and head of approximately
30.5 m (100 ft]

Treated sludge periodically
removed and trucked to
sanitary landfill.  Treated
sludge has less than 40 ppm
Hg (wet basis)
Operates at 25C  (77F) and
1 atm pressure.  Effluent
batch is treated for Hg
level and pH adjustment with
NaCH to ?H*7-9.  Normal
effluent discharge ccntains
<0.02 kg/day (<0.044 Ib/day)
Hg

Operates at 253C  (77F) and
head of approximately
20.5 m (100 ft)
Operates at 25'C  (77F)
and head of approximately
30.5 m  (100 ft)
Operates at 25C  (77F) and
38.1 cm  (15 in)  Hg vacuum
                                  5-14

-------
                                  TABLE  10
      CAPITAL COST AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 01100

   CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                   $1,540,000
   VARIABLE COSTS
        Treatment Chemicals *                               61,000
        Direct Operating Labor                             158,000
          2 men/shift @ $9/hr
        Supervision and Administrative                      79,000
          a 50% of direct labor
        Maintenance (? 4% of capital cost                    62,000
        Water **                                               700
        Power, 1,300,000 kwh @ 3/kwh                       39,000
        Sampling and Testing                                12,000
        Waste Disposal, 8.4 kkg/day @ $6/kkg                18,400
          ($9.3 tons/day @ $5.44/ton) of wet waste
        Miscellaneous Expenses **                           16,000
                    Total Variable Cost                   $446,100
   FIXED COSTS
        Capital Recovery Rate (10 yrs @ 10%)               251,000
        Taxes and Insurance @ 4% of capital cost            62,000
                    Total Fixed Cost                      $313,000
   TOTAL ANNUAL COST                                       759,100
        Credit for recovery of mercury,                   (132,800)
          14,600 kg @ $9.08Ag
          (32,130 Ib @ $4.13/lb)17
   NET OPERATING COST                                     $626,300
        Unit Costs
          $/kkg ($/ton) of chlorine                       6.9  (6.2)
          $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (dry basis)              361 (328)
          $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (wet basis)              89 (81)
 *This item was given by BASF Wyandotte as a sum.   However, these chemicals
  would include sodium hypochlorite,  sodium sulfide (or hydrosulfide),
  sulfuric acid and caustic soda.
**Qiven by BASF Wyandotte as a sum.
                                    5-15

-------
          The major pieces of equipment include a thickener, a rotary
vacuum filter and a calciner/roaster.  The brine purification mud  (stream 1),
containing about 23 percent by weight solids, is pumped from the main plant
clarifier into the thickener which thickens the sludge to about 38 to 39
weight percent solids.  The thickener underflow is dewatered in a rotary
vacuum filter to a solids content of 60 percent.  The filter cake is com-
bined with wastewater treatment sludges  (stream 2) and silica and roasted
in the calciner.  The purpose of the silica is to bind the salt in the sludge
and prevent large clinker formation.  All decanted and filtrate brine is
recycled to the clarifier at the main plant.

          If shower water is needed to clean the filter cloth or sluice
out slurlqo buildups around the filter, brine from the clarifier overflow
is uaod for this purpose and returned to the clarifier.  During normal
operating conditions, the clarifier overflow is sent to a settling pond.
No fresh water is used for washdown.

          The combustion gas stream from the furnace is passed through a
cyclone, for particulate emission control, prior to mercury condensation
and recovery.  The off gases leaving the condenser are routed through a
refrigerated heat exchanger and a demister for further mercury recovery
The recovered mercury from the condenser and heat exchanger is collected
in an accumulator and returned to the main plant for reuse.

          Figure 21 shows a detailed flow sheet and material balance for
a treatment plant to process waste sludges  (streams 1 and 2) generated by
a typical 250 kkg/day mercury cell chlor-alkali plant.  Material balance
and recovery values shown are prorated from a full-scale demonstration
unit designed to handle 3.2 kkg/day dry solids in the roaster.  The only
adaptation made throughout the process is the assumption that silica addition
would obviate the large clinker formation problems encountered during the
plant operation.

          5.1.1.2.2  Applications to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          A full-scale demonstration plant to process sludges  (waste
streams 1 and 2) from a 181 kkg/day chlor-alkali mercury cell process has
been designed, installed and operated by Georgia-Pacific at their plant
in Bellingham, Washington, under the partial sponsorship of the Environmental
Protection Agency.

          The start-up was in early March, 1974 and the plant operators
took over two months later.  The plant operated for a few months without
a major problem.  From a design standpoint, the system worked better than
expected.  However, shortly after, several serious problems became apparent:
(1) satisfactory continuous feeding of dewatered sludge was difficult to
maintain; (2) severe corrosion in the roaster was apparent due to
the acidic nature of the feed which was destroying the furnace rabble
arms; and (3) high salt concentration of the feed was causing the roasted
solid materials to form large clinkers which could not be properly
discharged.   Consequently, the screw feeder was replaced by a small belt
                                    5-16

-------
OU I
os I
a*
q9gS 3
HS^^ . rr  2
sgoUr |. 
?. i8
 u
o

uj
15* **
II !
i 



.5
~S-S -5
ill -CI
* ~ 	
28 r
*
.J
s ""
go: 2
<=c
^s
z"
5s
f^ O 
i

* i
ss !
ri8 ^ |
i- IP *
 
r - S
,.,  w
Mi o 
yo = 5
CD
sills
i*sis
 s ft 2: d
5
;~
J -

j

!
m
T
O

	 B E
X^8
" ifl ?y
il5

a
flcaki . 	 I_J 	 	
a!6O% solid J 01-01 BEL
~1 CONVt

Sg
j
^ o
!^~
(ctartrUr
ovtrflow)




Ul
S;
cl
01 jj
"5o ^
mv>S 2
1 5
* * {
S .
l\ i
P , ^ '
(nu. O O i^
u 
151 *| 1
1O 03  
S3 ,.
i 8)
&
1
U
w
25 a
*>te =
si! 1
feP '
T^o ,
*S 1
i ^
2"
is
Mi
ogS 1
s "is i
tl = 1  !;
li m  2 1
it] Jill
J|1 ilsl
1i I^
*
       5-17

-------
conveyor which proved to be a satisfactory means for feeding the sludge
into the furnace.  However, due to the inability of the plant to satisfactorily
overcome the remaining two problems, the treatment plant has been shut down
indefinitely.  Mr. Don Elliot, plant manager is the key contact at this plant.

          We believe that this process can be made operable by incorporating
several modifications:

           (1)  The acid feed problem is believed to be unique to the
Georgia-Pacific plant because the sludge is stored in an acid water pond.
Normally, in other mercury cell plants, this sludge is stored on dry land
and is essentially neutral in pH.  This problem at Georgia-Pacific can be
solved by neutralization of the sludge prior to roasting.  However it is
claimed that the roasting of acid sludges results in somewhat lower clinker
mercury levels than for non-acidic sludges at the same temperature.  The
clinkering problem can probably be relieved by the addition of an appropriate
quantity of silica to the roaster feed.  The silica should bind the salt
in the sludge and prevent large clinker formation.

           (2)  Should the incorporation of these modifications to the existing
roaster operation prove to be unsuccessful, we believe the replacement of
the existing multiple hearth furnace with a fluidized bed roaster to be
an alternative solution to the clinker problem.  A pilot plant demonstration
run will be necessary to establish the validity of this contention.

          b.  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operations90

          Preliminary tests were conducted at Georgia-Pacific in a small
lab muffle furnace.  Crucibles of brine sludge were heated to several
temperature levels for various lengths of time to determine the approximate
temperature and time parameters.

          Following the preliminary tests, a series of trials was con-
ducted in a large kiln on samples ranging in size from 100 g to over 30 kg.
The air rate through the kiln was carefully controlled to remove the vaporized
mercury to prevent the vapor phase from becoming over-saturated with mercury.
Residuals as low as 0.02 ppm mercury were achieved.   Temperatures
in the range of 800 C to 900 C  (1,450 F-l,750 F) were required to achieve
mercury residuals below 0.2 ppm.

          Following the successful lab runs, kiln manufacturers were contacted
to verify the laboratory data on a pilot scale.  Tests were conducted at
Bartlett-Snow, Cleveland, and BSP Division of Envirotech, Brisbane, California.

          At Bartlett-Snow, a 15 cm  (6 inch) diameter rotary calciner was
operated at 800C  (1,475F) with a residence time of 30 minutes.  The minimum
mercury level achieved in the tests was 25 ppm, which was significantly
higher than that experienced during laboratory batch tests.  The tests were
shifted to a multiple hearth furnace to gain better control over residence
time and eliminate short-circuiting.

          A pilot run with a multiple hearth furnace was conducted at Envirotech.
A 76 on  (30 in.) furnace was used at temperatures of 730C to 760C
(1,350F to 1,400F).  A somewhat higher solid feed was used in these tests
and a residual mercury level of 0.14 ppm was achieved on the second run.

                                    5-18

-------
          From these data, the maximum furnace hearth loading rate was  found
to be 39 kg/m2(8 lb/ftz) per hour.

          c.  Pilot or Full-Scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          Roasting and retorting methods are predominantly used for the
recovery of mercury from cinnabar ore.

          5.1.1.2.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from roasting of mercury bearing sludges
 (streams 1 & 2) originating from  mercury cell chlor-alkali plants are:

           (1)  elemental mercury recovery,

           (2)  solid waste reduction and

           (3)  solid waste detoxification.

          A summary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown
in column 2 of Table 8.

          For the typical plant, this system recovers elemental mercury at
a rate of 39.9 kg/day.  Using a purchase price of $9.10 per kilogram of
mercury, this treatment process would incur an annual resource recovery
value of $132,500 or $1.45 per metric ton of chlorine produced.

          The treatment plant will also achieve an annual cost savings
of $13,820 resulting from the reduction of the volume of land destined
wastes  (excluding treatment process costs).  The quantity of the solid
waste generated by the treatment plant will be 5.69 kkg/day as compared
to the original 12.0 kkg/day dewatered solid waste destined to landfills.
Additionally, the solid waste will be essentially detoxified.  The original
waste contains 8,420 ppm mercury on a dry basis.  The treated waste will
contain less than 7 ppm mercury on a dry basis.  This corresponds to a
99.9% reduction in mercury content of the land destined solid waste.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There are air emissions and land destined wastes generated by
this treatment process.  However, this process presents a minimal threat
to the environment and personnel safety.  The only serious issue
is that the process is highly energy intensive.

          Air Pollution

          Limited quantities of air emissions will arise from the refrigerat-
ed heat exchangers which are used to condense the mercury vapors escaping
from the water cooled condensers.  The demonstrated mercury emission of 0.06
kg/day is estimated to be 2.6% of the present total allowable NESHAP limitations
                                    5-19

-------
for mercury which permit no more than 2.3 kg/day of mercury vapor to be
lost to the atmosphere from each mercury cell plant, regardless of size.
Additionally, the vent gases will contain approximately 0.02 kkg/day
particulates and 0.011 kkg/day sulfur dioxide which are well within the
applicable limitations.

          Water Pollution

          There are no waterborne wastes from this treatment process.
The brine generated from the sludge thickener  (7.5 kkg/day) and the filter
(3.9 kkg/day of brine) is recirculated to the clarifier at the main plant.

          Solid Waste

          There are 5.69 kkg/day land destined waste generated from the
calcination/roasting operation.  This waste contains less than 7 ppm of
mercury which represents a 99.9 percent reduction of the hazardous component
in the land destined waste.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          There are no major personnel safety hazards associating with
this treatment process.  The mercury vapor and the particulates from the
refrigerated exchangers and demister are well below the applicable
regulations and health standards.  Details on the occupational and health
effects and information on applicable OSHA limitations for mercury and its
salts and sulfur dioxide are given in Appendix I.

          5.1.1.2.4  Costs for Treatment System 2

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs for
this process are:

          (1)  Mercury-bearing sludges from a typical 250 kkg/day  (275.5 tons/
day) mercury cell chlor-alkali plant would be processed in this treatment
plant at a rate of 0.81 kkg/hr,  (0.89 tons/hr), 24 hours per day, 365 days per
year.

          (2)  A thickener increases the solids content of the muds from
23% to 39%.

          (3)  Filtering this stream on a rotary vacuum filter produces 7.1 kkg
(7.82 tons)  per day of filter cake at 60% solids.

          (4)  Roasting the filter cake together with 1 kkg  (1.1 tons) per
day of mercury-bearing sludge from wastewater treatment and 1 kkg  (1.1 tons)
per day of silica removes essentially all of the mercury present in the
sludges.  The roasting process results in approximately 0.04 kkg/day  (0.044
tons/day) of elemental mercury being liberated as vapor which is subsequently
condensed and recycled to the mercury cell chlor-alkali plant.  The 5.7 kkg/day
(6.3 tons/day) of solids discharged from the roaster contain <10 ppm Hg.


                                     5-20

-------
          b.  Costing Methodology Used

          For the mercury recovery process  (system 01200), a breakdown of
the total capital cost for the typical plant was obtained by prorating the
Georgia-Pacific cost on plant capacity using a  0.6 exponential  scaling
factor.  The capital cost estimate was then changed from 1974 to  1976
dollars by using the Chemical Engineering plant cost indices.   The current
cost of the multiple hearth roasting system was obtained from a vendor.28
Also included is the total capital cost  for this process using  a  fluidized
bed roaster instead of a multiple-hearth furnace.   Cost  for fluidized  bed
roasting equipment versus multiple-hearth roasting were  provided  by Dorr-Oliver
for a lime-burning operation.7 8  The difference in costs for the  lime-
burning system was assumed applicable to the mercury sludge roasting
operation.

          The annual plant labor, power  and fuel requirements were estimated
from Georgia-Pacific supplied information.  However,  EPA-supplied standard
cost factors, as discussed in Appendix II,  were used to  generate  the operating
costs.

          c.  Cost Summary

          The estimated total capital investment for system 01200  is as
follows:

          Option 1 - Multiple-hearth sludge roasting system:  $720,000

          Option 2 - Fluidized bed sludge roasting  system:  $600,000

          The estimated annual system power and heat requirements  are
900,000 kwh and 4.94 xo!09 kg cal (19.6 x 109 BTU),  respectively.*

          The unit operating costs (including credit for recovered mercury)
are as follows:

          Option 1 - System 01200A - Multiple-hearth sludge roasting system:

              $2.9 per kkg ($2.6/ton)  of chlorine product
              $152 per kkg ($138/ton)  of raw waste  (dry basis)
              $37 per kkg ($34/ton)  of raw waste (wet basis)

          Option 2 - System 01200B - Fluidized bed sludge roasting system:

              $2.5 per kkg ($2.3/ton)  of chlorine product
              $134 per kkg ($121/ton)  of raw waste  (dry basis)
              $32 per kkg ($29/ton)  of raw waste (wet basis)
*For the purpose of this study it has been assumed that the heat require-
 ments are approximately equal for both types of roasters.  However,
 fluidized bed systems use heat more efficiently than multiple-hearth systems.


                                    5-21

-------
          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table 11 lists details on equipment size and operating conditions  for
this process.  Capital cost breakdown for this process is presented in
Table 12.  Tables 13 and 14 give detailed annual operating costs based
on multiple-hearth roaster and fluid bed roaster operation, respectively.
          5.1.2  Waste Stream 4, Asbestos Separator Wastes - Diaphragm Cell
                 Process

          A conceptual process design has been prepared for a treatment plant
to destroy the asbestos fiber structure in this waste stream by fusion.
Details on this process are given below.

          5.1.2.1  Destruction of Asbestos by Fusion

          5.1.2.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          The process consists of mixing the waste sludge with anhydrous
borax  (fusion point lowering aid), drying and subsequent calcination of
partially dried material to fuse the asbestos fibers into a solid mass.
Because of the relatively small quantities of this material generated,
the handling of the materials in and out of process units would be con-
ducted manually.

          The sludge is discharged into special ceramic trays positioned
beneath the sludge discharge points.  The trays are handled on roller con-
veyors and transported to a tunnel oven for drying.  The oven is sized
to handle 200 trays of sludge blend in 4 hours.  Each tray holds 14.8 kg
(32.5 Ib) of sludge borax mixture.  After the trays are removed from the
tunnel dryer, they are then positioned on carriers and transported to an
electric furnace for calcination at 1,000C to 1,100C  (1,832F to 2,012F).

          The furnace is designed to handle the entire anticipated daily
load of 200 trays.  The cold to cold calcination/fusion cycle is estimated
to be 16 hours.  The fused product can be safely disposed of in a sanitary
landfill.

          Figure 22 shows a detailed flow sheet and material balance for
a treatment plant to process asbestos separator wastes generated by a
typical 450 kkq/day diaphragm cell, chlor-alkali plant.  Additionally, it
has Lx>en nssunvxl that the plant would incorporate into waste stream 4 a
small, quantity of smelter residue generated during the processing of waste
stream 5.  Both waste streams are generated at the same plant site.  The
smelter residue may contain asbestos fibers which should be detoxified.

          5.1.2.1.2  Applications to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          None known.
                                     5-22

-------
                               TABLE  11

 SYSTEM 01200, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment
NO.
Quantity   Equipment Specifications
Operating Conditions
01201
01202
01203
01204
01205
01206
01207
           37.85 1/toin  (10 gpm) centri-
           fugal transfer pump - cast
           iron construction
           4.27 m  (14 ft) diameter by
           1.83 m  (6 ft) high thickener-
           steel w/rubber lining con-
           struction
Pumps 23% solids slurry to
thickener; total head
between 1-5 atm.  Operates
at 25C (77F).

Operates at 25C (77F) and
1 atm.  Thickens slurry to
39% solids  .
           1.8 m  (6 ft) diameter by 2.4 m  Feed rate of  10,000 I/day
           (8 ft) long rotary vacuum        ( 2,640gal/day) @ 39% solids;
           filter - steel with rubber      operates at 38 on  (15 in)
           lining construction             Hg vacuum and 25 "C  (77F) ;
                                           dewaters sludge to  a filter
                                           cake containing 60% solids
           3.05 m  (10 ft) long belt con-
           veyor - rubber belting
           3.785 I/bin  (1 gpm) transfer
           pump - cast iron construction

           Calciner/roaster - refractory
           lined steel construction
           Solids feeder  (screw-type) -
           mild BtMl construction
Transfers 60% solids feed
(filter cake plus stream 2
plus silica) to roasting
furnace

Operates at 25C  (77F) and
total head between 1-5 atm.

Processes 9.1 kkg/day  (10 TPD)
of sludge with total water
content of 4.3 kkg/day
(4.7 TPD) and mercury content
of 0.04 kkg/day (88 Ib/day).
Unit operates at 816-8718C
(1,500-1,600F) and 1 atin.
pressure

Discharges calcined solids
from roaster at 816-871C
(1,500-1,600F) and 1 atm.
to solids collection bin
                                     5-23

-------
                         TABLE  11  (continued)
Equipment
No.
Quantity   Equipment Specifications
Operating Conditions
01208
01209
01210
01211
01212
01213
01214
01215
           7 cu m (250 cu ft) solids
           storage bin (holds one day's
           production of brine purifi-
           cation solids) - mild steel
           construction

           Wet cyclone sized to remove
           0.43 kg/day (0.39 TPD) solids
           from calciner/roaster outlet
           gas stream - mild steel
           construction

           27.87 sq m (300 sq ft) water
           cooled cooler condensers-
           stainless steel construction
           9.29 sq m  (100 sq ft) chilled
           water-cooled condenser -
           stainless steel construction
            19  liters  (5 gal)  mercury
           accumulator - rubber-lined
           steel construction

           7 cu m (250 cu ft)  filter
           cake hold bin - holds 1 day's
           production; rubber-lined
           steel construction

           6.1 m (20 ft) long belt con-
           veyor - rubber belting
           1.420 1/min (500 SCFM) at 0C
           (32F), 1 atm induced draft
           fan
Calcined solids are period-
ically removed and trucked
to sanitary landfill.
Residual Hg in calcined
solids is <10 ppm

Cyclone operates at 85?
efficiency; slurry of
collected particulats
drains into solids storage
bin

Condensers operate in series
and remove approximately 83%
of Hg vaporized which then
drains to a mercury accumu-
lator 01212.

System recovers 90% of
residual Hg in the air
stream from condensers 01210.
Condensed Hg drains to
accumulator 01212

Operates at 25C (77F) and
1 atm.  Hg is periodically
recycled to process
Operates at 25 C
1 atm.
and
Transfers 60% solids mixture
from filter cake hold bin to
calciner/roaster

Exhausts the roaster unit gas
stream through cyclone and
condenser train.  Gas dis-
charge has 0.06 kg/day (0.132
Ib/day)  Hg, 11 kg/day (24.2
Ib/day)  SOa and 0.02 kkg/day
(0.022 tons/day) of particu-
late
                                  5-24

-------
                         TABLE  11 (continued)
Equipment
No.	Quantity   Equipment Specifications	Operating Conditions

01216         1      45.4 kg/hr (100 Ib/hr)  screw    Transfers 50% solids,
                     feeder - stainless steel        mercury-bearing sludge
                     construction                    from sludge sump to
                                                     calciner/roaster
                                    5-25

-------
                              TABLE  12
         TREATMENT SYSTEM 01200 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Eouipment
No. & Description	Installed Cost
01201  sludge transfer puirp                           $ 15,600
01202  sludge thickener and associated piping           71,800
01203  rotary vacuum filter                             38,800
01204  belt conveyor                                     1,000
01205  filtrate transfer pump                            1,000
01206  roasting furnace (nultiple-hearth type), or     290,000
       roasting furnace (fluidized bed type)           175,000
01207  roasted solids screw feeder                       8,100
01208  roasted solids holding bin                        2,500
01209  wet cyclone                                       5,000
01210  cooler-condensers and associated piping          38,400
01211  refrigerated condenser and demister              15,000
01212  mercury accumulator                                 250
01213  filter cake hold bin                              5,000
01214  belt conveyor                                     2,000
01215  induced draft fan and associated ducting         10,000
01216  wastewater sludge screw feeder                    2,000
Miscellaneous Items
structure, ladders and platform                         61,000
site preparation and foundation                         16,300
natural gas and water service                           34,000
instrumentation and controls  (other than roaster)       11,900
instrumentation and controls  (multiple-hearth roaster)  24,000
instrumentation and controls  (fluidized bed roaster)    14,000
painting and electrical                                 38,000
     Sub-total  (with multiple-hearth type)            $691,650
     Sub-total  (with fluidized bed type furnace)      $566,650
engineering, 2,200 manhours @ $15/manhour               33,000
     Total investment, multiple-hearth type roaster   $724,650
     Total investment, fluidized bed type roaster     $599,650
                               5-26

-------
                               TABLE  13
        ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 01200 BASED
          ON MULTIPLE-HEARTH ROASTER OPERATION  (SCHEME  01200A)
CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                    $724,650
VARIABLE COSTS
     Silica  (sard) 4050 kkg_ (4450 tons)  .               15,000
        @$41/kkg  ($37/ton)17
     Direct operating labor, 1 man/shift @  $9/hr        79,000
     Supervision and Administrative  @  50% of
       direct operating labor                           39,500
     Maintenance @ 4% of capital investment*            29,000
     Power, 900,000 kwh a 3<=/kwh                        27,000
     Sampling and Analysis**                             6,000
     Waste Disposal, 5.7 kkg/day @ $6/kkg
        (6.3 tons/day @ $5.44/ton)                       12,460
     Process Heat Requirement, 4.94  x  10 9 kg cal
       < $7.94/MM kg "cal
        (19.6 x 109 BTU @ $2.00/MM BTU)                  39,200
                          Total Variable Costs        $247,160
FIXED COSTS
     Taxes and Insurance @ 4% of capital cost           29,000
     Capital Recovery Rate  (10 yrs @ 10% interest     119 , OOP
        equivalent to 0.162,7)
TOTAL OPERATING COST                                 $395,160
     Credit for recovery of mercury,
       14,600 kg  @ $9.08/kg
        (32,120 Ib @ $4.13/lb)17                       (132,800)
NET OPERATING COST                                   $262,360
Unit Costs
  $/kkg ($/ton) of chlorine produced                 2.9  (2.6)
  $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)                 152  (138)
  $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)                  37  (34)
*   Georgia-Pacific personnel believe that this item should be  15% on
    investment, making the maintenance cost almost 50% of net operating
    cost.
**  Versar estimate (assumed to be 1/2 the cost of the BASF process due to
    a simpler operation)
                                  5-27

-------
                                 TABLE  14
          ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 01200 BASED
            ON FLUIDIZED BED ROASTER OPERATION (SCHEME 01200B)
  CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                   $599,650
  VARIABLE COSTS
       Silica (sand)  4050 kkg (4450 tons)                 15,000
          @ $41/kkg ($37/ton)
       Direct operating labor, 1 man/shift @ $9/hr       79,000
       Supervision and Administrative @ 50% of
         direct operating labor                          39,500
       Maintenance @ 4% of capital investment            24,000
       Power, 900,000 kwh
         @3C/kwh                                         27,000
       Sanpling and Analysis*                             6,000
       Waste Disposal, 5.7 kkg/day @ $6/kkg
         (6.3 tons/day @ $5.44/ton)                      12,460
       Process Heat Requirement, 4.94 x 109 kg cal
         @ $7.94/MM kg cal
         (19.6 x 109 BTU @ $2.00/MM BTU)                 39,200
                         Total Variable Costs          $242,160
  FIXED COSTS
       Taxes and Insurance @ 4% of capital investrrent    24,000
       Capital Recovery Rate  '10 yrs @ 10%               97,000
              equiv.  to 0.1627/yrF                     	
  TOTAL FIXED COSTS                                    $121,000
  TOTAL OPERATING COST                                 $363,160
       Credit for Recovery of mercury, 14,600 kg @
       $9.08/ka (32,120 Ib @ $4.13/lb)                 (132,800)
  NET OPERATING COST                                   $230,360
  Unit Costs
    $/kkg ($/ton)  of chlorine produced                 2.5 (2.3)
    $/kkg ($/ton)  of raw waste  (dry basis)             134 (121)
    $/kkg ($/ton)  of raw waste  (wet basis)             32  (29)
*See note under Table 13
                                    5-28

-------
  Ow
o
g
s
                                             z
                                             o
                                             55
                                             LJ
                                             O


                                             CO

                                             2
                                             CO
                                             UJ
                                             ffi
                                             CO
                                            CO
                                            (M
                                            c

                                            o

-------
          b.  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operations

          Considerations in converting chrysolite asbestos waste  to fosterite,
a non-asbestos serpentine material, by heating to 600 - 900C have been  given
by U.S. Bureau of Mines and ITT Research Institute who jointly presented  this
treatment technique at the Fifth Mineral waste utilization symposium held
in Chicago, Illinois on April 13-14, 1976.

          In November 1976, preliminary laboratory tests to establish the
feasibility of the Versar suggested process were made by Arthur D. Little in
their laboratory at Cambridge, Massachusetts.  A 50/50 mixture by weight  of
borax and asbestos fibers was slurried in water, placed in a crucible and
heated to 1,100C.  The mixture fused completely during this laboratory test.

          Laboratory tests to optimize process conditions and pilot plant
investigation to demonstrate the process would be required to validate this
concept.

          c.  Pilot or Full-scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          None known

          5.1.2.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefit resulting from the fusion of asbestos bearing waste
streams from diaphragm cell chlor-alkali plants is detoxification
of the hazardous component in the waste stream.  It is the fibrous structure
of the asbestos that makes them hazardous and this process converts the
fibrous structure to a fused,  vitreous, non-hazardous form.

          A summary of the benefits achieved by this system is given in
column 3 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There would be solid waste generated by this system.  However,
this process presents a minimal threat to environment and personnel safety-
The relatively large energy requirements associated with this process are
a possible concern, but this too may be considered a minor issue  considering
the small volume of waste generated and treated by this process.

          Air Pollution

          The off-gas from the drier would contain only water vapor.  The
offgas from the electric furnace would contain small amounts of carbon dioxide
 (formed by the combusion of graphite in this sludge) and water vapor.  There-
fore, it is anticipated that there would be no emission problems  associated
with this process.

          Water Pollution

          None
                                      5-30

-------
          Solid Waste

          This process would generate approximately 2.3 kkg/day of waste
which could be safely disposed of in a sanitary landfill.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          There are no serious personnel and safety hazards associated with
this treatment process.  The asbestos in this waste would be in slurry form
during the mixing and tray loading operations, the trays from the drier would
contain approximately 5-10% moisture and would have a clay like  consistency
and finally the fused product would contain no asbestos fibers.  Details of
the occupational and health effects of asbestos are given in Appendix 1.

          5.1.2.1.4  Costs for Detoxification of Asbestos Separator Waste

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs
for this process are:

          (1)  Asbestos sludge would be fed to this plant at the rate of
2.27 kkg/day  (2.50 tons/day), 365 days per year.  This would include
2.19 kkg/day  (2.41 tons/day) waste generated directly by asbestos separator
teardown operations and 0.08 kkg/day  (0.088 tons/day) smelter residue con-
taining asbestos generated during the processing of lead bearing wastes
from this plant.

          (2)  The 2.27 kkg/day  (2.50 tons/day) of asbestos waste would be
processed batchwise  (one batch every 24 hours).  Each batch would be blended
with 0.69 kkg/day (0.76 tons/day) of borax*, placed in trays and dried to
approximately 5% residual moisture.  The trays are then placed in an electric
calcination/fusion furnace at a temperature of 1,000-1,100C (1,834-2,014F)
for a 16-hour programmed heating-cooling cycle  (with 6 hours of treatment
at the maximum temperature).

          (3)  There would be no asbestos particulate generated in either the
mixing, drying or fusion operations.

          b.  Cost Methodology Used

          With the exception of the electric furnace cost, which was
supplied by a vendor, costs for this treatment process were developed using
the standard methodology discussed in Appendix II.

          c.  Cost Suirmary and Energy Requirement

          The estimated total capital cost for system 04100 is $211,000.
The estimated annual power requirement is 580,000 kwh.  The annual process
heat (fuel)  requirement is negligible.
*  Borax lowers the fusion point by forming a lower melting eutectic.

                                   5-31

-------
          The unit operating costs are as follows:

          $1.2  kkg ($1.I/ton)  of chlorine produced

          $360/kkg ($327/ton) of raw waste (dry basis)

          $252/kkg ($229/ton) of raw waste (wet basis)

          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table 15 lists details on equipment sizes and operating conditions
for this system.  Breakdowns of total capital cost and annual operating
costs are shown in Tables 16 and 17, respectively.
          5.1.3  Waste Stream 5, Lead-containing Wastes - Diaphragm Cell
                 Process

          A conceptual process design has been prepared for a treatment
plant to recover lead from this waste stream generated by the diaphragm
cell process.  Details on this process are given below.

          5.1.3.1  Recovery of Lead by Smelting

          5.1.3.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          The process consists of adding a flocculant to the waste sludge to
agglomerate small suspended particles, dewatering the wastes containing lead
in a rotary vacuum filter to a solids content level of about 25 weight per
cent, mixing the sludge with lime, silica and coke in a ribbon blender and
then smelting the sludge in a reducing atmosphere at 1000 to 1040C  (1830
to 1,900F) for lead recovery.  Because small quantities of material would
be handled at this treatment plant, the loading of the sludge on trays, the
transferring of the trays into the smelter, the skimming of the dross  (slag)
from the molten lead and the pouring of the lead in ingots would be conducted
manually.
          The control technologies for particulate emission abatement from
the smelter would be cyclone and baghouse collectors.  Solids collected
would be recycled back to the smelter.

          The filtrate from the vacuum filter operation would be sent to the
main plant water treatment system.

          Figure 23 shows a detailed flow sheet and material balance for a
treatment plant to process lead-containing wastes generated by a typical
450 kkg/day diaphragm cell chlor-alkali plant.

          5.1.3.1.2  Applications to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          None Known.
                                    5-32

-------
                               TABLE 15

 SYSTEM 04100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment
NO.
Quantity   Equipment Specifications
Operating Conditions
04101         1      1.4 cu m (50 cu ft) ribbon
                     blender - mild steel con-
                     struction
04102       200      0.07 cu m  (0.25 cu ft) trays
                     ("saggers") - holds one day's
                     batch of blend produced in
                     ribbon blender 04101 - perfo-
                     rated bottom, ceramic con-
                     struction

04103         1      9.14 m (30 ft) roller con-
                     veyor - mild steel con-
                     struction
04104         1      7.62 m (25 ft) tunnel drier,
                     heated by radiant heaters
                     mounted above and below trays
                     of material; 10  .CFM (0.28 cu
                     m/min) blower removes water
                     vapor - mild steel construc-
                     tion
04105         1      216 kw electric furnace
                     with heating space of approxi-
                     mately 2.1 cu m (75 cu ft)
                     and silicon carbide rod, type
                     heating elements  -  ceramic
                     lined, mild steel construction
                                           Operates at 258C  (77 F).
                                           Would blend total batch
                                           including 2.27 kkg  (2.5
                                           of asbestos waste and 0.
                        tons)
                        69
                                                     kkg  (0.76 tons)
                                                     in one hour
                                                           of borax,
                                  5-33
                                           Material would be hand-
                                           loaded into trays (-15 kg/
                                           tray (33 Ib/tray) and
                                           placed on roller conveyor
                                           04103
                                           Would feed trays of asbestos
                                           sludge-fusion aid mix
                                           through tunnel drier 04104
                                           at rate of 50 trays per hour

                                           Operates at maximum temperature
                                           of 150C (302F) and 1 atm.
                                           Drier would remove 0.16 kkg/
                                           hr (0.18 tons/hr) of moisture
                                           from feed material.  The feed
                                           would be dried to -5% resid-
                                           ual moisture over a four-
                                           hour period

                                           Trays of dried asbestos-bearing
                                           sludge would be hand-loaded
                                           into furnace.  Furnace would
                                           operate at maximum tempera-
                                           ture of 1,100C  (2,014F) and
                                           1 atm.  Continuous air bleed
                                           through furnace would purge
                                           0.11 kkg (0.12 ton) of water
                                           vapor per batch and any carfccn
                                           dioxide formed by reaction of
                                           waste graphite present in the
                                           material being fused.  Furnace
                                           cycle would include 8 hours of
                                           loading, 4 hours of heat up,
                                           6 hours of fusion temperature
                                           and 6 hours of cooling time
                                           prior to unloading

-------
                         TABLE  15  (continued)
Equipment
No.	Quantity   Equipment Specifications	Operating Conditions	

04106         1      1.4 cu m (50 cu ft) hold bin    Fused blocks would be hand-
                     (holds 1 batch of fused blocks  unloaded from trays, and
                     formed in electric furnace) -   placed in hold bin( until
                     mild steel construction         they could be loaded into
                                                     trucks and hauled to a
                                                     sanitary landfill
                                 5-34

-------
                               TABLE  16
           TREATMENT SYSTEM 04100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Equipment
No. & Description
Installed Cost*
04101  ribbon blender
04102  ceramic trays  (200)
04103  roller conveyor
04104  tunnel drier
04105  electric furnace
04106  hold bin
           Sub-total
Building/ 92.9 sq m @ $3R7/sq m
       (1,000 sq ft i $36/sq ft)
           Sub-total
Engineering @ 7%
           Sub-total
Contingency @ 20%
           Total Installed Capital Cost
  $  5,000
     5,000
     1,000
    15,000
   100,000**
     2,000
  $128,000

    36,000
  $164,000
    11,500
  $175,500
    35,100
  $210,600
*  There is no significant piping and valve installation required for
   this process.  Furthentore,  cost for instrumentation is inclvded
   in individual unit cost.
** Price supplied by Birkley Furnaces, Inc.,  Philadelphia,
   Pennsylvania
                                  5-35

-------
                               TABLE  17
           ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 04100
CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                   $210,600
VARIABLE COSTS
     Treatment chemicals, borax, 262 kkg @ $192.5Akg
       (289 tons @ $174.6/ton)17                       50,400
     Direct operating labor, 2 man/shift @ $9/hr       52,600
     Supervision and Administrative, @ 50% of
       direct operating labor                          26,300
     Maintenance @ 4% of capital investment             8,400
     Power, 580,000 kwh
       @ 3C/kwh                                         17,400
     Sampling and Analysis                               5,000
                       Total Variable Costs           $160,100
FIXED COSTS
     Capital Recovery Rate   (10 yrs @ 10%  equiv.  to    34,200
                               0.1627/yr)
     Taxes and Insurance @ 4% of capital cost            8,400
                       Total Fixed Costs               $42,600
TOTAL OPERATING COST                                  $202,700
Unit Costs
  $/kkg ($/ton) of chlorine produced                  1.2 (1.1)
  $/kkg ($/ton) of raw waste (dry basis)              360   (327)
  $/kkg ($/ton) of raw waste (wet basis)              252   (229)
                                  5-36

-------

                                                 10 O
                                                 OJ 
                                                 : Ul
                                                 O -I
UJ
.. 1C
8
B .
3 fi
X *>
1 
ID
-5
O
=n
X
I)



s S
i o
u
O545 HgO vapor
OOOI partlculatei

K
O
T
SMELTER
05111
                                                            _wge
                                                             UJ >- O
                                                            OS to u.
                                                                            O
                                                                            UJ
                                                                            5

                                                                            I
                                                                            

                                                                            fc
                                                                            03

                                                                            O
                                                                            O

                                                                            >-

                                                                            UJ

                                                                            O
                                                                            ro
                                                                            IN
                                           5-37

-------
          b.  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operations

          There are no known pilot plant or laboratory operations utilizing
this technology.  However, all fundamental operations employed in this con-
ceptual design are established unit processes.  The process is believed to
be technically feasible.  However, laboratory tests to optimize processing
conditions and a pilot plant to demonstrate the process would be required
to validate this concept.

          c.  Pilot or Full Scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          Smelting is used in secondary lead recovery operations.  One facility
in Reading, Pennsylvania processes scrap batteries for lead recovery.  This
plant uses a breaking operation to tear the batteries apart, drains the liquids
and then processes the material through a gravity separator to recover lead
and lead oxides.  The lead-containing fraction is dried and dumped in a rever-
beratory furnace.  The lead melts and separates from the dross which is skimmed
off and the lead is poured to form ingots.

          5.1.3.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from the smelting of lead-bearing waste
 (stream 5) from diaphragm cell chlor-alkali plants are:

           (1)  the recovery of a small quantity of elemental lead and
           (2)  volume reduction of land destined waste.

          For a typical plant, this system recovers lead at a rate of 0.125
kkg/day.  Using a purchase price of $33 per kilogram of lead, this treatment
process will result in an annual resource recovery value of about $10,725
or $0.065 per metric ton of chlorine produced.

          The annual cost savings resulting from the volume reduction of land
destined waste is estimated to be $8,880  (excluding treatment process costs).
The 0.11 kkg/day of dross generated from the smelting operation may contain
asbestos and as such would be either disposed of in a chemical landfill or be
treated along with the asbestos-bearing waste  (stream 4) generated at the same
plant site.

          A summary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 4 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There are air emissions, waterborne waste and land destined
waste generated from this treatment process.  However, this process
presents a minimal threat to the environment and personnel safety.  The
relatively large energy requirements associated with this process are a
possible concern, but this too may be a minor issue considering the small
quantity of waste that is to be treated.
                                     5-38

-------
          Air Pollution

          Limited quantities of air emissions would be released from the
cyclone/baghouse system employed to control the particulates emission from
the smelter.  The particulate emissions from this system are estimated to
be 0.1 kg/day which is well within the limits of applicable regulations.

          Water Pollution

          The waterborne waste generated from this treatment process would
be the filtrate from the rotary vacuum filter containing dissolved solids.
This filtrate would be sent to the plants' central wastewater treatment
system at a rate of 4,990 liter/day (1,320 gal/day).  It is anticipated that
the lead content of this stream would be less than 0.2 ppm which is below
the water quality limitation of 1.7 ppm for lead carbonate.

          Solid Waste

          There would be approximately 0.11 kkg/day of dross generated from
the smelting operation.  This waste would contain about 60 percent of asbestos
and less than 3 percent of lead.  Provisions have been made in this study to
detoxify this waste stream along with the asbestos separator waste (stream 4)
generated at diaphragm cell plant sites.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          There are no serious personnel safety hazards associated with this
treatment process.  The air emission would be well controlled by the cyclone/
baghouse system.  The solid residue from the smelter would be detoxified by
fusion, and the waterborne waste, which contains low levels of lead, would
be handled in the plant's wastewater treatment system.

          The recovered lead would be in the elemental form and presents no
safety hazards.

          According to NARI ECO-technic news of 8 December 1976, the pro-
posed OSHA regulations of 100 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air,
which was pending on the completion of an inflationary impact study, is
now in the reviewing stage.  Details on the occupational and health effects
of lead and its salts are given in Appendix 1.

          5.1.3.1.4  Costs for Recovery of Lead by Smelting

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs
for this process are:

          (1)   Lead-bearing sludges from a typical 450 kkg/day (495 tons/day)
diaphragm cell chlor-alkali plant, would be processed in this treatment plant
at the rate of 0.73 kkg/hr (0.8 tons/hr), 8 hours per day, 260 days per year.
The lead is present as free lead metal as well as basic and acid forms of
lead carbonate.
                                   5-39

-------
           (2)   The 5.8 kkg/day (6.4  tons/day)  of sludge,  containing approxi-
 mately 3% solids,  would be dewatered by vacuum filtration  to produce 0.78 kkg/
 day (0.86 tons/day)  of a filter cake containing 25% solids.

