DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
FOR
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR THE
ORGANIC CHEMICALS
AND THE
PLASTICS AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Volume II
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
Lawrence J. Jensen
Assistant Administrator for Water
William A. Whittington
Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Industrial Technology Division
Marvin B. Rubin
Chief, Chemicals Industry Branch
Elwood H. Forsht
Senior Project Officer
Frank H. Hund
Hugh E. Wise
Janet K. Goodwin
Wendy D. Smith
Project Team
October 1987
Industrial Technology Division
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
This document describes the technical development of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's promulgated effluent limitations guidelines
and standards that control the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters
and publicly owned treatment works (POTtfs) by existing and new sources in the
organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers point source category. The
regulation establishes effluent limitations guidelines attainable by the
application of the "best practicable control technology currently available11
(BPT) and the "best available technology economically achievable" (BAT),
Pretreatment standards applicable to existing and new discharges to POTVs
(PSES and PSNS, respectively), and new source performance standards (NSPS)
attainable by the application of the "best available demonstrated control
technology." The regulation was promulgated under the authority of Sections
301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended).
It was also promulgated in response to the Settlement Agreement in Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Trian, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified,
12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C.).
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME II
Page
VIII. ENGINEERING COSTS AND NON-VATER QUALITY ASPECTS
A. INTRODUCTION . VIII-1
1. BPT Costing Methodology VIII-2
2. BAT Costing Methodology VIII-7
3. PSES Costing Methodology ..... VIII-24
4. Other Factors VIII-26
B. BPT TECHNOLOGIES VIII-40
1. Activated Sludge . VIII-40
2. Biological Treatment Upgrades VIII-56
3. Chemically Assisted Clarification VIII-67
4. Filtration Systems VIII-77
5. Polishing Ponds VIII-78
6. Algae Control VIII-84
C. BAT AND PSES TECHNOLOGIES VIII-95
1. Steam Stripping VIII-95
2. Activated Carbon Systems . VIII-119
3. Coagulation/Flocculation/Clarification System. . . VIII-139
4. Cyanide Destruction VIII-180
5. In-Plant Biological Treatment. . . . VIII-187
D. ADDITIONAL COSTS VIII-197
1. Contract Hauling . VIII-197
2. Monitoring Costs VIII-198
3. Sludge Disposal and Incineration ......... VIII-203
4. RCRA Baseline Costs VIII-222
E. VASTEVATER AND AIR EMISSION LOADINGS . VIII-236
1. BPT Conventional Pollutant Vastevater Loadings . . VIII-236
2. BAT and PSES Toxic Pollutant Vastevater
Loadings VIII-236
3. BAT and PSES Toxic Pollutant Air Emission
Loadings ....... VIII-270
IX. EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
A. INTRODUCTION IX-1
1. Regulated Pollutants IX-2
2. BPT Subcategorization IX-2
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
B. TECHNOLOGY SELECTION IX-2
C. BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES IX-5
D. COST AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS IX-9
E. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
GUIDELINES IX-9
F. NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IX-12
1. Air Pollution IX-12
2. Solid Waste IX-13
3. Energy Requirement . . . IX-13
X. EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
A. INTRODUCTION X-l
B. BAT SUBCATEGORIZATION X-l
C. TECHNOLOGY SELECTION X-2
1. Option I X-3
2. Option II X-3
3. Option III X-A
D. POLLUTANT SELECTION X-A
E. BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES X-10
1. Volatiles Limits X-ll
2. Cyanide Limitations. X-ll
3. Metals Limitations X-12
4. Other Organic Pollutants X-28
F. COST AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE BAT EFFLUENT X-31
G. LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES X-31
1. NPDES Permit Limitations X-31
2. NPDES Monitoring Requirements X-32
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
H. NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS X-36
1. Air Pollution. X-37
2. Solid Waste X-37
3. Energy Requirements X-37
XI. EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
A. INTRODUCTION XI-1
B. POLLUTANT AND TECHNOLOGY SELECTION XI-1
XII. EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES AND PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
A. INTRODUCTION XII-1
B. POLLUTANT SELECTION. . ........... XII-1
C. TECHNOLOGY SELECTION . XII-2
D. PSES AND PSNS XII-3
E. COST AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS XII-6
F. NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .... XII-6
1. Air Pollution XII-7
2. Solid Waste XII-7
3. Energy Requirements. ...... XII-7
XIII. BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY XIII-1
XIV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS XIV-1
XV. GLOSSARY ..................... XV-1
APPENDIX III-A: PRODUCT LISTINGS BY INDUSTRIAL SEGMENT . III-A1
APPENDIX IV-A: RATIONALE FOR THE FORM OF THE BPT BOD
REGRESSION MODEL IV-A1
APPENDIX VI-A! LIST OF THE 126 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS VI-A1
APPENDIX VII-A: BPT LONG-TERM AVERAGE BOD AND TSS PLANT-
SPECIFIC TARGETS VII-A1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX VII-B: RAW WASTEWATER AND TREATED EFFLUENT BOD , TSS,
COD, AND TOC DATA BEFORE AND AFTER ADJUSTMENT
BY PLANT-SPECIFIC DILUTION FACTORS VII-B1
APPENDIX VII-C: LISTING OF 69 BPT DAILY DATA PLANTS INCLUDED
AND EXCLUDED FROM BPT VARIABILITY
FACTOR CALCULATIONS ... . VII-C1
APPENDIX VII-D: BPT STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY VII-Dl
APPENDIX VII-Et DISTRIBUTIONAL HYPOTHESIS TESTING ... VII-E1
APPENDIX VII-Pj BAT STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY VII-F1
APPENDIX VII-G: EVALUATION OF THE VALIDITY OF USING FORM 2C
DATA TO CHARACTERIZE PROCESS AND FINAL
EFFLUENT WASTEtfATER JUNE 17, 1985 VII-G1
APPENDIX VIII-A: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING BPT TARGETS AND
IMPUTING MISSING ACTUAL BOD AND TSS
EFFLUENT VALUES VIII-A1
APPENDIX VHI-B! BPT, BAT, AND PSES COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES
AND TECHNOLOGY BASIS VIII-B1
APPENDIX VIII-C: BPT PLANT-BY-PLANT BOD5 AND TSS LOADINGS VIII-C1
APPENDIX VIII-D! BAT AND PSES PLANT-BY-PLANT TOXIC POLLUTANT
WASTEWATER LOADINGS VIII-D1
APPENDIX VIII-E: BAT AND PSES PLANT-BY-PLANT AIR EMISSION
LOADINGS VIII-E1
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
VOLUME II
Figure
VIII-1
VIII-2
VIII-3
VIII-4
VIII-5
VIII-6
VIII-7
VIII-8
VIII-9
VIII-10
viri-ii
VIII-12
VIII-13
VIII-14
VIII-15
VIII-16
Annualized Capital Cost Versus Additional
BOD Removal
Annualized Unit Capital Cost Curve Versus Additional
BOD5 Removal ,
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Chemically
Assisted Clarification Systems . .
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Chemically
Assisted Clarification Systems
Land Requirements Curve Versus Flow for Chemically
Assisted Clarification Systems
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Multi-
media Filter Systems
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Multi-media
Filter Systems <
Land Requirements Curve Versus Flow for Multi-
media Filter Systems .
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Polishing
Pond Systems
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Polishing
Pond Systems
Land Requirements Curve Versus Flow for Polishing
Pond Systems
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Algae
Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Benzene at
Effluent Concentration of 0.01 mg/1
Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Benzene at
Effluent Concentration of 1.0 mg/1 ,
Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Hexachloro-
benzene at Effluent Concentration of 0.01 mg/1 ....
Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Hexachloro-
benzene of Effluent Concentration of 1.0 mg/1
Page ,
VIII-64
VIII-65
VIII-72
VIII-73
VIII-74
VIII-81
VIII-82
VIII-83
VIII-86
VIII-87
VIII-88
VIII-91
VIII-111
VIII-112
VIII-113
VIII-114
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
VIII-17
VIII-18
VIII--19
VIII-20
VIII-21
VIII-22
VIII-23
VIII-24
VIII-25
VIII-26
VIII-27
VIII-28
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Benzene
and Hexachlorobenzene .
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Large BAT
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity.
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Large PSES
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems?
Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Large BAT
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Large PSES
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Large BAT
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Large PSES
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity .
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Large BAT
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Large PSES
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity
Total Capital Cost Curves Versus Flow for Large
End-of-Pipe Carbon Treatment Systems (On-site
Carbon Regeneration Systems)
Annual O&M Cost Curves Versus Flow for Large
End-of-Pipe Carbon Treatment Systems (On-site
Carbon Regeneration Systems)
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Small
In-Plant and End-of-Pipe Carbon Treatment
Systems (Low, Medium, High Carbon Adsorption
Capacities)
Page
VIII-115
VIII-143
VIII-144
VIII-145
VIII-146
VIII-147
VIII-148
VIII-149
VIII-150
VIII-151
VIII-152
VIII-157
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
VIII-29 Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Small BAT
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity VIII-158
VIII-30 Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Small PSES
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity VIII-159
VIII-31 Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Small BAT
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity VIII-160
VIII-32 Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Small PSES
In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment Systems;
Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity VIII-161
VIII-33 Annual O&M Cost Curves Versus Flow for Small
End-of-Pipe Carbon Treatment Systems VIII-162
VIII-34 Land Requirements Curve Versus Flow for Activated
Carbon Treatment Systems VIII-163
VIII-35 Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for
Coagulation/Flocculation/Clarification Systems. .... VIII-166
VIII-36 Land Requirements Curve Versus Flow for
Coagulation/F18cculation/Clarification Systems VIII-168
VIII-37 Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for
Coagulation/Flocculation/Clarification Systems VIII-169
VIII-38 Comparison of Actual Systems Capital Cost and EPA's
Estimates for Coagulation/Flocculation/
Clarification VIII-173
VIII-39 Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Sulfide
Precipitation Systems VIII-177
VIII-40 Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Sulfide
Precipitation Systems . VIII-178
VIII-41 Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Cyanide
Destruction Systems VIII-185
VIII-42 Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Cyanide
Destruction Systems VI11-186
VIII-43 Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Small
In-Plant Biological Treatment Systems VIII-190
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
VI11-44
VI11-45
VIII-46
VII1-47
VIII-48
VIII-49
VIII-50
VIII-51
VIII-52
VIII-53
VIII-54
VIII-55
VIII-56
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Large
In-Plant Biological Treatment Systems . . . .
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Small
In-Plant Biological Treatment Systems . .
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Large
In-Plant Biological Treatment Systems . .
Land Requirements Curve Versus Flow for Small
In-Plant Biological Treatment Systems . . .
Land Requirements Curve Versus Flow for Large
In-Plant Biological Treatment Systems . . .
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for Belt
Filter Press Systems
Land Requirements Curve Versus Flow for Belt
Filter Press Systems. ....
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for Belt
Filter Press Systems. .....
Total Capital Cost Curve Versus Flow for
Fluidized Bed Incineration Systems. . .
Annual O&M Cost Curve Versus Flow for
Fluidized Bed Incineration Systems.
Overview of Methodology for Identification of
OCPSF Plants Requiring RCRA Baseline Costing.
Raw Waste Load Calculation Logic Flow
BPT, BAT, and Current Waste Load Calculation
Logic Flow. .
VIII-57 PSES Waste Load Calculation
VIII-191
VIII-192
VIII-193
VIII-195
VIII-196
VIII-209
VIII-210
VIII-212
VIII-217
VIII-219
VIII-223
VIII-261
VIII-268
VIII-269
-------
LIST OF TABLES
VOLUME II
fable . Page
VIII-1 BPT Costing Rules , VIII-3
VIII-2 Generic Chemical Processes VIII-8
VIII-3 "Trigger" Values Used as BAT Option II In-Plant
Costing Targets for Plants With End-of-Pipe
Biological Treatment In-Place VIII-10
VIII-4 BAT Long-Term Medians Used as Costing Targets for
Plants Without Biological Treatment In-Place VIII-12
VIII-5 Pollutants to be Controlled Using In-Plant
Biological Treatment. . . VIII-14
VIII-6 High Strippability Priority Pollutants Costed
Steam Stripping for BAT Option IIA and PSES IVA . , . VIII-16
VIII-7 Medium Strippability Priority Pollutants Costed
for Steam Stripping for BAT Option IIA and
PSES Option IVA VIII-17
VIII-8 Medium Adsorpabillty Priority Costed for Activated
Carbon for BAT Option IIA and PSES Option IVA .... VIII-18
VIII-9 Low Adsorpability Priority Pollutants Costed for
Activated Carbon for BAT Option IIA and PSES
Option IVA VIII-19
VIII-10 High Strippability Priority Pollutants Costed for
Steam Stripping for BAT Option IIB and PSES
Option IIB VIII-20
VIII-11 Medium Strippability Priority Pollutants Costed
for Steam Stripping for BAT Option IIB and
PSES Option IVB ...... VI1I-21
VIII-12 Medium Adsorpability Priority Pollutants Costed
for Activated Carbon for BAT Option IIB and
PSES Option IVB. . VIII-22
VIII-13 Low Adsorpability Priority Pollutants Costed
for Steam Stripping for BAT Option IIB and
PSES Option IVB VI]1-23
VIII-14 Overall Averages of the Average Ratio Values
(Process to Total Plow) VI] 1-25
VIII-15 Regulated Pollutants and LTMs for PSES Option IV ... VII1-27
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
VIII-16 Temperatures and Temperature Cost Factors Used
to Calculate Activated Sludge Cost and to
Adjust Biological Treatment Upgrade Costs. . .
VIII-17 Land Cost for Suburban Areas
VIII-18 Summary of Land Cost in the United States. . . .
VIII-19 Activated Sludge Default and Replacement Data
for Unit Cost Items Used in Costing Exercise
CAPDET Model (1979)
VIII-20 Activated Sludge K-Values and MLVSS Values
from 308 Questionnaires. . .
VIII-21 Activated Sludge Table of Reported 308
Questionnaire Data . .
VIII-22 Activated Sludge Table of Reported Capital Cost
Per Gallon and O&M Cost per 1,000 Gallon . . .
VIII-23 Activated Sludge Comparison of CAPDET and
Reported Capital and O&M Costs (1982 Dollars).
VIII-24 Activated Sludge Comparison of Reported and
CAPDET Detention Times (Td)
VIII-25 Activated Sludge Comparison of Reported and
and CAPDET O&M Costs (1982 Dollars)
VIII-26 Activated Sludge Comparison of Operation and
Maintenance Man-Hours. ...
VIII-27 Activated Sludge Table of Reported Operating
and Maintenance Labor Rates (1982 Dollars) . .
VIII-28 Activated Sludge Revised Land Requirements . . .
VIII-29 Capital and Annual Costs of Biological
Treatment Modifications for Activated Sludge
System Upgrades
VIII-30 Product Mix of the Five Facilities Used in the
Development of the Capital Cost Curve for
Activated Sludge System Upgrades
VIII-30
VIII-33
VIII-37
VIII-42
VIII-43
VIII-45
VIII-46
VIII-48
VIII-49
VII1-50
VIII-52
VIII-54
VIII-55
VIII-58
VIII-59
Xll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
VIII-31
Current Influent and Effluent BOD5 Concen-
trations at the Five Facilities Used in the
Development of Capital Cost Curves for
Activated Sludge System Upgrades
VIII-32 Project Capital and Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Costs Associated with Activated Sludge
System Upgrades ,
<,*- *!
VIII-33 Summary of Chemically Assisted Clarification
Specifications ,
VIII-34 Itemized Capital Costs for Chemically Assisted
Clarifiers ,
VIII-35 Itemized Annual Operating Costs for Chemically
Assisted Clarifiers .,.....,..,
VIII-36 Benchmark Comparison ,; .........
VIII-37 Summary of Filtration System Specifications. . . .
VIII-38 Summary of Capital and O&M Costs for Filtration
Systems 1982 Dollars (March) . ;
VIII-39 Summary of Capital and O&M Costs for Polishing
Ponds
VIII-40 Annual Operating Cost for Algae Control in
Polishing Ponds (1982 Dollars) .........
VIII-41 Ten Treatment Systems With Polishing Ponds
In-Place (At Nine Plants) That Vere Costed
Only for Copper Sulfate Addition
VIII-42 Summary of Capital and O&M Costs for Polymer
Addition Systems for Upgrading Secondary
Clarifiers
VIII-43 Summary of Polymer Addition Costs for Six
Treatment Systems Selected for Secondary
Clarifier Upgrades .
VIII-44 Comparison of Predicted and Reported Capital
and O&M Costs for Steam Stripping
VIII-45 Priority Pollutants Divided Into Groups
According to Henry's Constant Values
Page
VIII-62
VIII-66
VIII-68
VIII-69
VIII-71
VIII-75
VIII-79
VI11-80
VIII-85
VIII-90
/
VIII-92
VIII-93
VIII-94
VIII-96
VIII-99
xxviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
VIII-46 Reported Steam Stripping Average Influent and
Effluent BAT from the 1983 Supplemental
Questionnaire
VIII-47 Steam Stripping Design Parameters for High
Henry's Law Constant Pollutants
VII3-48 Steam Stripping Design Parameters for Medium
Henry's Law Constant Pollutants. . .
VIII-49 Steam Stripping Design Parameters for Low
Henry's Law Constant Pollutants .
VIII-50 Steam Stripping Results for Removal of
Benzene (1982 Dollars)
VIII-51 Steam Stripping Results for Removal of
Hexachlorobenzene (1982 Dollars) .......
VIII-52 Equations for Determining Computerized Cost
Curves from Steam Stripping Results
(1982 Dollars) ..... ......
VIII-53 Steam Stripping ($$) Overhead Disposal Cost
Estimates
VTII-54 Steam Stripping ^Upgrade Costs
VIII-55 Adjustments to CAPDET Default Data and Results
for Activated Carbon Systems ... .
VIII-56 Influent/Effluent Levels of Total Organic
Priority Pollutants of Biological Treatment
Systems for Typical Organic Chemical Plants. ,
VTII-5? Summary of In-Plant Carbon Adsorption Capacities
(Ibs of Pollutants Adsorbed/lb Carbon) ....
VIII-58 Carbon Usage Rate for Priority Pollutants
(In-Plant BAT Treatment) (Ibs of Pollutants
Adsorbed/lb Carbon). . ...
VIII-59 Summary of In-Plant Carbon Adsorption Capacities
(Ibs of Pollutants Adsorbed/lb Carbon) ....
VIII-60 Carbon Usage Rate for Priority Pollutants
(In-Plant PSES Treatment) (Ibs of Pollutants
Adsorbed/lb Carbon) .
VIII-100
VIII-102
VIII-104-
VIII-106
VIII-108
VIII-109
VIII-110
VI1T-117
VIII-120
VIII-122
VIII-125
VIII-127
VIII-130
VIII-131
VIII-133
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
VIII-61 Summary of Carbon Adsorption Capacities (End-
of-Pipe) (Ibs of Pollutants Adsorbed/lb
Carbon). . . ......... . .......
VIII-62 Carbon Usage Rate for Priority Pollutants
(End-of-Pipe Treatment) (Ibs of Pollutants
Adsorbed/lb Carbon) ..............
VIII-63 Granular Activated Carbon Equipment Cost Basis
In-Plant Carbon Treatment System Low Carbon
Adsorption Capacity .......... ....
VIII-64 Granular Activated Carbon Equipment Cost Basis
In-Plant Carbon Treatment System Low Carbon
Adsorption Capacity. .... .........
VIII-65 Granular Activated Carbon Equipment Cost Basis
(End-of-Pipe Treatment) ............
VIII-66 Total Capital and O&M Costs for Large In-Plant
Medium Carbon Adsorption Treatment Systems
(1982 Dollars) ............ ....
VIII-67 Total Capital and O&M Costs for Large In-Plant
Low Carbon Adsorption Treatment Systems
(1982 Dollars) .............. , .
VIII-68 Cost Estimate for Large End-of-Pipe Carbon
Treatment Systems (1982 Dollars) .......
VIII-69 Itemized Capital Cost for Small In-Plant and
End-of-Pipe Carbon Treatment Systems
(1982 Dollars) ............. ...
VIII-70 Itemized O&M Cost for Small In-Plant Medium
Carbon Treatment Systems (1982 Dollars). . , .
VIII-71 Itemized O&M Cost for Small In-Plant Low
Carbon Treatment Systems (1982 Dollars). . . .
VIII-72 Itemized O&M Cost for Small End-of-Pipe
Carbon Treatment Systems (1982 Dollars). . . .
VIII-73 Itemized Capital Costs for Coagulation/
Flocculation/Clarif ication. Systems ......
VIII-74 Itemized Annual Operating Costs for Coagulation/
Flocculation/Clarif ication Systems ......
VIII-134
VIII-135
VIII-136
VIII-137
VIII-138
VIII-140
VIII-141
VIII-142
VIII-153
VIII-154
VIII-155
VIII-156
VIII-165
VIII-170
xv
-------
B. COSTING METHODOLOGIES
1 BPT Costing Methodology
BOD5 and TSS effluent long-term average target values were provided by
the subcategorization regression model equation for BPT Option I. The target
value is the long-term average concentration that represents compliance with
BPT limitations. These targets are presented in Appendix VII-A of this
document. For full-response plants without reported BOD5 and TSS effluent
values for their current discharges and for Part A plants [reported BOD5 and
TSS effluent data for combined organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic
fibers (OCPSF) and non-OCPSF vastewaters], estimated values were calculated
using a revised version of the regression equation that calculated BODg and
TSS long-term average discharge concentration values based on the plant's
product mix and the reported BOD and TSS discharge values from OCPSF plants
having similar product mixes. Appendix VIII-A presents the methodology used
to estimate these values.
A delta BOD5 and TSS (i.e., the amount, if any, by which a plant
currently exceeds the long-term average target values) were calculated by
subtracting the target values from the reported BOD5 and TSS effluent values
for each plant. These delta values were then compared to the delta BODg and
TSS ranges contained in Table VIII-1, and based on whether biological treat-
ment or polishing ponds were already in-place, a treatment technology was
selected for costing. For estimating compliance costs, plants with only
aerobic or anaerobic lagoons were not considered to have biological.treatment
in-place because of the relatively inefficient and unpredictable nature of
their performance. For example, a plant with biological treatment in-place,
no polishing pond in-p]ace, repotted BOD5 and TSS effluent data of 35 mg/1 and
45 mg/1, respectively, and target BOD5 and TSS values of 20 mg/1 and 40 mg/1,
respectively, would yield delta BOD5 and TSS values of 15 mg/1 and 5 mg/1,
respectively. Based on the BPT costing rules outlined in Table VIII-1, this
plant would be costed for biological treatment upgrades and a chemically
assisted clarifier.
VIII-2
-------
TABLE VIII-1.
BPT COSTING RULES
I. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT IN PLACE
A. A BOD 0-3 mg/1 and;
1. A TSS 0-3 mg/1
2. A TSS > 3 without polishing pond
3. A TSS > 3 with polishing pond
B. A BOD > 3-15 mg/1 and,
1. A TSS 0-3 mg/1
2. A TSS > 3 without polishing pond
3. 'A TSS > 3 with polishing pond
C. A BOD > 15-25 mg/1 and;
1. A TSS 0-3 mg/1
2. A TSS > 3 without polishing pond
3, A TSS > 3 with polishing pond
SYSTEM TO COST
0 COSTS
Chemically assisted elarifier
(additional unit operation)
Add CuS04 or upgrade existing
secondary elarifier (when
present) with polymer addition
system
Biological treatment upgrades
Biological treatment upgrades
and chemically assisted
elarifier (additional unit
operation)
Biological treatment upgrades
and add CuSO,
Biological treatment upgrades
and chemically assisted
elarifier (additional unit
operation)
Biological treatment upgrades
and chemically assisted
elarifier (additional unit
operation)
Biological treatment upgrades,
chemically assisted elarifier
(additional unit operation),
and add CuS04,
VIII-3
-------
flows are contaminated by process sources of conventional pollutants that
should characterize them as process wastewater under 40 CPR 401.11(q). A
listing of "contaminated nonprocess" (defined as process) and unconlaminated
nonprocess wastewaters can be found in Section VII.
The Agency considered the use of peak or maximum wastewater flows for
calculating compliance costs for BPT end-of-pipe treatment, bu.t decided that
average wastewater flows were more appropriate for cost estimation purposes
for the following reasons:
* EPA did not possess plant-by-plant peak or maximum flow data for use
in compliance cost estimates.
EPA did obtain daily flow data for the daily data plants used for BPT
variability factor calculations. Analysis of these data revealed that
using the 90th percentile of the daily flow data to approximate peak
or maximum flow caused flow to increase approximately 25 percent on
average.
* EPA performed a sensitivity analysis using the Computer Assisted
Procedure for the Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Sys-
tems (CAPDET) activated sludge algorithm to determine the effect of
the maximum flow input variable on compliance costs for activated
sludge. The results showed that the input of a maximum flow, which
was 30 percent higher than the average flow into the large system
activated sludge CAPDET algorithm, yielded annual compliance costs
that were less than 1 percent higher. (Capital costs were approxi-
mately 2 percent higher, while the O&M cost difference was negli-
gible.)
In addition to the reasons stated above, EPA also believes tha.t proper
equalization of wastewater flows in preliminary treatment steps prior to
discharge to biological treatment and other downstream treatment technologies
negates the detrimental effects of flow surges as well as the need to oversize
downstream technologies to account for these flows. As stated in Section VII,
approximately 104 of 304 direct discharging OCPSF plants have equalization
in-place. The Agency also determined that cost estimation for plant-by-plant
flow equalization units was not possible, since proper design of equalization
basins requires hourly flow data, which EPA did not obtain as part of its
Section 308 Questionnaire. However, the presence of other preliminary treat-
ment technologies, such as neutralization (175 plants), primary clarification
(62 plants), flotation (11 plants), oil removal/separation (110 plants), and
VIII-6
-------
coagulation/flocculation (41 plants), can provide equalization retention times
of up to 4 hours. (8-3) Moreover, EPA compared the cost estimates generated
for biological treatment systems from the CAPDET costing algorithm (described
later in this section) to those obtained from wastewater treatment equipment
vendors. The vendor quotes for biological treatment systems included equali-
zation unit operations and generally compared favorably to the cost estimates
generated by CAPDET.
Based on these factors, the Agency has decided to retain the use of
average flow as the basis of its compliance cost estimates.
The design parameters and cost curves for each of the technologies costed
for BPT are presented later in this section.
2. BAT Costing Methodology
Prior to calculation of BAT compliance costs, certain preliminary evalua-
tions were performed. First', it was necessary to determine raw waste concen-
trations for the toxic pollutants present in the product/process waste streams
at each plant. This was done using the toxic pollutant loadings estimates
calculated using only the Master Process File (HPF). The MPF is the primary
source of raw waste toxic pollutant data, providing data for 176 product/
processes utilized by the OCPSF industry. For product/processes other than
these 176, product average raw waste concentrations were calculated by using
all product/processes that manufacture a particular product, regardless of
process. If none of the 176 product/processes in the MPF covered a particular
product/process on a product basis, average raw waste concentrations were
constructed by grouping product/processes in the MPF by common gem ic pro-
cesses. Table VIII-2 presents the major generic processes that were used to
calculate these generic average raw waste concentrations.
Once actual raw waste concentrations were established for each product/
process waste stream, these concentrations were compared to influent "trigger"
values or long-term median effluent values from the in-plant control appli-
cable to each regulated pollutant. "Trigger" values were established for
regulated pollutants to determine if particular in-plant technology was neces-
VIII-7
-------
TABLE VIII-2.
GENERIC CHEMICAL PROCESSES
Acid Cleavage
Acylation
Addition
Alcoholysis
Alkoxylation
Amination
Ammoxidation
Bromination
Carbonylation
Chlorination
Chlorohydrination
Condensation
Crystallization/Distillation
Cyanation
Decarboxylation
Dehydration
Dehy d rogena t i on
Dehyd rohalogena t ion
Depolymerizatlon
Diazotlzation
Dimerization
Distillation
Eleetrohydrodimerization
Epoxidation
Esterification
Etherification
Extraction
Extractive Distillation
Fiber Production
Fluorination
Hydration
Hydroacetylation
Hydrocyanation
Hydrogenation
Hydrohalogenation
Hydrolysis
Hydroxylation
lodination
Isomerization
Neutralization
Nitration
Nitrosation
Oxidation
Oxidation/Reduction
Oximation
Oxyhalogenation
Peroxidation
Phosgenation
Phosphonatlon
Polymerization
Pyrolysis
Rearrangement
Sulfation
Sulfonation
Transesterification
VIII-8
-------
sary and needed to be costed for a particular product/process waste stream.
They were developed through the review of Verification, EPA/CHA 5-Plant Study,
and EPA 12-Plant Study sampling data by determining the average influent con-
centration of each regulated pollutant that produced an effluent concentration
that was comparable to the long-term average values being considered for the
BAT options. A listing of the BAT Option II "trigger" value for each regu-
lated pollutant is presented in Table VIII-3.
If a product/process waste stream's concentration for a regulated pollu-
tant was higher than that pollutant's "trigger" value, then the applicable
in-plant control was costed to remove or reduce the concentration of the pol-
lutant. Otherwise, it was assumed that the end-of~pipe BPf treatment system
would suffice to achieve the BAT limitations? i.e., no in-plant controls would
be added by the plant to comply with BAT limitations. For those direct dis-
charging plants without biological treatment in-place after BPT costing, long-
term average effluent values for the in-plant control applicable to each regu-
lated pollutant were used instead of "trigger" values.
Only BAT Option II was costed for the final costing exercise and is
described in detail in this section. A list of the pollutants regulated under
this option and the long-term average effluent value for each pollutant are
presented in Table VIII-4. Two versions of BAT Option II were costed, using
in-plant biological treatment (BAT Option IIB) in place of activated carbon
and steam stripping (BAT Option IIA) for the pollutants listed in Table
VIII-5. Also, two pollutants (4-nitrophenol and 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol), which
were previously costed for steam stripping for BAT Option IIA, were now costed
for activated carbon in BAT Option IIB because of the lack of steam stripping
performance data and the presence of activated carbon performance data for
limitations calculations. Also, one pollutant (nitrobenzene), which was
previously costed for activated carbon only for BAT Option IIA, was now costed
for steam stripping followed by activated carbon because the available per-
formance data for limitations calculations relies on steam stripping and acti-
vated carbon. It should be noted that originally the Agency had estimated
compliance costs using three strippability and adsorpability groups (high,
medium, and low) for its July 17, 1985 Notice of Availability (NOA). (These
groups have been previously discussed in Section VII.) However, for its
VIII-9
-------
TABLE VIII-3.
"TRIGGER" VALUES USED AS BAT OPTION II IN-PLANT COSTING TARGETS
FOR PLANTS VITH END-OF-PIPE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT IN-PLACE
Pollutant Number
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
23
25
26
27
29
30
32
33
34
38
39
42
44
45
52
55
Pollutant Name
Acenaphthene
Acrylonltrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Hexachloroe thane
1» 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 , 2-Tr ichloroethane
Chloroe thane
Chloroform
1 , 2-Diehlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-trans-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Hexachlorobutadiene
Naphthalene
Concentration
(mg/1)
1.0
200.0
40.0
1.0
1.0
0.25
0.92
5.0
5.0
0.5
0.015
5.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10.0
10.0
3.0
3.0
30.0
40.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
25.0
₯111-10
-------
TABLE VIII-3.
"TRIGGER" VALUES USED AS BAT OPTION II IN-PLANT COSTING TARGETS
FOR PLANTS WITH END-OF-PIPE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT IN-PLACE
(Continued)
Pollutant Number
56
57
58
59
60
65
66
68
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
80
81
84
85
86
87
88
119
120
121
122
124
128
Pollutant Name
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dini trophehol
4 , 6-Dini tro-o-cresol
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Di-n-Butyl-Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Benzo(a) Anthracene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
3 , 4-Benzof luoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoran thane
Chrysene
Acenaph thylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Te t rachloroe thylene
Toluene
Trichloroe thylene
Vinyl Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/1)
1.0
1.0
10.0
2.0
10.0
900.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
10.0
1.3
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
VIII-11
-------
TABLE ₯111-4.
BAT LONG-TERM MEDIANS USED AS COSTING TAEGETS
FOR PLANTS WITHOUT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT IN-PLACE
Pollutant Number
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
23
25
26
27
29
30
32
33
34
38
39
42
44
45
52
55
Pollutant Name
Acenaphthene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Hexachloroe thane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroe thane
Chloroe thane
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1-Diehloroethylene
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)Ether
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Hexachlorobu tad iene
Naphthalene
Concentration
(mg/1)
0.010
0.050
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.050
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.010
0.015
0.012
0.015
0.015
0.050
0.015
0.010
VIII-12
-------
TABLE VIII-4,
BAT LONG-TERM MEDIANS USED AS COSTING TARGETS
FOR PLANTS VITHOUT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT IN-PLACE
(Continued)
Pollutant Number
56
57
58
59
60
65
66
68
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
80
81
84
85
86
87
88
119
120
121
122
124
128
Pollutant Name
Ni trobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4~Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dini trophenol
4 , 6-Dini tro-o-cresol
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Di -n-Bu tyl-Ph thala te
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Benzo (a) Anthracene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
Benzo(k)Pluoranthane
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Te t r achloroe thy lene
Toluene
Trichloroe thy lene
Vinyl Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/D
0.713
0.020
0.050
0.373
0.024
0.010
0.050
0.025
0.045
0.025
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.050
0.263
0.406
0.180
0.043
0.600
0.549
VIII-13
-------
TABLE VIII-5.
POLLUfANTS TO BE CONTROLLED USING IN-PLANT
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Pollutant Number Pollutant Name
1 Acenaphthene
3 Acrylonitrile
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
39 Fluoranthene
55 . Naphthalene
65 Phenol
66 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phttialate
68 Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
70 Diethyl Phthalate
71 Dimethyl Phthalate
72 Benzo(a)Anthracene
73 Benzo(a)Pyrene
74 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
75 Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
76 Chrysene
77 Acenaphthylene
78 Anthracene
80 Fluorene
81 Phenanthrene
84 Pyrene
VIII-14
-------
December 8, 1986 NOA, EPA decided to place each pollutant in its most logical
technology grouping for the purposes of compliance cost estimates, and this
resulted in all pollutants selected for steam stripping to fall in the high
and medium strippability groups (see Tables VIII-6 and VIII-7). Since the
pollutants remaining for activated carbon were predominantly in the medium and
low adsorpability groups, the Agency decided to shift the pollutants remaining
in the high adsorpability group to the medium adsorpability group and to use
only two adsorpability (medium and low) groups for estimating compliance costs
for BAT Option HA. As noted above, further revisions were made to the pollu-
tants in these groupings with the addition of in-plant biological treatment as
a basis for compliance cost estimations for BAT Option IIB.
The various treatment technologies that could be costed depended upon
each toxic pollutant's characteristics, including its volatility, adsorpabil-
ity, and solubility. Tables VIII-6 through VIII-9 present the organic toxic
pollutants that are best treated by steam stripping (high and medium strippa-
bility groups) and activated carbon (medium and low adsorpability groups),
respectively, which were used to cost BAT Option IIA. Tables VIII-10 through
VIII-13 present the organic toxic pollutants that are best treated by steam
stripping (high and medium strippability groups) and activated carbon (medium
and low adsorpability groups), respectively, which were used to cost BAT
Option IIB. Chemical precipitation, specifically sulfide precipitation, was
costed for toxic pollutant metals control. The treatability data in Section
VII show that sulfide precipitation can remove toxic metals to levels even
lower than lime precipitation. Furthermore, sulfide precipitation is more
costly to purchase and operate than lime precipitation. However, since the
promulgated numerical limitations are based on lime precipitation for metals
control, the estimated costs of compliance are conservatively high, and
account for those plants that may prefer to install sulfide precipitation in
order to meet the required level of pollution control. Cyanide destruction
(alkaline chlorination) was costed for total cyanide for both BAT Options IIA
and IIB.
After selection of the appropriate technologies for each pollutant
product/process combination, the product/process flows were summed for each
technology and this sum was used to estimate the compliance costs associated
VIII-15
-------
TABLE VIII-6.
HIGH STRIPPABILITY PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
COSTED STEAM STRIPPING FOR BAT OPTION IIA AND PSES IVA
Pollutant Number Pollutant Name
4 Benzene
6 Carbon tetrachloride
7 Chlorobenzene
11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
13 . 1,1-Diehloroethane
16 Chloroethane
23 Chloroform
26 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
27 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
29 l;l-Diehloroethylene
30 1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
38 Ethylbenzene
45 Methyl chloride
85 Tetrachlorethylene
86 Toluene
87 Trichloroethylene
88 Vinyl chloride
VIII-16
-------
TABLE VIII-7.
MEDIUM STRIPPABILITY PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
COSTED FOR STEAM STRIPPING FOR BAT OPTION IIA AND PSES OPTION IVA
Pollutant Number Pollutant Name
1 Acenaphthene
3 Acrylonitrile
8 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
9 Hexachlorobenzene
10 1,2-Dichloroethane
12 Hexachloroethane
14 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
25 1,2-Diehlorobenzene
32 l,2~Dichloropropane
33 1,3-Dichloropropene
42 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
44 Methylene Chloride
52 Hexaehlorobutadiene
55 Naphthalene
58 4-Nitrophenol
60 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
75 Benzo(k)£luoranthane
77 Acenaphthylene
78 Anthracene
80 Fluorene
81 Phenanthrene
VIII-17
-------
TABLE VIII-8.
MEDIUM ADSORPABILITY PEIORITY POLLUTANTS COSTED FOR
ACTIVATED CARBON FOR BAT OPTION IIA AND PSES OPTION IVA
Pollutant Number Pollutant Name
39 Fluoranthene
57 2-Nitrophenol
66 bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
67 Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
68 di-n-Butyl Phthalate
70 Diethyl Phthalate
71 Dimethyl Phthalate
VIII-18
-------
TABLE VIII-9.
LOW ADSORPABILITY PRIORITY POLLUTANTS COSTED FOR
ACTIVATED CARBON FOR BAT OPTION IIA AND PSES OPTION IVA
Pollutant Number Pollutant Name
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
56 Nitrobenzene
59 2,4-Dinitrophenol
65 Phenol
72 Benzo(a)Anthracene
73 Benzo(a)Pyrene
74 3,4-Benzofluoranthane
75 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
76 Chrysene
84 Pyrene
VIII-19
-------
TABLE VIII-10.
HIGH STRIPPABILITY PRIORITY POLLUTANTS COSTED FOR
STEAM STRIPPING FOR BAT OPTION IIB AND PSES OPTION IVB
Pollutant Number ' Pollutant Name
4 Benzene
6 Carbon Tetrachloride
7 Chlorobenzene
11 1,1,1-Trichlorobenzene
13 1,1-Dichloroethane
16 Chlorobenzene
23 Chloroform
26 1,3-DiChlorobenzene
27 1,4-DiChlorobenzene
29 1,1-Dichloroethylene
30 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
38 Ethylbenzene
45 Methyl Chloride
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
87 Trlchloroethylene
88 Vinyl Chloride
VIII-20
-------
TABLE VIII-11.
MEDIUM STRIPPABILITY PRIORITY POLLUTANTS COSTED FOR
STEAM STRIPPING FOR BAT OPTION IIB AND PSES OPTION IVB
Pollutant Number Pollutant Name
8 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
9 Hexachlorobenzene
10 1,2-Dichloroethane
12 Hexachloroethane
14 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
25 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
32 1,2-Diehloropropane
33 1,3-Dichloropropene
42 Bis(2~Chloroisopropyl)Ether
44 Methylene Chloride
52 Hexachlorobutadiene
56 Nitrobenzene
VIII-21
-------
TABLE VIII-12.
MEDIUM ADSORPABILITY PRIORITY POLLUTANTS COSTED FOR
ACTIVATED CARBON FOR BAT OPTION IIB AND PSES OPTION IVB
Pollutant Number Pollutant Name
57 2-Nitrophenol
58 4-Nitrophenol
60 4,6-Dinitro-o-Cresol
VIII-22
-------
TABLE VIII-13.
L0₯ ADSORPABILIT.Y PRIORITY POLLUTANTS COSTED FOR
ACTIVATED CARBON FOR BAT OPTION IIB AND PSES OPTION IVB
Pollutant Number Pollutant Name
56 Nitrobenzene
59 2,4-Dinitrophenol
VIII-23
-------
with that technology. For plants that submitted only Part A af the Section
308 Questionnaire, detailed product/process flow and production information
were not available and detailed raw waste concentration estimates could not be
prepared. However, model raw waste concentrations could be generated based on
BPT subcategories by aggregating full-response plants by BPT subcategories
(using the 95 percent rule previously mentioned in Section V) and mode of
discharge and calculating subcategory average raw waste concentrations for
direct and indirect dischargers.
Using these BPT subcategory average raw waste concentrations, treatment
technologies were chosen for compliance cost estimates. However, Part A only
respondents submitted only total OCPSF wastewater flow and EPA determined that
use of this flow would result in overestimated compliance costs, since only a
fraction of the total flow would generally require treatment by in-plant con-
trols. To compensate for this, the Agency determined the percentage of the
total OCPSF process wastewater flow treated by in-plant controls already in-
place at full-response plants and applied these percentages to the total OCPSF
process flow reported by each Part A plant. These adjusted flows were then
used to estimate compliance costs for applicable in-plant controls. Table
VIII-14 presents the percentages that were used to adjust the total OCPSF
process wastewater flows for each in-plant control.
Since there are numerous approaches for implementing effective pollutant
control practices, EPA does not specify what technology must be used to
achieve the promulgated numerical effluent limitations and standards.
The design parameters and cost curves for each of the technologies costed
for BAT are presented later in this section.
3. PSES Costing Methodology
Prior to individual plant-by-plant costing, raw waste concentrations were
determined for each plant using the same methodology described in the BAT
Costing section. These raw waste concentrations were established for each
product/process waste stream and were compared to the long-term median (LTM)
effluent values for the in-plant control applicable for each regulated
VIII-24
-------
TABLE VIII-14.
OVERALL AVERAGES OF THE AVERAGE RATIO VALUES
(PROCESS TO TOTAL FLOW)
Technology Organics Other Plastics
Carbon Adsorption 0.220 0.522 0.519
Chemical Precipitation 0.260 0.128 0.354
and Cyanide Destruction
Steam Stripping 0.226 0.125 0.237
VIII-25
-------
pollutant. If the raw waste concentration for a regulated pollutant was
greater than the LTH effluent value, the applicable in-plant control tech-
nology was costed. This procedure was followed until all the product/process
waste streams had been costed and all flows to be costed for a particular
in-plant control could be totaled for input to the costing algorithm. Only
PSES Option IV was costed for this recosting exercise and a list of the pol-
lutants regulated under this option and the LTM effluent value for each pol-
lutant are listed in Table VIII-15. As with the BAT costing, two versions of
PSES Option IV were costed using in-plant biological treatment (Option IVB) in
place of activated carbon and steam stripping (Option IVA) for the regulated
pollutants in Table VIII-5. Two pollutants (4-nitrophenol and 4,6-dinitro-
o-cresol), which were previously costed for steam stripping for PSES Option
IVA, were now costed for activated carbon in PSES Option IVB because of the
lack of stripping data and the presence of carbon data for limits calcula-
tions. Also, one pollutant (nitrobenzene), which was previously costed for
activated carbon only, was now costed for steam stripping followed by acti-
vated carbon based upon the data available for limitations calculations. The
various treatment technologies that were costed for PSES Options IVA and IVB
follow the same rules and tables as BAT Options IIA and IIB, respectively, for
the pollutants regulated" under PSES.
The design parameters and cost curves for each technology costed for PSES
are presented in later Section VIII subsections.
4, Other Factors
a. Temperature CorrectionFactorsfor Activated Sludge
Although activated sludge systems can be used as the BPT technology
throughout the United States, the design of the systems should vary due to
climate conditions. Plants in colder climates should design their systems to
account for lower biodegradability rates during the colder seasons. There-
fore, EPA has taken these added costs into account in its costing procedures.
First, in designing new or add-on systems, CAPDET takes into account
local temperature conditions by allowing the system user to enter the lowest
design temperature as an input parameter. EPA used the National Oceanic and
VIII-26
-------
TABLE VIII-15.
REGULAfED POLLUTANTS AND LTMs
FOR PSES OPTION IV
Pollutant Number
1
*3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
23
25
26
27
29
30
32
33
34
38
39
*42
44
45
52
Pollutant Name
Acenaphthene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Tri chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1 , 2-Di chloroe thane
1,1, 1-Tri chloroe thane
Hexchloroe thane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1,1, 2-Tri chloroe thane
Chloroe thane
Chloroform
1 , 2-Di chlorobenzene
1 , 3-D! chlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1-Di chlorobenzene
1,2, -trans-Pi chloroe thy lene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
2 , 4-Dlrae thylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Bis(2-Dichloroisopropyl) Ether
He thy lene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Hexachlorobutadiene
Concentration
(mg/1)
0.010
0.050
0.015
0.015
0.015
0,015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.050
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.010
0.015
0.012
0.015
0.015
0.050
0.015
VIII-27
-------
TABLE VIII-15.
REGULATED POLLUTANTS AND LTMs
FOR PSES OPTION IV
(Continued)
Pollutant Number
55
56
57
58
**59
60
65
66
68
70
71
***72
*74
***76
**77
78
80
81
85
86
87
88
121
122
128
Pollutant Name
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dini t rophenol
4 , 6-Dini t ro-o-Cresol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-Butyl-phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Benzo( a) Anthracene
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Te t rachloroe thylene
Toluene
Trichloroe thylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cyanide
Lead
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/1)
0.010
0.713
0.020
0.050
0.373
0.024
0.010
0.050
0.025
0.045
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.050
0.180
0.197
0.549
*Pollutants were considered regulated for costing purposes, but were later
reserved for PSES.
**Pollutants were considered regulated for costing purposes, but were later
excluded on the basis of paragraph eight of the Settlement Agreement.
***Pollutants were considered regulated for costing purposes, but were later
determined not to pass-through.
VIII-28
-------
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data (1979) for determining the lowest
minimum monthly average temperature (See fable VIII-16). However, since water
temperature cannot fall below 0SC, and rarely below 5°C, MtA established a
minimum water temperature of 5°C as the minimum water temperature for the
purposes of this costing procedure.
In addition, although some states have minimum temperature above 20°C,
EPA has established 20°C as the highest temperature in calculating activated
sludge costs. Table VIII-16 presents EPA wastewater temperature values
(middle column) used with CAPDET.
EPA has also cbsted biological treatment upgrades, which will also be
affected by climate conditions. Thereforep EPA has developed a cost factor
that was applied to each upgrade cost, depending on the location of the plant.
In order to take into account the effect of temperature in the design and
cost estimation of activated sludge system upgrades, the following factor was
derived:
Temperature 0.7
Correction = ( kB "j
Factor Ocg J
Where k_ = Base Line k
D
kg = k rate established for each State
0.7 = Cost Scale Factor
The ratio kB is derived from the following general equation:
Es
-------
TABLE VIII-16.
TEMPERATURES AND TEMPERATURE COST FACTORS
USED TO CALCULATE ACTIVATED SLUDGE COSTS AND TO ADJUST
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT UPGRADE COSTS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Minimum Monthly
Average Ambient
Temperature
C°c) (l)
8
-13
6
4
8
-6
-2
0
16
7
22
-2
-4
-6
-7
-2
0
10
-12
1
-3
-5
-13
8
-1
-8
-6
-1
-6
0
2
-3
6
-14
-3
3
2
-2
-1
8
-9
Corresponding
Vastewater
Temperature
<°C)
13"
5
11
9
13
5
5
5
20
12
20
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
5
6
5
5
5
13
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
11
5
5
8
7
5
5
13
5
Cost
Factor
1.4
2.0
1.5
1.7
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
1.4
2.0
VIII-30
-------
TABLE VIII-16.
TEMPERATURES AND TEMPERATURE COST FACTORS
USED TO CALCULATE ACTIVATED SLUDGE COSTS AND TO ADJUST
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT UPGRADE COSTS
(Continued)
Minimum Monthly
Average Ambient
Corresponding
Vastewater
State
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Visconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Temperature
(8C> (1)
4
8
-3
-8
3
-3
0
-8
-6
24
Temperature
CC)
9
13
5
5
8
5
5
5
5
20
Cost
Factor
1.7
1.4
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
(1) Source of Data: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Comparison Climatic Data for the United States through 1979 (30 years of
data),Environmental Data and Information Service, Asheville, North
Carolina.
VIII-31
-------
Thus, the temperature correction factor is:
-
-------
TABLE Vm-17.
Lfflf) COSTS FOR SUBURBAN AREAS
Region: NUK1HEAST
(liiinproved, 10-100 Acre laid Price in Suburban Areas)
(From: Industrial Real Estate Harket Survey 1983)
i,
C5
Land
Wee
W. ($/f t )
1982
Boston 1.62
Springfield 0.18
Average 0.90
or
$39,200/Acre
Land
Price
Mf ($/ft2)
1962
Buffalo 0.11
Suburbs 0.33
Syracuse 0.20
0.38
or
$16,000/Acre
Land
Price
CT ($/£t2)
1982
Sartford 0.48
New Haven 0.45
0.46.
or
$20,000/Acre
Land
Price
m ($/ft )
1982
Nashua 0.38
0.38
or
$16,60Q/Acre
Land
Price
HI ($/fr)
1982
Northern 1.02
Suburbs
1.02
or
$44,000/Acre
Land
Price
IA (S/ft )
1982
Fhiladelfhia 0.39
Pittsburgh 0.15
0.27
or
$ll,800/Acre
Regional Average: $24,10
-------
HBLE TOH-17.
