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
PRorEC™N
-------
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;tM—KiM 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 <£Ctf or
OOGOO 0 00 C ~4 -H — -^ ^i£^ ^
t
ro nj C. C
--* """"Is""
CO
g 1
0 *J
•H rc
J-> \-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^-H£jl^
C C rH ^-i 5 ff r
IH (C G/ O 51 I W 00
•*->OH4-'E£i~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 £
SSoC—fPjif'
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 w«z
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 iP6»a
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*$**
Z«E 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
llazardc»J5 |
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
£
>,
I—I
•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.
fl§N
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—
o§u is
I§0 *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 »»Z«f 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 25°C (77°F)
at head of approximately
30.5 ra (100 ft)
Tanks operate at 25°C (77°F)
and 1 atm. Tanks can each
hold approximately one
week's supply of brind mud
Tank operates at 25°C (77°F)
and 1 atm. Tank holds approxi-
mately 1 day's supply of 70%
sulfuric acid
Pumps 70% sulfuric acid at
25°C (77°F) at head of
approximately 30.5 m (100 ft)
Operates at 25°C (77°F).
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 25°C (77°F) 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 25°C (77°F)
and 1 atm. Tank holds
approximately 1 day's supply
of sodium hypochlorite (7-8%
available chlorine loading)
Pumps sodium hypochlorite
solution at 25°C (77°F) at
head of approximately 30.5 m
(100 ft)
Tank operates at 25°C (77°F)
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 25°C (77°F).
Maintains uniform suspension
of approximately 10% solids
in tank
Pumps 10% brine muds slurry
at 25°C (77°F) and head of
approximately 30.5 m (100 ft)
11.148 sq m (120 sq ft) Operates at 25°C (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 25°C (77°F)
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 25°C (77°F)
and head of approximately
30.5 m (100 ft)
Tank operates at 25°C (77°F)
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 25°C (77°F)
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 25°C (77°F)
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 25°C (77°F)
and 1 atra pressure
Operates at 25°C (77°F)
Operates at 25°C (77°F) and
head of approximately 30.5 m
(100 ft)
Operates at 25°C (77°F) 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
0°C (32°F), 1 atm
mechanical vacuum pump
with 53.5 cm (23 in) Eg
vacuum capacity - steel
construction
5 KP SS turbine agitator Operates at 25°C (77°F)
with gas phase under negative
pressure (gases are pulled
through scrubber using
vacuum pump 01130
Operates at 25°C (77°F)
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 25°C (77°F) 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 (77°F) and
head of approximately
20.5 m (100 ft)
Operates at 25'C (77°F)
and head of approximately
30.5 m (100 ft)
Operates at 25°C (77°F) 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 !
ri»8 ^ |
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 800°C (1,475°F) 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 730°C to 760°C
(1,350°F to 1,400°F). 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 1,000°C to 1,100°C (1,832°F to 2,012°F).
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 25°C (77°F).
Operates at 25°C (77°F) 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 (77°F) ;
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 25°C (77°F) 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
(1,500-1,600°F) and 1 atin.
pressure
Discharges calcined solids
from roaster at 816-871°C
(1,500-1,600°F) 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 0°C
(32°F), 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 25°C (77°F) 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° - 900°C 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 1,100°C. 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 1,000-1,100°C (1,834-2,014°F)
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 1040°C (1830°
to 1,900°F) 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 150°C (302°F) 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 1,100°C (2,014°F) 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
_w£ge
— 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 1,100°C (1,900°F).
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 25°C (77°F) and
head of approximately 30.5 m
(100 ft)
Operates at 25°C (778F) and
1 atm. Holds 3 months'
supply of flocculant
Operates at 25°C (77aF)
Operates at 258C (77°F) 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 25°C (77°F) 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 25°C (77°F) 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 25-1,040°C (77-
1,900°F) 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 25°C (77°F) 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 0°C, 1 atsn
(300 SCEM) cyclone - mild
steel/ refractory-lined
construction
8,500 1/min at 0°C, 1 atra
(300 SCEM) fabric dust
collector system
8,500 1/min at 0°C, 1 atm
(300 SCEM) induced draft
off-gas exhaust fan - mild
steel construction
Operates over a temperature
range of 25-260°C (77-500°F)
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 120-260°C (250-
500°F) and 99.5% operating
efficiency
Operates at a temperature of
150°C (302°F) 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° - 2000°F).
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 *
s«l
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 135°C (275°F)
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
I«J
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 (700°F). 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 (170°F). 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
d«««4«« 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 ba«i«)
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 /4«ir0 i-^fc-f i *A«V*
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 Inv«si3»nt
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 & F«C13.
'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>-i«in 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 HI2«a|«
•H ••
ss s
0) 0)
en
O O O
0}
M-l
I—I
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* i—I/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|x»ivle
-------
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 10°C, 0.85
hours at 30°C. 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 30°C and 240 hours at 0°C. 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
------- |