           (3)   The dewatered sludge would be combined with coke, lime and
 silica in the  proportions 1.2% coke,  2.4% silica, 2.4% lime and 94% sludge.
 This mix would be  then hand-loaded into a gas-fired reverberatory furnace in a
 batch  operation.   With appropriate temperature prograitming,  the material would
 be first dehydrated,  the lead carbonates would be next calcined to lead oxide,
 followed with  the  reduction of lead oxide to lead metal.   The final reduction
 would  be accomplished at approximately 1,100C (1,900F).

           b.   Costing Methodology Used

           The  standard methodology,  discussed in Appendix  II was used to
 develop costs  for  this treatment system.

           c.   Cost Summary and Energy Requirement

           The  estimated total capital cost for system 05100  is $314,000.
 The estimated  annual  system power and heat requirements are  50,000 kwh and
 491 x  106  kg cal  (1,950 x 10*  BTU),  respectively.   The unit  operating cost
 (including credit  for recovered lead),  are as follows:

           $0.81/kkg ($0.74/ton)  of chlorine produced

           $2,600/kkg  ($2,360/ton)  of  waste (dry basis)
           $91/kkg  ($83/ton)  of waste  (wet basis)

           d.   Detailed Process Equipment  and Cost Information

           Table 18  lists details  on equipment size and operating conditions
 for this process.  Total capital  cost breakdown is presented in Table 19
 and overall capital cost and the  annual operating cost breakdown for this
 plant  are  presented in Table 20.
          5.1.4  Waste Stream 6, Metallic Sodium/Calcium Wastes -
                 Down's Cell Process

          A resource recovery process has been selected for treating calcium/
sodium filter cake generated from the manufacture of metallic sodium by the
Down's cell process.  This process was used by Ethyl Corporation at their
Baton Rouge plant prior to 1957.  Details on this process are given below.

          5.1.4.1  Recovery of Sodium Metal by Degrader Cell Process

          5.1.4.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          In this process, sludge is fed manually to electrolytic cells
along with sodium chloride and reacted to form calcium chloride and
metallic sodium according to the following reaction.

          2 NdCi + Cu  - t\tCl-_. -f 2 K-i


                                    5-40

-------
                               TABLE  18

   SYSTEM 05100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment
NO.
Quantity   Equipment Specifications
                                Operating Conditions
05101
05102
05103
05104
05105
05106
05107
05108
05109
           15 1/min  (4 gpm) centrifu-
           gal transfer punp - cast iron
           construction

           114 liters  (30 gal) flcccu-
           lant slurry feed tank - mild
           steel construction

           h HP propeller agitator -
           mild steel construction

           250 ml/min  (0.066 gpm) floccu-
           lant slurry injector-type
           metering pump - stainless
           steel construction

           15 1/min  (4 gpm) rotary
           vacuum filter, 4.37 so m
           (47 sq ft) filtration "area -
           mild steel construction
                                Operates at 25C  (77F) and
                                head of approximately 30.5 m
                                (100 ft)

                                Operates at 25C  (778F) and
                                1 atm.  Holds 3 months'
                                supply of flocculant

                                Operates at 25C  (77aF)
                                Operates at 258C  (77F) and
                                total pressure between 1-3 atm.
                                Produces 780 kg  (1,720 Us)
                                per 8 hour day of filter
                                cake (25% solids.  Cake is
                                discharged over  5-hcur period.
                                Operates at 25 C  (77 F) and
                                38.1 cm (15 in)  Eg vacuum
2.3 cu m (100 cu ft) dewatered  Operates at 25C  (77F) and
solids hold bin - mild steel    1 atm.  Holds 1 week's
construction                    supply of dewatered sludge

                                Pumps 5,000  I/day  (1,320 cpd)
                                of filtrate fron the rotary
                                vacuum filter (ever 6-hcur
                                period) to plant wastswater
                                treatment facility

                                Operates at 25C  (77F) and
                                38.1 cm (15 in)  mercury
                                working vacuum

                                BlenS 818 kg/day  (1,800 IV
                                day)  of smelter feed coipcsed
                                of 1.2% coke, 2.4% silica,
                                2.4% lime and 94% sludce
           15  1/min  (4 gprn)  centrifu--
           gal transfer punp - cast iron
           construction
           15 HP mechanical vacuum
           - mild steel construction
           0.84 cu m (30 cu ft) rihbon
           blender - mild steel con-
           struction
                                   5-41

-------
                         TflBLE  18   (continued)
Equipment
No.
Quantity   Equipment Specifications
                                Operating Conditions
05110
           0.028 cu m (1 cu ft) smelter
           trays - ceramic lined, mild
           steel construction
05111
           Batch-operated fixed hearth
           reverberatory furnace -
           refractory lined, mild steel
           construction
05112
05113
   50
0.28 cu m  (10 cu ft) slag
bin (holds approximately
1 week's generation of slag
from furnace) - mild steel
construction

Lead ingot molds (holds one
week's lead production) -
cast iron construction
Trays have about 50% free-
board to provide for volume
expansion during smelting.
Trays are loaded manually
from ribbon blender and hold
20.4-22.7 kg  (45-50 Ib) of
smelter feed each.

Operates over temperature
range of 25-1,040C  (77-
1,900F) with overall heat
utilization efficiency of 40%.
Smelter charge in trays is
first dehydrated, lead carbon-
ate is then calcined to lead
oxide and lead oxide reduced
to molten lead.  Smelting
operation produces one 125
kg (276 Ib) batch per day of
impure molten lead.  Smelting
heat cycle is 4 hours after
which furnace is shut down
and allowed to cool.  Trays
are manually unleaded and
asbestos-rich slag is skinrned
from surface of each tray
and deposited in residue bin
05112.

Operates at 25C (77F) and
1 atm.  Asbestos-rich slac
is periodically sent to
process 04100 for treatnent
Molten lead from furnace is
poured from trays into ten
12.5 kg  (27.5 Ib) each lead
ingot molds daily and allowed
to harden
                                  5-42

-------
                         TABLE   18"  (continued)
Equipment
NO.
Quantity   Equipment Specifications
Operating Conditions
05114
05115
05116
           8,500 1/tatn at 0C, 1 atsn
           (300 SCEM) cyclone - mild
           steel/ refractory-lined
           construction
           8,500 1/min at 0C, 1 atra
           (300 SCEM) fabric dust
           collector system
           8,500 1/min at 0C, 1 atm
           (300 SCEM) induced draft
           off-gas exhaust fan - mild
           steel construction
Operates over a temperature
range of 25-260C  (77-500F)
with a pressure drop of 7.62-
15.24 cm (3-6 in) of water and
75% operating efficiency

Operates ever a temperature
range of 120-260C  (250-
500F) and 99.5% operating
efficiency

Operates at a temperature of
150C (302F) and" 1 ata
                                   5-43

-------
                               TABLE  19
           TREATMENT SYSTEM 05100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Equipment
No. & Description	Installed Cost
05101 sludge transfer pump                             $  2,300
05102 slurry feed tank                                      200
05103 mixer                                                 900
C5104 injector metering punp                                500
05105 rotary vacuum filter and associated piping,
      electrical and instrumentation                     29,000
05106 dewatered solids hold bin                             500
05107 filtrate transfer pump                              3,400*
05108 mechanical vacuum pump                              4,100*
05109 ribbon blender                                      6,000
05110 smelter trays (40)                                  4,000
05111 reverberatory furnace                             150,000
05112 slag bin                                  ^            500
05113 pig lead molds (50)                                 2,500
05114 cyclone                                             1,500
05115 fabric dust collection system                       4,200
05116 induced draft fan                                   1,000
furnace instrumentation                                  30,000
     Sub-total                                         $240,600
Piping and instrumentation @ 25% of equipment cost
   (other than furnace and rotary vacuum filter)           4,000
     Sub-total                                         $244,600
Engineering @ 7%                                         17,100
     Sub-total                                         $261,700
Contingency (a 20?,                                        52,500
     Total Installed Capital Cost                      $314,200
* Price supplied by Mr. R. Nielson, Ametek Corp., Rutherford, N.J.
                                5-44

-------
                               TABLE   20   .
            ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM  05100
CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                           $314,200
VARIABLE COSTS
     Treatment Chemicals*                                         500
     Direct operating labor, 2 men/shift @ $9/hr.              37,400
     Supervision and Administrative @ 50% of
       direct labor                                            18,700
     Maintenance @ 4% of capital cost                          12,600
     Water, 3.78 x 106 liters @7.9$/l,000  1
        (1 x 105 gal @ 30C/1000 gal)                               300
     Power, 50,000 kwh @ 3C/kwh                                 1,500
     Heat, 491 MM kg cal @ $7.94/ly!M kg cal
        (1950 MM BTU @ $2.00/MM BTU)                             3,900
     Sampling and Analysis                                   	5,000
                            Total Variable Costs               79,900
FIXED COSTS
     Capital Recovery Rate  (10 yrs. @ 10% equiv.  to           51,100
     Taxes and Insurance @ 4% of capital cost           .       12,600
                            Total Fixed Costs                  63,700
TOTAL OPERATING COST                                          143,600
     Credit for recovery and sale of impure lead,
       32,500 kg @ 33<=Ag**
        (71,500 Ib. @ 15
-------
          Metallic sodium is removed from the cells through a riser pipe
in the same manner as in Down's cells.  The NaCl - CaCl2 bath is removed
from the cell periodically to maintain the proper NaCl - CaCl2 balance in
the cell.  This material can be used in the Down's cells at the main plant.

          To implement this treatment process in an existing facility, the
waste filter cake would be removed from the existing sodium filters in the
same manner as at present except that it would be molded into 5.65 kg bricks
instead of in drums.  The molds would be handled on roller conveyors until
they are loaded into mold buckets.  These would be transported to ovens for
storage at 80 C (176 F) to prevent moisture pick up,  The degrader cell
would be ft standard sodium cell modified to accept bricks' of the waste filter
cake and dry salt fed into the sodium collecting chamber.  The bricks would
be fed to the cell at a rate of 4 per hour per cell.  In the cell the metallic
sodium in the waste material would melt and would leave the cell along with
sodium produced by electrolysis.  The calcium would react with sodium chloride
to produce sodium metal and calcium chloride.  Sodium oxide and calcium oxide
in the waste material would be decomposed electrolytically at the graphite
cell anode to produce carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide.  The gaseous pro-
ducts would be mixture of chlorine, hydrogen, oxygen as well as carbon monoxide
and carbon dioxide.  These gases would be scrubbed by dilute caustic in a
high energy venturi scrubber which is expected to remove over 90 percent of
the particulates and all of the chlorine in the gas stream.

          The calcium-chloride sodium chloride mixture removed from the cell
would be cast into buckets.  The cast salt would be discharged to a grinder
that feeds into a drier.  The drier product would be drummed and used to
replace the salt mixture as it becomes depleted in the Down's cells.  The
drier gases would be water scrubbed to remove particulates prior to venting.

          After the sludge is removed from the molds, the molds would be
steamed to removed any remaining metallic sodium, washed in hot water to remove
caustic, dried and reused.  The mold cleaning facilities are standard and
available at all sodium manufacturing plants.  Therefore, they are not in-
cluded as a part of the treatment plant.

          The dilute caustic scrubber liquors, the steam condensate and
washwater from mold cleaning operations would be returned to the main plant
and utilized as a source of weak alkali.  The purge from the scrubber on the
drier would be pumped to the plant outfall.

          Figure 24 shows a detailed flow sheet and material balance for a
treatment plant to process the waste calcium-sodium filter cake generated by a
typical 140 kkg/day Down's cell plant.  Material balance values are prorated
from data supplied by Ethyl Corporation on actual plant operation.  The
treatment plant would produce 2.86 kkg/day  (3.15 tons/day) of sodium, 43
percent of which would be sodium recovered from the waste stream and the
rest from the salt added to the cell.

          5.1.4.1.2  Applications to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          The use of degrader cells to recover sodium from sodium-calcium
filter cake was the process employed by Ethyl Corporation at Baton Rouge

                                   5-46

-------
                               s
                               s

                               5

                               8
                               **-
                               >

                               ^J


                               ;
5-47

-------
until 1957 when a new disposal method (ocean dumping) was adopted in order
to reduce:

          (1)  in-plant injuries,
          (2)  power consumption,
          (3)  operating costs and
          (4)  discharges to the atmosphere.

          The Baton Rouge treatment plant had no emissions scrubbing
facilities.  The emissions from the cell were vented directly to the
atmosphere.  Furthermore, it was reported that, due to manual sludge
molding and brick feeding operations, the safety record for the treatment
plant was poor.  The key contact at the Baton Rouge plant is Mr. J. D. Mueller.

          b.  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operation

          None known

          c.  Pilot or Full-Scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          None known

          5.1.4.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from the electrolysis of sodium/calcium
bearing sludge  (stream 6) from the Down's cell process are:

          (1)  sodium metal recovery,
          (2)  calcium chloride/sodium chloride
                (CaCl2 - NaCl cell bath)  recovery and
          (3)  solid waste elimination.

          This system would recover elemental sodium and cell bath
(CaCl2-NaCl mixture) at a rate of 2.86 kkg/day and 0.62 kkg/day, respectively.
Using a price of $290/kkg for the recovered sodium and $116/kkg of cell
bath salt (prices supplied by Ethyl Corporation), this process would result
in a resource recovery value of $328,980 or $6.44 per metric ton of chlorine
produced.

          The resource recovery of the hazardous portion of this waste stream
achieved by the utilization of this process will also result in an annual
cost savings of $231,000 assuming this waste was previously ocean dumped at
$100 per drum  (excluding treatment process costs).  The cost of $100 is based
on on assumption that the wastes would be handled in 20 drum lots and the
drums would be punctured by rifle fire, prior to dumping, while attended by
the Coast Guard.9"

          A summary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 5 of Table 8.

          b.   Environmental  Impact

          There are air  emissions generated by  this  process.  The  gases and
the particulates emitted from the cell would require, at a minimum, a high

                                     5-48

-------
energy venturi scrubber to provide adequate environmental protection.
Additionally, the safety considerations described below, and the large
electrical energy requirements associated with this process are of concern.

          Air Pollution

          The gases emitted from the cell contain C12, CO, C02, 02 and
participate Na20r CaO, NaCl and CaCl2.  The gases would be scrubbed with
an alkali solution in a high energy venturi scrubber with a particulate
removal efficiency of over 90%.  Another wet scrubber will be used to scrub
the particulates emanating from the cell bath salt rotary drier.  It is
expected that air emissions from these two stationary sources will be
negligible and well within applicable limitations.

          Water Pollution

          A small quantity of scrubber liquor is intermittently purged from
the wet scrubber on the cell bath salt drier.  This waterborne waste contains
dissolved solids (NaCl and CaCl2) and is pumped to the plant outfall.

          Solid Waste

          There is no solid waste generated by this process.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          Past experience by Ethyl Corporation at their plant in Baton
Rouge indicated a poor safety record for this operation.  The time-losing
accident frequency rate during the final three years of degrader cell
operation was reported to be 33% higher than for the remainder of the
sodium plant because of the hazardous nature of the operation.  Some of
these accidents are given below:

          "Thermal and caustic bums were received from the splashing or
spattering of molten sludge as it dropped into the molds.  Over-filling
of the molds caused spillage of molten sludge and resulted in additional
spattering.

          The handling of the molds and the bricks resulted in occasional
thermal or caustic burns.

          Brushing against sludge bricks that were damp due to condensa-
tion of water vapor caused some of the concentrated caustic on the surface
of the bricks to rub off onto skin or clothes.  The result varied from
skin irritation to caustic burns."

          Most of the injuries reported were due to a number of manual
handling operations practiced at that plant.  It is anticipated that the
mechanization of sludge handling and feeding vrould minimize the accidents
and would make this treatment process acceptable and safe.  The basic
process concept used at Baton Rouge is reportedly still being employed by
at least one commercial sodium producer.  Details of this operation ha\-e
not been divulged.   However, this plant has indicated that the treatment
plant area accident rate is not any greater than that of the main plant.


                                  5-49

-------
          5.1.4.1.4  Costs for Recovery of Sodium Metal by Degrader Cell
                     Process

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs
for this process are:

          (1)  Sodium-calcium filter cake waste from a typical 140 kkg/day
(154 tons/day) Down's cell sodium plant is processed in the treatment plant
at the rate of 0.076 kkg/hr (0.084 TPH), 24 hours per day, 7 days per week,
365 days per year.

          (2)  The feed rate to these cells is 21.8 kg (48 Ih) of waste per
hour.

          (3)  The electrolytic process requires the addition of 1.5 kkg
(1.7 tons) of salt per kkg of waste processed.  The overall sodium recovery
(bot^i from melting and electrolysis) is 1.57 kkg (1.73 tons) of sodium
per kkg of waste processed.

          (4)  The by-product sodium chloride-calcium chloride melt is
recovered at the rate of 0.62 kkg/day  (0.68 tons/day).

          (5)  Raw waste from the degrader cell process consists of cell
emissions including particulate  (expressed as approximately 0.01 kg NaaO
per kg of recovered sodium) and chlorine from salt electrolysis  (given as
approximately 0.6 kg per kg of recovered sodium).

          b.  Costing Methodology Used

          An economic analysis was made by Ethyl Corporation in 1976 for
processing 907 kkg (1,000 tons) per year of sodium-calcium waste by the
degrader-cell technique.60  These costs were used as the basis for these
estimates.  Appropriate adjustments were made to reflect the plant
size differences and to incorporate the standard operating cost factors
supplied by EPA.

          c.  Cost Summary and Energy Requirement

          The total capital cost for system 06100 is estimated to be
$1,410,000.   The annual system power requirement is estimated as 11,000,000
kwh.  The annual heat requirement is estimated as 169.3 x 106 kg cal  (672 x
106 BTU).  The unit operating costs, including credit for recovered sodium
and cell bath, are as follows:

          $44/kkg  ($40/ton) of sodium product
          $3,170/kkg  ($2,876/ton) of waste  (no water present in this waste)

          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table 21 covers details on equipment sizes and operating conditions
for the sodium recovery system.  Total capital investment and the annual
operating cost breakdowns for this plant are presented in Table 22.


                                    5-50

-------
                               TABLE  21.

  SYSTEM 06100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment               Equipment
No.          Quantity   Specifications
                                     Operating Conditions
06101
06102
06103
06104
80      Sodium-calcium waste molds.
        Molds can hold on* day's
        production of waste - mild
        steel construction

 2      6.1 m (20 ft) roller
        conveyor- mild steel
        construction

 1      2.8 cu m (100 cu ft) hold-
        ing oven - capacity for
        one day's production of
        waste stored in molds -
        mild steel construction

10      Degrader cells - these are
        standard Down's cells spe-
        cially converted to reclaim
        the sodium calcium waste
06105
06106
06107
        2,830 I/tain (100 CFM) qas
        blower - cast iron con-
        struction
        High energy jet venturi
        scrubber with 190 1/min
        (50 gpm) of recirculating
        5% caustic as scrubbing
        media.  Operates at 99%
        efficiency - cast iron
        construction
Molds constructed to with-
stand operating temperatures
up to 200* C  (392 F)
Oqerates at 25 C  (77 F)
Steam-heated hot air cir-
culation.  Oven kept at
75 C (167 F) and 1 atm.
pressure
Operate at 500-600" C  (933-
1113 F) and 1 atm.  Four
cells are always undergoing
rebuilding with four others
on line.  Average life of
cells in degrader operation
is 50 days.  Cells are
suitably enclosed and vented
to a cannon vapor exhaust
manifold.

Operates at an average tem-
perature of 300 C  (573 F)
and 1 atm.  Exhausts gases
from degrader cells and blows
this stream through a venturi
scrubber

Operates at gas inlet tem-
perature of 300 C  (573 F)
and gas outlet temperature
of 150 C  (302 F).  Absorbs
1 kg/hr  (2.2 Ib/hr)  of Na20
particulate and 40 kg/hr
(88 Ib/hr) of chlorine.
        2,300 liters  (600 gal)       Operates at 25 C (77 F)
        scrubber liquor surge tank - and 1 atm.
        holds approximately 1 hour's
        supply of dilute caustic -
        mild steel construction
                                    5-51

-------
                         TABLE  21  (continued)
Equipment               Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications
                                     Operating Conditions
06108
06109
06110
06111
06112
 1      38 lAtin CIO am)
        scrubber liquor pump -
        cast iron construction

60      11 kq (25 Ib) cell bath
        buckets - mild steel con-
        struction

 1      10 HP cell bath grinder -
             steel construction
06113
        580 kg/day (1,500 Ib/day)
        gas-fired rotary drier -
        mild steel construction
        Wet scrubber - water
        scrubs 0.06 kkg/day
        (0.066 tons/day)  of NaCl
        and Cad* particulate from
        exit gases leaving cell
        bath drier - mild steel
        construction

        19 1/min  (5 gpm)  recir-
        culating scrubber liquor
        pump - cast iron construc-
        tion
Operates at 25 C (77 F)
and total head of approx-
imately 30.48 m (100 ft.)
Grinis 680 kg/day  (1,500
Ib/day) chunks of cell
bath to 10-20 mesh powder

Operates at 150 C  (302 F)
and 1 atm. - removes approx-
imately 2% moisture from
ground cell bath

Operates at temperatures
between 50-100 C  (122-210 F)
and 1 atn.
Recirculates scrub liquor
until saturated - pumps
purge stream to plant cut-
fall
                                   5-52

-------
                               TABLE  22
    TREATMENT SYSTEM 06100 - TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS

CAPITAL INVESTMENT*
     Waste molding facilities**                           $332,000
     Degrader cells                                        415,000
     Gas scrubbing and cell bath recovery                  662,000
                            Total Installed Cost         1,409,000
VARIABLE COSTS
     Sodium Chloride, 1,000 kkg @ $14.50/kkg
       (1,102 tons @ $13.15/ton)                            14,500
     Direct operating labor, 36 men/
       3 shifts @ $9/hr/man                                945,000
     Supervision and Administrative
       @ 50% of direct operating labor                     472,000
     Maintenance  (other than cell maintenance)
       @ 4% of capital investment                           37,000
     Operating Supplies                                    127,000
     Sampling and Analyses                                  22,000
     Cell Diaphragm changes
       273 changes/yr @ $500/change                        136,000
     Cell Rebuilding
       13 cells @ $17,000/cell                             221,000
     Power Cost, 11.0 MM kwh
       @ 3<= kwh                                            331,000
     Process Heat, 169.3 MM kg cal @ $7.94/MM kg cal
       C672 MM BTU @ $2.00/MM BTU)                            1,300
                            Total Variable Cost          2,306,800
FIXED COSTS
     Capital Recovery Rate
       (10 yrs @ 10% equiv. to 0.1627/yr)                  229,000
     Taxes and Insurance
       @ 4% of capital investment                           56,000
                            Total Fixed Cost               285,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST                                        2,591,800
*   Prorated for size of plant from information supplied by Ethyl Corporation.
    No building cost is provided in this estimate since the cells and related
    facilities are housed in the main plant.   Piping and valve costs,  as well
    as engineering costs, are assumed to have been included in the Ethyl Corp.
    information.
**  Mold washing and drying equipment are part of main plant facilities.
    Costs given are for waste molding operation only.
                                   5-53

-------
                         2ABLE  22   (continued)
     Less Credits:
     Recovered Sodium                                       (303,000)
       1,046,000 kq @ 29
-------
          5.1.5  Waste Strain 7. Wastewater Treatment Sludges, Titanium
                 Dioxide, Chloride Process'

          A conceptualized detoxification process has been selected for
treating chronium hydroxide bearing sludges generated from the chloride
process for the manufacture of titanium dioxide.  The process involves
dewatering of the sludge to the extent possible and subsequent calcination
to convert the metal hydroxides to oxides.  The resulting chromium trioxide
(Cr203)-bearing material is insoluble in acid, alcohol and alkali.  Therefore
the calcined waste can be disposed off in sanitary landfills with no adverse
environmental effects.  Details on this process are given below.

          5.1.5.1  Detoxification of Metal Hydroxides by Calcination

          5.1.5.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          The major equipment in this system consists of a thickener, a
rotary vacuum filter, a drier and a rotary kiln.  The waste treatment sludges
containing about 5 weight percent solids would be pumped from the main plant
into the sludge thickener.  Flocculant would be added to the incoming sludge
to agglomerate small suspended particles.  The thickener would increase
the sludge solids concentration from 5 to 9 percent.  The underflow from
the thickener would be further dewatered in a rotary vacuum filter to a
solids content of 25 percent.  The filter cake would be washed with fresh
water to minimize the chloride carry over, and would then be conveyed to
a rotary kiln, where the cake would be calcined at a temperature of 1000 C
(1830 F). The detoxified product from the calciner would be collected in a
bin for subsequent disposal in a sanitary landfill.  Overflow from the
thickener and the filtrate from the rotary vacuum filter would be sent to
wastewater treatment.  The gases from the calciner would be processed
through a cyclone and subsequently scrubbed for particulate and hydro-
chloric acid mist control.  The scrubber liquor could be recycled with
an intermittent purge returned to the calciner.

          Figure 25 shows a detailed flow sheet and material balance for
a treatment plant to process waste sludges generated by a 100 kkg/day
titanium dioxide plant using the chloride process and ilmenite ore as
feed.  The material balance for the dewatering circuit is prorated from
an existing operation.  Due to the nature of the metal hydroxides involved,
the sludge is gelatinous and is not easily dewatered to levels greater
than 25 percent solids.

          5.1.5.1.2  Application to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          There are no known full scale treatment plants using the selected
process in its entirety for treating wastevater treatment sludges generated
from the chloride process.  However, the dewatering circuit of this system
is currently being used by at least one manufacturer in this category.  The
New Jersey Zinc Company dewaters the metal hydroxide sludges generated by
a 75 kkg/day titanium dioxide plant in Ashtabula, Ohio in a thickener/vacuum
filter system.  The filter cake is presently sent to a land disposal site.
                                   5-55

-------
i
-Wlft
j8
1



tr
CD 
i 
<->
in




X
<
t- 
UJ h-
o o
cc.
(f>


_CJ
O 3
0 0
0
I1- 3
cj-n
UJ
B t
s s
o





0
U5 O'O
Q
CD 5
og

in INI w
5g S
- 0" 
38 i


 =
o t-
< 
CJ

Si
in
r~
O



-
                                                                                                          UJ
                                                                                                          o

                                                                                                          z
                                                                                                          o
                                                                                                          X
                                                                                                          o

                                                                                                          UJ
                                                                                                          Q

                                                                                                          I

                                                                                                         in
                                                                                                         UJ
                                                                                                         cc
                                                                                           8
                                                                                           UJ
                                          56

-------
The overflow from the thickener is discharged after passing through a polish-
ing pond.  The filtrate is recycled to the main plant clarifier.  The key
contact at New Jersey Zinc is Mr. Jerome F. Smith, Director of Environmental
Technology.

          b.  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operation

          Extensive laboratory and pilot plant dewatering tests have been
conducted by New Jersey Zinc Company, to increase the sludge solids con-
centration to a level greater than 25 weight percent thereby reducing the
quantity of waste to be landfilled, with no appreciable success.

          Calcination is an established unit operation.  However, there are
no known plants in this industry using this unit process for this purpose.
Therefore, laboratory and pilot scale runs would be required to optimize
processing conditions and to validate this concept.

          c.  Pilot or Full-Scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          Calcination is an established process for dehydrating aluminum
hydroxide in the alumina manufacturing industry.  This operation is normally
conducted at temperatures of 1000 C - 1093 C  (1830 - 2000F).

          5.1.5.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from calcination of chromium hydroxide
bearing wastes which result from titanium dioxide manufacture  (chloride
process) are:

          (1)  solid waste detoxification and
          (2)  solid waste reduction.

          The major benefit achieved by this system is the complete detoxi-
fication of chromium hydroxide by conversion to the less soluble cliromium
oxide which is insoluble in acid, alkali and water.  Additionally, this system
would achieve an annual cost savings of $1,000,000 resulting from the reduction
of the volume of wastes to be disposed of (excluding treatment process cost).

          A summary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 6 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There are air emissions and solid wastes generated by this
treatment process.  However, this process presents a minimal threat to
the environment and personnel safety.  The only serious issue associated
with this process is that it is highly energy intensive.

          Air Pollution

          Small quantities of air emissions will be released from the
scrubber on the rotary kiln used to abate the hydrogen chloride and
particulates in the five gas.  The vent gases from the scrubber would
contain approximately 0.095 kkg/day of particulates which is well within
the present applicable limitations.

                                  5-57

-------
          Water Pollution

          Two waterborne waste streams are generated.  These are:(l)the
overflow from the thickener  (1,240,000 liters/day) and (2) the filtrate
from the vacuum filter  (1,000,000 liters/day).  Both streams would be sent
to the plant's waste water treatment system.  A known plant, which employs
this dewatering system, sends the filtrate to the main plant clarifier.  The
overflow from the clarifier is combined with the thickener overflow and
settled in a polishing pond prior to discharge.  The scrubber purge would be
fed to the calciner.

          Solid Waste

          There would be approximately 100 kkg/day of detoxified waste
generated by this system which could be disposed of in a sanitary landfill.
This system reduces the waste quantity by 82 percent.

          The 10.8 kkg/day solid particulate matters trapped by the cyclone
on the off gases of the kiln would be returned to the rotary kiln.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          There are no personnel and safety hazards associated with this
treatment process.  The hydrogen chloride mist in the kiln offgases would
be effectively removed by a wet scrubbing system.  The solid waste from the
kiln would be detoxified and safe to handle for disposal.

          The wastewater from this system may contain high concentrations
of total dissolved solids (TDS).  The environmental and health impacts of
discharging streams containing non-hazardous dissolved solids depends on
the receiving water body.

          Details on the occupational and health effects for hydrogen
chloride are given in Appendix I.

          5.1.5.1.4  Costs for Detoxification of Metal Hydroxides by Calcination

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs for
this process are:

          (1)  Chromium hydroxide* bearing sludge from a typical 100 kkg/day
titanium dioxide plant would be processed in the treatment plant at the rate
of 117 kkg/hour  (129 tons/hour), 24 hours per day and 7 days per week.

          (2)  The use of a polyelectrolyte coagulant, a thickener and a
rotary vacuum filter would increase the solids content of this gelatinous
hydroxide sludge to about 25% solids by weight.79

          (3)  The filter cake would be washed with 100 kkg  (110 tons) per day
of pure water to reduce the residual chlorides in the filter cake and minimize
the formation of appreciable amounts of heavy metal chlorides in the succeed-
ing calcination operation.  Some HC1 would still be formed in the kiln due to
*This material is considered the hazardous constituent in the sludge
                                   5-58

-------
hydrolysis of the NaCl at the high calcination tertperatures.   However,  the
oxit gaao* from the kiln would bo scrubbed and neutralized as  part of this
process.

           (4)  The 25% solids filter cake would be divided and fed to three
rotary calciners  (based on technology  information transfer provided by Kaiser
Corporation on hydrated alumina calcination)9 6 to produce approximately
100 kkg/day  (110 tons/day) of detoxified residue consisting of insoluble
heavy metal oxides.  Emissions from the calciners would be controlled by
a contoination of cyclone and wet scrubber systems with the scrubber liquor
periodically purged to the calciner and the  cyclone-collected  particulate
also recycled to the calciner.

           (5)  Approximately 2,300 kkg/day  (2,535 tons/day) of waterborne
waste would be generated from dewataring and cake washing.  This waste
would contain 200-500 mg/1 of TSS and  unknown but high  concentrations of
dissolved chlorides.  This stream would be returned to  the main plant
waste treatment ponds.

          b.  Costing Methodology Used

          The standard methodology discussed in Appendix II was used  to
develop costs for this treatment plant.

          c.  Cost Sunmary and Energy  Requirement

          The estimated total capital  cost for system 07100 is $13,257,000.
The system annual power and heat requirements are 3,270,000 kwh and 3.93 x 1011
kg cal (1.56 x 10   BTU), respectively.  The estimated  unit operating costs
are as follows:

          $193/kkg ($175/ton) of titanium dioxide product
          $138/kkg ($125/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)
          $6. 9/kkg ($6.2/ton)  of raw waste (wet basis)

          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table 23 lists details on equipment size and operating conditions
for this process.  Total installed capital cost is shown in Table  24  and the
annual operating cost breakdown for this plant is presented in Table  25.
          5.1.6  Waste Stream 8, Wastewater Treatment Sludges - Chrome
                 Color and Inorganic Pigment Manufacturing

          Two conceptualized detoxification processes have been selected
for treating wastewater treatment sludges from chrome color and inorganic
pigment manufacturing.  These are:

          (1)  detoxification of metal hydroxides by kaolin added
               calcination and
          (2)  detoxification of metal hydroxides by evaporation
               and asphalting.

          Details on these processes are given below.


                                   5-59

-------
                               TABLE  23

 SYSTEM 07100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications
                                     Operating Conditions
07101
07102
07103
07104

07105




07106




07107



07108
        19QO 1/min (500 qpm)  cen-
        trifugal sludge transfer
        pump - cast iron construc-
        tion

        18.3 m (60 ft)  diameter
        thickener handles 2.7 MM
        liters/day (713,000 gpd)
        of sludge- mild steel
        construction
 1      3,809 liters  (1,000 gal)
        floe slurry tank; holds
        approximately one day's
        supply of flee slurry
        (0.5% solution of Magna-
        floc 985 - Am. Cyanamid)  -
        mild steel construction

 1      1 HP SS turbine mbaar

 1      3.8 1/min  (1 gpm) floe
        slurry metering pump -
        stainless steel construc-
        tion

 1      960 1/min  (250 gpm)
        thickener overflew centri-
        fugal transfer pump - cast
        Iron construction

 1      1,160 1/min  (300 gpm) cen-
        trifugal transfer pump -
        cast iron construction

11      3.7 m (12 ft) diameter x
        7.3 m (24 ft) long contin-
        uous rotary vacuum filter
        each with 84.7 sq m (912
        sq ft) of filtering area -
        mild steel construction
        with polypropylene filter
        cloth
Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
and head of approximately
30.48 in (100 ft.)
Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
and 1 atn.  Produces 1.46 MM
liters/day (387,000 cpd) of
an underflow containing 9%
solids and a clear overflow
of 1.34 MM liters/cay  (327,000
gpd)
Operates at 25c
1 atm.
C (77 F) and
Operates at 25 C  (77 ?)

Operates at 25 C  (77 F) and
head of approximately 30.48 m
(100 ft.)
Operates at 25 C  (77 ?) arc
head of acoroximatelv 30.48 in
(100 ft.)"
Pumcs a 9% slurry at 25 C
(77 F) arxi total head of
approximately 30.48 m  (100 ft.)

Operates at 58.42 cm (23 in)
Hg vacuum are! 25 C (77 F).
Produces filter cake of 25%
solids.  Filter cake is washed
to dilute entrained dissolved
chlorides.
                                    5-60

-------
                         TABLE  23   (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
No.   	   Quantity   Specifications
                             Operating Conditions
07109
11
07110
07111
11
11
07112
07113


07114
07115
07116
76Q l/min  (200 gpm) cen-
trifugal filtrate transfer
pump  cast iron construe
tion
20 HP mechanical vacuum
pump
76 1/rain  (20 gpm)  cen-
trifugal wash water pump
mild steel construction
39 cu m  (1,400  cu ft)
filter cake storage  (hold
2 hrs. of filter cake
production) - mild steel
construction

15 m  (50 ft) rubber con-
veyor belt

2.9 m  (9.5 ft) diameter x
76 m  (250  ft)  long rotary
calciners equipped with
calcined product coolers
discharging to  screw
feeders  07115 - mild steel,
refractory-lined construc-
tion
8 kkg/hr  (8.8 tons/hr)
screw feeders - mild  steel
construction

21 cu m  (750 cu ft) detox-
ified solids product  hold
bin  (holds 1 day's produc-
tion) - mild, steel con-
struction

              5-61
Operates at 25 C  (77 F) and
total head of approximately
30.48 m  (100 ft).  Pumps com-
bined filtrate and wash 'water
to plant central storage pond
system

Operates at 25 C  (77 F).
Draws operating vaoaurn or
filter of 58.4 on  (23 in.)
Hg

Operates at 25 C  (77 F) and
total head of approximately
30.48 m  (100 ft).  Provides
pure wash water to rotary
vacuum filter

Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
                                     Operates at  25 C  (77  F)
                                     Each unit processes  137  kkg/
                                     day  (206 tor.s/day of 25%
                                     solids filter cake.   Operates
                                     at maximum temperature cf
                                     approximately 1,100 C
                                      (2",000 F) .  Heat utiliza-cicr.
                                     in the kiln  is approximately
                                     40%.  Produces 100 kkg/day
                                      (110 tons) of calcined de-
                                     toxified solids  (insoluble
                                     heavy metal  oxides)  which
                                     are sent to-a sanitary lanrifi,1 ]

                                     Operates at  37-66  C
                                      (100-150 F)
                                     Operates at  25 C
                                     1 atm.
                   (77 F)  and

-------
                         TABLE  23  (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications
                             Operating Conditions'
07117
Cyclones - refractory
lined mild steel construc-
tion
07118
07119
07120
07121
42,500 1/min  (1,500 CFM)
high energy jet venturi
scrubbers - stainless
steel construction
3,800 liters  (1,000 gal)
scrubber liquor surge
tanks - mild" stsel con-
struction

380 1/min  (100 gpm) re-
circulated pump - cast
iron construction

71,000 1/min  (2,500 CFM)
induced draft fan - mild
steel construction
Handles 99,120 1/min (3,500 ACFM)
at 204 C (400 F) at 1 atm.
of flue gases containing 4.2
kkg/day (4.63 tons/day) of
particulate.  Gases consist
of CO, CO2/ H20, N2/ and a
small output of HC1.  Outlet
temperature of gases from
this unit is 149 C  (300 F).
Unit removes about 85% of the
parti ml ate in the inlet
stream which is recycled to
the kiln

Scrub gases with 378.5 1/min
(100 gpm)  of dilute caustic
solution.  Gases leave scrubber
at about 66 C  (150 F) and are
vented.  Pesidual particulate
is essentially removed in these
scrubbers (scrubber efficiency
is 99.9%)  .as well as the small
amount of HCl in the stream
being neutralized by the
caustic scrub solution.
Approximately 2,270 I/day
(600 gpd)  of caustic scrubber
liquor is purged from the
systan and recycled to the
rotary calciner

Operates at 25 C  (77 F) and
1 atm.
Operates at 25 C  (77 F) and
total head of approximately
378.5 m) 100 ft.

Fan operates at about 66 C
(150 F).  Discharges <  .04
kkg/day of particulate
                                 5-62

-------
                               TABLE   24
          TREATMENT SYSTEM 07100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Equipment
No. & Description	Installed Cost
07101  sludge transfer pump                                $   2,500
07102  sludge thickener                                    149,000
07103  floe slurry feed tank                                  1,700
07104  turbine mixer                                            500
07105  floe slurry rotary pump                                1,100
07106  thickener overflow transfer punp                       2,000
07107  thickener underflow transfer punp                      2,500
07108  rotary vacuum filter  (11)                           440,000
07109  filtrate transfer punp  (11)                           11,200
07110  mechanical vacuum pump  (11)                         160,600
07111  wash water pump  (11)                                   4,400
07112  filter cake storage bin  (3)                           12,100
07113  conveyor belt (3)                                     26,000
07114  rotary calciner  (3)                               7,240,000
07115  calcined solids screw feeders  (3)                     12,000
07116  calcined solids hold bin  (3)                          14,400
07117  cyclone (3}                                            9,400
07118  venturi wet scrubber  (3)                              13,700
07119  scrub liquor surge tanks  (3)                           5,000
07120  scrub liquor recirculating punp  (3)                    3,800
07121  exhaust fan (3)                                         3,900
          Sub-total                                      8,115,800
Piping and Valve @ 25% of equipment                      2,028,950
Building, 464.5 sq m @ $387/sq m
       (5,000 sq ft @ $36/sq ft)                            180,000
          Sub total                                    $10,324,750
Engineering @ 7%                                           722,750
          Sub-total                                    $11,047,500
Contingency @ 20%                                        2,209,500
                    Total Installed Capital Cost      $13,257,000
                                   5-63

-------
                               TABLE  25
           ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 07100
CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                         $13,257,000
VARIABLE COSTS
     Direct operating labor, 3 men/shift @ $9/hr.              237,000
     Supervision and Administrative @ 50% of
       direct operating labor                                  118,000
     Maintenance @ 4% of capital investment                    530,300
     Power, 3,270,000 kwh (? 3C kwh                              98,000
     Fuel requirement, 3.93 x 1011 kg cal @ $7.94/MM kg cal
        (1.56 x 1012 BTU @ $2.00 Wl BTU)                      3,127,000
     Sampling and Testing                                       30,000
     Waste Disposal, 36,500 kkg @ $6/kkg                       219,000
        (40,223 tons @ $5.44Akg)                            	
                            Total Variable Cost             $4,359,300
FIXED COSTS
     Taxes and Insurance @ 4% of capital investment            530,300
     Capital Recovery Rate  (10 yrs. @ 10% equiv. to          2,156,900
                                        0.1627/yr)          	
                            Total Fixed Cost                $2,687,200
TOTAL OPERATING COST                                        $7,046,500
     Unit Costs
       $/kkg ($/ton) of titanium dioxide produced            193  (175)
       $/kkg ($/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)                138  (125)
       $/kkg ($/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)                6.89  (6.24)
                                    5-64

-------
          5.1.6.1  Treatment Scheme 1 - Detoxification of Metal Hydroxides
                   by Kaolin Added CcdcinatiaT

          5.1.6.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          This waste stream is usually dewatered and ready for calcination.
Kaolin clay would be added to the waste sludge to inmobilize heavy metals
present in the slag.  This mixture would be conveyed to a rotary kiln where
metal hydroxides and lead chromate are converted to oxides (lead chromate
would be converted to lead and chrome oxides and ferric ferrocyanide would
be converted to ferric oxide, carbon dioxide and NO  ). The product from the
oalciner would be detoxified and could be disposed of in a sanitary landfill.
The gaseous emissions from the calciner may contain NO  and particulates.
Treatment by a cyclone followed by alkaline scrubbing   should control
particulate and NO  emissions.  The scrubber solution would be recycled with
intermittent purges being fed to the calciner.