LAtC COSTS FOR SUBURBAN AREAS (Continued)
Region: SOUTH
GA
Atlanta
Average
AR
lad
Price
($/ft2)
1982
$1.00
1.00
or
$43,6CO/Acre
land
Price
($/fr)
1982
Port Srith 0.50
Average
DC
0.50
or
$21,800/Acre
Land
Price
(S/ft )
1982
Washington 1.50
Average
1,50
or
$65,300/Acre
land
Price
TX ($/ft2)
1982
Austin 0.70
Dallas 1.35
Fort Worth 0.37
Houston 2.25
San Antonio 0.75
1.08
. or
$47,000/Acre
land
Price
TO ($/ft2)
1982
Memphis 0.35
0.35
or
$15,200/Acre
Land
Price
DE ($/ft2)
1982
Wilmington 0.36
0.36
or
$15,700/Acre
Land
Price
MD ($/ft2)
1982
Baltimore 0.45
0.45
or
$19,600/Acre
Land
Price
M, ($/ft )
1982
Mobile 0.15
0.15
or
$6,500/Acre
Land
Price
SC ($/ft2)
1982
Charleston 0.20
Greenville 0.33
0.27
or
$ll,800/Acre
Land
Price
LA ($/ft )
.1982
New Orleans 1.00
1.00
or
$43,600/Acre
Land
Price
NC ($/ft2)
1982
Charlotte 0.25
Greensboro 0.50
0.38
or
$16,600/Acre
Land
Price
VA ($/ft2)
1982
Richmond 0.45
0.45
or
$19,6CO/Acre
Land
Price
PL ($/ft2)
1982
Fort Lauderdalfi 1.25
Jacksonville 0.34
Miami 1.31
Orlando 0.50
Tampa 0.80
0.84
or
$36,600/Acre
Land
Price
OK ($/£t2)
1982
Oklahoma City 0.43
Msa 0.55
0.49
or
$21,300/Acre
Regional Average: $27,000 Acre
-------
TABLE WH-17.
ytc oosrs PGR SUBURBAN AREAS (Continued)
Region: NCKIH CENTRAL
(ttiioptwed, 10-100 Acre Land Price in Suburb Areas)
OH
Akron
Cleveland
Colmius
Toledo
Average
(1982)
$15,
WI
MilwaUoee
Average
$39,
Land
Price
-------
TABLE vm-17.
COSTS FDR SUBWBAN AREAS
(Continued)
Regions VEST
m
Land
Price
($/ft2)
1982
Land
Price
GO ($/ft2) CA
1982
land
Price
($/ft2) AZ
1982
Land
Price
($/fT)
1982
Land
Price
OR ($/ft2) NV
1982
Land
Price
($/ft2)
1982
Albuquerque 0.45 Denver
0.88 LA .£.25 Phoenix
(Orange County)
LA (South Bay) 6.50
Oakland 2.00
San Diego 3.00
San Francisco 8.00
San Joaquin Cty 0.46
1.50 Portland 1.67 Reno
0.80
Average
(1982)
MA
0.45 0.88 4.37 1.50 1.67
or or or or or
$19,600/Acre - $38,300/Acre $190,4QO/Acre $65,300/Acre $72,700/Acre
Laid .
Price
($/ft2)
1982
0.80
or
$34,800/Acre
Seattle
2.00
Average
2.00
or
$87,100/Acre
Regional Average: $72,600
-------
TABLE VIII-18.
SUMMARY OF LAND COSTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Region
Northeast
North Central
South
State
Connecticut
*Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
*Rhode Island
AVERAGE
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
*New Mexico
Ohio
Nebraska
*North Dakota
*South Dakota
Wisconsin
AVERAGE
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
*Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
*Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington D.C.
*West Virginia
AVERAGE
Estimated
Land Price ($/Acre)
20,000
24,700
39,200
16,600
44,400
16,600
11,800
24,700
$24,700
32,700
11,800
7,400
4,360
10,500
21,800
32,700
20,600
15,200
30,500
20,600
20,600
39,200
$20,600
6,500
21,800
15,700
36,600
43,600
27,000
43,600
19,600
27,000
16,600
21,300
11,800
15, 200
47,000
19,600
65,300
27,000
$27,000
VIII-37
-------
TABLE VIII-18.
SUMMARY OF LAND COSTS IN THE UNITED STATES
(Continued)
Estimated
Region State Land Price ($/Acre)
West *Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
*Hawaii
*Idaho
*Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
*Utah
Washington
Wyoming
AVERAGE
72,600
65,300
190,400
38,300
72,600
72,600
72,600
34,800
19,600
72,700
72,600
87,100
72,600
$72,600
*0btained from Regional Average Price
VIII-38
-------
least expensive one with an average of approximately $20,600. The Northeast
and South regions have average land prices of $24,700 and $27,000, respective-
ly. The average land price for the Vest region seems to be the most expen-
sive, ranging from $19,600 to $190,400, with an average of $72,600.
In order to determine the amount of land required for costing purposes,
EPA developed plot-plans for each treatment technology, and calculated the
land required for a range of system sizes. These land requirements were
curve-fitted such that a land requirement, in acres, could be calculated for
every treatment system costed. The individual plant land requirements were
multiplied by the corresponding state land cost estimates (Table VTII-18) to
obtain plant-by-plant cost estimates for land requirements.
b. RCRA Baseline Costs for Surface Impoundments
In November 1984, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSVA) to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) were enacted. As a result,
costs must be determined for upgrading surface impoundments to comply with
this law. Facilities that have "aggressive biological treatment processes"
can obtain an exemption from the requirements. Aggressive biological treatment
facility means a surface impoundment system in which the initial impoundment
of the secondary treatment segment of the facility utilizes intense mechanical
aeration to enhance biological activity to degrade wastewater pollutants and;
* The hydraulic retention time in such initial impoundment is no longer
than 5 days under normal operating conditions on an annual average
basis;
The hydraulic retention time in such an initial impoundment is no
longer than 30 days under normal operating conditions on an annual
average basis, provided that the sludge in such an impoundment does
not constitute a hazardous waste as identified by the extraction
procedure toxic!ty characteristic in effect on the date of enactment
of HSWA; or
Such a system utilizes activated sludge treatment in the first portion
of secondary treatment.
This includes all activated sludge and aerated lagoon systems. There-
fore, RCRA baseline costs will only have to be determined for facilities with
VIII-39
-------
neutralization, equalization, primary sedimentation, aerobic lagoons, and
anaerobic lagoons.
C. BPT TECHNOLOGIES
1. Activated Sludge
The activated sludge process is a biological treatment method where aero-
bic biological growths are aerated, mixed with wastewater, and subsequently
separated in a secondary clarifier. The microorganisms present in activated
sludge are bacteria, fungi, rotifers, protozoa, and worms. Bacteria are re-
sponsible for metabolizing the organic material, so that the solids will floc-
culate and settle.
For the purpose of representing the costs for large biological systems
(>0.5 MGD) in the OCPSF industry, the completely mixed activated sludge pro-
cess has been selected. The completely mixed activated sludge process is
defined as having a uniform oxygen uptake rate throughout all parts of the
aeration tank and sufficient mixing to maintain the solids in the aeration
tank in suspension. This process is widely used in the OCPSF industry, re-
quires a minimum amount of land, can be applied in any geographical location,
and accommodates a wide range of organic influent loads.
To represent the costs of small biological systems (<0.5 MGD) in the
OCPSF industry, the extended aeration activated sludge process has been
selected. This process is better suited for small facilities as it is easier
to operate than other modifications of the activated sludge process, and many
small plants may have difficulty obtaining adequately skilled operators.
These small systems are priced as "package" units, with everything except the
foundations and raw pumping stations furnished as a. single unit.
The advantage of package systems is that they are pre-engineered, saving
much of the costs for engineering design. In addition, since they are pre-
engineered, the units are constructed of standardized "off-the-shelf compo-
nents, which also saves on capital costs. For systems above 0.25 MGD, and as
large as 1 MGD, package plants consist of pre-fabricated steel internal sec-
VIII-40
-------
tions and concrete outer shells. The equipment manufacturers provide design
drawings for the concrete outer shells, which are constructed on-site. EPA
has confirmed through telephone contacts with equipment suppliers that package
systems of this type are available well above 0.5 MGD.
The Army Corps of Engineers CAPDET Computer Model can be used to design
and cost a number of biological treatment processes, including complete mix,
contact stabilization, high rate, and extended aeration activated sludge sys-
tems. It contains a library of unit processes that can be used to treat a
particular waste stream. The individual unit processes comprising a waste
treatment scheme (e.g., activated sludge followed by a secondary clarifier)
may be specified with the necessary design parameters required for each pro-
cess. The CAPDET computer model then uses the generated waste treatment sys-
tem design specifications to calculate the cost of its construction and opera-
tion. The default values presented in Table VIII-19 are used in the cost
calculations.
To determine the It-rate (biokinetic rate constant) values to be used in
the costing exercise, a summary was made of actual k-rate values and mixed
liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) values taken from OCPSF 308 Ques-
tionnaires (See Table VIII-20). The average k-rate and MLVSS values
calculated are 0.138/hr and 3700 mg/1, respectively.
The large facility CAPDET model requires the input of the k-rate
(1/mg-hr), calculated as follows:
K = k/So » (0.138/hr)/So
The small facility CAPDET model requires the input of the following
k-rate values:
k = metabolism constant
= k (MLVSS)/S = (0.138/hr)(3700 mg/l)/(500 mg/1)
= 1.02/hr °
k = synthesis factor
3 = 10.4/hr (CAPDET default value)
VIII-41
-------
TABLE VIII-19.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE DEFAULT AND REPLACEMENT DATA
FOR UNIT COST ITEMS USED IN COSTING EXERCISE
CAPDET MODEL (1979)
Building Cost
Excavation
Wall Concrete
Slab Concrete
Marshall and Swift Index
Crane Rental
Canopy Roof
Labor Rate (Equipment Installation)
Operator II Labor Rate
Electricity
Chemical Cost-Lime
Chemical Cost -Alum
Chemical Cost-Iron
Chemical Cost-Polymer
Engineering News Record
Cost Index (1979)
Engineering News Record
Cost Index (1982)
Handrail
Pipe Cost Index
Pipe Installation Labor Rate
48.00
1.20
207.00
91.00
577.00
67.00 (35.43)
15.75
13.40 (15.57)
7.50 (15.57)
0.04 (0.05)
0.03
0.04
0.06
1.62
2,886 (3,003.00)
(3,825.00)
25.20 $/FT
295.20
14.70 $/HR
$/SQ FT
$/CU YD
$/CU YD
$/CU YD
-
$/HR
$/SQ FT
$/HR
$/HR
$/KHR
$/LB
$/LB
$/LB
$/LB
-
( ) replacement values.
VIII-42
-------
TABLE VIII-20.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
K-VALUES AND MLVSS VALUES PROM 308 QUESTIONNAIRES
Questionnaire No.
500
525
1409
1494
1609
2701
662
908
1343
1349
1446
1695
1766
2181
2315
. 2626
2631
Average
Average
Type of Facility
Organ ics
Organ ics
Organ! cs
Organ! cs
Organ! cs
Organ! cs
Plastics
Plastics
Plastics
Plastics
Plastics
Plastics
Plastics
Plastics
Plastics
Plastics
Plastics
Organics
Plastics
K-Value (Day"1)
3.353
0,043
10.145
0.356
4.670
0.428
2.343
2.454
0.629
9.969
0.893
0.621
3.586
2.654
5.836
0.214
7.176
3.2 (0.133
3.3 (0.138
MLVSS (ml/g)
5500
4000
500
5000
3700
3500
2400
4000
2500
2500
3000
2500
3000
2500
4500
3000
4300
hr'1) 3700
hr"1) 3100
VIII-43
-------
k = endogenous respiration factor
° = 0.02/hr (CAPDET default value).
Also, an analysis of the capital costs generated by the CAPDET program
was made. For several representative CAPDET runs, the indirect cost items
that were intended for municipal plant design (such as 201 Planning Costs),
and the land costs (which are addressed as a separate cost item), were sub-
tracted from the total project cost. This revised project cost was compared
to the equipment capital cost; the ratio of these figures was determined to be
1.86. Therefore, in the costing exercise, the CAPDET-generated equipment
capital costs were increased by the factor of 1.86, then adjusted from 1979
dollars to 1982 dollars, to arrive at the total project capital costs. O&M
costs were taken directly from the CAPDET runs, and only increased from 1979
to 1982 dollars.
In order to benchmark CAPDET, design data were taken from 13 OCPSF plants
(Table VIII-21). In order to check the consistency of the OCPSF plant data
used in this analysis, comparisons were made between reported OCPSF capital
costs per gallon of aeration tank size versus flow, and reported costs per
1,000 gallons vs. pounds of BODg removed per 1,000 gallons. There should be a
correlation evident from these comparisons; however, there is a considerable
amount of scatter in the actual plant data (Table vTII-22). The capital cost
per gallon of tank ranged from $0.10 to $6.25, with an average of $1.99 and a
standard deviation of $2.16. O&M costs per 1,000 gallons ranged from $0.46 to
$7.12, with an average of $2.33 and a standard deviation of $2.30. Therefore,
the reported plant data may contain costs that should not be taken into
account in EPA's analysis. For example, a plant may have included its plant
expansion as part of other improvements at the site. However, the plant's
accounting system may not allow for the breakout of the costs in sufficient
detail for direct comparison to EPA's estimates. For example, a plant may
choose to upgrade its sewer system or road network near the treatment plant.
It may account for these construction activities as part of "treatment plant
capi tal improvemen t proj ec t."
Some plants may use waste steam or spent chemicals from the plant process
units in the treatment system. If the plant does not account for these as
VIII-44
-------
TABLE ₯111-21.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
TABLE OF REPORTED "308" QUESTIONNAIRE DATA
Facility
Questionnaire Detention Time K
Number Flow (MGD) TD (day) (1/mg/hr)
500
525
662
908
1343
< 1349
w 1609
£ 1695
1766
2626
2631
2701
2536
0.720
1.50
6.48
1.40
0.374*
0.501
1.5
1.84
0.432*
0.865
9.40
0.144*
3.6
15.0
1.0
3.0
6.0
2.8
0.26
1.0
0,57
3.0
9.0
1.5
2.0
1.2
0.000063
0.000027
0.000075
0.000024
0.210
0.00058
0.0001
0.00019
0.260
0.000026
0.00027
0.062
0.0037
so
(mg/1)
2,209
65
1,300
4,280
307
720
1,920
215
1,750
350
1,125
1,000
713
S
17.5
18
93
291
20
72
192
42
90
20
27
250
14
TSS.
(mg/t)
8,000
100
600
514
100
1,000
1,300
101
625
1,800
840
0
100
TSS
(Bg/1)
40
43
50
233
25
100
100
36
150
25
48
250
15
Temperature
(8C)
23.6
10
17
27
13
16
38
32
10
20
31
25
26.1
MLSS
(ng/1)
6250
6,000
3,081
5,000
N/A
2,800
5,000
N/A
N/A
4,000
5,000
N/A
2,160
MLVSS
(mg/1)
5,500
4,000
2,400
4,000
2,500
2,500
3,700
2,500
3,000
3,000
4,250
3,500
2,000
*Snall facilities less than 0.5 MGD
N/A Not Available
DEFINITIONS:
KB = BOD removal rate constant
S* = Soluble BOD5 in influent
S° = Soluble BOD5 in effluent
T§Si = total suspended solids in influent
TSS = total suspended solids in effluent
MLS§ = Mixed liquor suspended solids
MLVSS - Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
-------
TABLE V1II-22.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
TABLE OF REPORTED CAPITAL COST PER GALLON AND O&M COST PER 1,000 GALLON*
Facility
Questionnaire
Number
500
525
908
1343
1349
1609
1695
1766
2626
2631
2701
2536
Flow (MGD)
0.720
1.50
1.40
0.374
0.501
1.50
1.84
0.432
0.865
9.40
0.144
3.60
Tank
Volume (MG)
10.8
1.5
8.4
1.05
0.130
1.50
1.05
1.30
7.79
14.1
0.288
4.32
Reported (Assuming 365 Day/Yr)
Capital Cost Total Lb BOD Removed
Per Gallon ($) Gallon (HG) Per 1000 Gallon
0.101
2.05
1.48
0.467
4.42
0.705
6.25
0.888
0.248
0.686
5.53
0.724
262.8
547.5
511.0
136.5
182.9
547.5
671.6
157.7
315.7
3431
52.6
1314
18.28
0.392
33.27
2.39
5.41
14.41
1.44
13.84
2.75
9.16
6.26
5.38
O&M Cost Per
1000 Gallon ($)
1.30
1.42
6.29
1.21
1.83
0.751
1.18
1.15
0.912
1.90
7.12
0.462
*1982 Dollars
-------
costs to the treatment system, they may report unusually low O&M costs.
Therefore, actual reported costs can be expected to vary widely around IPA's
calculated costs.
Table VIII-23 presents the comparison between reported plant capital and
O&M costs and the costs calculated by CAPDET in 1982 dollars. Table VIII-24
presents a comparison of reported and CAPDET-calculated detention times.
Although the individual plant cost comparisons vary greatly, for the
reasons noted earlier, CAPDET's total capital costs for the sum of all the
plants are close to (15% higher) the reported total capital costs incurred.
Even though there are differences in design (CAPDET designs concrete tanks
whereas some plants use more costly steel tanks or less costly earthen basins
with or without liners), IPA has concluded that its cost estimates accurately
reflect expected costs that will be incurred by compliance with this
regulation.
Table VIII-25 details the individual components of the aggregrated O&M
costs presented in Table VIII-23. An investigation of the individual O&M
costs showed that reported operating labor costs were higher than CAPDET
default value labor costs in every case, by factors ranging up to 15 times
CAPDET costs. Similarly, maintenance labor costs differed by factors ranging
up to 14 times CAPDET default value costs. Followup telephone calls to the
plants in question revealed the reasons for the major differences. The labor
rates submitted in the supplemental questionnaires included fringe benefits
such as workmen's compensation, PICA, vacation, etc. The fringe benefits are
generally between 25 to 40 percent of total labor costs. Other plants also
included overhead and overtime in their labor rates. One plant's labor rates
were based on annual costs for operating the entire treatment plant rather
than just the activated sludge system. Table VIII-26 shows that the operation
man-hours reported for the 5 plants listed ranged from 3 to 11 times the pre-
dicted CAPDET values. However, reported maintenance man-hours varied little
from CAPDET for small facilities (<0.50 MGD).
The data in Table VIII-25 show that CAPDET's estimates for the non-labor
O&M costs are close to the reported values. Again, a particular plant's
VIII-47
-------
TABLE VIII-23.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
COMPARISON OF CAPDET AND REPORTED CAPITAL AND O&H COSTS.(1982 DOLLARS)
Facility
Questionnaire
Number* Flow (MGD)
500
525
908
1343
1349
1609
1695
1766
2626
2631
2701
2536
0,720
1.50
1.40
0.374
0.501
1.50
1.84
0.432
0.865
9.40
0.144
3.60
Total
Capital Costs ($)
Reported
1,090,900
3,080,033
12,413,398
489,848
573,986
1,057,269
6,564,288
1,154,129
1,935,200
9,677,460
1,593,000
3,126,000
42,755,511
CAPDET
7,775,295
2,919,627
7,711,333
445,086
1,050,064
2,786,307
1,428,127
. 500,073
6,644,254
14,319,559
240,266
3,169,031
48,989,022
O&M Costs ($/₯r)
Reported
342,521
779,093
3,216,222
221,616
335,570
411,336
789,781
182,000
287,817
6,512,820
374,694
606,660
14,060,130
CAPDET
555,219
121,058
1,419,083
45,898
141,840
749,624
169,902
47,501
257,274
2,398,098
37,346
534,298
6,477,141
*Plant No. 662 deleted
VIII-48
-------
TABLE VIII-24.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
COMPARISON OF REPORTED AND CAPDET DETENTION TIMES (T )
Facility
Questionnaire Td Reported Td CAPDET
Number Flow (Day) (Day)
500 0.720 15.0 11.79
525 1.50 1.0 1.98
908 1.40 6.0 3.79
1343 0.374 2.8 2.8
1349 0.501 0.260 0.348
1609 1.50 1.0 0.304
1695 1.84 0.057 0.158
1766 0.432 3.0 3.0
2626 0.865 9.0 9.0
2631 9.40 1.5 0.713
2701 0.144 2.0 2.0
2536 3.60 1.2 1.2
VIII-49
-------
TABLE VIII-25.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
COMPARISON OF REPORTED AND CAPDET O&M COSTS (1982 DOLLARS)
Reported Cost ($) CAPDET Cost <$)
Q(KGD)
Plant No. 500
Operating Labor Cost 140,636
Maintenance Labor cost 38,807
Power Cost 129,542
Material Cost 33,536
87,273
42,710
285,102
138,831
0.720
Plant No. 525
Operating Labor Cost 298,942
Maintenance Labor Cost 224,890
Power Cost 113,368
Material Cost 141,893
38,928
16,434
26,419
39,281
1.5
Plant No. 908
Operating Labor Cost 1,457,406
Maintenance Labor Cost 698,562
Power Cost 424,338
Material Cost 635,916
158,492
91,567
1,075,806
93,221
1.4
Plant No. 1343
Operating Labor Cost 86,455
Maintenance Labor Cost 7,334
Power Cost 96,618
Material Cost 31,209
27,937
12,193
1,781
3,987
0.374
Plant No. 1349
Operating Labor Cost 216,897
Maintenance Labor Cost 56,145
Power Cost 42,197
Material Cost 20,330
47,878
20,437
64,700
8,832
0.501
Plant No. 1609
Operating Labor Cost 139,476
Maintenance Labor Cost 59,100
Power Cost 35,460
Material Cost 177,300
118,218
62,540
550,108
18,763
1.5
VIII-50
-------
TABLE VIII-25.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
COMPARISON OF REPORTED AND CAPDET O&N COSTS (1982 DOLLARS)
(Continued)
Reported Cost ($) CAPDET Cost ($)
Q(HGD)
Plant No. 1695
Operating Labor Cost 177,867
Maintenance Labor Cost 186,066
Power Cost 76,721
Material Cost 349,848
55,884
24,467
80,222
9,336
1.84
Plant No. 1766
Operating Labor Cost 82,740
Maintenance Labor Cost 40,188
Power Cost 59,100
Material Cost
28,536
12,683
2,056
4,225
0.432
Plant No. 2626
Operating Labor Cost 137,112
Maintenance Labor Cost 14,775
Power Cost 115,836
Material Cost 20,094
50,138
21,561
67,727
117,853
0.865
Plant No. 2631
Operating Labor Cost 632,370
Maintenance Labor Cost 1,452,678
Power Cost 3,330,876
Material Cost 1,096,896
228,630
141,854
1,950,971
76,647
9.4
Plant No. 2701
Operating Labor Cost
Maintenance Labor Cost
Power Cost
Material Cost
354,600
13,002
11,820
7,092
24,282
9,394
685
2,985
0.144
VIII-51
-------
TABLE VIII-26.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
COMPARISON OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS
Facility
Questionnaire Operation Han-hours Maintenance Han-Hours
Number
525
1343
1695
1766
2701
Q(HGD)
1.50
0.374
1.84
0.432
0.144
Reported
16,760
8,320
11,000
4,793
10,950
CAPDET
1,569
1,464
2,441
1,490
1,270
Reported
9,500
730
10,900
1,872
400
CAPDET
792
892
1,301
925
702
VIII-52
-------
reported values may be unnecessarily high due to accounting features, as dis-
cussed earlier. However, EPA believed that an adjustment to its labor rates
was necessary, as follows. Table VIII-27 presents the reported operating and
labor rates Cor nine plants. These rates were adjusted as a result of follow-
up telephone calls made to the individual plants and provide an overall aver-
age labor rate (that generally includes fringe benefits, overhead, etc. but
excludes unrelated expenses) of $19.77/hour (1982 dollars). These data were
used to adjust the CAPDET default labor rate to $15.57 hour (1979 dollars).
Power and material costs also differed, but not as dramatically as the labor
costs.
The land requirements calculated by CAPDET are inconsistent for small
facilities (flow <0.5 MGD) and appear to be excessively high for large facil-
ities (flow >0.5 MGD). An investigation into the development of the CAPDET
program revealed the land requirement equation to be invalid for small facili-
ties.
In developing new land requirements for small facilities, activated
sludge package plant vendors were contacted. The package plant dimensions
they supplied were scaled up to represent the total land required for the
package units peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.).
Table VIII-28 presents the total revised land requirements calculated for
small facilities. The equation that describes the relationship of acreage to
plant flow is:
* Small Facilities (<0.5 MGD):
LAND = exp[A + B x ln(Q) -t- C x ln(Q)2J
where:
A » -0.563658
B = 0.57498
C . 0.04199
Q « flow (MGD).
VIII-53
-------
TABLE VIII-27.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
TABLE OF REPORTED OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE LABOR RATES (1982 DOLLARS)
Facility
Questionnaire
Number
500
525
908
1343
1609
1695
1766
2626
2631
Flow (HGD)
0.720
1.50
1.40
0.374
1.50
1.84
0.432
0.865
9.40
Reported
Operating
($/hr.)
21.30
17.84
23.64
10.39
25.36
16.17
17.26
15.65
21.29
Labor Rates
Maintenance
<$/hr.)
21.56
23.67
23.64
10.05
23.63
17.07
21.46
24.63
21.30
Average
<$/hr.)
21.43
20.76
23.64
10.22
24.50
16.62
19.36
20.14
21.30
Total Average
$19.77
VIII-54
-------
TABLE VIII-28.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
REVISED LAND REQUIREMENTS
Plow
(MGD)
0.001
0.005
0.010
0.050
0.100
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.500
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
Land Required
(Acres)
0.075
0.100
0.100
0.125
0.200
0.400
1.75
2.25
3.00
3.25
5.25
6.75
9.00
VIII-55
-------
For large facilities, the revised land requirements were calculated using
data generated by the CAPDET program. The calculated total land requirements
are presented in Table VIII-28 and are represented by the following equation!
Large Facilities (>0,5 MGD):
LAND = exp[A + B x ln(Q) + C x In (Q)2]
where:
A . 0.762447
B » 0.61494
C m 0.16432
Q - flow (KGD).
2* Biological Treatment Upgrades
Based on the Section 308 Questionnaires! a large number of OCPSF plants
use biological treatment to control BOPS and organic priority pollutants in
their effluent waste streams. Many of these plants were built in the early
1970's, and were designed to meet present permit limitations based on best
professional judgment, wjiich may be less stringent than the BPT limitations.
As such, these plants cannot meet BPT limitations without certain system
modifications or upgrades. The purpose of the bio-upgrade costing procedure
is to develop costs for plants that only require small improvements (i.e.,
less than 15 mg/1 of additional BODS removal or approximately 6 percent
additional BOD5 removal).
After a preliminary screening of approximately 50 Section 308 Question-
naires, 13 organic chemical manufacturing facilities with modified biological
treatment systems were selected for initial consideration. Since the annual-
ized capital cost curve will only be used to represent "improved biological
treatment" (i.e., will only be applied to plants where a small effluent BOD,
increment (4 to 15 mg/1) above BPT limitations exists), plants with major
modifications, such as construction of additional aeration tanks, clarifiers,
or tertiary filters, were eliminated from consideration. After facilities
with major modifications were eliminated, five facilities were considered to
VIII-56
-------
meet the criteria for the appropriate improvement in technology (see Table
VIII-29). Details of the treatment systems reviewed and those retained for
analysis can be found in the final detailed costing document in the Costing
Section of the Public Record.
To determine the degree of improvement in biological treatment efficiency
after modifications, the Agency gathered available BOD$ and flow data for the
vastevater treatment systems' influent and effluent streams at the five se-
lected OCPSF facilities. The data were selected to reflect time periods pre-
ceding and following biological treatment system modifications. The differ-
ence between the BOD5 removal rates occurring before and after treatment plant
modifications provides a measure of the improvement in plant performance. The
improvement in performance can be related to the modifications made and their
costs. Data for use in this analysis were obtained from industrial discharge
monitoring reports (DMRs) and Section 308 Questionnaires.
A review of the pertinent information showed influent and effluent data
for a number of the manufacturing facilities to be missing. Of the selected
five facilities, only two plants present meaningful influent and effluent data
before and after their modifications, and three other plants provided only
effluent data, making it difficult to construct a cost curve. However, by
using the three plants that had effluent data and calculating the difference
between effluent BOD5 loadings before and after their system modifications,
additional data for incremental BOD5 removal were obtained.
These five facilities provide a representative cross-section of product
mix in the final OCPSF subcategories (see Table VIII-30). Also, each facil-
ity's wastewater treatment system is considered a well-operated biological
treatment system, based on the BPT editing rule of at least 95 percent BOD5
removal or an effluent BOD5 less than or equal to 40 mg/1. Table VIII-31
presents the available influent and effluent data for each of the five facil-
ities used in the analysis.
For the calculation of the annualized unit capital costs presented in
Table VIII-29, the annualized capital costs for each facility were taken to be
19.2 percent of the corresponding capital costs in 1982 dollars. Annualized
VIII-57
-------
TABLE VIII-29.
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS
FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM UPGRADES
Facility Additional Annual!zed Annualized Unit
Questionnaire BOD. Removal Capital Cost (1) Capital Cost
Number Modification (Lbs/Day) ($) ($/Lb Removed)
2592
267
2181
296
1977
Settling Aids for
Secondary Clarification
Additional Aeration 7
Additional Aeration
Additional Aeration 3
Additional Aeroflocculators
Polymer Addition System
Clarifier Modification 16
192*
,773*
321
,944*
,760
35,000
332,000
88,000
282,000
319,000
0.50
0.12
0.75
0.20
0.05
(1) Annualized Costs = 19.2 percent of Capital Cost in 1982 dollars.
*Additional BODg removal calculated based on the difference between effluent
BOD5 loadings before and after modifications.
VIII-58
-------
TABLE VIII-30.
PRODUCT MIX OF THE FIVE FACILITIES
USED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAPITAL COST CURVE
FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM UPGRADES
Facility
Products
Product Group
B
Acetic Anhydride
Cellulose Acetate Resin
Cellulose Acetate Fibers
Acetic Acid Esters
Formaldehyde
Salicylic Acid
Alkanol Amines
Glycol Ethers
Polyglycols
Polyols
Acrylamide
Polyacrylamide
Acetic Acid
Ethylcellulose Polyether
Ethanol
Diethyl Ethers
Methylcellulose Polyethers
Styrene Butadiene Resins
Polyvinylidiene Resins
ABS Resins
SAN Resins
Polystyrene
Styrene
Vinyltoluene
Benzene
Mixed Xylenes
Chloroacetic Acid
Commodity
Thermoplastics
Fibers
Bulk
Commodity
Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Commodity
Specialty
Commodity
Specialty
Specialty
Thermoplastics
Thermoplastics
Thermoplastics
Thermoplastics
Specialty
Commodity
Specialty
Commodity
Commodity
Specialty
VIII-59
-------
TABLE VIII-30.
PRODUCT MIX OF THE FIVE FACILITIES
USED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAPITAL COST CURVE
FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM UPGRADES
(Continued)
Facility
Products
Product Group
Acrylic Fiber
Nylon 66
Nylon 66 Fiber
Polyester
Polyester
Fibers
Fibers
Fibers
Fibers
Fibers
SAN Resins
ABS Resins
Thermoplastics
Thermoplastics
E
Acetylene
Ethylene
Propylene
Butylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
1,2-Diehloroethane
Ethylene Diamine
Polyethylene Polyamines
Ethylamine
Isopropylamine
Ethylene Oxide
Ethylene Glycol
Diethylene Glycol
Polyoxyethylene Glycol
Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl
Acrolein
Acrylic Acid
Bulk
Commodity
Commodity
Commodity
Commodity
Commodity
Commodity
Commodity
Commodity
Specialty
Bulk
Bulk
Commodity
Commodity
Bulk
Bulk
Ether Bulk
Specialty
Bulk
VIII-60
-------
TABLE VIII-30.
PRODUCT MIX OF THE FIVE FACILITIES
USED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAPITAL COST
FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM UPGRADES
(Continued)
Facility Products Product Group
i (Continued) Acrylic'Acid Esters Bulk
Paracetic Acid Specialty
Acetic Acid Commodity
Misc. Oxides & Epoxides Specialty
Cyclohexanone Bulk
VIII-61
-------
TABLE VIII-31.
CURRENT INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT BOD. CONCENTRATIONS AT THE FIVE FACILITIES
USED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITAL COST CURVES
FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM UPGRADES
Facility
Questionnaire Number
1977
267
2592
2181
296
Influent BOD5*
Concentration (mg/1)
617
160**
1,187
338
4,695
Effluent BOD5*
Concentration (mg/1)
27
10**
63
4
216
*Data obtained from the 1983 Supplemental "308" Questionnaire
**Soluble BODe
VIII-62
-------
unit capital costs were then obtained by dividing the annualized capital costs
by the annual BOD5 mass removal. The relationships between annualized capital
costs versus additional BOD removal and annualized unit capital cost versus
additional BOD5 removal are presented in Figures VIII-1 and VIII-2. In gener-
al, the annualized unit capital cost, ranging from $0.05 to $0.75 per pound of
BOD5 removal, decreased with increasing mass BOD5 removal, indicating an econ-
omy of scale.
It should be noted that the cost curve has a minimum value of 100 Ibs/day
of additional BODS removal. For BOD5 mass removal of less than 100 Ibs/day,
$0.75/pound was used, which was the highest cost determined in this analysis.
The derivations of annual O&M costs are based upon the process design and
cost estimating algorithms of the January 1981 CAPDET model for completely
mixed activated sludge. Briefly, O&M costs for activated sludge processes are
computed as a function of reactor air requirements; in the case of completely
mixed activated sludge using diffused aeration, O&M costs are based upon re-
quired air flow, while costs for systems using mechanical aerators are based
upon the total horsepower of the aeration equipment. It is also important to
realize that the derived air requirement is solely a function of BOD5 removal;
i.e., according to the derived model, any amount of BOD5 desired can be
removed by increased aeration. Although in practice this is not always true,
for these applications of the methodology, i.e., for relatively small reduc-
tions of BOD5, this relationship appears to be valid.
Vhen using the CAPDET method in the calculation of these increased O&M
costs, the design temperature is assumed to be 20°C. The increased aeration
calculated is then adjusted for the operating temperature using the State
temperature cost factors. These values are based upon the State's minimum
monthly average ambient temperature. The State temperature cost factors
reflect the higher costs associated with operating an activated sludge system
whose winter temperatures deviate from ambient conditions.
Table VIII-32 presents the projected capital and operation and mainte-
nance costs for upgrades to the existing activated sludge systems at the five
facilities utilized in the capital cost analysis as measured by the incre-
mental BOD. removal improvements.
VIII-63
-------
10"
10
tirijrffl
iliililiili
FIGURE VHI-1
Annualized Capital Cost vs.
Additional BOD Removal
Additional BOD Removal (Ibs/day)
-------
1.0..
co
o
o.
-------
TABLE VIII-32.
PROJECTED CAPITAL AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&H) COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM UPGRADES
Facility Annual Unit
Questionnaire Capital Cost <$/Lb)
Number (1982$)
Annual Unit
O&M Cost ($/Lb)
(1979$)
Additional BOD5
Removal (Lbs/Day)
1977
267
2592
2181
296
0.056
0.115
0.514
0,785
0.201
0.039
0.059
0.127
0.133
0.048
16,760
7,773
192
321
3,944
VIII-66
-------
3. Chemically Assisted Clarification
Chemically assisted clarifiers (CACs) are designed to allow wastewater to
flow slowly and quiesceptly, permitting solids denser than water to settle to
the bottom and materials less dense than water (including oil and grease) to
flow to the surface. Polymers are added to the wastewater to enhance liquid-
solid separation. Settled solids form a sludge at the bottom of the clarifier
which is usually pumped out either continuously or intermittently. Oil and
grease and other floating materials may be skimmed off the surface.
Chemically assisted clarifiers may be used alone or as part of a more
complex treatment process.
Cost estimates for CAC systems were derived from an Environmental Science
and Engineering, Inc. costing methodology prepared for the pesticides indus-
try. A summary of the design specifications and estimated land requirements
is presented in Table VIII-33.
Components of the clarification system include concrete clarifiers (mini-
mum of two units), sludge pumps, polymer storage tanks, and polymer feeders.
The clarification system also includes sitework, electrical, piping, and
instrumentation (SEP&I). Table VTII-34 shows the itemized capital costs for
the clarification systems with flow rates ranging from 0.01 to 20 MGD. The
estimated equipment costs for sludge removal systems, pumps, polymer feeders,
and polymer storage tanks were obtained from manufacturers' quotes. The unit
costs for .reinforced concrete, excavation, and epoxy coating were determined
from vendor quotes to be $345/yd3, $6.78/yd3, and $2.50/ft2, respectively.
The SEP&I costs were taken to be 48 percent of the total equipment costs, and
the construction costs were the sum of the equipment and SEP&I costs. Both
the engineering and contingency costs were each assumed to be 15 percent of
the construction costs. The final capital costs were converted to 1982 dol-
lars using ENR's Construction Index. Since it is difficult to obtain a repre-
sentative unit land cost, land costs are not included in the estimates, but
were determined on a plant-by-plant basis as discussed earlier in this
section.
VIII-67
-------
TABLE VIII-33.
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALLY ASSISTED CLARIFICATION SPECIFICATIONS
Flow Rate (MGD)
Parameters
Number of Clarifier
Cells
Diameter (ft)*
Side Water Depth
(ft)
Design Overflow
Rates (gpd/ft2)
Polymer Dosage
Land (Acre)
0.01
2
15
12
400
1
0.11
0.05
2
15
12
400
1
0.11
0.10
2
15
12
400
1
0.11
0.50
2
30
12
400
1
0.19
1.0 5.0
2 2
40 9p
12 12
400 400
1 1
0.26 0.72
10.0
2
125
12
400
1
1.17
20.0
4
125
12
400
1
2.12
*Since the minimum size of the sludge removal mechanism is 15 ft, clarifier
diameters for the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 MGD flow systems were over designed.
VIII-68
-------
TABLE VIII-34.
ITEMIZED CAPITAL COSTS FOR CHEMICALLY
ASSISTED CLARIFIERS
w
Flow Rate (MGD)
Item
Excavation
Reinforced Concrete
Epoxy Coating
Sludge Removal System
Sludge Pumps
Polymer Feed System
SEP&I
Construction Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost (1983 $)
Total Capital Cost (1982 $)
0.01
3,460
27,600
4,180
43,780
5,630
18,760
49,640
153,050
22,960
22,960
198,970
190,480
0.05
3,460
27,600
4,180
43,780
5,630
18,760
49,640
153,050
22,960
22,960
198,970
190,480
0.10
3,460
27,600
4,180
43,780
5,630
18,760
49,640
153,050
22,960
22,960
198,970
190,480
0.5
8,360
62,790
10,130
60,450
5,630
21,890
81,240
250,490
37,580
37,580
325,650
311,780
1.0
12,800
91,080
15,080
75,040
5,630
21,890
106,330
327,850
49,180
49,180
426,210
408,040
49
293
20
125
12
44
261
807
121
121
1,049
1,004
5.0
,250
,940
,640
,000
,500
,000
,760
,090
,070
,070
,230
,440
10.0
88
495
88
191
19
66
455
1,405
210
210
1,827
1,749
,850
,420
,850
,600
,160
,000
,950
,830
,880
,880
,590
,590
20
177
990
177
383
38
120
906
2,793
419
419
3,632
3,476
.0
,690
,840
,700
,200
,320
,000
,120
,870
,080
,080
,030
,900
-------
Annual operating costs were estimated based on energy, chemicals, labor,
maintenance, and taxes and insurance. A summary of the itemized operating
costs is presented in Table VIII-35. fhe estimated annual energy costs were
based on manufacturers' recommendations on motor-horse power for sludge
removal mechanisms, pumps, and polymer feed systems, plus control and lighting
requirements. A unit electricity cost of $0.08/kwh was used for cost esti-
mates. The unit labor costs were based on EPA's Treatability Hanual at
$24,500/man-yr for labor and $34,600/man-yr for supervision. The Hercu Ploc
815 unit price of $2,80/lb was used for calculating chemical costs. The
annual maintenance costs were taken to be 4 percent of the total capital
costs. Taxes and insurance costs were assumed to be 2 percent of the total
capital costs. The final operating costs were also converted to 1982 dollars
using ENR's Construction Index.
Figures VIII-3 and VIII-4 show the relationship between flow rates and
the capital and annual O&M costs, respectively. Figure VIII-5 presents the
estimated land requirements versus flow rates. The land requirements were
estimated based upon the sizes of the clarifiers plus adequate space for
repairs and general access.
A benchmark analysis was performed to compare the cost estimates with
OCPSF plant installations. Based on the recent Section 308 Questionnaires,
21 OCPSF plants were selected that had provided capital costs information on
their primary or secondary clarifiers. The costs were converted to 1982
dollars using the ENR Construction Index. The results are presented in Table
VIII-36. The wastewater flow rates under study range from 0.14 to 7.5 MGD. In
general, although there are differences in the cost comparisons between EPA's
estimates and the industry plants, there is no definitive pattern to the
difference in either magnitude or direction. Approximately 67 percent of the
facilities (or 14 plants) have cost differences within ±80 percent. However,
four out of the 21 facilities show extremely high discrepancies with percent
differences greater than 100 percent.
Due to the lack of detailed design information from the Section 308
Questionnaires, a larger number of unknown site-specific factors may exist,
thus affecting the cost comparison. For example, critical design parameters
VIII-70
-------
TABLE VHI-35.
ITEMIZED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR CHEMICALLY
ASSISTED CLARIFIERS
Flow Rate(MGD)
Item
Energy
Polymer
Labor
Maintenance
Taxes and Insurance
Total Operating Cost (1983 $)
Total Operating Cost (1982 $)
0.01
1,820
85
1,581
6,957
3,479
13,925
13,330
0.05
1,958
430
4,010
7,960
3,980
18,340
17,560
0.10
1,958
855
5,344
7,960
3,980
20,100
19,245
0.5
3,172
4,265
12,870
13,030
6,515
39*855
38,165
1.0
4,248
8,530
16,790
17,050
8,525
55,150
52,800
15
42
41
41
20
162
155
5.0
,670
,620
,500
,970
,985
,745
,800
10.0
30
85
77
73
36
301
289
,015
,235
,000
,105
,555
,910
,020
20.0
59,
30,
125,
145,
72,
433,
414,
820
360
000
285
645
110
615
-------
iof,
10
FIGURE VIII-3
Total Capital Cost Curve Vs, Flow for
Chemically Assisted Clarification Systems
Flow (MGD)
i rTrniinmmim
0,01
o.J.n
l.o
10.0
-------
10'
1
*!
u>
10
10"
FIGURE VIII-4
Annual O&M Cost Curve Vs. Flow for
Chemically Assisted Clarification Systems
Flow (MGD)
-rrrrmmnmi
0.01
0.10
1.0
10.0
-------
2.0
1.0
X^^ii&ryi-.,; ,U,,-ijII.; Hij
^*m r! i tli'il
HiUKriii'SS U.-j "LTL?!iJJ.li-iLJ-
Ipliii i i i n j: Hi
FIGURE VIII-5
Land Requirements Curve Vs. Flow for
Chemically Assisted Clarification Systems
0.01
0.10
10.0
-------
TABLE VIII-36.
BENCHMARK COMPARISON
I
*xl
Ul
Facility
Number
2701
1343
1349
2376
2110
2181
0500
1267
2315
0005
Treatment
system
Sec. Clarifier and
Setl. Aids (1976)
Sec. Clarifier and
Setl. Aids (1976)
Sec. Clarifier (1969)
Prim. Clarifier and
Neutralization (1974)
Sec. Clarifier (1972)
Prim. Clarifier and
Surge Tank (1975)
Sec. Clarifier (1978)
Sec. Clarifier (1974)
Sec. Clarifier (1958)
Sec. Clarifier and
Flow
(mgd)
0.14
0.37
0.50
0.50
0.58
0.58
0.72
0.83
1.30
Reported
Costs
(1982 $)
6.4xl05
2.1xl05
2. 6x10 5
6.6xl05
6.0xl04
8.4xlOs
2.8xlOs
S.OxlO4
6.5xl05
EPA's
Estimates
(1982 $)
2.1xl05
2.8xl05
3.1xl05
3-lxlO5
. 3.3xl05
3.3xl05
3.5xl05
3.8xl05
4.7xlOs
Difference
(EPA-
Reported)
($)
-4.3xl05
+7xl04
-i-SxlO4
-3.5xl05
+2.7xl05
-S.lxlO5
-M).7xl05
+3.0xl05
-l.SxlO5
%
Difference
Compared to
reported Cost*
67% low
33% high
19% high
53% low
450% high
61% low
25% high
375% high
28% low
1609
Setl. Aids (1960) 1.44
Sec. Clarifier and
Polymer Add'n System
(1975) 1.50
4.2x10°
2.3x10
5.0x10
S.lxlO5
-3.7x10
4-2.8x10
88% low
122% high
-------
TABLE 7111-36.
BENCHMARK COMPARISON
(Continued)
Facility
Number
0444
2592
0063
1494
1977
0296
2528
2242
2430
2227
* 9? Hi f f orem
Treatment
System
Sec. Clarifier (1973)
Sec. Clarifier and
Setl. Aids (1972)
Prim. Clarifier (1973)
Sec. Clarifier and
Setl. Aids (1972)
Sec. Clarifier
(1975)
2 Sec. Clarifiers and
Setl. Aids (1974)
Prim. Clarifier
(1954)
Sec. Clarifier (lev.)
(1974)
Sec. Clarifier and
Setl. Aids (1977)
Sec. Clarifier and
Setl. Aids (1977)
EPA-Reported
Flow
(MGD)
2.00
2.02
2.40
3.00
3.10
3.82
4.71
6.00
6.74
7.50
inn*
Reported
Costs
(1982 $)
3.8xl06
8.4xl05
4,lxl05
3.8xlOS
4.2xl05
2.7xl06
6,QxlQs
1.4x10*
7 . IxlO6
2.5xlOS
EPA's
Estimates
(1982 $)
6.0xl05
6.0xl05
6.7xl05
7.8xl05
S.OxlO5
9.1xl05
l.lxlO6
1.3xl06
1.4xl06
l.SxlO6
Difference
(SPA-
Reported)
($)
-3.2xl06
-2.4xl05
+2.6xl05
+4. 0x10 5
-t-3.8x!05
~1.79xl06
+5.0xl05
-l.OxlO5
-5.7xl06
-l.OxlO6
%
Difference
Compared to
Reported Cost*
84% low
29% low
63% high
105% high
90% high
66% low
83% high
7% low
80% low
40% low
Reported
-------
such as overflow rate, detention time, type of tank used, veir loading rate,
and chemical feed systems, etc., were all unavailable for the estimates. This
may be the major reason why some significant discrepancies exist. Potential
cost estimate differences may be introduced further by the geographical
locations of the facilities. In addition, differences between the actual
construction costs of the treatment systems and the conversion of such costs
into 1982 dollars most likely contributes to these discrepancies. Despite
some of the large discrepancies, EPA's cost estimates have been judged to be
acceptable, considering the unknown factors and the possible variations in the
cost estimating procedures which may vary significantly from one company to
another.
Based on the benchmark analysis, it is concluded that EPA's cost esti-
mates on clarification systems are within a reasonable range normally associ-
ated with actual Industrial practices.
4. Filtration Systems
Filtration is an established unit operation for achieving supplemental
removal of residual suspended solids from wastewater effluent of chemical and
biological treatment processes. The types of filters can be classified
according to the number of filtering media used, such as single-medium or
multimedia beds. In multimedia filters, two or more layers of different
granular materials are present in the bed. Because of their high capacity and
good quality effluent, multimedia filters are receiving widespread use in new
plants for the additional removal of TSS and insoluble BODg. Typical media
used for multimedia filters include anthracite, sand, and garnet.
The complete filtration operation essentially involves two phases: fil-
tration and backwashing. Filtration is accomplished by passing the wastewater
to be filtered through the filter bed. Within the filter bed, the removal of
the suspended solids contained in the wastewater is accomplished by a complex
process involving one or more removal mechanisms, such as straining, sedimen-
tation, interception, impact ion, and adsorption. As the head loss across the
filter bed increases to a limiting value, the end of the filter run is
reached. At this point, the filter must be backwashed to remove the suspended
solids that have accumulated within the filter bed.
VIII-77
-------
Important parameters that must be considered in the design of multimedia
filters include influent vastevater suspended solids level, solids character-
istics, filtration rates, and filter medium characteristics. Table VIII-37
presents a summary of the filtration system specifications used in the CAPDET
runs to develop the cost curves. Average flow values range from 0.01 to 20
HGD. For small plants where the required filter surface areas are less than
400 ft2 (or <2.3 MGD), the CAPDET model uses package filters for economic rea-
sons. For larger plants with required surface areas of greater than 400 ft2
(or >2.3 MGD), filters with concrete wall construction are always used..
The cost summary output data were adjusted prior to incorporation into
the summary tables. Capital costs were calculated based upon total project
costs less miscellaneous nonconstruction costs, 201 planning costs, technical
costs, land costs, interest during construction, and laboratory costs. Opera-
tion and maintenance costs were obtained directly from the initial year O&M
costs.
Table VIII-38 presents a summary of the capital and O&M costs for filtra-
tion systems in 1982 dollars. Figures VIII-6 and VIII-7 represent the cost
curves in 1982 dollars. Figure VIII-8 presents the estimated land require-
ments versus flow rates.
5. Polishing Ponds
Polishing ponds are usually used as an additional solids removal step
following biological treatment processes. They are often used in place of
secondary clarifiers following aerated lagoons. Where sufficient land is
available at low cost, polishing ponds may present an economically attractive
alternative to multimedia filtration or mlcroscreening.