          Figure 26 shows a detailed flow sheet and an approximated material
balance for a treatment plant to process waste sludges generated by a typical
23 kkg/day pigment plant.

          5_jL,. 6_.!_.,2  Application to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          None known.

          b.  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operations

          There arc no known pilot plants or laboratory investigations
experimenting with this waste stream.  However, all fundamental operations
employed in this conceptual design are established unit processes.  The
process is beUeved to be technically feasible.  Laboratory runs to optimize
the processing conditions and a pilot plant to demonstrate the process  would
be required to validate this concept.

          c.  Pilot or Full-Scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          A report concerning the application of kaolin added calcination
to harmful waste sludges from a chromium plating process has been described
in Proceedings of Japan Chemical Society, 8th  Spring Meeting, Tokyo, Japan,
April 1-5, 1973 (Solid Waste Information Retrieval System, Accession No.
028838).  Experiments involved the preparation of three different samples
(A, B & C) by diluting the air dried sludge containing 19.8 weight  percent
of chromium, 8.3 weight  percent of nickel, 5.4 weight percent of calcium
and 3.2 weight percent of copper with kaolin at a prescribed ratio of 1 to 0,
1 to 1,  1 to 2 and calcined at 800 to 900 C  (1,471 to 1,651 F).  Testing
for the stabilization of the heavy metals was performed by dipping 1 gram of
the calcined material in 100 ml of IN ammonium acetate/acetic acid aqueous
solution and analyzing for heavy metals concentration.   It was generally
concluded that the addition of kaolin to the sludge prior to calcination was
effective for immobilization of heavy metals.
                                    5-65

-------
                         03 =$2
                           zoo
                            CflK
                                    o

                                    o

                                    CO
                                    o

                                    E
                                    O
y
<
o

>
CD

tn
                                    X
                                    o
                                    tr
                            O 0 *
                            sl

                              I-
                              S|
                              s
                                    u.
                                    o
                                    o

                                    
                                    X
                                    o
o

 I
                                    

                                    O
5-66

-------
           5 . 1 . 6 > 1 .-, 3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

           a.  Benefit Analysis Information

           The benef its  resulting from the calcination of wastewater treat-
ment sludges from  chrome color and inorganic pigment manufacturing operations
 (stream  8) are:

           (1)  solid  waste detoxification and
           (2)  solid  vvasLe volume reduction.

           The major benefit achieved by this system is detoxification of
hazardous  components  in the waste stream through conversion to their respective
less soluble metal  oxides.  This system would also achieve a waste volume
reduction  for cti apOE-v J  resulting in an annual cost savings of about $2,180
 (excluding treaconem  process costs) .

           A summary of  the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 7 of Table  b
          Triers me .--j-io.  emissions and solid wastes generated by this treat-
ment process,  However,  these emissions and solid wastes presents a minimal
threat to the en- i a OHM era:  and personnel safety.   The only serious issue
associated wrLh  i-i- ,r  pr Dcesa  is tbat the process is highly energy intensive.

          Mr Pol J uciou

          Lind-ted quantities  o air emissions would be released from the
cyclone/scruboer  system  enployed to control ND  and particulate emissions.
It is estimated tha;:  f articulate emissions woufd be approximately 0.2 kg/day
and the N0tf emls si. ;.>,>;: would also be vd-thin applicable limitations.
            ej"e ni c!  '!' "waterbojrrie wastes from this system.

          r.ojid wa;:.  ;-

          There wouiJ be approximately 3.4  kkg/day of detoxified solid
waste generated, oy Ktu s system which could  be disposed of in a sanitary
landfill.
          There are no personnel and  safety hazards associated with this
treatment process-  '!'ne particulate and NO  in the calciner offgases would
be controlled by a wet scrubbing system.   x The solid waste would be detoxified
and present no adverse environmental  effect.

          Details on the occupational and  health effects for NO  gases are
given in Append TJC  '                                             x
                                      5-67

-------
          5.1.6.1.4  Costs for Treatment System 1

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimated oosts for
this process are:

          (1)  Sludge containing heavy metal compounds from a typical 23
kkg/day  (25.3 tons/day) chrome color and inorganic pigment manufacturing
plant would be processed in this treatment plant at a rate of 0.53 kkg/hr
(0.58 tons/hr), 8 hours per day, 5 days per week.

          (2)  The 4.2 kkg/day  (4.63 tons/day) of sludge containing approx-
imately 77% solids would be mixed with 0.64 kkg/day  (0.71 tons/day) of kaolin,
the mixture then would be fed to a rotary calciner.  Maximum calcination
temperature would be 900 C (1,653 F).  The residue from calcination would
be suitable for landfilling.

          (3)  The emissions from the calciner would be exhausted through a
cyclone and wet scrubber system operating in series with probable emissions
in the vent being <0.04 kg/kkg  (<0.08 Ib/ton) of calcined residue.

          b.  Costing Methodology Used

          The standard methodology discussed in Appendix II was used to
develop oosts for this treatment plant.

          c.  Cost Sunmary and Energy Requirement

          The estimated total capital cost for system 08100 is $1,066,000.
The estimated annual power and heat requirements are 150,000 kwh and
1.58 x 109 kg cal  (6.26 x 109 BTU), respectively.

          The unit operating costs are as follows:

          $45/kkg  ($41/ton) of pigment products
          $450/kkg  ($408/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)
          $342/kkg  ($310/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)

          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table 26 lists details on equipment size and operating conditions
for this process.  Breakdowns of total capital cost and annual operating
costs are shown in Table 27 and 28, respectively.
          5.1.6.2  Treatment Scheme 2 - Detoxification of Metal Hydroxides
                   by Evaporation and Asphalting

          5.1.6.2.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          The initial steps of the process involve mixing the waste sludge
with commercial emulsified asphalt in an evaporator and raising the tempera-
                                     5-68

-------
                               TABLE  26

  SYSTEM 08100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment              Equipment
No.         Quantity   Specifications
                              Operating Conditions
08101
08102
08103
08104
08105
08106
5.6 cu m  (200 cu ft) sludge
told bin  (holds 2 days
supply of feed to treatment
plant) - mild steel construc-
tion

15 m  (50 ft) screw con-
veyor - mild steel construc-
tion
1.8 m  (6 ft) diameter x
21.4 m (70 ft) rotary cal-
ciner  including calcined
solids cooler, drive, burner
and controls - mild steel
refractory-lined construc-
tion
6.1 m (20 ft) calcined
solids screw conveyor
2.8 cu m  (100 cu ft)
calcined solids bin  (holds
one day's production) -
mild steel construction
8,500 1/min  (300 CFM)
cyclone - refractory lined,
mild steel construction
Operates at 25
1 atm.
C (77 F) and
Operates at 25 C  (77 F) and
1 atm.  Ground kaolin is added
to the sludge at the inlet of
the screw conveyor at the rate
of 0.64 kkg/day (0.705 tons/day1

Operates at a ruaxinum tempera-
ture of 900 C (1,652 F) and
1 atm.  Combustion gases flow
countercurrent to solids.
Exit gas temperature is about
204 C (400 F).  Calcined
solids leave kiln cooling
equipment at about 93 C
(200 F).  Heat utilization
in kiln is approximately 40%.

Discharges 2.8 kkg/day  (3.09
tons/day) of calcined solids
to hold bin 08105.

Coerates at an average tercera-
ture of 38 C  (100 F) and
1 atm.  Solids are discharged
daily to trucks and taken to a
sanitary landfill at the rate
of 2.8 kkg/day (3.09 tons/day).

Operates at a temperature of
204 C (400 F) and 1 attn.
Recovers 0.24 kkg/day (0.26
tons/day) of particulate (75%
efficiency) which is recycled
to calciner.
                                  5-69

-------
                         TABLE  26   (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications
                              Ooeratincr Conditions
08107
7,100 I/nan  (250 CFM)  jet
venturi scrubber - mild
steel construction
Operates at an average tem-
perature of 121 C  (250 F)
and 1 atin.  Uses 37.35 I/rain
(10 gpm) of recirculatirjg 5%
caustic solution to absorb
any NO^ in the gas stream and
removes "0.07 kkg/day  ^0.0~~
tons/day) of particulate
(operates at 99% efficier.cv).
Discharges <0.1 kg/day  (0.22 li
day) of particulate frcm vent)
08108
Operates at 25 C
1 aim.
(77  F)  and
08109
2,300 liters  (600 aal)
scrubber liquor surge tank
(holds 1 hour's supply of
5% caustic mild steel con-
struction
4,500 I/bin  (160 CFM)  blower Operates at 32 C  (100 F)
fan - cast iron construction  and 1 atn.  Discharges <0.1
                              kg/day  (0.22 Ib/day) particulata,
                              water vapor and nonccndensibles
                              to atmosphere
08110
38 1/friin  (10 gpn) cen-
trifugal recirculating punp
- cast iron construction
Operates at 25 C  (77 F) and
total head of acoroxi^arelv
30.48 m  (100 ft)"
                                  5-70

-------
                               TABLE  27
          TREATMENT SYSTEM 08100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Equipment
No. & Description   	Installed Cost
08101 sltdge hold bin
08102 screw conveyor
08103 rotary calciner system
08104 screw conveyor
08105 calciner solids hold bin
08106 cyclone
08107 venturi scrubber
08108 surge tank
08109 blower
08110 recirculating pump
Sub- total
Piping and Valves @ 25% of equipment
Building, 92.9 sq m @ $387/sq m
$ 2,200
6,000
615,000
3,600
1,600
2,400
1,400
1,400
600
1,000
$635,200
159,000

        (1,000 sq ft @ $36/sq ft)                             36,000
           Sub-total                                       $830,200
Engineering @ 7%                                             58,100
           Sub-total                                       $888,300
Contingency @ 20%                                           111,100
           Total Installed Capital Cost                  $1,066,000
                                  5-71

-------
                               TABLE  28

            ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TRFATMENT SYSTEM 08100
CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                         $1,066,000

VARIABLE COSTS

     Treatment Chemicals
       166 kkg Kaolin @ $160/kkg17
       (183 tons < $145/ton)                                   26,500

     Direct operating labor, 2 men/shift
       ( $9/hour                                               37,500

     Supervision and Administrative,
       @ 50% of direct labor                                   18,750
     Maintenance @ 4% of capital investment                    42,600

     Power, 150,000 kwh @ 3C/kwh                                4,500
     Process Heat, 1.58 x 109 kg cal @ $7.94/MM kg cal
       (6.26 x 109 BTU 8 $2.00/MM BTU)                          12,500

     Sanpling and Analysis                                     12,000

     Waste Disposal 728 kkq @ $6.00Akg
       (803 tons @ $5.44/tonj                                   4,400

                            Total Variable Cost              $158,750

FIXED COSTS

     Capital Recovery Rate  (10 yrs. @ 10% eguiv. to          $173,400
                                        0.1627/yr)
     Taxes and Insurance @  4% of capital cost                  42,600

                            Total Fixed Costs                $216,000
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST                                 $374,750

     Unit Costs
       $/kkg  ($/ton) of pigment products                      45  (41)
       $/kkg  ($/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)                 450  (408)
       $/kkg  ($/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)                 342  (310)
                                   5-72

-------
 ture  to  evaporate the water in the mix.   The solids  reirain intimately dispersed
 in the asphalt and the  product flows out the bottom  of the evaporator into a
 receiving drum at 102  C to 106 C  (250 to 320  F).  Emulsified asphalt
 (35 wt.  % water)  would  be used in this process because it flows readily at
 room  temperature  and is easily pumped.

          The waste and asphalt would be introduced  at the top of a wiped-film
 evaporator.   The  mixture would flow  down the walls of  the evaporator at about
 160  C  (320  F).   Agitator paddles in the evaporator would sweep the walls
 continuously  at about 100 RPM providing  effective mixing and satisfactory
 heat  transfer.

          The water vapor from the evaporator would  be condensed and collected
 in a  suitable receiver  for use at the plant.

          Figure  27 shows a detailed flow sheet and  material balance for a
 treatment plant to process waste sludges generated by  a typical 23 kkg/day
 pigment  plant.

          5.1.6.2.2 Application to  Date

          a.   Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          None known

          b.   Tjaboratory and Pilot Plant Operations

          There are no  known pilot plants or laboratory investigations
 experimenting with this waste stream.  However, wastes containing high con-
 centrations of various  inorganic compounds  have been treated successfully
 by this  process during  laboratory tests  at  Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
 Laboratory tests and pilot plant demonstration with  the subject waste stream
 would be required  to optimize the processing conditions and validate this
 concept.

          c.  Pilot or  Full-Scale Operations  Treating  Similar Wastes

          This process  has been successfully demonstrated in both continuous
 and batch mixing operations at Oak Ridge  National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
 Tennessee.  Pilot  plant tests  were made with  simulated radioactive waste
 in a  0.305m (12-inch) diameter by 0.406m (16-inch) long Pfaudler wiped-
 film  evaporator with 0.372  sq  m (4 sq ft) of heat transfer surface.   This
 unit processed about 41.6  liters (11 gallons) of waste per hour and  operated
 for 62 hours.   No operating difficulties were encountered.   The equipment
operated satisfactorily with up to 64 weight percent of salts in  the product.
The wear of the wiper blades was negligible.

          Inorganic or organic wastes that are to be incorporated  in asphalt
 should be either neutral or alkaline.  Incorporation of acid wastes  or wastes
 containing large amounts of oxidants  (e.g., nitrate)  in asphalt is not
recontnended because acids degrade asphalt and the reactions of oxidants with
asphalt  could be hazardous.  These waters can be incorporated in polyethylene,
 instead of asphalt.

          The key contact on this process is Dr.  H.  W.  Godbee at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

                                   5-73

-------
a
LI
o
2
u
c
c.
i r>-
: o
J CM
' 0
5 
)


WATER
ACCUMULATOR
08208
              el
              (A CC
              -o,
              O u.
              en  :
             (E

             O
             O

             CM

             X
                      o
                      o
                      X
                      o
a

t


CM


UJ

-------
          5.1.6.2.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from this operation are:

           (1)  solid waste detoxification and

           (2)  the production of a clean water distillate that can be
               either safely discharged or reused.

          The resulting solid product, though approximately 40 percent
greater in volume than the original sludge, can be disposed of in a sanitary
landfill.  A preferable disposition for this material would be to use it,
either directly or combined with other insoluble aggregates such as limestone
or sand, for road surfacing.  This would help to reduce the need for new land-
fill areas.

          A sumnary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 8 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There is solid waste generated by this treatment process.  However,
this waste presents no threat to the environment and personnel safety.  The
relatively large energy requirements are of possible concern, but this
may be a minor issue considering the relatively small volume of waste
which would be treated by this system.  The major issue of concern is the
highly variable availability of asphalt throughout the U.S.A.  Additionally
asphalt may become scarce on a long-range basis due to the shortage of
petroleum base feed stock.

          Air Pollution

          There are no air emission problems associated with this system.
Water vapor from the evaporator would be condensed and collected.

          Water Pollution

          No waterborne waste is generated by this process.

          Solid Waste

          There would be approximately 5 kkg/day of detoxified solid material
generated by this system.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          None
                                         5-75

-------
          5.1.6.2.4  Costs for Treatment System 2 - Detoxification of Metal
                     Hydroxides by Evaporation and Asphalting

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs for
this process are:

          (1)  Sludge containing the heavy metal compounds as generated in a
typical 23 kkg/day  (25.3 tons/day) chrome color and inorganic pigment manu-
facturing plant would be processed in this treatment plant at the rate of
0.53 kkg/hr  (0.58 tons/hr), 8 hours per day and 260 days per year.

          (2)  The 4.2 kkg/day  (4.6 tons/day) of sludge, containing approx-
imately 77% solids would be fed to a wiped-film evaporator, together with
3.1 kkg/day  (3.4 tons/day) of emulsified asphalt, the latter material con-
sisting of 63 wt.% base asphalt, 35 wt.% water, and 2 wt.% emulsifier.  In
the evaporator which operates at 150 C  (302 F), 2.1 kkg/day  (2.3 tons/day)
of water would be removed (essentially all of the water in the feed streams),
producing 5.2 kkg/day  (5.7 tons/day) of dry residue which consists of 62.5
wt.% solids and 37.5 wt.% asphalt.  This material would be suitable for dis-
posal to a sanitary landfill.

          (3)  Approximately 80% of the water removed in the wiped-film evap-
orator would be condensed and recycled to the pigment plant for reuse.  The
offgases from the evaporator are assumed to be essentially particulate free.

          b.  Costing Methodology Used

          In costing this process, standard methodology was used as discussed
in Appendix II except for the cost of a wiped-film evaporator.  Current costs
for this equipment were supplied by the Pfaudler Co.6 7

          c.  Cost Summary and Energy Requirement

          The estimated total capital cost for system 08200 is $195,000.
The annual power and process heat  (steam) requirements are estimated as
39,000 kwh and 4.59 x 108 kg cal  (1.82 x 109 BTU), respectively.

          The estimated unit operating costs are as follows:

          $22/kkg  ($20/ton) of pigment products
          $220/kkg  ($200/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)
          $167/kkg  ($151/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)

          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table 29 lists details on equipment size and operating conditions
for this process.  Breakdowns of total capital cost and annual operating
costs are shown in Tables 30 and 31, respectively.
                                     5-76

-------
                               TABLE  29

 SYSTEM 08200, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment              Equipment
No.         Quantity   Specifications
                             Operating Conditions
08201
08202
08203
08204
08205
08206
08207
14 cu m (500 cu  ft) emlsi-  Operates at approximately 130  C
fied asphalt storage tank
equipped with steam coils
 (holds approximately 1
week's supply) - mild
steel construction

7.57 1/min  (2 gpm)  gear
punp - mild steel construc-
tion
2.8 cu m  (100 cu ft) sludge
hold bin  - mild steel con-
struction

15.2 m  (50 ft) screw
feeder -  mild steel con-
struction
Wiped-film evaporator
system.  2.3 sq m  (25 sq
ft) evaporating surface -
stainless steel construc-
tion
4.2 cu m  (150 cu ft)
asphalted solids hold bin
(holds 1 day's production
of solids) - mild steal
construction

3.7 sq m  (40 sq ft) con-
denser - mild steel con-
struction on shell, copper
tubes
                                                     (266 F) and 1 atm.  Steam keeps
                                                    emulsified asphalt sufficiently
                                                    fluid to be pumpable.
Pumps  0.4 kkg/hr  (0.44  tons/hr)
hot  emulsified asphalt  from
storage tank to wiped-film
evaporator.  Operates at
approximately  50 C  (122  F)
and  total head of approximately
30.5 m (100 ft)
Operates at  25
1 atm.
C (77 F) and
Operates at 25 C  (77 F).
Feeds 0.52 kkg/hr  (0.57 tons/hr)
of sludge to wiped-film
evaporator

Processes 0.9 kkg/hr  (0.99
tons/hr) of emulsified asphalt
and sludge feed at  150 C
(302 F) and 1 atm.  Evaporates
0.27 kkg/hr  (0.30 tons/hr) of
water.  Discharged  solids from
evaporator are suitable for
landfilling

Operates at 40 C  (104 F)
and 1 atm.
Condenses approximately 80% of
water vapor leaving wiped-film
evaporator [0.27 kkg  (0.29 tons)
HaO per hr].  Condensate at
about 40 C (104 F) drains
to an accumulator
                                        5-77

-------
                         TABLE  29  (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications	Operating Conditions

08208           1      380 liters  (100 aal) water  Operates at 40 C  (104 F)
                       accumulator  mild, steel     and 1 atzn.
                       construction

08209           1      3.8 I/tain  (1 gpn) conden-   Operates at 25 C  (77 F) at
                       sate pump - mild steel       total head of approximately
                       construction                 30.5 m  (100 ft)

08210           1      850 1/min  (30 ACFM)  exhaust  Operates at approximately
                       fan - mild steel construe-   50 C (122 F) and 1 atm.
                       tion                         Discharges water vapor and
                                                    non-condensibles to atroschers
                                     5-78

-------
                               TABLE 30
          TREATMENT SYSTEM 08200 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Equipment
No. & Description	        Installed Cost
08201
08202
08203
08204
08205
08206
08207
08208
08209
08210

Piping
asphalt storage tank
gear punp
sludge hold bin
screw feeder
wiped-f ilm evaporator system
residue hold bin
condenser
accumulator
condensate pump
exhauster
Sub- total
and Valves @ 25%
$ 4,000
2,500
2,000
3,600
72,000
1,600
5,000
500
1,000
500
$92,700
23,200
Building, 92.9 sq m @ $387/sq m
        (1,000 sq ft @ $36/sq ft)                                  36,000
            Sub-total                                           $151,900
Engineering (7%                                                  10,600
            Sub-total                                           $162,500
Contingency @ 20%                                                 32,500
            Total Installed Capital Cost                        $195,000
                                    5-79

-------
                               TABLE 31
           ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 08200
CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                          $195,000
VARIABLE COSTS
     Asphalt, 837,700 liters @ 10.6C/1
       (222,000 gal @ 40C/gal)81                              88,800
     Direct operating labor, 1 man/shift @ $9/hr              18,750
     Supervision and Administrative, @ 50% of
       direct operating labor                                  9,375
     Maintenance @ 4% of capital investment                    7,800
     Power, 39,000 kwh, @ 3
-------
           5.1.7  Waste Stream 9, Gypsum Waste Sludges - HF Acid Manufacture

           A conceptualized detoxification process consisting of evaporation
 and asphalting has been selected for treating gypsum wastes containing calcium
 fluoride from hydrofluoric acid manufacturing plants.


           5.1.7.1  Detoxification of Calcium Fluoride Bearing Sludges by
                    Evaporation and Asphalting

           5.1.7.1.1  Process  Description and Material Balance

           This process  has been described in detail  in subsection 5.1.6.2.1
 of  this  report.   It involves  the mixing of the waste sludge with connercial
 emulsified asphalt in an evaporator  and raising  the  temperature to evaporate
 the water  in the  mix.   The solids remain intimately  dispersed in the asphalt
 and the  product flows out the bottom of the evaporator.

           Figure  28 shews a detailed flow sheet  and  material  balance for
 a treatment plant to process  gypsum  wastes generated by a  typical 64 kkg/day
 plant.

           5.1.7.1.2  Application to  Date

           a.   Full-Scale Treatment Installation

           None known

           b.   Laboratory and  Pilot Plant Operations

           There are no  known  pilot plant or laboratory operations experimenting
 with this  waste stream.   However,  fluoride containing wastes  from the phosphate
 industry have  been  treated successfully by this  process  during laboratory
 tests at Oak Ridge  National Laboratories.   Laboratory tests and pilot plant
 demonstration  with  the  subject waste stream would be required to optimize the
 processing conditions and validate this concept.

           c.   Pilot or  Full-Scale  Operations Treating Similar Wastes

           This is discussed in detail in subsection  5.1.6.2.2c.

           5.1.7.1.3  Benefits  and  Environmental Consequences

           a.   Benefit Analysis Information

           The benefits  resulting from this operation are:

           (1)  solid waste detoxification  and
           (2)  the production of a clean water distillate that can be
                either safelv  discharqed or reused.

           The resulting solid product, though approximately 50 percent greater
 in volume  than the original sludge, can be disposed of in a sanitary landfill.
A preferable disposition for this material would be to use it, either directly
or combined with other insoluble aggregates such as limestone or sand, for road
surfacing.   This would help to reduce the need for new landfill areas.
                                   5-81

-------
z.
UJ
                 o>
         XZ.K1 o
         x
-------
          A sutmary of the benefits  achieved by  this  process  is  shown in
 column 9 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          Clean water  and  solid waste are generated by this treatment process.
 The solid waste presents no threat to the environment and personnel safety.
 The major issues  of concern associated with  this system are:   (1) The system
 is highly energy  intensive due to the large volume of water which has to be
 evaporated,  (2) the volume of asphalt required is' extremely large because of
 the large volume  of waste  sludge generated.  These facilities would have to
 produce asphalt on-site.   Raw materials to manufacture asphalt may become
 scarce because of the  shortage of petroleum, and  (3)  there would be a constant
 need for new landfill  areas if the product is proven  to be unsuitable for use
 as aggregate.

          Air Pollution

          There are no emission problems associated with this system.  Water
 vapor  from  the evaporator  would be condensed and collected.

          Water Pollution

          No waterborne waste is generated by this process.

          Solid Waste

          There would  be 538 kkg/day of non-hazardous solid waste generated
 by this system.                                             '

          Safety  and Health Aspects

          None.

          5.1.7.1.4  Costs for Detoxification of Calcium Fluoride Bearing
                     Sludges by Evaporation  and Asphalting

          a.  Process  Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental  design considerations used  in estimating costs for
 this process are:

          (1)  Calcium fluoride bearing gypsum sludge from a typical  64 kkg/
 day (70.5 tons/day) hydrofluoric acid plant, would be processed  in the treat-
ment plant at the rate of  17.5 kkg/hr (19.3  tons/hr), 24 hours per day,
 5 days per week basis.  The sludge contains  2.3 per cent by weight calcium
 fluoride (wet basis).

          (2)  The  420 kkg/day (463  tons/day) of sludge containing approximately
 80% solids would be fed to wiped-film evaporators together with  320 kkg/day
 (353 tona/day)  of amuLsified asphalt.  In the evaporation stap which operates
at 150 C,  approximately 197 kkg/day (217 tons/day)  of water would be removed
 (essentially all of the water in the two feed streams).  The evaporators
would produce 538 kkg/day  (593 tons/day) of dry residue consisting of 62.5 wt.%
waste solids and  37.5 wt.% asphalt.   The material would be suitable for
disposal in a sanitary landfill.
                                    5-83

-------
          (3)  The 320 kkg/day  (353 tons/day),  [approximately 341,000 I/day
 (90,000 gpd)] of emulsified asphalt would be prepared in an asphalt manufac-
turing plant on premises.

          (4)  Approximately 80% of the water removed in the wiped-film evap-
oration step would be condensed and recycled to the hydrofluoric acid plant
for reuse.  The offgases from the evaporator are assumed to be essentially
particulate free.

          b.  Costing Methodology Used

          Costing methodology used is the same as discussed in Section 5.1.6.2.4b,
with the exception that costs for an asphalt plant  (investment and operating)
were obtained from a manufacturer of this equipment.

          c.  Cost Summary and Energy Requirement

          The estimated total capital cost for system 09100 is $2,691,000.
The estimated annual system power and process heat  (steam) requirements are
900,000 kwh and 5 x 101 kg cal  (2 x 1011 BTU), respectively.

          The estimated unit operating costs are as follows:

          $360/kkg  ($326/ton) of hydrofluoric acid product
          $96/kkg  ($87/ton) of raw waste  (dry basics)
          $77/kkg  ($70/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)

          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information
                                                  \
          Table 32 lists details on equipment size and operating conditions
for this process.  Total capital cost is presented in Table 33 and an annual
operating cost breakdown is presented in Table  34.
          5.1.8  Waste Stream 11, Wastewater Treatment Sludges - Aluminum
                 Fluoride Manufacture

          A conceptualized detoxification process consisting of evaporation
and asphalting has been selected for treating wastewater treatment sludges
containing calcium fluoride from aluminum fluoride manufacturing operations.

          5.1.8.1  Detoxification of Calcium Fluoride Bearing Sludges by
                   Evaporation and Asphalting

          5.1.8.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          This process has been described in detail in subsection 5.1.6.2.1
of this report.

          Figure 29 shows a flow sheet and material balance for a treatment
plant to process calcium fluoride bearing wastes generated by a typical
145 kkg/day aluminum fluoride plant.
                                   5-84

-------
                               TABLE 32

  SYSTEM 09100, B3UIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications
                             Operating Conditions
09101
09102
09103
09104
09105
09106
09107
380,000 I/day  (100,000 gpd)
anulsif ied asphalt manu-
facturing  plant*

284  1/min  (75  gpm) gear
purcp - stainless  steel
construction
84 cu m (3000 cu ft) sludge
hold bins - mild steel con-
struction

15 m (50 ft) screw
feeders - mild steel con-
struction
215 sq m  (231 sq ft) wiped-
f ilm evaporator system -
stainless-clad mild steel
construction
140 cu m  (5000 cu ft)
asphalted solids hold bin
 (hold 1 day's production)
~ mild steel construction

33 sq m (360 sq ft) con-
densers - mild steel con-
struction shell, copper
tubes
Produces 320 kkg/day  (353
tana/day) of emulsified
asphalt at 132 C  (275 F)

Operates at 135C  (275F)
and approximate total head
of 30.5 m  (100 ft.)   Pumps
hot asphalt from storage
tank to wiped-f ilm evapora-
tors

Operates at 25 C  (77  F)
and 1 atm.
Feeds a total of 17.5 kkg/hr
 (19.3 tons/day) of gypsum
sludge to wiped-film evapora-
tors

Each evaporator processes 10.3
kkg/hr (11.4 tons/day) of
emulsified asphalt and sludge
feed at 150 C  (302 F) and
1 atm.  Each evaporator reroves
2.7 kkg/hr of water.  Discharged
solids are suitable for land-
filling

Operates at 40 C  (104 F) and
1 atm.  Asphalted solids  are
loaded from bin into durap
trucks and hauled to a landfill

Condenses approx. 80% of water
vapor leaving wiped-film  evap-
orators (2.2 kkg/hr (2.42  tons/
hr) of condensate per condenser).
Condensate at about 40 C
(104 F)  drains to accumulator
09108
1,900 liters (500 qal) water Operates at 40 C  (104 F) and
accumulator - mild steel     1 atm.
construction
* Includes colloid mill and drive, 3 pumps and drives, enulsifier preparation
  tank, 1-18,950 liter (5000 gal.) mix tank, 2-75,800 liter  (20,000 gal) oil
  storage tanks, and 3-378,500 liter (100,000 gal.) finished asphalt storage tanks.
                                   5-85

-------
                         TABLE  32   (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications	Operating Conditions

09109           3      42,500 1/min  (1,500 GEM)     Operates at 50 C  (122 F)
                       exhaust fans - mild steel    and 1 atm.
                       construction

09110           3       38   1/min (10 gpm) centri- Operates at 50 C  (122 F)
                       fugal condensate recycle     and total head of approx-
                       punp - cast iron construe-   imately 30.5 m  (100 ft)
                       tion
                                  5-86

-------
                               TABLE  33
          TREATMENT SYSTEM 09100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST

Equipment
No. & Description	Installed Cost
09101  asphalt plant                                    $  470,000*
09102  asphalt transfer punp  (3)                            28,400
09103  sludge hold bins (3)                                 21,000
09104  sludge screw feeder (3)                              21,600
09105  wiped-film evaporator system  (3)                  1,050,000
09106  asphalted solids hold bin (3)                        48,000
09107  condenser (3)                                        55,000
09108  water accumulator  (3)                                  4,100
09109  exhaust fans (3)                                      3,600
09110  condensate recycle punp  (3)                       	3,000
           Sub-total                                    $1,704,700
Piping and Valves (excluding asphalt plant) @ 25%          319,250
Building, 185.8 sq m @ $387/sq m)
       (2000 sq ft @ $36/sq ft)                             72,000
           Sub-total                                    $2,095,950
Engineering @ 7%                                           146,700
           Sub-total                                    $2,242,650
Contingency @ 20%                                          448,500
           Total Installed Capital Cost                 $2,691,150
* The cost of the asphalt plant was obtained from Mr. Spark,
  K. E. McConnaughay, Inc., Lafayette, Indiana
                                  5-87

-------
                               TABLE  34
            ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 09100
CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                          $2,691,150
VARIABLE COSTS
     Chemicals cost for manufacturing 8.7 x 107 liter
       emulsified asphalt @ 6.6C/181
       (23 MM gal @ 25<=/gal)                                 5,750,000
     Direct operating labor, 4 men/shift @ $9/hr.              225,000
     Supervision and Administrative @ 50% of
       direct labor                                            112,500
     Maintenance @ 4% of capital investment                    107,600
     Power, 900,000 kwh @ 3*/kwh                                27,000
     Process steam, 5 x 1010 kg cal @ $15.87/MM kg cal
       (2 x 1011 BTU @ $4.00/MM BTU)                           800,000
     Sampling and Analysis                                      15,000
     Waste Disposal, 140,000 kkq @  $6/kkg
        (154,280 tons. @ $5.44/ton)                              840,000
                                Total Variable Costs        $7,877,100
FIXED COSTS
     Capital Recovery Rate  (10 yrs. @ 10% equiv.  to            437,850
     Taxes and Insurance @  4% of Capital Cost 'yr'             107,600
                                Total Fixed Costs             $545,450
TOTAL OPERATING COST                                        $8,422,550
     Unit Costs
       $/kkg  ($/ton) of hydrofluoric acid product             360 (326)
       $/kkg  ($/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)                    96 (87)
       $Akg  ($/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)                    77 (70)
                                    5-88

-------
5-89

-------
          5.1.8.1.2  Application to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          Non known.

          b.  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operations

          This has been discussed in subsection 5.1.7.1.2b.

          c.  Pilot Plant of Full-Scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          This is discussed in detail in subsection 5.1.6.2.2c.

          5.1.8.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from this operation are:

          (1)  solid waste detoxification and
          (2)  the production of a clean water distillate that can be either
               safely discharged or reused.

          The resulting solid product, though approximately 50 percent
greater in volume than the original sludge, can be disposed of in a sanitary
landfill.

          A summary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 10 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          Clean water and solid waste are generated by this treatment process
which present no threat to the environment and personnel safety.  The major
issues of concern, associated with this system, are: (1) it is energy intensive,
(2) the highly variable availability of asphalt throughout the nation, and
(3) there would be a constant need for new landfill areas if the product is
proven to be unsuitable for use as aggregate.

          Air Pollution

          There are no emission problems associated with this system.  Water
vapor from the evaporator would be condensed and collected.

          Water Pollution

          No waterborne waste is generated by this process.

          Solid Waste

          There would be approximately 58 kkg/day of non-hazardous solid
material generated by this system.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          None
                                   5-90

-------
          5.1.8.1.4  Posts for Detoxification of Calcium Fluoride Bearing
                     Wastewater Treatment Sludge by Evaporation and Asphalting

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          Hie fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs
for this process are:

          (1) Calcium fluoride bearing wastewater treatment sludge from a
typical 145 kkg/day  (160 tons/day) aluminum fluoride plant would be
processed in the treatment plant at the rate of 1.93 kkg/hr,  (2.13 tons/hr)
24 hours per day and 260 days per week.  The sludge contains 36 percent by
weight calcium fluoride  (wet basis).

          (2) The 46.2 kkg/day (50.9 tons/day) of sludge containing approx-
imately 79% solids would be fed to a wiped-filjn evaporator together with
34.6 kkg/day (38.1 tons/day) of emulsified asphalt.  In the evaporation
step, which operates at 150 C (302 F), approximately 22 kkg/day (24.2
tons/day) of water would be removed (essentially all of the water in the
two feed streams).  The evaporator would produce 58.2 kkg/day  (64.1 tons/
day) of dry residue which would be suitable for disposal in a sanitary
landfill.

          (3) Approximately 80% of the water removed in the wiped-film
evaporator would be condensed and recycled to the aluminum fluoride plant
for reuse.  The offgases from the evaporator are assumed to be essentially
particulate free.

          b.  Costing Methodology Used

          Costing methodology used is the same as discussed in Section
5.1.6.2.4b.

          c.  Cost Summary and Energy Requirement

          The estimated total capital cost for system 11100 is $261,000.
The estimated annual power and process heat (steam) requirements are 120,000
kwh and 5 x 109 kg cal (2 x 101 BTU), respectively.

          The estimated unit operating costs are as follows:

          $17/kkg ($15/ton) of aluminum fluoride product
          $94/kkg ($185/ton) of raw waste (dry basis)
          $74/kkg ($67/ton) of raw waste (wet basis)

          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table 35 lists details on equipment size and operating conditions
for this process. Breakdowns of total installed capital cost and annual
operating costs are shown in Tables 36 and 37 respectively.
                                    5-91

-------
                               TABLE  35

  SYSTEM 11100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPBCHTCKTICNS AND OPERATING CCNDITICNS
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications
                             Operating Conditions
11101
11102
11103
11104
11105
11106
11107
76,000 liters  (20,000  gal)
onulsifiod asphalt storage
tank equipped with internal
steam coils  (holds 1 week's
supply of asphalt) - mild
steel construction

15 1/min (4 gpm) emulsified
asphalt transfer pump  (gear
pump) - stainless steel
construction

28 cu m (1,000 cu ft)
sludge hold tank - mild
steel construction

15 ra (50 ft) screw
feeder - mild steel con-
struction

15 sa m (50 so ft) wiped-
film evaporator system -
stainless steel construc-
tion
11108
42 cu m  (1,500 cu ft)
asphalted solids hold bin
(holds 1 day's production)
- mild steel construction

23 sq ra  (75 sq ft) con-
denser - mild steel con-
struction on shell, copper
tubes
760 liters  (200 gal) water
accumulator - mild steel
construction
Operates at 135* C  (275 F)
and 1 atm.
Operates at 135 C  (275 F)
and total head of approx-
imately 30.5 m  (100 ft.)
Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
and 1 atm.
Feeds 1.9 kkg/hr  (2.09 tons/
hr.) from hold tank to wiped-
film evaporator

Processes a total of 3.4 kkg/
hr  (3.75 tons/hr) of emulsified
asphalt and sludge feed at
150 C and 1 atm.  Removes
0.9 kkg/hr  (0.99 tons/hr) of
water.  Discharged dry
asphalted solids are suitable
for landfilling

Operates at 40 C  (104 F) and
1 atm.  Asphalted solids are
loaded daily into trucks and
hauled to a landfill

Condenses approximately 80%
of water vapor leaving wiped-
film evaporator  (0.7 kkg/hr
(0.77 tons/hr) of conder^a-ce) .
Condensate at about 40 C
(104 F) drains to an accumu-
lator

Operates at 40 C  (104 F)
and 1 atn.
                                  5-92

-------
                         TABLE 35   (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications	Operating Conditions
       t                                    '
11109           1      21,000 1/fain  (750 CEM)       Operates at 50 C (122 F)
                       exhaust fan - ^1^ steel     and 1 atzu  Discharges water
                       construction                 vapor and non-condensables
   .    \   \           ;                              to atnu

lino           1      15 1/ndn (4 gpn) centrifu-   Operates at 40 C (104 F)
                       gal condensate recycle       and total head of approx-
                       punp - cast iron construe-   inately 30.5 m (100 ft)
                       tion
                                  5-93

-------
                               TABLE 36
          TREATMENT SYSTEM 11100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Equipment
No. & Description	Installed Cost
11101
11102
11103
11104
11105
11106
11107
11108
11109
11110

Piping
emulsified asphalt storage tank
emulsified asphalt transfer pump
sludge hold tank
sludge screw feeder
wiped-f ilm evaporator system
asphalted solids hold bin
condenser
accumulator
exhaust fan
condensate recycle pump
Sub- total
and Valves @ 25%
$ 25,000
1,100
5,900
3,000
82,000
7,000
7,000
800
800
1,000
$133,600
33,400
Building 92.9 sq m @ $387/sq m
        (1,000 sq ft @ $36/sq ft)                                 36,000
           Sub-total                                           $203,000
Engineering @ 7%                                                 14,200
           Sub-total                                           $217,200
Contingency  20%                                                43,400
           Total Installed Capital Cost                        $260,600
                                    5-94

-------
                               TABLE 37
            ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 11100
CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                           $260,600
VARIABLE COSTS
     Asphalt, 4,466,pOO  liters  <  10.6C/1
       (1,180,000 gal @ 40
-------
          5.1.9  Waste Stream 13, Wastewater Treatment Sludges - Sodium
                 Silioofluoride Manufacture

          A conceptualized detoxification process consisting of evaporation
and asphalting has been selected for treating calcium fluoride containing
wastewater treatment sludges from sodium silicofluoride manufacturing
operations.