Cost estimates for the polishing pond systems were made for six systems
covering a wide range of flow conditions (0.07 to 20 MGD). The design basis
for these estimates involves a 1-day detention. Four of the six sizes select-
ed are from actual OCPSF plants. The other two plants were selected at high
flow rates of 10 and 20 MGD.
VIII-78
-------
TABLE VIII-37.
SUMMARY OF FILTRATION SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
Parameter d.6l*
Total Filter (ft2)
Surface Area 1.7
Depth of Filter Bed
(ft)
Number of Filter Cells 4
Flow
O.i* i.6*
17.4 174
9
4 4
Rate (MGD)
2.0*
347
9
4
10.0
1740
9
4
20.0
3470
9
8
Land (Acre)
(Minimum 0.1 Acre) 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.4
1.0 2.0
Design Specifications
Influent
Effluent
TSS =
TSS =
Filtration Rate
Backwash
*Package
Rate =
Plant
40 mg/1
16 mg/1
Media
Used
Anthracite
« 4 gpm/ft2
20 gpra/ft2
Anthracite
Sand
Garnet
Gravel
Sand
Garnet
Gravel
K
6
5
4
6
Sand
FOR
0.
0.
0.
0.
50
40
47
60
1
1
1
1
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
DIA SF
0.
0.
0.
0.
0046 7.0
0020 8.5
0010 8.0
050 6.0
SG
1.4
2.65
2.65
2.65
K « Coefficient of Permeability
POR = Porosity
DIA = Particle Diameter (ft)
SF = Shape Factor
SG = Specific Gravity
VIII-79
-------
TABLE VIII-38.
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND O&H COSTS FOR FILTRATION SYSTEMS
1982 DOLLARS (MARCH)
Flow (MGD)
0.01
0.10
1.00
2.00
10.00
20.00
Capital Cost ($)*
205,720
253,773
519,684
657,833
1,328,275
2,633,803
Annual O&M ($)
21,937
30,949
52,347
64,456
109,963
153,207
^Calculated based upon total project cost less miscellaneous nonconstruction
cost, 201 planning cost, technical cost, land cost, interest during con-
struction, and laboratory cost.
VIII-80
-------
I
oo
io6, -
9
8
7
f,
3 .
2 . .
10"
4 .
3 .
2 .
FIGURE VIII-6
Total Capital Cost Curve Vs. Flow
for Multi-Media Filter Systems
Flow (MGD)
; ninnrnn
0,01
0.10
1.0
10.0
-------
io5,
1
09
Is)
10
10"
FIGURE VIII-7
Annual O&M Coat Curve Vs. Flow
for Multimedia Filter Systems
Flow (MGD)
10.0
-------
1.0',
I
oo
0.10'
O.Oli '
FIGURE VIII-8
; Land Requirements Curve Vs. Flow
for Multi-Media Filter Systems
Flow (MGD)
0.01
1.0
10.0
-------
The capital costs were estimated based on costs for excavation, earth
preparation, and liner installation. Capital costs also include miscellaneous
(15%), engineering (15%), and contingencies (15%). A unit cost of $1.20 per
cubic yard was assumed for both excavation and earth preparation. The unit
cost for liner installation ($0.54/ft2) was obtained directly from manufactur-
ers' recommendations. The total annual O&M cost for each system was obtained
by assuming the O&M cost to be 10 percent of the total capital cost plus
sludge disposal expenses at $7,600 per year per MGD flow. A summary of the
capital and annual O&M costs in 1982 dollars are presented in Table VIII-39.
Figures VIII-9 and VIII-10 represent cost curves in 1982 dollars. Figure
VIII-11 shows the land requirements versus flow rates for the six systems.
6. Algae Control
Annual costs for algae control were also estimated for existing polishing
ponds. The control of algae growth in ponds, lakes, and reservoirs can be a
serious problem in water quality management. Among the nuisances created by
the often sudden blooming of one or more algal genera are: odors and tastes;
fish kills; poisoned water fowl; shortened filter runs in water-purification
plants; growths in pipes and other water conduits; and interference with in-
dustrial water uses. Therefore, proper control of algae growth in ponds is
necessary to avoid the potential nuisances in the ponds and/or receiving
waters.
The most common means of treatment for the control of algae is copper
sulfate. Copper sulfate can be fed into the influent of small ponds or fed
from boats to large ponds. For large pond applications, burlap bags filled
with copper sulfate crystals are dragged through the water by boats to provide
the necessary treatment.
The cost estimates for algae control were based upon the following
assumptions:
* A typical copper sulfate application rate of 0.82 Ibs/acre-ft (or
0.30 mg/1 of copper sulfate in the upper. 1 ft of the pond water)
A copper sulfate application frequency of 4 days/year
VII1-84
-------
TABLE VIII-39.
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS FOE POLISHING PONDS
Capital Cost* Yearly O&M Costs
Flow (MGD) (1982 Dollars) (1982 Dollars)
0.07
0.86
1.44
5.07
10.00
20.00
20,300
55,500
90,700
305,000
684,000
1,402,400
2,750
14,000
23,200
80,300
166,700
336,800
*Land costs are not included
VIII-85
-------
"
1
106\
H
?
*
*>
-X
< <
(H
M
M
1
03
io5 '
H
J
*
5
4
3
.>
io4
t
s
"l r
r
c
c
0
c
: r
" : v
i
'" I
(
; C
^
C
*
f
.- I
t
. Q_
: . " C
'T" *
.:.. <
H-, .
_
09
M
10
_, .:.
o -
>j -
0 ~
'h
j i
» r
D .
3
H
s '
<
* ','.
3
3 fr
4 :'
0
J ""
5 --
"* ;
IT
; . ' '.
._:. ' "
0.01
"
'
i
\ .
.......
Ht
J '-.
;
'.'.t. ';;
::: '!::
Ttr ?rn
,. ':,
'*T"1:'"
. i^ r
1
! '
. ...
t
i
1-
,.:i
3JI
_1.
~~-s~-
*1
."L
*t**ir
....£;.,
L >
-,L:
rr-
»,,..
'..:
.!
I
l-
1
r!
:~
..-.;:
'-
....
' ' , ,
^
-:
Hi'
;
-
'
...
f
: i .
I ,
.UJ
T,
*»,
I-!
' J*
«j:
.'U
.' : :i
Hi!
tjj:
hi;
!:!'
r*r
»i;
, i!
I
itf
. !
:*i,
; l
i j~.
T
[;
'M
:;;i
i |!
:!!:
Hi:
-i'
; i:
iju
fe
*!
.!];
ii
L:
"
i
j:
.;;
r!:
"!
jp
Tf
t"
.41
i-
,;.
;1L
i'
f
?:
.1:
i
' -'
;i "i
m
''-
(t
-
:
j
1"
r*-r -r
j - ! ;.
^
^;
;?
j
1
-s
T
i : '
iii.
zm
i j.'
. f
.
.! .
-r
- -^
; :
TT-^-i
... ,.
A, -
t-|
1
! .
^
',
Flow
1.0
:.-
*
.
-
_
i
. i
'! *
|4~?
i
ii'.
:; !
:!,
.i :
,'.u
1
«r
-
(M
:::
..
'"
..
','.'.
i_j-
:-f
3!
it1!
rH'
j !
:_.
GD
'T |' ,'
-~,-Ut
:
"
.-
..:
if*1
f:':i
;"«*
'::\-.
! *;
.!;
t !^
M:
li*1
t
'«}
y*
~
)
..
2
i >
-i
'';
]
i '"'
M;
;!:
Hi
n
,(
^!t
_
!,»(
...1
I1
;-
ii..
!
i ;:
ii
i !:
! ;
; i
1 f
ii
, K
r>C
^;
rtr
1 :!
i*t»
iii:
!''
'!'
..
jll
i.
i".
!"
lit-
ri1
!;|i
!l|
i;i?
i:|-
r
P
iii!
':i'
i-s:
ill:
,.!(
'ii
--
M;
.'
ilf
If
it!
.!i!
; 'i
ill
.;
'/
i
I;!
f1?
li;
!"
li
I IT
1
-
r:
t
11
1 i;
|:
lj-1
Iti
V
1
111
;!(.
IP
1
««!
l|!
i'r:
'-i
-
::
.1'
s
;*
;;.
1:1
i!-
1
li
:;
"I - ! |-|->]
, ,,,.( ;i;
. ... j..,.
""""1" "
; j
- ?:{:;
4: i
j .i ;:;
: 1 I ;
;jp
' ':\ L
i ' I /
; U<1
,J>
(r
^ i :
, |
i j "
! ' i i
t
: i
. ' * .
, » '
:;
1
"Tl7
ii
i i
i
i
i
ii
n
:i:
* M '
* «
"
'.
[
'
^
rh
!
J:
ii !
i >
\ T
*«i
i' !
r~
f
'
*
»!!
' ij
i-i
'- ij
1
;j:
:('
tl
_;.
;:
;
1
,..
-j.;
Tt
,
i*"
1 1 1
:jl'
;
': !
1 i
: ;
-
_
r
j,
*r
i;
j»;
iff
!
-]*
!ai
i,"
i;i;
*t:
$
ii
r
-
,*.
|i!;
:f.-
S i
:h
H
FIGURE VI I 1-9
Total Capital Cost Curve Vs.
for Polishing Pond Systems
:!!
li
!
!l !
I :
-'-'I:
;'
jj--
:;:;i
n.
i . : , '
10.0
li!i
; i i
.M:
!*E:
* i
, J.
iii
!:il
i :.
_.I_JL.
ili|
!'t
M:
''!
3
iii:
....
JJ
--
**
:H
"!it
'{;
111,
=i
ii;
'.it
:f
;JII
>'!
pi
1
~
1
*'
r.
t:
iii;
E
:!;.
ii
.4'
::i
!
'*
f
t:.
*
;
i ; :
. : i
'!
.,
; i
!i
-tf-
1 j.
; 1
j ' '
tl:
.! i :
| i ;
: 1 :
i I :
. 1 :
1 1 .
!!:!
Flow
!*"
1
!!:
*
1
-
.,'
:i
i -
iii
i|:
4-
114
J4-
; i
ILL
'.i
n
ii
!I
i!
-l!
ft
*+
rf*
"t4"
f 1
LL.L
00.0
r
!
-i
"i
"j
-'
}
; i
. i
.++T.
! i
41
:1
14-
ij
-^
- 4*1
H!
:
.ill
-------
10"
10
10-
I I
a
h
J2 i
o
o
CM
. oo
cr»
a
I
4-1
T
1:4..;
"}
:Jt
.i.:
MITTT
FIGURi VIII-10
Annual O&M Cost Curve Vs. Flow
for Polishing Pond Systems
0.01
0.10
Flow (MGD) !-.
'i \ ]; i.; i^M/i T: .
1.0
Hi!.
10.0
sit:
100.0
-------
20.0 \
10.0 ,
1.0 '
0.10
FIGURE VIII-11
Land Requirements Curve Vs. Flow
for Polishing Pond Systems
Flov (MGD)
:: IL.:J.. ..:i;;.:; i. ; .i J
0.01
0.10
1.0
10.0
-------
Copper sulfate (CuS04-5H20) cost at $171b with a solubility of 20% by
weight
Labor cost to be $40/hr for a certified copper sulfate applicator
Equipment rental cost as veil as other itemized costs for algae
control are presented in Table VIII-40 and Figure VIII-12.
The Agency estimated that the application of copper sulfate to a typical
polishing pond vill not cause the vastevater discharged from the pond to vio-
late final BAT or PSES concentration-based effluent limitations. This analy-
sis, which is in the public record, is based on the fact that copper sulfate
is only applied to the top 6 inches to 1 foot of water, and only once or twice
per algae season. However, when these low concentrations of copper sulfate
are diluted with the remaining capacity of the ponds, the resulting effluent
is well below the required BAT levels.
After estimating copper sulfate addition costs based on the methodology
presented in Table VIII-1, the Agency became concerned that the greater than
3 mg/1 delta TSS values for plants costed only for copper sulfate addition
could possibly not be the result of algae problems and that the addition of
copper sulfate would not allow these plants to comply with BPT effluent
limitations. To address this possibility, the Agency identified all plants
with treatment systems for which only copper sulfate addition was costed, and
listed their in-place treatment technology. Table VIII-41 presents the 10
treatment systems (nine plants), along with their corresponding wastewater
flows, locations, and in-place treatment technology. For the four treatment
systems without either biological treatment or a secondary clarifier in-place,
the Agency assumed that the delta TSS occurred because of algae problems. For
the remaining six treatment systems, the Agency assumed that the cause of each
treatment system's delta TSS value was a poorly performing secondary clari-
fier; EPA thereby replaced the copper sulfate addition costs with the cost of
upgrading each secondary clarifier with a polymer addition system. Table
VIII-42 presents the capital and O&M costs of the polymer addition systems and
the technology basis for these costs while Table VIII-43 presents the capital
and O&H costs for each of the selected six treatment systems.
VIII-89
-------
TABLE VIII-40.
ANNUAL OPERATING COST FOR ALGAE CONTROL
IN POLISHING PONDS
(1982 Dollars)
Item
Copper Sulfate Cost
Labor
Equipment Rental
Total Annual Cost
0.20
10
3,840
1,200
5,050
Plow
1.0
50
7,680
1,200
8,930
Rate (NGD)
5.0
250
11,520
1,200
12,970
10.0
500
15,360
1,200
17,060
20.0
1,000
19,200
1,200
21,400
VHI-90
-------
10
10
3 !
O
O
CM
00
7 « ') 1
1.0
10.0
-------
H
TABLE ?m-41.
TEN TREATMENT SYSTEMS MITE POLISHING PONDS IN-PLACE (AT NINE PLANTS)
THAT WERE COSTED ONLY FOR COPPER SULPATE ADDITION
Plant
Number
663
844
1020
1203
1349
1769
2073
2315
2328.1
2328.2
Flow
(HGD)
0.407
0.850
0.1086
0.253
1.012
38.7
1.559
1.31
0.331
0.014
State
TX
OH
TX
NC
NJ
NJ
LA
VA
IL
IL
Delta
BOD5
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
Delta Activated Other Bio No Bio Secondary
TSS Sludge Treatment Treatment Clarifier
19 - X
22 - X
15 X -
7 ' X
7 X - -
28 X -
12 - X
18 X - -
6 X - -
6 - - X
_
X
_
X
X
X
-
X*
X*
-
*Polishing pond is followed by filtration
-------
TABLE VII1-42.
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS FOR POLYMER ADDltiOti SYSTEMS
FOR UPGRADING SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
Flow (MGD) capital Cost ($) O&ti Cost ($/yr)
0.050
0.500
1.000
5.000
10.000
50.000
10,000*
14,000 (Est.)
18,000 (Est.)
50,000*
90,000 (Est.)
413,650 (Est.)
13,092
27,969
44,493
176,702
341,942
1,663,948
*Direct vendor quotes
(Est.) = Estimated from vendor quotes
VIII-93
-------
TABLE VIII-43.
SUMMARY OF POLYMER ADDITION COSTS FOR SIX TREATMENT SYSTEMS
SELECTED FOR SECONDARY CLARIFIER UPGRADES
Plant Number Capital Cost ($) O&M Cost ($/yr)
844 26,890 70,000
1203 11,640 19,000
1349 17,680 44,500
1769 322,330 1,300,000
2315 20,180 54,000
2328.1 12,270 22,000
VIII-94
-------
D. BAT AND PSES TECHNOLOGIES
1. Steam Stripping
Steam stripping is used in both industrial chemical production (for
recovery and/or recycle) and in industrial waste treatment to remove gases or
volatile organic chemicals from wastewater streams by injection of steam into
a tray or packed distillation column. In most cases, the volatile components
are water soluble. Stripping is a cost-effective alternative for the
treatment of a wide range of aqueous streams containing organ!cs. It can be
used both as an in-plant process for the recovery of organics from concen-
trated aqueous streams and as an end-of-pipe treatment for the removal of
dilute concentrations of organics from wastewaters prior to discharge or
recycle.
Steam stripping is usually conducted as a continuous operation in a
packed tower or fractionating distillation column (sieve tray or bubble cap)
with more than one stage of vapor-liquid contact. The wastewater enters near
the top of the distillation column and then flows by gravity countercurrent to
the steam with organic vapors rising up from the bottom of the column. As the
wastewater passes down through the column, it contacts the vapors rising from
the bottom of-the column. As a result, the wastewater contains progressively
less volatile organic compounds as It moves toward the bottom of the column.
Reflux can be used depending on the composition of the vapor stream that is
desired.
To provide a basis for the development of steam stripping costs, data
were extracted from the Supplemental 308 Questionnaires submitted by those
facilities utilizing steam strippers on their waste streams (see Table
VIII-44). The capital and O&M costs taken from the Questionnaires were scaled
up to 1982 using the appropriate Engineering News Record indices. Where
installation costs were not provided, they were assumed to be 50 percent of
the capital costs.
VIII-95
-------
TABLE Vm-44.
COMPARISON OF PREDICTED MO REPORTED CAPITAL
AND O&M COSTS FOR STEAM STRIPPING
w
H
H
1
VO
OS
Plant
Number
296a
296b
296d
296g
500
908a
1446
2626
2701c
525a
525b
525c
662a
695a
695b
Total
Diameter Height
(Inches) (Feet)
66
114
90
60
60
36
30
42
72
48
54
54
60
36
30
30
55
45
31
180
30
16.5
16
42
65
70.2
70.2
14
22.5
27
Reported
Capital
($HM)1982
0.873
1.442
1.172
0.672
1.595
0.396
0.457
0.473
0.415
0.436
0.466
0.340
0.149
0.194
0.941
10.021
Predicted
Capital
($HM)
0.506
1.554
0.924 '
0.474
1.453
0.350
0.307
0.328
0.663
0.547
0.645
0.645
0.362
0.332
0.325
9.415
Reported
O&M
($HH)1982
1.199
0.352
0.652
0.084
0.300
0.035
0.162
0.227
0.144
0.367
0.328
0.481
0.353
0.219
0.233
5.136
Predicted
O&M
($MM)
0.663
0.469
0.430
0.236
0.454
0.142
0.261
0.225
0.679
0.253
0.287
0.382
0.239
0.209
0.144
5.073
Flo₯, Q
(MGD)
0.421
0.0006
0.069
0.0031
0.230
0.013
0.165
0.072
0.412
0.075
0.083
0.158
0.005
0.083
0.043
-------
Although packed towers are less expensive than sieve-tray towers, the
latter operate more efficiently and over a wider range of liquid flow rates.
Also, sieve-trays are easily accessible for cleaning, and thus used more
extensively by the OCPSF industry. Therefore, tray towers were chosen for use
in the design analysis.
A goodness-of-fit analysis was then performed to determine the best
relationship between the capital and O&M costs and significant steam stripper
design parameters, such as volatility, wastewater flow, and diameter and
height of the distillation column. The results of this analysis showed that
capital costs were best related to the diameter (D) and height (H) of the
distillation column, while O&M costs were best related to the diameter of the
distillation column and wastewater flow (Q). The equations are given as:
Capital Cost (in million dollars) = 0.246 - 2.88xlO~4(D) + 2.22xlO"4(D2H)
O&M Cost (in million dollars) = 3.68xlO"3(D) + 0.809(0) - 0.023
The Water General Corporation developed a methodology for designing and
costing stripping systems for the separation of organic pollutants from a
wastewater (Process Design Manual for the Stripping of Organics, EPA
68-03-3002, October 1983). This design was adapted for use in this costing
exercise.
An important characteristic that determines the effectiveness of steam
stripping is the relative volatility or vapor pressure of the organic(s) that
are going to be stripped from the wastewater. At least one third of the
126 chemicals on EPA's priority pollutant list have vapor pressures high
enough to be effectively stripped from aqueous waste streams. For aqueous
mixtures, this vapor-liquid equilibrium can be expressed by Henry's Law. The
Water General design uses a stripping factor (S) to determine the tower speci-
fications; this factor is related to the Henry's Law Constant of the pollutant
to be stripped, as shown below.
.... Henry's Law Constant (atn)
S - L Where K. = Towor operating Pressure (atm)
V = Vapor Rate (Ib/hr)
L = Liquid Rate (Ib/hr)
Tower Operating Pressure = 1.0 atm
VIII-97
-------
Given the direct relationship between tower dimensions and pollutant
Henry's Lav Constant, and the relationship between tower dimensions and costs,
it was decided to divide the priority pollutants into two groups (high and
medium) by their Henry's Law Constant values for the purposes of costing (see
Table VIII-45). A representative pollutant from each group was used in the
cost study? benzene represents the high Henry's Law Constant pollutants, and
hexachlorobenzene represents the medium Henry's Law Constant pollutants.
Twenty-three plants with steam stripper data from the Supplemental 308
Questionnaires were reviewed, and their influent and effluent concentrations
tabulated. Table VTII-46 presents the data. Only those plants removing
priority pollutants from their wastewater were included in the survey. An
assessment of the 1983 Supplemental Questionnaire data provided median
influent and effluent average concentrations of 390 and 2.3 mg/1, respec-
tively. However, EPA sampling study data have shown that OCPSF steam
strippers can achieve effluent concentrations as low as the analytical minimum
level for many pollutants (see Section VII for a listing of these data).
Tables VIII-47, VIII-48, and VIII-49 list the values assigned to the
t«
steam stripper design variables for the original July 1985 notice cost
exercise and this final cost exercise.
The results of this analysis are presented in Tables VIII-50 and VIII-51.
For both effluent concentration options, equations were derived that yield
the steam stripper capital cost in terms of wastewater flow rate for both high
and medium Henry's Law Constant pollutants. Operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs for the strippers are functions of flow rate only, and are the same for
all options and pollutants. These equations are presented in Table VIII-52.
The relationships of capital costs and O&M costs versus flow are presented
graphically in Figures VIII-13 through VIII-17.
Steam stripper capital costs include:
Feed tank (approximately 24-hour detention time)
Preheater
Distillation column (sieve tray)
VIII-98
-------
TABLE VIII-45.
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DIVIDED INTO GROUPS
ACCORDING TO HENRY'S CONSTANT VALUES
High HI
3 x 10 to 10
Medium HI
10 to 10
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Trans-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Bromomethane
Di chlo rob romome thane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Acenaphthene
Acrylonitrile
1,2-Dichloroethane
Hexachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Methylene Chloride
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
1,1,1-Tribromomethane .
Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
4,6-Dini t ro-o-cresol
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Dimethyl Nitrosoamine
Diphenyl Nitrosoamine
Henry's constant units are mg/m3/mg/ra3
VIII-99
-------
TABLE VIII-46.
REPORTED STEAM STRIPPING AVERAGE INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT DATA
FROH THE 1983 SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Plant No.
695
1446
2701
500
2626
2631
1349
908
717
1891
1904
267
Pollutant
1 , 2-Dichloroethane.
Hethylene Chloride
Ethylene Dichloride
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Trichloroe thylene
Chlorobenzene
Me thylene Chloride
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Nitrobenzene
Benzene
Vinyl Chloride
Ethylene Dichloride
2-Chloroe thanol
Trichlorethanol
Vinyl Chloride
Hydrocarbons
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
1 , 1-Diehloroethylene
1,1-Dichloroe thylene
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroe thylene
1 , 1-Di chloroe thy lene
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Influent
Concen t ra t i on ( So )
877
130
2,000
400
700
698
11,554
3,000
1,000
2,400
100
50,000
5.7
1,222
3,246
1461
390
-
318
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm.
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Effluent
Concent ration(S0 )
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<10.0
50.0
. , ,0.73
0.61
. <0.5
<5.0
1.0
N.D
<10.0
<0.001
11.0
151.0
16.0
117.0
2.2
- 5.3
0.06
2.0
0.188
3.4
5.6
2.5
1.5
4.7
3.5
2.8
2.3
2.7
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
PPi"
% Removal
99.89
99.2
99.95
97.5
92.9
99.9
99.5
99.85
80.0
99.96
100.0
99.98
99.98
99.1
95.3
98.9
70.0
-
98.3
_
-
-
_
.
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
415
1,2-Di chloroe thane
2,000 ppm
1.0 ppm
99.95
₯111-100
-------
TABLE VIII-46.
REPORTED STEAM STRIPPING AVERAGE INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT DATA
- FROM THE 1983 SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
(Continued)
Plant No.
569
669
913
811
887
1532
2055
2272
4002
4017
Pollutant
1 , 2-Dichloroe thane
Cyanide
Phenol
Methylene Chloride
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Ethylbenzene
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 1-Dichloroe thane
Vinyl Chloride
Phenol
Vinyl Chloride
1 , 2-Di chloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
Chloroform
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichloroe thane
Vinyl Chloride
Influent
Concentration(So)
-
-
3.7 ppm
23 ppm
20 ppm
-
6 ppm
_
-
_
.
«.
-
46 ppm
82 ppm
4 . 2 ppm
0.11 ppm
"
-
-
Effluent
Concentration^)
10.0
<0.4
0.015
0.001
0.043
0.58
3.44
0.03
0.07
0.13
0.01
0.03
9.6
971.0
6.1
780.0
15.1
171.0
-
-
-
60.3
126.0
0.1
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
I Removal
-
-
99.2
99.7
99.35
-
99.5
-
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
vra-ioi
-------
TABLE VIII-47.
STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR
HIGH HENRY'S LAW CONSTANT POLLUTANTS
-------
TABLE VIII-47.
STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR
HIGH HENRY'S LAW CONSTANT POLLUTANTS
(Continued)
o
U)
Design Parameter
PSI a Fractional entrainment
mass fraction
PR = Operating pressure of column
REFLUX = Reflux Ratio
RHOG - Vapor density
RHOL = Liquid density
SAFE = Safety factor for Vm
SIGL = Liquid surface tension
TB a Boiling point of aqueous reflux
TR = Reflux temperature
XPRF = Tray construction indicator
Units
mole/mole
atm
unitless
lb./ft3
Ib./ft3
unitless
dyne/ cm
°C
°C
unitless
Notice Costs
0.01
1.0
0.0
0.037
60
0.75
58.9
100
9
Perforated
Latest Costs
0.008
1.0
0.0
0.037
60
0.75
58.9
100
9
Perforated
Upgrade Costs
0.011
1.0
0.50
0.037
60
0.75
58.9
100
9
Perforated
-------
TABLE VIII-48.
STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR
MEDIUM HENRY'S LAW CONSTANT POLLUTANTS
DESIGN PARAMETER
Representative Pollutant
CP = Specific heat of reflux
DIFL = Liquid-phase diffusivity
DIFV = Gas-phase diffusivity of
pollutant into water vapor
FC = Final concentration of organic
G = Steam rate into tower
GAMD = Activity coefficient of
pollutant in organic phase
GAMS = Activity coefficient of
pollutant in aqueous phase
1C = Initial concentration of organic
K « Vapor-liquid equilibrium constant
L « Liquid feed into tower
LPRIM = Latent heat of steam
MU = Gas-phase viscosity
UNITS
cal/g-°K
ft2/hr
ftVhr
mg/1
MGD
unitless
unitless
mg/1
atm/atm
MGD
cal/g
Ib/ft-hr
NOTICE COSTS
Acrylonitrile
1.0
1.69 x 10~4
0.751
0.002
0.10 x L
1.0
15.93
200
30.5
0.01-1.00
542.0
294.3 x 10"3
LATEST COSTS UPGRADE COSTS
Hexachloro-
Benzene
1.0
9.918 x 10" 5
0.311
Option I = 1.0
Option II = 0.01
0.10 x L
1.0
3.775 x 106
390
37.3
0.01-1.00
542.0
294.3 x 10"3
Hexachloro-
Benzene
1.0
9.918 x 10"5
0.311
0.012
0.13 x L
1.0
3.775 x 10s
2.3
37.3
0.01-1.00
542.0
294.3 x 10~3
-------
TABLE VIII-48.
STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR
MEDIUM HENRI'S LAW CONSTANT POLLUTANTS
(Continued)
o
m
Design Parameter
PSI = Fractional ent raiment
mass fraction
PR = Operating pressure of column
REFLUX - Reflux Ratio
RHOG = Vapor density
RHOL m Liquid density
SAFE * Safety factor for Vm
SIGL = Liquid surface tension
TB = Boiling point of aqueous reflux
TR = Reflux temperature
XPRF as Tray construction indicator
Units
mole/mole
atm
unitless
Ib./ft3
Ib./ft3
unitless
dyne/ cm
°C
°c
unitless
Notice Costs
0.01
1.0
0.0
0.037
60
0.75
58.9
100
9
Perforated
Latest Costs
0,008
1.0
0.0
0.037
60
0.75
58.9
100
9
Perforated
Upgrade Costs
0.011
1.0
0.50
0.037
60
0.75
58.9
100
9
Perforated
-------
TABLE VIII-49.
STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR
LOW HENRY'S LAW CONSTANT POLLUTANTS
Design Parameter
Representative pollutant
CP « Specific heat of reflux
DIFL = Liquid-phase diffusivity
DIFV = Gas-phase diffusivity of
pollutant into water vapor
PC = Final concentration of organic
G = Steam rate into tower
GAHD = Activity coefficient of
pollutant in organic phase
GAMS m Activity coefficient of
pollutant in aqueous phase
1C a Initial concentration of organic
K = Vapor-liquid equilibrium constant
L = Liquid feed into tower
LPRIM = Latent heat of steam
HU « Gas-phase viscosity
PSI = Fractional entrainment
mass fraction
PR « Operating pressure of column
REFLUX » Reflux Ratio
RHOG = Vapor density.
RHOL = Liquid density
SAFE * Safety factor for Vm
SIGL = Liquid surface tension
Units
cal/g-°k
ftVhr
ft2/hr
mg/1
MGD
unit less
unit less
mg/1
atm/atm
MGD
cal/g
Ib/ft-hr
mole/mole
atm
unit less
Ib /ft3
81
Ib'Vft3
unitless
dyne/cm
Notice Costs*
Nitrobenzene
1.0
1.15 x 10~4
0.531
0.002
0.10 X L
1.0
626.6
200
17.15
0.01 - 1.00
542.0
294.3 x 10~3
0.01
1.0
0.0
0.037
60
0.75
58.9
VIII-106
-------
TABLE VIII-49.
STEAM STRIPPING DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR
LOW HENRY'S LAS CONSTANT POLLUTANTS
(Continued)
TB .
TR m
XPRP
Design Parameter
Boiling point of aqueous reflux
Reflux temperature
m Tray construction indicator
Units
°C
°C
unit less
Notice Costs*
100
9
Perforated
*Low Henry's Lav Constant pollutants were not considered in the final costing
exercise
VIII-107
-------
TABLE VIII-50,
STEAM STRIPPING RESULTS FOR REMOVAL OF BENZENE
(1982 $)
Effluent
Concentration (ppm) Flow (MGD)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 ,
0.010
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.500
0.750
1.000
0.010
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.500
0.750
1.000
Height (Ft)
19.9
14.3
12.1
10.7
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.2
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Capital
Cost ($)
295,879
298,735
300,891
302,805
MO, 985
366,176
391,372
293,594
296,308
299,136
301,962
340,985
366,176
391,372
O&M
Cost ($) Diameter (Ft)
11,816
23,076
48,058
73,020
471,637
720,607
969,521
11,816
23,076
48,058
73,020
471,637
720,607
969,521
1.0
1.5
1.8
2.1
4.4
5.4
6.2
1.0
1.5
1.8
2.1
4.4
5.4
6.2
VIII-108
-------
TABLE Vin-51.
STEAM STRIPPING RESULTS
FOR REMOVAL OP HEXACHLOROBENZENE
(1982 $)
Effluent
Concentration (ppm) Plow (MGD)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.010
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.500
0.750
1.000
0.010
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.500
0.750
1.000
Height (Pt)
50.2
41.2
37.7
35.6
34.2
32.7
31.9
27.7
22.7
20.8
19.6
18.8
18.0
17.6
Capital
Cost ($)
302,201
303,825
322,685
330,972
462,875
538,117
611,976
297,913
303,523
308,297
312,861
385,531
426,990
467,684
O&M
Cost ($) Diameter (Pt)
11,816
23,076
48,058
73,020
471,637
720,607
969,521
11,816
23,076
48,058
73,020
471,637
720,607
969,521
1.0
1.5
1.8
2.1
4.4
5.4
6.2
1.0
1.5
1.8
2.1
4.4
5.4
6.2
VIII-109
-------
TABLE VIII-52.
EQUATIONS FOR DETERMINING COMPUTERIZED COST CURVES
PROM STEAM STRIPPING RESULTS (1982 $)
Capital Cost
Benzene ln(capital cost) = 12.8578 + 0.1506 In(flov)
Se = 0.01 rag/1 + 0.0203 (In(flov))
Benzene ln(capltal cost) = 12.8231 + 0.1282 In(flov)
Sa = 1.0 rag/1 + 0.0175 (In(flow))
Hexachlorobenzene In (capital cost) = 13.3041 + 0.3702 In(flow)
Se « 0.01 mg/1 + 0.0482 (In(flow))
Hexachlorobenzene ln(capital cost) =13.0350 + 0.2355 In(flow)
S = 1.0 rag/1 + 0.0311 (In(flow))2
Operation and Maintenance Costs
All Pollutants ln(0&M cost) « 13.9091 + 1.5111 In(flow)
All Concentrations + 0.1108 (In(flow))
VIII-110
-------
4.0
3,0
2.0
1.0
FIGUS1 VIII-13
Capital Cost Curve Vs. Flow for
Benzene at Effluent Concentration of 0.01 ag/1
Plow (MGD)
i -
0.10
1.0
-------
4.0
3.0
2.0
FIGURE VIII-14
Capital Cost Curve Vs. Flow for
Benzene at Effluent Concentration of 1.0 Bg/1
Flow (MGD)
1.0
ill
:
o.oi
0.10
1.0
-------
FIGURE VIII-15
Capital Cost Curve Vs. Flow for Hexachloro-
benzene at Effluent Concentration of 0.01 tng/1
Flow (MGD)
-------
FIGURE VIII-16
Capital Cost Curve Vs. Flow for Hexachloro-
benzene of Effluent Concentration of 1.0 mt/1
Flow (MOD)
!i::i:ii:i. .1..: i r
2.0-
1.0
0.01
0.10
1.0
-------
105
10
8
J
S
3
2
to
a
7
S
S
4
3
2
10
9
8
7
5
4
3
2
<
__!
ml ' ' Am 1* '
i 1 ! r ^iT . . . , .,,.,., , , '
!,i.-.±_.J...xJi,.,. ,__
C-I . FIGIJRP VTTT 17
'- jj:i- jrr Benzene and Hexachlor
. L-i,-,t ,i 1 ,.... ..yjJL **f*, JL^...*, __ !*«-> J. H- -1 *.. l-i 14. -*~
^ti-f I-'---^--1" - ^
:!'!; i j '
* '& iL Ii * * .Ld
, 1 * *
1 [ I '
mm
-
-
i i t i
U ~::::::::::|::~:5:f:::::f{:r'-TT * :~}^:^:
o ... T.^L, ii _jL- --<--r 1~
*J tr t-t I ' ! * t-if -- '
0 E-±-It'E--?£-jr T-1^-!--!
T J r \
as -- I . 4. ?
a .1:. ::::... :i::iTr ::::::::; ::::z:::::
o ' -Hi y
r-l t^- 4 L- --1-4- |||' ' : ' 4 ' -1- -,'""" y .
«* ~T7 "ttt S** ~t~rt" " ~ "^ tt? *" ~jf<~ ] ' ' ' "?"
_ !3 i : ; ' | ; ' r' ru:"L -! L fK -> r -jr T^TT "^ H *+ Tf
ij . i i i ' I ! j ' ! , i ' i 1 ' " i ' 'A I ' i '
. -3 ' ilttii jziij-.tg--:. t ' di±:-±l.L:
r:s:g^: ; ; ' ; -r-r rm Ttr -- g ^ .l,":;:. ' !,",- T-TT *r
;_14-i^:-:±t;i_j^^^.:p^^:-i|-^^::3:r
* ^- --r- ,--*-^^~ 4 ^- - -ffi » -*-Lrf .- - 1, i*-l* 1 L X _* 1~ .... ; 1 -i i
>
^> %- f i, ii + I Flow ^MGD;
i [ : : ; , | ; i ';f ; - - i r i:
IIIIIH 1 1 HlliimtHI ll'iii til T'l 1 1 1 II Hill
Flow tor .i~!".m,i
Dbenzene :- = r = ::::::|
J» j, it ^_ 4 - ~ t-r- -. *. -4- -- 4^ ^ _ _ - _ _ 1«- Jt!
j
| %
tar
|;;:::E||:::|:!!:;iZ=|EJ:i= = |EEEESE!!E
-- 5 ; ;: ::::~-ir;;::::::
I i::i|::l: :|:=EEEEE^-E=EEEEE|;:
^!:::: ::::::::!:::: :|:::::_ = :::::::: ::
|J...I... .,, -- t
i "*" T
:: I :|^|: :::!:::: =:=::: | =- = = :::: = :::
|g:E|;j|i==|||= = = = = :||::
t:±:: ::::::5::|: r: :::: ± = = = = ::::::::
if | [ f , , _ . --,,,,,,-,, , n
1 |l| 1 1 1 || MmmM
T JL Z . * .
44 JL 4-
L ,
| ! ,
I |ll i A _,. »-.*
0.01
3 4 S679910
0.10
3 4
S 6 7 8 9 10
l.(
VIII-115
-------
Condenser
* Decanter
Pumps.
Steam stripper operation and maintenance costs include:
Operation and maintenance labor
Maintenance materials
* Steam energy
* Electricity.
a. Steam StrippingOverhead Disposal Cost Estimates
A steam stripper produces an overhead waste stream of concentrated
organic pollutants that have been stripped from the main waste stream. Based
on manufacturers' information, this overhead waste stream flow is estimated to
be 1 percent of the total waste stream flow. Estimates of the cost incurred
for the disposal of steam stripper overhead were developed based on vendor
quotations, fhese data are presented in Table VIII-53.
For overhead waste flows of 100 gallons per day (gpd) or less, the cost-
effective option was determined to be contract hauling for off-site treatment
and/or disposal. The price for contract hauling is $1.22 per gallon, treating
the overhead as a hazardous waste.
The steam stripper was assumed to be in operation 260 days per year
(5 days per week for 52 weeks). The annual contract hauling cost for a steam
stripper with a total waste stream flow of 0.01 HGD (overhead flow of 100 gpd)
is $31,270. This cost is for operation and maintenance; there are no capital
costs involved for the contract hauling option.
To determine a relationship between steam stripper and overhead disposal
costs, the steam stripper capital cost was converted to an annualized capital
cost using the 19.2 percent capital cost conversion factor. This annualized
cost was then added to the steam stripper annual O&M cost to find the total
annual cost. The ratio of overhead disposal annual cost to the total steam
stripper annual cost is 45 percent.
VIII-116
-------
TABLE VIII-53.
STEAM STRIPPING (SS) OVERHEAD
DISPOSAL COST ESTIMATES
% Over-
Over- Over- head %
Total SS head Dis- head Capital Over- Overhead
Flow Capital SS Flow posal Capital to SS head O&M to
(MGD) ($) O&M $ (gpd) Method ($) Capital O&M ($) SS O&M
0.01 302,201 11,816 100 Contract N/A N/A' 31,270* 45%**
Hauling
0.50 462,875 471,673 5,000 Incin- 280,000 60% 376,000 80%
eration
1.00 611,976 969,521 10,000 Incin- 300,000 49% 598,000 62%
eration
*Basis for contract hauling costs
$1.22/gallon x 100 gpd x 260 days/year = $31,270/year
**Conversion of steam stripper capital $ to annual! zed capital $:
$302,201 x 0.192 . $58,023
% Overhead O&M to steam stripper O&M:
x 100 - 45%
" *
$58,023 & $11,816
VIII-117
-------
For overhead waste flows of 1,000 gpd or greater, on-site incineration of
the steam stripper overhead waste is the most economically practical solution.
Prices for hazardous waste incinerators were solicited from manufacturers and
vere used as the basis for the capital cost estimates. The O&M costs were
approximated based on fuel oil consumption, labor costs, and an annual parts
and maintenance budget of 10 percent of the capital cost. The capital costs
for the purchase and installation of a waste incineration system for steam
strippers with total waste stream flows of 0.10 to 1.00 MGD ranged from
$200,000 to $300,000. The annual O&M costs were estimated at $184,000 to
$598,000.
To apply the steam stripping overhead disposal cost estimates to the
costing methodology, ratios were derived between the steam stripper costs
generated via the computerized design program and the overhead estimates that
were developed via vendor quotations for contract hauling and incineration.
For total waste stream flows of 0.50 and 1.00 MGD, the ratios of overhead dis-
posal capital costs to steam stripper capital costs are 60 and 49 percent,
respectively (no capital costs are incurred for contract hauling). The
average of these ratios is 55 percent.
Similarly, the ratios of overhead disposal annual O&M costs to steam
stripper annual O&M costs for total waste stream flows of 0.01, 0.50, and 1.00
are 45, 80, and 62 percent, respectively. The average of these ratios is
62 percent.
Thus, the cost for disposal of steam stripper overhead waste are
represented as follows:
Overhead Capital $ = 0.55 (Steam Stripper Capital $)
Overhead O&M $ = 0.62 (Steam Stripper O&M $)
b. Steam Stripping Upgrades
Although upgrade costs for existing steam strippers for a group of
randomly selected plants were included in the BAT and PSES compliance costs
for the December 8, 1986, NOA, the Agency reexamined the necessity of steam
VIII-118
-------
stripper upgrade costs for its final calculation of BAT and PSES compliance
costs. The Agency determined that direct dischargers with both steam
stripping and biological treatment in-place (or plants for which biological
treatment was costed for compliance with BPT) would not require steam stripper
upgrades since their effluent from steam stripping would only have to achieve
the "trigger" value concentrations (see Table VIII-3) rather than the final
BAT effluent limitations. For direct dischargers without biological treatment
in-place and indirect dischargers, the Agency identified 12 plants with only
steam stripping in-place (3 direct, 9 indirect) for which steam stripping
upgrade costs may be appropriate. Table VIII-54 presents 'the cost estimates
for steam stripper upgrades at these plants using the methodology developed
for the December 8, 1986, NOA cost estimates. Based on the relatively small
number of plants, the fact that no performance data existed to determine how
many of these plants were actually performing well, and the relatively low
costs associated with these upgrades, the Agency decided not to include
upgrade costs for steam strippers in its final BAT and PSES compliance cost
estimations. However, a separate economic impact assessment of these upgrade
costs generally shows insignificant incremental economic impacts for these
plants. The assessment concludes that the upgrade costs are also not
significant in terms of the overall impact results associated with the OCPSF
regulation.
2. Activated Carbon Systems
Activated carbon adsorption is a physical separation process in which
highly porous carbon particles remove a variety of substances from water.
Adsorption is affected by many factors including molecular size and weight of
the adsorbate, solubility and polarity of the adsorbate, and pore structure of
the carbon.
The cost estimates for activated carbon treatment systems were divided
into two categories: large systems (flow ranging from 0.5 to 20 MGD) and
small systems (flow ranging from 0.01 to 0.2 MGD) based on the requirements of
on-site carbon regeneration systems. For the large systems where on-site
carbon regeneration systems are included, a modified version of the CAPDET
VIII-119
-------
TABLE VIII-54.
STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADE COSTS
BAT
Plant #
105
913
1785
TOTAL
- Direct -
Cap($)
4,350
18,000
3,800
26,15.0
3 Plants
0&M($/₯r)
70,000
600,000
48^000
718,000
Plant
72
283
494
702
1657
1740
2635
4014
4047
TOTAL
PSES - Indirect
ft Cap($)
2,600
9,000
7,800
3,000
8,600
3,300
9,000
2,600
2,600
48,500 1
- 9 Plants
0&M(S/Yr)
9,000
420,000
240,000
20,000
295,000
30,000
420,000
5,500
5,500
,445,000
VIII-120
-------
computer costing algorithm was used for development of both capital and annual
operating costs. For the small systems, where off-site carbon regeneration
systems are generally used, the costing methodology developed by Environmental
Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) for the pesticide industry was modified
and used for the OCPSF industry.
Each of the large and small systems was further divided into in-plant
carbon treatment and end-of-pipe carbon treatment systems for cost estimates.
In-plant carbon treatment is directed toward removing toxic organic pollutants
before they are combined with the plant's overall wastewater. It is also
employed to avoid undesirable impacts on a plant's end-of-pipe treatment
system. End-of-pipe treatment is used to remove dilute organic pollutants
from the manufacturing plant's combined waste stream before discharge.
For development of activated carbon treatment capital and operating
costs, the following design parameters were used:
Flow rate
Influent waste characteristics
Desired effluent quality
Empty bed residence time (EBRT)
Activated carbon usage rate
Operation and maintenance requirements
On-site or off-site thermal regeneration.
a. Large Activated Carbon Systems Cost Estimates
The basic calculation tool used to develop engineering costs for the
large systems is the computer program CAPDET. The CAPDET model is designed to
provide rapid design, cost estimating, and ranking by cost of municipal sewage
treatment plant alternatives. With some modifications, the model can be used
to design activated carbon systems for industrial waste treatment in a flow
range of 0.501 to 20 MGD. A summary of the adjustments considered necessary
is presented in Table VIII-55.
VIII-121
-------
"TABLE VIII-55.
ADJUSTMENTS TO CAPDET DEFAULT DATA AND RESULTS
FOR ACTIVATED CARBON SYSTEMS
CAPDET Value
Adjusted Value
Description
Effluent COD =1.0 mg/1
Effluent Total Organic
Priority Pollutants
In-Plant BAT5
Biodegradable =1.0 mg/1
Non-Biodegradable =0.1 mg/1
In-Plant PSES =0.1 mg/1
End-of-Pipe =0.05 mg/1
Default
Adsorber Capacity *
0.5 Ib COD/lb Carbon
In-Plant BAT Treatment Carbon Default
Adsorption Capacities
Biodegradable Total Organic
Priority Pollutants!
Medium: 0.15 total organic priority pollutants/lb
carbon (Ibs/lb carbon)
Low $ 0.04 Ibs/lti carbon
Non-Biodegradable Total Organic
Priority Pollutants:
Medium: Q.05 Ibs/lb carbon
Low : 0.02 Ibs/lb carbon
In-Plant PSES Treatment Carbon
.Adsorption Capacities
Medium:
Low :
*gf
0.05Tbs/lb carbon
0.02 Ibs/lb carbon
End-of-Pipe Treatment Carbon
Adsorption Capacity
Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity
- 0.005 Ib/lb
VIII-122
-------
TABLE VIII-55.
ADJUSTMENTS TO CAPDET DEFAULT DATA AND RESULTS
FOR ACTIVATED CARBON SYSTEMS
(Continued)
CAPDET Value Adjusted Value Description
Empty Bed Residence Empty Bed Residence Time = Default
Time « 25 min. 45 min.
Furnace Loading Rate Furnace Loading Rate Default
= 75 lb/d/ft2 » 120 lb/d/ft2
Misc. Non-Construction Delete: Results
201 Planning Misc. Non-Construction Costs
Inspection 201 Planning
Land Costs Inspection
Interest During Con. Land Costs
Interest During Construction
VJII-123
-------
Since the major purpose of carbon treatment is to remove organic priority
pollutants from vastevaters, it would be more appropriate to input influent/
effluent total organic priority pollutants to the model, instead of COD
values. To determine typical levels of influent/effluent total organic
priority pollutants, EPA evaluated data from nine of the 12 plants sampled in
the EPA 12-Plant Study to determine ranges of concentration before and after
OCPSP biological treatment. The results are presented in Table VTII-56.
Since all of the influent/effluent waste streams contain more than one organic
priority pollutant, the sum of these individual pollutants were tabulated.
The concentration ranges of the average total influent and effluent organic
priority pollutants are 118,667 to 179,809 ug/1, and 2,489 to 2,498 pg/1,
respectively. Based on these values and the effluent discharge requirements,
total influent/ effluent organic priority pollutant: levels were selected for
the following carbon system design targets:
* Selected in-plant BAT treatment levels
- Biodegradable priority pollutants treatable by activated carbon.
Under this category, it is assumed that the in-plant carbon
treatment systems are followed by biological treatment systems.
Since the priority pollutants are biodegradable, a 90 percent
biological removal credit was assigned l:o the bio-systems.
Therefore, the design total effluent organic priority pollutant
level was raised from 0.1 mg/1 to 1.0 mg/1.
Total influent organic priority pollutant level = 180 mg/1
Total effluent organic priority pollutant level = 1.0 mg/1
- Non-Biodegradable priority pollutants treatable by activated
carbon. For the non-biodegradable pollutants, a total effluent
organic priority pollutant level of 0.1 mg/1 was used for the
activated carbon system design. The 0.1 mg/1 was based upon Table
D-2 of the July 17, 1985, Notice of Availability. It is assumed
that for typical OCPSF plants, a total of five to 10 organic
priority pollutants will appear in their process waste streams.
Therefore, an average effluent total organic priority pollutant
level of 0.1 mg/1 was selected for design.
Total influent organic priority pollutant level = 180 mg/1
Total effluent organic priority pollutant level = 0.10 mg/1
» Selected in-plant PSES treatment levels
- For all organic priority pollutants treatable by activated carbon,
the following total influent/effluent priority pollutant levels are
used for PSES carbon treatment design.
Total influent organic priority pollutant level = 180 mg/1
Total effluent organic priority pollutant level =0.1 mg/1
VIII-124
-------
TABLE VIII-56
INFLUENT/EFFLUENT LEVELS OF TOTAL ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
OF BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEHS FOR TYPICAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL PLANTS
Plant No.
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
14
Average
Total Influent Priority
Pollutant Concentration
(Pg/D
43,612 - 548,140
741 - 21,570
827 - 25,750
488,113
145,747
15,860
781
247,110
125,215
18,677 - 179,809
Total Effluent Priority
Pollutant Concentration
24 -
-
22 -
168.