          5.1.9.1  Detoxification of Calcium Fluoride Bearing Sludges by
                   Evaporation and Asphalting

          5.1.9.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          Ihis process has been described in detail in subsection 5.1.6.2.1
of this report.

          Figure 30 shows a flow sheet and material balance for a treatanent
plant to process calcium fluoride bearing wastes generated by a typical
45 kkg/day sodium silicofluoride plant.

          5.1.9.1.2  Application to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          None known

          b.  laboratory and Pilot Plant Operation

          This has been discussed in subsection 5.1.7.1.2b.

          c.  Pilot Plant or Full-Scale Operations Treating Similar wastes

          This was discussed in detail in subsection 5.1.6.2.2c.

          5.1.9.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from this operation are:

           (1)  solid waste detoxification
           (2)  solid waste reduction and
           (3)  the production of a clean water distillate that can be
               either safely disposed of or reused.

          The treatment plant would achieve an annual cost savings of
$25,750 resulting from the volume reduction of land destined wastes  (excluding
treatment process costs).  Additionally, the solid waste would be intimately
dispersed in the asphalt and the product could be safely disposed of in a
sanitary landfill.

          A summary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 11 of Table 8.
                                     5-96

-------

S^
> w- 
33
3*!
vi X E
1
u.5zUlg Mo
fes!5|i Q]5







ec
UJ
M
z p^ _
O io *
2 ~
S^

|
< 
UJ _j CO
< 2 f5
*d ~
0
<







(A
< 2
> *-
en






Blw
fO qj 
if*
HCVtO

/
V



r
o;
0
r*
< (O
0- O _
2  ~"
t

Q 2
UJ /M **
*** ^^ G0(^
~ ^ Q
i ^ 3?
tncnO

IJ
J
O
w
^^ x ^?
 
N
 o

5 c z
X 5
?o =J
ft C\j3
i**8 rf
y|V T> UJ tO CM ^
fc> r <|o
^ S
-------
          b.  Environmental Impact

          Clean water and solid waste are generated by this treatment
process which presents no threat to the environment and personnel safety.
The major issues of concern associated with this system, are:  (1) it is
energy intensive because of the large volume of water required to evaporate
and  (2) the highly variable availability of asphalt throughout the nation.
Additionally, asphalt may become scarce in the future because of the shortage
of petroleum. *

          Air Pollution

          There are no air emission problems associated with this system.
Water vapor from the evaporator would be condensed and collected.

          Water Pollution

          No waterborne waste is generated by this process.

          Solid Waste

          There would be approximately 16 kkg/day of detoxified solid
material generated by this system.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          None.

          5.1.9.1.4  Costs for Detoxification of Calcium Fluoride Bearing
                     Wastewater Treatment Sludge by Evaporation and
                     Asphalting

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs
for this process are:

          (1) Calcium fluoride bearing wastewater treatment sludge from a
45 kkg/day  (50 tons/day) sodium silicofluoride plant, would be processed
in the treatment plant at the rate of 1.34 kkg/hr (1.47 tons/hr), 24 hours
per day, 260 days per year.  Calcium fluoride is present in the range of
11-20% by weight  (wet basis).

          (2) The 32.2 kkg/day (35.5 tons/day) of sludge containing approx-
imately 31% solids would be pumped to a wiped-film evaporator together with
9.3 kkg/day  (10.2 tons/day) of emulsified asphalt.  In the evaporator which
operates at 150 C  (302 F), approximately 25.6 kkg/day (28.2 tons/day) of
water would be removed  (essentially all of the water in the two feed streams).
The evaporator would produce 15.7 kkg/day (17.3 tons/day)  of dry residue
which would be suitable for disposal in a sanitary landfill.

          (3) Approximately 80% of the water removed in the wiped-film
evaporator would be condensed and recycled to the sodium silicofluoride
plant for reuse.  The offgases from the evaporator are assumed to be essen-
tially particulate free.
                                   5-98

-------
          b.  Costing Methodology Used

          The costing methodology used is the  same as discussed in Section
 5.1.6.2.4b.

          c.  Post Summary and Energy  Requirement

          The estimated total  capital  cost  for system 13100  is  $383,000.
 The estimated annual  power and heat  (steam) requirements are 140,000 kwh
 and 3.78 x 109 kg cal (1.5 x 1010 BTU), respectively.

          The estimated unit operating costs are as  follows:

          $38/kkg ($34.5/ton)  of  sodium silicofluoride product
          $247/kkg ($224/ton)  of  raw waste  (dry basis)
          $75Akg ($68/ton)  of raw waste  (wet  basis)

          d.  Detailed  Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table  38 lists details  on  equipment  size and operating condi-
 tions  for this process.  Breakdowns  of total installed capital  cost and
 annual operating costs  are shown  in  Tables  39  and 40, respectively.
          5.1.10  Waste Stream 14 - Chromate Contaminated Wastewater Treat-
                  ment Sludges - Chromate Manufacture

          A conceptual process design has been prepared for a treatment plant
to detoxify the hazardous components in this waste stream by calcination.
Details on this process are given below.

          5.1.10.1  Detoxification of Metal Hydroxides and Chromates by
                    Calcination

          5.1.10.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          This waste stream is usually dewatered and ready for calcination.
Kaolin clay would be added to the waste sludge until a 20 percent by weight
(dry basis) of solids is achieved.  The mixture is conveyed to a rotary kiln
where metal hydroxides and chromates are calcined at 900 C (1,650 F) and
converted to oxides.  Kaolin is added to immobilize heavy metals present
in the calcined slag.  The product from the kiln would be detoxified solid
waste which could be disposed of in a sanitary landfill.  The gaseous emissions
from the kiln would contain carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulates and
water vapors which would be passed through a cyclone and electrostatic
precipitator system for particulate control.  Particulates would be recycled
to the calciner.

          Figure 31 shows a detailed flow sheet and an estimated material
balance for a treatment plant to proces^ wa,ste sludges generated by a typical
182 kkg/day (200 tons/day) chromate plant.

          5.1.10.1.2  Application to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          None known.

                                   5-99

-------
                               TABLE  38

  SYSTEM 13100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment              Equipment
Mo.	Quantity   Specifications
                             Operating Conditions
13101
13102
13103
13104
13105
13106
13107
57,000 Liters  (15,000 gall
anil si fied asphalt storage
tank equipped with internal
steam coils (holds 1 week's
supply of asphalt - mild
steel construction

7.6 1/min  (2 gpm) emulsi-
fied asphalt transfer pump
(gear pump) - stainless
steel construction

28 cu m  (1,000 cu ft)
sludge hold tank - mild
steel construction

19 1/min (5 gpm) sludge'
transfer pump  (Moyno pump)
- mild steel construction
9.3 sa m  (100 sa ft)
wiped-film evaporator sys-
tem - stainless steel
construction
14 cu m  (500 cu ft) asphal-
ted solids bold bin  (holds
1 day's production) - mild
steel construction

14 sq m  (150 sq ft)  con-
denser - mild steel con-
struction on shell, copper
tubes
Operates at 135 C  (275 F)
and 1 atro.
13108
Operates at 135 C  (275 F)
and total head of approx-
imately 30.5 m  (100 ft)
Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
and 1 atm.
Feeds 1.34 kkg/hr  (1.48
tons/hr) of sludge from
hold tank to wiped-film
evaporator

Processes a total of 1.35
kkg/hr  (1.49 tons/hr) of
emulsified asphalt and
sludge feed at 150 C
(302 F) and 1 atm.  Dis-
charged dry asphalted solids
are suitable for landfilling

Operates at 40 C  (104 F)
and 1 atm.  Asphalted solids
are loaded daily into trucks
and hauled to a landfill

Condenses approximately 80%
of water vapor leaving wiped
film evaporator (0,9 kkg/hr
(0.99 tons/hr) of condensate).
Condensate at about 40 C
(104 F) drains to an accumu-
lator
760 liters  (200 qal)  accumu-Operates at 40 C  (104 F)
later - mild steel construe- and 1 atm.
tion
                                  5-100

-------
                          TABLE  38  (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
No.	   Quantity   Specifications               Operating Conditions

13109           1      28.000 I/tain  (1,000 GEMf    Derates at 50 C (122 F)
                       exhaust fan - mild steel     and 1 atm.  Discharges non-
                       construction                 condenaables and water vapor
                                                    to atmosphere

13110           1      is i/min (5 gpm) centri-     Operates at 40 C (104 F)
                       fugal condensate recycle     and total head of approximately
                       punp - cast iron construe-   30.5 m (100 ft.)
                       tion
                               5-101

-------
                              TABLE  39
         TREATMENT SYSTEM 13100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Equipment
NO. & Description	Installed Cost
13101 emulsified asphalt storage tank
13102 emulsified asphalt transfer punp
13103 sludge hold tank
13104 sludge feed punp
13105 wiped- film evaporator system
13106 asphalted solids hold bin
13107 condenser
13108 accumulator
13109 offgas exhaust fan
13110 condensate recycle punp
Sub- total
Piping and Valves @ 25%
Building, 92.9 sq m @ $387/sq m
$ 20,000
800
5,900
1,900
167,000
5,000
6,200
800
1,200
1,300
$210,100
52,500

        (1,000 sq ft @ $36/sq ft)                                  36,000
           Sub-total                                            $298,600
Engineering @ 7%                                                  20,900
           Sub-total                                            $315,500
Contingency @ 20%                                                 63,900
           Total Installed Capital Cost                         $363,400
                                  5-102

-------
                               TABLE 40
           ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 13100

CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                          $383,400
VARIABLE COSTS
     Asphalt, 2,520,000 liters @ 10.6C/1
       (666,000 gal @ 40/gal)                               266,000
     Direct operating labor, 2 men/shift @ $9/hr             112,300
     Supervision and Administrative, @ 50% of
       direct operating labor                                 56,150
     Maintenance  4% of capital investitent                   15,300
     Power, 140,000 kwh @ 3*/kwh                               4,200
     Process Heat  (steam). 3.78 x 109 kg cal @ $15.87/MM
       kg cal   (1.5 x 10io BTU @ $4.00/MM BTU)               60,000
     Sampling and Analysis                                    15,000
     Waste Disposal, 4,080 kkg @ $6Akg
       (4,496 tons @ $5.44/ton)                                24,500
                                  Total Variable Costs      $553,450
FIXED COSTS
     Capital Recovery Rate (10 yr. @ 10% equiv. to 0.1627/yr) 62,400
     Taxes and Insurance @ 4% of capital investment           15,300
                                  Total Fixed Costs          $77,700
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS                                       $631,150
     Unit Costs
       $/kkg ($/ton) of sodium silicofluoride product         38  (34)
       $/kkg ($/ton) of raw waste (dry basis)                247  (224)
       $/kkg ($/ton) of raw waste (wet basis)                 75  (68)
                                 5-103

-------
5 K
tft < ^

>- O 
U UJ
UJ IT
do.

S - S

0  B  =
sJ i in
i i , f
* i
 ~- 2

UJ
z ^
0 0

o
O
L -
 S
| * 0
o _ O
12 "
 ^ v .to
I .  _ i- w
ct
UJ
-r ro
 o
o
_J I ?
^


o < g
a. 9 o

10 " 
*** k^ / \
             I
O
ro
               OjS
                            I!
                                        O
                                        2


                                        

                                        m
                                        
-------
          b.  laboratory and Pilot Plant Operations

          These are discussed under waste stream 8  (chrome color and
inorganic pigment manufacturing), Section 5.1.6.1.2b.

          c.  Pilot or Full-Scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          These are discussed in Section 5.1.6.1.2c.

          5.1.10.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from calcination of wastewater treatment
sludges from chromate manufacturing operations are:

          (1)  solid waste detoxification and
          (2)  solid waste volume reduction.

          The major benefit achieved by this system would be detoxification
of hazardous components (hydroxides and chromates) in the waste stream
through conversion to metal oxides which are insoluble in acid, alkali and
water.  This system would also achieve a volume reduction of land destine
waste resulting in a cost savings of about $109,500  (excluding treatment
process costs).

          A surmary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 12 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There would be air emissions and solid waste generated by this
treatment process.  However, these wastes present no threat to the environ-
ment and personnel safety.  This process is highly energy intensive.

          Air Pollution

          Air emissions from the calciner would be controlled by a cyclone
and electrostatic precipitator in series.  It is estimated that the controlled
particulate emissions from this system would be a maximum of 20 kg/day which
is within currently applicable limitations.

          Water Pollution

          None.

          Solid Waate

          There would be approximately 160 kkg/day of detoxified solid waste
generated by this system.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          There are no personnel and safety hazards associated with this
treatment process.  The solid waste generated would be detoxified and should
present no adverse environmental effects on disposal.

                                   5-105

-------
          5.1.10.1.4  Costs for Detoxification of Chranium Bearing Wastewater
                                Sludge and Ore Residue by Calcination
          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs
for this process are:

           (1)  Chromium bearing sludge and ore residue as generated  in a
typical 182 kkg/day  (200 tons/day) chromates plant would be processed in
this treatment plant at the rate of 8.3 kkg/hr  (9.1 tons/hr) , 24 hours per
day, 365 days per year.  Chromium  [as chromium  (III) hydroxide and chromium
 (VI) chromate] is present to the extent of 1,500 ppn in the total sludge.

           (2)  The 200 kkg/day  (220 tons/day) of sludge and ore residue would
be mixed with 30 kkg/day  (33 tons/day) of kaolin in a screw conveyor.  The
mixture would be then fed to a rotary calciner which operates at a maximum
temperature of 900 C  (1,652 F) .

           (3)  The emissions from  the calciner are treated in a cyclone and
wet scrubber system with residual  emissions in the vent being <2 kg/kkg  (<4
Ib/ton) of calcined residue.

          b.  Costing Methodology  Used

          The standard methodology discussed in Appendix II was used to
develop costs for this treatment plant.

          c.  Cost Summary and Energy Requirements

          The estimated total capital cost for system 14100 is $4,914,000.
The estimated annual power and heat requirements are 980,000 kwh and 6.17 x 10 10
kg cal  (2.45 x 1011 BTU) , respectively.

          The estimated unit operating costs are as follows:

          $59/kkg  ($54/ton) of chromate chemicals
          $72/kkg  ($65/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)
          $54/kkg  ($49/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)

          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table 41 lists details on equipment size and operating conditions
for this process.  Breakdowns of total installed capital cost and annual
operating costs are shown in Tables 42 and 43, respectively.
          5.1.11  Waste Stream 15, Nickel-Containing Wastes From Waste-
                  water Treatment - Nickel Sulfate Manufacture

          A conceptualiztxl resource recovery process has been selected for
treating wastewater treatment sludges from nickel sulfate manufacturing
plants.  The process involves the recovery of nickel hydroxide by high gradient
magnetic separation (HGMS).  The waste stream under study is very small in
volume and can be treated in a pilot size unit.  There are off-the-shelf
magnetic separators which could be used to treat this waste.

                                    5-106

-------
                               TABLE  41

   SYSTEM 14100 - EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPBCEFICATICNS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment              Equipment
No.         Quantity   Specifications
                             Operating Conditions
14101
14102
14103
14104
14105
14106
14107
372 cu m  (4,000 cu ft)
sludge hold bin (holds
1 day's supply for plant)
- mild steel construction

15.2 m (50 ft) sludge
screw conveyor - mild
steel construction

2.7 ra x 91.4 m (9 ft x
300 ft) rotary calciner
complete with product
cooler, drive, burner,
and controls - mild steel,
refractory lined construc-
tion
6.1 m  (20 ft) calcined
solids screw feeder - mild
steel construction

325 cu m  (3,500 cu ft)
calcined solids hold bin
(holds 1 day's production)
- mild steel construction

198,000 1/min (7,000 CFM)
cyclone - mdJd steel,
refractory linfri construc-
tion
198,000 1/min  (7,000 CFM)
electrostatic precipitator
mild steel construction
Operates at 25 C  (77e F)
and 1 atm.
Conveys a total of 9.6 kkg/hr
 (10.6 tons/hr) of sludge and
kaolin to calciner

Operates at a maximim temper-
ature of 900 C  (1,032 F)
and 1 atm.  Combustion gases
flow counter-current to
solids.  Exit gases temper-
ature is about 204 C  (410 F) .
fa I/?! peri solids leave calciner
cooling equipment at 'about
93 C  (200 F) .  Heat utiliza-
tion efficiency is about 40%.

Discharges 160 kkg/day  (176
tons/day) of T? 1 clrvy^ solids
to hold bin

Operates at about 150 C
 (302 F) and 1 atm.  Solids
are loaded into trucks daily
and hauled to a laTYJ-gi 1
Operates at 204 C  (400 F)
and 1 atm.  Removes 12.8
kkg/day  (14.1 tons/day) of
particulates (operating
efficiency of 85%) which are
recycled to the rotary cal-
ciner

Operates at 204 C  (400 F)
and 1 atm.  Removes 99% of
particulates with 0.02 kkg/day
(0.022 tons/day) beinc vented.
Approximately 2.2 kkg/day
(2.4 tons/day)  of particulate
is recycled to calciner
                                  5-107

-------
                          TABLE  41   (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
Mo.	Quantity   Specifications	Operating fVinrf-i tions

14108           1      198,000 1/min (7,000  CTM)   Operates at 204 C  (400 F)
                       exhaust fan - miH steel     and 1 atra.  Vents 0.02 kkg/
                       construction                 day (0.022 tons/day) parti-
                                                    gi late and approximately
                                                    56 Jdcg/day (61.7 tons/day)
                                                    of water vapor to atrosphere
                                   5-108

-------
                               TABLE  42
          TREATMENT SYSTEM 14100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Equipment
No. & Description	 Installed Cost*
14101  sludge hold bin                                    $   16,000
14102  sludge conveyor                                         7,000
14103  rotary calciner system                              2,915,000
14104  calcined solids screw feeder                            2,000
14105  calcined solids hold bin                                5,000
14106  cyclone                                                 4,000
14107  electrostatic precipitator system                     110,000
14108  offgas exhaust fan                                 	3,000
           Sub-total                                      $3,062,000
Piping and Valves @ 25%                                      765,000
           Sub-total                                      $3,827,000
Engineering @ 7%                                             268,000
           Sub-total                                      $4,005,000
Contingency (J 20%                                            819^000
           Total Installed Capital Cost                   $4,914,000
* No additional building space would be required for this installation.

                                  5-109

-------
                                TABLE  43
            ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 14100
CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                         $4,914,000
VARIABLE COSTS
     Kaolin, 10,900 kkg @ $160/kkg
       (12,011 tons @ $145/ton                              1,716,000
     Direct operating labor, 1 man/shift @ $9/hr               78,800
     Supervision and Administrative @ 50% of
       direct operating labor                                  39,400
     Maintenance @ 4% of capital investment                   196,600
     Power, 980,000  kwh @ 3$/kwh                              29,400
     Process Heat. 6.17 x 1010 kg cal @ $15.87/MM kg cal
       (2.45 x 10fl BTU @ $2.00/MM BTU)                       490,000
     Sanpling and Analysis                                     15,000
     Waste Disposal, 58,400 kkg @ $6/kkg
       (64,357 tons @ $5.44/ton)               '               350,000
                                   Total Variable Costs    $2,915,200
FIXED COSTS
     Capital Recovery Rate  (10 yr. @ 10% equiv. ,to 0.1627/yr) 799,500
     Taxes and Insurance @ 4% of capital investment           196,600
                                   Total Fixed Costs       $  996,100
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS                                      $3,911,300
     Unit Costs
       $/kkg  ($/ton) of chromate chemicals                     59  (54)
       $/kkg  ($/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)                  72  (65)
       $/kkg  ($/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)                  54  (49)
                                   5-110

-------
          5.1.11.1  Recovery of Nickel by H3MS

          5.1.11.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          The waste stream would be diluted with water to a concentration of
10 percent by volume of solids prior to treatment.  Dilution is essential
because the HGMS process is best suited for the removal of magnetic wastes
that are present in low concentrations in a liquid stream.

          HGMS uses fine ferromagnetic filament material containing 95 percent
void space and magnets capable of generating high-intensity fields (up to
20,000 gauss) in large empty space.  The nickel hydroxide would be collected
in the filter by magnetic attraction as the waste stream passes through the
unit.  Nickel hydroxide trapped on the matrix during the feed cycle (magnet
on) would be washed off the matrix and recovered during the flush cycle  (magnet
off).  An automatic valving system would be used to collect the magnetic  (nickel
hydroxide) and  nonmagnetic (detoxified sludge) products separately.  The
nickel hydroxide would be recovered as a 30 percent slurry and would be
returned to the plant for reprocessing.

          It is anticipated that the HGMS system would achieve a very high
removal efficiency.  Therefore, the purified stream would contain only traces
of nickel hydroxide and may be pumped to the main plant treatment system or
disposed of in a sanitary landfill.

          Figure 32 shows a detailed flow sheet and an approximated material
balance for a treatment plant to process waste sludge generated by a typical
9 kkg/day nickel sulfate plant.  Ihe treatment plant would recover 2.27 kg/day
of 30 percent nickel hydroxide slurry and would generate 2.31 kkg/day detoxified
sludge.

          5.1.11.1.2  Applications to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installations

          None known.

          b.  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operations

          There are no known pilot plants or laboratory investigations experi-
menting with this waste stream.  Laboratory tests to optimize processing
conditions and a pilot plant to demonstrate the process would be required
to validate this concept.

          c.  Pilot or Full-Scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          The principal current commercial application of HGMS is the beneficia-
tion of kaolin (clay) to remove a small unwanted magnetic fraction.  Production
prototypes were tested in 1969, and the first full-scale unit was put on-stream
in early 1973.  Today five kaolin producers in Georgia are each operating one
HGMS unit.  Four of these units were supplied by Aquafine Corporation (Brunswick,
GA), and were constructed by Pacific Electric Motor Company.   The fifth unit was
supplied by Magnetic Corporation of America.55
                                    5-111

-------
                               o
                               o
v>
X <
3 0
0 ft
x 


DETOXIFIED
SLUDGE
RECEIVER
15108
                     o B
                     1*
                      ~
                       *
                              cc
                              UJ

                              o
                              <



                              I




                              (M
                              UJ
                              o:

                              o
5-112

-------
          At least three HGMS research projects are under way in coal desulfur-
ization.  MIT's National Magnet Laboratory  (NML) is currently looking at ash
and sulfur removal from liquid coal in a project funded by the NSF and the
Electric Pcwer Research Institute.  They expect to move to pilot plant trials
in a year or two.  Secondly, there is a pilot plant at Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama, where experiments are being done in conjunction with Aquafine
Corporation.  This work has resulted in the removal of over 90% of the pyritic
sulfur in liquefied coal.  Lastly, Aquafine Corporation is investigating the
potential for removal of pyrites from dry pulverized coal under a prime contract
held by Indiana University.55

       i   Ihe Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission (MDS) has evaluated
a solicited proposal for the use of an HGMS unit to help clean the Charles River.65
The MDC was impressed by the capabilities of the proposed HOIS plant, but did
not contract for the work.  The costs seemed to outweigh the benefits at the
tire  (late 1973).

          No other water-treatment units are in use.  Vfoter purification appli-
cations are currently being explored by Sala Magnetics Corporation of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, following initial work carried out in conjunction with MIT's
National Magnet Laboratory.65

          5.1.11.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from the treatment of this waste stream by
HGMS are:
           (1)  the recovery of nickel hydroxide and
           (2)  solid waste detoxification.
          This system would achieve nickel hydroxide slurry recovery at a
rate of 2.27 kg/day, which can be utilized at the plant site.  Using an
estimated price of $1.00 per kilogram of 30 percent nickel hydroxide slurry
recovered, this treatment process would result in an annual cost savings of
$590, or a cost savings of $0.01 per metric ton of nickel sulfate produced
(excluding treatment process costs).

          The resulting waste, although approximately doubled in volume as
compared to the original waste, is detoxified and may be either sewered or
sent to the plant's wastewater treatment system.

          A summary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 13 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There are no serious environmental impacts associated with the use
of HGMS.  The relatively large electrical energy requirements are of possible
concern, but this too may be a minor issue considering the small volume of
waste which would be treated by this system.

          Air Pollution

          None.
                                      5-113

-------
          Water Pollution

          None.

          Solid Waste

          There would be 2.31 kkg/day of detoxified sludge generated by this
system.

          Safety and Health Aspects
               '    """"""       ~  \    \           '   '
          None.

          5.1.11.1.4  Costs for Recovery of Nickel Hydroxide from Wastewater
                      Treatment Sludges Using High Gradient Magnetic Separation

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs
for this process are:

          (1)  Sludge containing nickel hydroxide as generated in a typical
9 kkg/day (9.9 tons/day) nickel sulfate manufacturing plant would be processed
in this treatment plant at the rate of 0.13 kkg/hr (0.14 tons/hr), 8 hours/day,
7 days/week.

          (2)  The sludge is diluted with water so that the solids loading
is approximately 10% by volume.  This slurry would be fed to the HGMS unit
in a cyclic operation.  The magnetic matrix of the HC3^S would be loaded to
capacity with solid nickel hydroxide, then flushed with fresh water to
recover metal values.  An BGMS unit with two matrices would be required,
one collecting nickel hydroxide while the other was being flushed.

          (3)  The recovered nickel hydroxide  (approximately 30% by weight
slurry) would be recycled to the nickel sulfate manufacturing operation.

          h.  Coating Methodology Used

          The standard nethodology, discussed in Appendix II, was used to
develop costs for this system except for the cost of the HCMS unit, which
was supplied by a vendor.

          c.  Cost Summary and Energy Requirement

          The estimated total capital cost for system 15100 is $99,200.
The estimated annual power requirement is 320,000 kwh.  The annual process
heat requirement is negligible.

          The unit operating costs are as follows:

          $25/kkg  ($23/ton) of nickel sulfate product
          $424/kkg  ($382/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)
          $212Akg  ($192/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)

          d.  Detailed Process Eguipnent and Cost Information

          Table 44 lists details on equipment size and operating conditions
for this process.  Breakdowns of total capital cost and annual operating
costs are shown in Tables 45 and 46, respectively.
                                   5-114

-------
                               TABLE  44

  SYSTEM 15100/ EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment              Equipment
No.         Quantity   Specifications
                             Operating Conditions
15101
15102
15103
15104
15105
15106
15107
15108
15109
760 liters  (200 gal) sludge
hold tank - mild steel con-
struction

3.8 1/min  (1 gpm) Moyno
sludge punp - mild steel
construction
Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
and 1 atm.
Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
and total head of approx-
imately 100 ft.
2,300 liters(600 gal) slurry Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
preparation tank, holds      and 1 atm.
1 day's supply of slurry
feed to HGMS unit - mild
steel construction
0.5 HP propeller mixer -
stainless steel construc-
tion

7.6 1/min  (2 gpm) Moyno
sludge pump - mild steel
construction

10 cm (4 in) bore cyclic
HGMS unit complete with
autonatic controls, twin
separation units and
internal heat exchanger
for magnet cooling
19 liters  (5 gal) nickel
hydroxide slurry hold
tank - mild steel con-
struction
380 liters  (100 gal)  de-
toxified sludge hold tank
mild steel construction

7.6 liters  (2  gpm)  ^yno
sludge pump -  mild  steel
construction
Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
and total head of approx-
imately 30.5 m  (100 ft)

Operates at 25 C  (77 F) and
1 atm.  Processes 2.31 kkgy'day
(2.54 tons/day) of a 10% by
volume solids slurry.  Recovers
0.7 kg (15.4 It) of nickel
hydroxide per day.  Residual
solids leaving HGMS unit are
essentially nickel free

Operates at 25" C  (77 F) and
1 attn.  Unit collects 2.3 kg/day
(5.06 Ib/day) of a 30% by weight
nickel hydroxide slurry.
Receiver is emptied once a week
with material recycled to nickel
sulfate plant

Operates at 25 C  (77 F) and
1 atm.
Operates at 25 C (77 F) and
a total head of approximately
30.5 m (100 ft).  Punps de-
toxified sludge from hold tank
to main plant wasta disposal
facilities
                                  5-115

-------
                               TABLE  45
          TREATMENT SYSTEM  15100  - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Equipment
No. & Description	Installed Cost
15101
15102
15103
15104
15105
15106
15107
15108
15109

Piping
sludge hold tank
sludge pump
slurry preparation tank
mixer
sludge punp
HGMS unit
detoxified sludge hold tank
nickel hydroxide hold tank
sludge punp
Sub- total
and Valves @ 25%
$ 800
600
1,200
400
900
48,000*
300
70
900
$53,170
13,330
Building, 27.8 sq m i $387/sq m
        (300 sq ft @ $36/sq ft)                                   10,800
           Sub-total                                            $77,300
Engineering 07%                                                  5,400
           Sub-total                                            $82,700
Contingency @ 20%                                                16,500
           Total Installed Capital Cost                        $99,200
 * 1'rii-t? wa.-j tibLtijuxl L'rom Mr.  J.  I annual. Li, Sala Magnetics, Inc.,
  Cambridge, Massachusetts
                                  5-116

-------
                              TABLE 46
            ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 15100
CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                           $    99,200
VARIABLE COSTS
     Direct operating labor, 1 man/shift @  $9/hr                 26,300
     Supervision and Administrative, @ 50%  of
       direct operating labor                                    13,150
     Maintenance, @ 4% of capital investment                      4,000
     Power, 320,000 kwh, @ 3<=/kwh                                  9,600
     Sanpling and Analysis                                        5,000
                                   Total Variable Costs         $58,050
FIXED COSTS
     Capital Recovery Rate  (10 yrs. @ 10% equiv. to 0.1627/yr)   16,100
     Taxes and Insurance @  4% of capital cost                     4,000
                                   Total Fixed Costs            $20,100
TOTAL OPERATING COST                                            $78,150
     Credit for recovery of Ni(OH),, 350 kg
       < $1.00Ag*  (1,870  Ib < 45P/lb)                            (850)
NET OPERATING COST                                              $77,300
     Unit Costs
       $/kkg ($/ton) of nickel sulfate product                   25 (23)
       $/kkg ($/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)                   424 (382)
       $/kkg ($/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)                   212 (192)
* Estimated value of 30% by weight slurry.

                                  5-117

-------
          5.1.12  Waste Stream ISA, Calcium Fluoride Bearing Wastes from
                  Phosphorus Manufacture

          A conceptualized detoxification process consisting of evaporation
and asphalting has been selected for treating calcium fluoride-containing
wastewater treatment sludges from phosphorus manufacturing operations.

          5.1.12.1  Detoxification of Calcium Fluoride Bearing Sludges by
                                and Asphalting
          5.1.12.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          This process has been described in detail in subsection 5.1.6.2.1
of this report.

          Figure 33 shows a flow sheet and material balance for a treatment
plant to process calcium fluoride bearing wastes generated by a typical 136
kkg/day phosphorus plant.

          5.1.12.1.2  Application to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installations

          None known.

          b.  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operation

          This has been discussed in subsection 5.1.7.1.2b of this report.

          c.  Pilot Plant or Full-Scale Operation Treating Similar Wastes

          This information has been discussed in detail in subsection 5.1.6.2.2c.

          5.1.12.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from this operation are:

          (1)  solid waste detoxification and
          (2)  the production of a clean water distillate that can be
               either safely discharged or reused.

          The resulting solid waste would have approximately the same volume
as the original waste sludge.  However, the hazardous component would be
intimately dispersed in the asphalt and immobilized for disposal.

          A surrmary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 14 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There are waterborne and solid wastes generated by this treatment
process.  However, these wastes present no threat to the environment and
personnel safety.  The major issues of concern are:   (1) the system is

                                     5-118

-------
CONDENSER
16AKJ7


WATER
ACCUMULATOR
I6AI08
                          Ul
                            s
5-119

-------
highly energy intensive because of the need to evaporate large volumes of
water, (2) the volume of asphalt required for this waste stream is large
and its availability is highly variable throughout the nation.  Also, asphalt
may become scarce in the future because of the shortage of petroleum, and
(3) there would be a constant need for new landfill areas if the product
is proven to be unsuitable for use as aggregate.

          Air Pollution

          There are no air emission problems associated with this system.
Water vapor from the evaporator would be condensed and collected.

          Water Pollution

          None.

          Solid Waste

          There would be approximately 114 kkg/day of non-hazardous solid
waste generated by this system.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          None.

          5.1.12.1.4  Costs for Detoxification of Calcium Fluoride Bearing
                      Sludges by Evaporation and Asphalting

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs
for this process are:

          (1)  Calcium fluoride bearing wastewater treatment sludge, from
a typical 136 kkg/day (150 tons/day) phosphorus plant, would be processed
in the treatment plant at the rate of 4.9 kkg/hr  (5.40 tons/hr), 24 hours/
day, 260 days/year.  Calcium fluoride is present up to 10% by weight  (wet
basis) in the sludge.

          (2)  The 118 kkg/day  (130 tons/day) of sludge, containing approx-
imately 60% solids, would be fed to a wiped-film evaporator together with
17.6 kkg/day (19.39 tons/day) of emulsified asphalt.  In the evaporator,
which operates at 150 C (302 F), approximately 71 kkg/day  (78 tons/day)
of water would be removed (essentially all of the water in the two feed
streams).  The evaporator would produce 114 kkg/day  (126 tons/day) of dry
asphalted solids which would be suitable for disposal in a sanitary land-
fill.

          (3)  Approximately 80% of the water removed in the wiped-film
evaporator,  would be condensed and recycled to the phosphorus plant for
reuse.  The offgases from the evaporator are assumed to be essentially
particulate free.

          b.  Costing Methodology Used

          The costing methodology used is the same as discussed in Section
5.1.6.2.4b.
                                   5-120

-------
          c.  Cost Summary and Energy Requirement

          The estimated total capital oost for system 16A100 is $877,000.
The estimated annual system power and heat (steam) requirements are 186,000
kwh and 1.76 x 1011 kg cal (7 x 10n BIO), respectively.

          The unit operating costs are as follows:

          $56/kkg  ($51/ton) of phosphorus product
          $151/kkg  ($137/ton) of raw waste (dry basis)
          $91/kkg  ($83/ton) of raw waste (wet basis)

          d.  Detailed Process Equirroent and Cost Information

          Table 47 lists details on equipment size and operating conditions
for this process.  Capital costs are presented in Table 48 and annual operating
costs are presented in Table 49 for this plant.
          5.1.13  Waste Stream 16B, Phossy Water - Phosphorus Manufacture

          A conceptualized resource recovery process was selected to treat
the phossy water waste stream generated during phosphorus manufacture.
This process scheme combines existing and proven unit processes to achieve
recovery of phosphorus as a product.

          5.1.13.1  Recovery of Pure Phosphorus by Heat Treatment and
                    Distillation

          5.1.13.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          In this process, phosphorus is recovered by heat treatment and
distillation.  The phossy water from the sludge feed tank, containing about
10 percent by weight solids, would be pumped into a clarifier.  Flocculant
is added to this sludge to agglomerate small suspended particles.  The overflow
from this clarifier would be recycled to the main plant for reuse.  The under-
flow, containing about 25 percent by weight solids, would be purped into a
steam jacketed tank.  The applied heat melts the phosphorus and facilitates
its settling and separation.  The recovered phosphorus is recycled to the
main plant and processed through a filter press, while the overflow from the
heating tank is pumped into a rotary still where residual phosphorus is
recovered by distillation at 360 C (700F).  The vapors from the still,
containing phosphorus and water, would be condensed and collected in an
accumulator.  The phosphorus from the accumulator would be recycled to the
main plant and processed through a filter press.  The water from the condenser
accumulator, which may contain some phosphorus, would be recycled to the
clarifier.  The residue from the still would be returned to the original
phossy water pond.

          Figure 34 shows a detailed flow sheet and material balance for a
treatment plant to process the phossy water generated by a typical 136 kkg/day
(150 tons/day)  phosphorus plant.         '   v
                                   5-121

-------
                               TftBIE  47

  SYSTEM 16A100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CPEEATING CONDITIONS
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications
                             Operating Conditions
16A101
16A102
16A103
16A104
16A105
16A106
16A107
380,000 liters  (100,000 gal) Operates at 135 C  (275 F)
emulsified asphalt storage   and 1 atro.
tank equipped with internal
steam coils  (holds 1 week's
supply of emulsified
asphalt) - mild steel con-
struction
16A108
57 1/rain  (15 gpm) emi.il.si-
fied asphalt transfer pump
(gear pump) - cast iron
construction

76,000  liters  (20,000 gal)
sludge hold tank  (holds
1 day's feed to wiped-film
evaporator) - mild steel
construction

15 m  (50  ft) sludge
sera/ feeder - mild steel
construction

21 sq m (230 sq ft)  wiped-
film evaporator system -
stainless steel clad mild
steel construction
84 cu m  (3,000 cu ft)
asphalted solids hold bin
(holds 1 day's production)
- mild steel construction

28 aq m  (300 aq  ft)  con-
denser - mild steel con-
struction on shell, copper
tutes
1,900 liters  (500 gal)
accunulator - mild staei
construction
Operates at 135 C  (275 F)
and total head of approx-
imately 30.5 m  (lOO'ft)
Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
and 1 atm.
Delivers 4.9 kkg/hr  (5.4 tons/
hr) of sludge to wiped-filn
evaporator

Processes a total of 7.7
kkg/hr  (8.5 tons/hr) of
emulsified asphalt and
sludge feed at 150 C  (302 ?)
and 1 atm.  Discharged dry
asphalted solids are suitable
for landfilling

Operates at 40 C  (104 F)
and 1 atm.  Asphalted solids
are loaded daily into trucks
and hauled to a landfill

Condenses approximately 30%
of water vapor leaving wiped-
film evaporator (2.4 kkg/hr
(2.6 tons/hr) of condensate).
Condensata at about 40 C
(104 F) drains to an accranu-
lator

Operates at 40 C  (104 F)
and 1 atm.
                                   5-122

-------
                         TABLE  47  (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications	Operating Cnrri j tions

16A109          1      43,000 1/min  (1,500 GEM)     Operates at 50 C (122 F)
                       exhaust fan - mild steel     and 1 atro.  Discharges non-
                       construction                 condensables and water
                                                    vapor to atnosphere

16A110          1      '38 1/min  (10 gpm) cen-      Operates at 40 C (104 F)
                       trifugal condensate          and total head of approx-
                       recycle punp - cast iron     irately 30,5 m (100 ft)
                       construction
                                   5-123

-------
                               TABLE  48
         TREATMENT SYSTEM 16A100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
Equipment
No. & Description
Installed Cost
16A101  emulsified asphalt storaqe tank
lOAJOlr!  fjmilriirinci AuphnJt t-rnimlor pump
16A103  sludge told tank
16A104  sludge screw feeder
16A105  wiped-film evaporator system
16A106  asphalted solids hold bin
16A107  condenser
16A108  accumulator
16A109  offgas exhaust fan
16A110  condensate recycle punp
            Sub-total
Pipuiq ,HK! V.tlvoH (> 2ni'A
Building, 186 sq m ( -?387/sq m
         (2,000 sq ft @ $36/sq ft)
            Sub-total
Engineering @ 7%
            Sub-total
Contingency % 20%
            Total Installed  Capital Cost
  $   90,000
       1,500
       9,500
       4,800
     350,000
      10,800
      18,300
       1,400
       1,200
       1,000
    $488,500
     122,100

      72,000
     682,600
      47,800
     730,400
     146,100
    $876,500
                                5-124

-------
                               TABLE 49
           ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 16A100


CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                           $  876,500
VARIABLE COSTS
     Asphalt 18.32 MM liters @  1Q.6C/1
       (4.84 MM gal @ 40
-------
I
0
* 
O 
(J >
jr
0


             "-;
             cc!
             UJ
III
OV
              of
11 ^
" 11
-= s5
(V m
So
1
^|5
Nse



cc
 CC CD
U
	 fl2
                                                          ffi
                                                         ID
                                                         Z
                                                         O
                                                         u?

                                                         0
                          CD
II
                                                         I
                                                         cr

                                                          I
                                                         UJ
                                                         cr
                  5-126

-------
          5.1.13.1.2  Application to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment  Installation

          There are no known full-scale installations using this process  in
its entirety.  However, two companies have operated on a full scale  the two
main unit processes of this system, which are the steam jacketed separation
tank and the rotary still.  Electro-phos in Pierce, Florida, has operated
the steam jacketed separator intermittently to recover phosphorus from the
phossy water waste stream generated by a 59 kkg/day  (65 tons/day) phosphorus
plant.  This plant has successfully recovered 1/3 of the phosphorus  in this
waste stream when utilizing this technique.  Stauffer Chemical in Mt.  Pleasant,
Tennessee, has successfully operated a rotary still intermittently to  recover
the phosphorus in various sludges generated by a 113 kkg/day  (125 tons/day)
phosphorus plant.  Although individual unit processes have been demonstrated
successfully, a pilot plant run to  demonstrate the completely integrated
treatment process would be necessary.

          b.  Laboratory and Pilot  Plant Operations

          None known.

          c.  Pilot or Full-Scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          None known.

          5.1.13.1.3  Benefits and  Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from the treatment of phossy water  are:

          (1)  the recovery of phosphorus and
          (2)  waste volume reduction.

          This system would recover phosphorus at a rate of 1.1 kkg/day.
Using a price of $0.80 per kilogram of recovered material, this treatment
process would result in a resource recovery value of $321,000 or $6.50 per
metric ton of phosphorus manufactured.