-
4,148
1,833
-
8,736
2,849 -
70
30
8
2,498
VIII-125
-------
* Selected end-of-pipe treatment levels
For all organic priority pollutants treatable by activated carbon,
the following total influent/effluent priority pollutant levels are
used for end-of-pipe carbon treatment design.
Total influent organic priority pollutant level = 10 mg/1
Total effluent organic priority pollutant level = 0.05 mg/1.
Since the CAPDET carbon adsorption system design was dependent upon fac-
tors such as contact time, flow rate, and carbon adsorption capacity (instead
of COD removal efficiencies), the.replacement of COD input data with total
organic priority pollutant data would not affect the basic design principles.
One of the controlling factors in determining capital and annual
operating costs is carbon adsorption capacity defined as pounds of pollutants
adsorbed per pound of carbon used. For plants requiring more than 400 Ibs/day
of carbon, the CAPDET model also requires the installation of on-site carbon
regeneration systems (see CAPDET Manual), which increases the capital costs
significantly. When the carbon consumption rate is less than 400 Ibs/day, no
on-site regeneration is required. The CAPDET model assumes a default value of
0.5 Ib COD/lb carbon for design. This is considerably higher than those for
the removal of organic chemical compounds. .
Generally, the carbon adsorption capacities for specific organic
compounds are dependent upon their molecular structure, molecular weight, and
solubility. The nonpolar, high molecular weight organics with low solubility
have been found to be preferentially adsorbed. In contrast, polar, low molec-
ular weight organics with high degrees of solubility tend to be poorly
adsorbed (see Table VIII-57 for examples of carbon capacities). In addition,
pH, temperature, and carbon types/pore sizes also affect adsorption capacity.
In 1980, EPA conducted comprehensive isotherm testing on 128 organic
compounds using consistent experimental techniques (8-1). Based on the
results of EPA's testing, 29 selected organic pollutants that were treatable
by activated carbon systems to an effluent level of.1.0 mg/1 (see Table
VIII-57) were divided into three groups (high, medium, and low carbon
adsorption capacities) for the in-plant BAT carbon treatment system design
VIII-126
-------
TABLE VIII-57.
SUMHARY OP IN-PLANT CARBON ADSORPTION CAPACITIES*
(LBS OF POLLUTANTS ADSORBED/LB CARBON)
Compound
Adsorption
Capacity (Ib/lb)
Compound
Adsorption
Capacity (Ib/lb)
bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate 11.300
Butylbenzyl phthalate 1.520
Heptachlor 1.220
Heptachlor epoxide 1.038
Endosulfan Sulfate 0.686
Endrin 0.666
Fluoranthene 0.664
Aldrin 0.651
PCB-1232 0.630
beta-Endosulfan 0.615
Dieldrin 0.606
Hexachlorobenzene 0.450
Anthracene 0.376
4-Nitrobiphenyl 0.370
Fluorene 0.330
DDT 0.322
2-Aeetylaminofluorene 0.138
alpha-BHC 0.303
Anethole 0.300
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0.300
2-Chloronaphthalene 0.280
Phenylmercuric Acetate 0.270
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.258
gamma-LBHC (lindane) 0.256
p-NonyIpheno1 0.250
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 0.249
Chlordane 0.245
PCB-1221 0.242
DDE 0.232
Acridine yellov 0.230
Benzidine dihydrochloride 0.220
beta-BHC 0.220
N-Butylphthalate 0.220
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.220
Phenanthrene
Dimethylphenyl-
carbinol
4-Aminobiphenyl,
beta-Naphthol
alpha-Endosu1fan
Acenaphthene
4,4' Methylene-bis-
(2-chloroaniline)
flenso(k)fluoranthene
Acridine orange
alpha-Naphthol
4,6-Dini tro-o-cresol
alpha-Naphthylamine
2,4-Di chlorophenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,6~Tr i chlorophenol
be ta-Naphthylamine
Pentachlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dini t ro toluene
4-Broraophenyl phenyl
ether
p-Nitroaniline
1,1-Diphenylhydrazine
Naphthalene
l-Chloro-2-ni trobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
p-Chlorome t acresol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzothiazole
Diphenylamine
Guanine
Styrene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
Acenaph thylene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl
ether
Diethy1 phthalate
0.215
0.210
0.200
.200
,194
0.
0.
0.190
0.190
0.181
0.180
0.180
0.
0.
,169
,160
0.157
0.157
0.155
0.150
0.150
0.146
0.145
0.144
0.140
0.135
0.132
0.130
0.129
0.124
0.121
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.118
0.115
0.111
0.110
VIII-127
-------
TABLE VIII-57.
SUMMARY OF IN-PLANT CARBON ADSORPTION CAPACITIES*
-------
(see fable VIII-58). The average of all carbon adsorption capacities in each
group was used as a representative rate for the in-plant BAT treatment carbon
system design. The average carbon adsorption capacities for the high, medium,
and low groups are 2.4, 0.13, and 0.04 Ibs of pollutants adsorbed per pound of
activated carbon, respectively. However, as discussed earlier in this
section, in the final costing, only two groups of carbon adsorption capacities
were used; the high capacity pollutants were transferred to the medium group,
and this new medium group and the low group were used.
Similarly, for the in-plant PSES treatment where either no biological
treatment system follows the carbon system or the pollutants are non-
biodegradable, the adsorption capacity of each specific organic priority
pollutant was obtained directly from isotherm curves of the EPA study at an
effluent level of 0.10 mg/1 (see Table VIII-59). These pollutants were then
divided into three groups as shown in Table VIII-60 and the average of all
carbon adsorption capacities in each group was used as a representative rate.
For the end-of-pipe systems, the adsorption capacity for each specific
organic priority pollutant was obtained directly from isotherm curves of the
EPA study at an effluent level of 0.05 mg/1 total toxic organics (see fable
VIII-61). fhe pollutants were then divided into three groups as shown in
fable VIII-62.
A summary of the CAPDET design specifications (large flow systems) for
the in-plant and end-of-pipe carbon treatment systems is presented in Tables
VIII-63, VIII-64, and VIII-65. The design dimensions and number of carbon
units for all the 20 MGD flows were adjusted to make the height to diameter
ratio more reasonable. Since the furnace size and the carbon column volume
remain unchanged, the capital cost increase is considered insignificant. The
capital costs were obtained by subtracting the following costs from the total
project costs:
* Miscellaneous non-construction costs
* 201 planning cost
Inspection
* Land costs
* Interest during construction.
VIII-129
-------
TABLE VIII-58.
CARBON USAGE RATE FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
(IN-PLANT BAT TREATMENT)
(LBS OF POLLUTANTS ADSORBED/LB CARBON)
High<2.4 Ibs/lb)
Medium (0.13 Ib/lb)
Low (0.04 Ib/lb)
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Fluorathene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
2-Chloronaph thalene
N-Butyl Phthalate
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4,6-Tri chlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
2,4-Dini trotoluene
2»6-Dini trotoluene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Diethyl Phthalate
2-Nitrophenol
Dimethyl Phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dlbenzo (a»h) Anthracene
Nitrobenzene
2-Chlorophenol
Benzo (a) Pyrene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Phenol
Broraoform
Benzo (ghi) Perylene
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl
Ether
Notes For the final cost estimates, only two adsorpability groups (medium and
low) were used with high adsorpability pollutants being combined with
medium.
VIII-130
-------
TABLE VIII-59.
SUMMARY OF IN-PLANT CARBON ADSORPTION CAPACITIES*
(LBS OF POLLUTANTS ADSORBED/LB CARBON)
Compound
Adsorption
Capacity (Ib/lb)
Compound
Adsorption
Capacity (Ib/lb)
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate 0.341
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0.190
Fluorene 0.170
Fluoranthene 0.164
Hexachlorobenzene 0.110
Benzidine Dihydrochloride 0.097
2-Chloronaphthalene 0.096
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.091
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.091
Acenaph thene 0.084
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 0.084
Phenanthrene 0.078
1,2,4-Triehlorobenzene 0.078
N-Butyl Phthalate 0.077
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol 0.076
Anthracene 0.075
2,4-Dlnitrotoluene 0.071
2»6-Dinitrotoluene 0.070
2-4-Dichlorophenol 0.065
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.061
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl
Ether 0.061
Diethyl Phthalate 0.059
Pentachlorophenol 0.055
Naphthalene 0.050
Acenaphenylene 0.049
Benzo (k) Fluoranthene 0.048
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.047
2-Nitrophenol 0.046
4-Nitrophenol 0.043
4,4-Hethylene-
bis(2-Chloroaniline) 0.043
1,3-Diehlorobenzene 0.042
Hexachloroethane 0.041
2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.028
Nitrobenzene 0.025
3,4-Benzo Fluoranthene 0.024
2-Chlorophenol 0.020
Isophorone 0.013
N-Nitrosodi-N-
Propylaraine 0.013
Benzo (a) Pyrene 0.012
Dibenzo (a,h)
Anthracene 0.012
Toluene 0.009
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.008
Trichloroethane 0.007
Benzo (ghi) Perylene 0.006
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)
Ether 0.006
Bromoform 0.006
Phenol 0.006
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane 0.005
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)
Methane 0.003
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.002
Tetrachloroethane 0.014
Dichlorobromomethane 0.002
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.002
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.002
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.002
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.001
1,2-Trans-
Dichloroethane 0.0009
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl
Ether 0.0006
Chloroform 0.0005
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.0005
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0005
Acrylonitrile 0.0004
Acrolein 0.0003
Methylene Chloride 0.00009
VIII-131
-------
TABLE VIII-59.
SUMHARY OF IN-fcLANT CARBON ADSORPTION CAPACITIES*
(LBS OF POLLUTANTS ADSORBED/LB CARBON)
(Continued)
Adsorption Adsorption
Compound Capacity (Ib/lb) Compound Capacity (Ib/lb)
1,4-Diehlorobenzene 0.041 Chloroethane 0.00007
Dimethyl Phthalate 0.038
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl
Ether 0.030
*Table obtained from CarbonAdsorption Isotherms for Toxic Organics, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, at an effluent level of
0.10 mg/1.
VIII-132
-------
TABLE VIII-60.
CARBON USAGE RATE FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
(IN-PLANT PSES TREATMENT)
(LBS OF POLLUTANTS ADSORBED/LB CARBON)
Eigh (0.11 Ib/lb)
Medium (0.05 Ib/lb)
Low (0.02 Ib/lb)
M
I
H*
U>
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate (0.341)
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (0.084)
Fluorathene (0.164)
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine (0.190)
2-Chloronaphthalene (0.096)
N-Butyl Phthalate (0.077) ,
2,4-Dichlorphenol (0.065)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (0.061)
Pentachlorophenol (0.055)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (0.071)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (0.070)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (0.047)
Diethyl Phthalate (0.059)
2-Nitrophenol (0.046)
Dimethyl Phthalate (0.038)
2,4-Dimethylphenol (0.028)
Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene (0.012)
Nitrobenzene (0.025)
*3,4-Benzo-Fluoranthene (0.024)
2-Chlorophenol (0.020)
Benzo (a) Pyrene (0.012)
2,4-Dinitrophenol (0.008)
*Isophorone (0.013)
*N-M.trosodi-N-
Propylamine (0.013)
Phenol (0.006)
Broraoform (0.006)
*Bis (2-Chloroethoxy)
Methane (0.003)
Benzo (ghi) Perylene (0.006)
*Non-biodegradable pollutants
-------
TABLE VIII-61.
SUMMARY OF CARBON ADSORPTION CAPACITIES
(END-OF-PIPE)
(LBS OF POLLUTANTS ADSORBED/LB CARBON)
Compound
Adsorption
Capacity (Ib/lb)
Compound
Adsorption
Capacity (Ib/lb)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzldine 0.165
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
Phthalate 0.120
Fluoranthene 0.110
Benzidine dihydro-
chloride 0.075
Hexachlorobenzene 0.072
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.070
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.067
Acenaphthene 0.065
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 0.060
2,4-Dichlorophenol 0.060
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.058
2»6-Dinitrotoluene 0.058
Phenanthrene 0.058
N-Butylphthalate 0.057
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl
ether 0.050
2-Chloronaphthalene 0.048
Anthracene 0.044
Diethyl phthalate 0.042
Pentaehlorophenol 0.041
2,4-dimethylphenol 0.040
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.040
2,4,6-Trichlorobenzene 0.040
Naphthalene 0.039
Acenaphthylene 0.037
Butylbenzyl phthalate 0.036
2-Nitrophenol 0.035
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.034
Benzo (k)
fluoranthene 0.032
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.032
Hexachlorethane 0.032
4-Nitrophenol 0.032
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.030
4,4-Methylene-bis-(2-
chloroaniline) 0.029
Dimethyl phthalate 0.029
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 0.019
Nitrobenzene 0.019
3,4-Benzo fluoranthene 0.018
2-Chlorophenol
Fluorene
N-Ni trosodi-n-
propylamine
Tetrachlorethene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Bis (2-Chldroispropyl)
ether
Bromoforra
Phenol
1,1,2,2-Te tachloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichlorobromomethane
1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
Isophorone
1,1,2-Ti:ichloroe thane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Trans-dichloroethane
Acrylonitrile ,
Chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane
Acrolein
1,1-Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.0009
0.0007
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
.0002
.00004
0.
0.
0.00004
*Table obtained from Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for ToxicOrganics, Municipal
Environmental ResearchLaboratory,Cincinnati, OH, at an effluent level of
0.05 mg/1.
VIII-134
-------
TABLE VIII-62.
CARBON USAGE RATE FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
(END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT)
(LBS OF POLLUTANTS ADSORBED/LB CARBON)
High (0.08 Ib/lb)
Medium (0.04 Ib/lb)
Lov (0.005 Ib/lb)
I
l-f
u>
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine (0.165)
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (0.126)
Fluoranthene (0.110)
Benzidine Dihydrochloride (0.075)
Hexachlorobenzene (0.072)
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (0.070)
Hexachlorobutadiene (0.067)
Acenaphthene (0.065)
4,6-Dinitro-o-eresol (0.060)
2,4-Dichlorophenol (0.060)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (0.058)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (0.058)
Phenanthrene (0.058)
N-Butylphthalate (0.057)
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether (0.050)
2-Chloronaphthalene (0.048)
Anthracene (0.044)
Diethyl Phthalate (0.042)
Pentachlorophenol (0.041)
2,4-Dimethylphenol (0.040)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (0.040)
2,4,6-Trichlorobenzene (0.040)
Naphthalene (0.039)
Acenaphthylene (0.037)
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (0.036)
2-Nitroptenol (0.035)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (0.034)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (0.032)
1,3-Dichlorobenzene (0.032)
Hexaehloroethane (0.032)
4-Nitrophenol (0.032)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (0.030)
4»4'-Methylene-bis-
(2-Chloroaniline) (0.029)
Dimethyl Phthalate (0.029)
4-Brooophenyl Phenyl Ether (0.019)
Nitrobenzene (0.019)
3,4-Benzofluoranthene (0.018)
2-Chlorophenol (0.016)
Fluorene (0.015)
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (0.011)
Tetrachloroethane (0.009)
Benzo(a)pyrene (0.008)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (0.007)
Toluene (0.006)
Trichloroethene (0.005)
Benzo(ghi)perylene (0.004)
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether (0.004)
Bromoforn (0.004)
Phenol (0.004)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (0.003)
Carbon Tetrachloride (0.001)
Dichlorobroraomethane (0.001)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (0.001)
1,2-Dichloropropane (0.001)
Isophorone (0.001)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (0.001)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (0.0009)
1,2-Trans-Dichloroe thane (0.0007)
Acrylonitrile (0.0003) .
Chloroform (0.0003)
1,2-Dichloroethane (0.0003)
Acrolein (0.0002)
1,1-Dichloroethane (0.00002)
Chloroethane (0.00004)
Methylene Chloride (0.00004)
-------
TftBLE WU-63.
GRAHIM ACHVAHD CARBCN BQUHMMT COST BASIS
DMWOT CfiRBON -BRESMOT SZSEH
UW CARBON ADSCRFUCN CAPACITY
<
l-l
l-l
M
1
U>
Description*
Activated
Carbon
IMts
Bjply Bed
Residence
Time (Mn)
Carbon Bed
Volune
(ft3)
Furnace
Size
ME
Carbon Adsorption Capacity: 0.15
0.5 1.0 2.0
Two Tao Two
6.07'dia 8.58'dia 12.1'dia
x 28.3' x 28.3' x 28.3'
High High High
45 45 45
2,302 4,596 9,192
One One One
5.5'dia 7.0'dia 10.5'dia
5.0
Six
11.1'dla
x28.3'
High
45
22,978
One
16.5'dia
lis/lb
10.0
Six
15.7'dia
X28.3'
High
45
45,956
Tso
16.5'dia
PSES
Carbon Adsorption Capacity: 0.05 Ibs/lb
20.0
Four
27.1'dia
x40'
High
45
91,912
Three
16.5'dia
0.5
^
6.07'dia
x28.3'
High
45
2»302
One
8.5'dia
1.0
Two
8.58'dia
x28.3'
High
45
4,596
One
12.0'dia.
2.0
Two
12.1'dia
x28.3'
High
45
9,192
One
16.5'dia
5.0
Six
11.1'dia
X28.3'
High
45
22,978
Two
18.0'dia
10.0
Six
15.7'dia
X28.3'
High
45
45,956
Four
18.0'dia
20.0
Four
27.1'dia
x40'
High
45
91,912
Seven
20.0' dia
*Flov in millions of gallons per day (MGD)
-------
TdffiE Vm-64.
GRANULAR ACHVAIH) CARBCN EQUHHEKT COST BASIS
IN-PLOT CARBON TREAIMENT SYSIH1
U» CARBON AD9CKETICN CAPAOTSf
Description*
Activated
Carbon
IMts
Qipty Bed
tteyjrtCTyp
Time (adn)
Carbon Bed
Vohm
(ft3)
Furnace
Size
BAT
Carbon Adsorption Capacity: 0.04
0.5
Two
6.07'dia
X28.3'
High
45
2,302
One
10.5'dia
1.0
&»
8.58'dia
x28.3'
High
45
4,596
One
14.5'dia
2.0
Too
12.1'dia
x28.3'
High
45
9,192
One
18.0'dia
5.0
Six
U.l'dia
x28.3'
High
45
22,978
TW
20.0'dia
Ibs/lb
10.0
Six
15.7'dia
X28.3'
High
45
45,956
Sour
20.0'dia
PSES
Carbon* Adsorption Capacity: 0.02 Ibs/lb
20.0
Four
27.1'dia
x40'
High
45
91,912
Eight
20.0'dia
0.5
Tiro
6.07'dia
x28.3'
High
45
2,302
One
14.5'dia
1.0
TUD
8.58'dia
x28.3'
High
45
4,596
One
18.0'dia
2.0
Tk>
12.1'dia
X28.3'
High
45
9,192
Tw
18.0'dia
5.0
Six
U.l'dia
X28.3'
High
45
22,978
Four
20.0'dia
10.0
Six
15.7'dia
X28.3'
High
45
45,956
Eight
20.0'dia
20.0
Four
27.1'dia
x40'
High
45
91,912
Sixteen
20.0'dia
*F10v in millions of gallons per day (MGD)
-------
IH
H
1
S5SMJR ACTIVATED CARBCN BQUIHffiNF COST BASIS
(ENMF-PUE TKEfflHEOT)
Description* . High Carbon Adsorption Capacity1 Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity2 Lew Carbon Adsorption Capacity3
0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0
Activated Four Four Four Twelve Twelve Sixteen Four Four Four Twelve Twelve Sixteen Four Four Four Twelve Twelve Sixteen
Carbon 6'dia 9'dia 12'dia U'dia 16'dia 16'dia 6'dia 9'dia 12'dia U'dia 16'dia 16'dia 6'dia 9'dia 12'dia U'dia 16'dia 16'dia
Ihits x 28' x 28' x 28' x 28' x 28' x 40' x 28' x 28' x 28' x 28' x 28' x 40' x 28' x 28' x 28' x 28' x 28' x 40'
High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High
Enpty Bed
Residence 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Time (nrin)
w Carbon Bed
Volute
(ft3)
00 Volute . 2,300 4,577 9,192 22,962 45,769 91,923 2,300 4,577 9,192 22,962 45,769 91,923 2,300 4,577 9,192 22,962 45,769 91,923
Furnace One One One OnetaeGnefaeOttQne'QaeOneOheGteQneOneOne %o Four
Size 4'dia 4'dia 5'dia 8'dia 9'dia 13'dia 4'dia 5'dia 6'dia 9'dia 13'dia 17'dia 9'dia U'dia 14'dia 22'dia 22'dia 22'dia
1High Carbon Adsorption Capacity = 0.08 Ib/lb
2MediuD Carbon Adsorption Capacity = 0.04 Ib/lb
3Lov Carbon Adsorption Capacity = 0.005 Ib/lb
*Flcv in millions of gallons per day (HGD)
-------
the estimated capital and annual operating costs (in 1982 dollars) for
both the in-plant and end-of-pipe treatment systems are shown in Tables
VIII-66, VIII-67 and VIII-68. Figures VIII-18 to VIII-27 present the capital
and O&M costs versus flow curves. The procedure for using these curves is as
follows:
Determine whether system is for in-plant or end-or-pipe treatment
* Select carbon adsorption capacities for each individual pollutant from
Tables VIII-57 and VIII-59 (in-plant treatment) or Table VIII-61
(end-of-pipe treatment)
In the cases where more than one organic priority pollutant is present
in the influent, use the lowest carbon adsorption capacity for design
Obtain capital and annual O&M costs from appropriate curves in Figures
VIII-18 to VIII-27.
b. Small Activated Carbon System CostEstimates
As plant flow decreases, installation of on-site carbon regeneration
systems becomes less economical. The small system costs were derived by
modifying ESE's carbon systems costing methodology prepared for the pesticide
industry. Major adjustments included using an EBRT of 45 minutes for adsorber
design. No on-site regeneration systems are included.
Tables VIII-69 through VIII-72 show the itemized capital and annual O&M
costs for both the in-plant and end-of-pipe treatment systems. These costs
were further plotted against flows as shown in Figures VIII-28 to VIII-33.
The procedure for using these curves is the same as that described for large
systems. Since it is difficult to obtain a representative unit land cost,
land costs were not included in the capital cost estimates but were estimated
separately. The estimated land requirements for both the large and small
systems are presented in Figure VIII-34.
3. Coagulation/Flocculation/Clarification Systems
The purpose of the coagulation/flocculation/clarification process is to
remove heavy metals and colloidal and dissolved solids from wastewaters.
Various coagulants and coagulant aids such as alum, ferric chloride, sodium
VIII-139
-------
TABLE VIII-66.
TOTAL CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS FOR LARGE
IN-PLANT MEDIUM CARBON ADSORPTION TREATMENT SYSTEMS1
(1982 $)
BAT Carbon Adsorption Capacity2
Flow (mgd)
0.501
1.0
2.Q
5.0
10.0
20.0
Total Capital
Cost ($>.
2,544,648
3,394,643
4,622,127
7,208,356
12,932,415
22,708,398
Total O&M
Cost. ($>
233,002
343,153
528,966
998,582
1,739,129
3,066,940
PSES Carbon Adsorption Capacity2
Total Capital
Cost ($)
3,357,968
4,150,659
6,326,876
13,480,578
25,464,477
49,180,422
Total O&M
Cost ($)
456,169
732,192
1,244,899
2,664,111
4,786,939
8,759,708
Empty Bed Residence Time? 45 minutes
2lb Priority Pollutant Adsorbed/lb Carbon
BAT: 0.15 Ibs/lb
PSES: 0.05 Ibs71b
VIII-140
-------
TABLE VIII-67.
TOTAL CAPITAL AND Q&M COSTS FOR LARGE IN-PLANT
LOW CARBON ADSORPTION TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(1982 $)
BAT Carbon Adsorption Capacity3
Flow (mgd)
0.501
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
20.0
Total Capital
Cost ($)
3,200,029
3,811,546
5,812,933
12,307,324
23,119,477
42,759,733
Total 06H
Cost ($)
401,044
630,977
1,062,073
2,235,290
4,029,652
7,316,708
PSES Carbon Adsorption Capacity2
Total Capital
Cost ($)
3,696,919
5,589,129
10,524,128
23,068,103
44,635,237
87,549,151
Total O&M
Cost ($)
712,940
1,217,276
2,166,835
4,713,206
8,638,145
15,946,832
1Empty Bed Residence Time: 45 minutes
2lb Priority Pollutant Adsorbed/lb Carbon
BAT: 0.04 Ibs/lb
PSESs 0.02 Ibs/lb
VIII-I41
-------
fABLE VIII-68.
COST ESTIMATE FOR LARGE END-Of-PIPi
CARBON TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(1982 $)
Carbon Adsorption Capacity2
High
Plow
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
2,
2,
3,
6,
9,
16,
Capital
$
033,596
814,712
990,254
593,114
979,462
099,882
59
84
125
227
379
655
O&M
$/yr.
,713
,928
,803
,013
,046
,800
Medium
Capital
$
2,262
3,097
4,340
7,056
10,551
16,609
,752
,725
,036
,035
,841
,423
O&M
$/yr.
76,778
112,939
173,219
325,623
554,272
967,193
3,
4,
5,
9,
18,
34,
Low
Capital
$
330,906
421,835
785,526
945,948
155,788
270,092
O&M
$/yr.
234,
387,
653,
1,405,
2,598,
4,732,
694
976
426
563
399
227
1Cost estimate includes carbon regeneration furnaces
2lb Priority Pollutant Adsorbed/lb Carbon
High Carbon Adsorption Capacity = 0.08 Ib/lb
Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity = 0.04 Ib/lb
Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity = 0.005 Ib/lb
VIII-142
-------
10'
2.
-
^
=5
=
=]
._
..
/"
:
*
c
r*
|M
C
O-
«
0
t~
x*
4.
U
£
I"
<«
A.
+f*
C
4
U
r-H
'I ' '
J f .... ,,s!, C . . . , . .
r , L . !, - , _,,
i
!
. :::::::: [ : : . .
f Flo
IIIIIIHI
i
-'
i
-
_
_.
-
= i -:::::::: : ::::: : : :
ffl
_-±. .
I
_ I
_
t
::::::::::::::::::::: :::r
E=iMHmi!!i;i=;i!i \\
-»' - t h
=EEEj»»|;;;;;;i;;;; S
"?
k*^
[ ' r
t / t
;: = ::;: = ?,,!! : : i --
^
^
9
/
/
FIGURE VIII-18
Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Plow for
Large BAT In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment
Systems; Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity
w (MGD)
fi
| |
^ D
|
I
Jl 1
w-
= = ;: =
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3 z^
3 456
i I i 1 i
0.10
7891
1.0
1 I 1 t I I
5 6
7891
10.0
-------
7__
6__
5.
3i
2...
9..
8..
,
6.
5
4_
3
?
6,
...
/**
u
j.
n
P
«""»
c
c
CS
CC
O
r«B
^
4.
(I
u
r*M
cc
4-
«|M{
P
CC
U
»*
l
4
1
)
I
1 -
i -
1 '
-
1 .
I .
:
kS
-
1 "!
P
UH
k
--
^iHiUiiilii: .
||i::: = i!i = i;:iii i.
r;;:FE?EEF;;;;;:;i;. ':
:;:::::::::::...:;: ..
*<{ ** (
j 1 IMI1.I1
j:;|i = = | I: | ~
::::: ::: .:.'
t
f . ,
::--:-
--- -
F
: I
f-
_
"
-
*
H
[i
^
-
f
-
t
frft* *f i ? rtt* i*tt*r
.
: = = = :EE--^!!:li;:;: X:
it^||mi|i!jjmj||!ji|ttt
I /-
t ?
1
«
/
?'
L::::;M!-. - ,':> ' -
-": H
i
rH
-
FIGURE VI I 1-19
Total .Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for
Large PSES In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment
Systems; Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity
JLL... ..............
ill...
low (MGD)
T
-
:
::;:::
1
:::;
. . . .
1
0.01
t i i i | f -
5 6 7891
1.0
5 6 7 8 9 i
10.0
-------
io*u;
9.
8.
7.
6.
4.
2.
-rd
E
1
=
-:-"
-
<**
a
>.
q
r*
r
C
ON
oc
o>
r"
*
in
a
c
0
1
«H
0!
:
1
*,
j
i
4
1
:
"
f *
1 -
-
-
-
.
-]
=
III
:::;::::::::::::::::: i
.;;...:
:.:::: t ,
i. [
i '
:
..:::.:: r i
t i
t f '
:::::::::|:::::::: : |
ieffi3^ttfffi|fl
:_::::::::: , ; :
i
L i
i
!:"::! : .[I!.:':.
|
1
I
I !
t t Zl
1 i f
1
[ I [
'
..j LI..
ISfltmltlfflSiH
:::::::::. H : t :
mml !l:i =
;==::==;;:: | | h1^
I ft 1 ilfnflnilmJIiH
, . i i
1 \f ' " ~
1
f?
P*
I
~"H~~~i~iiii: iii;" :;;:;
J i ;. :ui .:][ R jjliiiil mm
___^!i L---. +...... . I
:::::::::: : : i': =: = =:;==:
; I:::;;-!;:;;;; ;;i: = =81==
* -~~ ' " ~~ " (^ « -«.«-
- ~ j^
1 1 j
i "Of
\ \ JT
\i*
1 j
t f
L \ j
. ' ' 1
,'f | , J
**' 1 [ I I
t' ' J
M ' '
T - "~ 1"
I :...:!( !!: Z:-:r = E:
= FIGURE VI I 1-20 EEE
i Annual O&M Cost Curve vs. Flow for --;
Large BAT In~Plant Control Carbon Treatment
_ » . - , rf-»t^ *_a *. f\ *.
Systems; Medium Carbon Adsorption capacity
I | T
1
1 I 1
low (MGD)
(Ill
---.':
^.::.~:.
10"
1.
1
0.10
5 6 7891
1.0
5 6 7891
10.0
-------
I
M
P-
105i
0.10
5 6 / H 9 1
10.0
-------
10
106!
..U-) ll-i
iil Ml
FIGURE VIII-22
Total Capital Cost Cucve vs. Flow for
Large BAT In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment
Systems; Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity
Flow (MGD)
5 6 7891
0.10
1.0
-------
w
I
00
y
8
/
6
5
3
io6,
FIGURE VIII-23 j
Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for -U-j
Large PSES In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment '
Systems! Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity
: n
Flow (MGD)
0.10
5 6 7 8 "9 1 "
1.0
-------
*
SO
101
1Q5!
g
i
-11
FIGURE VIII-24
5 Annual O&M Cost Curve vs. Flow for
~ Large BAT In-Plant Control Carbon treatment
-i
Systemsi Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity
11
.i i-i
Flow (MGD)
'i n rnnirr
I
r
1-4
6789
0.10
1
1.0
5
7891
10.0
-------
0
)
6
T
C
6
4
S
2
107 10
9
e
7
6
6
4
a
2
106 10
>
»
7
«
6
4
3
a
_
I
Z
E
zz
_
1;
EZ ...-^ 4! . . . !H |
f
*
r
£
C
0
c
f
V
J
C
<
*
t
<
V
nH^'!iITJ|T||jTTLl
' ' 1 >
! "
* t
B ,XZ J
^ ._ _
-i 4-r~r 4----1.. -L-
; ll^^p
** __ , _
4 -: x
j :.... .x. -«._
l
g.
§::::::::::::::::::
T-^-C ---
2 a
::::::|i: -= EEEEE: =
' \
f [ V
t.
.: -_ 2- _. .. _
1 '
Anr
Large P£
::::::: Syste
4 6 6 7 8 9 10
/
i
/
._ _L__
r
r
. . 4. - 1
_ _ _ _ ^, . . , . . 1 1 . . _^_ _ _ _
i J
i j
::::::::::::;;::;(!
2
?
jf
^
LJ
f
FIGURK VIII-25
mal O&M Cost Curve vs. Plow for
>ES In-Plant Control Carbon Treatnw
msi Low Carbon Adsorption Capacity
E=~E;:;;;;i;E=~;:E =EEE=E:EE==:
:I.::::::::::::T- :::::
Flow (MGD) -----
2 3
i B 678010
_ _ ^ . . .
£
_ d . .
^
....
Silt ;
2
I F
X t
" ' " X 2
:::**
. I .
-^ .4.1
T
ft
up
h-4-->
i!p
c::*}::
frn
3
0.10
1.0
10.0
VIII-150
-------
4...
3.
10
9..
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
2.
61-
--
-
.-
ij
3
i
-
_
~*
Ital Cost (1982 Dollars) ^
t
f .'
Q. =
» t=
O =
r-t
as
u
O
H
-
r-
-
-
-
-
-
-
b~,
*
-
.-. = :
....
==
-
_
EEEEEE;;:::;;::;:::,: t iiE:;::;; : =====
FIGURE ₯111-26
Total Capital Cost Curves Vs. Fl
Large End-of-Pipe Carbon Treatment
(On-Site Carbon Regeneration Sy
111 U L J J
. . .. |
j4441U|ij|^ffiHffljl}|
= = = =:;;?;;; ;;;' ;.
- "f - - - 1
iifflffl||Wiis|y
:~::;i:y::|. :.:: '. ^
h:::-:i::;.:,jie
. ... ----(,'' -
r '
tZ'.'.'.'.'.'. '.'.'.'' '"
fJL
iiiiiiii
i.-
^
a?*
.,
^
...
^
n
V
ow (M(
=~~ = = ==:::::: = ::!:":;:::'::.
-
ow i or
Systems "..'....'.'.
stems)
fflli^^Hffi
jlli5iiiiiH!!!-|?vJ
ft* -".-"- 1 IHtinn.runHiUi
--n:::::: o - Low (
JL
ii__::::::: A- Medii
_ o - High
:::::::.:.; : = =
^
, , f .
r_^
Bi- _i
i
^^
-.3
^
, t ..«._«.
"~ n
L-
f'
,"
iil==
~ ?^ " "
.
>«Ek
^ la Z
ij
rz = S:-
= ^ = 3:6 L
::::::::T-^ = = = :::::
Carbon Adsorption Capacity
un Carbon Adsorption Capaeit}
Carbon Adsorption Capacity
t I
t 1
t I .
:::::
t i;
r
....
10
456
0.50
7891
1.0
2
2.0
5 6
5.0
I t t I I
7891
10.0
2
20.0
-------
pn
I
[-inn iiiniui"i"in"i'i
:::::::plHIHIII
:::::::: Lar
H 1 I (On-S
s j|ml||||im!
H :::::::::::::: :::
o --j
oo :...:...::. _.r
o\ 1:1, II ,11: t II: 1
4J -
« -H
o
o
a ---
o ::::: :::::,::; ::d
1-1 --
rt ---
a a
i Hiii MMiiHHi mm mmmmwm at * nh*» §! n « MM ««*«
*! IIII1 55 H««i »«! WBHMBKABIIIIItJIHCKIiH II » «« MM
Illlllllllll --HH44-
FIGl
Annual O&M Cos
ge End-of-Pipe
ite Carbon Reg<
"~ £
i ""
1 Flow (M
Ill I 1 1 IIII
_
18
it
C
jj]
"-
£
s
ie
£.
^
r-
GD
I
C
ti
,i
2
0
)
mm
VIII-2
lurves
bon Tr
ation
.3 |.
t ,
B Low
i- Med
~ Hig
i
4 i .« T S 18 2
1.0
mm - -
7_
Vs» Flow for =
eatment Systems
Systems)
z
,.,,,__, ,ii ,. ___.,,,._
::::;: ::::::::::: :: = = ::::| if
::::::,;::::;::::: ;; !i::::;if
i ' 3
i* 31 j
1 '
'
Carbon Adsorption Ca
ium Carbon Adsorption
h Carbon Adsorption C
}~l
~2 '"
2 \?( s
pacity
Capacity ?::
apcity t"
3 45678010 2' a
10.0 20.0
VIH-152
-------
TABLE VIII-69.
ITEMIZED CAPITAL COST FOR SMALL
IN-PLANT AND END-OF-PIPE CARBON TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(1982 $)
Flow (mgd)
Item 0701 0702 0.05 0.100720
Adsorber Const.
Costs 56,702 86,248 166,864 274,914 454,799
Initial Carbon
Fill Costs 1,737 2,998 7,596 15,192 30,372
Engineering 8,766 13,387 26,169 43,516 72,776
Contingency 8,766 13,387 26,169 43,516 72,776
Total Capital
Costs 75,971 116,020 226,798 377,138 630,723
VIII-153
-------
(Jl
*
TABLE VIII-70.
ITEMIZED O&H COST FOR SMALL IN-PLANT
MEDIUM CARBON TREATMENT SYSTEMS1
(1982 $)
Item
Energy
Carbon
Regeneration
Make-Up
Carbon
Labor
Maintenance
Tax and
Insurance
Total O&H
Costs
0
BAT
650'
16,347
2,906
29,200
3,039
1,519
53,661
.01 (MGD)
PSES
650
61,301
10,898
29,200
3,039
1,519
106,607
0.02
BAT
790
32,694
5,812
29,200
4,641
2,320
75,457
(MGD)
PSES
790
122,601
21,796
29,200
4,641
2,320
181,348
0.05
BAT
1,230
81,734
14,531
29,200
9,072
4,536
140,303
(MGD)
PSES
1,230
306,503
54,489
29,200
9,072
4,536
405,030
0.10
BAT
1,960
163,468
29,061
29,200
15,085
7,543
246,317
(HGD)
PSES
1,960
613,006
108,979
29,200
15,085
7,543
775,773
0.20
BAT
3,420
326,936
58,122
29,200
25,229
12,614
455, 5? 1
(HGD)
PSES
3,420
1,226,011
217,958
29,200
25,229
12,614
1,514,432
Bed Residence Time: 45 minutes
2lb Priority Pollutant Adsorbed/lb carbon
BAT: 0.15 Ibs/lb
PSES: 0.05 Ibs/lb
-------
TABLE VIII-71.
ITEMIZED O&M COST FOR SMALL IN-PLANT
LOU CARBON TREATMENT SYSTEMS1
(1982 $)
<
H
fl
1
Ul
U1
I tea
Energy
Carbon
Regeneration
Make-Up
Carbon
Labor
Maintenance
Tax and
Insurance
Total O&M
Costs
0
BAT
650
49,287
8,762
29,200
3,039
1,519
92,457
.01 (MGD)
PSES
650
123,218
21,905
29-200
3,039
1,519
179,531
0.02 (MGD)
BAT
790
98,574
17,524
29,200
4,641
2,320
153,049
PSES
790
246,435
43,811
29,200
4,641
2,320
327,197
0.
BAT
1,230
246,435
43,811
29,200
9,072
4,536
334,284
05 (MGD)
PSES
1,230
616,088
109,527
29,200
9,072
4,536
769,653
0.10
BAT
1,960
492,870 1
87,621
29,200
15,085
7,543
634,279 1
(MGD)
PSES
1,960
,232,176
219,053
29,200
15,085
7,543
,505,017
0.20
BAT
3,420
985,740
175,243
29,200
25,229
12,614
1,231,446
(MGD)
PSSS
3,420
2,464,351
438,107
29,200
25,229
12,614
2,972,921
1Empty Bed Residence Time: 45 minutes
2lb Priority Pollutant Adsorbed/lb carbon
BAT: 0.04 Ibs/lb
PSES: 0.02 Ibs/lb
-------
DBC2ED 05M COST RK SttlL
CS«N TBEHWBff SESffiHS
(1982$)
<
H
0.01 (BGD)
Item
Energy
Carbon Make-Up
<$0.45/lb>
Labor
Maintenance
lax & Insurance
Total 004 Cost
Higji
700
2,000
16,300
4,000
2,000
25,000
Medium
700
3,000
16,300
4,000
2,000
26,000
Lev
700
26,200
16,300
4,000
2,000
49,200
0.02 (H3»
High
800
3,4
-------
/
f)
5
4
3
2
< s
M 10 '
£ 9
i 8
Ul
>J 7
6
5
4
3
2.
10A1
1
.
i '
1 :
i
J i
i-l
- 1
t
i i
08
M
. rH
' r-l
Ǥ
04
00
H
i
i
i
~
4J
00
-j 5
i S
4|
i5
rH
1 Cd
: 4J
O
H
I 1
1
i
-
-
j i
-
L
: '
t
1
.
-
. |
1
i
::
J
1
1.
1
t
- -L
1
i
-
il >< !;;i i
ii L!
llli'
'..' ;: : .
:"-:'". '::::'
: : : . . : : ' : : :
:::.::':..
- -
1
F 1 '
1 i
j ;
rjr ;
'ill :
. : i ! I ' ::
T~ T
4k S
! i
, t ' : !
T
.
' j/ .
. .. . ..L :
i
-
t !|[ 1 l:j: 1 |!
Ifl 1
"1\ TTT IT 1
' t 1
t
t T|
M- " 1 1
' :; ; it! 1 '
"
-.;:; ;l:i| ]
-- --
ILL. ;;i
' f : : . 1 .
;f-;.;:: . I p
:.'.:'.:' :; : ''..
:'::..'"": ' :
.'-:('.: -:-'. :. :
: :. '. ': : : : . '. : | j ': .
. : : : . : : '
~.l:\:'.-'-:\\
;:;:.\: ' ;:
'.-':: ':''
. :: . ill.
Flo
III IHI
-
.
~
s
."j
-
--
-
V
...[
-
I/'
1"
.
--
-
::
-
L! P ?ir j^ii
i | i !:':
! ! I : ! i
- "T i ; i H fi '^ 'Til i
: ' ij !; h ;
t - M-t 1
u' Ii i 111 '
' :"niif |
- iUt 1 4
. T ^rTi,,'1 t
M 1
T- " :': V ' Ttfjijl jt
; ' "ilij.
:!:: : lilf
! X |J T*.
It.
; . i i T .
, i . .
-' T t ' i ' ;
4i44J.Lli4 :. .lU J. J^_l_.
nULJii i
jHClljII ;
i . f i . : ; i ! i j :!;'!
.teShLjM-^
mt wW
:|,'
-------
l/l
00
6.
5.
2..
>
9
8..
7,
_.|
5.
4.
2-
Dollars)
...
CM -;
00 -:
W --
: w rt
o --
S = =
o
H
W
3
I
Illlllllllll
... '
::::..:;, ,, 1
:::::i::::::::::::: " |
t
i
i
= :::::::::::::::
iUff jtUjfttlfl 111 Id
] r ; : : : : :
iiiiii;: \==
,-.,-:::-,::,,
;;; '.::."
::::;:::::::;: ; ._
:::::.::: : : _
:
.. Flow (J
*"**
!.«
~J
t- |
1
-
4CD)
iiniiiipr"
--
-"
+ *~
t=- =
,i
, '
r = = : ; : ::::' i ! ::;:::.:: |
S^mjljifflffll
Jsc ; ItHTftCffffflllffl
i
^ t
.t'
» '
1
::::::::: ;''
= EEE:;;;;::;- ':':
L
r
j
i
N-|
:[ ][[[[[
FIGURE VIII-29
Annual O&M Cost Curve Vs. Flow for
Small BA1 In-Plant Control Carbon Treatment
Systems; Medium Carbon Adsorption Capacity
II
\\ [i
tj n
itt
ii _
".:.: \
:::-..
::::::;
:::::::
I till
5 6 7891
0.01
2
0.02
456
0.05
I I I I I
7 8 91
0.10
2
0.20
-------
i
l-»
UI
3
2..
2.
^
1982 Dollars) " -
N**
4J
Cfl
O
a
s
v3
O
»-)
«
s
c :
^ :
Snu
:: :i" si
_ _*.._, i ..i.,,.
-7tr= = zp ^:r::Fr :^S :;^:E ::1
z iii i " i i
(^{(-(^^y^^yy^tUfjjjjs^l' -
[Hiliiil ;::===
FIGURE VI
Annual O&M Cost Cur
11 PSES la-Plant Cont
'stems; Medium' Carbon j
*^|| - "ft
- - " -
_
1
j
x
x
i^
If
^
=
--~ = = = E = = Ei = = E!:i;;::=::!' ;; :p = = E!; = ;
= ==EEEE::::;I;:;:;:;;:: :::: i;;::::
JO
fc Vs Flow foT
r-ft 1 Hss irhnn Ti-o a f- mort *
Adsorption Catpscity -
i iiiiiiiiiiiiii{ri!iifi'tMiiffniii!iii)Hi
. -, _ . . ..-- i. . | .- -.,,-L
__^rErEE;;i|::|::::| ji :
1
_ «- » rf_rfIL^,.,»...4-' i"i -.--..i...
»- __ ~~ ..^-i-,.-. . J, .--.,..,
/ 1
__25!l... . .. j [
S? f
F
_/_
7 TT tf
1
1? 1 nu f fcf/^rs \
^JLOW \f3kitjjj -'
! I f M ! iJ^H ^M ui
8^jt=f!ifi~i' 1 1 1 1 M tfflii
!!
' ^ ^ ~ --..
]_ - _, ,, ,, . . nr ,- - - r -
t
-------
10 HI
9
8
C
1
4
3
2
106io
9
d
T
6
4
3
2
9
a
r
s
4
3
2
_^
_
11.
=!==.
..-I
i
. i ,
p
=1 W
JtlilJIliJlllJ
1982 Doll
~~ *J
»
* 0
1^
-! j.
i ^j
~* O '
3 «H
<0
9
" B '
O
"^N
~ ,
-'i !!!
=|=i~
1
t ""
1__
.n_
U
i ? -
, :
1 i :
t
| j f :
-il X
4-44-
tt in
;
rt
!T t
-i-.i ^ f,,.
« i '
j ' '
-f
i i ' i'i i - * 1 1 1 " ' ''' * ^^ » *
' ' '" -** '". ' ; 1 *?- *f-t* -- - - -J. -* "- --*-«« f "
' ' " ' * *-^
' » « "i
."'. ]i;. ...ifTT TT- -| -j- --
^--^*::||j==::::::|||j:^l|S£
Lj fc.i.,4*L ,__tL-. 44-ijT-
ff]^^
ft!||l|||l|l|:^
n i " »
1 1 IT i i 1
1 i 'I
-.-T.14 -lliiiU^-L.-ii ± "Ttt
1 i '{ ***« ' 1 \ \ ~~fr*- -Tt1 i r "- J 1 j'U ' '**-- f"
- »T^ w--~-f ijff-i- -*- ^ -p rTtT"~l"rT
, -^;_.,|;-1- *«Tr -^T-i--;=T.T= 4ml-U- ii^vn;; ill- » - .. -w---» » uLliy. i.
a^l^^x.l^^-j-l: jitt
! . ,!, ' ,!, ,ji , - T -. ./_ m J if j
f * i » f j ! | J - i , -,- , / ' ' ; J
,ti i [* 4- J*
' \ i'li j j! ji'ii - - - - '"-
"h*"i"*~rr, | ; +. i .^ * i -^ntrol Carbon Treatment ^^^
i Adsorption Capacity ^r^
T ' *|
3 46678010 2 3
0.05 1.0 2.0
VIII-160
-------
2..
9,
8.
7.
6,
5.
4.
.Tl
-
~
(1982 Dollars)
4J
' S cQ
33
= g
1
~^i-t
^t S3
Pi
1
-
-
_
.-
-
i
-_
= H = E::;;;:E:;:-H:, , , \:..-.
= = ::::::::::;::::.:::: :!
"ill"" An:
1.-~~~~~ - Small Pi
Sufifi
-::-:r-t;r;=!:i:::.- : ::
EzErEsE----: ::::: ::: :!
^ i j 1 :.
~i:::"±4±::^iin.fil
__ J il
___;:: jjji|
* u ! 1
" "T"t"in i
-t-4-41-4 '
I I!
!}::-,::: : : ^~
hi:::;:;;; ;::..:.: :
FIGURE VIII-32
lual O&M Cost Curve Vs.
3ES In-Plant Control Cai
2ms; Low Carbon Adsorpti
_l
1
liiiiiB II
»
"t.;":t: "f f: *&
It 1 . If
t .u... ]
;..J. ., -
' I
n|i" 11% ' flow
ii] 1 1T [iT i
iiiil, iMiiimiiinr
f
/
^
(MGD
i
{f
/
^<
3
in
-'- ?'
= = ::ii: ::::::::::::::: :{ :
-
Flow f nf
DOR jLTeacnienc.
.on Capacity
= E = ;E = = :;;;;;;?;:;'::. :: ;
|!iiiil!i:!!iiiii;i!:: !
= :::::::::::::::::; !: : :
c -j M i±
----- ^[
__MWi L 1
TL. n t r "
t i
_± i :
T
_ .IT
± .. M... .
.rt-ti-t-iif
A ii mil
-.... ~ - ». f
r # i
F1
f
'2
£
\r
....n... , /
/ l
, ' |
1: = -~t
[ .' .
" i'. [ I
1^
= ( I
> !::
x;E5H
; = = :: =
::::::
T .^
. ^-..
) i till
5 67891
0.01
2
0.02
5 6
0.05
1 1 f I
7891
0.10
2
0.20
-------
10 9"
< 8.
5 7.
i-i
' 6.
2.
10
'-z
_
.. '
r
f
(
c
c
C
4
<,
b
c
!