          The treatment plant will also achieve an annual cost savings of
$13,000 (assumes $2 per metric ton phossy pond cost)  resulting from  the
reduction of volume of land destined waste (excluding treatment process
costs).

          A summary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 15 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There would be solid waste generated by this process which may
contain residual phosphorus.   However, the major concern is that this
process is highly energy intensive.


                                 5-127

-------
          Air Pollution

          The vapors from the still would be totally condensed and present
no air emission problem.

          Water Pollution

          There would be no water borne waste generated by this process.  The
overflow from the clarifier would be recycled to the main plant for reuse.  The
water from the accumulator may contain residual phosphorus and would be recycled
to the clarifier for reprocessing

          Solid Waste

          There would be approximately 0.6 kkg/day of solid waste generated
which could contain traces of phosphorus.  This material could be sent to
the original phossy pond.

          Safety and Health Aspects

          Colloidal phosphorus is hazardous.  Even though the concentration
of phosphorus in the waste stream would be low, it would require safeguards
upon land disposal.

          Phosphorus poisoning is a potential occupational hazard at elemental
phosphorus production plants.  The OSHA limit for yellow phosphorus is
0.1 mg/cubic meter of air over an 8 hour time weighted average.  Details on
the occupational and health effects of phosphorus are given in Appendix I.

          5.1.13.1.4  Costs for Phosphorus Recovery from Phossy Water

          a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

          The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs
for this process are:

          (1)  Phossy water generated by a typical 135 kkg/day  (149 tons/day)
elemental phosphorus plant would be fed to the phosphorus recovery process
at the rate of 0.79 kkg/hr  (0.87 tons/hr), 24 hours per day, 365 days per
year.  The phossy water contains approximately 10% by weight of phosphorus.

          (2)  By the use of flocculant and a clarifier-thickener, the
solids loading of the phosphorus bearing stream would be increased to 25%
by weight in the thickener underflow.

          (3)  The thickener underflow would be fed to a steam jacketed
tank maintained at a temperature of 71 C  (170F).  At this temperature
phosphorus becomes molten and would stratify into a bottom layer of pure
phosphorus which would be recycled to the main plant.  Approximately 1/3
of the phosphorus in the sludge is recoverable in this manner.  The upper
layer in the tank would consist of water, molten phosphorus and various
impurities.
                                   5-128

-------
           (4)   Distillation of the phosphorus-water mixture from step (3)
 in a  continuous rotary still would yield 1.1 kkg/day (1.2 tons/day)  of
 pure  phosphorus as product.

           b.   Posting Methodology Used

           The standard methodology, discussed in Appendix II was used to
 develop costs for this treatment plant.

           c.   Qpst Summary and Energy Requirement

           The estimated total capital cost for system 16B100 is $544,000.
 The estimated annual system power and heat requirements are 196,000 kwh
 and 1.84 x 109 kg cal (7.3 x 109 BTU), respectively.

           The unit operating costs are as follows:

           $1.6/kkg ($1.5/ton) of phosphorus product
           $120/kkg ($109/ton) of raw waste (dry basis)
           $12/kkg ($ll/ton) of raw waste (wet basis)

           d.   Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

           Table 50 lists details on equipment size and operating conditions
 for this process.  Total capital cost is presented in Table 51 and an annual
 operating cost breakdown is presented in Table 52.
          5.1.14  Waste Stream 18, Arsenic Chloride Wastes from Phosphorus
                  Trichloride Manufacture

          A conceptual process design has been prepared for a treatment plant
to recover impure .trsenic trichloride by distillation.  Details on  this process
are given below.

          5.1.14.1  Recovery of Impure Arsenic Trichloride by Distillation

          5.3^14.1.1  Process Description and Material Balance

          A batch still would be charged with the waste and the charge would
be heated to 150 C.  Vapors of arsenic trichloride would be condensed in
a chilled water condenser and set to an accumulator.  This impure arsenic
trichloride would be drummed and sent to a secondary arsenic trichloride
refining facility.  One such facility is the Great Western Inorganics in
Golden,Colorado, who presently accepts inpure arsenic chloride streams for
refining to pure product.

          The still bottoms from this operation would be landfilled.  The off-
gases consisting of non-condensables would be vented.

          Figure 35 shows a detailed flow sheet and material balance for a
treatment plant to process wastes generated by a typical 159 kkg/day (175 tons/
day)  phosphorus trichloride plant.
                                   5-129

-------
                               TABLE  50

 SYSTEM 16B100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CCNDITICNS
Equipment              Equipment
Mo.	Quantity   Specifications
                            Operating Conditions
16B101
16B102
16B103
16B104
 16B105
 16B106
 16B107
19,000 liters  (5,000  gal)
sludge hold tank (1 day's
sludge production)  -
rubber-lined mild steel
construction

15 1/min  (4 gpm) sludge
transfer pump - stainless
steel construction

190 liters  (50 gal)  floc-
culant preparation tank -
mild steel construction

1.5 ml/min  (4.0 x 10~5
gal/min)  floe slurry
metering  pump - stainless
steel construction

2.74. m  (9 ft) diameter
clarifier-thickener -
rubber-lined mild steel
construction
11 1/min  (3 gpm) centri-
fugal thickener overflew
liquor transfer pump -
stainless steal construc-
tion

760 1/min  (2 gpm) Moyno
slurry transfer pump -
stainless steel construc-
tion
Operates at 25
1 atm.
(77  F)  and
Operates at 25 C  (77a F) and
total head of approximately
100 ft.
Operates at 25 C
1 atm.
  (77  F)  and
Operates at 25 C  (77  F)
137.1 atm   (2,000 psi)
maximum pumping head
          and
Processes  21.1  kkg/day (23
tons/day of approximately 8%
solids feed slurry (with flee
addition)  to yield an under-
flow of 7.2 kkg/day (7.9 tons/
day) solids  and an overflow
of  16.6 kkg/day (18.3 tons/day),
the latter recycled to the main
plant

Operates at 25 C (77 F)  and
total head of aoproximatelv
30.5 m  (100 ft)'.  Would return
this stream to  main plant
process water use

Operates at 25 C (77 F)  and
total head of approximately
30.5 m  (100 ft)
                                   5-130

-------
                         TABLE  50   (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
No.         Quantity   Specifications
                            Operating Conditions
16B108
16B109
16B110
16B111
0.9 m diameter x 2.7 m
*-*ii (3 ft x 9 ft) steam
jacketed heat treatment
tank - stainless steel
construction
3.8 1/min (1 gpm) Moyno
Pu transfer pump - stain-
less steel construction

7.6 I/mm (2 gpm) Moyno
slurry transfer punp -
stainless steel construc-
tion

0.9m diameter x 12 m lona
(3 ft x 40 ft)  inclined
rotary still, externally
fired - stainless steel
construction
Operates at 77 C  (170  F)
and 1 atm.  With approx-
imately 4 hr. residence  tine
in the tank, the phosphorus
in the feed solids would melt
and about 1/3 of this material
would separate to the bottom
of the tank as a layer of  relatively
pure Pi,.  The upper  layer would
consist of a mixture of  water,  ?*
and iirpurities.  The pure P^
bottom Layer would be punred to
the main plant processing
facilities at a rate of  0.4
kkg/day  (0.44 tons/day).  This
would be dona intermittently
(once an hour)

Operates at 77 C  (177  F) and
total head of approximately
30.5 m (100 ft)""

Operates at 77 C  (170  F) and
total head of approximately
30.5 m (100 ft)'
Operates at a raxinjm tanpera-
ture of 371 C  (700 F) and
1 atm.  Still would process
6.3 kkg/day  (7.5 tons/day) of
slurry  (approximately 21% solids)
Initially, the water would be
vaporized and at a temperature
> 260 C  (>500 F) , the ?:, ir.
the feed would be vaporized.
Approximately 0.6 kkg/day of
residue would discharge from
the bottom end of the still.
The vapor would be drawn cut
of the still using a continuous
carbon monoxide purge (phos-
phorus furnace off gas) to avoid
any oxygen presence in the ? +
vapor  and thereby avoid com-
bustion of the Pi*.
                                    5-131

-------
                         TABLE  50   (continued)
Equipment              Equipment
No.	Quantity   Specifications
                            Operating Conditions
16B112
16B113
16B114
16B115
16B116
16B117
9.29 sq m  (100 sq ft)
vertical condenser -
stainless steel con-
struction
950 liters  (250_gal)
accumulator - stainless
steel construction
163113
7.6  1/ncLn  (2 gpm) Moyno
molten phosphorus transfer
pump - stainless steel
construction

3.8 1/min (1 gpm) centri-
fugal transfer punp -
stainless steel construc-
tion

2,800 1/min  (100 CFM)
exhaust fan - stainless
steel construction
4.2 cu m  (150 cu ft)
residue hoM bin (holds
1 week's production of
solid residue fron rotary
still 16B111) - mild
steel construction
0.25 HP propeller agitator
- mild atael construction
Unit would condense all of
the P.* vapor [0.7 kkg/dav
(0.77 tons/day)] and approx-
imately 50% of the water
vapor.  The condensed Pi,
and water leave the unit at
about 49 C  (120 F) and
drain, to an accumulator

Operates at 49" C  (100 F) ard
1 atm.  Would discharge 0.7
kkg/day (0.77 tons/day) of
molten phosphorus to main
plant processing facilities
on an intermittent basis,
and 2.8 kkg/day (3.1 tons/day)
of Pi,-bearing water layer to
clarifier 16105

Operates at 49 C  (120 F)
and total head of approx-
imately 30.5 m  (100 ft)
Operates at 49 C  (120 F)
and total head of approx-
imately 30.5 m  (100 ft)
Operates at 49 C  (120 ?)
and 1 atm.  Discharges a
mixture of carixin monoxide
and water vapor to main plan-
carbon monoxide flare

Operates at average tempera-
ture of 66 C  (150 F) and
1 atm.  Residue would be
essentially phosphorus-free.
This material wouJd be
discharged once a week to
available phossy water penes
on site.

Operates at 25 C  (77 F)
                                   5-132

-------
                                TABLE  51
          TREATMENT SYSTEM 16B100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST
 Equipment
 No. & Description
Installed Cost
 16B101  sludge hold tank
 16B102  sludge pump
 16B103  floe slurry tank
 16B104  floe metering punp
 16B105  clarifier-thickener
 16B106  clarifier-thickener overflow punp
 16B107  clarifier-thickener underflow punp
 16B108  steam jacketed tank
 16B109  molten phosphorus pump
 16B110  phosphorus  slurry pump
 16B111  rotary still
 16B112  condenser
 16B113  accumulator
 16B114  molten phosphorus pump
 16B115  water pump
 16B116  exhaust fan
 16B117  residue bin
 16B118   agitator
            Sub-total
 Piping and Valves (25%
 Building, 186   sq m  @ $387/sq m
         (2,000  sq ft < $36/sq  ft)
            Sub-total
Engineering @ 7%
            Sub-total
Contingency (20%
            Total Installed Capital Cost
  $   9,000
      1,000
        400
        600
     38,000
        800
      1,400
      2,000
      1,000
      1,400
    200,000
     20,000
      1,400
      1,400
        800
        600
      2,000
        200
  $282,000
    70,000

    72,000
  $424,000
    29,700
  $453,700
    90,700
  $544,400
                                  5-133

-------
                                TABLE 52
            ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 16B100
 CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                             $544,400
 VARIABLE COSTS
      Treatment Chemicals (flocculant) *                            2,000
      Direct operating labor, 2 men/shift @ $9/hr.                157,800
      Supervision and Administrative,  @ 50% of
        direct labor                                              78,900
      Maintenance @ 4% of capital investment'                     21,800
      Power, 196,000 kwh @ 3*/kwh                                  5,900
      Process Heat, 1.84 x 109 kg cal @ $7.94/MM kg cal
        (7.3 x 109 BTU @ $2.00/Hl BTU)                             14,600
      Sampling and Analysis                                       10,000
                                 Total Variable Costs           $291,000
 FIXED COSTS
      Capital Recovery Rate  (10 yrs. @  10%  equiv. to 0.1627/yr)     88,600
      Taxes and Insurance @ 4% Capital Cost                       21,800
                                 Total Fixed Costs              $110,400
 TOTAL OPERATING COST                                           $401,400
      Less Credit for Recovered Phosphorus,
        401 kkg @ $800/kkg **
        (442 tons @ $725.6/ton)                                 (321,000)
 NET ANNUAL OPERATING COST                                       $80,400
      Unit Costs
        $/kkg  ($/ton) of phosphorus product                        $1.6 (1.5)
        $/kkg  ($/ton) of raw waste  (dry basis)                     $120 (109)
        $/kkg  ($/ton) of raw waste  (wet basis)                     $12  (11)
 * Versar estimate
** Selling price of yellow Pi, is $l,340/kkg.17  The recovered material is
   assumed to be worth 60% of this value.

                                     5-134

-------
                        HI
                        Wl


                       
                                                         cr
                                                         u.
                                                         O
                                                          cr
                                                          UJ
                                                          If)
                                                          fO
                                                         UJ

                                                         cr

                                                         3
                                                         O
                          5-135

-------
          5.1.14.1.2  Application to Date

          a.  Full-Scale Treatment Installation

          None known.

          b.  Laboratory and Pilot Plant Operations

          There are no known pilot plants or laboratory investigations
experimenting with this waste stream.  Laboratory tests to optimize pro-
cessing conditions and a pilot plant to demonstrate the process would be
required.

          c.  Pilot or Full-Scale Operations Treating Similar Wastes

          Great Western Inorganics Company in Golden, Colorado, uses dis-
tillation techniques to recover pure arsenic trichloride from impure feed-
stocks.  The key contact at this plant is Mr. J. Bernon, President.

          5.1.14.1.3  Benefits and Environmental Consequences

          a.  Benefit Analysis Information

          The benefits resulting from this treatment system are:

          (1)  waste detoxification and
          (2)  recovery of impure arsenic trichloride.

          This system would recover arsenic trichloride at a rate of
11.5 kg/day.  The annual cost savings resulting from this treatment process
are negligible.  The virtue of the process is the detoxification of the
waste and the production of an intermediate material which has a market and
could be reprocessed to a pure product.

          The summary of the benefits achieved by this process is shown in
column 16 of Table 8.

          b.  Environmental Impact

          There would be air emissions and solid waste generated by this
process.  However, these wastes present no threat to the environment and
personnel safety.  The relatively large energy requirements are a possible
concern, but this too may be a minor issue considering the small volume of
waste generated and treated.

          Air Pollution

          The vapors from the still would be condensed in a chilled water
condenser and the non-condensables would be vented.  It is anticipated that
there would be no serious air emissions problems associated with this
process.

          Water Pollution

          None.

                                     5-136

-------
           Solid Waste

           There would be approximately 220 kilograms per day of solid
 detoxified waste generated by this process.

           Safety and Health Aspects

           It is anticipated that there would be no safety and health hazards
 associated with this process.  OSHA's proposed new guidelines for workplace
 exposure to inorganic arsenic is a maximum of 0.004 mg/m3 and an "action
 level" of 0.002 mg/m3.  Details of occupational and health effects of arsenic
 and arsenic chloride are given in Appendix I.

           5.1.14.1.4  Costs for Recovery of Impure Arsenic Trichloride by
                       Distillation of Phosphorus Trichloride Still Bottoms

           a.  Process Design and Cost Evaluation Bases

           The fundamental design considerations used in estimating costs
 for this process are:

           (1)  Arsenic trichloride bearing still bottoms generated from a
 typical 58,000 kkg/yr (63,900 tons/yr) phosphorus trichloride manufacturing
 operation would be fed batch wise to this process, one batch per day (165
 kg/day, 363 Ib/day), 260 days per year.

           (2)  The waste would be processed in a batch still - one batch
 per 8 hour day at a maximum distillation temperature of 105 C and 1 atm.
 pressure.  The distillation operation would recover 11.5 kg/day (25.3 Ib/day)
 of AsCla (essentially all of the AsCla in the feed), with the residue con-
 sisting of ferric chloride and glassy phosphate material.  The detoxified
 residue could be drummed and landfilled.

           (3)  The impure AsCla recovered in the distillation operation
 would be sent to a processor of this chemical.*

           b.  Coating Methodology Used

           The standard methodology, discussed in Appendix II, was used to
 develop costs for this treatment plant.


           c.  Cost Summary and Energy Recjujrgnent.

           The estimated total capital cost for system 18100 is $46,000.
 The estimated annual system power and heat requirements are quite small
 and are considered negligible in the estimate.**
 *Great Western Inorganics, Golden, Colorado, has indicated a desire to acquire
  this material and would supply special shipping containers to hold and transport
  the arsenic trichloride.

**The annual heat requirement is approximately 2.52 x 105 kg cal ( 1x106 BTU).
  The annual power requirement is on the order of 1,000 kwh.

                                     5-137

-------
          The unit operating costs are as follows:

          $1.8/kkg ($1.6/ton) of phosphorus trichloride product
          $l,740/kkg ($l,580/ton) of raw waste, dry basis  (there is
                                  no water in this waste stream).

          d.  Detailed Process Equipment and Cost Information

          Table 53 lists details on equipment size and operating condi-
tions for this process.  Total capital cost is presented in Table 54 and an
annual operating cost breakdown is presented in Table 55.
                                   5-138

-------
                               TABLE  53

   SYSTEM 18100, EQUIPMENT NEEDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Equipment              Equipment
No.         Quantity   Specifications
                                      Operating Conditions
18101
18102
18103
18104
18105
5/week
          0.56 cu m (25 cu ft)  still
          bottoms hold bin (holds 1
          week's supply of feed to
          batch still)  - mild steal
          construction

          190 liters (50 gal) steam
          jacketed batch still -
          mild steel construction
                            Operates at 25 C (77 F)
                            and 1 atm.
                            Operates at a maximum tem-
                            perature of 150 C (302 F)
                            and 1 atm.  Unit would be
                            hand-loaded once a day from
                            hold bin.  Unit would vapor-
                            ize 11.5 kg/day (25.3 It/day)
                            of AsCl3 over an 8-hour batch
                            cycle

                            Operates at a ccndensate outlet
                            temperature of approximately
                            10 C (50 F) and 1 atm (con-
                            ditions at which the vapor
                            pressure of AsClj is negligible).
                            Vent from the condenser contains
                            only ron-condensablas.  AsCl,
                            condensate drains into accumulator
          19 liters (5 gal) accum-   Operates at 25 C (77 ?) and
          0.9 sq m (10 sq ft)
          refrigerated condenser -
          stainless steel construc-
          tion
                       lator  (holds 1 week's
                       production of AsCl3) -
                       stainless steel construc-
                       tion
208 liters(55 gal)  drums
- each holds approximately
one day's production of
still bottoms from batch
still 18100 - plastic
      steel drums
1 atm.  Contents of accumu-
lator are discharged once a
week into special shipping
container supplied by Great
Western Inorganics

Approximately 5 drums per week
of detoxified still bettors
are hauled to a sanitarv land-
fill
                                   5-139

-------
                               TABLE 54
          TREATMENT SYSTEM 18100 - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST

Equipment
No. & Description	,	Installed Cost*
18101  still bottoms hold bin                                 $    200
18102  batch still                                              25,000
18103  refrigerated condenser                                    3,000
18104  accumulator                                                 100
18105  plastic lined steel drums                  .                **
           Siab-total                                           $28,300
Piping and Valves @ 25%                                          7,100
           Sub-total                                           $35,400
Engineering @ 7%                                                 2,500
           Sub-total                                           $37,900
Contingency @ 20%                                                7,600
           Total Installed Capital Cost                        $45,500
*  No additional building space would be needed for this process.
** Cost of drums included in operating costs.
                                    -140

-------
                               TABLE 55
            ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM 18100

CAPITAL INVESTMENT                                            $  45,500
VARIABLE COSTS
     Direct operating labor, 1 man/shift @ $9/hr.                56,200
     Supervision and Administrative, @ 50% of
       direct operating labor                                    28,100
     Maintenance @ 4% of capital cost                             1,800
     Drums, 260 @ $15/drum                                        3,900
     Sanpling and Analysis                                        5,000
     Waste Disposal, 57 kkg @ $6/kkg
       (62.8 tons @ $5.44/ton)                                      340
                                    Total Variable Costs        $95,340
FIXED COSTS
     Capital Recovery Rate  (10 yrs. @ 10% equiv.
       to 0.1627/yr                                               7,400
     Taxes and Insurance, @ 4% of capital cost                    1,800
                                    Total Fixed Costs            $9,200
TOTAL OPERATING COST
     Credit for recovery of Arsenic Trichloride                	0_*
NET OPERATING COST                                             $104,540
     Unit Costs
       $/kkg ($/ton) of phosphorus trichloride product            1.8    (1.6)
       $/kkg ($/ton) of raw waste                               1,740    (1,580)
* It is assumed that in return for absorbing transportation cost, the user
  of this material (Great Western Inorganics, Golden, Colorado) would not
  be charged for the reclaimed arsenic trichloride.

                                 5-141

-------
6.0  LAND DISPOSAL OPTION COSTS

     6.1  Types of Land Disposal Facilities Considered

          Two land disposal options are considered in this study; sanitary
landfill and chemical landfill, both operated by the waste generator.  The
chemical landfills were designed for specific wastes.

          The design bases used for sanitary landfills include dis-
posing of solid wastes on land, spreading them in thin layers, compacting
them to the smallest practical volume and covering them with soil at the
end of each working day.

          The design bases used for the chemical landfilling of the wastes
differ from those for sanitary landfills in the following significant
respects:

          (1)  Provision is made for lining the excavated areas with
          compacted colloidal clay  (permeabilities in the range
          of 10~8 cm/sec).
          (2)  A synthetic membrane, selected as being impermeable
          and resistant to the waste being landfilled, is provided
          to line the landfill over the compacted clay.
          (3)  A leachate collection and monitoring system is provided.
          (4)  An impervious percolation barrier (compacted clay and a
          synthetic liner) is provided as cover at the completion of the
          landfill section, to minimize leachate formation.
          (5)  Provision is made for drumming, interlacing the drums
          with an absorbing material, or chemical fixing of liquid wastes
          prior to placing them in a chemical landfill.

          6.1.1  Landfill Design Basis

          Prior to estimating the capital cost and projected operating
expenditures of a given landfill, the design basis considered in sizing the
landfill must be known.  The following outlines the design parameters con-
sidered in the sizing of the sanitary and chemical landfills in this study.

          Volume Requirement

          If the rate at which solid wastes are collected and the useful
life of the proposed site is known, its capacity can be estimated.  The
ratio of the solid waste volume to fill material volume usually ranges
between 4:1 and 3:I;12 however, this ratio is primarily influenced by the
thickness of the cover and the cell configuration of the landfill.
                                6-1

-------
          In this study, a 3:1 ratio of solid waste to fill volume, for
both types of landfill operations, has been selected.  An excavated
depth of 20 feet was selected for the landfills and a compacted depth of
5 feet was chosen to provide adequate volume for intermediate covers  and
the final cover.

          Area Requirement

          In all cases, the landfill area is sized to accommodate twenty
years of output of waste generated by the respective chemical manufacturing
operations.  An additional 50 or 30 percent area is provided for small sites
(less than five acres of land requirement) and larger sites  (more than five
acres of land requirement), respectively, to accommodate a building for
office space and employee facilities and roads that lead from the landfill
entrance to the vicinity of the working area.

          Landfill Method

          The two basic landfilling methods used in the design  of the land-
fills are trench and area; other approaches are only modifications  of the
above mentioned techniques.  The trench method is used when the ground water
is low and the soil is more than 6 feet deep.  This latter method is  best
employed on flat or gently rolling land.  The area method can be used on
most topographies and is often used if large quantities of solid waste must
be disposed.

          The trench method was selected for this study.  In this method
of landfilling, waste is spread and compacted in an excavated
trench.  Cover material is taken from the spoil of the excavation and is,
therefore, readily available.  The spoil material not used for  daily  cover
may be stockpiled and used later as an intermediate cover over  the  trench
or used as the final cover over the completed landfill area.

          Site Improvement and Grading

          In both sanitary and chemical landfilling operations, site  improve-
ments are made to provide an orderly, sanitary and safe operation.  This may
simply involve the clearing of shrubs, trees, and other obstacles that could
hinder vehicle travel and landfilling operation or it could involve the  con-
struction of buildings, roads and utilities.

          In this study, provisions were made for excavation and grading
of the land, that a trailer with toilet facility will be installed  at each
site, and the installation of electrical and telephone services.
                                 6-2

-------
          Drumming of Liquids

          All liquid wastes  (aqueous solutions as well as organic liquids)
are assumed to be packaged in 55-gallon drums prior to placing them in the
landfills.  For the chemical landfill option, provisions were made for
either interlacing the drums with an absorbent or chemical fixation of the
liquid in the drum to minimize  the  effects of drum failure.

          Liner for Chemical^ Landfills

          For the chemical landfill option, provisions for controlling the
movement of fluids by a synthetic membrane were made.  Since liners have
been used successfully in wastewater-holding-and-treatment pond construction,
they can also be used in solid waste disposal.  A synthetic liner will
overlay the clay layer to form a impermeable barrier to water seepage.
Additionally, provisions have been  made for preventing the infiltration of
surface water through the cover material by providing a synthetic liner
barrier over each section of the chemical landfill as it is closed.

          Two different lining materials were selected for use in this
study:
          (1)  a 30 mil reinforced  Hypalon liner was specified for
          waste streams which are acidic in nature, and
          (2)  a 20 mil polyvinyl chloride liner was specified for the
          remaining waste streams because of its compatibility with a wide  range
          of chemicals.  When figuring the amount of material needed
          for lining the trench, a  square trench configuration was
          assumed and enough material was included to cover the bottom
          as well as the sides of the trench.  An additional 5 percent
          lining material was included as a provision for lining shrinkage,
          anchoring all around the  trench berm, and for overlap loss for
          sealing.

          Size of Operation

          Definition of functions and evaluation of equipment performance
must be matched with the size of the landfill to determine the type, number
and size of machines needed.  With  the exception of land, the cost of
equipment may be the greatest portion of initial, expenditure for a
landfill.  Regardless of size of the operation, a landfill site should have
the capability of excavating trenches, spreading and compacting solid waste
and the cover material.  However, small sites may find the cost of owning a
small "dozer" or loader too high.   In such cases, contract excavation, stock-
piling and cover material spreading and compacting may prove to be more
economical.
                                 6-3

-------
          In this study, for waste streams 6, 8, 15, 17 and 18, which
involve the disposal of less than 2 metric tons of waste per day, excavation
stockpiling and cover material spreading and compacting by a contractor was
assumed.  For the remaining waste streams, it was assumed that the
waste generator will purchase the equipment and provide the necessary
labor.

          Hours of Operation

          The hours a sanitary landfill operates depends mainly on when
the wastes are delivered, and generally this is done during normal working
hours.  In large cities, however, waste collection systems operate 24 hours
a day.  The usual landfill is normally operated on a 5 to 6 days per week
and 8 to 10 hours per day basis.

          In this study, an 8 hours per day and, in most cases, a 5 days
per week landfill operation was assumed.  However, to make the design basis
and costs more realistic and close to the "actual life" operation, exceptions
were made in the following cases:

                                                          Days per Year of
Waste Stream No.      Industry                               Operation

     7                Titanium dioxide, Chloride Process        365
     9                Hydrogen fluoride       '                  365
    13                Sodium silicofluoride                     365
     G                Chlor-alkali; Down's cell                  12
    15                Nickel sulfate                             12
    17                Phosphorus pentasulfide                    12
    18                Phosphorus trichloride                     12


          The quantity of waste generated by the last four industries is so
small that it does not warrant the purchase of landfill equipment or the
operation of the landfill on a continuous basis.

     6.2  Cost Basis for Land Disposal Options

          6.2.1  Capital Costs

          Capital costs include those for land, area preparation, liners
and leachate collection system, building and utilities installation and
landfill equipment.

          a.  Land Cost

          In view of the extreme variability in land costs, no attempt
          has been made to set different land values for each plant,
                                  6-4

-------
          industry or location.  Instead,  a constant value of $12,350/
          hectare, recomvended by EPA,  ($5,000/acre)  was used
          throughout.

          b.   Area Grading and Preparation

          A standardized landfill grading and preparation cost of
          $3,000 per hectare ($1,210 per acre)  was used throughout
          this study for the sanitary landfill option.*  A site pre-
          paration cost of $6,700 per hectare ($2,710/acre)  was used
          for the chemical landfill option since fine grading and
          hand dressing will be required prior to liner installation.

          c.   Costs for Liners

          A clay liner cost of $18,500  per hectare ($7,500/acre)was
          used throughout this study.  Costs used for lining materials
          are given in Table 56.  Additionally,  a liner installation
          cost of $0.14 per square meter ($0.013/ft2)  was used.
          d.   Liner Cover Cost

          It  is assumed that the liner will be covered for protection
          by  approximately 0.305 meter (1 ft.)  of earth.   Dumping and
          spreading costs are estimated at $0.36 per square meter
          ($0.30/yd2).

          e.   Leachate  Collection and Riser System Cost

          This cost is  taken as 15%  of the total of all landfill
          capital costs (except for  sludge moving equipment and
          building).

          f.   Building  and Utilities Installation Costs

          Costs for the following items were included in the building
          cost:
          1.   Trailer with toilet facilities:           $6,000
          2.   Septic tank installation:                  2,500
          3.   Installation of electrical and
                telephone services:                        250

                                         Total          $8,750
*
   Contractor estimates
                                 6-5

-------
                                 TABLE 56

                MATERIAL COSTS FOR PLASTIC LINERS (1976)67
                          Cost  for  various size ranges, $/sq m ($/ft2) of liner
                      93 to 9301^930  to 9,300m-  9,300 to 18,600m-  Over 18,600nr
                       (1,000  to     (10,000 to      (100,000 to            (Over
                      10,000  ft2     100,000 ft2)     200,000 ft2)        200,000 ft:)


Polyvinyl Chloride,       2.69           2.37            2.37               2.26
          30 mil          (0.25)         (0.22)           (0.22)              (0.21)

Hypalon, 30 mil           8.61           7.42            6.89               6.78
     (reinforced)         (0.80)         (0.69)           (0.64)              (0.63)
                                     6-6

-------
                       Equipment Costs
          These costs were taken fron Tables  9  10  and 11,  EPA report
          SW-5ts, USEPA,  1972 and updated to 1976  costs using
          appropriate Engineering Cost Indices.


          6.2.2  Operating Expenses

          Annual costs of  operating a landfill facility include labor,
supervision, drumming or contract excavation costs  where applicable,
maintenance, taxes and insurance, and power and  energy.  Operating costs
combined with annual.! zed capital  costs give the  total  annual costs for the
disposal operation.  Operating cost factors specific to landfill operation
are given below.  Information on  labor, maintenance, taxes  and insurance
and power are given in Appendix II of this report.

          a.  Drumming Costs

          A cost of $10 was used  for  each 55-gallon capacity drum
          employed to store liquid wastes.  These are  unlined  re-
          conditioned steel drums, open-top with lever lock.

          b.  Cost of Absorbent and Chemical Fixation

          A cost of $13.08 per cubic  meter ($10/yd3) of absorbent was
          used for interlacing the drums containing liquid  wastes prior
          to disposal in a chemical landfill.  The  chemical fixation cost
          was estimated at $0.05  per  liter ($0.20/gallon) of waste.

          c.  Costs for Contract Stockpiling of Waste and Compacting of
              Cover Material          "

          This cost was estimated at  $6.1 per metric ton of waste ($5.5
          per ton)  for waste stockpiling and compacting.*

          d.  Energy Costs

          A cost of 14.5$ per liter of fuel (55C/gal)  was chosen for
          the diesel oil used for operating landfill equipment.

          e.  Building Utilities Costs

          The utilities cost,  including water, electric heat and
          telephone is assumed to average $100 per month.*  For those
          plants which operate their landfill on a 12-day per year basis,
          an average cost of $100 per year was assumed.
^Contractor estimate.


                                6-7

-------
      6.3  Costs for Plant Operated Sanitary and Qiendcal  Landfills


           Sanitary and chemical  land disposal  costs  are presented in this
 section for the potentially hazardous wastes generated by inorganic chemicals
 industry.   These costs are developed on the assumption that the landfills will
 be operated by the waste generator.   A  sanple  calculation of costs for the sanitary
 and chemical landfills is given  in Appendix III of this report.


           6.3.1  Streams 1 and 2 - Brine Purification Muds and Mercury-
                  Bearing Sludge  from WastewaterjTreatment - Mercury Cell
                  Process

           Mercury-bearing wastes from the mercury cell process come from two
 general  sources:

           (1)   brine purification muds  containing low concentrations of
           mercury but  often rather large in volume,  and

           (2)   process wastes  -  often rich  in  mercury content but rather
           low in volume.   These  wastes  include filter sludges, vessel
           cleanouts, leaks and spills.   When treated they yield precipitates
           which are concentrated in mercury content,  usually as the
           sulfide.

           A survey of  the mercury-bearing waste storage methods for
 seventeen  of the twenty-eight  mercury cell  plants indicates that,  in
 general, the brine muds are stored on ground,  and the mercury-rich sludges
 from wastewater treatment are  held in lined ponds.9 3

           Table 57 presents the  costs for the  sanitary ana chemical land-
 filling  of these wastes by the typical  mercury cell  plant producing
 250 kkg/day of chlorine.

           In developing the capital  cost for chemical landfilling of waste
 streams  1  and 2,  a Hypalon liner was specified for use as the impermeable
 barrier  in the landfill rather than a standard PVC liner.   The choice of
 Ffypalon  is based on observed mercury cell industry practice.

           Waste stream 1,  brine  purification muds, in both sanitary and
 chemical landfill operations,  is first  treated in a  thickener, producing
 an  underflow of 11  kkg/day (approximately 40%  solids)  which is suitable for
landfilling.  Capital cost figures shown in Table 57 include the cost of
a thickener.
                                   6-8

-------
                               TABLE 57
               COSTS FOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANEFILL -
               ME3CURV nrrj. PROCESS, ALKALIES t CHLORINE1
Haste Stream 1 & 2;
Typical Plant Size;
                Brine Purification Muds &  Mercury Hastes  from
                Wasta Treatment & Cleaning Mercury  Process.
                250 metric tons of chlorine per day.
Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams;
     Form:      Sludges
                             0.04 Wcg/day - Mercury as metal, chloride and
                                            Sulfide.
     Non-Hazardous Consonants:
     Total Wasta Stream:
Type of Cost
dpital Cost
  Sit* Cost (land and
    preparation)
  Building Cost
  Capital
                       4.25 Wcg/day - 03003, Mg(OH)2, BaSO4 & NaCl;
                       0.5 Wcg/day - Graphite  and  falter aid;
                       14.75 Mag/day - water
                       4.75 Wcg/day (dry basis)
                       19.5 Wcg/day (wet basis)
                       12.0 Wcg/day (wet basis,after thickening)
                        TOTAL
  Contingency
  Total Investment
Operating Cost
  Tflhnr (operating)
  Mhnr (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and Taxes
  aoergy and Power
  Utilities for the building
  Drunming
  Contractor
  Total Operating Costs,
    excluding energy & utilities
  Annual Investment Costs
  Total Annual Costs
  Cost/Wcg of product
  Cost/Wcg of waste (dry basis)
  Cost/Wcg of waste (wet basis)
                        Sanitary
                        Landfill
                          RTi
                          48,440
                          8,750
                          93,650
                         150,840
                          20.480
                         171.320
                                    46,800
                                    23,400
                                     4,920
                                     6,850
                                    15,730
                                     1,200
                                    81,970
                                    19,990
                                   118,890
                                     1.30
                                    68.60
                                    16.7
Chemical
Landfill
  60,140
  8,750
530,015
598,905
107,755
                                                 706,660
                                        46,800
                                        28,265
                                       120,015
                                       105,190
                                       242,135
                                         2.65
                                          140
                                           34
  Mates:
1   It is  assumed the landfill operates 8 hours a day
   and 260 days  per year.
                               6-9

-------
          The costs are summarized as follows:

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $171,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton) of product                1.30  (1.18)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (dry basis)       69  (63)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (wet basis)       17  (15)

     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $706,700
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton) of product                2.65  (2.40)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (dry basis)      140   (127)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (wet basis)      34    (31)

          6.3.2  Waste Streams 3, 4 and 5 - Chlorinated Hydrocarbons,
                 Asbestos Separator Wastes and Lead-Bearing Sludges-
                 Diaphragm Cell Process

          Potentially hazardous wastes from the diaphragm cell process  for
production of chlorine are relatively small in volume but varied in nature.
These wastes contain lead compounds, asbestos, and chlorinated hydrocarbons.

          The diaphragm cell industry generally land disposes the lead-bearing
sludges and asbestos wastes using contractors and privately operated  landfill
sites.  Where appreciable amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbon waste are  generated
these are generally drummed and then incinerated on or off-site, depending on
the availability of a suitable incinerator with an HC1 scrubber.  Small amounts
of chlorinated hydrocarbon waste are drummed and landfilled on or off-site.

          Table 58 presents the costs for the sanitary and chemical landfilling
of these three wastes.  Costs are based on a typical diaphragm cell plant pro-
ducing 450 kkg/day of chlorine.


          The costs are summarized as follows:

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $135,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton) of product                0.68  (0.62)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (dry basis)      164   (149)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (wet basis)      47    (43)
                                 6-10

-------
                              TABLE  53
               COSTS FOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL  IANDFTLL -
               DIAPHRAGM (-PTT. PROCESS, ALKALIES & CHLCRINE1

Waste Streams 3,4 & 5   Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (HC) , Asbestos  Separator Wastes
                        & Lead-Containing Sludge
Typical P1aTit Size;     450 metric tons of chlorina per day.
Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams;
     Form:     Sludge
     d4 nm*****,    -2 W^/day - Chlorinated 1C;
     Hazardous Coraponentai    0>09 y^/^y . lMA (wtal .
                              0.22S Woj/diy - Asbestos
     Mon-Hazardoua Components!   1.35 fckg/day - Carbon and rubble)
                                 4.66 Wcg/day - water.
     Itrtal Wait* Stream:
                                 1.87 Wcg/day (dry bai)
                                 6.53 kkg/day (wet baai>)
Type of Coat
Capital Coat
  Site Cost (land and
    preparation)
  Building Cost
  Capital Equipment

  Contingency
  Total
                                  Sanitary2
                        TOTAL
Operating Coat
  Tjihnr  (operating)
  Lahnr  (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and  Taxes
  Energy and Power
  Utilities for  the building
  Druaming
  Absorbent
  Contractor
  Total Operating Coats,
    excluding energy & utilities
  Annual Inverement Costs
  Total Annual Costs
  Cost/Waj at product
  Cott/Woj of waste  (dry basis)
  Cost/tog of waste  (wet basis)
                                    27,200
                                     3,750
                                    81,200
                                   117,150
                                    46,800
                                    23,400
                                     4.320_
                                     5,410
                                    10,010
                                     1,200
                                     3,370
                                    83,290
                                    17,560
Chemical*
Landfill
  33,770
   8,750
 191,930
 234,450
  40.14Q
  46,800
  23.400
   9,630
  10,980
  10,010
   1,200
   3,370
   5.010
 99,190*
 39,180
149,000
                                                  62.77
  Natee:   '  It is assumed the landfill ooarates 8 hours a day
             and 260 days per year.
          1  Due to the nature of  stream 3  ,  <(C), this waste is drurmed
             before landfilled.
          1  Including cost of installment of absorbent, contractor estimate
             SlO/yd.'
                                 6-11

-------
     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $275,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of product                0.91   (0,83)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      219    (199)
           $/kkq  ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      63     (57)

          in rotxxjnition of present Industry practice, the cost of contract
incineration has been calculated for the chlorinated hydrocarbon stream.  A
cost of 220/kg  (10/lb) has been used as the total cost of contract incinera-
tion  (including transportation)*.  For waste stream 3, the annual cost of
contract incineration is $16,000.  Removing this stream from the sanitary
and chemical landfill operations results in the following overall costs for
the second land disposal option, e.g., sanitary landfill and chemical land-
fill for the lead and asbestos sludges and contract incineration for the
chlorinated hydrocarbons:

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $134,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkq  (S/ton) of product                0.76 (0.69)
           $Akq  (S/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      183  (166)
           $/kkq  (S/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      52   (47)

     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $268,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           S/kkg  ($/ton) of product                0.95 (0.86)
           $Akg  ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      228  (207)
           $Akg  ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      66   (60)

          6.3.3  Waste Stream 6 - Metallic Sodium-Calcium Wastes - Down's
                 Cell Process

          In the Down's cell process, this waste is produced as a filter cake
during metallic sodium purification.  Of the five plants generating this waste,
three use proprietary treatment processes to either recover metallic sodium
values or render the waste non-hazardous.  TVro plants ocean dump this waste.

          Because of the hazardous nature of sodium-calcium filter cake
waste, this material cannot be landfilled.  Any exposure to moisture can
   This estimate was obtained from Mr. M.A. Pierle, Manager of Environmental
   Protection and Manufacturing, Monsanto Ind. Chem. Co., St. Louis, Missouri.
                                  6-12

-------
cause an explosive reaction.  In this conceptual land disposal cost study,
the waste is drummed before being placed in either the sanitary or chemical
landfill.  However, drums, even with linings, have a finite life in the land-
fill before moisture penetrates to the waste.  It is unlikely, therefore, that
containerized landfilling of the waste will ever be practiced by industry.

          Table 59 presents the cost for the sanitary and chemical landfilling
of this waste.*  In addition to the company-operated landfill options, the costs
of a third option were calculated; sanitary landfilling by an outside contractor.
In this option, it is assumed that the drummed wastes can be handled on a once
a month basis by an outside contractor who provides his own labor and disposal
equipment and uses the company-provided sanitary landfill facility.  A con-
tractual rate of $6.05/kkg  ($5.50/ton) of waste was used for this option.**
These costs are based on a typical Down's cell plant producing 140 kkg/day
of metallic sodium.  There is no moisture associated with this waste material,
hence the unit costs are on a dry basis only.

     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $152,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton) of product                1.30 (1.18)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste                  100  (91)

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $103,000
          Annual Operating
           $Akg ($/ton) of product                0.94 (0.85)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste                  72   (65)

     For sanitary landfilling (outside contractor operated):

          Total Investment                        $10,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton) of product                0.53 (0.48)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste                  41   (37)

          6.3.4  Waste Stream 7 - Wastewater Treatment Sludges - Titanium
                 Dioxide> Chloride Process

          In the chloride process for the production of titanium dioxide,
varying amounts of heavy metal chloride wastes are produced, depending on
*  In both options, it has been assumed that the landfill is operated one
   day per month (12 days per year).
** This rate is also used in other sections of the study where the outside
   contractor operated, company-owned landfill is used as an option.  The
   rate is based on actual costs of landfill operation.
                                 6-13

-------
                               TABLE   59
                  COSTS^ FOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANDFILL
                 DOWN'S cm. PPOCESS, ALKALIES AND CHIDRINE1

Waste Stream  6:        Metallic  Sodium / Calcium Filter  Cake.

Typical Plant Size:     140 metric tons of  Sodium per day.

Potentially Hazardous waste Streams;
     Form:     Metal sludge (No water)
     Hazardous Corpsnents:     1.82 kkg/day - Sodium and  Calcium Metal.

     Non-Hazardous Corponents:   0.1 kkg/day - CaO;
                                 0.3 kkg/day - Nd20;
                                 Traces of  Nad and  CaC.
Total Waste Stream;
                                 1.82  kkg/day(dry basis)*
                                   Sanitary2
                                   Landfill
                                    >n
                         TOTAL
                                3.750
                               68.500
                               87.600
                               15.450
                              103.050
                                       360
                                       430
                                     3,710
                                     4,120
                                       590
                                       100
                                    23,100
                                    32,220
                                    15.Q8Q
                                    47,990
                                    0.94
                                    72.27
                                           Chemical
                                           Landfill
 1? Qfin
  8.750
107.460
129.070
 23.240
                Sanitary Landfill
            CXttsida Contractor Operated
                                                                       10,350
                                                 152.310
                                                860
                                                430
                                              5,580
                                              6,090
                                                590
                                                100
                                             23,100
                                              7,020.
                                            43,080
                                            2:. 690
                                            66,460
                                             1.30
                                           100.09
                                                                       10.350
                                                                       10.350
Type of Cost
Capital Coat
  Site Cost  (land 3rd
    preparation)
  Building Cost
  Capital Squipment

  Contingency
  Total Investment
Operating Coat
  Labor (operating)
  fjH-n- (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and Taxes
  Energy and Power
  Utilities  for the
  unarming
  Absorbent
  Contractor
  Total Operating Costs,
    excluding marry & utilities
  Annual Investment Coats
  Total Annual Costa
  Cost/kkg of product
  CostAkg of waste (dry basis)
  Cost/kkg of waste (wet basis)                  _                   	

  Notes:  l  It is assumed the landfill operates 8 hours a day
           and 1 day per month.
           Due to  the nature of this waste, waste is drummed before landfilled.
           Contractor estimate,  taxas 1% of capital.
           This waste is  a dry  residue.
                         104
                      23,100
                                                                       4,020
                      27,220
                      0.53
                      40.99
                                 6-14

-------
the titania feed stock used, i.e., ilmenite ore containing 45-65% titania
versus rutile ore containing 90-95% titania.  The non-titania portions of
these ores consist primarily of iron and small amounts of aluminum, vanadium
and chromium as the principal contaminants.  Ilmenite ore generates large
quantities of heavy metal wastes.  Rutile ore generates approximately one
fifth that of ilmenite.  In this land disposal cost analysis, a conservative
approach is taken in that the much larger waste stream (generated through
the use of ilmenite as titania feed stock) was chosen as the stream that is
to be land-disposed.

          This waste is a sludge resulting from wastewater treatment.  It
is gelatinous in nature and is very difficult to dewater.  This sludge is
either stored in settling ponds or land dumped by the titanium dioxide
producers (either on-site or off-site) .  One producer deep wells the heavy
metal chloride wastes.

          Table 60 presents the costs for the sanitary and chemical land-
filling of this waste.  These costs are based on a typical 100 kkg/day
titanium dioxide chloride process plant.  In addition to the standard cost
items used in the respective capital cost estimates, a thickener and rotary
vacuum filter are provided in each case to produce a sludge of approximately
25% solids.

          The costs are summarized as follows:

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $3,150,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton) of product                29  (26)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      21  (19)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      1.1 (1.0)

     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                       $14,020,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton) of product               99   (90)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)     71   (64)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)     2.6  (2.4)

          6.3.5  Waste Stream 8 - Wastewater Treatment Sludges - Chrome
                       and Inorganic Pigment Manufacture
          The manufacture of chrome pigments such as zinc yellow, chrome
yellow, molybdate chrome orange, chrome green, and chrome oxide green produces
                                  6-15

-------
                              TABLE  60
                 COSTS FCR SANTBUCf AND CHEMICAL LANDFILL -
               TTEANIUM DIOXIDE PIQENT, CHLORIDE PROCESS1
Waste Stream 7B:
                       Wastewater Treatment Sludges
Typical Plant Size;    100 metric tons of titanium dioxide pigment per day.

Potentially Hazardous fr&ste Streams:                                  ;
     Form:    Sludg.
     Hazardous Corponanta:    0.13 Wcg/day - Cr(OH).j.
     Mon-Hazardcus Conponants:
     Total Waste Stream:
                        TOTAL
                                 2.5 kkg/day - Ore Residue;  6.8.kkg/day - Coke;
                                 0.6 kkg/day - Silicaj   130 kkg/day - Misc. Hydroxide;
                                 420 kkg/day - Water.
                                 140 kkg/day  (dry basis)
                                 2800 kkg/day (wet basis) 2
                                 560 kkg/day (wet basis ,after thickening)
Type of Cost
Capital Cost
  Site Cost  (lard and
    preparation)
  Building Cost
  Capital Equipment

  Contingency
  Total Investment
Operating Cost
  Labor (operating)
  Labor (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and Taxes
  Energy and Power
  Utilities for the euildir.g
  Dronning
  Contractor
  Total Operating Costs,
    excluding snergy & utilities
  Annual Investment Costs
  Total Annual Costs
  Cost/kkg of product
  Cost/kkg of waste  (dry basis)
  Cost/kkg of waste  (wet basis)
Sanitary
TapHf jT 1
~TsJ
1,966,300
    3,750
  977,880
2,952,930
  197,330
3,150,260
                                     341,640
                                     170,820
                                     47,360
                                     126.010
                                     188.710
                                       1,200
                                     685,830
                                     192,630
                                   1,068,360
                                      29.27
                                      20.90
                                      1.05
                                                 Chemical
                                                 Landfill
 2,451,800
     3,750
 9,631,400
12,092,040
 1,928,050
14,020,100
                341,640
                170,820
                462,730
                560,800
                188.710
                  1.200
              1,535,990
              1,882,160
              3,608,050
                 98.85
                 70.61
                  2.55
  ^totea:   '  It  is assirned  the  landfill operates 3 hours a day
             and 365 days per year.
           :  Only one facility  is  known to thicken this waste sludge prior to
             disoosal.
                                  6-16

-------
relatively large volumes of land-destined wastes containing lead,  zinc  and
chrcmates.   Iron blues manufacture contributes complex cyanide wastes.

          Chrome pigments are usually made in  integrated facilities  flexible
to shift from one product or combination of products to another.   The composite
waste stream characterized in this study represents the worst  situation,
since not all of the pigment plants produce all of the materials.

          The chrome color and inorganic pigment manufacturing plants
currently landfill the generated waste sludges either  on or off-site.

          Table 61 presents the costs for two  land disposal options:
sanitary landfill and chemical landfill.  These costs  are based on a typical
plant producing 23 kkg/day of chrome and inorganic pigments.

          The costs are summarized as follows:

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $117,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton) of product               13   (11.8)
           $Akg ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      129 (117)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      99   (90)

     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $159,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton) of product               14   (12.7)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      140 (127)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      107 (97)

          6.3.6  Waste Stream 9 -  Gypsum Waste  from Hydrofluoric Acid
                 Manufacture

          Gypsum (calcium sulfate) waste from hydrofluoric acid manufacture
contains about 2-3 per cent by weight of calcium fluoride.  Although some
of this waste is used in road bed  construction, the great majority is
landfilled.

          Table 62 presents the costs for the sanitary and chemical land-
filling of this waste.  These costs are based on a typical plant producing
64 kkg/day of hydrofluoric acid.
                                  6-17

-------
Waste Stream 8:
                               TABLE  61
                 COSTS  FOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANDFILL -
                     CHFCME PIGMENTS  AND  IPCN BLUE.1

                       Waste water treatment sludges.
Typical Plant Size;    23 metric tons of chrome pigments per day.

Potentially Hazardous waste Strearca;
     Form:    Sludge.
                	        0.2 kkg/day - Cr(QH)3;  0.6 kkg/day - PbCrO4;
     Hazardous Components:  0.06 kkg/day - Pb(CH)r-  0.1 kkg/day - ZnO;
                            0.06 kkg/day -
     ^-Hazardous Corpments:
                                 0.7 kkg/day - Water.
     Total rfaste Stream:
                                 2.3 kkg/day  (dry basis)
                                 3 kkg/day  (wet basis)
                         TOI3\L
Type of Cost:
Capital Cost
  Sita Cost  (land and
    preparation)
  Building Cost
  Capital Squijment

  Contingency
  Total Investner.t
Cperatir.q- Csst
  labor  (operating)
  Labor  (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and Taxes
  Hhergy and Power
  Utilities for the building
  Draining
  Contractor
  Total Operating Costs,
    excluding energy  4 utilities
  Annual Investnent Costs
  Total Annual Costs
  CostAkg of product
  CostAkg of \jasta  (dry basis)
  CostAkg of -coasts  (wet basis)
Sanitary
Landfill
  (5)
  9,190
  8,750
  81.200
  99,140
  17,990
 117,130
                                    46,300
                                    23,400
                                     4,320
                                     4,685
                                    10,010
                                     1.200
                                    79,200
                                    17,560
                                    107,980
                                    12.86
                                                 Chemical
                                                 Landfill
 11,410
  8,750
113,880
134,040
                                    128.62
                                     98.61
                                                  24,530
                                                 158,570
                46,800
                23,400
                 5,890
                 6,340
                10,010
                 1,200
                82,430
                23,960
               117,600
                14.01
               140.00
               107.40
  Motes:   l   It  is  assraed the  landfill ocerates 8 hours a dav
              and 260  lays per year.
                                  6-18

-------
                               TABLE 62
                COSTS FOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANDFILL -
                     HYDROFLUORIC ACID MVNUFACTURE.l
Waste Stream 9;
                        Gypsum Wastes
Typical Plant Size;     64 metric tons of hydrofluoric acid per day.
Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams;
     Form:     Sludge
     Hazardous Components:    1  kkg/day, CaF2-

     Non-Hazardous Conconents:     233  kkg/day  - CaS04 and  silicai
                                   60 kkg/day - Hater.
     Total Waste Stream:
                                   240 kkg/day  (dry basis)
                                   300 kkg/day  (vet basis)
                        TOTAL
Type of Cost
Capital Cost
  Site Cost (land and
    preparation)
  Building Cost
  Capital Equipment

  Contingency
  Total Investment
Operating Cost
  Labor (operating)
  Labor (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and Taxes
  Energy and Power
  Utilities for the tali V.i.ng
  Draming
  Contractor
  Total Operating Costs,
    excluding energy & utilities
  Annual Investment Costs
  total Annual Costs
  Cost/kkg of product
  Cost/kkg of waste  (dry basis)
  Cost/kkg of 'waste  (wet basis)
                                   Sanitary
                                   lanrtfiU
                                  1.400.900
                                    197,100
                                     98,600
                                     19,270
                                     56.040
                                    106.400
                                      1,200
                                    371,010
                                     78.390
                                    5S7.QQO
                                     23.84
                                      6.36
                                      5.09
Chemical
Landfill
1.141.080
    8,750
3.918.360
5.068.190
  785.420
5,853,610


  197,100
   98,600
  188,500
  234.140
  106.400
    1.200
  718,340
  766.730
1.592.700
   68.18
  Notes:  '   It is assumed the  landfill operates 8 hours a day
             _ J  ICC /4ir0 i-^fc-f i *AV*
             and  365 days per year
                                 6-19

-------
          The costs are summarized as  follows:

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                         $1,401,000
          Annual Operati.ru j Costs:
           C-Akq  (SAnn) <>f prrxluet                 24    (21.8)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)       6.4   (5.8)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)       5.1   (4.6)

     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                         $5,854,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of product                 68    (62)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)       18    (16.3)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)       15    (13.6)


          6^3.7  Waste Stream 11 - Wastewater Treatment  Sludges  from
                 Aluminum Fluoride Manufacture
          Land-destined wastes from the manufacture of aluminum fluoride
consist of aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, calcium sulfate and lime.
Since aluminum fluoride is often produced in complexes producing other
fluoride chemicals, the wastes are likely to be combined with much larger
quantities of similar wastes from other processes.  These wastes are currently
landfilled.

          Table 63 presents the costs for the sanitary and chemical land-
filling of this waste.  These costs are based on a typical plant producing
145 kkg/day of aluminum fluoride.

          The costs are summarized as follows:

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $282,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton) of product                2.9   (2.7)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (dry basis)      16    (14.5)
           $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (wet basis)      13    (11.8)
                                 6-20

-------
                               TABLE 63
               COSTS TOR SANITAFY AND CHEMKaL LMCFILL -
                    ALUMINUM FLUORIDE MANUFJCIOHE,1
tfaate Stream  11:
Typical Plant Size;
                       Wastewater Treatment Sludges
                       145 metric tons of aluminum fluoride per day.
Potentially Hazardous Haste Streams;
     Pom,    Sludge
     Hazardous Censonents:   -12
     Non-Hazardous Components:
    'total  Waste Stream:
                                 10 kkg/day - CaSO4;
                                 4 kkg/day - Hydrated line;
                                 7 kkg/day - Water.
                                 26 kkg/day (dry basis)
                                 33 kkg/day (wet basis)
                        TOTAL
Type of Cost
Capital Cost
  Site Cost (land and
    preparation)
  Building Cost
  Capital Equipment

  Contingency
  Total Investment
Operating Coat
  Labor  (operating)
  Labor  (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and taxes
  Energy and Power
  Utilities for the
  Drumning
  Contractor
  Total Operating Costs,
    excluding energy S utilities
  Annual Investment Costs
  Total Annual Costs
  CostAkg o product
  CostAkg of waste  (dry basis)
  Cost/tog of '^aste  (wet basis)
                                  Sanitary
                                   100,780
                                     .8,750.
251.530
 30,150
281,680
                                    56.160
                                    28.080
                                     7.240
                                    U.270
                                    21,450
                                     1,200
                                    102,740
                                     29,430
                                    154,320
                                      2.93
                                     16.31
                                     12.85
             Qiami.cn 1
             Landfill
              125,160
                8,750
54J.4QO
683.310
HI ,630
794,940
               56.160
               28.080
               26.800
               31,800
               21,450
                1,200
              142,830
              109,000
              274,500
                5.19
               28.92
               22.79
  ttotes:   l   It  is assumed the landfill operates 8 hours a day
              and 260 days per year.
                                  6-21

-------
     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                         $795,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of product                5.2   (4.7)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      29    (26)
           $/kkg  (?/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      23    (21)


          6.3.8  Waste? Stream 13 - Fluoride Wastes from  Sodium Silico-
                 fluoride Manufacture~~

          There are three plants in the United States producing this chemical.
Each handles their wastes differently:

          Plant 1 - Has no attributable land-destined wastes since  it
                    recycles unused portions of its raw material.
          Plant 2 - Deep wells all wastes.
          Plant 3 - Treats its wastes as a small portion of an overall
                    waste stream from the chemical complex.

          The small number of plants and the different waste treatment/dis-
posal technology used at each site reduces the significance of the  "typical
plant" for this industry segment.

          Table 64 presents the costs for the sanitary and chemical land-
filling of this waste.  These costs are based on a plant producing  45 kkg/day
of sodium silicofluoride.

          The costs are summarized as follows:

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                         $228,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of product                11   (10)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      73   (66)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      22   (20)

     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                         $691,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of product                18   (16.3)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      115  (104)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      35   (32)
                                 6-22

-------
                               TABLE  64
                COSTS TOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANDFILL -
                     SODIUM SHJCCFLUORIDE MANUFACTURE1

Waste Stream 13;      Calcium Fluoride Containing Habeas

Typical Plant Sizes    45 metric tons of sodium silicofluoride per day

Potentially Hazardous Waste Streanw;
     Porau    Sludge
     Hazardous Consonants:   2.6 - 4.5 Wcg/day - C*F2

     Non-Hazardous Consonants:   2-5 - 4*4 kkg/day - silica, salt & hydratad lima.
                                 16 kkq/day -watar.
     Ttotal Waste Stream:
7 kkg/day (dry basis)
23 kkg/day (wet basis)
Type of Coat
Capital Cost:
  Sita Cast (land and
    preparation)
  BuiHing Cost
  Capital Equipnvnt

  Contingency
  Total Invsi3nt
Operating Cose
  T.ahnr (operating)
  Labor (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and Taxes
  Energy and Power
  Utilities ?or the bnilriing
  Drunming
  Contractor
  Total Operating Costs,
    excluding energy & utilities
  Annual Investment Costs
  Total Annual Costs
  CostAtaj o product
  Cost/kkg of waste  (dry basis)
  CostAkg of wasta  (wet basis)
 Sanitary
 LandfiH
   93.200
   78,840
    9,130
  132.780
   21,990
    22.17
Chemical
Landfill
 HS.fiSO
   9.750
 470.400
 594.800
  95,830
 690,630


  78,840
  39,420
  23.000
  27,620
  30,110
   1,200
 168,900
  93,550
 293.700
  17.88
 114.97
  34.99
  Motes:  '  It is assured the 1 arrifi 11 operates 8 hours a day
             "d 365 days per year.
                                   6-23

-------
           6.3.9  Waste Stream 14 - Chromium Contaminated Wastewater
                  Treatment Sludges from Chrcmate Manufacture

           Chronite ore is the source for the basic chronate chemicals such
 as sodium chromate, sodium dichromate, potassium dichromate, and chromic
 acid.  The ore, which is generally of low purity, produces a large volume of
 gangue and land-destined wastes.  The ore residues, along with much smaller
 quantities of water treatment sludges, and residual water soluble chromates
 constitute the solid waste which is approximately 1,700-3,500 kg/kkg of
 product.
           Table 65 presents the costs for the sanitary and chemical land-
 filling of this waste.  These costs are based on a typical plant producing
 182 kkg/day of chromate chemicals.

           The costs are summarized as follows:

      For sanitary landfilling:

           Total Investment                        $1,010,000
           Annual Operating Costs:
            $/kkg ($/ton) of product                7.7   (7.0)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (dry basis)      9.4   (8.5)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (wet basis       7.0   (6.4)

      For chemical landfilling:

           Total Investment                        $3,688,000
           Annual Operating Costs:
            $/kkg ($/ton) of product                15   (13.6)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (dry basis)      19   (17.2)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste (wet basis)      14   (12.7)
          6.3.10  Waste Stream 15 - Nickel-containing Wastes from Wastewater
                  Treatment, Nickel Sulrate Manufacture

          Only one plant manufacturing nickel sulfate is known to use impure
nickel feedstocks.  This process generates purification muds and wastewater
treatment sludges.

          Due to the small quantity of waste generated, costs have also been
developed based on contract disposal in a company-provided sanitary land-
fill.  The landfill in each case is assumed to operate one day per month.
                                 6-24

-------
Haste Straam  14;
Typical PUnt Size;
                               TABLE  65
                COSTS FOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANDFILL -
                          CHRCMWE MANUFACTURE.1

                       Chromate Contaminated Wastawater Treatment Sludge

                       182 metric tons of chrcmate per day
Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams!
     Font:     Mjds and sludges
     Hazardous Components:
                             0.025 kkg/day - Cr(OH)3;
                             0.005 kkg/day - Chrommte.
     Non-Hazardous Components)
     Total  Waste Stream:
                                   150 kkg/day - Ore residua includes oxide and
                                   carbonates of Fe, Si and Mg, plus Ca Salts & Al(CH)
                                   50 kkg/day - Mater.
                                   150 kkg/day (dry basis)
                                   200 kkg/day (wet basis)
Type of Cost
Capital Cost
  Site Coot (land and
    preparation)
  Building Cost
  Capital Equipment

  Contingency
  Total
                        TOTAL
Operating Cost
  Tahnr  (operating)
  **"  (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and Taxes
  aiergy and Power
  Utilities 2or the building
                                   Sanitary
                                   Landfill
  374,500
  933.750
   76,650
1,010,400
  Contractor
  Total Operating Costs,
    excluding  energy  4 utilities
  Annual Investment Costs
  Total Annual Costs
  CostAkg of  product
  Cost/kkg of  'ste  (dry basis)
  Cost/Wcg of  waste  (wet basis)
                                   131,000
                                    65.500
                                    18.400
                                    40.420
                                    72.900
                                   255.320
                                   182.300
                                     7.70
                                     ?.j?
                                     7.01
 Chemical
 Landfill
    !T5
  683,350
    8,750
2,494,700
3.186.800
  500,690
3,687,500
                131,000
                 65.500
                120.170
                147.500
                 7?rqoo
                  i .200
                464.200
                 15.46
                 18.76
                 14.07
  Notes:  '    It  is assumed  the  landfill operates 3 hours a day
              and 250 days per year.
                                    6-25

-------
These costs were determined based on a typical 9 kkg/day nickel sulfate
plant and are presented in Table 66.


          The costs are summarized as follows:

     For sanitary landfilling:

          'Ibtal Investment                         $86,400
          Annual Operatincf Costs:
            $/kkg ($/ton) of product                11   (10)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      196  (178)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      98   (89)


     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $118,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
            $/kkg ($/ton) of product               13    (11.8)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)     237   (215)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)     118   (107)


     For sanitary landfilling  (outside contractor operated) :

          Total Investment                        $  5,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
            $/kkg ($/ton) of product                4.5  (4.1)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      81   (73)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      41   (37)

          6.3.11 Waste Streams 16A and 16B - Fluoride Waste and Phossy
                      ~- Phosphorus Manufacture
          Potentially hazardous land-destined wastes from elemental  phosphorus
manufacture are generated from air and water treatment operations and process
components .

          To protect the air quality and effluent water quality  it is necessary
to reduce or remove the following wastes:
                                                                                           i
                                                                                           t
          a)  suspended phosphorus from the phossy water,                                  \
          b)  fluorides, dusts and other air pollutant components by                      j
              scrubbing the gas from the ore calcining and  furnace vents.                  '
                                  6-26

-------
                               TABLE  66
                 COSTS FOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANDFILL -
                       NICKEL SULFATE MANUFACTURE.1

Mute Stream 15;       Nickel Containing Wastes  from Wastewater Treatment

Typical Plant Size;    9 metric tons of "
-------
          There are a variety of methods used for treating the phossy water
including pond settling, clarifying, filtering and centrifuging.  The latter
three treatment methods usually involve direct return of collected phosphorus
to the process.  Phosphorus settled to the bottom of ponds is often allowed
to remain there indefinitely.

          The fluorides removed in the scrubbers are treated with lime and
also allowed to settle in ponds.  Because of the large quantities of settled
wastes, fairly frequent pond cleaning is practiced.  The calcium fluoride
sludges are usually landfilled.

          In this study involving the two land disposal options, it is
assumed that the phossy water sludge  (produced after suitable settling in
ponds) would be drummed for safety reasons.*  It is also assumed that
chemical fixation of this sludge would be employed in the chemical landfill
option.  Table 67 presents the costs for the sanitary and chemical land-
filling of these wastes.  The two streams (phossy water and calcium fluoride
sludge) have been considered as a combined stream for costing purposes.  These
costs are based on a typical plant producing 136 kkg/day of elemental phosphorus.


          The costs are sumnarized as follows:

     For sanitary landfill ing:

          Total Investment                         $635,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
            $/kkg ($/ton) of product                11   (10)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      30   (27)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      15   (13.6)

     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                         $4,993,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
            $/kkg ($/ton) of product                42   (38)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)      108  (98)
            $/kkg ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)      55   (50)


          Since an alternate treatment process involving resource recovery
has been developed for waste stream 16B (Section 5.1.13), a set of costs for
the landfilling of this stream alone have also been determined for comparison
   Elemental phosphorus in this sludge is pyrophoric once the sludge is
   allowed to dry.
                                 6-28

-------
                               TABLE  67
                 costs FOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANEFUL -
                         PHOSPHORUS MANUFACTURE.
                                                1
Waste Streams  16M16B;  Calclu.i Fluoride and Phossy Water Masts Streams
Typical Plant Sizet     136 iMtxic tons of phosphorus per day.
Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams;
     Form;     Sludge
     Hazardous Ccraponants:   1.2 kkg/day - Phosphorus;
                             8.8 Wog/day - CaF2.
     (ton-Hazardous Ccnponsntsi   1.8 kkg/day CaO  5.0 Wcg/day -610?;
                                 4.5 kkg/day - C*3(PO4)2J  30.6 kkg/day - CaS04;
                                 0.6 kkg/day - Suspsnd^ Solids.
     Itotal Masts Strsami
                                 52.5 Wwj/day (dry basis)
                                 102.6 kiq/day (wet basis)
                        TOtM,
Type of Coat
Capital Coat
  Sita Cost  (Lund and
    preparation)
  Building Cost
  Capital Equipcnervt

  Contingency
  Total Invastmant
Operating Cost
  Labor (operating)
  tff)T"- (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and Taxes
  Hiergy and Power
  Utilities for the building
  Druntning
  Chemical Fixation
  Absorbent
  Contractor
  Total Operating Costs,
    excluding energy & utilities
  Annual Investnant Costs
  Total Annual Costs
  Cost/Wog at product
  Cost/kkg of waste  (dry basis)
  Cost/kkg of 'vasts  (wet basis)
                                  Sanitary
                                  Landfill
409,360
  8,750
179,050
597.660
 37.560
                                    93,600
                                    46,300
                                     9,010
                                    25,410
                                    50,050
                                     1,200
                                   307,270
                                   482,100
                                    36.67Q
                                   570,000
                                    11.48
                                    29.75
                                    15.22
 Landfill
    (IS
  508,900
    8,750
3,727,700
4.245.300
  747.280
               93,600
               46,800
              179,400
              220,060
               50,050
                1,200
              307,720
              338,000
               95,400
              107.56
               55.04
  ttotea:   '  It is assumed  the  landfill operates 3 hours a day
             and 260 days per year.
                                  6-29

-------
purposes.  Table 68 presents land disposal costs for this waste.  As dis-
cussed, it is assumed that this waste would be drunmed and subjected to chemical
fixation prior to disposal in the chemical landfill.  The costs summarized
below, are based on a typical plant producing 136 kkg/day of elemental
phosphorus.

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $208,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of product                 8.0   (7.3)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)       608   (551)
           E/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)       60    (54)

     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                         $1,702,420
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of product                 24    (21.8)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (dry basis)       1,810(1,640)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste  (wet basis)       178   (161)


          6.3.12  Waste Stream 17  - Arsenic  and Phosphorus Wastes -
                  p'tospforus^Pentasulfide 'Manufacture

          Arsenic pentasulfide is  present in the still  bottoms fron phosphorus
pentasulfide manufacture.  The still bottoms also contain unreacted phosphorus
and phosphorus pentasulfide.   The  amount of  the waste generated is small and
it is  normally land disposed.

          Costs were developed for sanitary  and chemical  landfilling of
this waste.  Included also is  the  cost for contract disposal  in a company-
provided sanitary landfill.  In all cases, the  waste is drummed prior  to
landfilling.  It is assumed that the landfill would operate one day per  month
 (12 days per year).

          Table 69 presents costs  for the three disposal  options.  The
costs  are based on a typical plant producing 55,000 kkg/year  of phosphorus
pentasulfide.  There is no moisture associated  with this  waste material,  hence
the unit cost of waste  is on a dry basis.

          The costs are summarized as follows:

     For sanitary landfilling:
          Total Invont-mpnt                         $72,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg  ($/ton)of product                 0.43 (0.39)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste                   215   (195)
                                  6-30

-------
                               TABLE  68
                CC6TS FOR SANTTaPV AND CHEMICAL LAM3FTLL -
                          PHOSPHORUS MMIUFJCTUHE

Waste Stream No. I6B:  Phossy water waste stream

Typical Plant Size;  136 metric tons of phosphorus per day.

Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams;
     Form: Sludge
     Hazardous Consonants:   1.2 kkg/day phosphorus

     Non-Hazardous Covenants;  0.6 Wcg/day suspended solids;
                                16.6 tog/day water

     lotal Waste Stream;      1.8 kkg/day( dry basis) >
                              18.3 Wcg/day (wet basis)
Type of Cost
                                  Sanitary      Chsmical
        cost                      LaMf < i .1 '     Landfill
                                  "
  Site Cost  (land and
    preparaticn)                    137,860        171,160
  Building Cost                       8,750          8,750
  Capital Equipment                  49,700      1,267,300
                        TOTAL       196,310      1.447,210
  Contingency                        11,690        255,210
  Total Investment                  208,000      1,702,420
Operating Cost
  Labor (operatihg)                  37,440         37,440
  Tatnr (supervision)                18,720         18,720
  Maintenance                         2,810         61,250
  Insurance and Taxes                 3,320         68,100
  Energy and Fewer                   12,870         12,870
  Utilities for the boUding          1,200          1,200
  Drutnning                          307,300        307,300
  Chemical Fixation                    -       338,000
  Absorbent                            -        95,400
  Contractor                           ~            
  Total Operating Costs,
    excluding energy & utilities    374,560       926,180
  Annual Investment Costs            11,410       249,140
  Total Annual Costs                400,040      1,189,400
  Cost/Wo? of product                 8.06          23.96
  Cost/kkg of waste (dry basis)     608. ,89       1,810.33
  Cost/kkg of waste (wet basis)      59.89        178.05
  Notes:    '  It is assumed the landfill operates 8 hours a day
             and 260 days per year.
           :  Due to the nature of this waste, the waste  is drurrmed before
             landfilled.
                                   6-31

-------
                                TABLE 69
                COSTS FOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANDFILL -
                    PHOSPHORUS PENTASULFIDE MANUFACTURE.1
Waste Stream 17:
Arsenic and Phosphorus Waste.
Typi/--*! PiJ"rt  Size:     55,000 metric tons of  phosphorus pentasulfide

Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams:
     Form:     pry residues and dust.
     Hazardous Cor^onents:  3 kkg/yr - AS9S3;
                              8 kfcg/nay -  Phosphorus &  phosphorus  sulf ide
     Ifan-Hazardous Conponents:     108 kXg/yr  - glassy  phosphate &
     "total  Waste Stream:
           110 kkg/yr  (dry basis)*
Type of Cost
Capital Cost
  Site Cost  (land and
    ar^jaration)
  Building Cost
  Capital
                        TOTAL
  Contingency
  Total Investment
Operating Cost
  Labor (operating)
  Lacor (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance and Taxes
  Eiiergy and Power
  Utilities for the building
  Druiming Costs
  Contractor
  Total Operating Costa,
    excluding energy &  utilities
  Annual Investment Costs
  Total Annual Costs
  Cost/kkg of product
  Cost/kkg o waste  (dry basis)
  CostAkg of waste  (wet basis)
           Sanitarv
           Tanrif-m
           ~~7$)
              1,900
              8,750
             49,700
             60,350
             11,700
             72.050
                                      1,300
                                        650
                                      2,810
                                      2,880
                                        260
                                        100
                                      4.260
                                     11,890
                                     11,420
                                     23,670
                                      0.43
                                    215.18
Chemical
Landfill
  ($)
  2,350
  8,750
  57,200
  68,300
  13,200
  31.500
                            1,300
                              650
                            3,170
                            3,260
                              260
                              100
                            4,260
                            12,630
                            12,870
                            25,870
                             0.47
                           236.21
                                                               Dnm & Contractor
                                                                     Labor
                                                                     1,900
                                                                      1,900
                                                                      1,900
                        20J
                                                                      4.940
                    45.11
  Motes:   '  It  is assumed  the landfill operates 8 hours  a day
             and one day per ncnth.
             This waste stream is a dry residue.
           3  A tax rate of 1% on invested capital  for land has been assumed.
                                   6-32

-------
     For sanitary landfilling  (outside contractor operated) :

          Total Investment                        $1,900
          Annual Operating Costs
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of product                 0.09   (0.08)
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of waste                   45     (41)

     For chemical landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $82,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg  ($/ton) of product                 0.47   (0.43)
           $/kkg  (S/ton) of waste                   236    (214)
          6.3.13  Waste Stream 18  Arsenic Chloride Waste -  Phosphorus
                  Trichloride Manufacture"
          Arsenic trichloride is present in the still bottoms  from phosphorus
trichloride manufacture.  The still bottoms also contain glassy phosphates
and ferric chloride.  This waste is normally land disposed.

          Costs have been developed for sanitary and chemical  landfilling
of this waste.  Also included is the cost for contract disposal in a
company-provided sanitary landfill.  In all cases, the waste is drummed.
It is assumed that the landfill would operate one day per month (12 days  per
year).

          Table 70 presents costs for the three cases discussed above.
These costs are based on a typical plant producing 58,000 kkg/yr of phosphorus
trichloride.  This waste stream is always dry.

          The costs are summarized as follows:

     For sanitary landfilling:

          Total Investment                        $71,000
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton)  of product                0.36  (0.33)
           $/kkg ($/ton)  of waste                  362   (328)

     For sanitary landfilling (outside contractor operated):

          Total Investment                        $780
          Annual Operating Costs:
           $/kkg ($/ton)  of product                0.04  (0.036)
           $/kkg ($/ton)  of waste                  36    (33)
                                  6-33

-------
Waste Stream 19:
                              TABLE 70
                COSTS FOR SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANDFILL -
                  PHOSPHORJS TRICHLORICE MANUFACTURE. '

                       Arsenic Chloride Waste.
                                                     i
Typical Plant Size;     58,000 metaric tons of phosphorus trichloride per year.

            Hazardous Haste Streams:
     Form:   Dry residue
     Hazardous Coaponents:     3 Wcg/yr - AaCl3.

     Non-Hazardous Components:  57 kta?/yr - Glassy phosphate & FC13.
     'Total Waste Stream:
                                60 kkg/yr (dry basis) !
                        TOTVL
Type of Cost
Capital Cost
  Site Cost  (land and
    preparation)
  Building Cost
  Capital Equipment

  Contingency
  Total Inves-crent
Operating Cost
  Labor  (operating)
  Labor  (supervision)
  Maintenance
  Insurance 3rd Taxes
  Energy and Power
  Utilities for the building
  Druming
  Contractor
  Total Cperatir.g Costs,
    excluding energy s  utilities
  Annual Investment Costs
  Total Annual Costs
  Cost/We? of product
  Cost/kkg of wasts  (dry  basis)
  Cost/kkg of waste  (wet  basis)
                                   Sanitary
                                   Landfill
                                     (5)
                                       930
 8,750
49,700
59,380
11,700
71,080
                                      1,300
                                        650
                                      2,810
                                      2,340
                                        260
                                        100
                                      1.75Q
                                      9,340
                                     11,420
                                     21,130
                                      0.36
                                    361.80
            Chemical
            Landfill
   970
 8,750
55,100
64,320
12,770
77,590
              1,300
                650
              3.070
              3,100
                260
                100
              1.750
              9,860
             12,500
             22,700
              0.39
            388.58
                                                              Drum & Contractor
                                (Si
                                 780
                                                                     780
                                                                     780
                  2.110
                  0.04
                 36.01
  Mates:   '   It is  assumed the landfill operates  8 hours a day
              and one day  per month.
           2   This '*aste is  a dry residue.
           3                    J
              Contractor estimates taxes 1%.
                                   6-34

-------
For chemical landfilling:

     Total Investment                        $78,000
     Annual Operating Costs:
      $/kkg ($/ton) product                   0.39   (0.35)
      $/kkg ($/ton) waste                     389    (353)
                             6-35

-------
7.0  COMPARISON STUDIES

     7.1  Capital Investment and Operating Cost Comparisons Between
          Alternate Treatment Methods and the Two Land Disposal Options

          Tables 71 through 83 present costs (capital investment and
annual operating) and energy requirements for the alternate treatment
processes as compared to the plant operated landfill options for the waste
streams under study.

          For thirteen of the fifteen waste streams involved in this study,
sanitary landfill operations are significantly lower in capital outlays than
either the chemical landfill or alternate treatment processes.  For one of
the waste streams (stream 11), within the error of cost estimation, the
capital outlays are approximately equal for the sanitary landfill and the
treatment process.  For waste stream 18, the treatment process (system 18100)
shows a significant advantage in the amount of capital outlay over both
sanitary and chemical landfill options; and for five other streams (7, 9,
13, 15 and 16A and 16B combined), the treatment process shows an advantage
in the amount of capital outlay over the respective chemical landfill option.
However, the high annual operating cost estimated for the treatment processes
negates the capital outlay cost advantages for these six waste streams.

          Table 84 summarizes the ratio of annual operating costs and energy
requirements for the treatment systems as compared to the two land disposal
options.  As indicated, it is only for waste stream 16B that the annual
operating cost of waste treatment system (16B100) is significantly lower
than the land disposal options.  For waste streams 1 and 2, the annual
operating cost of treatment system 01200 is equivalent to that of the chemical
landfill option.  For the remaining waste streams, the annual operating
cost ratios for the treatment system compared to land disposal options
range between a low of 1.2 for system 08200 to a high of 47 for system
06100 favoring land disposal options.

          With respect to the energy requirements, system 01100 and 08200
have approximately the same energy consumption as the respective landfill
options.  However, the remaining treatment systems have higher energy
requirements ranging from a low ratio of 2 to a high of 260 favoring the
land disposal options.

          In the following sections, comparisons by industrial category
are made with respect to annual operating cost* per kkg of product, and
total annual energy consumption (equivalent BTU basis).

          7.1.1  Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing Plants

          a. Mercury Cell Operations - Waste Streams 1 and 2

          Table 71 indicates annual operating cost ratios of 2 to 5
favoring sanitary landfill use as compared to alternate treatment pro-
* Includes the annualized capital cost.

                                  7-1

-------
cesses  (systems 01100 and 01200).  Alternate treatment process 01100
demonstrates the highest annual operating cost while the annual operating
cost for the second alternate treatment process  (system 01200) is approxi-
mately equivalent to that of the chemical landfill option  (within the error
of cost estimation).

          Further, Table 71 indicates a total energy consumption ratio of
approximately 6 favoring the landfill options when they are compared to
process 01200.  Process 01100 uses far less energy being approximately
equivalent to that of the landfill options.

          b. Diaphragm Cell Operations - Waste Streams 4 and 5

          Table 72 indicates annual operating cost ratios of 2 to 3 favoring
the land disposal options as compared to the combined alternate treatment
processes 04100 and 05100.  The costs incurred for these two treatment
processes are combined for purposes of comparison since waste streams 4 and
5 are generated at the same plant site.  The total annual energy consumption
is approximately twice as much for the alternate treatment processes as
compared to the land disposal options.

          7.1.2  Sodium Manufacturing Plants - Waste Stream 6

          Table 73 indicates an annual operating cost ratio of approximately
40 favoring the plant operated landfills when they are compared to the
treatment process 06100.  This ratio would be even greater (-80) if the
sanitary landfill is operated by an outside contractor.  The total annual
energy requirement is appreciably greater  (by a factor of ~260) for the
alternate treatment process as compared to the landfill options.  It
should be pointed out, however, that it is unlikely that land disposal would
be used for this waste stream since any inadvertent exposure to moisture
can cause an explosive reaction.  This was discussed in detail in Section
6.3.3.

          7.1.3  Chloride Process, Titanium Dioxide Plants - Waste
                 Stream 7B

          Table 74 indicates annual operating cost ratios of 2 to 7 favoring
the land disposal options when they are compared to the alternate treatment
process 07100.  The annual energy requirement of system 07100 is greater by
a factor of approximately 30 compared to the two landfill options.