<
z_
-
\
co
M
-f
-i
O
s
O
r>
*
«/
M
EC
0
J
s
§
i
o
3
2
p
£U
p:
l_
gBpiiil
: = =et : Annus
:;==:: Small Enc
-±--:: t
T T ' i
"" T
:;i::"::::::iiii;:: i
{Oil Hi 1 1 m HH irHIWl -t *
:j|-^
I- -i-i
L
3 m
FIGURE VI I 1-33 j
1 O&M Cost Curves Vs. Flow for
-of-Pipe Carbon Treatment Systems *
i n ' ' ~ *"
T
ifflnnu.Ljjjitjn^
-±
-- h^«-
T?l r\n fl
rXOW \i
Illllltlitlllll
pTXJ
E=
S
-------
10.0
0.10
FIG01E VIII-34
Land Requirements Curve Vs. Flow
for Activated Carbon Treatment Systems
1.0
10.0
-------
sulfide, ferrous sulfide, organic polymers, and sodium hydroxide are often
used depending on the specific waste material to be removed. The coagulants
are rapidly mixed with the wastewater, and the colloidal particles are allowed
to agglomerate into a floe large enough to be removed by subsequent clarifica-
tion. Coagulation/floceulation/elarification is a chemical process by which
soluble metallic ions and certain anions are converted to an insoluble form
for subsequent removal from the wastewater stream. The performance of the
process is affected by chemical interactions, temperature, pH, solubility
variances, and mixing effects.
Many coagulation reactions occur very rapidly, during which some soluble
kinetic intermediates can be adsorbed on the colloidal surfaces. For these
reasons, rapid and complete dispersion of coagulants is necessary. Failure
to provide adequate coagulant distribution may cause localized pH or ion
concentrations that can hinder the colloid destabilization to the point of
requiring more coagulant addition. For high speed mixing, a retention time of
30 seconds to 2 minutes has been reported satisfactory. For the development
of good floe characteristics, retention times of 15 to 30 minutes have been
sugges ted.
Cost estimates were developed using a conservative gravity clarifier
design overflow rate of 400 gpd/ft2 and residence times for sizing the rapid
mix tanks (coagulation tanks) and flocculation tanks of 2 minutes and
20 minutes, respectively. The capital and annual operating costs were
obtained by adding the estimated costs for the coagulation/flocculation system
to those costs estimated for the clarification system (see previous section on
chemically assisted clarification). Both capital and annual operating costs
caldulated for the coagulation/flocculation/clarification systems were made
for flow rates of 0.2, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0, and 20.0 MGD. The itemized capital
costs are listed in Table VIII-73.
The estimated process equipment and materials costs were obtained from a
manufacturer (Envirex). The capital costs for coagulation/flocculation were
added to those for clarification to obtain the total costs for the entire
system (see Table VIII-73). The results are plotted in Figure VIII-35.
VIII-164
-------
TABLE VIII-73.
ITEMIZED CAPITAL COSTS FOR COAGULAflON/FLOCCULATION/CLAEIFICATION
SYSTEMS
Flow Rate (mgd)
Process Equipment
Materials
Subcontracts and Shop
Labor
Insurance
Taxes
Field Labor
Field Office Personnel,
Construction Equipment
and Tools
Subtotal
Contingency
Subtotal
Overhead
Total (1977 $)
Total (1982 $)
0.2
21,300
16,200
200
400
900
21,000
6,400
66,400
10,000
76,400
3,800
80,200
120,000
1.0
23,900
23,000
200
600
1,000
33,200
10,000
91,900
13,800
105,700
5,300
111,000
166,000
5.0
39,300
39,500
300
1,300
1,600
64,400
19,400
165,800
24,900
190,700
9,500
200,200
299,000
10.0 20.0
84,200
93,700
300
3,700
3,400
170,000
51,000
406,300
60,900
467,200
23,400
*297,000 490,600
441,000 733,000
Clarification
System (1982 $)
220,000 408,000 1,004,000 1,750,000 3,477,000
Grand Total (1982 $) 340,000 574,000 1,303,000 2,191,000 4,210,000
*Cost estimates for the 10 MGD flow system were obtained by extrapolating the
cost values for the 5 MGD and 20 MGD systems.
VIII-165
-------
cr.
4,,.,
2...
E-
_
=1
1
1
E
~
-
-m
P
r=pp=
4- Total Capital Cost (1982 Dollars) ffl-^Tr
T tit T ft
f
:"
U
h-
-
-
=
=
_
-
.=
^
~
H1"
EE
~f
d
=
=
1
1
=
^
T
=
'-
-
=
-
§
-
3
t
'iti ""' *u on if
wPmnfili
^
T * i T
j
T T
T t
;-::--;:--; ;
BHB:Hi!!:|.=v
--
!* p f t I
|:;;;;;:: :(: E
m <.. l.M. »J- - ^~ 4. .... 1 .
;:
;i;!;b,;:. ^
:::::::!:::::: ;
-
Flow (M(
Illlllllilillllllll
-
1
nf
'
-
1
=
-
-
3D)
-
r~
J
=
d
-
r:
rf-
i
=
N
--
-
,=
«2
=.
T
s
i-
r It |^iyi 1444 f 14.) i 4 |4I(|
i-lr^Jlf-;-.::-:!:!
EEEE:E::;;::::;r':::|!:H
~-+-t--- -ff t
^i'1
= --$---x-: :
= = -i:=:i = ; = :i;:;Eilii.: :.:.
"_; = :::::::::::::;::::
ffl nT-Rfffliiii 1 iRSHF2^
If :f If Iff 111
g:g-jf|
|||iilil||^
:i|;:::::::i..-i.;p
»-...,_..,^'. ,. _
t ' '
*'
j«^ . I .
.<
i5:H!!Jn:t-::; ~ =
:::::|.:..: . .:: ,.,,
:":::::
-
^
=
N
a
^
_i
Hj0
_,_ ,.
E£ = rE
FIGURE VIII-35
fotal Capital Ctost Curve Vs. Flow for
Coagulation/Flocculation/Clarificatlon Systems
1
p::
r:::*'
"5""
*
:::f:::;
:::.:::
: ; * r " i :
4:::::
105 1-
2
0.20
4 567891
1.0
4 56
5.0
7891
10.0
2
20.0
-------
The estimated capital costs did not include costs for equalization tanks
and lime storage tanks. As described below, equalization tanks are not
required since typical raw wastewaters from the OCPSF industry contain
relatively low levels of heavy metals. The land acreage requirements for each
flow system were estimated based upon the sizes of the process equipment plus
adequate space for repairs and general access. A curve showing the relation-
ship between the land requirements and flow rates is presented in Figure
VIII-36.
Annual operating costs are presented in Table VIII-74. A unit electri-
city cost of $0.08/k₯h was used.
A polymer dosage of 1 mg/1 has been assumed for all cases. The unit
price of Hercu Floe 815 at $2,80/lb was used for calculating polymer costs.
The addition of lime is determined by the actual stoichiometric requirements
of the selected reaction plus 50 percent in excess of the required amount.
Based on a survey of 48 organic chemical plants, the average influent total
heavy metal concentrations to the in-plant metals control systems seldom
exceed 4 mg/1. The most common heavy metals appearing in OCPSF plants include
copper, chromium, zinc, and lead. Therefore, an influent total heavy metal
concentration of 10 mg/1 was assumed for estimating the stoichiometric
requirements. The unit lime cost is based on $43.00/ton for hydrated lime
delivered in bags (Chemical Weekly Reporter, 1982).
The annual maintenance costs were assumed to be 4 percent of the total
capital costs. Taxes and insurance costs were assumed to be 2 percent of the
total capital costs. The total operating costs were plotted against flow
rates as shown in Figure VTII-37,
A benchmark analysis was performed to compare the coagulation/
flocculation/clarification system cost estimates with reported industry
experience. Appropriate cost data were available from the Section 308
Questionnaires for seven OCPSF facilities. The wastewater flow rates of these
facilities range from 0.58 to 7.5 MGD, falling well within the costing curve
flow range. All the capital costs were converted to 1982 dollars using ENE's
Construction Index. The results are presented in Table VIII-75.
VIII-167
-------
oo
5__
4__
3._.
9.
8 .
7.
6-
4.
3.
2.
0.19
]
,-_
^j
r "I
3 Land Requirements (Acres)
-4-
mi
_
,
.(..,
fi
I
2
0.
g::g|||,||
:::::::±:::::::::: t \ i
E==E:;EE=;:;;;;;V. ; [
:E::::::::::::::::: :':
. 1 ' '
|£ * i
'
effi[|Mi]T Ujjp
...... 4. ^ .. j I
/
d=::-^:-: \\: :: =
::::::::.:: .:: : ^
"-'"-"-"" fc^
j'2---: ' ~~"
Fin
Iliillllli
--%
:
w
-
H
_
u
=,
_
i.
fcr
-
=
^
:
F
-
1
H
(MGD.
1
lir
tf./j"-
---
=;! =
COc
\ , _
/
1 1 1 I 1 1 | I
3 4 567891
20 1.0
. r:::xT:.fflWHII H
- -f- *- 4- 1
iEE:EEE:E:EEEEEi;|: ,ii
~- *(_«_...-_ , .,,«.,
FIG
Land Requireme
igulation/Floccul
i i i
2 34
ffP!;: «H!P~
Hi IfJ I'11 ''H!Iti ?
iSitlljjIji
i i n fflH "~
" * "t" " " " T" jH fr»*t i """^
:::::::::::...,:.,
/^
J
,
, i '
- '
^ '
i!::-; ===f. : :
.: :::::::. . _
IH
URE VIII-36
nts Curve Vs.
ation/Clarific
=
k
I- i»j
f^
-
F]
at
q
-
Lo
;i
pd
?
W
o
h
N
^
s
j
n
"'
-
EC
i
i
J
-
>I
3)
1
l
£
H
-
?i
fl
W
^?^:::
:.-::::.
items
567891 2
5.0 10. 0 20.0
1
"-jrifii
""'tu
Ir
i
r
Tt
Hi
::-,.--
ni:: -":
..:..::..
3
-------
a
8,.
3.J
1051--
9..
8..
7_
6
5_
2..
10* ,
i
---
Annual O&M Cost (1982 Dollars)
EEEEEEEEE-EI;;;;;;; : 1
t
~~ t t
: .""
Eft
= === = = = = 1 = = ::::; :: " ' r
E-:p;E;;::::" E :: - : .
_ * . \,
EE;*EE;E:::::: : :: : '. :
- ---
2 34
0.20
3 -:= i ; ; 1 i ~
f f
i H
f 1
1 f i
i '
i . . . .
i
* = = E = ;-EE: .1 -
i !!=!!!=| :; £
_~ .!'
__ 1 1. i!
---*- f
".'.:...
I - .'
:::::::.::.::;.(::.. : ....
« * ' I
»' t
'' L
'''" t
i^iiilmimmnnjih p
_: = :::;::::::; : : : . :|:. :
~j [Mil mTnllfflifflffilflB
_: -.--i^:::::!: ;: : : . :: j .
FIGURE VII
Annual O&M Cost Curv
Coagulation/Flocculation/(
y
rlow (MGD)
. -.pppj ::::;:;;.::;:::::..::::..:
\ ~-. yt . .~i
t
i.
_
:;:: . _.:
__
:::.:::....:. [
t
t
f
t
Piiini \ ;
* * : : . . = _r = =:r-.T
.... ..
,
,137
"*! * C 4 «.* £? *-
^j.a nil cat ion systems
567891 2 3 4567891 2
0.50 1.0 5.0 10.0 20.0
-------
TABLE VII1-74.
ITEMIZED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR
COAGULATION7FLOCCULATION/CLARIFICATION SYSTEMS
Flow Rates (mgd)
Item ~072170 ' 570 1070 2"07S
Energy 2,700 4,600 16,900 32,200 62,900
Chemicals 1,900 9,700 48,200 96,300 192,700
Labor 20,700 31,100 69,800 118,800 164,800
Maintenance 13,300 23,000 52,300 86,900 168,800
Taxes and Insurance 6,600 11,500 26,100 43,800 84,200
Total Operating Cost
(1982 $) 45,200 79,900 213,300 378,000 673,400
VIII-170
-------
TABLE VIII-75.
BENCHMARK COMPARISON FOR
COAGULATION/FLOCCULATION/CLARIFICATION SYSTEMS
Facility No
2181
2474*
2695*
0063
0683
1688
2227
Flow
(mgd)
0.58
1.73
2.00
2.40
3.10
7.20
7.50
Capital Reported
Costs Capital
(Built Costs
Year $) (1982 $)
6.64xl05 1.15xl06
(1975)
3.57xl05 6.18xl05
(1975)
6.78xl05 1.28xl06
(1974)
3.96xl05 8.44xl05
(1973)
3.21xl05 4.76xl05
(1977)
9.06xl05 1.25xl06
(1978)
1.21x10* l.SOxlO6
(1977)
EPA
Estimated
Capital Difference
Costs (EPA-
(1982 $) Reported)
4.68xl05 -6.82xl05
7.60xl05 1.42xl05
8.20xl05 -4.60xl05
9.00xl05 0.56xl05
l.OSxlO6 5.74xl05
l.SOxlO6 5.50xl05
1.83xl06 0.03x10*
%
Difference
Compared to
Reported
Cost**
591 low
232 low
36% low
71 high
121% high
44% high
2% high
*0nly coagulation/flocculation system costs are available from Questionnaire.
Reported total costs were based on coagulation/flocculation system costs
plus EPA-estimated clarifier costs at corresponding flows.
**% Difference = EPA-Reported
Reported
VIII-171
-------
In general, although there are differences in the cost comparisons
between EPA's estimates and actual industry data, there is no definitive
pattern to the differences in either magnitude or direction. From Table
VIII-75, approximately 86 percent of the total facilities are estimated to
have cost differences within j-60 percent. A comparison of capital costs
between actual systems and EPA's estimates is shown in Figure VIII-38. As
illustrated, the reported capital cost for plant 2181 seems to be unusually
high compared to other facilities with flow rates several times that of plant
2181. In contrast, the reported capital cost for plant 683 seems to be
significantly lower than that of other facilities with flov rates lower than
that of plant 683. This probably indicates that both plants may have
introduced some design specifications that were different from typical values.
Except for these two points, the remaining points shown in Figure VIII-38
seem to follow the cost curve quite reasonably.
Although a certain degree of discrepancy exists, variations between
reported systems and EPA's estimates are judged to be within the acceptable
range normally associated in industrial practice for preliminary engineering
cost estimation.
Some OCPSF wastewaters can contain eomplexed metals that are tied up by
particular chemicals (complexing agents). ₯hen this occurs, the metals are
prevented from precipitating and falling out of solution. Metals complexing
also interferes with typical precipitation techniques employed by many facil-
ities. Therefore, caustic or lime precipitation treatment methods are not
always successful when used on complexed metal waste streams.
Sulfide precipitation, a relatively new precipitation process, has been
reported as very effective.in removing complexed metals at low levels (less
than 20 mg/1). In addition, sulfide precipitation is capable of reducing the
solubility of heavy metals to much lower levels than hydroxide, thus accom-
plishing greater heavy metal removal. However,.if sodium sulfide is used,
care must be taken to maintain the pH of the solution above 8 in order to
prevent the generation of toxic hyd-rogen sulfide gas. The use of ferrous
sulfide can eliminate the problem of hydrogen sulfide evolution since iron
will give up its sulfide and precipitate any metal that has a lower solubility
VIII-172
-------
4__
3
<
9,.
8.
7
6.
5.
4,
3
2,.
1051..
;-
/
p
t
c
c
c
*
N
r
<
r
-\
(0
M
a
~t
H
O
M
O
J\
-«
^
u
CO
3
-t
CD
O
H
a
18
J
-<
«
0
-
---
|
== = = = - = := = : = ;-i ;::
==»=:;!;;!;;; [ [
EEEEEEEiiiiiiiiiii: |
imminnNiN' [j
!:===»;:=:=;;;;;;:[[
mttmtiinnnffliB
;; t
:::::::. ... 1 1
:, .... [t
. t r
::;;::: .
~.".........: ,. ill
r
r
[ [ '
i r i
rr
f
1 111
1 234
0.20
' *
j--:::« -
lii;;:; l
!!!!:!!!!ili::|h|l
r [ t
:: . , I 1 1
.:. . .,,£,, t L
ft
ii i'
! i i
i , j
"*
::::: :: : 11
C~
--
*L
j
1
!
...
i-*\
,
i1'
! '
-!:::::::::: i:::::: :::!
:::;:;;::;..;,:,:,
1
L*T
, >
,'
>''
1 |j
::::::;:: . :.::
X-
/
-
r
-.
L
f
nrm
-i:; :::::::!:!::; : = = ---₯ = -
FIGU^l VIII-38
Comparison of Actual Systems Capital Cost and
EPA's Estimates for Coagulation/Flocculation/
Clarification
TT
1 1 i i
>w (MGD)
ffiEptH
i i i t i i ( t iiiiiii i i
567891 2 34567891 2 3
1.0 5.0 10.0 20.0
-------
ff-K
FIGURE VI 11-40
Annual O&M Cost Curve Vs. Flow for
Sulfide Precipitation Systems
girir^arh.
-T. !r nit -r
irtr
IO
6 '
J,
m-^
00
Ll
..,
oo
a*
10
5-
i
03
13 p
'} x IT:
i o r~;
iitt^
4-rr IT-*"
] S
LJ C
J-8
-rt-jX -:
:ft:
~Lfi ».»;
TM * ""^ :
a:?
int
r:
io4,
ia.
Flow (MGD)
t.
a a
0.20
4 S87691
4567
1.0
5.0 10.0
2
20.0
VIII-178
-------
TABLE VIII-78.
A COMPARISON OF ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR
LIME PRECIPITATION SYSTEMS AND SULFIDE PRECIPITATION SYSTEMS
Flow Rates (ntgd)
Item
Lime Precipitation
Energy
Chemicals
Labor
Maintenance
Taxes and Insurance
Total Operating Cost
(1982 $)
Sulfide Precipitation
Energy
Chemicals*
Labor
Maintenance
Taxes and Insurance
Total Operating Cost
(1982 $)
0.2
2,700
1,900
20,700
13,300
6,600
45,200
2,700
7,100
20,700
13,300
6,600
50,400
Total Operating Cost 1.12
Ratio (Sulfide Precipita-
tion/Lime Precipitation)
Net Increase
0.12
1.0
4,600
9,700
31,100
23,000
11,500
79,900
4,600
35,400
31,100
23,000
11,500
105,600
1.32
0.32
5.0
16,900
48,200
69,800
52,300
26,100
213,300
16,900
176,900
69,800
52,300
26,100
342,000
1.60
0.60
10.0
32,200
96,300
118,800
86,900
43,800
378,000
32,200
355,500
118,800
86,900
43,800
637,200
1.69
0.69
20.0
62,900
192,700
164,800
168,800
84,200
673,400
62,900
711,100
164,800
168,800
84,200
1,191,800
1.77 Avg 1.5
0.77 Avg 0.5
*Ferrous sulfide at two times stoichiometric requirement and $0.40/lb.
Lime at 1.5 Ibs per 1,000 gallon wastewater and $0.02/lb (pH 8.5).
Polymer at 1 mg/1 dosage rate and $2.8/lb.
VIII-179
-------
these upgrade costs are presented in Table VIII-79. In addition, plant 399
was costed for a complete lime precipitation system since its in-place
precipitation unit utilizes sodium hydroxide to facilitate the recovery of
zinc; therefore, the plant would not be able to improve its system with the
methods used for costing, other plants.
Based on the relatively small number of plants, the fact that performance
data were limited to determine how many of these plants were actually
performing well, and the relatively low costs associated with these upgrades,
the Agency decided not to include upgrade costs for chemical precipitation
units in its final BAT and PSES compliance cost estimates. However, a
separate economic impact assessment of these upgrade costs generally shows
insignificant incremental economic impacts for these plants. The assessment
concludes that the upgrade costs are also not significant in terms of the
overall impact associated with the OCPSF regulation.
4. Cyanide Destruction
The oxidation of cyanide by chlorine is a sta.te-of-the-art process used
in the metal finishing and OCPSF industries. Cyanide destruction is capable
of achieving removal efficiencies of 99 percent or greater, and reduces
cyanide to the levels of analytical detection.
Chlorine is primarily used as an oxidizing agent, and can be utilized in
elemental or hypochlorite form. The procedure using hypochlorite is shown in
the following two step chemical reaction:
1) NaCN + NaOCl -» NaCNO + NaCl
2) 2NaCNO + 3NaOCl + H20 -» 3NaCl + N2 + 2NaHC03
In the first step, cyanide is oxidized to cyanate in the presence of
hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide with the base required to maintain a pH
range of 9 to 11, The second step oxidizes cyanate to carbon dioxide (as
sodium bicarbonate) and nitrogen at-a controlled pH of 8.5. The alkaline
chlorine oxidation of cyanide is suitable for automatic operation! the process
can be performed at ambient temperatures and is inexpensive. The use of
VIII-180
-------
TABLE VIII-79.
CHEMICAL PIECIPITATION UPGRADE COSTS
Plant No. O&H Costs Plant No. O&M Costs Plant No. Q&M Costs
<$/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr)
BAT - Direct - 20 Plants
63
190
485
695
775
871
1059
4,750
1,700
3,500
60,000
4,750
3,750
14,500
1348
1522
1572
1769
1785
2030
2292
2429
1,000
48,000
25,000
29,000
7,000
1,600
1,000
1,000
2447
2474
2692
2739
TOTAL
1,000
2,850
1,000
1,000
212,400
Plant No.
Capital Costs ($)
O&H ($/Yr)
Land Costs($)
399
2,000,000
335,000
9,100
Plant No.
O&H ($/Yr)
PSES - Indirect - 9 Plants
72
206
212
293
905
1126
1357
1534
1848
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,600
1,000
1,600
1,000
3,500
1,000
Total
12,700
VIII-181
-------
sodium hypochlorite also retards the formation of chlorinated organics, which
occur when using other sources of chlorine in the presence of certain toxic
pollutants.
Cyanide can also be destroyed using either oEone or hydrogen peroxide.
The oxidation of cyanide using ozone results in high capital and energy costs,
and its efficiency is limited when treating wastewaters containing more than
one pollutant. Destruction of cyanide using hydrogen peroxide results in high
energy costs because of the necessity to heat the incoming wastewater prior to
treatment. Peroxide only partially oxidizes cyanide to cyanate, and the addi-
tion of a formaldehyde catalyst results in a higher strength (BOD5 value)
wastewater.
The important design parameters for the cyanide destruction system
include the influent and required effluent concentrations of cyanide, the
total wastewater flow, the cyanide reactor retention time, and the chemical
feed systems. A summary of design specifications is presented in Table
VIII-80. The Influent cyanide concentration of 10 mg/1 is based on industry
data; the alkaline chlorination treatment system reduces the cyanide effluent
concentration to 0.1 mg/1.
The two-stage alkaline chlorination system capital cost estimates were
provided by a vendor (Lancy International, Inc.), and represent installation
and equipment costs in 1982 dollars. Equipment items include a two-stage
reactor with a total retention time of 1 hour, transfer station, chemical feed
system, pumps, instrumentation, and controls. The capital costs do not
include buildings or foundations.
O&M costs for the alkaline chlorination system include chemical costs for
sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide at dosages of 7.5 Ibs and 8 Ibs per
pound of cyanide (fr.ee CN) destruction, respectively. The unit costs for
sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide, based upon the Chemical Marketing
Reporter, are $0.50 and $0.10/lb, respectively. The O&M costs also include
energy costs ($0.08/kwh), labor ($20/hr), maintenance (4% of capital cost),
and tax and insurance (21 of capital cost). The estimated capital and annual
operating cost for cyanide destruction systems are presented in Table VIII-81.
Figures VIII-41 and VIII-42 present the capital and O&M cost curves in 1982
dollars.
VIII-182
-------
TABLE VIII-80.
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR CYANIDE DESTRUCTION SYSTEM
Influent CN = 10 mg/1
Effluent CN = 0.1 mg/1
Cyanide Reactor Retention Time = 30 minutes in each reactor
Sodium Hypochlorite Dosage =7.5 Ibs/lb CN
Sodium Hydroxide Dosage =8.0 Ibs/lb CN
VIII-183
-------
TABLE VIII-81.
TOTAL CAPITAL AND O&M COST FOR CYANIDE
DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS
Alkaline Chlorination
CapitalAnnual O&M Cost ($) Using
Flow (MGD) Cost ($) Sodium Hypochlorite
0.01 45,000 25,000
0.02 48,000 26,200
0.05 52,500 29,800
0.10 60,000 35,900
'0.20 80,000 47,800
0.50 120,000 81,500
1.0 175,000 159,400
2.0 245,000 270,100
5.0 * 400,000 637,800
VIII-184
-------
io5-
<
M
M
1 1
t
00
{
io4
]
.
£-
J:
*
i
f
i
»
i*
<
t
c
a
a
X
4
I
<
C
?*
«
4
f
(
<
r
P*
<
t
<
(-
-
N
0
4
9
-t
-t
3
v|
0
r»
*
,x
j
A
3
-1
d
j
-i
i
e
-i
d
j
3
«
__
|
:- = »!: = = :"[;£[ ;:::
. \-
::::::::::: : : : : : : :
:::::::::::::::: :::
i
2 34
0.02
llll lift ^
: :::::::: : : .1
::::::::: : : : -
!
+;: :
.. . ' _.
L
' '" !{
jjjjjij;: -
c .
. I- . . .
. L . ]
-i,
t~ ~
-= =
?low (M
rap"
i ! !
-~-- Total
GD)
.1....
567891 2 3 4
0.10
Hi
I
1
^
:'.'.'.'. '.'.'.: ::: : ^
j
,.! ' . [
?'*'
' ' i
: :::::::|i : j
^
^
jf
-----------.::.'.:
# *
FIGURE VIII-41
Capital Cost Curve Vs. Flow
Cyanide Destruction Systems
5 6 7891
0.50 1.0
2 3
I! , ! :::
:: '}:::.
S j-
.:
.
..
un
mm
: : :.: :
....:
I . ' ]
1
t *
4 5 i
5.0
-------
10"
-.
1
t
;=
r
L
/
r
!
t
C
e
c
K
i
«
i
a
in
(
f
i
i
1
s?
«\
CO
u
a
H
3
1
O
n
-i
^
j
A
g
3
«
*
i
H
ZS*
-
ssa
s_
-
mm
S =
-
i $
12
.0.02
::::::::::::::: : , :
...i. ...,,,.,., ... !>
t t i
345
nwfr
i
::::::::::r: r
i
HH
*j
ljlf[r~
=,
rf!
^
-
--
Low (MGD)
T
|
[*
7
i
t =
= ::::::::::::::;
i. » -
::::::: j_
-"--'' '
y^
[ ^
-H
( '
!!!S!!!!!!!ii: J
!!=!;;!!!!;;;! 1 a
FIGURE
Annual O&M Cos
for Cyanide De
t
_^
*"
\
t
st
i
^
rl
C
.r
f~i
I"
U1
U(
H
[-
r\
:t
/
^
re
:i
f-j-p.t:
J.
«. -. ^ -
X -
^2
i Vs
.on
___.£!*....
f- ±
; _
. Flow
Systems
I! 1 ! i ! ! I ! I I I !
67891 2 34567891 2 3
0.10 0.50 1.0
rluffirirrni
. _ j . ,
r
:,::' :::::
i i i
4 5 (
5.0
-------
5. In-Plant Biological Treatment
An activated sludge system, supplied as a unit by a manufacturer, serves
as an example of an in-plant biological system for the purposes of this sub-
section. The system consists of an equalization tank, an extended aeration
tank, and associated pumps and controls.
The CAPDET design program was used to cost these systems. Vendor quotes
for small facilities were obtained and were found to be in the same range as
CAPDET costs; therefore, for the purpose of consistency, CAPDET was used for
all flows.
To address the concern that biological treatment would be as effective
and less costly than activated carbon and steam stripping for certain pollu-
tants (see Table VIII-5), a comparison of technology costs for a theoretical
0.05 MGD PSES plant was made. The results of this comparison, presented in
Table VIII-82, show the capital cost for activated sludge to be considerably
lower than that for the other technologies, and show the O&M cost for
activated sludge to be about 5 percent of the O&M costs for activated carbon
and in the same range as the O&M costs for steam stripping.
As a result of the cost savings involved in using biological treatment
for these pollutants, cost curves were developed for the implementation of
biological treatment at OCPSF plants to achieve BAT requirements. The curves
were broken down into small facilities (flow <0.5 MGD) and large facilities
(flow >0.5 MGD). All costs were generated using the CAPDET design program and
are presented in Table VIII-83. The cost curves are presented in Figures
VIII-43 to VIII-46.
The land requirements for in-plant biological treatment systems were
calculated in the same manner as the revised land costs presented in the
activated sludge section of this document. The in-plant biological treatment
system land requirements are given in Table VIII-84 and Figures VIII-47 and
VIII-48.
VIII-187
-------
TABLE VIII-82.
COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS
FOR PSES PLANTS*
Capital Costs O&M Costs
Technology (1982 $) (1982 $)
Steam
Stripping
(Medium) 299,123 32,100
Activated
Carbon
(Low) 225,574 767,991
Activated
Sludge
(CAPDET) 121,392 33,922
*Approximate flow = 50,000 gpd (0.05 MGD)
VIII-188
-------
TABLE VIII-83.
TOTAL CAPITAL AND O&M COST FOR THE IN-PLANT
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS
Flow (MGD)
Small Facilities:
0.001
0.005
0.010
0.050
0.100
0.500
Large Facilities:
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Total Capital Cost ($)
Flow < 0.501 MGD
27,236
48,760
60,886
121,392
164,871
342,679
Flow > 0.501 MGD
2,084,538
2,589,391
3,468,873
4,848,953
6,656,745
8,320,540
9,928,336
Total O&M Cost ($)'
32,891
33,154
33,248
33,922
34,412
47,858
162,671
199,183
266,755
340,863
467,721
588,561
705,587
Values^ UsedinCAPDETProgram
Detention time (t.) = 24 hours
Influent BOD (S )' »» 500 mg/1
Effluent BOD (S ) = 25 rag/1
Effluent TSS (TSS ) = 40 mg/1
Small facilities! K = 1.02/hrj K = 10.4/hr; K = 0.02/hr
Large facilities: K = 0.00028 1/mg hr
MLSS m 5,286 mg/1
MLVSS = 3,700 mg/1
VIII-189
-------
-
io5-
-
(
m4
--
t
₯
-
£
x*v
(0
l-l
OJ
iH
i-l
o
a
CS
00
c*
F-4
^/
4J
18
O
U
rH
a
4J
H
ft
CO
O
r-4.
8)
J
^
J
3
-i
=?
n
f.
i
=,
=
«:
-
^>
_:
>
!- ri
!3r:
t-
d
--
~" tti
^SffilillPi1
trS : : v*r *'T"t ft
»----»- --r r -t
: " i : : : T t'
:iin.-:i::::::::' :
I
!|H=|=;;
__
"": :'".
:.;:....:.,..;.
i -jm . r< i u -
if
; "t 7" ' TT"
::...;
: = T::;;;::'::: ,
1-
iiiiiiiii ; ~
!
I
:::::::::::::: :: i
-.p
IT.
X
I
-
-
-
'low (i«a)
1
fiti i1" j uiffldin ffl
;.:::::,::::::::::::::
_ ,
iOl
_ Small
)__
ilfflMilMiiiKJi
::-:::-::: g
L^
::::::::,: ::: .: t ~
, ,
<'
If''.'. .
i d
FIGURE \l
:al Capital Cost
In-Plant Biologi
I
C
c
i:
u;
a.
[-
r\
L
r
l\
re
1
<:
3
r
V
e
s
a
W . -t~4^,t« »t *d*.
J....I-
--.-J,!*.-...-.^,..
-I;::::::::::::
. Flow for
itment Syst
i :' !:::::
1| :;i: :;
:;:: ; 3:';:
::.J '., -!.>i
... ff f. , .
.::: j "3 . :
8
i
vO
O
1 2
0.001
5 6 7891
0.005
0.010
0.10
4 5 C
0.50
-------
10.0
FIGUEE VIII-44
Total Capital Cost Curve ?s. Flow for
Large In-Plant Biological Treatment Systems
0.10
Flow (MGD)
1.0
IT
10.0
-------
l-t
H
VD
N3
FIGURE VIII-45
Annual O&M Cost Curve Vs. Flow for
Small In-Plane Biological Treatment Systems
Flow (MGD)
0.30
,001
0.01
OTTO
1.0
-------
8.0
6.0
4.0 ?, ~ XI.
2.0 -
0.10
1.0
10.0
-------
TABLE VIII-84.
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT LAND REQUIREMENTS
Plow (MGD)
0.001
0.005
o.oio
0.050
0.100
0.500
0.750
l.'OOO
1.500
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
Land Requirements (Acres)
0.050
0.075
0.075
0.125
0.175
0.400
1.750
1.750
3.000
3.250
5.250
6.750
9.000
VIII-194
-------
"i !
ii
11
0.50
0.1
!li
ill:
4-Hfr
III!
rr-rr
FIGURE VIII-47
Land Requirements Curve Vs. Flow for
Small In-Plant Biological Treatment Systems
ill
0.001
.01
0.10
10.0
-------
i
t->
vO
10.0
TV
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
-r
r--i
11 FIGURE VIII-,48
:j Land Requiroaents Curve Vs. Flow for
1{. Large In-Plant Biological Treatment Systems
ilffl4-.
0.10
1.0
2.0
10.0
-------
E. ADDITIONAL COSTS
1. Contract Hauling
One method of achieving zero discharge involves contract hauling and
disposal. This method consists of paying a contract hauler/disposer to pick.
up the liquid wastes at the generation site and to haul them to another site
for treatment or disposal. Due to the high cost involved, contract hauling is
usually limited to low volume concentrated wastes only. The wastes can be
classified as either hazardous or nonhazardous; many of them may require
highly specialized treatment technologies for disposal (i.e., powdered
activated carbon treatment (PACT), steam stripping, chemical fixation/
solidification, etc.)«
A portion of the wastewater from the OCPSP industry would be considered
hazardous| however, the EPA data base does not contain enough information to
determine which plants' effluents are hazardous and which are not. Therefore,
in order to be conservative, all wastewaters were assumed to be hazardous.
Cost estimates for contract hauling require the consideration of a number
of factors, including waste quantity, waste quality, distance from the waste
generation site to the treatment/disposal site, and off-site treatment/
disposal techniques used. Since all these factors vary widely, a represen-
tative cost can be difficult to establish. For the purposes of estimating the
cost on a national basis, the following assumptions have been made:
* The hauling distance is 500 miles in radius from the plant site
* All the wastes are classified as hazardous
* Either 5,000-gallon tank trucks or 55-gallon drums are used, depending
on the quantity of waste.
, In order to include transportation costs for 500 miles, $2,000 per 5,000-
gallon tank truck has been used. This estimate is based on quotes from
hazardous waste hauling firms. Actual quotes are included in the public
record.
EPA's estimate for contract hauling is $1.22/gallon of hazardous waste.
VIII-197
-------
2. Monitoring Costs
Monitoring costs will be incurred by all OCPSF manufacturers that
discharge process wastewater either directly to a receiving stream or
indirectly to a POTtf. Direct dischargers will have effluent monitoring
requirements, as veil as effluent limitations, specified in NPD1S permits.
Indirect dischargers will have monitoring requirements and effluent standards
specified by the operating authority of the POTU.
fhis section presents a method that estimates the cost of compliance
monitoring for OCPSF manufacturers. Monitoring costs for purposes other than
effluent compliance (i.e., raw waste analysis, operational control analysis,
and analysis to control in-plant treatment technologies), are excluded from
the following cost estimates.
The following assumptions have been made in estimating compliance
monitoring costs;
* All process wastewater will be discharged through a single outfall.
Where plants utilize more than one outfall to discharge process
effluents, the monitoring costs will increase by a factor equal to the
number of outfalls.
* The only costs associated with flow monitoring are capital costs for
flow metering equipment. These capital costs are already included in
the capital costs for a specific treatment technology.
* Labor and equipment costs associated with sample collection are not
included. Sample shipment costs are also excluded.
* It is assumed that all existing OCPSF facilities currently have NPDES
permits or, in the case of indirect dischargers, sewer use permits.
It is further assumed that the monitoring requirements in NPDES
permits adequately address the monitoring of conventional parameters,
specifically BOD , TSS, and pH. Therefore, there will be no incre-
mental increase in monitoring costs for these parameters. Because
current permits generally do not require monitoring for specific
organics or metals, it is assumed that all monitoring costs for BAT
and PSES parameters (toxic organics and heavy metals) will represent
additional monitoring costs.
* In projecting total industry costs, the: above assumptions are expected
to be offsetting. Although a few plants may not currently have ade-
quate monitoring for conventional parameters, the additional cost for
these facilities will be offset by the lower costs -incurred by the few
plants that currently monitor for specific organics or metals.
VIII-198
-------
The cost of compliance monitoring will depend upon: 1) the sampling
frequency, 2) the type and number of specific parameters to be analyzed, and
3) the analytical costs for those specific parameters. The sampling frequency
refers to the number of samples costed per month. The first sampling
frequency required a certain number of samples to be collected and analyzed
per month based on process vastevater flov/. An alternative, more stringent
sampling frequency was also costed which requires three samples per month
regardless of flow in addition to one complete priority pollutant scan per
month. Table VIII-85 presents these sampling frequencies for each of the
costed monitoring options. The costs for the most stringent monitoring
frequency, Option II, were used in the Agency's final BAT and PS1S compliance
cost estimates.
In order to simplify the costing methodology, the BAT parameters
(priority pollutant metals and organics) have been grouped into the four
categories listed below:
* Volatile Fraction - Includes all volatile priority pollutant
organics
* Acid Fraction - Includes all organic priority pollutants
that are extractable under acid conditions
* Base/Neutral Fraction - Includes all priority pollutants that are
extractable under basic or neutral conditions
Metals - Includes all priority pollutant metals and
cyanide.
The GC/MS analysis methodology is specific for the particular organic
fraction. EPA-approved methods 624 and 1624 are used to analyze for the
volatile fraction; methods 625 and 1625 are used to determine the acid and
base/neutral fractions.
The number of pollutants to be analyzed and the number of fractions in
each sample collected as a function of flow are presented in Table VIII-86,
Separate projections are shown for plastics-only plants and for organics
plants. Organics plants include facilities that produce both plastics and
organics at the same location.
VIII-199
-------
TABLE VIII-85.
MONITORING FREQUENCIES
Option I Monitoring Frequency
Plow (MGD) #
<0.5
0.5 - 4.99
5.0 - 9.99
, >10.0
Organ ics
Samples/Month
2
2
4
4
# Scans /yr
0
0
1
2
Option I Monitoring Frequency
Flow (MGD) 1"
<0.5
0.5 - 4.99
5.0 - 9.99
>10.0
Option
Flow (MGD) #
<0.5
0.5 - 4.99
5.0 - 9.99
>10.0
Organ ics
Samples /Month
2
2
2
2
# Scans/yr
0
0
1
2
for Method 624/625
Plastics
# Samples/Month #
2
2
4
4
for Method 1624/1625
Plastics
f Samples/Month f
2
2
2
2
Scans/yr
0
0
0
1
Scans/yr
0
0
0
1
II Monitoring Frequency for Methods 624/625 and 1624/1625
Organics
Samples/Month #
3
3
3
3
Scans /Month
1
1
1
1
Plastics
# Samples/Month f Scans/Month
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
VIII-200
-------
TABLE VIII-86.
NUMBER OF PARAMETERS AND FRACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED
Organics Plants
Plastics Plants
Flov (HGD)
MetalOrganic Analysis
Parameter(s) Paraneter(s) Fraction(s)
Metal OrganicAnalysis
Parameter(s) Parameter(s) Fraction(s)
<0.500
0.500-4.99
5.00-9.99
>10.00
2
2
4
6
2
4
6
9
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
4
1
2
2
4
1
1
2
2
vm-201
-------
The quantitative analysis of priority pollutants in industrial effluents
may involve several methodologies. The fundamental technique for the deter-
mination of these pollutants is gas chromatography. This technique separates
compounds in mixtures by interaction between a. mobile and a stationary phase.
The order in which the compounds exit the instrument is a function of the
physical/chemical properties of the compounds and the mobile and stationary
phases. The separated compounds are then detected by the mass spectrometer
and are subsequently identified and quantified. Various EPA-approved
methodologies have been examined. These GC/MS analysis options includes
* Method 624 - Purgeables: A purge and trap GC/MS method used for the
quantitative determination of purgeable organics (the volatile
fraction).
Method 625 - Base/Neutrals and Acids: A GC/MS method designed to
determine those organic priority pollutants that are partitioned into
an organic solvent and are amenable to gas chromatography (the acid
and base/neutral fractions).
* Method 1624 - Volatile Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GC/MS: A
revised version of the purge and trap Method 624 designed to determine
the purgeable (the volatile fraction) organics.
Method 1625 - Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution
GC/MS: A revised version of the 625 method designed to determine
semivolatile organic pollutants.
The costs for methods 1624/1625 were used in the Agency's final BAT and PSES
cost estimates.
The primary cost component for each of the three organic fractions
involves sample preparation. Once the initial sample preparation for any
given fraction is completed, costs resulting from additional parameter
analysis via GC/MS separation is minimal and may consist of small incremental
payments. The following equation is used to estimate the cost of the organic
analysis for method 624/625 (1982 dollars):
C0 - (f x 75) +
-------
Similarly, metals analysis is estimated using the following equation:
Cm = 25 + (Sa x 10)
where:
C^ = cost per sample for metals in 1982 dollars
SM =» the total number of metals to be quantified
The 1982 compliance costs for methods 1624/1625 have been estimated using the
following equation:
C0 = (f x 195) +
-------
TABLE VHI-87.
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL MONITORING COSTS (1982 DOLLARS) FOR ORGANIC AND PLASTICS FACILITIES
USING ANALYSIS METHODS 624/625 OR 1624/1625 OTTB EITHER A MORE STRINGENT OR
LESS STRINGENT MONITORING FREQUENCY
I
Ni
o
*
Flow (MGD)
<0.500
0.500-4.99
5.00-9.99
>10
Method 624/625
Option I Monitoring
Frequency
Organics Plastics
4,080 3,240
7,080 4,080
18,520 11,760
27,680 16,120
Method 624/625
Option II Monitoring
Frequency
Organics Plastics
18,120 16,860
22,620 18,120
25,140 20,820
31,260 23,340
Method 1624/1625
Option I Monitoring
Frequency
Organics Plastics
8,905 7,105
16,705 8,905
21,630 13,585
32,795 18,510
Method 1624/1625
Option II Monitoring
Frequency
Organics Plastics
29,520 26,820
41,220 29,520
46,620 36,540
61,020 65,340
-------
Dewatering is a physical unit operation used to reduce the moisture
content of raw or biological sludge. The principal purpose of dewatering is
to reduce sludge volume and weight, thus minimizing costs for sludge trans-
portation and ultimate disposal. Typical sludge dewatering techniques include
sludge drying beds, vacuum filtration, centrifugation, and belt filter press.
After a comprehensive review of the four techniques, the belt filter press was
selected as the sludge dewatering mechanism for OCPSF industries. The advan-
tages of a belt filter press over other dewatering techniques includes the
ability of high pressure machines to produce very dry cakes, the high filtrate
quality, and low power requirements. The disadvantages of a belt filter press
include: high sensitivity to incoming sludge characteristics, high chemical
consumption, and a short media life. Despite these disadvantages, more
industries are using this technique to dewater their sludge primarily because
of its high efficiency.
The addition of sludge conditioning chemicals is necessary prior to the
mechanical dewatering of sludges. The objective of chemical conditioning is
to adjust the chemical and physical conditions of the sludges to improve its
dewatering characteristics. Chemical conditioning results in coagulation of
the solids and release of the absorbed water. Chemicals most commonly used
for sludge conditioning include ferric chloride, lime, alum, and organic
polymer.
In order to estimate the capital costs of belt filter press systems,
certain assumptions were made prior to sizing the equipment. These include
the following design characteristics:
* Long-Term Average Influent TSS to the End-of-Pipe Treatment System -
200 mg/1
Average Feed Sludge Total Solids = 2%
Filter Press Discharge Cake Solids Concentration = 20%
Belt Filter Press Design Loading Rates (recommended by Komline-
Sanderson Engineering Corporation):
Solids Loading Rate = 500 Ibs/hr/meter
Hydraulic Loading Rate = 45 gpm/meter
Belt Filter Press Operating Time = 8 hrs/day.
₯111-205
-------
Table VIII-88 presents a summary of the design specifications and
equipment sizes for wastewater flow rates ranging from 0.5 to 20 HGD. The
itemized capital costs for the design and land requirements are presented in
Table VIII-89. The estimated equipment costs, which include belt filter press
units, sludge feed pumps, and polymer feed systems, were obtained directly
from manufacturers' recommendations. Costs for conveyors, piping, and
instrumentation were assumed to be 20 percent of the total equipment costs.
The installation costs were taken to be 50 percent of the total equipment
costs. Both the engineering and contingency costs were each assumed to be
15 percent of the total construction costs. The final capital costs were
converted to 1982 dollars using the ENR Construction Index, and then plotted
against flow rates as shown in Figure VIII-49. The land requirements for each
flow system were estimated based upon the size of the process equipment plus
adequate space for repairs and general access. Figure VIII-50 provides the
land requirements at various flow rates.
Annual operating costs were estimated based on energy, chemicals, labor,
maintenance, and taxes and insurance requirements as shown in Table VIII-90.
The estimated annual energy costs were based on manufacturers' recommendations
of motor horsepower requirements for each system. A unit electricity cost of
$0.08/kwh was used for estimating energy costs. The unit labor costs were
based upon EPA's Treatabdlity Manual at $24,500/man-year for labor and
$34,600/man-year for supervision. Annual chemical costs for sludge
conditioning were estimated from manufacturers' recommendations at a polymer
cost of $5.00/ton dry sludge. The annual maintenance costs were taken to be
4 percent of the total capital costs. Taxes and insurance costs were assumed
to be 2 percent of the total capital costs. The final operating costs were
converted to 1982 dollars using ENR's Construction Index, and then plotted
against flow rates as shown in Figure VIII-51.
Fluidized bed incineration for wastewater sludge disposal involves the
destruction of wastewater solids through combustion. In general, dewatered
sludge is pumped into the incineration vessel containing a heated catalytic
bed. This bed is fluidized at approximately 100 percent of its at rest volume
VIII-206
-------
TABLE VIII-88.
SUMMARY OF DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR
BELT FILTER PRESS SYSTEMS
Flow Rates (MGD)
Parameter
Sludge Production Rates
(Ibs/day)
Design Solids Loading
Rates (Ibs/hr)
Hydraulic Loading Rate
-------
TABLE VIII-89,
ITEMIZED CAPITAL COSTS FOR BELT FILTER PRESS SYSTEMS
Item
170
Flow (MGD)
570
10.0
2070
Equipment Costs*
75,000 75,000 190,000 315,000 525,000
Conveyors, Piping, and
Instrumentation (20%) 15,000
Total Equipment Cost 90,000
Installation (50%)
Total Construction
Engineering (15%)
Contingency (151)
Total Capital Cost
(1984 $)
Total Capital Cost
(1982 $)
Land Requirements
(Acres)
15,000 38,000 63,000 105,000
90,000 228,000 378,000 630,000
45,000
135,000
20,300
20,300
175,600
161,500
45,000
135,000
20,300
20,300
175,600
161,500
114,000
342, C)0"0
51,300
51,300
444,600
409,000
189,000
567,000
85,100
85,100
737,200
678,200
315,000
945,000
141,800
141,800
1,228,600
1,130,200
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.14
0.23
*A11 data provided by Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation
VIII-208
-------
I
SJ
O
3.
2 ..
8.
7.
5,
4..
3,.
2.
105 i
h~
~-
~
-
-
CO
1-1
iH
O
a
CM
00
*- 1
i_i
i
(
>
.
1
CO
O
u
H '
CO
u
H
O,
a
j
01
u
3
H^SSSIlttlttBItt
.
EEEEEEEEEiiiii;;;:-;; :;
,
; [
[
""" [
I
1 111
1 234
0.10
iiU .-rt't .-t-rlttftl tWWJt ^riir
F
Total Cap!
for Belt
:~::::^: '.:' : = =
::::::::::::::'
.. .... y, .
K
ti
I
p
;u
a
^1
^
E
1
tf
E
C
t
^
(MGD)
\
08
ez
,
.
: = : = = :::::::::; i . :
111-49
t Curve Vs. Flow
Press Systems
?
« _ »
567891 2 3 4
1.0
: :::::::::::: : :
'
| ;
1 5
i I I i 1 I i t
567891 2 3
5.0 10.0 20.0
-------
M
M
I
2...
2.
--:
ments (Acres)
=
_
-H
EE ° a
O-
& -
13 f=
fc C H
a
=.-
-
FffiffJgffFfH H]J Hi
1:E=-E;::1:: I
"-T ..-....-
4. ( U W H W =!
j::g. :::::::| _
;::: :::.:: .: __
[ l:£e ;!!!!!:' !t ' ^
:::::::::::::::::: =
: :::::.::::::::: :: : z
Cl
Illlllll
7,
Ml
F N
i-w
e!
-
*
rt
W
ow (MGD
r
= = ::E::::::::'::::|': ::::
.
==E = E; = = E=EE; = f;;;;;;:r;;;
FIGUSE.
Land Requirement
for Belt Filte
\
1
IfflllllllllliBrti
^
x
r
,,i r
,ii
,''
**''''
:::::::::.::: ::
/III-50
s Curve Vs. Flow
r Press Systems
X
x
=
S
t
V
Uu
1
= ::
::::::
:: : : ;
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4
3..E
1.
0.10
4 5 (
0.50
7891
1.0
567891 2
5.0 10.0 20.0
-------
TABLE VIII-90.
ITEMIZED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR BELT FILTER PRESS SYSTEMS
Flow (MGD)
Item 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 20.0
Energy 200 200 800 1,200 1,600
Polymer 700 1,400 7,000 14,000 28,000
Labor 7,000 7,000 14,000 21,000 35,000
Maintenance 7,000 7,000 17,800 23,400 50,000
Taxes and Insurance 3,500 3,500 8,900 11,700 25,000
Total Annual Operating
Cost (1984 $) 18,400 19,100 48,500 71,300 139,600
Total Annual Operating
Cost (1982 $) 16,900 17,600 44,600 65,600 128,400
VIII-211
-------
I
NJ
K3
ion
9_.
8..
7..
6__
5_.
4..
3_.
?
1
_.
_
=
EE
(1982 Dollars)
-
4-1 :
co -
o -
o
£ =
»a -J
o g
i-t 3
CO -
a 4
' 6 -i
. «
^
=
a
-
-
E3
-
^f-FFFf T1 FfflRTi FIH 1
M;li:!M.i:;:ii;l|
::.::. :|::::::':::. I
;EEE = = EEE:;;f;;;i::: ::;
:!!l=lU t
Annual
for Be
I
-t f
j5;;:;;;:.:.M: jq
L
=
FI
O&M
It
_.
*
1
G
F
r
Ul
c<
i.
_i
^
?
«
3£
Lt
T
]
it
:c
^
;:
\
n
f
']
(
-
(
Flow (MGD
1
1
-.f ::::::: ::::::: ' :
c::±:::::::::::::::
LII-51
]urve Vs. Flow
Press Systems
EEEE:E;:::;;:;:;;:i: '.I'..'.
;-«'
, ?
m
Kiiiiiiii;;!:'!!
-
*
,
;;::; ;:::;';,' ;:
P !' '
/
/
=
t
t
/
b:;?
^ _
Ei;:i;
::::
-::;
I t I t
4 567891
5 67891
0.10
0.50
1.0
5.0
10.0
2
20.0
-------
by a controlled upward airflow (at pressure of 2.0 to 5.0 psig). Typical
temperatures for combustion range from 1,200 to 1»600°F. Supplemental fuel
may be added to keep temperatures at optimum levels if the sludge characteris-
tics do not allow for autogeneous combustion. Burning of waste sludge pro-
duces ash, which is carried out the top of the furnace and removed by air
pollution control devices. Sand carried out with the ash must be replaced.
Sand losses are approximately 5 percent of the bed volume for every 300 hours
of operation. Sludge feed to the furnace is introduced either above or
directly into the bed.
Fluidized bed incinerators are very specialized equipment| they are not
usually designed by general consultants, and not installed by the general
contractor for the waste treatment facility. The incinerator is usually
obtained on a turnkey basis from the manufacturer (i.e., the manufacturer
designs and installs all the equipment required for incineration of the
sludge).
Both the capital and O&M cost estimates for fluidized bed incineration
systems were derived from manufacturers' recommendations. A summary of the
design specifications for wastewater flow rates ranging from 0.5 to 20 HGD is
presented in Table VIII-91. In order to calculate sludge production rates and
to size the incinerators, certain assumptions were made on sludge character-
istics. The sludge production rates were obtained based on an influent waste-
water TSS concentration of 200 mg/1. The total solids of the feed sludge to
the incineration systems were assumed to be 20 percent (after mechanical
dewatering). The volatile solids were assumed to be 80 percent of the total
dry solids. Based on sludge production rates and the operating schedules, the
sludge feed rates were calculated. Furnace design data were provided from
manufacturers' recommendations. Since there is a minimum incinerator
dimension of 4 feet in diameter, systems designed for the 0.5 MGD and 1.0 MGD
flows were very conservative with an operating schedule of 3 days per week for
each system (see Table VIII-91).
Table VIII-92 presents the itemized capital costs and land requirements
for the fluidized bed systems. The installed equipment costs, which include
fluidized bed reactor, pumps, nozzles, instrumentation, and wet Venturi
VIII-213
-------
TABLE VIII-91.
SUMMARY OF FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SYSTEM
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Flow (MGD)
Parameter
Sludge Feed Characteristics
Sludge Production Rate
(Ib solids/day)
Total Solids (%)
Volatile Solids
(% Dry Solids)
Sludge Feed Rate (Ibs/hr)
Incinerator Design*
Inside Diameter
Operating Schedule
(a) hrs/day
(b) days/wk
Ash Mass (Ib solids/hr)
0.5
834
20
80
243
4'Dia
6
3
49
1.0
1,668
20
80
292
5'Dia
8
3
58
5.0
8,340
20
80
730,
6 'Dim
16
5
146
10.0
16,680
20
80
973
8. 5'Dia
16
5
195
20.0
33,360
20
80
1,946
12 'Dim
16
5
389
*Design data provided b^y Zimpro, Inc.
VIII-214
-------
TABLE VIII-92.
ITEMIZED CAPITAL COSTS FOR FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATOR SYSTEMS
. Flow (MGD)
Item 075ITS"370 1070 ' 2"070"
Installed Equipment
Costs 760,000 840,000 900,000 1,200,000 1,500,000
Installed Buildings,
Foundations, and Utility
Systems (101) 76,000 84,000 90,000 120,000 150,000
Total Capital Costs
(1984 $) 836,000 924,000 990,000 1,320,000 1,650,000
Total Capital Costs
(1982 $) 769,000 850,000 910,700 1,214,000 1,518,000
Land Requirements
(Acres) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
VIII-215
-------
scrubber systems were obtained directly from manufacturer's quotes (Zimpro,
Inc.). Costs for foundations, buildings, and utility systems were assumed to
be 10 percent of the installed equipment cost. Based on Zimpro's recommenda-
tions, the total installed costs also include engineering and contingency
costs. The final capital costs were converted Co 1982 dollars using ENR's
Construction Index, and then plotted against flow rates as shown in Figure
VIII-52. Since it is difficult to obtain representative land costs, they are
not included in these estimates. However, the acreage of land requirements
for each flow system were estimated based upon the sizes of the process
equipment plus adequate space for repairs and general access. Since the sizes
of all the incinerators did not change signifieatntlys the assumption of an
area of 0.1 acre for each system is adequate.
Annual operating costs were estimated based, on expenses of supplemental
fuel oil, electricity, labor, maintenance (including ash disposal), and taxes
and Insurance as shown in Table VIII-93. The estimated annual fuel oil and
electrical power requirements were obtained from USEPA's Energy Conservation
in Municipal Wastewater Treatment (1978) and from manufacturers' recommenda-
tions. A heat value of 141,000 BTU/gallon for No. 2 oil was assumed to con-
vert the fuel requirements from BTUs to gallons. The unit costs for No. 2 oil
and electricity were assumed to be $1.00/gallon and $0.08/kwh, respectively.
The unit labor cost was assumed to be $30»000/man-yr. The annual maintenance
costs, which include ash disposal and makeup sand, were taken to be 4 percent
of the total capital costs. Taxes and insurance costs were assumed to be
2 percent of the total capital costs. The final operating costs were
converted to 1982 dollars using ENR's Construction Index, and then plotted
against flow rates as shown in Figure VIII-53.
In order to apply these costs to the three technologies that require it,
the sludge disposal costs have been analyzed. In this manner a $/yr/MGD can
be computerized in order to make the costing exercise more efficient. Table
VIII-94 summarizes the costs detailed earlier in this section.
In order to annualize the capi'tal costs, a cost factor of 0.192 was used
to represent capital recovery and depreciation. Table VIII-95 presents the
annualized costs for the flow ranges included in this study.
VIII-216
-------
4~
2
1061
9_
8..
7.
6.
5
4.
3..
2-
5 l-
*
-\
«
M
, «
*
£
: C
«
C
p
x
4
o
si
0-
n
4
^
: CO J
o :
U
c
t
^
i
a*
5}
a
j
3
H
£2;£ = E;::E;:.; j J j.
;
EEEE;E=:!;;:;:;;!!E t ;
~" ~" L
__ . , .
. .
i ^
10 i iti
1 234
0.10
ijiil i iitf
1 '
BB|
i
i
1 1
i 11 i I
iiiiiiii; : i
1
' ; :::",:;:: E \ ; i : n
:; ;;;;:;; i; ; : E
- |J
II
t ! U .
[I ««
I
... T?1
lliil
.
ow 0
-.--=- = ::::::::: :
= .EEEE : = :::;;
FIGURE \
Total Capital Cost
Fluldized Bed lacJ
iGD) f-
1 1 1 1 1 I * 1 1
567891 2 3 4
0.50 1.0
tttttlttllTffl Tlllll fllfrT:T"
1:::: :::,,:::,::: q
J
::: :::.'"; ^
I^BIffl
riii-52
Curve Vs. Flow for
.aeration Systems
*
_, ( S.
^0* S 1
E- = E.:I = : :
i i t i i * t i
567891 2 3
5.0 10.0 20.0
-------
TABLE VIII-93.
ITEMIZED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR FLUIDIZED
BED INCINERATION SYSTEMS
Item
Fuel Oil
(BTU/yr x 106)
Electricity
(kWyr x 105>
Labor
Maintenance
Taxes and Insurance
0.5
. 106,400
(15,000)
36,000
(4.5)
7,000
33,400
16,700
1.0
127,700
(18,000)
64,000
(8.0)
7,000
37,000
18,500
Flow Rates
5.0
283,700
(40,000)
88,000
(11.0)
30,000
39,600
19,800
(MGD)
10.0
425,500
(60,000)
160,000
(20.0)
30,000
52,800
26,400
20.0
851,100
(120,000)
280,000
(35.0)
30,000
66,000
33,000
Total Annual Operating
Cost (1984 $)
Total Annual Operating
Cost (1982 $)
199,500 254,200 461,000 694,700 1,260,000
183,500 233,800 424,100 639,100 1,159,000
VIII-218
-------
FIGURE VIII-53
Annual O&M Cost Curve Vs. Flow for
Fluidized Bed Incineration Systems
Flow (MGD)
II MINI
0.10
-------
TABLE VIII-94.
CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS FOR THE BELT FILTER PRESS
AND FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SYSTEMS
M
H
H
.1^*
O
Item
Capital Costs for
Belt Filter
Press Systems
Capital Costs
for Fluidized
Bed Incineration
Systems
Total Capital
Costs
.,
O&M Costs
for Belt Filter
Press Systems
O&M Costs for
Flow Rates (MGD)
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 20.0
161,500 161,500 409,000 678,200 1,130,200
769,000 850,000 910,700 1,214,000 1,518,000
930,500 1,011,500 1,319,700 1,892,200 2,648,200
16,900 17,600 44,600 65,600 128,400
IHl -V\n >« nnn A-)/, mn «a IAA 1 1*0 nno
Fluidized Bed
Incineration Systems
Total O&M Costs
200,400 251,400
468,700
704,700
1,287,400
-------
TABLE VIII-95.
ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SLUDGE HANDLING SYSTEMS*
Sludge Handling
Plow Range (MGD) Unit Cost ($/yr/MGD)
>10 - 20.0 90,000
>5 - 10.0 107,000
>1 - 5.0 144,000
>.5 - 1.0 446,000
<0.5 758,000
technologies applieds CAPDET, coagulation/flocculation, and tertiary
clarifiers.
VIII-221
-------
4. RCRA Baseline Costs
a. Introduction
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments enacted in November 1984 (Public
Law 98-616, November 8, 1984) require that each existing surface impoundment
be in compliance with the requirements concerning the treatment, storage, and
disposal of all hazardous wastes. As a result of this new legislation, OCPSF
manufacturing facilities were reviewed to determine what costs would be
incurred as a result of the amendment.
A total of 48 OCPSF facilities were selected for inclusion in the RCIA
baseline costing analysis. The selection process for these OCPSF plants is
described in the following section.
b. Identification of OCPSF Plants Requiring RCM Baseline Costing
Figure VIII-54 provides an overview of the methodology used in identify-
ing OCPSF plants requiring RCRA baseline costing. Initially, in an effort to
identify OCPSF plants that manage hazardous waste in any type of RCRA-regulated
unit, the universe of 981 OCPSF plants (Part A and Part ABC) contained in the
Section 308 Questionnaire data base was matched against a universe of 5,304
facilities contained in the data base for the 1986 National Screening Survey
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities
currently maintained by the EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW). The OSW
screening survey provides a relatively comprehensive accounting of hazardous
waste facilities in the U.S.; the survey was designed to collect sufficient
information from every treatment, storage, disposal, and recycling (TSDR)
facility to allow the selection of a statistically valid sample of TSDR
facilities for a detailed follow-up survey. The Screening Survey Data Base
contains data on hazardous waste TSDR activities for the year 1985. Based on
a comparison of plant name, location, and address, the data base matching
exercise yielded a total of 313 OCPSF plants. An additional 78 OCPSF plants
were eliminated from consideration due to their inactive RCRA status as of the
year 1985. These inactive units include facilities that never treated,
stored, disposed of, or recycled hazardous wastes; facilities that have ceased
all TSDR activities and closed all TSDR units since November 19, 1980; and
VIII-222
-------
Facilities Contained
In OSW Screening
Survey Data Base
OCPSF Plants
313
235
Set 1 - OCPSF Plants
Contained in OSW
Screening Survey Data
Base.
Sat 2 - OCPSF Plants
which are Active RCRA
TSDR Facilities.
58
47
Note:
'Original plant listing used
for matching exercise
includes 42 plants known
to be outside of OCPSF
industry scope. Where
identified, these plants
were eliminated from
consideration.
42
Set 3 - OCPSF Plants
which Currently Manage
Hazardous Wastes in
RCRA-Regulated
Treatment or Storage
Surface Impoundments.
x
s
Set 4 - Set 3 OCPSF
Plants which are Either
Direct or Indirect
Discharges.
Set 5 - Set 4 OCPSF
Plants for which Adequate
Information is Available to
Allow RCRA Baseline
Costing,
Figure VIII-54. Overview of Methodology for Identification of OCPSF
Plants Requiring RCRA Baseline Costing
VIII-223
-------
facilities that have notified EPA of their intent to close or submitted
closure plans for all TSDR units. Elimination of these inactive facilities
produced a listing of 235 OCPSF plants that may be considered active TSDR
facilities.
X
Subsequent stages of the facility sorting exercise were directed at the
identification of OCPSF plants operating wastewater treatment units potentially
affected by major new RCM regulatory requirements, including groundwater
monitoring certification, minimum technology requirements, and the land
disposal ban. Because surface impoundments used to manage hazardous wastes
are significantly impacted by these new rules, considerable emphasis was
placed on the identification of OCPSF plants that may be operating impound-
ments as part of. their wastewater treatment systems.
Many treatment processes (e.g., equalization, sedimentation, biological
treatment, etc.) utilized by the OCPSF industry are frequently conducted in
surface impoundments as well as tanks. Where these impoundments handle
hazardous wastes, OCPSF facilities may be required to either replace these
units with tanks, or retrofit the impoundments with double liners and install
groundwater monitoring wells to detect any groundwater contamination resulting
from unit releases. The sorting exercise.focused initially on treatment
impoundments, but was subsequently expanded to include storage impoundments
when it became evident based on a review of RCRA programmatic records (e.g.,
Part A and Part B permit applications, and RCRA facility assessments) that
certain wastewater management units could be characterized interchangeably as
treatment or storage units. For example, equalisation or emergency spill
basins may be described alternatively as treatment or storage operations. As
indicated in Figure VTII-54, the sorting exercise identified 58 OCPSF plants
that manage hazardous wastes in treatment impoundments, storage impoundments,
or both. This total almost certainly Includes OGPSF plants that utilize
impoundments solely in conjunction with non-wastewater activities (e.g.,
sludge holding basins). Nonetheless, because available data were not
sufficient to enable distinction between wastewater and non-wastewater use of
impoundments, it was conservatively assumed that where impoundments are
present at a facility, they are used in conjunction with wastewater treatment.
VIII-224
-------
Other RCRA-regulated units potentially used to manage sludges, other
solid residuals (e.g., landfills, disposal impoundments), or wastewaters not
covered by OCPSP effluent guidelines (e.g., underground injection well) were
not considered. In particular, land disposal units (e.g., sludge holding
basins) potentially used to manage vastevater treatment sludges were not
addressed since it has already been conservatively assumed that any additional
vastevater treatment sludges resulting from compliance with OCPSF effluent
guidelines will be devatered and then combusted in on-site or off-site
hazardous waste incinerators.
Eleven of the 58 OCPSF plants operating hazardous waste treatment or
storage impoundments were eliminated from consideration due to their zero
discharge (e.g., underground injection, recycling) or unknown discharge
status. These plants will not be directly affected by OCPSF effluent
guidelines, and therefore have not been evaluated for RCRA baseline costing.
As shown in Figure VIII-54, the set of plants considered for RCRA baseline
costing includes 47 OCPSF facilities that manage hazardous waste in treatment
or storage impoundments, and that discharge either directly to surface waters
or indirectly to a POTV. Five of these plants were later deleted from the
costing list due to a lack of plant-specific information necessary to perform
costing.
c. RCRA Cost Estimates
The parameters used to design and cost liners and monitoring wells are
listed in Table VIII-96. Anaerobic lagoons were assumed to have a median
detention time and depth of 35 days and 12 feet, respectively, while aerobic
lagoons and polishing ponds were assumed to have a. median detention time and
depth of 25 days and 4 feet, respectively. Equalization and sedimentation
basins were assumed to have a median detention time and depth of 5 days and
4 feet, respectively. Liner costs for installation and materials are actual
vendor quotes and are scaled according to the Engineering News Record Index.
Monitoring wells assume a minimum of four wells, three downgradient and one
upgradient of the surface impoundment to be monitored. A table was
established relating the facility's flow to the number of wells required, for
the flow range of 0 to 18 MGD.
VIII-225
-------
TABLE VIII-96.
PARAMETERS USED TO DESIGN AND COST LINERS AND MONITORING WELLS
Lagoons
1
2
3
4
5
Liner
Aerobic
« Anaerobic
. Equalization
Sedimentation
Polishing Pond
Costs
Detention Time (Days)
25
35
5
5
25
Depth (Ft)
4
12
4
4
4
1. High Density Polyethylenes Material Cost - $.40/ft2
Installation Cost - $.2S/ft
2. Actual Cost Used in this Analysis? $0,6878/ft2 taken from polishing
pond liner costs.
Note: The costs assume that the surface to be lined is smooth. These costs
were based on vendors' quotes.
Monitoring Costs
1. Veils: Assume at a very minimum 4 veils, 3 downgradient and 1
upgradient. The following table was established;
Flow Range (HGD) Number of Wells
0-2 4
>2-4 8
>4-6 12
>6-8 16
>8-10 20
>10-12 24
>12-14 28
>14-16 32
>16-18 36
a. Well Depth - Ranges from 40 to 200 ft, depending on the geo-
graphic region. For this analysis we used 120-ft depths.
b. Installation Cost - Ranges from $2,000-$3,000 for 2" dia.
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Use 3,000 * 40 ft = $75/ft
c. Hanhpur Cost - Labor rate of $20/hrj takes two men 10 days to
drill four wells.
VIII-226
-------
Well depths range anywhere from 40 to 200 feet depending on the
geological location (southwest wells are generally deeper than northeast
wells), so a median value of 120 feet was used. Installation costs for
drilling wells range from $2,000 to $3,000 for a 2-inch diameter polyvinyl
chloride pipe. This results in an installation cost of $75/ft when a 40-foot
depth is assumed. This provides a very conservative cost figure. Man-hour
costs are based on a labor rate of $20/hour, and it is assumed that four wells
can be drilled in 10 working days by two workers. Again, this is a conser-
vative estimate.
In addition to the equipment and installation costs, an annual cost
covering administrative, sampling and analysis, and liner inspection costs was
estimated at 20 percent of the total costs calculated for each facility.
Although this estimate was considered extremely conservative, it was left at
20 percent to cover the requirements set forth in 40 CFR 265.92 and associated
appendices.
Table VIII-97 presents the liner and monitoring well equipment and
installation costs for the 42 selected OCPSF facilities. Table VIII-98
presents a summary of the liner costs, monitoring well costs, and the annual
20 percent contingency cost (which covers administration, sampling and
analysis, and liner inspections) for each plant selected. Liner equipment and
installation costs total $19.702 million; monitoring well equipment and
installation costs total $2.891 million per year; and contingency costs total
$44.518 million for the 42 selected OCPSF facilities.
d. Summary of BPT, BAT, and PSES Compliance Costs
Based on the cost methodology and cost estimation procedures for each of
the technologies discussed previously in this section, BPT, BAT, and PSES com-
pliance costs were calculated, and are presented in Table VIII-99. While
compliance costs are presented for three BAT options, only one distinct PSES
technology option was retained for final cost estimation. In addition, no
monitoring costs were estimated for BPT because the Agency assumed existing
monitoring frequencies for BOD5 and TSS were adequate. Also, BPT, BAT, and
PSES compliance costs were not estimated for all OCPSF plants. Table VIII-100
VIII-227
-------
mm m HCHEDOKOG WELL BQUQOEMENT M) ESZAIMEION COSTS PCR SELBCM) OCPSF EfionnES
OCPSF,
Plant
Wjnber
76
190
250
293
2%
392
415
500
523
624
662
683
695
819
844
Plant 'type of Iqwundtent*
Flow Used to Jteage Aerobic taaerobic Polishing
(MOD) Hazardous Waste Equal Sed Lagoon Lagoon Pond
0.40
0.13
0.50
0.630
2.650
0.156
6.50
0.485
0.160
None
4.720
3.650
16.700
1.0160
0.493 .
S
T,S
T,S
S
T
S
T,S
f,S
S
Deleted due
T,S
T
f,S
S
1,S
Deleted due to lack of technical costing
X X
X - -
X
XY
A,
X - - -
X " - - -
X X X
X - -
to lack of technical costing information
XY
A ""
X -
X X - - -
X - - - -
XX - -
Impcfundmait
Vol. (ft3)
information
521,400
334,300
421,200
708,600
104,300
4,345,000
2,269,000
107,000
6,310,000
2,440,000
22,320,000
679,200
6,592,000
Impoundment
Area (ft2)
130,300
83,560
105,300
' 117,200
26,070
1,086,000
567,400
26,740
1,578,000
610,000
5,582,000
169,800
164,800
liner
Cost ($)
89,520
57,380
72,300
121,700
17,900
746,000
389,600
18,360
1,083,000
418,900
3,834,000
116,600
113,200
Monitoring
Cost($)
35,701
35,701-
35,701
71,402
35,701
142,804
35,701
35,701
107,103
71,402
285,608
35,701
35,701
-------
mm
TABLE Vm-97.
MONIKKQG SELL BQurpnair USD DJSEMMUCK oosis PCR SELIODED OCPSF FAOLHIES
(Continued)
OGPSF
Plant
Nunfaer
851
876
908
1069
1133
P 1322
s
1494
1522
1656
1688
1753
1769
1797
1890
1910
Plant Type of Impoundment*
Flow Used to Manage
(M3>) Hazardous Waste Equal Sed
1.9450
0.3540
1.250
0.7940
1.300
None
2.0850
9.480
0.0440
1.2040
3.30
34.40
0.1180
1.3520
0.6380
T,S
S
T»S
T,S
T,S
S
T,S
T,S
S
T
T»S
S
T
T
S
X
X X
X X
X
X
Deleted due
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
Deleted due
Aerobic Anaerobic Polishing Impoundment
Lagoon Lagoon Pond Vol. (ft )
1,300,000
473,300
1,671,000
530,800
869,100
to lack of technical costing information
- - - 2,788,000
6,337,000
29,410
- - 1,610,000
4,412,000
23,670,000
. - - 472,900
903,800
to lack of technical costing information
Impoundment
Area (ft2)
325,100
118,300
417,800
132,700
217,300
697,000
1,584,000
7,353
402,400
1,103,000
5,916,000
118,300
226,000
Liner
Cost ($)
223,200
81,260
286,900
91,120
149,200
. 479,400
1,089,000
5,057
276,800
758,600
4,069,000
81,380
115,400
Monitoring
Cost ($)
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
71,402
178,505
35,701
35,701
71,402
642,618
35,701
35,701
-------
mm.
vm-97.
mmmm WELL Boumrar m> TOSMMUCN COSTS RE SELECTED OCPSF
(Continued)
OCPSF
Plant
Number
1911
2070
2110
2123
2148
2227
2268
2297
2345
2390
2481
2527
2609
2673,1
2673.2
Plant Type of lipoundtoent*
Flow Ifeed to Mangge Aarobie Anaerobic Polishing
(MS)) Hazardous Waste Equal Sed Lagoon Lagoon Bond
2.16
0.2589
0.4890
0.110
1.7170
. 3.980
0.0350
0.0246
0.15978
0.0946
0.920
0.200
0.0469
0.0810
0.0810
T
T,S
T,S
S
T
S
S
S
T
S
T
T,S
S
T,S
T,S
X
X X
X -
X - -
XXX X
X X - -
X -
x -
X X - -
X - -
x x
_ _ x -
X X -
X - X
~. . - x -
Impoundment
Vol. (ft3)
1,444,000
347,400
332,900
73,540
13,780,000
5,322,000
23,400
16,450
640,900
63,240
1,230,000
668,500
62,700
324,900
379,100
Impoundment
Asm. (ft2)
361,000
86,840
83,230
18,380
3,434,000
1,330,000
5,849
4,111
159,700
15,810
307,600
167,000
15,680
81,230
25,270
Liner Monitoring
Cost ($) Cast ($)
248,300
59,720
.57,250
12,640
2,368,000
915,000
4,023
2,828
110,200
10,870
211,600
114,900
10,780
55,870
17,380
71,402
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
71,402
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
-------
1MM Vm-97.
L3NE8 MD MEM30KDG SELL BQUUMBn1 ^D DSMXfflECK COSTS FOR SELECTED QCPSF FAQUHES
(Continued)
OCPSF Plant "type of Impoundment*
Plant Flow Used to Manage Aerobic Anaerobic Polishing Impoundment Inpoundment Liner Monitoring
Number (MX) Hazardous Vaste Equal Sad lagoon Lagoon Pond Vol. (ft ) Area (ft ) Cost ($) Cost ($)
2680 0.060 S X - . 53,480 13,3TO 9,196 35,701
2695 2.6180 S Deleted due to lade of technical costing information
2739 0.9700 T,S X X 3,891,000 972,600 669,500 35,701
*S = Surface impoundment
T*Tank
-------
TABLE VIII-98.
SUMMARY OF LINER, MONITORING, AND
ADMINISTRATIVE RCRA BASELINE COSTS
Plant No.
Liner Cost
Installed ($)
Monitoring Cost
($)
Administrative Cost*
<$/year)
190
250
293
296
392
415
500
523
662
683
695
819
844
851
876
908
1069
1133
1494
1522
1656
1688
1753
1769
1797
1890
1911
2070
2110
2123
2148
2227
2668
2297
2345
2390
2481
2527
2609
2673
2680
2739
89,520
57,380
72,300
121,700
17,900
746,000
389,600
18,360
1,083,000
418,900
3,834,000
116,600
113,200
223,200
81,260
286,900
91,120
149,200
479,400
1,089,000
5,057
276,800
758,600
4,069,000
81,380
155,400
248,300
59,720
57,250
12,640
2,368,000
915,000
4,023
2,828
110,200
, 10,870
211,600
114,900
10,780
73,250
9,196
669,000
35,701
35,701
35,701
71,402
35,701
142,804
35,701
35,701
107,103
71,402
285, (508
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
71,402
178,505
35,701
35,701
71,402
642,618
35,701
35,701
71,402
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
71,402
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
35,701
25,044
18,616
21,600
38,620
10,720
177,761
85,060
10,812
238,021
98,060
823,922
30,460
29,780
51,780
23,392
64,520
25,364
36,980
110,160
253,501
8,152
62,500
166,000
942,324
23,416
38,220
63,940
19,084
18,590
9,668
480,740
197,280
7,945
7,706
29,180
9,314
49,460
. 30,120
9,296
21,790
8,979
140,940
Administrative Cost = 20% of Liner Cost + 20% oiE Monitoring Cost
VIII-232
-------
TABLE VIII-99.
SUMMARY OP BPT, BAT, AND PSES COMPLIANCE
COSTS FOR FINAL REGULATORY OPTIONS
(1982 $)
Total Total
Capital Costs O&M Costs
BPT
-Option I 188,387,926 38,287,089
-Option III 312,100,385 50,629,069
BAT
-Option I 61,178,529 19,654,285
-Option II 308,370,369 143,613,283
-Option III 893,897,707 285,233,753
PSES
-Option IV 260,776,472 124,301,498
Contract
Total Hauling Monitoring
Land Costs Costs Costs
4,687,175 489,830 **
6,696,206 489,830 **
2,107,061 1,441,881 9,394,810
6,792,303 1,566,565 9,475,252
18,983,728 1,085,641 9,467,282
7,347,380 10,094,061 11,068,558
**No monitoring costs were estimated for BPT because It was assumed that
existing monitoring frequencies for BODS and TSS were adequate.
VIII-233
-------
TABLE VIII-100,,
PLANTS WITH NO COST
Plant
No.
306
373
408
511
586
915
1167
1285
1342
2624
4005
4058
BPT
Part Discharge
A/ABC Code
A Direct
ABC Direct
A Drect
A Direct
A Direct
ABC Direct
A Direct
A Direct
A Direct
A Direct
A Direct
A Direct
Plant
No.
306
373
408
511
586
601
915
1167
1285
1342
1776
1794
2624
2647
4005
4058
BAT
Part
A/ABC
A
ABC
A
A
A
ABC
ABC
A
A
A
ABC
ABC
A
ABC
A
A
PSES
Discharge
Code
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Dir/Ind
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Dir/Ind
Direct
Dir/Ind
Direct
Direct
Plant
No.
85
259
303
339
434
513
566
601
614
751
853
962
1060
1238
1260
1617
1664
1765"
1782
1794
1836
2062
2153
2297
2313
2349
2446
2475
2497
2505
2706
2745
4010
4012
4031
4056
4060
Part
A/ABC
A
ABC
ABC
ABC
ANC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
A
ABC
ABC,
ABC
ABC
ABC
A
ABC
ABC
ABC
A
ABC
A
A
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
A
ABC
ABC
Discharge
Code
Indirect
Dir/Ind
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Dir/Ind
Dir/Ind
Indirect
Indirect
Dir/Ind
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Dir/Ind
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Dir/Ind
Indirect
Dir/Ind
Indirect
Indirect
Dir/Ind
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Dir/Ind
Indirect
Ind/Zer
Indirect
Indirect
VIII-234
-------
presents the plants for which compliance costs were not estimated. A total of
12 plants, 16 plants, and 37 plants were not eosted for BPT, BAT, and PSES,
respectively. The predominant reasons for not calculating compliance costs
Included missing flow data and/or missing production data which, in turn,
precluded the estimation of toxic pollutant loadings that provide the basis
for estimating BAT and PSES compliance cost. In addition, all direct/indirect
dischargers were only costed as either a direct or an indirect discharger
since product/process tOKic pollutant loadings were difficult to separate into
ultimate direct and indirect waste streams. This reduces the number of plants
not costed by one plant for BAT and by nine plants for PSES.
As part of the Small Plant Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), a total of
48 direct and indirect dischargers were identified for further analysis and
validation of their raw waste toxic pollutant loadings. In general, these
plants were either Part A respondees that had their loadings estimated based
on information from full-response plants, or full-response plants whose
loadings were calculated on a generic basis. (Details of the methodology used
to calculate toxic pollutant loadings are discussed in the next portion of
this section.) For the Small Plant EIA, the Agency carefully validated each
plant's loadings so that compliance costs and loadings before and after com-
pliance could be adjusted accordingly. This was accomplished by investigating
each plant's product mix and identifying plants with similar product mixes
that had been sampled during one of the Agency's field sampling programs.
This was done so that the pollutants estimated to occur in each plant's raw
waste loadings could be adjusted to include only those pollutants found in the
raw wastewater of the sampling plant with the most similar product mix. Of
the 48 plants evaluated, raw waste loadings were adjusted for 12 plants
(10 indirect, 2 direct), and revised compliance costs and loadings were
recalculated and substituted for those that were originally estimated. Also,
during this validation, it was discovered that the process flow value used for
compliance cost estimation purposes at one plant was incorrect, so revised
compliance costs for this plant were also recalculated and substituted.
Appendix VIII-B presents a listing of the plant-by-plant compliance cost
estimates associated with the BPT, BAT, and PSES effluent limitations.
VIII-235
-------
F. ₯ASTE₯ATiR AND AIR EMISSION LOADINGS
BPT Conventional Pollutant Vastewater Loadings
onventional pollutant (BOD5 and TSS) vastevater loadings associated with
current and BPT Option I discharges were calculated in the following manners
Current BOD, and TSS effluent wastewater loadings were calculated by
obtaining reported BOD5 and TSS effluent concentrations from the BPT
costing file (including imputed BOD5 and TSS effluent data discussed
earlier in this section and in Appendix VTII-A), multiplying by the
total OCPSF contaminated flow value (in MGD obtained from the BPT cost
file), and then multiplying by a standard units conversion factor
(8.34) and 365 .to obtain an annual loading of both BOD5 and TSS.
* To obtain BPT Option I BOD and TSS effluent wastewater loadings, the
same procedure as described above for current loadings was used,
except the BPT Option I BOD5 and TSS targets from the BPT cost file
were substituted for the reported BODg and TSS effluent data. For
plants with reported concentrations less than their target values, the
reported values were used.
Current discharge loadings of BOD5 and TSS have been estimated to be
approximately 61.49 and 99.59 million pounds per year, respectively. The
annual BOD5 and TSS BPT discharge loadings, based on the selection of BPT
Option I, are 19.76 and 33.32 million pounds per year, respectively. There-
fore, BPT Option I control reduces current BODg and TSS levels by 68 and
67 percent, respectively.
Appendix VIII-C presents plant-by-plant current, BPT Option I, and BPT
Option III BODS and TSS loadings.
2. BAT and PSES Toxic PollutantWastewater Loadings
a. Introduction
Plants within the OCPSF industries use water for a wide variety of
purposes: direct process contact uses (e.g., waste streams from reactors, raw
material recovery, solvent recovery, product separation, and refining);
Indirect process contact uses (e.g., in pumps, seals, and vacuum jet and steam
ejector systems); maintenance, equipment cleaning, and work area washdowns;
VIII-236
-------
air pollution control; waste transport; noncontact cooling; and noncontact
ancilliary uses (e.g., boilers and utilities). With the exception of non-
contact waters, wastewater from these industries is potentially contaminated
to a greater or lesser degree with priority pollutants. Because the OCPSF
industry uses large amounts of water in the manufacture of products
(17 percent of the total water consumed by all manufacturing establishments in
1978), these industries generate raw wastewaters that contain significant
concentrations of priority pollutants.
Most of this wastewater receives some treatment to reduce pollutant
concentrations prior to environmental discharge, either as an individual
process waste stream or in a wastewater treatment plant serving combined waste
streams from the entire facility. To determine what pollutants merit
regulation, as well as determining the costs and benefits of removing
regulated priority pollutants, the Agency has acquired extensive analytical
data on priority pollutant concentrations in industry wastewaters.
The Agency has estimated raw, current, projected BPT effluent, projected
PSES effluent, and projected BAT effluent priority pollutant waste loadings
for the OCPSF industry to estimate the relative environmental benefit (as
measured by reduction of priority pollutants discharged to surface waters or
to POTWs) of each o£ the final BAT and PSES regulatory options. These
loadings (as calculated for individual product/processes) were also used for
costing purposes. These loadings have been calculated on a plant-by-plant
model basis using both industry-generated data (i.e., 1983 Section 308
Questionnaire data) and analytical data acquired by the Agency in various
sampling studies. OCPSF industry waste loadings are presented in Appendix
VIII-D. The following sections describe the methodology used to calculate
waste loads from the OCPSF industries.
b. Methodology for Waste Load Calculation
This section presents the approach taken by the Agency for waste load
calculations. A general methodology is presented first. Analytical data for
toxic pollutants are discussed next. Flow data and the assumptions used to
calculate product/process flow follows, with plant-specific waste load
calculations presented last.
V1II-237
-------
There are four distinct le,vels at which toxic pollutant waste loads from
a plant can be calculated. The first level is at an aggregated product/
process level (or plant level) where waste streams from several processes are
combined. If toxic pollutant concentration and flow are known for the
aggregate raw waste stream (i.e., prior to any treatment that may affect toxic
pollutant removal) and the final waste stream (after the current treatment
system), then both raw and current waste loads may be calculated as:
where j
R₯L, » raw waste load for a pollutant
CWL = current waste load for a pollutant
[Pi] = concentration of a pollutant in raw wastewater
[PeJ = concentration of a pollutant in final discharge
FA = raw wastewater flow
F « final discharge wastewater flow.
If more than one aggregated wastewater stream exists at a plant, toxic pollu-
tant loadings -are summed to determine the total waste load.
The second level at which toxic pollutant waste loads from a plant can be
calculated is at a product/process or production unit level. The Agency has
sampled the raw wast ewaters of 176 product/processes employed by the OCPSP
industries that generally manufacture high production volume organic chemicals,
plastics, and synthetic fibers. These processes,, which are listed in Tables
vTII-101 and VIII-*102, comprise approximately 60 percent of the OCPSP
industries' total production. This collection of product/process data is
known as the Master Process File (MPF).
Given toxic pollutant concentrations for a given production process and
using wastewater flow specific to that product/process, toxic pollutant waste
load can be calculated as before. The total waste load from a plant is the
sum of the individual product/process waste loads generated at an OCPSP plant.
₯111-238
-------
TABLE VIII-101.
MAJOE PRODUCTS BY PROCESS OF THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
Product
Process (feedstock)
Acetaldehyde
Acetic Acid
Acetic Anhydride
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic Acid Esters
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethylhexyl Acrylate
Isobutyl Acrylate
n-Butyl Acrylate
Acrylonitrile
Adipic Acid
Adiponitrile
Alkyl Amines
By-product (Acrolein/Propene/Oxidation
Oxidation (Ethene)
By-product (Polyvinyl Alcohol)
Carbonylation (Methanol)
Co-product (Terephthalic Acid)
Oxidation (Acetaldehyde)
Oxidation (Butane)
Addition (Acetic Acid/Ketene)
Oxidation (Isopropanol/H202)
Peroxication/Acid Cleavage (Cumene)
By-product (Aerylonitrile/Ammoxidation/Propane)
By-product (Propane Pyrolysis)
Hydrolysis (Calcium Carbide)
Oxidation (Methane)
Oxidation (Propene)
Hydration (Acrylonitrile)
Formylation/Hydratlon (Acetylene/Carbon Monoxide/Water)
Oxidation (Acrolein)
Oxidation (Propene)
Esterification (Miscellaneous Alcohols)
Esterification (Acrylic Acid/Etahnol)
Esterification (Acrylic Acid/2-Ethylhexanol)
Esterification (Acrylic Acid/Isobutanol)
Esterification (Acrylic Acid/n-Butanol)
Ammoxidation (Propene)
Oxidation (Cyclohexane)
Oxidation (Cyclohexanol)
Oxidation (Cyclohexanone)
Ammonolysis/Dehydration (Adipic Acid)
Chlorination/Cyanation (Butadiene)
Electrohydrodimerization (Acrylonitrile)
Hydrogenation (Fatty Nitriles)
VIII-239
-------
TABLE VIII-101.
MAJOR PRODUCTS BY PROCESS OF THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
(Continued)
Product
Process (feedstock)
Alkyl Phenols
Allyl Alcohol
Amyl Acetates
Aniline
Benzene
Benzole Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Benzyl Chloride
Bisphenol-A
BTX
1,3-Butadiene
Butenes
n-Butyl Alcohol
sec-Butyl Alcohol
Caprolactam
Carbon Tetrachloride
Cellulose Butyrates
Cellulose Acetate/
Propionate
Chlorobenzene
Alkylatlon (Phenol)
Reduction (Acrolein/Aluninum Butoxide)
Esterification (Acetic Acid/Amyl Alcohols)
Hydrogenation (Nitrobenziene)
Distillation (BTX Extract Cat Reformate)
Distillation (BTX Extract - Coal Tar Light Oil)
Distillation (BTX Extract - Pyrolysis Gasoline)
Hydrodealkylization (Toluene/Xylene)
Oxidation (Toluene)
Hydrolysis (Benzyl Chloride)
Chlorination (Toluene)
Condensation (Acetone/Phenol)
Pyrolysis (Gasoline)
Extractive Distillation (C4 Pyrolyzates)
Extractive Distillation (C4 Pyrolyzates)
Hydrogenation (n-Butyraldehyde/Oxo Process)
Hydration (Butenes)
Rearrangement (Cyclohexanone Oxime)
Chlorination (Carbon Disulfide)
Chlorination (Methane)
Chlorination (Methyl Chloride)
Co-product (Tetrachloroethene)
Esterification (Cellulose)
Esterification (Cellulose)
Chlorination (Benzene)
VIII-240
-------
TABLE VIII-101.
MAJOR PRODUCTS BY PROCESS OP THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
(Continued)
Product
Process (feedstock)
Chlorod i fluo rome thane
Chloroform
3-Chloroni trobenzene
Coal Tar
Creosote
Cumene
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanol/one (Mixed)
Cyclopentatidene Dimer
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Di chlorobenzene
Di chlorod ifluoromethane
1,2-Diehloroethane
Diethylene Glycol
Diisopropyl Benzene
Diketene
Diethyl Terephthalate
Dinitrotoluene (Mixed)
Dyes and Dye Intermediates
Epichlorohydrin
Ethanol
Hydrofluorination (Chloroform)
Chlorination (Methane)
Chlorination (Methyl Chloride)
Chlorination (Nitrobenzene)
Coking (Coal)
Distillation (Coal Tar Light Oil)
Alkylation (Benzene/Propene)
Hydrogenation (Benzene)
Oxidation (Cyclohexane)
Extractive Distillation (C5 Pyrolyzates)
Chlorination (Benzene)
Chlorination (Benzene)
Hydrofluorination (Carbon Tetrachloride)
Direct Chlorination (Ethene)
OxyChlorination (Ethene)
Co-product (Ethylene Glycol)
Alkylation of Benzene (Cumene)
Dierization (Ketene/Acetic Acid)
Esterifcation (Terphthallic Acid)
Oxidation/Esterification (p-Xylene)
Nitration (Toluene)
Epoxidation (Allyl Chloride/Chorohydrination)
Hydration (Ethene)
₯111-241
-------
TABLE VIII-101.
MAJOR PRODUCTS BY PROCESS OF THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
(Continued)
Product
Process (feedstock)
Ethoxylates, Alkylphenol
Ethoxylates, Alkyl
Ethylamine
Ethylbenzene
Ethene
Ethylene Diamine
Ethylene Glycol
Ethylene Oxide
2-Ethylhexanol
Formaldehyde
Formic Acid
Glycerine (Synthetic)
Hexamethylenediamine
Hydroquinone
Hydroxyethyl Cellulose
Hydroxypropyl Cellulose
Isobutanol
Isobutylene
Isoprene
Isopropanol
Etherification (Phenol/Ethylene Oxide)
Etherification (Linear Alcohols/Ethylene Oxide)
Ammonolysis (Ethanol)
Alkylation (Benzene)
Distillation (BTX Extract)
Pyrolysis (Ethane/Propane/Butane/LPG)
Pyrolysis (Naphtha/Gas Oil)
Pyrolysis (Ethane/Propane/Butane/Naphtha)
Amination (1,2-Dichloroethane)
Hydrolysis (Ethylene Oxide)
Epoxidation (Ethylene Chlorohydrin)
Oxidation (Ethene)
Condensation/Hydrogenation (n-Butaldehyde)
Oxidation (Methancd-Silver Catalyst)
By-product (Butane Oxidation)
Hydration (Allyl Alcohol)
Depolymerization (Nylon 66)
Hydrogenation (Adiponitrile)
Oxidation (Aniline)
Etherification (Cellulose)
Etherification (Cellulose)
Hydrogenation (Isobutyraldehyde-Oxo Process)
Dehydration (tert-Butanol)
Extraction (C4 Pyrolyzate)
Extractive Distillation (C5 Pyrolyzate)
Hydration (Propene)
VIII-242
-------
TABLE VIII-101.
MAJOR PRODUCTS BT PROCESS OP THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
(Continued)
Product
Process (Feedstock)
Maleic Anyhydride
Methacrylic Acid
MethacryJLlc Acid Esters
MetHanoi
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Retone
Methyl Isobutyl Carbinol
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl Salicylate
Methylamines
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Styrene
Naphthalene
Neopentanoic Acid
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol & Sodium Salt
Nonyl Phenol
Nylon Salt
Oxo Aldehydes/Alcohols
Pentachlorophenol
Oxidation (Benzene)
Hydrolysis (Acetone Cyanohydrin)
Esterification (Methacyrlic Acid/Alcohols)
Oxidation (H.P. Synthesis Natural Gas/Synthetic
Gas)
Oxidation (L.P. Synthesis Natural Gas/Synthetic
Gas)
Chlorination (Methane)
Hydrochlorination (Methanol)
Reduction (Acrolein/Aluminum Butoxide)
Condensation (Acetone)
Hydrogenation (Mesityl Oxide)
Methanolysis (Acetone Cyanohydrin)
Esterification (Salicylic Acid)
Ammination (Methanol/Ammonia)
Chlorination (Methane)
Chlorination (Methyl Chloride)
By-product (Acetone/Phenol by Cumene Oxidation)
Distillation (Pyrolysis Gas)
Separation (Coal Tar Distillate)
Oxidation (Isobutylene via Oxo Process)
Nitration (Benzene)
Nitration (Phenol)
Alkylation (Phenol)
Condensation (Adipic Acid/Hexamethylene Diamine)
Oxidation (Hydrocarbons - Oxo Process)
Chlorination (Phenol)
VIII-243
-------
TABLE VIII-101.
MAJOR PRODUCTS BY PROCESS OP THE ORGAWIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
(Continued)
Product
Process (Feedstock)
Phenol
Phosphate Esters
Phthalate Ester, Bis
2-Ethylhexyl
Butylbenzyl
C11-C14
Diethyl
Diphenyl
Phthalic Anhydride
Pitch Tar Residue
Polyethylene Glycol
Polyethylene Polyaraines
Peroxidation/Acid Cleavage (Cumene)
Phosgenation (Phosphoryl Chloride/Phenol/
Isodecanol)
Alcoholysis (Phthatlic Anhydride/2-Ethylhexanol)
Alcoholysis (Phthalic Anhydrlde/Butanol/
Benzylchloride)
Alcoholysis (Phthalic Anhydride/Cll-Cl4 Alcohols)
Alcoholysis (Phthalic Anhydride/Ethanol)
Esterification (Phenol/Phthalyl Chloride)
Oxidation (Naphthalene)
Oxidation (o-Xylene)
Separation (Coal Tar Light Oil distillate)
Polymerization (Ethylene Oxide)
Amination (Ethylene Diamine/2,3-Dichloroethane/
NH3)
Polymeric Methylene Dianiline Condensation (Aniline/Formaldehyde)
Phosgenation (Polymethylene Dianiline)
Polymeric Methylene Diphenyl
Diisocyanate
Polyoxyethylene Glycol
Polyoxypropylene Glycol
Propene
Propionaldehyde
Propionic Acid
Condensation (Propylene Glycol/Propylene Oxide)
Propoxylation (Glycerine)
Pyrolysis (Ethane/Propane/Butane/LPG)
Pyrolysis (Naphtha and/or Gas Oil)
Pyrolysis (Naphtha, Propane, Ethane, Butane)
Hydroformylation (Ethene-Oxo Process)
Oxidation (Propionaldehyde)
VIII-244
-------
TABLE VIII-lOl.
HAJOR PRODUCTS BY PROCESS OF THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
(Continued)
Product
Process (Feedstock)
n-Propyl Acetate
n-Propyl Alcohol
Propylene Oxide
Salicylic Acid
Styrene
Terephthalie Acid
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachlorophthalic Anhydride
Tetraethlene Glycol
Tetraethyl Lead
Tetramethyl Lead
Toluene
Toluenediamine (Mixture)
2,4-Toluenedlamine
Toluene Diisocyanates
(Mixture)
2,4-Toluene Diisocyanate
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Triethylene Glycol
Isterification (Acetic Acid Propanol)
Hydrogenation (Propionaldehyde)
Epoxidation (Propene via Chlorohydrin)
Carboxylation (Sodium Phenolate)
Dehydrogenation (Ethylbenzene)
Catalytic Oxidation (p-Xylene)
Chlorination (1,2-Dichloroethane/Other
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons)
Chlorination (Acetylene)
Chlorination (Hydrocarbons)
Chlorination (Phthalic Anhydride)
Co-product (Ethylene Glycol)
Alkylation (Ethyl Chloride/Sodium-Lead Alloy)
Alkylation (Methyl Chloride/Sodium-Lead Alloy)
Distillation (BTX Extract - Cat Reformate)
Distillation (BTX Extract - Coal Tar Light Oil)
Distillation (BTX Extract - Pyrolysis Gasoline)
Hydrogenation (Dinitrotoluenes)
Hydrogenation (Dinitrotoluenes)
Phosgenation (Toluenediamines)
Phosgena t i on (2,4-Toluened i ami ne)
Chlorination (1,2-Dichloroethane/Other
Hydrocarbons)
Chloriantion (Acetylene)
Hydrofluorination (Carbon Tetrachloride)
Co-product (Ethylene Glycol/Ethylene Oxide)
Recovery from Ethylene Glycol Still Bottoms
VIII-245
-------
TABLE VIII-101.
MAJOR PRODUCTS BY PROCESS OF THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
(Continued)
Product
Process (Feedstock)
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Vinylidene Chloride
Xylenes, Mixed
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Esterification (Acetylene/Acetic Acid)
Esterification (Ethene/Acetic Acid Gas Phase)
Esterification (Ethene/Acetic Acid Liquid
Phase)
Dehydrochlorination (1,2-Dichloroethane)
Dehydrochlorination (1,2-Dichloroethane -
Balanced Process)
Dehydrochlorination (Trichloroethane)
Extraction (Cat Reformate)
Extraction (Coal Tar Light Oil)
Extraction (Pyrolysis Gasoline)
Separation (Xylene Bottoms)
Fractionalion (Mixed Xylenes)
Distillation (Mixed Xylenes)
Isomerization/Crystallization (Mixed Xylenes)
VIII-246
-------
TABLE VIII-102.