          7.1.4  Chrome Color and Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing Plants -
                 Waste Stream 8

          Table 75 indicates annual operating cost ratios of 1.3 to 3
favoring the land disposal options when they are compared to the two
alternate treatment processes 08200 and 08100, respectively.  The total
annual energy requirement is approximately threefold greater for process
08100 compared to tho two land disposal options.  However, the enerqy
rrxmi nitt'Mt-ii for prr>-iin OR^OO an- .ipproxiimt rly 
-------
          7.1.5  Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacturing Plants - Waste Stream 9

          Table 76 indicates annual operating cost ratios of 5 to 15
favoring the two land disposal options when they are compared to the
alternate treatment process 09100.  The total annual energy requirement
for process 09100 is approximately eightfold greater than the two land
disposal options.

          7.1.6  Aluminum i Fluoride Manufacturing Plants - Waste Stream 11

          Table 77 indicates annual operating cost ratios of 3 to 6
favoring the two land disposal options when they are compared to the
alternate treatment process 11100.  The total annual energy requirement is
approximately fourfold greater for process 11100 compared to the two land
disposal options.

          7.1.7  Sodium Silicofluoride Manufacturing Plants - Waste
                 Stream 13

          Table 78 indicates annual operating cost ratios of 2 to 3
favoring the two land disposal options when they are compared to the
alternate treatment process 13100.  The total annual energy requirement
for process 13100 is approximately twofold greater than that required for
the land disposal options.

          7.1.8  Chromates Manufacturing Plants - Waste Stream 14

          Table 79 indicates annual operating cost ratios of 4 to 8
favoring the two land disposal options when they are compared to the
alternate treatment process 14100.  The total annual energy requirement
is approximately thirteenfold greater for process 14100 compared to the
two land disposal options.

          7.1.9  Nickel Sulfate Manufacturing Plants - Waste Stream 15

          Table 80 indicates an annual operating cost ratio of 2 favoring
the two land disposal options as compared to alternate treatment process
15100.  This ratio would be even greater (~6)  if the sanitary landfill
is operated by an outside contractor.  The total annual energy requirement
for process 15100 is approximately fourfold greater than that required for
the two land disposal options.

          7.1.10  Elemental Phosphorus Manufacturing Plants - Waste Streams
                  16A and
          The two waste streams 16A and 16B are generated at the same plant
site.  Therefore, in Table 81 the costs incurred by the two treatment
processes 16A100 and 16B100 are combined for purposes of comparison to the
land disposal options.  Evaluation of this table indicates annual operating
coat ratios of 1.4 to 5 favoring the land disposal options.  However, since
annual operating cost contribution of treatment system (16B100 is only a
small fraction of the total combined cost of the two systems 16A100 and
                                  7-3

-------
UiULOO) it was deemed necessary to at.udy this  Lattar stream separately.
Table 82 presents alternative treatment coats  for the phossy water stream
(stream 16B) alone.  As shown, the net annual  operating cost per metric
ton of product for this treatment system is significantly lower than the
costs estimated for the t*/o land disposal options (ratios of 5 to 15
favoring treatment system 16B100).  This is due to the credit given for the
recovered phosphorus which is a high value commodity.

          In both cases, the total energy requirements for the treatment
processes are appreciably greater than for the respective land disposal
options.

          7.1.11  Phosphorus Trichloride Manufacturing Plants - Waste
                  Stream 18

          Table 83 indicates an annual operating cost ratio of 5 favoring
the land disposal options when they are compared to the alternate treat-
ment process 18100.  This ratio would be even  greater  (~50) if the sanitary
landfill is operated by an outside contractor.  The total annual energy
requirement is negligible both for process 18100 and for the two land
disposal options.
                                  7-4

-------
 ^ en vo
                                m in iH CN
                      HnJ
                   C     O   O 0 &T3 M
                   a5T   n      Oo     >i H 0) rt3
                   olio  sSSsa-prH
                                           CM
                                           m o
                                                  in
                                                  VO O
                                                  CN
                                                   . O P
                                                  rH P> "-)
                                                 .. l*-l H-l 4-1
                                                4J O O O
                   3i
                   ^
                          III HI2a|
                                                H 
                                                            ss  s
                                                                 0)  0)
                                                                 en
                                                              O O O
                                                                                   0}
                                                                                  M-l
                                                                                  II
                                                                                  1.
                                                                                   8
                                                                                  ON
                                                                           o-S   S
                                                                             .J4 
                                                                    ri



                                                                 3^
                               7-5

-------
                              TABLE  72
           COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED
                 AT A DIAPHRAGM ^^T- CHLOR-ALKALI PLANT
Waste:  Lead bearing sludge and asbestos separator waste

Typical Plant Size;  450 kkg/day of chlorine
Treatment System No.

Capital Investment, $MM
Annual Operating Costs ($) :

  Annual O&M  (excluding power
   and energy)
  Annual Energy Cost
  Annual Power Cost
  Total Annual Operating Cost
  By-product credit
  Net Annual Operating Cost 2

Annual Energy Requirement,
 MM  kg cal
Annual Power Requirement, kwh
Unit Cost:
  $/kkg of product
  $/kkg of raw waste  (dry basis)
  $/kkg of raw waste  (wet basis)
    Treatment/Disposal Alternatives	
                                 Chemical
                                 Landfill
04100 and
05100l

0.515
Sanitary
Landfill

0.134
217,200
  3,900
 18,900
346,300
(10,725)
335,575


    490
585,000

2.0
545
144
                  79,880
                  10,010

                 108,650

                 108,650


                     495
                 0.66
                 178
                  47
Description of Treatments:
 04100   Detoxification of asbestos by fusion
 05100   Recovery of impure metallic lead by smelting
0.268



 90,330
 10,010

139,800

139,800


    495
                0.85
                229
                 60
1  These two treatment processes are considered together for purposes of
   comparison with sanitary and chemical landfills even though 04100 and
   05100 could operate as separate alternative treatment processes.
2  Includes variable and fixed costs.
                                  7-6

-------
                              TABLE  73

           COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED.
                  AT A DOWNS Qgr.T. METALLIC SODIUM PLANT
Waste;  Metallic sodium-calcium waste

Typical Plant Size;  140 kkg/day of metallic sodium

                                 	Treatment/Disposal Alternatives


Treatment System No.

Capital Investment/ $MM
Annual Operating Costs ($):

  Annual O&M (excluding power
   and energy)
  Annual Energy Cost
  Annual Power Cost
  Total Annual Operating Cost
  Recovered product credit
  Net Annual Operating Costf

Annual Energy Requirement/
 MM kg cal
Annual Power Requirement, kwh
Unit Cost;
  $/kkg of product
  $/kkg of raw waste

Description of Treatment:
 06100   Electrolysis and melting of sodium-calcium waste in degrader cells
         for sodium and cell bath (calcium chloride/sodium chloride mixture)
         recovery
06100
1.409
1,974,500
1,300
331,000
2,591,800
(329,200)
2,262,600
170
11,000,000
44
3,170
Sanitary
Company
Operated
0.103
32,220
594
47,990
47,990
38
0.94
,72
Landfill
Contractor
Operated
0.010
27,220
27,220
27,220

0.53
41
Chemical
Tarri-F-i 1 1
0.152
43,080
594
66,460
66,460
38
1.30
100
 1  Includes variable and fixed costs..
                                 7-7

-------
                              TABLE  74
           COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED
             AT A CHLORIDE PROCESS TITANIUM DIOXIDE PLANT
Waste;  Chromium hydroxide bearing heavy metal sludge frcm wastewater treatment

Typical Plant Size:  100 kkg/day of titanium dioxide
                                       Treatment/Disposal Alternatives

Treatment System No.

Capital Investment, $MM
Annual Operating Costs ($):

  Annual O&M (excluding power
   and energy)
  Annual Energy Cost
  Annual Power Cost
  Total Annual Operating Cost^

Annual Energy Requirement,
 MM  kgcal
Annual Power Requirement, kwh
Unit Cost:
  $/kkg of product
  $/kkg of raw waste  (dry basis)
  $/kkg of raw waste  (wet basis)

Description of Treatment:
 07100   Calcination of dewatered sludge to convert hazardous material to
         insoluble oxide
07100
13.257
1,134,300
3,127,000
98,000
7,046,500
393,880
3,270,000
193
138
6. 89
Sanitary
Landfill
3.150
685,830
188,710
	
1,068,360
12,100
29
21
1.05
Chemical
Landfill
14.020
1,535,990
188,710
	
3,608,050
12,100
99
71
2.55
   Includes variable and fixed costs
                                  7-8

-------
                              TABLE  75

        COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED AT
           A CHROME COLOR AND INORGANIC PIGMENT MANUFACTURING PLANT
Waste;  Heavy metal bearing wastewater treatment sludge
Typical Plant Size;  23 Meg/day chrone colors and inorganic pigments
                                       Treatment/Disposal Alternatives
Trea-bnent System No.             08100

Capital Investment, $MM          1.066
Annual Operating Costs ($):

  Annual O&M  (excluding power
   and energy)
  Annual Energy Cost
  Annual Power Cost
  Total Annual Operating Cost?

Annual Energy Requirement,
 MM  kgcal
Annual Power Requirement kwh
Unit Cost:
  $/kkg of product               45
  $/kkg of raw waste  (dry basis) 450
  $/kkg of raw waste  (wet basis) 342
08200
0.195
Sanitary
Landfill

0.117
Chemical
Landfill

0.159
141 r 750
12,500
4,500
374,750
1,580
150,000
135,825
7,200
1,200
183,825
460
39,000
79,200
10,010
107,980
640
82,430
10,010
117,600
660
22
220
167
13
129
99
14
140
107
Description of Treatments:
 08100   Detoxification of heavy metal hydroxides by calcination
 08200   Detoxification of heavy metal hydroxides by evaporation and asphalting
   Includes variable and fixed costs
                                 7-9

-------
                              TABLE  76

          COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED AT A
                 HYDROFLUORIC ACID MANUFACTURING PLANT
Waste;  Calcium fluoride bearing gypsum sludge

Typical Plant Size;  64 kkg/day of hydrofluoric acid
                                        	r	 Alternatives
                                                 Sanitary
Treatment System No.

Capital Investment, $MM
Annual Operating Costs ($):

  Annual O&M (excluding power
   and energy)
  Annual Energy Cost
  Annual Power Cost
  Total Annual Operating Costf

Annual Energy Requirement,
 MM  kgcal
Annual Power Requirement, kwh
Unit Cost:
  $/kkg of product
  $/kkg of raw waste  (dry basis)
  $/kkg of raw waste  (wet basis)

Description of Treatment:
 09100   Detoxification of calcium fluoride bearing gypsum sludge by
         evaporation and asphalting

09100
2.691
7,050,100
800,000
27,000
8,422,600
50,400
900,000
360-
96
77
Sanitary
Landfill
1.401
371,010
106,400
 
557,000
6,830
	
24
6.36
5.09
Chemical
Landfill
5.854
718,340
106,400
	
1,592,700
6,830
	
68
18
15
   Include variable and fixed costs
                                   7-10

-------
                              TABLE 77

         COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED AT AN
                  ALUMINUM FLUORIDE MANUFACTURING PLANT
Waste;  Calcium  fluoride bearino wastewater treatment sludge
Typical Plant Size;  145 kkg/day of aluminum fluoride


                                      Treatment/foisposal Alternatives
Treatment System No.             11100

Capital Investment, $MM          0.261
Annual Operating Costs (?):

  Annual O&M  (excluding power
   and energy)                   756r850
  Annual Energy Cost              80,000
  Annual Power Cost                3,600
  Total Annual Operating Cost?    893,250

Annual Energy Requirement,
 MM  kgcal                         5,040
Annual Power Requirement, kwh    120,000
Unit Cost:
  $/kkg of product               17
  $/kkg of raw waste  (dry basis) 94
  $/kkg of raw waste  (wet basis) 74
Sanitary
Landfill

0.282
102,740
 21,450

154,820


  1,385
2.93
16
13
Chemical
Landfill

0.795
142,830
 21,450

274,450


  1,385
5.19
29
23
Description of Treatment:
 11100   Detoxification of calcium fluoride bearing wastewater treatment sludge
         by evaporation and asphalting
 1 Includes variable and fixed costs
                                 7-11

-------
                              TABLE  78

           COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED AT A
               SODIUM SILICOFLUORIDE MANUFACTURING PLANT
Waste:  Calcium fluoride bearing wastewater treatment sludge

Typical Plant Size;  45 kkg/day of sodium silicofluoride
                                       Treatment/Disposal Alternatives
Treatment System No.             13100

Capital Investment, $MM          0.383
Annual Operating Costs ($):

  Annual O&M  (excluding power
   and energy)                   489,250
  Annual Energy Cost              60,000
  Annual Power Cost               15,300
  Total Annual Operating Cost1   553,450
Annual Energy Requirement,
 MMkgcal        *                  3,780
Annual Power Requirement, kwh    140,000
Unit Coat:
  $/kkg of product               38
  $/kkg of raw waste  (dry basis) 247
  $/kkg of raw waste  (wet basis) 75
                                                  Sanitary
                                                  Landfill

                                                  0.228
                                                  132,780
                                                   30,110

                                                  186,040

                                                     1,930
                                                  11
                                                  73
                                                  22
Chemical
Landfill

0.691
168,900
 30,110

293,740

  1,930
18
115
35
Description of Treatment:
 13100   Detoxification of calcium fluoride bearing wastewater treatment
         sludge by evaporation and asphalting
    Includes variable and fixed costs
                                  7-12

-------
                              TABLE 79

          COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED AT A
                    CHROMATES MANUFACTURING PLANT
Waste;  Chromium bearinq wastewater treatment sludge and ore residue

Typical Plant Size:  182 kkg/day of chronates
                                       Treatment/Pisposal Alternatives
Treatinent System No.

Capital Investment, $MM
Annual Operating Costs ($):

  Annual OSM  (excluding power
   and energy)
  Annual Energy Cost
  Annual Power Cost
  Total Annual Operating Cost?

Annual Energy Requirement,
 Ml  kgcal
Annual Power Requirement, ]
-------
                              TABLE 30

          COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED AT A
                   NICKEL SULFATE MANUFACTURING PLANT
Waste:  Nickel bearing wastewater treatment sludges

Typical Plant Size; 9 kkg/day of nickel sulfate


                                   Treatment/lDisposal Alternatives
Treatment Svstem No.


15100
0.099
48,450
	
9,600
78,150
	
320,000
25
424
212
Sanitary
Conpany
Operated
0.086
21,420
1,056


35,740
68
	
11
196
98
Landfill
Contractor
Operated
0.005
14,880
 
 
14,880
	
	
4.53
81
41

Chemical
Lardfill
0.118
23,920
1,056
" 
43,220
68
	
13
237
118
Capital Investment, $MM
Annual Operating Costs ($)

  Annual O&M  (excluding
   power and energy)
  Annual Energy Cost
  Annual Power Cost
  Total Annual Operating
   Cost?

Annual Energy Requirement,
 MM  krcal
Annual Power Requirement,
 kwh
Unit Cost:
  $/kkg of product
  $/kkg of raw product
     (dry basis)
  $/kkg of product
     (wet basis)

Description of Treatment:
 15100   Recovery of nickel from wastewater treatment sludge by use of high
         gradient magnetic separation
    Includes variable and  fixed  costs
                                  7-14

-------
                              TABLE  81

           COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED AT AN
                ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS MANUFACTURING PLANT1
Waste;  Calcium fluoride bearing wastewater treatment sludge and phossy water

Typical Plant Size;  136 kkg/day of elemental phosphorus
                                       Treatment/Disposal Alternatives
Treatment System No.

Capital Investment, $MM
Annual Operating Costs  ($):
  Annual O&M  (excluding power
   and energy)
  Annual Energy Cost
  Annual Power Cost
  Total Annual Operating Cost
  Product Recovery Credit
  Net Annual Operating Cost?
Annual Energy Requirement,
 MM  }:gcal
Annual Power Requirement, kwh
Unit Cost:
  $/kkg of product
  $Akg of raw waste  (dry basis)
  $/kkg of raw waste  (wet basis)
16A1001
and 16B1QO

1.421
2,600,950
  294,600
   11,500
3,192,250
 (321,000)
2,874,050


   19,480
  382,000

  57
  145
  77
Sanitary
Landfill

0.635
482,100
 50,050

570,000

570,000


  3,210
11
30
15
Chemical
Landfill

4.993
1,280,000
   50,050

2,061,250

2,061,250


    3,210
42
108
55
Description of Treatments:
 16B100  Recovery of phosphorus from phossy water by heat treatment and
         distillation
 16A100  Detoxification of calcium fluoride bearing wastewater sludge by
         evaporation and asphalting
1  These two treatment processes are considered together for purposes of
   comparison with sanitary and chemical landfills, even though 16A100 and
   16B100 would operate as separate treatment processes.
2   Includes variable and fixed costs
                                  7-15

-------
                              TABLE 82

             COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED AT AN
               ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS MANUFACTURING PLANT
Waste;  Phossy Water

Typical Plant Size;  136 kkg/day of elemental phosphorus


                                      Treatment/Disposal Alternatives
Treatment System No.             16B100

Capital Investment, SMM          0.544
Annual Operating Costs ($):
  Annual O&M (excluding power
   and energy)                    270,500
  Annual Energy Cost              14,600
  Annual Power Cost                5,900
  Total Annual Operating Cost    401,400
  Product Recovery Credit        (321,000)
  Net Annual Operating Cost 1      80,400
Annual Energy Requirement,
 MM  kgcal                          1,845
Annual Power Requirement, kwh    196,000
Unit Cost:
  $/kkg of product               1.6
  $/kkg of raw waste  (dry basis) 120
  $/kkg of raw waste  (wet basis) 12
Sanitary
Landfill

0.208
374,560
 12,870

400,040

400,040


    827
8.06
609
60
Chemical
Landfill

1.702
  926,180
   12,870

1,189,400

1,189,400


      827
24
1,310
178
Description of Treatment:
 16B100  Recovery of phosphorus from phossy water by heat treatment and
         distillation
    Includes variable and fixed costs
                                 7-16

-------
                              TABLE  83

        COMPARISON OF TREATMENT COSTS FOR WASTE GENERATED AT A
              PHOSPHORUS TRICHLORIDE MANUFACTURING PLANT
Waste;  Still bottoms  from phosphorus trichloride distillation

Typical Plant Size;  58,000 kkg/yr of phosphorus trichloride


                                    Treatment/Disposal Alternatives
Treatment System No.

Capital Investment, $MM
Annual Operating Costs  ($)

  Annual O&M  (excluding
   power and energy)
  Annual Energy Cost
  Annual Power Cost
  Total Annual Operating
   Cost *

Annual Energy Requirement,
 MM  kgcal
Annual Power Requirement,
 kwh
Unit Cost:
  $Akg of product
  $Akg of raw waste

Description of Treatment:
 18100   Distillation of phosphorus trichloride still bottoms for recovery
         of impure arsenic trichloride
18100
0.046
95,340
104f54Q
	
1.8
1,740
Sanitary
Company
Operated
0.071
9,340
260
21,130
17
0.36
362
Landfill
Contractor
Operated
0.001
2,110
2,110

0.04
36
Chemical
Landfill
0.078
9,860
260
22,700
17
0.39
389
1  Includes variable and fixed costs
                                 7-17

-------
jj S o)
w  is
5 'oi
0 *H Wl
JH o g 
 -Sag
i "*



H o 10 CD in p*
. \ f*l    
^4t (NO P* m
1 Is
1 *- P
C C jTJ <
S Q 0 o>
m -H <4-( c
F* ** 1  3
K 3 JS 0 (13
W f+t CJ *H U
 83 2$

O
mo"  O r>J(N (N r->
(>4 fM (N (*i (N ro ^H in rn

i
en p-4
5 3 &!m
i 8 "o I

8-f H O *O "^
S o ^ 3 5
1 c SlS




 o 10 oo in p-
^10(N *S NO P-' m
j B 3
< (8 -H
3 OJ JH
5 P g -^ en
 iq *u *-!
>w J S !0
1 0 CO
_ ^ CO
'/) C H <
H H "1 5T
M W -u ^5

fj W 2 4J
K 2Lw -S 2

2 5 o *Q L
o O -w a u

"-
00

i-C 00
mi-no \tf mf*i  oo
... p. . . ^- .
i o
GJ 2
8 *"
O 4J ^
If
(0 JJ
(U (fl

g
" 
sl  8 88  
^ JI **
^* pH
^H^H'*' \or- CD o\ *-<



pH (NT
m    o
fNl *^ ^ \) CM }


r*
o\ ff\ o ^ o r^
rH m (N ^ O -v
Ul
a
I

"^
H
w
N s  2  ? g
i

jfr
g
2

J  . O1
S 
O 03 *T O n  
m p* (N in o m u
o 
o
S ?
1  i 111  
rn ^r in 3D>oo di
-10"-1 5
C^ QJ
CD O 
VD -J 0)
^H J 03
H( _. (T]
< 03
pn ^ tn vo * oo to
-H ^ rH i-H *H ^-| S
       s       a
I
    I  1
   3fl

   . 1%
   0 0-
       flj O

       S '3
a.

4J
        H
        a.
    a   J3
S
                                 a
                            O    3
                                 1
                                     m


                                         n
                 H    iq    3
                 in    si    (35
                    0)   4^
                  E -M   fl    i-H
                  7-18

-------
     7.2  Effect of Treatment Cost en Product Price

          Table 85 presents the anticipated economic impact which the
various itanufacturers would incur from the implementation of any of these
various treatment systems.  Since, as a rule, the costs of treatment are
recovered by producing establishments, the value per metric ton of product
produced would be increased.  With the exception of one calcination (07100)
and three evaporation and asphalting  (09100, 13100 and 16A100) systems
which are highly energy intensive and require large capital outlays, the
incremental increase on product price would be under 10%.  In eleven of
the sixteen treatment systems, the incremental increase would be under 5%.
In one treatment system, where the incremental increase is of the order of
40% (09100), it is highly questionable if the method of treatment would be
practical.  This system would consume enormous quantities of asphalt and
would have the added' problem of the continued need for new landfills if
this product is proven to be unsuitable for use as aggregate.

     7.3  Effect of Land Disposal Cost on Product Price

          Table 86 presents the anticipated economic impact which the
various manufacturers would incur from the implementation of either
company-owned sanitary or chemical landfill disposal options.  It is ex-
pected that the cost of developing and operating these landfills would
be recovered by the producing establishments, increasing the value per
metric ton of product produced.  In the case of sanitary landfill operations,
the incremental increase on product price is quite small in every case
(under 2%), except for waste streams 7B and 9 (under 3%) and waste stream
13 (under 6%).  In the case of chemical landfill operations, 10 of the 18
waste streams (or stream combinations), show an incremental increase on
product price under 2%, two waste streams show less than a 4% increase,
and three waste streams show between an 8 to 10% increase.

     7.4  Product Recovery Economics

          Six of the sixteen alternate treatment processes are resource
recovery as well as detoxification systems.  Three of these processes
recover product or raw material while four accomplish by-product recovery
(one process recovers both product and by-product).*  Table 87 presents
the break-even cost point (in $/kg) for each of the respective recovered
materials.  Table 88 compares the break-even points to the current and
to the five-year selling price projections of the subject commodities.
Figure 36 was used to extrapolate the commodity selling prices to the
year 1981.  Prices for these commodities, 1971 through 1976, were obtained
from the Chemical Marketing Reporter.

          Tables 87 and 88 indicate that only phosphorus recovery from
phossy water would be a practicable resource recovery process both at
the current selling price and the anticipated 1981 price.  The other
   By-product in this sense is a material, not necessarily resulting from
   the chemical reaction by which the product is made, but recoverable
   from waste generated in the process.

                                  7-19

-------
                              TABLE 85
               EFFECT OF TREATMENT COST CM PRODUCT PRICE

1
Product
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Sodium
Titanium dioxide
Chrome pigments
Chrome pigments
Hydrofluoric acid
Aluminum fluoride
Sodium silicofluoride
Chroma tes
Nickel Sulf ate
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Phosphorus trichloride
Waste
Treatment
System
01100
01200
04100
05100
06100
07100
08100
08200
09100
11100
13100
14100
15100
16A100
16B100
18100
Treatment
Cost, $/kkg
Product
6.9
2.72
1.2
0.8
44
193
45
22
360
17
38
59
25
56
1.6
1.8

Product Price
1976, $/kkg1
165
165
165
165
638
1,055
2,045
2,045
902
385
220
637
1,670
1,340
1,340
815
                                                                  Per Cent of
                                                                 Product  Price
                                                                     4.2
                                                                     1.6
                                                                     0.7
                                                                     0.5
                                                                     6.9
                                                                     18.3
                                                                     2.2
                                                                     1.1
                                                                     40.0
                                                                     4.4
                                                                     17.3
                                                                     9.3
                                                                     1.5
                                                                     4.2
                                                                     0.1
                                                                     0.2
1   Source:  Chemical Marketing Reporter 1976.   Where price was given as  a
   range, the high value was used.
2   Average of systems 01200A and 01200B (multiple hearth vs.  fluidized
   bed calciner).
                                 7-20

-------
          a
              5
            fail
             tr>
              tx)
              b

             >6

            J'a,

              n

4J p^
                                                 in
              00                             rH    O


      doddrM'd(Noin-Hod   do    d
                          m                  m             oo    o
                  CN    in
                     v    i  m
                  w    wS \O  r-  00  W rH
                                                                              I -u >
   O

   4J

                                        I
                                        8
                             O  fr  U b,  rH
                                H  Q    .H
                  9I3I9I     gd-Sgi/i
                  cccgiHg




                  SeSSBols
                                                     oo    in

                                                     m  r^    GO
                                                            I *n *< *rf *< *M U
                                                            -( -rt m 2 "S *3
                                                            'i-i  o 0 C O
                                                            I -^ TJ 0  S ic
                                                            I in rt  g M |S
                                                            I *n d oi (3   4J
                                                            I C O -H  QJ c
                                                            i (3 J5 S >,2j 5
                                                            J u F 1 4J o
                                         7-21

-------
                                                                                      fl
                                                                                      10

                      ov
                       
                      O
                                              01
                                             r-4


                                             I

                                             
-------
                              TABLE 88
   RESOURCE  RECOVERY TREMMENT  SYSTEMS  - CCMPARISCN OF CURRENT AND FIVE-
   YEAR PROJECTION  RECOVERED COMMODITY  PRICE AGAINST BREAK-EVEN POINT
Recovered Waste Treat-
Material ment System
mercury
mercury
lead
sodium
calcium chloride,
anhydrous
nickel hydroxide
phosphorus
01100
01200
05100
06100
06100
15100
16B100
                                            Break Even Point,
                                       Current
                                       52. (9.15)
                                       26  (9.15)
                                       4.35  (0.44)
                                       2.48  (0.64)

                                       11  (0.12)
                                       103 (4.42)2
                                       0.99  (1.34)
Five-Year Projection
   52 (10.60)
   26 (10.60)
   4.35 (0,70)
   2.48 (0.60)

   11 (0.12)
   103 (6.48)2
   0.99 (1.75)
1  Number in parentheses is commodity selling price.
2  Number in parentheses is price of nickel metal.
                                 7-23

-------
               FIGURE 36   EXTRAPOLATED  MATERIAL  PRICE  THROUGH 1981
      --'   "
10 =

                   _f..-.-.,- __ -.,
                           .  Z.I""
                           ~~.~rT:"'; ~.

      bTif!::fr::~j^i


                                                  iis^r^-viKSeJ-^p-_=}- --
                                             jrrrr_~


                  r*	iI/T  f""   rr- i - i - -   i r~" ',  "T ',~      *


LU
    6 =
                                  Cofciifrr GRrorfda.: Anhv'tffo'us

                                                                               160
                                                                               150
                                                                              -140
                                                                              -130


    1970
                     1975
1980
1985
                                        YEAR
      Source:   Date  points  from Chemical Marketing  Reporter  (1971-1976)
                                     7-24

-------
treatment processes nay only be justified with potentially hazardous
waste detoxification as a prime objective and resource recovery as
secondary.
                                  7-25

-------
8.0  REFERENCES

 1.  A.D. Little, Inc. "Alternatives to the Management of Hazardous
     Wastes at National Disposal Sites." Report to EPA under Contract
     No. 68-01-0556, May 1973.

 2.  AIChE & USEPA. "Proceedings of the Third National Conference on
     Complete Water Reuse." June 27-30, 1976, Cincinnati, Ohio.

 3.  Allied Chemical Corporation, Chemicals Division, Morristown,
     New Jersey.  Unpublished conmunications.

 4.  Anonymous.  "New York Firm Buys Chemical Waste for Recycling."
     Industrial Wastes, Nov/Dec 1973, pp. 14, 15, 27.

 5.  Arnold, T.H. "News Index Shows Plant Cost Trends." Chemical
     Engineering, February 18, 1963.

 6.  Atlantic Richfield Hanford Co.  Quarterly Report, "Technology
     Development for Long-Term Management of Hanford High-Level Waste."
     January, 1976 through March, 1976.

 7.  Barber, J.C. and T.D. Farr.  "Fluoride Recovery from Phosphorus
     Production." Chemical Engineering Progress,  Vol. 66, No. 11,
     Nov. 1970.

 8.  Barbour, J.F., et al.  "The Chemical Conversion of Solid Wastes
     to Useful Products." Oregon State University, EPA-670/2-74-027,
     Apr. 1974.

 9.  Barrett, W.J., et al.  "Waterborne Wastes of the Paint and Inorganic
     Pigments Industries."  EPA-670/2-74-030, Mar. 1974.

10.  Blanco, R.E. et al. "Incorporating Industrial Wastes in Insoluble
     Media."  Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol.66, No. 2, Feb. 1970.

11.  Bloom, Q. of Birkley Furnaces, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
     Personal Communication.

12.  Brunner, D.R. and D.J. Keller.  "Sanitary Landfill Design and
     Operation."  EPA Report (SW-65ts), 1972.

13.  Cadman, T.W. and R.W. Dellinger.  "Techniques for Removing Metals
     from Process Wastewater."  Chemical EngineerijTg, Apr. 15, 1974.

14.  Calgon Corporation.  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - Cyanide Treatment.
     Unpublished Communications.
                                  8-1

-------
15.  California State Department of Public Health.   "Tentative Guidelines
     for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities."  Jan. 1962.

16.  Chahaske, J.T. and J.R. Cline.   "Testing of a Molecular Sieve Used
     to Control Mercury nuission from a Chlor-Alkali Plant."  Volume 1,
     [:PA-6r)0/2-75-02G-a, Mar. 1975.

17.  Chemical Marketing Reporter. Sep. 27, 1976.

18.  Chemical Technology Division Annual Progress Report for Period ending
     May 13, 1968, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

19.  Cherry, R.H. "Removal and Recovery of Heavy Metals from Industrial
     Waste Waters."  Presented at the 82nd National, AIChE Meeting, Atlantic
     City, New Jersey, August 29-September 1, 1976.

20.  Chilton, C.H. "Plant Cost Index Points up Inflation."  Chemical
     Engineering, Apr. 25, 1966.

21.  Christensen, H.E. and T.T. Luginbyhl, eds. Registry of Toxic Effects
     of Chemical Substances, 1975 Edition, prepared for NIOSH, Contract No.
     CDC 99-74-92.

22.  Clark, F.D. and S.P. Terni.  "Thick-Wall Pressure Vessels." Chemical
     Engineering, Apr. 3, 1972.

23.  Cooley, Inc. "Ten Liner Mistakes and How Cooley, Inc. Can Help You
     Avoid Them."  Pawtucket, R.I.

24.  Crawford & Russel, Inc. "Osaka Soda Mercury Process."  Private publica-
     tion, Nov. 5, 1970.

25.  Day, D.E., et al. "Improved Bonding of Waste Glass, Aggregate with
     Bituminous Binders." Ceramic Bulletin, Vol. 49, No. 12, 1970.

26.  Dow Chemical.  "Environmental Multi-Media Assessment of Selected
     Industrial Inorganic Chemicals."  Dow Purchase Order A92553-P68, EPA
     Contract No. 68-02-1329, June 30, 1976.

27.  Ernst & Ernst.  "A Rapid Cost Estimating Method for Air Pollution Control
     Equipment."  Contract No. PH 86-68-37, Sep. 1968.

28.  Foley, J.  of Fnviroteoh, BSP Division, Baltimore, Maryland.  Personal
     Connnmi.cn tion.

29.  Geshwein,  A.S.   "Liners for Land Disposal Sites - An Assessment."
     EPA/530/SW-l37,  Mar. 1975.

30.  Glaeser, W. "Method of Producing Mercury." U.S. Patent 1,637,481:
     1924.

31.  Gleason, M., et al. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 3rd
     Edition, Williams and Wilkins  Co.,  Baltimore,  Maryland, 1969.


                                 8-2

-------
 32.   Guthrie,  K.M.  "Capital Cost Estimating."  Chgnical Engineering,
      Mar.  24,  1969.

 33.   Guthrie,  K.M.  "Capital and Operating Costs  for 54 Chemical Processes."
      Chemical  Engineering,  June 15,  1970.

 34.   Guthrie,  K.M. ProcessPlant Estdmating Evaluation and Control.
      Craftsman Book Company of  ftnerica,  1974.

 35.   Haaga, J.C.  "Petrochemical Feedstocks." Chemical  Engineering,
      Mar.  6, 1972.

 36.   Hardate,  Mr. Industrial Hazardous Waste Disposal  Site, Lindsay,
      Oklahoma.  Personal Communications.

 37.   Hasler, J.W. Purification  with  Activated Carbon.   Chemical Publishing
      Co.,  Inc., New York, 1974.

 38.   Hawley, G.D. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 8th Edition, Van
      Nostrand  Reinhold Co.,  New York,  1971.

 39.   Holland,  F.A., et al.  "Capital  Costs  and Depreciation."  Chemical
      Engineering, Sep. 17,  1973.

 40.   Holland, F.A., et al.  "Time Value of  Money." Chemical Engineering,
      Sep.  17,  1973.

 41.   Holland, F.A., et al.  "How to Estimate Capital Costs." Chemical
      Engineering, Apr. 1, 1974.

 42.   Hucenieks, P. R. "Cyanide Treatment with Hydrogen Peroxide."
      Unpublished Communications, Research  Laboratories, FMC Chemicals,
      Princeton, New Jersey.

 43.  Hucenieks, P.R. "Sulfide Treatment with Hydrogen  Peroxide."
     Unpublished Communications, Research Laboratories, FMC Chemicals,
     Princeton, New Jersey.

 44.   lanielli,  J., Sala Magnetics, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Personal
     (Communication.

45.  Johnson,  B.  of BASF Wyandotte Corporation, Port Edwards, Wisconsin.
     Personal Communications.

46.  Keating,  K.B. and J.M.  Williams.  "The Recovery of Soluble Copper
     from an Industrial Chemical Waste." Resource Recovery & Conservation,
     Vol. 2, No.  1,  Sep.  1976.

47.  Kimberly,  J.R., Jr.  of Resource Recovery Corporation,  Seattle, Washington.
     Personal Communications.
                                  8-3

-------
48.  Lin, Y.H. and J.R. Lawson.  "Treatment of Oily and Metal-Containing
     Wastewater."  Pollution Engineering, 5  (11), 45-48, 1973.

49.  Liptak, Bela G. "Costs of Process Instruments: Part 1." Chemical
     Engineering, Sep. 7, 1970.

50.  Liptak, Bela G. "Cost of Viscosity, Weight, Analytical Instruments:
     Part 2."  Chemical Engineering, Sep. 21, 1970.

51.  Liptak, Bela G. "Control-Panel Costs: Part 3." Chemical Engineering,
     Oct. 5, 1970.

52.  Liptak, Bela G. "Safety Instruments and Control-Values Costs: Part 4."
     Chemical Engineering, Nov. 2, 1970.

53.  Lubowitz, H.R., and C.C. Wiles.  "A Polymeric Cementing and Encapsulating
     Process for Hazardous Waste."  Residual Management by Land Disposal,
     From Proceeding of the Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, EPA-600/9-76-015,
     July 1976, Cincinnati, Ohio.

54.  Lubowitz, H.R., et al.  "Development of A Polymeric Cementing and
     Encapsulating Process for Managing Hazardous Wastes."  Prepared for
     EPA by TRW Systems Group, Contract No. 68-03-2037, July 1976.

55.  Lyman, W. of A.D. Little, Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Personal Communica-
     tions, Oct. 5, 1976.

56.  Lyon, R.N., ed., et al. Liquid-Metals Handbook, AEC and Department of
     the Navy, June 1954.

57.  Mahloch, J.L., et al. "Pollutant Potential of Raw and Chemically
     Fixed Hazardous Industrial Wastes and Flue Gas Desulfurization Sludges."
     EPA 600/2-76-182, July 1976.

58.  Malisch, W.R., et al. "Use of Domestic Waste Glass for Urban Paving."
     EPA-670/2-75-053, May 1975.

59.  McKee, Y.E. and H.W. Wolf, eds.  Water Quality Criteria, 2nd Edition,
     California State Water Quality Control Board, 1963.

60.  Mueller, J.D. of Ethyl Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  Personal
     Cornnunication.

61.  Mill, H.E. "Costs of Process Equipment." Chemical Engineering,
     Mar. 16, 1964.

62.  National Academy of Sciences.  "Asbestos, The Need for and Feasibility
     of Air Pollution Controls." Washington, D.C., 1971.
                                  8-4

-------
63.  Nielsen, R. of Ametek Corporation, Rutherford, New Jersey.  Personal
     Comnunication.

64.  Norden, Robert B. "CE Cost Indexes:  A Sharp Rise Since 1965."
     Chemical Engineering, May 5, 1969.

65.  Cberteuffer, J. of Sala Magnetic, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
     Personal Communications.

66.  Oak Ridge National Laboratory 4, 145, pp. 104-122, Oct. 1967.

67.  Parker, C.L. "Estimating the Cost of Wastewater Treatment Ponds."
     Pollution Engineering, Nov. 1975.

68.  Parks, G.A. and R.E. Baker. "Mercury Process." U.S. Patent, 3,476,552,
     1969.

69.  Parks, G.A. and N.A. Fittinghoff.  "Mercury Extraction Now Possible Via
     Hypochlorite Leaching." Engineering and Mining Journal, June 1970,
     pp. 107-109.

70.  Perry, R.H. and C. H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 5th
     Edition, McGraw-Hill Book.

71.  Perry, Richard.  "Mercury Recovery from Contaminated Waste Water
     and Sludges."  EPA-660/2-74-086, December 1974.

72.  Perry, R. A. "Mercury Recovery from Process Sludges." Chemical
     Engineering Progress, Vol. 70, No. 3, Mar. 1974, pp. 73-80.

73.  Pfaudler Sybron Corp. Bulletin 1101.  "Buyer's Guide to Chemical
     Process Equipment from Pfaudler."

74.  Richardson Engineering Services.  Process Plant Construction Estimating
     Standards, Volume 4, 1975.

75.  Rinebold, G. of Wescon, Inc.,  Twin Falls, Idaho.  Personal Communications.

76.  Sax,  N.I. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Van Nostrand
     Reinhold Co., New York, 1968.

77.  Scurlock, A.C., et al.  "Incineration in Hazardous Waste Management."
     EPV530/SW-141, 1975.

78.  Shooter, D. of A.D.  Little,  Cambridge,  Massachusetts.  Personal
     Communication.

79.  Smith, J.F., Director of Environmental Affairs, N.J. Zinc Corporation,
     Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.   Personal Communication.
                                  8-5

-------
80.  Smithson, G.R., Jr.  "An  Investigation of Techniques for the Removal
     of Chromium from Electroplating Wastes." EPA-12010EIE 03/71, 1971.

81.  Spar, Mr. of K.E. McConnaughay, Inc., Lafayette, Indiana, Dec. 7, 1976.
     Personal Cannunications.

82.  Steingrabber, B., Texas Water Quality Board.  Personal Cannunications.

83.  Stroup, Ray, Jr. "Breakeven Analysis."  Chemical Engineering,
     Jan. 10, 1972.

84.  TRW Systems Group.   "Recommended Methods of Reduction, Neutralization,
     Recovery, or Disposal of Hazardous Waste." Vols. I, II, VI, VIII, X,
     XII, XIII, Redondo Beach, California, 1973.

85.  Tokana, D.T. "Treatment of Mercury Cell Waste." B.S. Thesis,
     University of British Columbia, 1971.

86.  Town, J.W. and W.A. Stickney.  "Cost Estimates and Optimum Conditions
     for Continuous-Circuit Leaching." U.S. Department of the Interior,
     Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 6459, 1964.

87.  U.S. Bureau of Mines & IIT Research Institute.  "Proceedings of the
     5th Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium." April 13-14, 1976, Chicago,
     Illinois.

88.  U.S. EPA. "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
     and New Source Performance Standards for the Major Inorganic Products."
     KPA-440/l-74-007-a, Mar.  1974.

89.  U.S. EPA, "Treatment of Complex Cyanide Compounds for Reuse or
     Disposal." EPA-R2-73-269, June 1973.

90.  U.S. EPA.  "Mercury Recovery from Contaminated Wastewater and Sludges."
     EPA-660/2-74-086, Dec. 1974, pp.  90-91.