MAJOR PRODUCTS BY PROCESS OF THE PLASTICS/SYNTHETIC FIBERS INDUSTRY
Product
Process (Feedstock)
ABS Resin
ABS/San Resin
Acrylic Fiber
(85* Polyacrylonitrile)
Acrylic Latex
Acrylic Resins
Alkyd Resins
Cellulose Acetate Fibers
Cellulose Acetate Resin
Epoxy Resins
Melamine Resins
Monacrylic Fiber
Nylon 6 Resin
Nylon 66 Resin
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Resins
Phenolic Resin
Polycarbonates
Polyester Fibers
Polyester Resins
Polyethylene Resins
Polypropylene Resin
Polystyrene and Copolymers
Emulsion Polymerization
Emulsion/Suspension Polymerization
Suspension Polymerization - Wet Spinning
Emulation Polymerization
Solution Polymerization
Condensation/Polymerization
Spinning from Acetylated Cellulose
Acetylation (Cellulose)
Condensation (Epichlorohydrin/Novolak Resins)
Condensation (Epichlorohydrin/Bisphenol A)
Condensation (Polyols/Epichlorohydrin)
Epoxidation (Polymers)
Condensation (Melamine/Formaldehyde)
Spinning
Condensation (Caprolactam)
Condensation (Nylon Salt)
Condensation (C5-C8 Unsaturated)
Condensation (Phenol/Formaldehyde)
Melt Spinning (DMT/Ethylene Glycol)
Melt Spinning (TPA/Ethylene Glycol)
Condensation (TPA/Ethylene Glycol)
Condensation (DMT/Ethylene Glycol)
High Pressure Polymerization (LDPE)
Solution Polymerization (HOPE)
Solution Polymerization
Bulk Polymerization
VIII-247
-------
TABLE VIII-102.
MAJOR PRODUCTS BY PROCESS OF THE PLASTICS/SYNTHETIC FIBERS INDUSTRY
(Continued)
Product
Process (Feedstock)
Polyvinyl Acetate Resins
Polyvlnyl Alcohol Resin
Polyvinyl Chloride
Rayon
San Resins
Silicones
Silicone Fluids
Si11cone Resins
Silicone Rubbers
Styrene-Butadiene Resin
Unsaturated Polyester Resin
Urea Resins
Emulsion Polymerization
Hydrolysis (Polyvinyl Acetate)
Solution Polymerization (Vinyl Acetate/
Hydrolysis of Polymer)
Bulk Polymerization
Emulsion Polymerization
Suspension Polymerization
Viscose Process
Suspension Polymerization
Hydrolysis (Chlorosiilanes)
Hydrolysis/Cyclizaliion (Chlorosilanes)
Hydrolysis/Cyclizat ion (Chlorosilanes)
Hydrolysis/Cyclization (Chlorosilanes)
Emulsion Polymerization
Condensation (Maleic and Phthalic Anhydrides/
Glycols
Condensation (Urea/Formaldehyde)
VIII-248
-------
A third level at which toxic pollutant waste loads from a plant can be
calculated is at the product level. This approach entails averaging toxic
pollutant concentrations from the MPF by product rather than product/process.
One hundred and twenty-one specific products are covered by the MFF,
comprising 86 percent of the OCPSF industries' total production. Using toxic
pollutant concentration for a specific product and using wastewater flov
specific to that product, product-specific waste loads can be calculated as
before. Again, the total load from a plant is calculated as the sum of
individual product waste loads.
The last and most general level at which plant-specific waste loads can
be calculated is at the generic process level. This approach entails aver-
aging toxic pollutant concentrations from the MPF by generic process rather
than by product/process; each product/process reported by the OCPSF industries
has been assigned a generic chemical process. Table ₯11-103 lists the generic
chemical processes employed by the OCPSF industry. Ninety-eight percent of
all products manufactured by the OCPSF industries are covered by generic
chemical process calculations. Using generic process toxic pollutant
concentrations for a specific product and using wastewater flow specific to
that product, product-specific waste loads can be calculated as before.
Again, the total waste load from a plant is calculated as the sum of
individual product waste loads.
c. Pollutant Concentration Data
A variety of studies have been undertaken by EPA to collect toxic pol-
lutant concentrations in the OCPSF industries' wastewaters. Studies that have
produced significant data on raw and current wastewater characteristics
included in the loadings calculations include the 1983 Section 308
Questionnaire Survey, the Screening Studies (Phases I and II), and the
Verification Study. Toxic and conventional pollutant data collected at the
product/process level from the Verification Study make up the Master Process
File. These studies are summarized in Table VIII-104 and discussed below.
Toxic pollutant concentration data used for calculation of raw waste loads are
presented in the Loadings Section of the Public Record.
VIII-249
-------
TABLE VIII-103.
GENERIC CHEMICAL PROCESSES
Acid Cleavage
Acylation
Addition
Alcoholysis
Alkoxylation
Amination
Amraoxidation
Bromination
Carbonylation
Chlorination
Chlorohydrination
Condensation
Crystallization/Distillation
Cyanation
Decarboxylation
Dehydration
Dehydrogenation
Dehydrohalogenation
Depolymerization
Diazotization
Dimerization
Distillation
Eleetrohydrodimerizatlon
Epoxidation
Esterification
Etherification
Extraction
Extractive Distillation
Fiber Production
Fluorination
Hydration
Hyd roace tyla t ion
Hydrocyanation
Hydrogenation
Hyd rohalogena t i on
Hydrolysis
Hydroxylatrion
lodination
Isomerizal:ion
Neutralization
Nitration
Nitrosation
Oxidation
Oxidation/Reduction
Oximation
Oxyhalogenation
Peroxidation
Phosgenation
Phosphonation
Polymerization
Pyrolysis
Rearrangement
Sulfation
Sulfonation
Transesterification
VIII-250
-------
TABLE VIII-104.
OVERVIEW OF WASTEWATER STUDIES INCLUDED IN RAW WASTEWATER
TOXIC POLLUTANT LOADINGS CALCULATIONS
Element
Screening Study
Phase I
Phase II
Verification Study
I
N3
Ul
Dates
Number of Plants
Direct Dischargers
Indirect Dischargers
Other Dischargers
Sampling Locations
Sampling Duration*
Pollutants Tested
August 1977 to March 1978
131
Raw water, treatment
influent and effluent,
some product/process
effluents
1 day
All priority pollutants
but asbestos
Analytical Methods for GC/MS, 1977 QA/QC protocol,
Organic Pollutants 4-AAP for phenols
Labs Participating
EPA Regions VII, VI, IV;
Envirodyne; Midwest
Research Institute (MRI)
December 1979
40
14
14
2
Same as Phase I
1 day
Same as Phase I
GC/MS, 1979 QA/QC
protocol
Environmental Science &
Engineering
1978 to 1980
37
30
5
2
Product/process
influents and effluents
for 29 plastics and 147
organics, and raw water
3 days
Specific pollutants from
specific product/
processes
GC/CD with confirmatory
GC/MS on 10% of samples
Labs: Envirodyne, MRI,
Southwest Research
Institute, Gulf South
Research Institute, Jacobs
(PJB Labs), Acurex
*Generally, samples were 24-hour composites; cyanide, phenols, and volatile organics were generally grab
samples or a series of grab samples.
-------
Section 308 Questionnaire Data
In September 1983, the Agency requested new information on current man-
ufacturing processes and wastewater control/treatment practices related to the
production of organic chemicals and/or plastics and synthetic fibers. Data
were collected at two levels: primary and secondary OCPSF plants. Primary
plants (i.e., plants whose manufacture of OCPSF products was more than 50
percent of total plant production in 1982; plants whose OCPSF wastewaters were
segregated; plants whose OCPSF process vastevaters represented 75 percent or
more of total process wastewater flow treated in a treatment facility) pro-
vided a general profile of the plant, detailed production data, detailed
wastewater treatment data, detailed disposal techniques, and analytical data
summaries. Secondary OCPSF plants (i.e., plants not meeting the above
criteria) provided only general profile data.
With regard to toxic pollutant data, the Agency requested 1980 average
priority pollutant concentration data from primary organic and plastics
producers for the following sample points!
Influent and effluent data for in-plant wastewater control or
treatment unit operations
Influent to the main (end-of-pipe) wastewater treatment system
Intermediate sampling points within the main (end-of-pipe) wastewater
treatment system
The effluent sampling point from the main (end-of-pipe) wastewater
' treatment system
The effluent sampling point if the wastewater is discharged without
treatment.
Average concentrations for toxic pollutant parameters were calculated as
follows:
All not detected (KD), trace (TR), and less than (LT) the detection
limit values were not included in the calculation of average
concentrations
* All greater than (GT) the detection limit values were included in the
calculation of average concentrations as the detection limit
VIII-252
-------
* All ND, TR, and LT the detection limit values were counted in the
number of observations below the detection limit.
No new analytical data were to be generated by this data request;
additionally, data generated for design analysis or similar purposes were not
to be reported. Of the 545 plants requested to submit analytical data, 40
plants submitted data useful for the calculation of raw waste loads.
Screening Phase I
The vastevater quality data reported in the 1976 Section 308
Questionnaires were the result of monitoring and analyses by each of the
individual plants and their contract laboratories. To expand its priority
pollutant data base and improve data quality by minimizing .the discrepancies
among sampling and analysis procedures, EPA performed the Phase I Screening
Study in 1977 and 1978. The Agency and its contractors sampled at 131 plants,
chosen because they operated product/processes that manufactured the highest
volume organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers.
Samples were taken of the raw plant water, some product/process influent
and effluents, and influents and effluents at the plant wastewater treatment
facilities. Samples were analyzed for all priority pollutants except asbes-
If
tos, and for several conventional and nonconventional pollutants. Screening
samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with procedures described In
the EPA Screening Procedures Manual (1977).
Screening Phase II
In December 1979, samples were collected from an additional 40 plants
(known as Phase II facilities) manufacturing products such as dyes, flame
retardants, coal tar distillates, photographic chemicals, flavors, surface
active agents, aerosols, petroleum additives, chelating agents, microerystal-
ling waxes, and other low volume specialty chemicals. As In the Phase I
Screening Study, samples were analyzed for all the priority pollutants except
asbestos. Procedures delineated in the 1977 EPA Screening Manual were
VIII-253
-------
followed in analyzing priority pollutants. As in Screening Phase I» some
samples for metals analysis were preserved by, addition of acid in the field
(in accordance with the 197? Manual), and acid was added to the remaining
samples when they arrived at the laboratory. In addition, the organic
compounds producing peaks not attributable to priority pollutants with a
magnitude of at least 1 percent of the total ion current were identified by
computer matching.
Intake, raw influent, and effluent samples were collected for nearly
every facility sampled. In addition, product/process wastewaters that could
be Isolated at a facility were also sampled, as were Influents and effluents
from some treatment technologies in place. Fourteen direct dischargers,
24 Indirect dischargers, and two plants discharging to deep wells were
sampled. Table VIII-105 lists the product/process and other waste streams
sampled at each plant.
Verification Program
The Verification Program was designed to verify the occurrence of speci-
fic priority pollutants in waste streams from individual product/processes.
Product/processes to be sampled were chosen to maximize coverage of the pro-
duct/processes used to manufacture major organic chemicals and plastics. The
priority pollutants selected for analysis in the waste stream from each pro-
duct/process were chosen to meet either of two criteria:
They were believed to be raw materials, precursors, or products in the
product/process, according to the process chemistry employed by the
plant
' They had been detected in the grab samples taken several weeks before
the 3-day Verification Program.
The Agency sampled at six integrated manufacturing facilities for the
pilot program to develop the "Verification Protocol." Thirty-seven plants
were eventually involved in the Verification effort. Samples were taken from
the effluents of 147 product/processes manufacturing organic chemicals and
29 product/processes manufacturing plastics and synthetic fibers, as well as
from treatment system influents and effluents at selected facilities.
VIII-254
-------
TABLE VIII-105.
PHASE II SCREENING - PRODUCT/PROCESS AND OTHER
WASTE STREAMS SAMPLED AT EACH PLANT
Plant
Number Waste Stream Samples
1 Combined raw waste (fluoroearbon)
2 Anthracene
Coal tar pitch
3 Combined raw wastes (dyes)
4 Combined raw wastes (coal tar)
5 Combined raw wastes (dyes)
6 Oxide
Polymer
7 Freon
8 Freon
9 Ethoxylation
10 Nonlube oil additives
Lube oil additives
11 Combined raw wastes (dyes)
12 Combined raw wastes (flavors)
13 Combined raw wastes (specialty chemicals)
14 Combined raw wastes (flavors)
15 Hydroquinone
16 Esters
Polyethylene
Sorbitan monosterate
17 Dyes
18 Combined raw wastes (surface active agents)
19 Fatty acids
VIII-25S
-------
TABLE VIII-105.
PHASE II SCREENING - PRODlfCT/PilOCBSS AND OTHER
WASTE STREAMS SAMPLED AT EACH PLANT
(Continued)
Plant
Number Waste Stream Samples
20 Organic pigments
Salicylic acid
Fluorescent brightening agent
21 Surfactants
22 Dyes
23 Combined raw wastes (flavors)
24 Chlorination of paraffin
25 Phthalic anhydride
26 Combined raw wastes (unspecified)
27 Dicyclohexyl phthalate
28 Plastlcizers
Resins
29 Combined raw wastes (unspecified)
30 Polybutyl phenol
Zinc Dialkyldithiophosphate
Calcium phenate
Mannich condensation product
Oxidized co-polymers
31 Tris O-chloroethyl) phosphate
32 Ether sulfate sodium salt
Lauryl sulfate sodium salt
Xylene distillation
33 Dyes
34 Maleic anhydride
Pormax formaldehyde
Phosphate ester
Hexame thylene te tramine
VIII-256
-------
TABLE VIII-105.
PHASE II SCREENING - PRODUCT/PROCESS AND OTHER
WASTE STREAMS SAMPLED AT EACH PLANT
(Continued)
Plant
Number Vaste Stream Samples
35 Acetic acid
36 Combined raw wastes (coal tar)
37 "680" Brominated fire retardants
Tetrabromophthalic anhydride
Hexabromocyclodedecane
38 Hexabromocyclodedecane
39 Fatty acid amine ester
Calcium sulfonate in solvent (alcohol)
Oil field deemulsifier blend (aromatic solvent)
Oxylakylated phenolformaldehyde resin
Ethoxylated monyl phenol
Ethoxylated phenolformaldehyde resin
40 Combined raw wastes (surface active agents)
VIII-257
-------
Each plant was visited about 4 weeks before the 3-day Verification
sampling to discuss the sampling program with plant personnel, to determine
in-plant sampling locations, and to take a grab sample at each designated sam-
pling site. These samples were analyzed to develop the analytical methods
used at each plant for the 3-day Verification Program and to develop the
target list of pollutants described above for analyses at each site during the
3-day sampling. Some pollutants that had been put on the list for Verifi-
cation since they were believed to be raw materials, precursors, or co-
products were not detected in the Verification Program grab samples. If such
a pollutant was also not detected 'in the sample from the first day of the
3-day Verification sampling, it was dropped from the analysis list for that
sample location. Other compounds were added to the analysis list when they
were found in the Verification grab sample at a concentration exceeding the
analytical minimum level. Priority pollutants known by plant personnel to be
present in the plant's wastevater were also added to the Verification list.
At each plant, Verification samples generally included process water
supply, product/process effluents, and treatment facility influent and efflu-
ent. Water being supplied to the process was sampled to establish the back-
ground concentration of priority pollutants. The product/process effluent
waste loads were later corrected for these influent waste loadings. Product/
process samples were taken at locations that would best provide representative
samples* At various plants, samples were taken at the influent to and
effluent from both in-process and end-of-pipe wastewater treatment systems.
d. Flow Data
Flow data are derived exclusively from the 1983 Section 308 Questionnaire
respdnses. Wastewater flow data from primary organic chemical and plastics
facilities are provided for each individual product/process by wastewater
source (e.g., an aqueous waste stream resulting from quenching of a reaction
product, or washdown of process equipment); for product groups at in-plant,
preliminary, secondary, and tertiary treatment processes (i.e., wastewater
effluent flows through these treatment processes); for miscellaneous
wastewaters entering the main treatment systemj and for final effluent
VIII-258
-------
discharge. These data allow waste loads to be calculated for individual
product/processes, product groups, or total plant effluent for primary organic
chemical and plastics producers provided that corresponding toxic pollutant
data are available.
In some instances, primary organic chemical and plastic plants reported
data for combined product/processesj moreover, certain plants did not provide
produet/process-specific data. In such cases, product/process flows were
estimated by production in weighting either product group flow, if available,
or total wastewater flow, if product group flow was unavailable. For plants
that did not provide production data, total process flow was apportioned
equally between product/processes.
Secondary OCPSF plants provided only general data regarding plant opera-
tions. These data include 1982 production data by eight-digit Census product
code, OCPSF process and nonprocess wastewater flow, total plant wastewater
flow, OCPSF process wastewater disposal methods, treatment technologies, and
pollutant summaries. Wastewater flow was not reported by product/process for
secondary plants.
e. WasteLoad Calculation
It is obvious from the preceding discussion that primary OCPSF plant-
specific waste loads can be calculated in more than one way, depending on the
availability of toxic pollutant concentration data and flow data. For primary
plants that have provided 1983 Section 308 Questionnaire toxic pollutant data,
waste loads for individual pollutants may be estimated. Waste loads can be
calculated for a given plant on the basis of either product/processes employed
by that plant or the products manufactured by that plant. Waste loads can
also be calculated on the basis of the generic processes employed by a plant.
Secondary OCPSF plant toxic pollutant waste loads must be calculated in a
fundamentally different way and extrapolated from primary OCPSF plant toxic
pollutant waste loads.
There are limitations to each waste load calculation approach. Although
waste load calculations using plant-specific toxic pollutant concentrations
(either from 1983 Section 308 Questionnaire data or screening data) are likely
VIII-259
-------
to be most accurate, such data are available for relatively few plants. Waste
load calculations using MPP toxic pollutant concentrations can be made for all
plants employing product/processes contained in the MPF. The MPF can be
generalized to products, allowing even greater coverage of the OCPSF industry.
Host generally, waste loads may be generated on the basis of the generic pro-
cess chemistry employed by a plant.
Rather than select any one method for waste load calculation, the Agency
determined that all waste load calculation methods would be used when approp-
riate, thus providing maximum coverage of the industry with the greatest
accuracy possible. The following hierarchy of data sources was established:
1) Where Section 308 Questionnaire toxic pollutant data were available,
these data would be used to calculate raw waste loads for those toxic
pollutants.
2) Where the combined raw wastewaters of a plant had been sampled in
either Phase I or Phase II screening studies, these toxic pollutant
concentration data would be used to calculate the raw waste loads
from these plants.
3) Raw waste loads would next be calculated using MPF toxic pollutant
concentration data for product/processes covered by the MPF. Where
product/process waste loads could not be. calculated at a plant,
product-specific waste loads were calculated using the Product
Averaged Master Process File.
4) For plants manufacturing products that could not be calculated by the
above methods, generic process raw waste loads were calculated using
the Generic Process Averaged Master Process File. Because the
generic process method necessarily generated extraneous pollutants
for any given product, raw waste loads from these plants were
extensively reviewed} those pollutants believed to be inconsistent
with process chemistry practiced at a plant were deleted from the raw
waste load file. Pollutants deleted from the generic process
averaged waste loads are presented in the Loadings Section of the
Public Record.
Figure VIII-55 summarizes the methodology used to calculate raw waste loads.
Waste loads for secondary OCPSF plants were extrapolated from the waste
loads calculated for primary OCPSF plants in the following ways
* Flow-weighted toxic pollutant concentrations were calculated for each
subcategory using data from primary OCPSF plants:
VIII-260
-------
Raw Waste 7
Loading by /
Plant I Daily /
Basis /
Figure VIII-55. Raw Waste Load Calculation Logic Flow
VIII-261
-------
_ n / n
C - E R₯Lt /I F
* » K . 1 i, 3 > K' / .3-i*
where :
Cj^ k = the mean toxic pollutant concentration of pollutant i for
' subcategory k
RVI^ . h = the raw waste load for pollutant i at plant j of
.subcategory k
F. . = the total process flow for plant 1 of subcategory k.
3 t K
Plant-specific raw waste loads are calculated from mean subcategory
toxic pollutant concentrations and the OCPSF process flow at a plant:
where :
R₯L£ ,, = the raw waste load for toxic pollutant i at plant j'
'3 (where ' denotes a secondary OCPSF plant)
F., » the total OCPSF process at plant j'.
S*
f. BPT, BAT, and Current Waste Load Calculations
BPT} BAT, and current waste load of individual plants were calculated for
those pollutants found in the raw waste load as follows:
Average toxic pollutant effluent concentrations were calculated using
the toxic pollutant sampling data base (i.e., Verification, EPA/CMA
5-Plant and EPA 12-Plant sampling studies). Separate toxic pollutant
effluent concentrations were calculated to represent the loadings
following compliance with BPT, BAT, and PSES effluent limitations.
These BPT, BAT, and PSES toxic pollutant effluent concentrations are
presented in Table VIII-106.
s
* To calculate current wastewater loadings for direct dischargers, BPT
toxic pollutant concentrations were adjusted for those plants that
incurred BPT compliance costs by the ratio of actual BOD* to the
target BOD5 calculated for that individual plant by the BPT regression
model (based on editing rules of at leasl: 951 BOD5 removal or 40 mg/1
BOD5). Plants that did not incur BPT compliance costs were assigned
current loadings based on the BPT effluent concentrations, while
plants that incurred neither BPT nor BAT compliance costs were
assigned current loadings based on the BAT effluent concentrations.
.VIII-262
-------
TABLE VIII-106.
BPT» BAT OPTION II, BAT OPTION III, AND PSES
TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS USED IN LOADINGS
Pollutant
Number Pollutant Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Tri chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1 » 2-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Hexachlo r oe thane
1, 1-Dichloroe thane
1,1, 2-Trichoroethane
1,1,2,2 -Te t r achloroe thane
Chloroethane
Bis(2~Chloroethyl) Ether
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
2-Chlor onaph t halene
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
p-Chloro-M-Cresol
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Di chlorobenzene
3, 3-Dichlorobenzene
BPT BAT Option II
-------
TABLE VIII-106.
BPT, BAf OPTION II, BAT OPTION III, AND PSES
TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS USED IN LOADINGS
(Continued)
Pollutant BPT BAT Option II
Number Pollutant Name (ppb) (ppb)
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
2, 4-Dinitro toluene
2» 6-Dinitrotoluene
1 » 2-Diphenylhydrazlne
Ethyl Benzene
Fluoranthene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl Ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl Ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) Ether
Bis-chloroethoxy Methane
Hethylene chloride
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Bromide
Bromoform
Di chlorobromome thane
Chlorodi bromome thane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyelopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Ni trophenol
10
78
18
122
23
10
59
133
187
10
12
50
50
157
293
150
50
43
43
22
38
10
50
46
10
14
28
10
10
18
65
23
10
59
133
50
10
12
50
50
65
65
23
50
27
27
22
38
10
50
46
10
14
28
BAT Option III PSES
(ppb) (ppb)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
50
50
10
10
10
50
15
15
10
10
10
50
16
10
14
20
10
11
50
65
65
10
50
50
50
65
12
50
50
65
65
11
50
49
49
65
65
65
50
50
10
949
20
VIII-264
-------
TABLE VIII-106.
BPT, BAT OPTION II, BAT OPTION III, AND PSES
TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS USED IN LOADINGS
(Continued)
Pollutant BPT BAT Option II
Number Pollutant Name (ppb) (ppb)
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
4-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dini t rophenol
4 , 6-Dlni t ro-o-cresol
N-Nitrosodiraethylaraine
N-Ni trosodiphenylamine
N-Ni trosodi-n-propylanine
Pen tachlo rophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Benzo(a) Anthracene
Benzo(a) Pyrene
3 , 4-Benzof luoran thene
Benzo(k) Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(ghi) perylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene
Indeno(l,2,3-d) Pyrene
Pyrene
50
50
24
50
50
50
188
10
47
30
18
30
43
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
50
50
24
50
50
50
50
10
47
30
18
30
43
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
BAT Option III PSES
(ppb) (ppb)
50
50
24
50
50
50
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
373
24
50
50
50
50
10
44
23
13
23
24
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
VIII-265
-------
TABLE VIII-106.
BPT, BAT OPTION II, BAT OPTION III, AND PSES
TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS USED IN LOADINGS
(Continued)
Pollutant
Number Pollutant Name
BPT BAT Option II BAT Option III PSES
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
87 Trichloroethylene
88 Vinyl Chloride
114 Antimony
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
13
10
13
158
572
815
180
197
942
549
10
10
10
50
158
572
815
180
197
942
549
10
10
10
65
158
572
815
180
197
942
549
12
13
12
50
158
572
815
180
197
942
549
VIII-266
-------
* To calculate current loadings for indirect dischargers, plants that
incurred PSES compliance costs were assigned current loadings based on
the raw waste concentration of each pollutant present. Plants that
did not incur PSES compliance costs were assigned current loadings
based on the PSES effluent concentrations.
Effluent concentrations as derived above were multiplied by the total
process wastewater flow to calculate current loadings, while loadings
after compliance with BPT, BAT, and PSES effluent limitations were
calculated by multiplying total process wastewater flow by the BPT,
BAT, and PSES effluent concentration presented in Table VIII-106.
0 Since current, BPT, BAT, and PSES toxic pollutant wastewater loadings
were calculated using effluent concentrations based on industry
average sampling data, in some cases, these loadings exceeded the raw
waste loadings of certain toxic pollutants. In such cases, the
loading for these toxic pollutants was deleted from the applicable
loading file.
Figures VIII-56 and VIII-57 present the methodology used to calculate 1)
current, BPT, and BAT loadings for direct dischargers, and 2) current and PSES
loadings for indirect dischargers, respectively.
g. Annualized Waste Load
Product/process flow data prbvided by primary OCPSF plants in the 1983
Section 308 Questionnaire are reported in millions of gallons per day (MGD)
when operating. Primary plants have also provided total annual production
data and operating rate* data by product/process. The Agency has calculated
operating days for each product/process at each primary OCPSF plant by
dividing the annual product/process production by the product/process
operating rate. Multiplication of daily product/process waste load by
product/process operating days yields annualized product/process waste loads.
Toxic pollutant waste loads from individual product/processes at a plant are
then summed by pollutant to yield total waste load for individual plants.
Product/process production data are unavailable for secondary OCPSF pro-
ducers, and annual waste loads cannot be calculated in a manner analogous to
those estimated for primary OCPSF plants. Annual waste loadings from secon-
dary OCPSF plants were estimated from daily waste loads by assuming that OCPSF
product/processes generating wastewaters operated 4 days per week or 208 days
per year.
VIII-267
-------
os
Figure VIII-56. BPT, BAT, and Current Waste Load Calculation Logic Flow
-------
PSES Waste Load
Raw Waste Load
PSIS Waste Load
as
Current Waste Load
Current
Toxic Pollu-
tant Waste Load
> Raw Toxic Pollu
tant Waste
Load
Delete Pollutant
PSES Waste
Load
Figure VI11-57. PSES Waste Load Calculation
VIII-269
-------
h. Raw Waste Load Validation
Where OCPSP plants have provided toxic pollutant data (i.e., 1983 Section
308 Questionnaire analytical data summaries) or were sampled during the Phase
I or Phase II screening studies, comparison of these toxic pollutant rav waste
loads with those calculated using the Master Process File has proven possible.
Differences between toxic pollutant waste loads calculated from 1983 Section
308 Questionnaire toxic pollutant concentration:; were calculated and then
compared statistically using the t-Test. Raw waste loads calculated from
screening data were similarly compared to raw waste loads calculated using the
MPF. In neither case were significant differences found between calculation
methods. Details of these validation analyses can be found in the Loadings
Section of the Public Record.
i. Summary
fable VIII-107 presents the raw waste, current, and BAT toxic pollutant
wastewater loadings for OCPSF direct discharging plants; Table VIII-108
presents the raw waste, current, and PSES toxic pollutant wastewater loadings
for OCPSF indirect discharging plants. As noted in the previous section,
loadings for 12 plants were re-examined and revised based on the methodology
detailed. Appendix VIII - D presents plant-by-plant current, BAT (Option II),
and PSES wastewater loadings.
3. BAT andPSES Toxic Pollutant Air Emission Loadings
EPA has concluded that at least 32 toxic pollutants are emitted to the
air by OCPSF wastewater treatment systems, and E1PA has estimated the amount of
these emissions. In order to estimate the toxic pollutant air emissions
generated by OCPSF treatment systems and the associated reductions resulting
from the implementation of the final BAT and PSES effluent limitations, the
Agency developed a methodology that utilized the plant-by-plant wastewater
loadings and fraction volatilized factors (f£) that were generally obtained
from the Agency's February 1986 Domestic Sewage Ktudy. A discussion of the
selection of volatile pollutants and the f.s follows.
VIII-270
-------
TABLE VI11-107
BAT UASTEWATER TOXIC POLLUTANT LOADINGS
CHENNUN CHEHHANE
1 ACENAPHTXENE
2 ACROLEm
3 ACRTLONITRILE
4 BENZENE
6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
7 CHLOROBENZENE
8 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
9 HEXACHLOROBENZENE
10 1,2-0 tCHLOROETHANE
11 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
12 HEXACHLOROETHAHE
13 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1* 1,1,2-TRICHLOSOETHANE
15 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
16 CHLOROETHANE
20 Z-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
21 2,4,6-TRlCHLOROPHENOL
22 PARA-CHLORO-META-CRESOL
23 CHLOROFORM
24 2-CHLOROPHENOL
25 1,2-01CHLOROBENZENE (0-DICHLOROSENZENE)
76 I.S.OICHLORQBENZiNE ETHER
44 DICHLOROMETHANE
45 CHL080METHANE
48 OICHLOR08ROHOMETHANE
49 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
54 ISOPHORONE
55 NAPHTHALENE
56 NITROBENZENE
57 2-NITROPHENOL
58 4-NITROPHEHOL
59 2,4-DINtTRWHENOL
60 4,6-DlWITRO-O-CRESOt
63 N-NITROSOOI-N-PKOPYLAHINE
65 PHENOL
RAW WASTE
LOWXLBS/YR)
103844
53353920
2576531
3430633
175502
287968
29685
452324
5414413
18898
1389593
169802
4150846
1378
395564
1732
55320
78280
253890
280084
79201
18372
1432289
1194611
1156644
136139
250756
377635
25407
297441
174705
28015
466646
19413
6111
931933
3678170
2851
1480
471723
494427
4526906
31175
69179
4S33S
38041
4024
25845385
CURRENT
LOAOaSS/YR)
3419
12856
22474
83748
4521
2260
2080
691
120851
2959
515
2650
4020
704
12897
901
14106
7103
9240
1946
6815
1907
1132
7388
2934
3519
1900
8012
1341
2399
7280
7913
9283
2761
471*
19051
12460
12W
1480
2951
12642
2275
3183
4729
3827
213S
1971
41619
BAT OPTION 1
LOAD(LBS/YR>
1707.9
5385.2
12190.4
4953.0
2070.5
1394.2
1752.0
604.4
59269.9
1657.7
463.2
1318.3
1028.2
581.5
7909.3
866.9
12902.3
6621.8
3894.6
1298.7
5534.9
1SS8.9
580.9
6759.3
1434.1
3255.1
1750.5
6891.7
1164.6
1504.4
6009.3
6295.9
4536.0
1938.5
4682.2
12021.3
7723.1
1116.0
1308.8
2586.6
4363.7
1673.8
2645.5
4437.6
2639.5
2052.5
1802.9
7006.8
BAT OPTION II
LOA0UBS/YR)
1707.9
5385.2
12190,4
4953.0
2070.5
1394,2
1752.0
604.4
14380.4
1657.7
463.2
1318.3
1028.2
581.5
7909.3
866.9
1837.8
1482.2
3894.6
1298.7
5534.9
1558.9
580.9
1837.8
1434.1
508.0
1750.5
3726.7
1164.6
1504.4
6009.3
6295.9
4536.0
1938.5
1939.0
3143.2
7723,1
1116.0
1308.8
2586.6
4363.7
1673.8
2645.5
4437.6
2639.5
2052.5
1802.9
7006,8
BAT OPTION III
LOMHLBS/Yfl)
1707.9
5385.2
12190.4
49S3.0
2070.5
1394.2
407.4
604.4
1915.1
1657.7
463.2
1318.3
1028.2
581.5
7909.3
866.9
367.6
463.2
2334.2
1298.7
1260.4
899.7
580.9
1837.8
1434.1
503.0
998.1
659.2
563.9
1504.4
1018.5
473.4
4536.0
1649.8
298.3
1366.6
7723.1
563.9
1308.8
899.7
4363.7
1673.8
1894.2
4437.6
2639.5
2052.5
1802.9
7006.8
VIII-271
-------
TABLE VHI-107(CONT.)
BAT UASTEWATE« TOXIC POLLUTANT IQKIIHGI
CKEHHUK CHENMAHE
64 BIS-<2-£T«YLHEXYO PHTHALATI
67 BUTYLBENZYL PHTKALATE
68 OI-N-BUTYL PHTHAUTE
69 DI-H-OCTYL PHTHAUTE
70 DIETHYL PHTHAUTE
71 DINETHYL PHTHAUTE
72 BENZQ(A)AHTHRACENE
73 BENZO{AH)PKREKE
74 BENZO-B-FLUORANTHENE
75 BENZQ(K)FLUORANTHENE
76 CHRYSENE
77 ACEHAPHTHYLEHE
78 ANTHRACENE
79 BENZO(GH!)PERYLENE
80 FLUOREHE
81 PHEHANTHRENE
82 DIBEN20(A,H)AHTHRACENE
83 INDiNQ(1,2,3-C,DSPYRSNE
84 PYRENE
85 PERCHLOROETHtLEHE
86 TOLUENE
87 TfUCHLOROETHYLENE
88 CHLOROETHYLEXE
114 ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
119 CHROHIUH (TOTALS
120 COPPER (TOTAL)
121 CYA1UDE (TOTAL)
122 LEAD (TOTAL)
128 Z1MC (TOTAL)
RAW WASTE
LOADU8S/YR)
187707
4986
99106
7147
84327
323713
2784
1004
703
1134
22399
136631
7S063
2066
406247
309952
2040
820
36539
75217
4077645
241515
65897
36039
857868
3027365
5567735
3662889
18105273
ac-~ c*
151846052
CURRENT
LOAD ( IBS/ Y«>
6210
2749
2306
1941
3577
1459
801
636
501
464
1201
4446
6224
965
5347
3308
492
567
2839
2374
33313
3985
28608
1076S
66044
66908
28017
14480
808370
mKSsmmm
1597940
BAT OPTION 1
lOACKLBS/YH)
5402
2616
1584
1686
2735
1067
499
517
425
389
932
2847
2174
929
2867
2110
458
557
1599
1279
1497
2237
28789
9359
59S19
51359
19561
10508
257668
CEttBVB
710316
SAT OPTION II
LOAD ( UBS/ Y*>
5402
2616
1584
1686
2735
1067
499
517
42S
389
932
2847
2174
929
2867
2110
458
557
1599
1279
5497
1758
28808
9359
59519
51359
19561
10508
121707
E&sxxm
490345
BAT OPTION III
LOAOCLBS/YR)
1S46
872
930
738
717
1067
499
517
42S
389
932
2847
2174
929
2867
2110
458
557
1459
1279
5497
1758
28808
9359
59519
51359
19561
10508
121707
3BVXB*
436261
VIII-272
-------
TABLE VI11-108
PSES WASTEWATER TOXIC POLLUTANT LOADINGS
CHEMNUM CHEKNAME
1 ACENAPHTHENE
2 ACROLEIN
3 ACRYLONITRILE
4 BENZENE
6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
7 CHLOROBENZENE
8 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
9 HEXACHLOROBENZENE
10 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
11 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
13 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
U 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
16 CHLOROETHANE
20 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
23 CHLOROFORM
24 2-CHLORQPHENOL
25 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE (0-DICHLOROBEHZENE)
26 1.3-DICHLOROBENZENE (H-DICHLOROBENZENE)
27 1,4-01CHLOROBENZENE (P-D1CHLOROBENZENE)
29 VINYLIOENE CHLORIDE
30 1,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHYLENE
31 2,4-DICHLOROPHEHQL
32 PROPYLENE CHLORIDE
34 2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
35 2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
36 2,6-DlNITROTOLUENf
38 ETHYLBENZENE
39 FLUORANTHENE
42 BIS-(Z-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
44 DICHLOROHETHAHE
45 CHLORONETHANE
49 TRICHLOROFLUOROHETHANE
53 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
54 ISOPHORONE
55 NAPHTHALENE
56 NITROBENZENE
57 2-NITROPHENOL
58 4-NITROPHENOL
59 2,4-DINITROPHENOL
64 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
65 PHENOL
66 8IS-<2-ETHYLH£XYL) PHTHALATE
67 BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE
68 OI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATP
70 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
71 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
73 BENZO
-------
TABLE VIII-108(COHT.)
PSES UASTEUATER TOXIC POLLUTANT LOADINGS
RAW WASTE CUURENT PSfS OPTION IV
CHEHNUN CHEMNAMi LOADCL8S/TR) LOAOaBS/YR) LCWXLBS/YR)
77 ACEHAPHTHYLENE 8739 4699 251.2
78 ANTHRACENE 1716 1650 135.5
79 BENZO(GHI)PERVLENE 121 114 52.4
BO FLUORENE 3229 2734 128.9
81 PHENANTHREHE 6960 6448 136.2
84 PYRENE 1743 1647 112.4
85 PERCHLOfiOETHYLENE 460 444 175.1
86 TOLUENE 914921 896498 1150.2
87 T8ICKLOROETHYLENE 11932 11388 222.2
88 CHLOROETHYLENE 26519 26226 1706.0
114 ANTIMONY (TOTAL) 6756 6417 1671.6
120 COPPER (TOTAL) 2798484 2709650 23944.1
121 CYANIDE (TOTAL) 4200150 4055380 2530.5
122 LEAD (TOTAL) 124487 112139 2453.0
124 NICKEL (TOTAL) 54665 53949 2424.6
128 ZINC (TOTAL) 525758 438349 9775.6
««====ia »==:=i««m m**aasm
26093735 225A8540 81378.5
VIII-274
-------
a. Selection ofPollutants for AirEmission Assessments and Estima
tion of Volatilization Factors
Ihe Agency proposed to establish in-plant limitations for 20 priority
pollutant volatile organic compounds (VOCs) generally based on their propen-
sity to volatilize from end-of-pipe biological treatment systems (50 PR 29071,
July 17, 1985). Subsequent to this Notice, the Agency continued to study this
issue.
There are essentially three dominant processes that affect the removal of
pollutants from wastewater within treatment system unit operations? air
stripping, adsorption to solids or the biomass, and biodegradation. The
extent to which each process contributes to the removal of pollutants from
wastewater can vary significantly. It is a function of both the physical and
chemical characteristics of each pollutant, as well as the conditions present
in each treatment unit operation.
The organic priority pollutants were divided into three "strippability"
groups (high, medium, and low) as shown in Table VII-6 based on their Henry's
Law Constants. A compound's potential for volatilization is related to its
tendency to vaporize and its propensity to remain in solution. The principal
measure that has been used in the literature is the Henry's Law Constant. The
Henry's Law Constant is a ratio of a compound's vapor pressure and solubility,
which measures a compound's tendency to partition between the aqueous and
gaseous phases at equilibrium. The higher a substance's Henry's Law Constant,
the more likely that compound is to migrate from water to air.
The initial list of 20 VOCs were expanded into a group of 32 selected
volatile and semivolatile priority pollutant VOCs for the purposes of esti-
mating a portion of the OCPSF industry priority pollutant air emissions from
wastewater treatment systems and for estimating steam stripping with overhead
recovery (or destruction) engineering costs of compliance. Use of steam
stripping with recovery would ensure removal of VOCs from both the water and
air media rather than allow the typical transfer of VOCs from water to air.
Selection of the 32 VOCs was also influenced by two IPA studies that used
various means to estimate the fraction f£ of volatile pollutants that would be
emitted into the air from biological treatment systemsthe February 1986
VIII-275
-------
Report to Congress on the. Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (The Domestic Sewage Study) and the National VOC Study (8-4).
Table VIII-109 lists 40 of the 48 high and medium strippable priority
pollutant VOCs that were either proposed for regulation in July 1985, or were
finally regulated. The Domestic Sewage Study and the National VOC Study
estimates of the fraction volatilized, fi, from unacclimated biological
treatment systems are listed in separate columns for each pollutant.
With three exceptions, a compound was included among the 32 selected VOCs
if it had a high Henry's Law Constant; if it was proposed for in-plant limits
in the July 1985 notice} or if its fraction volatilized was estimated to be
approximately 20 percent or higher in either the Domestic Sewage Study or
National VOC Study. However, acrylonltrile was included even though only 10
percent was estimated to volatilize from unacclimated biological treatment
systems. Since acrylonitrile was among the "Top 50" chemicals produced in
1980, significant air emissions could result based on its production volume
alone. Acenaphthene was Included based on the initial judgment that less than
20 percent could be significant. Bromoform probably should have been
included, but the Agency lacked sufficient information to promulgate effluent
limitations.
The FjS used in the estimation of air emissions presented in this
document are listed in the last column of Table VIII-109. They were based on
the Domestic Sewage Study ft estimates wherever possible; otherwise, the
National VOC Study f± estimates were used.
Based on considerations of removal mechanisms and typical treatment
i
practices, several of the high and medium Henry's Law Constant pollutants were
not included in the final list of 32 VOCs, because they would more likely be
treated through adsorption or adsorption/biodegradation mechanisms rather than
through steam stripping. Foi: example, 4-nltrophenol and 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
are more appropriately treated by activated carbon, and another five pollu-
tants (benzo(k)fluoranthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorene, and phena-
threnej are appropriately treated by biological treatment or activated carbon.
Similarly, three of the selected 32 VOCs (acenaphylene, acrylonitrile, and
naphthalene) may be more appropriately treated with biological treatment or
VIII-276
-------
TABLE VIII-109.
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR ESTIMATING A PORTION OF
THE OCPSF INDUSTRY AIR EMISSIONS FROM WASTE₯ATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
FOR 32 SELECTED VOCS
July 1985
Pollu- Henry's Proposed
tant Law In-Plant f.
No. Pollutant Name Group Limits DSS1
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
23
25
26
27
29
30
32
33
38
42
44
45
47
Acenaphthene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Trl chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1 f 2-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
Hexaehloroe thane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroe thane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Di chlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Trans-di chloroe thylene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
Bis{2-ehloroisopropyl)
ether
Methylfene chloride
Methyl, chloride
Bromoform
M
M
H
H
H
M
M
M
H
M
H
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
M
M
H
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
<0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
05
8
9
5
6
9
9
05
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
6
95
f.
NVOCS2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
1
85
8
85
15
1
5
8
3
8
7
8
8
4
4
4
8
7
7
8
85
5
8
95
3
ft Selected
32 For Estimating
VOCS Air Emissions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.
0.
0.
. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
05
8
9
5
6
1
9
9
05
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
5
6
95
VTII-277
-------
TABLE VIII-109.
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR ESTIMATING A PORTION OP
THE OCPSF INDUSTRY AIR EMISSIONS FROM VASTEiATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
FOR 32 SELECTED VOCS
(Continued)
Pollu-
tant
No. Pollutant Name
July 1985
Henry's Proposed ft Selected
Law In-Plant f< f, 32 For Estimating
Group Limits DSS NVOCS VOCS Air Emissions
48
52
55
58
60
75
77
78
80
81
85
86
87
88
Dichlorobromome thane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Naphthalene
4-Nitrophenol
4 , 6-Dini tro-o-cresol
Benzo(k) f luoranthene
Acenaph thy lene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
0.05
0.3
0
X 0.8
X 0.8
X 0.8
X 0.95
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.85
0.8
0.8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.6
0.05
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.95
Fraction volatilized from unacclimated biological treatment system. Sources
The February 1986 Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to
Publicly Owned Treatment ₯orks (The Domestic Sewage Study).
2Fraction volatilized from unacclimated biological treatment systems. Source:
A November 21, 1985 draft listing of f.s that were being developed for the
National VOC Study. The final report (8-4) listed the f. for 4-nitrophenol
as 0.000.
3The 32 VOCs used for estimating a portion of the air emissions from OCPSF
wastewater treatment systems.
VIII-278
-------
activated carbon rather than steam stripping. Therefore, the remaining 29 of
the selected 32 VOCs that were regulated had estimated engineering costs of
compliance based on steam stripping controls.
b. Modification of the Pass-Through Analysis Based on Volatilization
For the purpose of considering volatilization in the pass-through anal-
ysis, the Agency reassessed the estimates of the fraction volatilized from
unacclimated biological treatment systems, because these estimates did not
fully consider air emissions prior to end-of-pipe biological systems or POTWs.
Most of the available information and research has focused on the fate of
VOCs in biological treatment systems. Until recently, not many studies have
focused on the fate of VOCs in wastewater collection systems and non-
biological wastewater treatment unit operations. Nevertheless, volatile
organic compounds are emitted from wastewater beginning at the point when the
wastewater first contacts air. Thus, air pollutants from wastewater may be of
concern immediately as the wastewater is discharged from the process unit
operations. Sources of emissions include flumes, sumps, sewers, junction
boxes, open storage tanks, screens, settling basins, equalization basins, pH
**
adjustment stations, nutrient addition stations, biological treatment systems,
air or steam strippers lacking overhead or product recovery, and any other
units in contact with the air. Any source of turbulence such as a bend in the
collection system, centrifical pump, or spray nozzle tends to increase air
emissions. According to a 1984 field study of a wastewater treatment system
at an organic chemicals facility cited in the Domestic Sewage Study, 10 to 15
percent of influent toluene volatilized in the primary system, 25 to 35
percent volatilized in the equalization basins, and 10 to 34 percent vola-
tilized from the aeration basins.
In the pass-through analysis described in Section VI, three volatile
pollutants (hexachlorobenzene, hexachloroethane, and hexachlorobutadiene) are
regulated for BAT but have neither POTW nor bench- or pilot-scale performance
data, and are regarded as passing through the POTW due to air emissions.
Although relatively low percentages (5 to 10 percent) of the loadings of these
three pollutants that reach the POTW biological treatment system are projected
VIII-279
-------
to be emitted into the air, as shown in Table VIII-110, an estimated 19 to 39,
59 to 66, and 48 to 73 percent, respectively, of the pollutants are projected
to be emitted prior to the biological system. These estimates could be even
higher considering the emissions from the POTV collection and sewer systems.
c. Calculation of BAT and PSES Air EmissionLoadings
For direct discharging plants, the raw waste, load for each pollutant was
taken from the wastewater loadings, and the f£ for each pollutant was applied
to generate current air emissions for each plant if steam stripping was not
already in-place. If steam stripping was In-place, current air emission
loadings were set equal to the BAT wastewater loadings multiplied by fi.
Then, depending on whether the plant was costed for steam stripping or had
steam stripping in-place (which is the in-plant technology generally used to
control the toxic pollutants that make up these air emissions) and if
biological treatment was already in-place or costed for compliance with BPT,
the air emission loadings related to compliance with BAT effluent limitations
were calculated as follows!
For plants without biological treatment in-place (or not costed for
compliance with BPT) that were costed for steam stripping or have
steam stripping already.in-place, BAT priority pollutant air emission
loadings were set equal to the BAT priority pollutant wastewater
loadings multiplied by f£ for each pollutant.
* For plants with biological treatment in-place (or costed for compli-
ance with BPT) that were costed for steam stripping or have steam
stripping already in-place, BAT priority pollutant air emission
loadings for each pollutant were set equal to 1.0 mg/1 multiplied by
OCPSF process flow, f£f and units and annual loadings conversion
factors.
For all remaining plants, BAT priority pollutant air emissions
loadings were set equal to current air emission loadings.
Prior to summation of individual pollutant BAT air emission loadings, a
factor of 2.89 was applied to the BAT loadings to account for the general
assumption that a plant with a steam stripper in-place would reduce all raw
waste loadings of volatile pollutants to 1.0 mg/1 (or BAT effluent levels if
no biological treatment was in-place) prior to discharge to the end-of-pipe
treatment system (where it was initially assumed all air emissions would
VIII-280
-------
TABLE VIII-110.
VOLATILIZATION FROM PRE-BIOLOGICAL UNIT OPERATIONS
FOR SELECTED VOCs
Estimated
Pre-biological Volatilization Biological
Pollutant Based on Residence Times of £, Selected
No.
8
9
12
26
52
1
3
55
77
78
80
81
Pollutant Name
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroe thane
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobu t ad i ene
Acenaphthene
Acrylonitrile
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenathrene
24-hours
0.52
0.19
0.59
0.54
0.48
(0.26)
(0.20)
0.57
(0.52)
(0.15)
(0.12)
(0.27)
48-hours
0.77
0.39
0.66
0.79
0.73
(0.51)
(0.42)
0.82
(0.76)
(0.30)
(0.25)
(0.52)
from TABLE VIII-109
0.6
0.1
0.05
0.9
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1 Source: Unpublished study, "Estimating Emissions from OCPSF Vastevater
Treatment Facilities," Hugh Vise, March 6, 1986
( ) Calculated based on methodology presented in the March 6, 1986 study.