91.  U.S. EPA.  "An Investigation of Techniques for Removing Cyanide from
     Electroplating Wastes."  EPA 12010 EIE 11/71, 1971.

92.  Versar, Inc.  "Environmental Multi-Media Assessment of Selected
     Industrial Inorganic Chemicals."   Contract No. 68-03-2403, Prepared
     for U.S. EPA,  Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Sep. 30,
     1976.

93.  U.S. EPA.  "Assessment of Mercury Wastewater Management Technology
     and Cost for Mercury Cell Users in the Chlor-Alkali Industry."
     Washington,  D.C., Contract No. 68-01-3557.
                                  8-6

-------
 94.  Versar, Inc. ''Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
      Inorganic Chemical Industry."  Draft Final Report, Contract No. 68-01-
      2246,  Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
      Mar. 1975.

 95.  Waldbott, G.L. Health Effects of Environmental Pollutants.  C.V. Mosby
      Co., St. Louis, 1973.

 96.  Watts, R. of Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Baton Rouge,
      Louisiana.  Personal Communication.

 97.  West, W.A. of Pfaudler Co., Division of Sypron Corp., Rochester,
      New York.  Personal Ccnntuncation.

 98.  Williams J.M. and M.C. Olson.  "Extended-Surface Electrolysis for
      Trace Metal Removal:  Testing a Cccrrnercial-Scale System."  Presented
      at 82nd National AIChE Meeting, Atlantic City, N.J., Sep. 1, 1976.

 99.  Williamson, Mr. of Nuclear Engineering, Inc., San Ramon, California.
      Personal Comnunications.

100.  Wing, R.E. and W.E. Rayford.  "Starch-Based Products Effective in
      Heavy Metal Removal."  Presented at the 31st Purdue Industrial Waste
      Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, May 4-6, 1976.
                                   8-7

-------
9.0  GLOSSARY

Air Pollution - The presence in the air of one or more air contaminants
     in quantities injurious to human, plant or animal life, or property,
     or which unreasonably interferes with the comfortable enjoyment
     thereof.

Ash - Ihe solid residue left after incineration in the presence of oxygen.

Brine - An aqueous salt solution.

Calcination - The roasting or burning of any substance to bring about
     physical or chemical changes; e.g., the conversion of limestone to
     quicklime.

Caustic - Capable of destroying or eating away by chemical action.  Applied
     to strong bases and characterized by the presence of hydroxyl ions in
     solution.  Usually applied as a name for sodium hydroxide.

Centrifuge - A device having a rotating container in which centrifugal force
     separates substances of differing densities.

Coke - The carbonaceous residue of the destructive distillation  (carbonization)
     of coal or petroleum.

Condensation - Transformation from a gas to a liquid.

Conditioning - A physical or chemical treatment given to water used in
     the plant or discharged.

Cooling water - Water which is used to absorb waste heat generated in the
     process.  Cooling water can be either contact or non-contact.

Crystallization - The formation of crystalling substances fron solutions
     or melts.

Cyclone Separator - A mechanical device which removes suspended solids from
     gas streams.

Dewater - Remove water from solid material by wet classification, centrifuga-
     ETon, filtration, or similar solid-liquid separation techniques.

Digester - A pressure vessel or autoclave used to effect dissolution of raw
     materials into aqueous solutions.
                                  9-1

-------
Dross  - The  scum formed on  the  surface of molten metal due to oxidation
     or the  rising of  impurities to the surface.

Effluent - The wastewater discharged from a point source to a waterway,
     other body  of water or publicly owned treatment works.

Electrostatic Precipitator  - A  gas cleaning device using the principle of
     placing an  electrical  charge on a solid particle which is then
     attracted to an oppositely-charged collector plate.

Filtrate - Liquid passing through a filter.

Filtration - Removal of solid particles from liquid or particles  from air
     or gas  stream through  a permeable membrane.

Flocculation - The combination  or aggregation of suspended solid  particles
     in such a way that they form small clumps.  The term is used as  a
     synonym for coagulation.

Flotation -  A separation method for ore in which a froth created  in water
     by a variety of reagents floats some finely crushed minerals, whereas
     other minerals sink.

Fluidized Bed Reactor  - A reactor in which finely divided solids  are  caused
     to behave like fluids  due  to their suspension in a moving gas or liquid
     stream.

Fusion - The act of melting or  flowing together.

Gas Washer (or wet scrubber) -  Apparatus used to remove entrained solids
     and other substances from  a gas stream.

Head - Total feet of fluid  (water).

Heavy Metal  - One of the metal  elements not belonging to the alkali or
     alkaline earth group.  In  this study, the classification includes
     titanium, vanadium, iron,  nickel, copper, mercury, lead, cadmium and
     chromium.

High-Gradient Magnetic Separation (HQ-TS)  - A separation process for removing
     magnetic and paramagnetic  particles from liquid and slurry streams.

Kiln (rotary) - A large cylindrical mechanized type of furnace used for
     calcination.

Leaching - The process of extraction of a soluble component from  a mixture
     with an insoluble component, by percolation of the mixture with  a
     solvent.
                                  9-2

-------
Milling - Mechanical treatment of materials to produce a powder, to change
     the size or shape of metal powder particles, or to coat one powder
     mixture with another.

Mother Liquor - The solution from which crystals are formed.

Neutralization - The addition of acid or base to a solution in order to bring
     the pH to a value of 7.

pH, - A measure of the relative acidity or alkalinity of water.  A pH
     value of 7.0 indicates a neutral condition; less1 than 7 indicates a
     predominance of acids, and greater than 7, a predominance of alkalies.
     There is a tenfold increase  (or decrease) from one pH unit level to
     the next, e.g., tenfold increase of alkalinity from pH 8 to pH 9.

Plant Effluent or Discharge After Treatanent - The wastewater discharged from
     the industrial plant.In this definition, any waste treatment device
     (pond, trickling filter, etc.) is considered part of the industrial
     plant.

Precipitation - The formation of solid particles in a solution.

Pressure Leaf Filter - A filter containing a series of parallel rectangular
     plates (called leaves) mounted either vertically or horizontally in a
     cylindrical pressure tank.  They are adapted to wet solids discharge
     and their widest use is for precoat filtration.

Pretreatment - The necessary processing given materials before they can be
     properly utilized in a process or treatment facility.

Process Effluent or Discharge - The volume of wastewater emerging from a
     particular use in the plant.

Process Water - Water which is used in the internal plant streams from
     which products are ultimately recovered, or water which contacts either
     the raw materials or product at any time.

Reduction - A chemical change in which the oxidation state (positive
     valence)  of an element is decreased.

Roasting - The oxidation of ores in a current of air in a furnace heated
     by wood,  coal or oil.
                                  9-3

-------
Rotary Vacuum Filter - A fixed media filter, which consists of a continuous
     belt of fabric or wire mesh stretched over a steel cage-like drum
     which rotates around a central trunnion.  A vacuum is applied to the
     inside of the drum, thus causing the liquid being filtered to be forced
     through the filter medium, leaving wet solids adhering to the outer
     surface.

Sedimentation - The falling or settling of solid particles in a liquid,
     as a sediment.

Settling Pond - A large shallow body of water into which industrial waste-
     waters are discharged.  Suspended solids settle from the wastewaters
     due to the large retention time of water in the pond.

Sludge - The settled mud from a clarifier thickener.  Generally, almost any
     flocculated, settled mass.

Slurry - A watery suspension of solid materials.

Smelting - The recovery of metals from their ores by a process which includes
     fusion.  In general, it includes  (a) calcination and roasting to remove
     sulfur and other volatile constituents;  (b) reduction or smelting
     durina which the metals are fused and separated from gangue;  (c)  re-
     fining, during which the metals are purified.

Solute - A dissolved substance.

Solvent - A liquid used to dissolve materials.

Thickener - A device or system wherein the solid contents of slurries or
     suspensions are increased by evaporation of part of the liquid phase,
     or by gravity settling and mechanical separation of the phases.

Total Dissolved Solids  (TDS) - The total amount of dissolved solid
     materials present in an aqueous solution.

Total Suspended Solids  (TSS) - Solid particulate matter found in wastewater
     streams, which, in most cases, can be minimized by filtration or
     settling ponds.

Vaporization - A change from a liquid to a gaseous state at elevated or
     normal temperatures.

Waste Discharged - The amount  (usually expressed as weight) of some residual
     MijJj3tnnc-" which IM :uiH|xivle
-------
Waste Generated  (raw waste) - The amount  (usually expressed as weight) of
     some residual substance generated by a plant process or the plant as
     a whole.  This quantity is measured before treatment.

Wet Scrubbing - A gas cleaning system using water or sane suitable liquid
     to entrap particulate matter, fumes, and absorbable gases.

Wiped-film Evaporator - An agitated thin film evaporator which utilizes
     rotating slotted wiper blades that travel on a thin residue film to
     maintain a uniform thickness.  The slots provide a pumping action to
     move the film down the heated wall with constant agitation.
                                  9-5

-------
10.0 AOCNOWLEDGMENTS

          The preparation of this report was accomplished through the
efforts of the staff of General Technologies Division, Versar, Inc.,
Springfield, Virginia, under the direction of Dr. Robert G. Shaver,
Vice President.  Mrs. Gayaneh Contos, Senior Chemical Engineer and
Principal Investigator, directed the project work on the program.
Mr. Edwin F. Abrams was the Program Manager.

          Mrs. Alexandra G. Tarnay, Project Officer, Enviroranental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and the staff of Arthur D. Little
under the leadership of Dr. Joan B. Berkowitz, through their assistance
and advice have made an invaluable contribution to the preparation of this
report.

          Appreciation is extended to the Manufacturing Chemists Associa-
tion and The Chlorine Institute for their participation in this program.
Appreciation is also extended to the many industrial inorganic chemical
producing companies who gave us assistance and cooperation in this program.

          Also, our appreciation is extended to the individuals of the
technical staff of General Technologies Division of Versar, Inc., for their
contribution and assistance during this program.  Specifically, our thanks
to:

          Dr. M. Drabkin, Senior Process Engineer
          Ms. C. V. Pong, Environmental Chemist
          Ms. N. S. Zimmerman, Environmental Scientist
          Mr. R. D. Miller, Draftsman
          Mr. M. C. Calhoun, Environmental Scientist

          Acknowledgment and appreciation is also given to the secretarial
staff of General Technologies Division of Versar, Inc., for their efforts
in the typing of drafts, necessary revisions and final preparation of this
document.
                                  10-1

-------
                               APPENDIX I

    OCCUPATIONAL AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS


     1.   Arsenic

          In all cases of arsenic poisoning it is presumably the ion of
arsenious acid, rather than the element itself, which is the toxic
principal.38  The "in vivo" conversion to arsenite explains why all chemical
forms of arsenic eventually produce the same toxic syndrome.  One exception
is gaseous AsH3 or arsine, which is a potent hemolylic agent, unlike other
arsenic derivatives.38

          Arsenic is notorious for its toxicity to humans.  Ingestion of
as little as 100 mg usually results in severe poisoning, and as little as
130 mg has proved fatal.59  Furthermore, arsenic accumulates in the body,
so that small doses may become fatal in time.  A single dose may require
ten days for complete disappearance, and this slow excretion rate is the
basis for the cumulative toxic effect.  Chronic arsenosis is of slow onset
and may not be apparent for 2-6 years.  Small eruptions occur on the hands
and the soles of the feet sometimes developing into arsenical cancers.  Liver
and heart ailments may also supervene.59

          Finely subdivided arsenic compounds, such as arsenic trioxide, are
significantly more toxic than coarsely powdered material, since appreciable
amounts of the latter may be eliminated in the feces without dissolving.
In acute poisoning, symptoms following ingestion relate to irritation of
the gastrointestinal tract: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, which can progress
to shock and death.91*  In most cases, the presenting symptoms are those of
severe gastritis or gastroenteritis.38  Because the lesions are due not to
local corrosion but to vascular damage from absorbed arsenic, the first
symptoms may be delayed several minutes or even a few hours.  Eventually a
violent hemorrhagic gastroenteritis leads to profound losses of fluid and
electrolytes, resulting in collapse, shock and death.76

          Occasionally, the alimentary symptoms are mild or absent, in
which case the presenting complaints are usually referrable to the central
nervous system: headache, vertigo, muscle spasm, stupor, delirium and
sometimes mania.3 8  Urinary excretion of arsenic is markedly enhanced,
without damage to the excretory organs, by the administration of BAL
(dimercaprol).  If prompt, this treatment suppresses most signs and symptoms
of acute poisoning. 8

          The water quality standard for arsenic and its compounds is
0.05 mg/1 as As (DWS); a more ideal limit would be 0.01 mg/1.8"  The U.S.
Occupational Standards for arsenic and its compounds in air is 500 yg/m3.21

     2.   Asbestos

          Asbestos is toxic by inhalation of dust particles; the tolerance
is 5 million particles per cubic foot of air (TLV, ACGIH recommended).
                                  1-1

-------
Liko other cases of  "dust lung" diseases, asbestosis develops slowly.95
It becomes manifest  usually 20-30 years after the; first exposure, often
lonq after exjx>sure  tr> .nnbofitos ban completely ccantxJ.  nnoxplairxxl
breathlessncss on exertion and prcxluctive couqh often precede the disease:
by many years.9 5

          The essential lesion produced by asbestos dust is a diffuse
fibrosis which probably begins as a "collar" about the terminal bronchioles.76
Usually at least 4-7 years of exposure are required before a serious degree
of fibrosis results.  There is apparently less predisposition to tuberculosis
than is the case with silicosis.  Prolonged inhalation can cause cancer of
the lungs, pleura and peritoneum.76

          Kx[X)Miirf ts.j .ciU-MloH without, development of asbestosis lias been
shown to increase the risk of lunq cancer.b2  Other kinds of dust in addition
to asbestos most likely contribute to this development.  In asbestos workers
who smoke, a 90-fold increase in the incidence of lung cancer over that in
non-smokers has been recorded.  Some research data strongly suggests a
synergism of cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure in the increased risk
of lung cancer.  It  is not known whether this is because of reduced clear-
ance of asbestos, transportation of cigarette smoke carcinogens by asbestos
fibers, or the promotion by one factor of cancer initiated by another.
Cancer caused by asbestos localizes most often in the lower lobes of the
lungs in contrast to the more common site of lung cancer in the upper lobes.62

          An otherwise rare tumor, called mesothelioma, has been identified
with asbestos.95  Mesotheliomas usually involve the pleura but also originate
in the peritoneum.  This malignant tumor spreads rapidly over the whole
abdominal cavity and into the lymph glands of the body.  As in other kinds
of lung cancer, the condition starts slowly with chest pain and breathless-
nesr;; tho paticntn no If lom nurvivo morn than a year from the time the
diagnosis is established. ^"'

          All epidemiologic studies that appear to indicate differences
in pathogenicity among types of asbestos are flawed by their lack of
quantitative data on cumulative exposures, fiber characteristics, and the
presence of co-factors.62  The different types, therefore, cannot be graded
as to relative risk with respect to asbestosis.  Fiber size is critically
important in determining respirability, deposition, retention and clearance
from the pulmonary tract and is probably an important determinant of the
site and nature of biologic action.  Little is known about the movement
of the fibers within the human body, including their potential for entry
through the gastrointestinal tract.  There is evidence though that bundles
of fibrils may be broken down within the body to individual fibrils.6 2

     3-   Carbon Monoxide

          Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas.  Its toxicity
results from preferential reaction with hemoglobin.  Because of its extremely
faint odor and taste, its lethal capacity can be insidious.
                                  1-2

-------
          Death from inhalation of carbon monoxide is summarized as follows:
 (1) reduction of the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood due to the
combination with hemoglobin; (2) tissue anoxia especially in the brain,
which is very sensitive to lack of oxygen;  (3) consequent depression of
respiratory center in the brain and decrease in respiration; and (4) failure
of heart due to inadequate oxygen supply.

          The physiological effects versus carbon monoxide concentration is
as follows:

     Concentration of
     Carbon Monoxide, %             Effect

     0.01                           No symptoms for 2 hours
     0.04                           No symptoms for 1 hour
     0.06 - 0.07                    Headache and unpleasant symptoms for
                                    1 hour
     0.1 - 0.12                     Dangerous for 1 hour
     0.35                           Fatal in less than 1 hour

          As a safe rule, based on sound experiments and experience, con-
centrations of carbon monoxide above 0.01 percent should not be permitted
in houses, garages, laboratories or industrial plants where prolonged
exposure to the gas may be experienced.

     4.   Chlorine Gas

          Chlorine gas has a characteristic, pungent odor with a detect-
ability threshold of a few parts per million in air.

          Liquid chlorine in contact with eyes, skin, or clothing may
cause severe burns; as scon as it is released in the atmosphere, it vaporizes
with irritating effects and suffocating action, which were exploited by
using it as a war gas.  The physiological response to the presence of any
amount of chlorine gas in air may be evaluated from the following data
published by the Bureau of Mines.  Concentration values are given in
parts per million by volume.

          Least detectable cdor, ppm              3.5

          Least amount required to cause
            irritation of throat, ppm            15.1

          Least amount required to cause
            coughing, ppm                        30.2

          Least amount to cause slight
            symptoms of poisoning after
            several hours exposure,  ppm           1.0

          Maximum amount that can be breathed
            for one hour without serious
            effects, ppm                          4.0
                                  1-3

-------
          Amount dangerous in 30 minutes to
            one hour, ppm                        40-60

          Amount likely to be fatal after a
            few deep breaths, ppm                1,000

          OSHA regulations for in-plant worker exposure  (8-hour time-
weighted average) limit emissions of chlorine to less than 1 ppm  (less
than 3 mg/m3) .

     5.   Hydrochloric Acid Mist

          Hydrochloric acid upon inhalation or ingestion is highly toxic
and very corrosive to tissues.

          The U.S. Occupational Standard for hydrochloric acid mist in
air is 5 ppm.21

     6.   Hydrogen Sulfide

          Hydrogen sulfide has been described as an "either-or-poison".
This implies that the victims either rapidly succumb to the action of the
poison or rapidly recover, if they are removed fron the contaminated area.
This is, however, an oversimplified picture.  Delayed deaths and neurologic
sequelae in persons surviving from acute hydrogen sulfide poisoning have
been reported.  It should be noted that small concentrations of the sulfide
ccmpounds are easily detected from the characteristic "rotten-egg" odor.
This offensive odor becomes less intense or disappears when the concentration
is above 200 ppm.  This is probably due to a paralyzing effect of the poison
on the olfactory nerve.

          Poisonings from hydrogen sulfide are often classified as acute,
subacute and chronic.  The acute poisonings occur after exposures to high
concentrations of the gas and are characterized by a rapid onset of systemic
effects, mainly affecting the central nervous system.  Concentrations above
250 ppm (350 mg/m3) may be fatal to human beings.  Concentrations of about
500 ppm (700 mg/m3) may lead to death in less than one hour and 2,000 ppm
(2,800 mg/m3) cause death almost instantaneously.  If the exposure to the
gas is not excessive, headache, nausea, dizziness, and weakness of the
extremities may appear before the victim becomes unconscious.  Violent
convulsions, probably of anoxic origin, sometimes occur.  Death results
fron respiratory failure, mainly of central origin.  Hydrogen sulfide
also has an indirect stimulatory effect on respiration  (and circulation)
mediated through the carotid and aortic chemoreceptors.  The initial
stimulation of breathing may obviously lead to a more rapid progress of
poisoning and makes it difficult for an unprotected person, who enters a
contaminated area for rescue purposes, to hold his breath.

          Subacute hydrogen sulfide poisonings are characterized by the
irritating effects of the gas on the mucous membranes of the eyes and
respiratory tract.  These effects appear after prolonged exposures to
concentrations of 50-200 ppm  (70-280 mg/m3).  The action on the eyes is


                                  1-4

-------
usually predominant and results in an acute conjunctivitis with  itching,
photophobia, and lacrimation, which may progress to a keratcconjunctivitis
with small blisters in the cornea.  Persons with chronic  inflammation of
the eyes should not be employed to work in areas where they are  exposed to
hydrogen sulfide.  Hie effects on the respiratory tract consist  of rhinitis,
pharyngitis, bronchitis and pneumonia and, as a sequel to acute  poisoning,
pulmonary edema.

          Chronic hydrogen sulfide poisoning is described as a condition
with diffuse symptoms, resulting from prolonged exposure  to concentrations
which would not cause symptoms of acute or subacute poisoning.   The
existence of chronic poisoning from the gas is, however,  very questionable.
Hydrogen sulfide is rapidly detoxified in the mammalian body and is con-
sidered to be a non-cumulative poison.  The MAC value is  20 ppm  or 28 mg/m3.

          Table 89 tabulates the effects of hydrogen sulfide on  humans.

          There are no current OSHA limits for worker in-plant exposure to
hydrogen sulfide.

     7.   Lead and Lead Salts

          Lead is poisonous in all forms.  It is one of the most hazardous
of the toxic metals because the poison is cumulative and  toxic effects are
many and severe.  Of the various lead compounds, the carbonate,  monoxide
and sulfate are considered to be more toxic than elemental lead  or other
lead compounds.  The toxicity of lead chromate is less than would be
expected, due to its low solubility.  All of the lead compounds  are suffi-
ciently soluble in digestive juices to be considered toxic.

          Lead may enter the human system through inhalation, ingestion or
skin contact.  Direct skin contact is of negligible importance in connection
with inorganic lead compounds.  However, in the case of organic  lead com-
pounds, skin contact can be a real hazard.  Industrially, inhalation of
dust, mist or fumes, is the chief method by which lead and its inorganic
compounds may enter the body.

          The water quality standard for all lead compounds is 0.05 mg/1
as lead.  The U.S. Occupational Standard for lead in air  is 200  yg/m3. 21

     8.   Mercury and its Salts

          Airborne mercury may be inhaled directly, may settle out of the
atmosphere or fall with rain.  It has been demonstrated that man will
absorb 75 to 85 percent of inhaled mercury vapor at concentrations of 50
to 350 yg/mj.  Lower concentrations can be absorbed more completely.

          The central nervous system is the critical focal point in long-
term exposure to mercury vapor.  The vapor is absorbed into the  blood from
the lungs where some of it remains unchanged and some is oxidized to the
more damaging mercuric ion.  Elemental mercury is lipid-soluble  and can
diffuse into the central nervous system and similar tissues where most of
it is oxidized to mercuric ions.  Mercury can accumulate in the  brain,
testes, and thyroid because its elimination rate from these organs is slow.


                                  1-5

-------
                                TABLE 89

                 EFFECTS OF HYDROGEN  SULFIDE ON HUMANS
Concentration
    ug/V

1-45


10


150

500

15,000

30,000


30,000-60,000



150,000



270,000-480,000



640,000-1,120,000


900,000

1,160,000-1,370,000


1,500,000+
           Effects

Odor threshold.  No reported injury to
 health

Threshold of reflex effect on eye sensitivity
 to light

Smell slightly perceptible

Smell definitely perceptible

Minimum concentration causing eye irritaticn

Maximum allowable occupational exposure for
 8 hours (ACGIH Tolerance Limit)

Strongly perceptible but no intolerable
 smell.  Minimum concentration causing
 lung irritation.

Olfactory fatigue in 2-15 minutes:
 irritation of eyes and respiratory tract
 after 1 hour; death in 8 to 48 hrs.

No serious damage for 1 hour but intense
 local irritaticn; eye irritation in
 6 to 8 minutes

Dangerous concentration after 30 minutes or
 less

Fatal in 30 minutes

Rapid unconsciousness, respiration arrest,
 and death, possibly without odor sensation

Immediate unconsciousness and rapid death
                                 1-6

-------
Mercuric salts are highly toxic to humans and can be readily absorbed
through the gastrointestinal tract.

          In cases of chronic exposure to mercury vapor, the cannon
symptoms are tremor and psychological disturbances.  In addition, loss of
appetite, loss of weight and insomnia have been reported.

          The OSHA limitations for mercury is 1 mg per 10 cubic meters of
air for daily eight-hour time-weighted average exposure.  The U.S. Drinking
Water Standard for mercury is 0.005 ppm.

     9.   Nitric Oxides
          The health effects of NQx are not at present a serious problem.
Nitric oxide  (nitrogen monoxide) is not an irritant and its main toxic
potential results from its oxidation to nitrogen dioxide (NCte) .  However,
N02 will attach to hemoglobin and thus in large concentrations could have
oxygen-deprivation effects similar to those of carbon monoxide.  Nitrogen
dioxide is an irritant to eyes and the respiratory tract.  Experimentation
with animals indicates many pathological changes connected with lung
function as well as increased susceptibility to infection.  Emphysema has
been induced in laboratory animals following long-term exposures to 10 to
25 ppm N02-  Humans appear to have a threshold of about 0.12 ppm for
detection of the chlorine-like odor of NOa, and therefore high concentra-
tions can be easily detected.

          The federal standard for NQx excluding NOa are 0.05 ppm for one
year and 0.13 ppm for twenty-four hours exposure time.

          The U.S. Occupational Standard for air for nitric oxide and
nitrogen dioxide is 225 ppm and 5 ppm, respectively.21

    10.   Phosphorus

          Phosphorus poisoning is a potential occupational hazard at the
elemental phosphorus production plants.  The yellow phosphorus OSHA limit
for employee exposure is 0.1 mg/m3 over an 8-hour time-weighted average.

          The acute fatal dose of phosphorus for an adult is between 50 to
100 mg or approximately 1 mg/kg body weight.  Recovery, however, has
occurred after 0.8 and 1.5 grams.  The prognosis for phosphorus poisoning
is generally poor, and even in modern times the fatality rate is about
50 percent.

          It is especially hazardous to the eyes and can damage them
severely.  The yellow form of phosphorus when it comes into external
contact with the eyes, can cause conjunctivitis with a yellow tint.  If
the material is inhaled, it can cause photophobia with myosis, dilation of
pupils, retinal hemorrhage, congestion of the blood vessels and rarely
an optic neuritis.  Phosphorus is usually described, for this reason, as a
"limiting factor".
                                  1-7

-------
          Although there are no definite published reports on the kinetics
of oxidation of elemental phosphorus in water, it appears that the rate is
highly dependent on the degree of dispersion.  At concentrations (ca. 10
micrograms/liter) well below the accepted solubility limit of 3 mg/1, with
the dissolved oxygen content unspecified, elemental phosphorus disappears
by a first order process with a half-life of 2 hours at about 10C, 0.85
hours at 30C.  At concentrations (50-100 mg/1) well above the solubility
limit, with a dissolved oxygen content of 6 to 7 mg/l, the same reaction
has a half-life of 80 hours at 30C and 240 hours at 0C.  The relatively
small temperature effect combined with the large inverse concentration
effect is consistent with a diffusion controlled process.  The oxidation of
colloidal phosphorus in seawater is reported to be measurably slower than
in fresh water, suggesting that the high salt content brings about agglomera-
tion of the phosphorus particles.  Thus, rapidly moving fresh water should
lose elemental phosphorus faster than ouiescent seawater.

          The standard for phosphorus in water and soil is 0.005 mg/1 as
P, while the provisional limit for phosphorus pentasulfide in soil or
water is 0.05 mg/1 as P.  The U.S. Occupational Standard for air is
100 yg/m3.21 .
                                  1-8

-------
                              APPENDIX II

                   COST BASES FOR COST ANALYSES TASKS


Interest Costs and Equity Financing Charges

          Capital investments involve the expenditure of money which must
be financed either on borrowed money or from internal equity.  Estimates
for this study have been based on 10 percent cost of capital, representing
a composite number for interest paid or return on investment require.  This
value and the other costs defined in this section were provided by EPA for
purposes of standardization and appear in Table 90.

Time Index for Posts

          All cost estimates are based on mid-1976 prices and, when
necessary, have been adjusted to this basis using the Chemical Engineering
or the Marshall and Stevens Cost Indices.

Useful Service Life

          The useful service life of process, treatment and disposal equip-
ment varies depending on the nature of the equipment and process involved,
its usage pattern, maintenance care and numerous other factors.  Individual
companies have their own service life values based on actual experience and
use these internal values for amortization.  Another source of service
life information, less relevant than company experience, is the Internal
Revenue Service guidelines.  EPA requested that a useful service life of
10 years be used for all equipment in this study.

Depreciation

          As treatment and disposal equipment and facilities are used, their
economic value decreases or depreciates.  At the end of their useful life,
it is usually assumed that the salvage or recovery value becomes zero.  IRS
tax allowances, or depreciation charges, provide capital cost recovery
based on either service life or accelerated write-off schedules.  In effect,
the straight line depreciation approach used herein is similar to a con-
servative depreciation approach which some companies might actually use for
income tax purposes.  Using a different depreciation rate would have the
impact of changing the cash flow that companies would actually experience
based on reported expenses.

Capital Costs

          Capital costs are defined for the purposes of this report as all
front-end loaded, out-of-pocket expenditures for the provision of treatment/
disposal facilities.  These costs include any money for research and develop-
ment necessary to establish the process, land costs when applicable, equip-
ment, construction and installation, buildings, services, engineering,
special start-up costs and contractor profits.
                                 II-l

-------
                                 TABLE 90
                         EPA SUPPLIED COST ITEMS
 1.   Land Cost,  $/Acre
 2.   Taxes and Insurance, (%)l
 3.   Maintenance, (%)*
 4.   Direct labor, $/hr
 5.   Supervision and Administrative, (%)2
 6.   Utility Water,  $/l,000 gal
 7.   Boiler Feed Water, $/l,000 gal
 8.   Instrument Air, $/MSCF
 9.   Nitrogen, $/MSCF
10.   Steam, $/106B1U or $/l,000 Ib
11.   Fuel, $/106BTU
12.   Electric Power, $/kwh
13.   Contingency, (%)
14.   Interest Rate on Capital (%)
15.   Salvage Value,   (%)3
16.   Amortization Method (Years @ %)
17.   Royalties and Fees
Consensus
  5,000
    4
    4
  9.00
   50
  0.30
  0.50
 20.00
 Oct. 4 - figures
  4.00
  2.00
  0.03
   20
   10
  none
 10 years, straight line, @10%
  none
1  % of Capital
2  % of Direct Labor
3  % of Initial Capital
                                   II-2

-------
          When capital costs are known for a specific plant using a given
treatment/disposal technology, cost adjustment to the typical plant size
was made using an exponential factor of 0.6.

Contingencies

          A contingency figure of 20 percent is added to installed capital
cost on all estimates prepared for conceptual systems.  This allows for
inclusion of added features found necessary after initial design.

Annualized Capital Costs

          Almost all capital costs for treatment and disposal facilities
are front-end loaded, i.e., most, if not all, of the money is spent during
the first year or two of the useful life.  This present worth sum can be
converted to equipment uniform annual disbursements by utilizing the
Capital Recovery Factor Method:

          Uniform Annual Disbursement = P i(l + i)N
                                        (1 + i)N - 1
          where
          P = present value  (capital expenditure)
          i = interest rate, %/100
          N = useful life in years

          The capital recovery factor method is used for all annualized
capital costs on this report.  All annual capital recovery costs were
calculated based upon a ten-year lifetime and a 10 percent interest rate.
The capital recovery factor is then,
          * (1 * i>N    =  (0.1) (1-1)"  =  0.1627
          (1 + i)N - 1     (1.1) 10 - 1

Operating Expenses

          Annual costs of operating a treatment facility include labor,
supervision, maintenance costs, taxes and insurance, power and energy
costs, utility, water, steam and chemical costs.

          a.  Labor and Supervision Costs

          The following costs were used for labor and supervisory needs.

          Labor Category                     $/hour

          Direct Labor                         9
          Supervision and Administrative       50% of direct labor cost
                                 II-3

-------
          b.  Maintenance Cost

          Maintenance is taken as 4 percent of; invested capital.

          c.  Taxes and Insurance Costs

          Taxes and insurance are taken as 4 percent of invested capital.

          d.  Power, Energy and Utilities Costs

          Costs for power, energy and utilities used in this study are
          listed below:

          Electric power, C/kwh                      3
          Fuel, $/106 kg cal ($/106 BTU)             7.94 (2.00)
          Steam, $/106 kg cal ($/106 BTU)           15.87 (4.00)
          Water, <5/l,000 liters (/l,000 gal)        7.9 (30)

          e.  Chemical Costs

          Chemical costs are variable for each individual case.  The source
          of information used in this study is the Chemical Marketing
          Reporter, September 27,  1976.

          f.  Monitoring and Analyses Costs

          Actual plant supplied monitoring and analyses costs were available
          for only two processes,01100 and 06100, both previously demonstrated.
          These costs for the remaining processes were estimated using
          judgment as to the individual process  requirements relative to
          the two plants' supplied requirements.  It should be noted that
          monitoring and analyses costs are highly variable and dependent
          on such factors as frequency of monitoring required, number of
          streams to be monitored and the number and types of parameters to
          be measured.  The estimated monitoring and analyses costs presented
          herein are felt to be in the right order of magnitude but may
          vary as much as a factor of 5 depending on local requirements.

Rationale for "Typical Plants"

          All plant costs are estimated for "typical plants" rather than
for any actual plant.  "Typical plants" are defined for purpose of these
cost estimates as:

          the arithmetic average of production size and age for all
          plants, or the size and age agreed upon by a substantial
          fraction of the manufacturers in the subcategory producing
          the given chemical.
                                 II-4

-------
          It should be noted here that the costs to treat and dispose of
hazardous wastes at a given facility may be considerably higher or lower
than the typical plant depending on the individual circumstances and the
geographical location of the plant.
                                 II-5

-------
                               APPENDIX III


    SAMPLE CALCULATION OF COSTS FOR THE SANITARY AND CHEMICAL LANDFILLS



     COMPANY OWNED AND OPERATED SANITARY LANDFILL - WASTE STREAMS 1 AND 2


Assunptions and Design Bases for Capital Cost Calculations

     Bulk Density, Stream 1:  75 Ib/cu ft (after thickening)*
     Bulk Density, Stream 2:  90 Ib/cu ft
     Ratio Sludge/Cover Material:  3
     Total Landfill Depth:  20 ft
     Landfill Utilization Depth:  15 ft
     Years of Landfill Operation:  20
     Days of Landfill Operation:  260/yr
     Ratio of Total Area Requirement to Usable Landfill Area:  1.5
     Land Cost:  $5,000/acre
     Site Preparation Cost:  $0.25/sq yd or $l,210/acre
     Total Waste Stream (dry basis):  1 & 2 = 4.75 kkg/day
     Total Waste Stream (wet basis):  1 & 2 * 19.5 kkg/day
     Total Waste Stream (wet basis, after thickening) :  1 & 2 = 12 kkg/day

Land Requirements

     Stream 1;


  Acres/yr = 11 kkg x 1 ton    x 2,000 Ib x 365 days x ft3   x yd3    x 3 ft/yd
              day     0.91 kkg      ton        yr      75 Ib   27 ft'    15 ft

             x 1 acre    x 1	  =0.24
               4,840 yd"   0.75


     Stream 2;


  Acres/yr = 1 kkg x 1 ton    x 2,000 Ib x 365 days x ft3   x yd3    x 3 ft/yd
              day    0.91 kkg      ton        yr      90 Ib   27 ftj     15 ft
             x 1 acre    x 1	=0.02
               4,840 yd4   0.75
  Total acres/yr = 0.24 + 0.02 = 0.26

  Total acres required/20 yr = 0.26 x 1.5 x 20 = 7.8

  Daily Landfill Load = 12 kkg/day x 365 days =16.8 kkg/day
                                     260 days
*The sludge is thickened to a solid content of approximately 40% prior to
 landfilling.
                                     III-l

-------
Capital Posts

Total Land Cost                 7.8 acres x $5,000/acre =      $39,000
Site Preparation Cost           7.8 acres x $l,2lO/acre =        9,440

             Total Land Associated Costs       '                $48,440

Building Cost
   Trailer w/toilet facility                   ,                $ 6,000
   Drainage field for septic tank                                2,500
   Installation of electric lines and telephone service             250

             Total                                             $ 8,750

Equipment Requirements and Costs*
   1 loader                                                    $31,500
   1 "dozer"                                                    31,500
   1 dump truck  (10 ton)                                        18,200
   Thickener (installed)                                        12,450

             Total                                             $93,650

Capital Cost                   $48,440 + $8,750 + $93,650 =   $150,840
Contingency fl 20?i capif.il rost (oxcludinq Innd associated
                                
-------
Annual Operating Costa

     Direct Labor       2\ men x $9/hr x 8 hr/day x 260 days/yr  =   $46,800
     Supervision and Administrative,     $46,800 x 0.5 =              23,400
       @ 50% of direct labor
     Maintenance @ 4% capital            $122,880 x 0.04 -             4,920
       (excluding land associated costs)
     Taxes and Insurance                 $171,320 x 0.04              6,850
       @ 4% capital cost
          0 & M Cost  (excluding energy)                              $81,970

     Fuel               110 gal/day x 260 days/yr x $0.55/gal =      $15,730
     Power                               $100/mo x 12 mo/yr =          1,200
     Capital Recovery  (10 yrs @ 10%)     $122,880 x 0.1627 =          19,990
        (excluding land associated costs)                             	
          Total Annual Operating Costs                              $118,890


 Unit Costs

      Cost/kkg of product              $118,890/vr               =  $1.30
                                       250 kkg/day x 365 days/yr

      Cost/kkg of waste (dry basis)     $118,890/yr    	  -  $68.6
                                       4.75 kkg/aay x 365 days/yr

      Cost/kkg of waste (wet basis)     $118,890/yr       	  _  $1(5.7
                                       19.5 kkg/day x 365 days/yr

2.0  CCMPANY OWNED AND OPERATED CHEMICAL LANDFILL

          Calculations performed for waste streams 1 and 2:

Assumptions and Design Bases for Capital Cost Calculations - Same as for
Sanitary Landfill Calculations, except for:

   Site Preparation Cost: $0.56/sq yd, $2,710/acre
   Cost of Synthetic Hypalon Liner: $0.63/sq ft
   Cost of Liner  Installation: $0.013/sq ft
   Liner Shrinkage and Anchoring Factor: 5 percent of liner area need
   Cost of Liner Cover (1 ft. deep earth dumping and spreading): $0.033/sq ft
   Cost of Final Clay Cover Installation: $7,475/acre
   Cost of Leachate Collection and Monitoring System  (installed): 15 percent
     of landfill cost
                                 III-3

-------
Liner Requirements

   Area to be lined, 0.26 acres/yr x 20 yr = 5.2 acres
   Liner requirements for trench (bottom and cover),
     5.2 acres x 43,560 sq ft/acre x 2 = 453,020 sq ft
   Liner requirements for trench sides (assume square shape)
   V5.2 acres x 43,560 sq ft/acre x 15 ft x 4 = 28,560 sq ft

         Total Liner Requirement  (453,020 + 28,560) 1.05 = 505,660 sq ft

Capital Cost

   Total land Cost              7.8 x $5,000/acre =               $39,000
   Site Preparation Cost        7.8 x $2,710/acre =                21,140
   Hypalon Liner Cost           505,650 sq ft x $0.63/sq ft      318,560
   Cost of Liner Installation   505,650 sq ft x $0.013/sq ft =      6,570
   Cost of Hypalon Liner Cover  226,510 sq ft x $0.033/sq ft =      7,475
     (1 ft. deep earth dumping and spreading)

   Cost of Final Clay Cover Installation,
                                5.2 acres x $7,500/acre =          39,000

         Total Installed Land and Liner Costs                    $431,745

   Cost of Leachate Collection  $431,745 x 0.15 =                  64,760
     and Monitoring System
   Building Cost (same as 1.0)                                      8,750
   Equipment Cost (same as 1.0)                                    93,650

         Total Capital Cost (excluding contingency)              $598,905

         Total Equipment, Building and Material Cost (excluding
           Land Associated Costs)                                  538,765
         Contingency @ 20%      $538,765 x 0.20 =                 107,755

         Total Capital Cost     $598,905 + $107,755 =            $706,660

Assumptions and Design Bases for Operating Cost Calculation - Same as
  for Sanitary Landfill given in Section 1.0.

Annual Operating Costa

     Direct Labor (same as given in Section 1.0)                 $ 46,800
     Supervision and Administrative @ 50% of direct labor          23,400
     Maintenance @4% capital    $538,765 x 0.04                   21,550
       (excluding land associated costs)
     Taxes and Insurance        $706,660 x 0.04 =                  28,265
       @ 4% capital cost                                          	

         O&M Cost (excluding energy)                              $120,015
                                  III-4

-------
     Fuel (same as given in Section 1.0)                          $ 15,730
     Power (same as given in Section 1.0)                            1,200
     Capital Itecovery (10 yrs @ 10%)      $646,520 x 0.1627 -      105,190
       (excluding Land Associated Costs)                          	

           Total Operating Costs                                 $242,135

Unit Costs
     Cost/tag of product            	$242,135	   g2 g5
                                    250 kkg/day x 365 days/yr ~  *

     Cost/kkg of waste  (dry basis)            $242,135        _  gl40
                                    4.75 kkg/day  x 365 days/yr   ?

     Cost/kkg of waste  (wet basis)  	$242,135	  s:34
                                    19.5 kkg/day  x 365 days/yr   *
V01582
SW-149c
                                  III-5

-------