VIII-281L
-------
occur). This factor vas developed after concern was expressed that the steam
stripper in-place might not be treating all sources of volatile pollutants
that would be discharged to the end-of-pipe treatment system and eventually be
emitted to the air. fhe methodology used to derive this factor was as
follows:
* Thirty-two plants with steam strippers in-place were selected for a
detailed analysis of their raw waste loadings of volatile pollutants
in each individual product/process waste stream.
* For each plant, the raw waste loadings of volatile pollutants actually
being treated by the in-place steam stripper was determined, and the
BAT air emission loadings were revised.
* A ratio of the revised BAT air emission loadings and the BAT air
emission loadings previously estimated was calculated for each plant,
and 2.89, which was the median of these ratios, was selected to adjust
the BAT air emission loadings for all plaints.
In addition, 10 of the 32 plants were identified as large VOC emitters in the
EPA-OPPE National VOC Study and were selected for further adjustments. Based
on the analysis detailed above, the current and BAT air emission loadings were
adjusted on a plant-by-plant basis, and additional steam stripping costs were
estimated based on these adjusted loadings. These additional steam stripping
costs were added to the existing BAf compliance costs, while the existing
current and BAT air emission loadings were replaced by the adjusted values.
The methodology for calculating toxic pollutant air emissions loadings
for indirect discharging plants was similar to that used for direct dis-
chargers. Current toxic pollutant air emissions loadings were calculated by
multiplying raw wastewater loadings by ff for each pollutant for plants
without steam stripping in-place and by multiplying current PSES toxic
pollutant wastewater loadings by f± for each pollutant for plants with steam
stripping in-place. Then, depending on whether a plant was costed for steam
stripping or had steam stripping in-place, the air emission loadings related
to compliance with PSES effluent limitations were calculated as follows:
* For plants that were costed for steam stripping, the PSES toxic
pollutant air emission loadings were set equal to the PSES toxic
pollutant wastewater loadings multiplied by the f, for each pollutant.
VIII-282
-------
For plants that were not costed for steam stripping, the PSES toxic
pollutant air emissions were set equal to the raw vastevater loadings
multiplied by the fi for each pollutant.
Table VIII-111 presents the current and BAT toxic pollutant air emissions
loadings for OCPSF direct discharging plants; Table VIII-112 presents the
current and PSES toxic pollutant air emission loadings for OCPSF indirect
discharging plants. Appendix VIII-E presents plant-by-plant current, BAT, and
PSES air emission loadings.
VIII-283
-------
TABLE VIII 111
BAT TOXIC POLLUTANT AIR EMISSION LOADINi3S(lbs/ye«r)
POLLUTANT
NUMBER
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
23
25
26
27
29
30
32
33
38
42
44
45
*47
48
55
85
86
87
88
POLLUTANT
HAKE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4-TRlCHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
1,1-D1CHLORQETHAHE
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 , 2 - D I CHLOROBENZENE (0 -D I CHLOROBENZENE )
1,3-OICHLOROBENZENE (M-DICHLOROBEHZEME)
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE (P-DICHLOROBENZEHE)
VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHYLENE
PROP.YLENE CHLORIDE
1,3-D!CHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
BIS-(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
DICHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROHETHAHE
BROHOFOfiM
DICHLOROaROMOHETHANI
NAPHTHALENE
PERCHLOR0ETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETflYLENE
CHLOROETHYLENE
CURRENT
LOAD
S057
108880
2144253
71819
131848
15795
28248
2047818
16190
46566
91488
3159273
311068
113169
66122
5061
786116
598864
72194
234033
13325
305326
6013
44139S
4332866
1389
103053
30043
2583807
61174
58926
asxx&mmm
17,994,181
BAT LOAD
OPT I
6600
101829
2062318
67055
125333
13819
23990
1953747
16050
39538
82100
2986525
275574
81329
58993
. 4246
667845
512189
61452
208387
11632
296754
5964
266389
4256830
1313
97182
27671
2448123
54291
56469
SE383SB5X
16,871,537
BAT LOAD
OPT II
4873
81765
464776
41631
45511
13819
7643
173360
16043
3813
68372
67039
109386
46588
58406
4246
73483
84421
60838
92049
11632
133460
5964
99355
131270
1313
62145
26974
957242
47721
56469
BBSaSSSS
3,051,609
BAT LOAD
OPT III
4873
81765
464776
41631
45511
13819
7643
173360
16043
3813
68372
67039
109386
46588
58406
4246
73483
84421
60838
92049
11632
133460
5964
99355
131270
1313
62145
26974
957242
47721
56469
X=3==SS
3,051,609
*Air emissions were not tracked for broroform, an unregulated pollutant.
VIII 284
-------
TABLE VIII - 112
PSES TOXIC POLLUTANT AIR EMISSION LOADINGS(lbs/year>
POLLUTANT
NUMBER
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
16
23
25
26
27
29
30
32
38
42
44
45
47
55
85
86
87
88
POLLUTANT
NAME
ACENAPHTHENE
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
CHLOROBENZENE
1 , 2 , 4 - TR I CHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRlCHLOROETHANE
CHLQROETHANE
- t
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE (0-DICHLOROBEHZENE)
1,3-D I CHLOROBENZENE (H-DI CHLOROBENZENE)
1 ,4-DICHLORQBENZENE (P-D I CHLOfiOBENZENE >
VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE
1,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHYLENE
PROPYLENE CHLORIDE
ETHYLBENZENE
BIS-(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
DICHLOROHETHANE
CHLOROMETHANE
BROHOFORN
NAPHTHALENE
PERCHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOfiOETHYLENE
CURRENT
LOAD
7379
17117
283643
20395
788
11773
165
39560
444
20905
105254
32916
12586
6097
3894
2988
4726
422
215022
292048
987
4598
17621
21070
355
717197
9110
24915
PSE§ LOAD
OPT IV
9.4
60.9
15!6.7
61§.4
17$.6
7JI.4
34.3
1371,9
182.8
129.5
90.6
488.9
704.2
409.4
372.6
372.6
76.7
84.3
833.6
2592.8
241.2
249.6
629.9
129.3
140.0
919.7
177.6
1621.1
1,873,976 14,966.0
Air emissions were not tracked for bromoforra, an unregulated pollutant.
VIII 28S
-------
-------
SECTION IX,
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
A. INTRODUCTION
This section identifies model technologies, pollutants regulated, and the
effluent limitations guidelines that are based on the degree of effluent
reduction attainable through the.application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT). Best practicable control technology
currently available is generally based upon the average of the best existing
performance (in terms of treated effluent discharged) by plants of various
sizes, ages, and unit processes within an industry or subcategory. Where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BFT may be transferred from a
different subcategory or category. Limitations based on transfer technology
must be supported by a conclusion that the technology is indeed transferable,
and a reasonable prediction that it will be capable of achieving the pre-
scribed effluent limits (see Tanners' Council of America v. Train, 540 F 2d
1188 (4th Cir. 1976)). While best practicable control technology currently
available focuses on end-of-pipe treatment technology rather than process
changes or internal controls, BPT can include process changes or internal
controls when, the changes or controls are normal practice within the industry.
BPT considers the total cost of the application of technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from the technologies. The
cost/benefit inquiry for BPT is a limited balancing, which does not require
the Agency to quantify benefits in monetary terms (see American Iron and Steel
.v. EPA, 526 F 2d 1027 (3rd Cir. 1975)). In balancing costs in relation to
effluent reduction benefits, EPA considers the volume and nature of existing
discharges, the volume and nature of discharges except after application of
BPT, the general environmental effects of the pollutants, and the cost and
economic impacts of the required pollution control level. The Clean Water Act
(CVA) does not require or permit consideration of water quality problems
attributable to particular point sources or industries, or water quality
improvements in particular water bodies (see Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costie,
11 ERC 2149 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
IX-1
-------
2. Regulated Pollutants
EPA is regulating three conventional pollutant parameters at BPT. They
are B0Dg, TSS, and pH. BOD£ is commonly measured in OCPSF process wastevater
since the organic chemicals produced by the OCPSF industry are generally
biodegradable. Since TSS is a common OCPSF industry raw vastewater constit-
uent and since treatment of BODg with biological treatment generates suspended
solids, TSS is controlled at BPT. The pH parameter is controlled to ensure
that the wastevater characteristics are properly balanced between acid and
alkaline conditions. The other conventional pollutants, fecal coliform and
oil and grease, are not regulated at BPT. Fecal coliform is not present in
OCPSF process wastewater. Oil and grease, when present in OCPSF wastewater,
are typically controlled in conjunction with BODg and TSS.
3. BPT Subcategorization
The Agency designated seven product-based subcategory classifications for
the OCPSF category to be used for the purpose of establishing BPT limitations.
These subcategory classifications are 1) rayon fibers (viscose process only)|
2) other fibers (SIC 2823, except rayon, and 2824); 3) thermoplastics (SIC
28213); 4) thermosets (SIC 28214); 5) commodity organic chemicals (SIC 2865
and 2869)} 6) bulk organic chemicals (SIC 2865 and 2869); and 7) specialty
organic chemicals (SIC 2865 and 2869). The subcategory-speciflc products and
product groups are listed in Appendix III-A.
In the final subcategorization scheme described in Section IV, facilities
are not assigned to a single subcategory based on predominant production
amongst the seven subcategory classifications, as most plants have production
that overlaps two or more subcategories. In applying the limitations set
forth in the regulation, the permit writer will use what is essentially a
building-block approach that takes into consideration applicable subcategory
characteristics based upon the proportion of production quantities within each
subcategory at the plant. Production characteristics are reflected explicitly
in the plant's limitations through the use of this approach.
B. TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
The Agency developed three technology options for consideration in
developing BPT limitations. Option I consists of biological treatment, which
IX-2
-------
usually involves either activated sludge or aerated lagoons, followed by
clarification (and preceded by appropriate process controls and in-plant
treatment to ensure that the biological system may be operated optimally).
Many direct discharge facilities in the OCPSF industry have installed this
kind of treatment.
Option II consists of Option I technology with the addition of a
polishing pond to follow biological treatment.
Option III includes multimedia filtration as an alternative technology
(in lieu of Option II ponds) to achieve TSS control beyond Option I biological
treatment.
EPA selected Option I, biological treatment with clarification, as the
technology basis for BPT limitations controlling BODg and TSS for the OCPSF
industry. This option has previously been referred to simply as "biological
treatment." However, a properly designed biological treatment system includes
"secondary clarification," which usually consists of a clarifier following the
biological treatment step. EPA's costing methodology for BPT Option I
includes the installation of chemically-assisted clarifiers for plants needing
significantly improved TSS control. Option I technology is in place at 157 of
the 304 direct discharging plants in the OCPSF industry data base. Seventy-
one of these plants are included in the Option I data base used to develop the
BPT limitations, since their treatment passes the 95 percent/40 mg/1 BOD5
editing criteria; 23 of these facilities have reported actual long-term
averages less than or equal to their respective Option I subcategory pro-
portioned (based on 1980 production) long-term average concentration targets.
EPA rejected Options II and III because they are not clearly demonstrated
to enhance the treatment of OCPSF discharges beyond the levels achieved by the
Option I requirements, and because they do not currently appear to be used by
a representative portion of the industry.
As shown in Section VII, most plants that have installed polishing ponds
have done so to improve the substandard treatment afforded by their biological
IX-3
-------
systems. In general, if the plants' biological treatment systems were well-
designed and well-operated, polishing ponds would not have been installed.
For example, some plants that have land readily available use polishing ponds
to achieve some of the BODg removal that would otherwise be achieved by
activated sludge treatment; for them, BOD5 removal Is accomplished more
economically by polishing ponds. Almost none of the identified plants have
installed ponds to achieve additional removal of BODg and TSS beyond that
achieved by well-operated, well-designed biolog;ical treatment with
clarification. .
Further, EPA believes that there are significant problems associated with
the installation and operation of polishing ponds added to biological treat-
ment (Option II) at some OCPSF facilities. Due to the size of the polishing
ponds (often significantly larger than activated sludge systems), land
availability may inhibit installation at some plants. In addition, algae
growth in warm climates interferes with the operation of the polishing ponds
by creating high suspended solids levels. Consequently, the Agency has
concluded that Option II polishing ponds, added to good biological treatment,
are not sufficiently demonstrated or practicable as a basis for BPT
limitations for the OCPSF* industry.
As also described in Section VII, EPA has evaluated Option III
(biological treatment plus multimedia filtration) technology to determine if
this option can achieve, in a practicable manner, additional conventional
pollutant removal beyond that achievable by well-designed, well-operated
biological treatment with secondary clarification. Like Option II, the
results of the analysis of Option III data do not provide evidence of a
significant difference in performance between plants with good biological
treatment alone compared to those with biological treatment plus filtration.
The data do not support any firm estimate either of incremental pollutant
removal benefits or of incremental costs for Option III technology.
EPA believes that effective biological treatment including clarification,
rather than alternatives whose effectiveness and practicability have not been
sufficiently documented, is the appropriate basis for BPT limitations in the
OCPSF industry.
IX-4
-------
Currently, 70 plants in the OCPSF Section 308 Questionnaire data base
rely exclusively upon end-of-pipe physical/chemical treatment. Forty-one of
these plants reported effluent BOD5 values, and 45 plants reported effluent
TSS values. Some of these plants have such low levels of BOD5 that they will
only have to upgrade their treatment to meet the TSS limits. Some of the
plants reporting BOD5 values were achieving low concentrations by dilution
with nonprocess waters; for these plants, the BOD5 concentrations were
adjusted to take this dilution into account. Based upon this evaluation,
plants that did not meet the long-term average target for BOD5 (approximately
71 percent of these plants) were determined i:or costing purposes either to
have sufficient BOD5 in their OCPSF process wastewaters to support biological
treatment or to have flows small enough (less than 500 gallons per day) to be
contract hauled. In addition, the plants were costed to upgrade treatment of
TSS where necessary as part of installing th« activated sludge (biological)
treatment and clarification, upgrading to chemically assisted clarification,
using algae control at existing polishing ponds, or contract hauling. The TSS
limitations for plants without biological treatment are based upon the
performance of clarifiers, using the data from biological treatment plants'
secondary clarifier performance.
C. BPT Effluent Limitations Guidelines
To analyze treatment effectiveness for each of the individual subcate-
gories, EPA developed a method for assessing the treatability data from the
many OCPSF plants whose influents and effluents are composed of wastewater
from two or more subcategory operations. A regression equation, presented in
Section VII, was used as the basis for determining BPT limitations. This
equation accounts for multiple subcategory plants in an explicit and straight
forward manner. For the final regulation, the regression equation was used to
model long-term average effluent BOD5 as a function of the proportion of the
production of each subcategory at each facility. The coefficients of this
equation are estimated from actual plant data using standard statistical
regression methods. The equation has a coefficient that corresponds to each
of the subcategory classifications. The BPT subcategory long-term average
effluent values are determined for each subcategory using the appropriate
coefficient.
IX-5
-------
BPT limitations for each subcategory are based on a combination of
long-term average effluent values and variability factors that account for
variation in day-to-day treatment performance within a plant. The long-term
averages are target values that a plant's treatment system should achieve on
an average basis, fhe variability factors are values that represent the ratio
of a large value that would be expected to occur only rarely (on a daily or
monthly average basis) to the long-term average. The purpose of the
variability factor is to allow for variation in effluent concentrations that
comprise the long-term average. A facility that designs and operates its
treatment system to achieve a long-term average on a consistent basis should
be able to comply with the daily and monthly limitations in the course of
normal operations.
The BPT long-term average effluent values were developed from a data base
composed of selected plant average values reported to the Agency in the 1983
Section 308 Questionnaire discussed previously. In this survey, plants were
to report average annual influent and effluent BODg and TSS along with
technical information concerning treatment operation, process flows, and
subcategory production classification. The selected plants were included in
the average of the best existing performance for BOD5 only if the plants
achieved at. least a 95 percent removal efficiency for BODg or a long-term
average effluent BOD5 concentration at or below 40 mg/1. The Agency also saw
a need to edit the data base for TSS performances. Two edits were used for TSS
data. The primary edit was that the data must be from a plant that met the
BOD5 edit cited above. The second edit was an additional requirement that the
plant's average effluent TSS must be 100 mg/1 or less. Plants meeting these
edits were included among the average best existing performance for TSS.
In a well-designed, well-operated biological treatment system, achievable
effluent TSS concentration levels are related to achievable effluent BODg
levels and, in fact, often are fairly proportional to BOD5. This is reflected
in the OCPSP data base for those plants that meet the BODg performance editing
criteria, provided that they also exhibit proper clarifier performance. By
only using TSS data from plants that had good BOD5 treatment, the Agency
established an effective initial edit for TSS removal by the biological
system. However, as BOD5 is reduced through biological treatment, additional
IX-6
-------
TSS may be generated in the form of biological solids. Thus, some plants may
need to add post-biological, secondary clarifiers or second stage clarifiers
to assure that such biological solids are appropriately treated.
Thus, while the 95/40 BOD5 editing ensures good BODg treatment and a
basic level of TSS removal, plants meeting this BOD5 editing level will not
necessarily meet a TSS level suitable for inclusion in the data base used to
set TSS limitations. To ensure that the TSS data base for setting limitations
reflects proper control, the editing criteria were established.
The variability factors were developed from a data base composed of
individual daily measurements on treated effluent B0Dg and TSS from 21 and 20
of these OCPSF plants, respectively. Daily measurement data are required to
determine variability factors, and were obtained from plants as part of the
1983 Section 308 Supplemental Questionnaire and from prior data submittals.
r
In the history of the development of effluent guidelines regulations,
variability factors are generally determined from data bases composed of
different sets of plants and, usually, smaller numbers of plants in comparison
to data sets consisting of plant annual averages. Many plants do not monitor
frequently enough for inclusion of their data to determine day-to-day
variability; many plants do not have monitoring records for the period being
studied (1980, in the case of the OCPSF BPT study), since some plants do not
maintain the records of daily values used to report monthly averages for
longer than 3 years. Individual daily pollutant measurements are therefore
more difficult to obtain. However, plants in the OCPSF annual average and
daily data bases cover the full range of subcategory classifications as
stipulated by this regulation.
The promulgated BPT effluent limitations guidelines for each subcategory
are presented in Table IX-1. These limitations were determined by multiplying
the long-term averages for each subcategory, shown in Tables VII-53 and
VII-54, by the respective BOD5 and TSS variability factors shown in Tables
VII-56 and VII-57. Another regulated parameter, pH, must remain within the
range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. The applicability of the regulations are
described in detail in Section III of this document.
IX-7
-------
TABLE IX-1.
BFF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND NSPS BY SUBCATEGORY (mg/1)
Effluent Limitations1
Subcategory
Rayon Fibers
Other Fibers
Thermoplastic Resins
Thermosetting Resins
Commodity Organic Chemicals
Bulk Organic Chemicals
Specialty Organic Chemicals
Maximum for
Monthly Average
BOD5 TSS
24
18
24
61
30
34
45
40
36
40
67
46
49
57
Maximum for
Any One Day
BOD5
64
48
64
163
80
92
120
TSS
130
115
130
216
149
159
183
pH, also a regulated parameter, must remain within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at
all times.
2Product and product group listings for each subcategory are contained in
Appendix III-A.
IX-8
-------
D. COST AND EFFLUENT SEDUCTION BENEFITS
As described in Section VIII of this document, the Agency estimated the
engineering cost of compliance with the B1PT effluent limitations guidelines
and the associated pollutant reduction benefits. The Agency estimated that
compliance with the promulgated BPT regulations would cost the OCPSF direct
discharge plants $193.1 million in capital investment and $38.8 million for
annual operation and maintenance (O&M) (in 1982 dollars), and would remove
41.7 million Ib/yr of BOD5 and 66.3 million Ib/yr of TSS in addition to
current removals. EPA has concluded that the costs of compliance with BPT are
justified by the resultant pollutant removal.
E. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
The promulgated effluent limitations guidelines are concentration-based,
thus not regulating flow. The permit writer must use a reasonable estimate of
process wastewater discharge and the concentration limitations to develop mass
limitations for the NPDES permit.
Process wastewater discharge is defined in the regulation to include
wastewaters resulting from manufacture of OCPSF products that come in direct
contact with raw materials, intermediate products, final products, and surface
t?
runoff from the immediate process area that has the potential to become
contaminated. Noncontact cooling waters, utility wastewaters, general site
surface runoff, groundwater, and other nonprocess waters generated"on site are
specifically excluded from the definition of process wastewater discharges.
In cases where the process wastewater flow claimed by industry may be exces-
sive, the permit writer may develop a more appropriate process wastewater flow
for use in computing the mass effluent limitations. The following items
should be considered in developing the more appropriate process wastewater
flow:
A review of the component flows to ensure that the claimed flows are,
in fact, process wastewater flows as defined by the regulation.
* A review of plant operations to ensure that sound water conservation
practices are being followed. Ejcamples include minimization of
process water uses; cascading or countercurrent washes or rinses,
where possible; and reuse or recycle of intermediate process waters or
treated wastewaters at the process area and in wastewater treatment
operations (pump seals, equipment and area washdowns, etc.).
IX-9
-------
A review of barometric condenser use at the process level. Often,
barometric condensers will generate relatively large volumes of
slightly contaminated water. Replacement of barometric condensers
with surface condensers can reduce wast«water volumes significantly
and result in collection of condensates that may be returned to the
process .
As noted in the preamble of the final regulation, the Agency intends to
issue guidance for determining the appropriate flow upon which to base mass
permit requirements.
The Agency promulgated concentration-based limitations for seven
subcategories. Therefore, for plants with production activities classified by
two or more subcategories, the permit writer would use a building-block
approach based on production proportioning to use the promulgated sub-
categorical limitations as a basis for establishing plant-specific permit
requirements. For a specific plant, let w. be the proportion of the plant's
total OCPSF production in subcategory j. Then the plant-specific limitations
are given by:
7
* Plant BOD, LIMIT = I w . (BOD. LIMIT.)
5 j=l3 5 j
7
Plant TSS LIMIT = £ w . (TSS LIMIT.).
BODg LIMIT, and TSS LIMIT, are the respective subcategorical BOD5 and TSS
Maximum for Any One Day or Maximum for Monthly Average limitations presented
in Table IX-1. For a hypothetical plant with the product mix and production
quantities shown in Table IX-2, the permit writer would use these equations,
as Illustrated in tabular form in the table, to calculate the plant's Maximum
for Monthly Average concentration limitations of 26.4 and 42.6 mg/1 of BODg
and TSS, respectively. The permit writer would then use the plant's annual
average process wastewater flow to convert the concentration-based limitations
into mass-based limitations. If the hypothetical plant's annual average
process wastewater flow was 1.27 million gallons per day (MGD), then the
IX-10
-------
TABLE IX-2.
DERIVATION OF BPT LIMITATIONS FOR A HYPOTHETICAL PLANT
M
X
Subcategory
Commodi ty
Bulk
Thermoplas t i cs
Other Fibers
COLUMN TOTALS
OCPSF
Product Mix
Vinyl Chloride
Phenol
Met Hanoi
Acetone
Adiponitrile
Hexamethylene diamine
Polys trene resins
Polyester resins
PvC resins
Acrylic Fibers
Modacrylic Fibers
Annual Plant
Production
MM Ibs/yr
2.22
1.00
0.80
0.75
I = 4.77
0.65
0.55
E = 1.20
0.75
1.20
2.00
E « 3.95
1.00
1.00
E = 2.00
11.92
Subcategory
Subcategory Monthly
Proportion Max (mg/1)**
(w^ )* BODC TSS
0.40 30 46
0.10 34 49
0.33 24 40
0.17 18 36
00
Plant
Limitations
( E( vj) (LIMIT ))
BOD5 TSS
12.0 18:4
3.4 4.9
7.9 13.2
3.1 6.1
2674 4T76
*w. = annual Subcategory production/total annual OCPSF production
**limitations from Table IX-1
-------
conversion for the Maximum for Monthly Average BOD5 limitation would be as
follows:
BODS Mass limit = (26.4 mg/1 BOD5)(1.27 N6D)(8.34)
» 279.6 Ibs/day BOD5.
Limits for other parameters would be calculated in a similar manner.
The final NPDES permit limitations will be the sum of the OCPSF mass
effluent limitations derived and any mass effluent limitations developed on a
case-by-case basis using best professional judgment by the permit writer to
take into account non-OCPSF and nonprocess wastewater discharges.
F. NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Section 304(b) and 306 of
the CtfA require EPA to consider the non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) of certain regulations. In compliance with
these provisions, EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air
pollution, solid waste generation, and energy consumption.
The non-water quality, environmental impacts associated with this
regulation are described below.
1. Air Pollution
The effect of BPT, if viewed alone, would likely involve a moderate
increase in volatile pollutant concentrations in the ambient air immediately
surrounding some OCPSF industry plants. This would be the result of plants
installing or upgrading the performance of aerated,lagoons, activated sludge
basins, and equalization basins, thus more effectively driving off volatile
organic compounds. This consequence will be more than offset by the effect of
compliance efforts to meet BAT, because many plants are expected to comply
with the BAT limitations by installing in-process controls that effectively
remove volatile organic compounds before they reach the end-of-pipe controls.
These in-process controls would be accompanied by effective air pollution
IX-12
-------
controls. Thus, there should be a net decrease in both air loadings and
concentrations of volatile organic compounds in the treated effluents from BPT
and BAT combined.
2. Solid Waste
EPA considered the effect that these regulations would have on the
production of solid waste, including hazardous waste defined under Section
3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA estimates that
increases in total solid waste of 16,090 metric tons of sludge per year,
including hazardous waste, resulting from the OCPSF regulation will be insig-
nificant compared to current levels. The Agency included sludge incineration
in the estimated engineering costs of compliance for any incremental sludge
generated by the BPT model treatment systems. Therefore, the net residual
solid waste, in the form of ash, will be negligible.
3. Energy Requirements
EPA estimated that the attainment of BIT will increase energy consumption
by a small increment over present industry use. With the exception of sludge
incineration, the estimated increased energy consumption for BPT treatment
systems is 24,308 barrels of No. 2 fuel oil per year. The estimated increased
energy consumption associated with the corresponding sludge incineration is
271,042 barrels of No. 2 fuel oil per year.
IX-13
-------
-------
SECTION X.
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
A. INTRODUCTION
Effluent limitations guidelines based on the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT), in general, represent the best control and
treatment technology employed by a specific point source within the industrial
category or subcategory, or by another industry where it is readily transfer-
able. Emphasis is placed on additional treatment techniques,applied in
addition to the treatment systems currently employed for best practicable
control technology (BPT), as well as process changes and improvements in
internal process control and treatment technology optimization.
The factors considered in assessing BAT include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, process changes, nonwater quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and the costs of
application of such technology. BAT technology represents the best existing
economically achievable performance of plants of various ages, sizes,
processes, or other characteristics. Those categories whose existing
performance is .uniformly inadequate may require a transfer of BAT from a
different subcategory or category. BAT may include process changes or
internal controls, even when these are not common industry practice. This
level of technology also considers those plant processes and control and
treatment technologies, which at pilot plant and other levels have demon-
strated both technological performance and economic viability at a level
sufficient to justify investigation.
B. BAT SUBCATEGORIZATION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated BAT
limitations for two subcategories. These subcategorles are largely determined
by raw waste characteristics. First, the end-of-pipe biological treatment
subcategory includes plants that have or will install biological treatment to
comply with BPT limits. Second, the non-end-of-pipe biological treatment
subcategory includes plants that generate such low levels of BOD5 that they do
X-l
-------
not need biological treatment or choose to use physical/chemical controls to
comply with the BPT limitations for BODg.
Different limits are being established for these two subcategories.
Biological treatment is an integral part of the model BAT treatment technology
for the end-of-pipe biological treatment subcategoryj it achieves incremental
removals of some priority pollutants beyond the removals achieved by in-plant
treatment without end-of-pipe biological treatment. In addition, the Agency
established two different limitations for the pollutant zinc. One is based on
data collected from rayon manufacturers using the viscose process and acrylic
fibers manufacturers using the zinc chloride/solvent process. This limitation
applies only to those plants that use the viscose process to manufacture rayon
or the zinc chloride/solvent process to manufacture acrylic fibers. The other
zinc limitation is based on the performance of chemical precipitation
technology used in the metal finishing point source category, and applies to
all plants other than those described above.
The Agency issued BAT limits for 63 priority pollutants for facilities
with end-of-pipe biological treatment, including 57 organic priority pollu-
tants, 5 metal priority pollutants, and cyanide. For facilities without
end-of-pipe biological treatment, BAT limits werce issued for 59 priority
pollutants, including 53 organic priority pollutants, 5 metal priority
pollutants, and cyanide.
C. TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
The Agency developed three technology options for end-of-pipe BAT
effluent limitations. (The Agency decided not to promulgate any supplemental
in-plant BAT limitations to control volatile pollutants.) The statutory
assessment of BAT considers costs, but does not require a balancing of costs
against effluent reduction benefits [see Weyerhaeuser v. Costie, 11 ERC 2149
(D.C. Cir. 1978)]; however, in establishing BAT, the Agency gave substantial
weight to the reasonableness of costs.
X-2
-------
I. Option I
This option would establish concentration-based BAT effluent limitations
for priority pollutants based on using BPT-level biological treatment for
dischargers using end-of-pipe biological treatment. For plants not using
end-of-pipe biological treatment, the Option I treatment is in-plant controls,
consisting of physical/chemical treatment and in-plant biological treatment to
achieve the same toxic pollutant limits as are achieved by end-of-pipe
biological treatment at BPT.
2. Option II
This option would establish concentration-based BAT effluent limitations
based on the performance of the end-of-pipe treatment component required to
meet BPT limitations (biological treatment for the end-of-pipe biological
treatment subcategory and physical/chemical treatment for the non-end-of-pipe
biological treatment subcategory), plus in-plant control technologies that
would remove priority pollutants from waste streams from particular processes
prior to discharge to the end-of-pipe treatment system. Two variations of
Option II were considered, which varied in-plant control technology used to
treat selected priority pollutants, including several polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, several phthalate esters, and phenol. The in-plant technologies
that form the sole basis of the limitations for the non-end-of-pipe biological
treatment plants include steam stripping to remove volatile priority pollu-
tants; activated carbon for various base/neutral priority pollutantsi chemical
precipitation for metals; alkaline chlorination for cyanide; and in-plant
biological treatment (Option IIB) or activated carbon adsorption (Option HA)
for removal of selected priority pollutants, including polynuclear aromatics,
phth.alate esters, acrylonitrile, phenol, and 2,4-dimethyphenol. After
considering the application of activated carbon adsorption systems (Option
HA) to remove these pollutants, EPA rejected this option on the basis of
available data demonstrating that the effluent levels achieved by biological
systems treating waste streams from segregated processes or waste streams with
high levels of these pollutants are equivalent to activated carbon adsorption
technology.
X-3
-------
3. Option III
BAT Option III adds activated carbon adsorption to the end-of-pipe
treatment to follow biological treatment or physical/chemical treatment in
addition to the Option II level of in-plant controls.
Option I technology is capable of treating some organic pollutants to
some extent; however, it does not represent the; best available technology. In
particular, the effectiveness of biological treatment for removing metal
pollutants and volatile organic pollutants is limited. Its effectiveness for
other pollutants is often less than what the Option II technologies can
achieve. The Agency identified many plants that combine various types of
in-plant treatment with end-of-pipe biological treatment. Therefore, EPA
decided to reject Option I.
Option III (addition of end-of-pipe carbon adsorption) achieves further
reduction in concentrations of some pollutants after Option II, particularly
for organic pollutants that are less biodegradable. The capital investment
cost associated with activated carbon adsorption systems that are large enough
to treat the volume of water discharged from end-of-pipe treatment is high:
$1.2 billion and the annualized cost of $831.9 million (1986 dollars). As
described in the Economic Impact Analysis, these incremental costs would be
expected to cause substantial incremental impacts, including 26 plant
closures, and 16 product line closures resulting in a loss of 6,475 jobs. In
addition, 44 plants would incur other significant impacts. Given the excep-
tionally high costs and significant economic impacts associated with Option
III, EPA decided not to adopt Option III as the basis for BAT regulation.
The Agency selected Option II as the basis for BAT limits for both BAT
subcategories.
D. POLLUTANT SELECTION
In developing the OCPSP regulations, priority toxic pollutants of concern
were identified through analytical programs to detect and quantify these
pollutants in the raw wastewaters discharged from various product/process
lines that were most important or most common in the industry. The initial
X-4
-------
work in determining the chemical constituents present in the process
wastewaters began in 1977. EPA did not attempt to identify or quantify
pollutants other than the priority toxic and conventional pollutants. The
initial effort included screening process wastewaters for the presence of
compounds on the priority pollutant list of 129 compounds or classes of
compounds identified in the NRDC Consent Decree.
Over the next several years, data were gathered to further identify
pollutants being discharged from specific processes and in combined discharges
from facilities with multiple processes.
The final BAT Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
regulations for the end-of-pipe biological treatment subcategory regulate the
63 toxic pollutants shown in Table X-l. Regulating such a large number of the
toxic pollutants is unprecedented in the effluent guidelines rulemaklng
program, reflecting the fact that many of the organic toxic pollutants are
directly manufactured by OCPSF facilities as well as used as raw materials or
generated as by-products in industry processes. The Agency does not have
sufficient in-plant data to regulate one metal priority pollutant (antimony)
and two organic priority pollutants (2,4,6-triehlorophenol and 3,3'-dichloro-
benzidine) in the end-of-pipe biological treatment subcategory.
The data base for the non-end-of-pipe biological treatment subcategory
limitations (shown in Table X-2) includes data from the same plants used in
the biological end-of-pipe subcategory if samples of the influent and effluent
around the in-plant treatment technologies were collected. Even with these
data, there are seven priority pollutants for which the Agency does not have
sufficient data to set limitations for the non-end-of-pipe biological
treatment subcategory. For these seven pollutants (2-chlorophenol,
2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, antimony,
2,4,6-triehlorophenol, and 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine) the Agency did not set
final limits. Limitations for these pollutants are being reserved pending
collection of additional information concerning their removal by in-plant
physical/chemical (or dedicated biological) treatment systems. Thus, the
non-end-of-pipe biological treatment subcategory limitations cover 59 toxic
pollutants.
X-5
-------
TABLE X-l.
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND NSPS FOR THE
END-OF-PIPE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Number
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
42
44
45
52
55
56
57
58
59
60
65
66
68
70
Pollutant Name
Acenaphthene
Acryloni trile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2 , 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Hexaehlorobenzene
1 , 2-Di chloroe thane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Hexachloroe thane
1-1-Dichloroe thane
1,1, 2-Tri chloroe thane
Chloroe thane
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Di chlorobenzene
1 , 1-Dich j.oFoethylene
1,2-Trans -cliehloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Di ch] oropropene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2, 4-Dinitro toluene
2 , 6-Dini t ro i; oluene
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Hexachlorobutadiena
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dini tr ophenol
4, 6-Dini tiO-o-cresol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dieth: 1 .Ii'ih-Jata
BAT Effluent
Maximum for
Any One Day
59
242
136
38
28
140
28
211
54
54
59
54
268
46
98
163
44
28
25
54
112
230
44
36
285
641
108
68
757
89
190
49
59
68
69
124
1.23
277
26
279
57
203
Limitations and NSPS1
Maximum for
Monthly Average
22
96
37
18
15
68
15
68
21
21
22
21
104
21
31
77
31
15
16
21
39
153
'29
18
113
255
32
25
301
40
86
20
22
27
41
72
71
78
15
103
27
81
X-6
-------
TABLE X-l.
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND NSPS FOR THE
END-OF-PIPE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SUBCATEGORY (Continued)
BAT Effluent Limitations and NSPS
Pollutant
Number
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
80
81
84
85
86
87
88
119
120
121
122
124
128
Pollutant Name
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3 , 4-Benzof luoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Te t rachloroe thy lene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Total Chromium
Total Copper
Total Cyanide
Total Lead2
Total Nickel
Total Zinc '
Maximum for
Any One Day
47
59
61
61
59
59
59
59
59
59
67
56
80
54
268
2,770
3,380
1,200
690
3,980
2,610
Maximum for
Monthly Average
19
22
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
25
22
26
21.
104
1,110
1,450
420
320
1,690
1,050
1A11 units are micrograms per liter.
Metals limitations apply only to noncomplexed metal-bearing waste streams,
including those listed in Table X-4. Discharges of chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc from "complexed metal-bearing process wastewater," listed in
Table X-5, are not subject to these limitations.
Cyanide limitations apply only to cyanide-bearing waste streams, including
those listed in Table X-3.
Total zinc limitations and standards for rayon fiber manufacture by the
viscose process and acrylic fiber manufacture by the zinc chloride/solvent
process are 6,796 Mg/1 and 3,325 ug/1 for Maximum for Any One Day and Maximum
for Monthly Average, respectively.
X-7
-------
TABLE X-2.
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND NSPS FOR THE
NON-END-OF-PIPE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Number
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
23
25
26
27
29
30
32
33
34
38
39
42
44
45
52
55'
56
57
58
59
60
65
66
68
70
Pollutant Name
Acenaphthene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Chlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Tr i chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichloroe thane
1,1, 1-Tri chloroe thane
Hexachloroe thane
1-1-Dichloroe thane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Chloroe thane
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Diehlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1-Di chloroe thylene
'1 , 2-Trans-dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
2 , 4-Dlmethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Me thylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Hexachlorobu tadiene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dini trophenol
4 , 6-Dini tro-o-cresol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
BAT Effluent
Maximum for
Any One Day
47
232
134
380
380
794
794
574
59
794
59
127
295
325
794
380
380
60
66
794
794
47
380
54
794
170
295
380
47
6,402
231
576
4,291
277
47
258
43
113
Limitations and NSPS1
Maximum for
Monthly Average
19
94
57
142
142
196
196
180
22
196
22
32
110
111
196
142
142
22
25
196
196
19
142
22
196
36
110
142
19
2,237
65
162
1,207
78
19
95
20
46
X-8
-------
TABLE X-2.
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND NSPS FOR THE
NON-END-OF-PIPE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SUBCATEGORY (Continued)
BAT Effluent Limitations and NSPS
Pollutant
Number
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
80
81
84
85
86
87
88
119
120
121
122
124
128
Pollutant Name
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3 , 4-Benzof luoran thene
Benzo(k) f luoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Total Chromium
Total Copper
Total Cyanide3
Total Lead2
Total Nickel
Total Zinc '
Maximum for
Any One Day
47
47
48
48
47
47
47
47
47
47
48
164
74
69
172
2,770
3,380
1,200
690
3,980
2,610
Maximum for
Monthly Average
19
19
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
52
28
26
97
1,110
1,450
420
320
1,690
1,050
All units are micrograms per liter.
Metals limitations apply only to noncomplexed metal-bearing waste streams,
including those listed in Table X-4. Discharges of chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc from "complexed metal-bearing process wastewater," listed in
Table X-5, are not subject to these limitations.
Cyanide limitations apply only to cyanide-bearing waste streams, including
those listed in Table X-3.
Total zinc limitations and standards for rayon fiber manufacture by the
viscose process and acrylic fiber manufacture by the zinc chloride/solvent
process are 6,796 ug/1 and 3,325 ug/1 for Maximum for Any One Day and Maximum
for Monthly Average, respectively.
X-9
-------
Even though nonconventional pollutants and certain toxic pollutants are
not directly limited by this regulation, they will nonetheless be indirectly
controlled in many cases by the technologies used to comply with the promul-
gated limitations if they are present in treatable concentrations. While the
degree of such indirect control will vary, in some cases unregulated
pollutants will be substantially reduced by the operation of technologies
installed to comply with limitations for related regulated pollutants.
In the final rule, EPA decided that each discharger in a subcategory will
be subject to the effluent limitations for all pollutants regulated for that
subcategory. Once a pollutant is regulated in the OCPSP regulation, it must
also be limited in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit issued to direct dischargers (see Sections 301 and 304 of the Act? see
also 40 CPR 8122.44(a)J. EPA recognizes that guidance on appropriate
monitoring requirements for OCPSP plants would be useful, particularly to
ensure that monitoring will not be needlessly required for pollutants that are
not likely to be discharged at a plant. EPA intends to publish guidance on
OCPSF monitoring in the near future. This guidance will address the issues of
compliance monitoring in general, of initially determining which pollutants
should be subject only to infrequent monitoring based on a conclusion that
they are unlikely to be discharged, and of determining the appropriate flow
upon which to base mass permit requirements.
E. BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
The BAT limits are based on priority pollutant data from both OCPSF and
other Industrial plants with BAT model treatment technologies in place. In
selecting plants and product/processes for use in developing the data base for
BAT limitations, EPA gave priority to product/processes involving the manu-
facture of either priority pollutants or high-volume chemicals derived from
priority pollutants. In each stage of its BAT data base development, the
Agency has attempted to obtain data from OCPSF plants representing BAT
performance to provide as complete coverage as possible for the priority
pollutants discharged by the OCPSF industry. The Agency used information
collected in all surveys as a basis for identifying representative plants to
be sampled.
X-10
-------
The BAT data base described in Section VII for organic priority
pollutants and the toxic metal zinc (for certain rayon and acrylic fibers
producers) contains data that adequately represent the performance of waste-
water treatment technology employed by the OCPSF industry. Data for toxic
metals (Including zinc from producers other than those mentioned above) and
cyanide have been transferred from another industry data base. Section VII
also describes data base editing and calculation of pollutant long-term means
and corresponding variability factors.
1. VolatilesLimits
The Agency based BAT limitations and costs for volatile pollutants on
in-plant steam stripping technology alone for plants without end-of-pipe
biological treatment. For all volatiles limited in the end-of-pipe biological
treatment subeategory, except 1,1-dichloroethane, the combination of steam
stripping and end-of-pipe biological treatment are used for limitations (and
costing). The data used to derive these limits for the end-of-pipe biological
treatment subcategory were taken from plants that exhibited good volatile
pollutant reduction across the entire treatment system. For the end-of-pipe
biological treatment subcategory, the limitations (and costs) are based on the
removals achieved by only steam stripping for one pollutant (1,1-dichloro-
ethane), since the datatfor this pollutant demonstrated a treated effluent
from the steam stripper at the lowest possible level (a long-term average
steam stripping effluent level at the analytical minimum level of 10 ppb) and
no data were available from the end-of-pipe biological treatment for this
pollutant. To establish limits for the non-end-of-pipe biological treatment
subcategory, the Agency used steam stripping data for volatile organic
pollutants collected from plants that either did not have end-of-pipe
biological treatment or provided data on the separate performance of the
in-plant steam stripping treatment technology.
2. Cyanide Limitations
The final regulation contains concentration-based effluent limitations
for total cyanide, which are to be applied only to the flows discharged from
cyanide-bearing process waste streams covered by the regulation. The selected
X-ll
-------
technology basis for controlling the discharge of cyanide from OCPSF manufac-
turing operations is chemical oxidation by the alkaline chlorination method.
Eleven direct and indirect discharge OCPSF plants use cyanide destruction,
including some plants that reported the use of alkaline chlorination. However,
performance data on cyanide destruction are not available from the OCPSF
industry. Nonetheless, performance data on cyanide destruction by alkaline
chlorination in the metal finishing industry are available.
Limitations are based upon the transfer of alkaline chlorination
(chemical oxidation) technology from the metal finishing industry data base.
These limitations apply only to the cyanide-bearing vaste streams; thus, only
cyanide-bearing process wastewater flow should be used by permit writers to
convert the concentration-based cyanide limitations into mass-based permit
limitations The product/processes considered to have cyanide-bearing process
wastewater are listed in Table X-3. This list is based on EPA's review of
data in the record.
3. Hetals Limitations
The final rule contains concentration-based effluent limitations for
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The limitations are to be applied
only to the flows discharged from metal-bearing process wastewaters. The .
product/processes considered to have metal-bearing process wastewater are
listed in Table X-4. This list is based on EPA's review of data in the
record. Separate zinc limitations have been established for rayon manufac-
turers using the viscose process and acrylic fibers manufacturers using the
zinc chloride/solvent process.
The concentration limitations are based upon the use of hydroxide pre-
cipitation technology, which is the standard metals removal technology that
forms the basis for virtually all of EPA's BAT metals limitations for metal-
bearing wastewaters. Because little OCPSF data on the effectiveness of
hydroxide precipitation technology are available, EPA decided to transfer data
for this technology from the metal finishing industry. A comparison of the
metals raw waste data from metal finishing plants with the validated
X-12
-------
TABLE X-3.
CYANIDE-BEARING WASTE STREAMS
(by product/process)
Acetone cyanohydrin/Acetone + Hydrogen cyanide
Acetonitrile/By-product of acrylonitrile from propylene by ammoxidation
Acrylic resins/Solution polymerization
Acrylic fiber (85% acrylonitrile)/Suspension polymerization, and wet spinning
Acrylic fiber (851 acrylonitrile)/Solution polymerization, and vet spinning
Acrylonitrile/Ammoxidation of propylene
Adiponitrile/Butadiene 4- Hydrogen cyanide (direct cyanation)
Allylnitrile/Allyl chloride + Sodium cyanide
Dimethoxybenzaldehyde/Hydroquinone dimethyl ether + Hydrogen cyanide,
hydrolysis
Benzyl cyanide/Benzyl chloride + Sodium cyanide
Coal tar products/Distillation of coal tar condensate
Cyanoacetic aeid/Chloracetic acid + Sodium cyanide
Cyanuric chloride/Catalyzed tritnerization of cyanogen chloride
Vat dyes, Indigo paste as Vat Blue 1/Sodamide + potassium N-Phenylglyeine(
fused with caustic/N-phenylglycine + aniline + Formaldehyde + Sodium
bisulfite, sodium cyanide, hydrolysis with potassium hydroxide
Disperse dyes, Azo and Vat
Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid/Ethylenediamine + Formaldehyde + Sodium
cyanide
Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid/Diethylenetriamine + Formaldehyde + Sodium
cyanide
N,N'-bis(o-Acetamidophenol)ethylenediamine, ferric complex/Salicyladehyde +
Ethylenediamine + Hydrogen cyanide, hydrolysis to amide
Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid, pentasodium salt/Diethylenetriamine
pentaacetic acide + caustic
Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid, metal salts/Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid
+ metal bases
Hydroxyethyl ethylenediamine triacetic acid, trisodium salt/Ethylenediamine +
Ethylene oxide + Formaldehyde + Sodium cyanide, hydrolysis
X-13
-------
TABLE X-3.
CYANIDE-BEARING WASTE STREAMS
(by product/process) (Continued)
Hexamethylene diisocyanate/Hexamethylene diamime (1,6-Diaminohexane) +
phosgene
5}5-Dimethyl hyantoln/Acetone + ammonia -f carbon dioxide + hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen cyanide/By-product of acrylonitrile by aramoxidation of propylene
Iminodiacetic acid/Hexamethylene tetraamine + Hydrogen cyanide, hydrolysis of
iminoaeetonitrile salt
Hethionine/Acrolein + Methyl mercaptan, with hydrogen cyanide and ammonium
carbonate
Methylene Diphenylisocyanate (MDI)/Phosgenation of methylene dianiline from
Aniline + Formaldehyde
Nitrilotriacetic acid/Hexamethylene tetraamine + Hydrogen cyanide, hydrolysis
of nitrilotriacetonitrile salt
Picolines, mixed/Condensation of acetaldehyde + formaldehyde + ammonia
Organic piqments, Azo/Diazotization of aniline cogener, coupling to B-Napthol
Polyurethane resins/Diisocyanate + Polyoxyalkylene glycol
Polyurethane fibers (Spandex)/Polyoxyalkylene glycol + Tolylene diisoeyanate +
dialkylamine
Pyriraidines, 2-Isopropyl-4-methoxy-/Isobutyronitrile + methanol, ammonia and
methylacetoacetate (ring closure)
Pyridine (synthetic)/Condensation of acetaldehyde + ammonia + formaldehyde
(^anopyridine/Ammoxidation of picoline
Sarcosine (N-Methyl glycine), sodium salt/Hexamtsthylene tetraamine + Sodium
cyanide, hydrolysis
Thiophene acetic acid/Chloromethylation (Hydrogan chloride «- Formaldehyde) +
Sodium cyanide, hydrolysis
Tolylene diisocyanate (isomeric mixture)/Tolylene diamines + Phosgene
Tris(anilino)S-triazine/Cyanuric chloride + Aniline and its cogeners
Triethylorthoformate/Ethanol + Hydrogen cyanide
Trimethylorthoformate/Methanol + Hydrogen cyanicle
X-14
-------
TABLE X-4»
NONCOMPLEXED METAL-BEARING WASTE STREAMS
FOR CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND 2INC
(by product/process)
Chromium
Methylhydroabletate/Esterification of hydroabletic acid (rosin) with methanol
Acrylic acid/Oxidation of propylene via acrolein
N-butyl alcohol/Hydrogenation of n-Butraldehyde, Oxo process
Cyclohexanone/From phenol via cyclohexanol by hydrogenation-dehydrogenation
Fatty amines/Hydrogenation of fatty nitriles (batch)
Helioptropin/Oxidation of isosafrole, chromium catalyst
Isobutanol/Hydrogenation of isobutyraldehyde, Oxo process
Cyclohexyl Mercaptan/Cyclohexanol + Hydrogen sulfide
Ethyl Mercaptan/Ethanol + Hydrogen sulfide
Methanol/H.P. Synthesis from natural gas via synthetic gas
Oxo Alcohols, C7-Cll/Carbonatlon & hydrogenation of C6-C10 Olefins
Polyoxypropylene diamine/Polypropylene glycol + Ammonia
n-Propyl alcohol/Hydrogenation of propionaldehyde, Oxo process
SAN resin/Suspension polymerization
Styrene/Dehydrogenation of ethylbenzene
Styrene/Dehydration of methyl benzyl alcohol (co-product of propylene oxide)
1-Tetralol, 1-Tetralone mix/Oxidation of tetralin
(1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalene)
3,3,3-Trifluoropropene/Catalyzed hydrogen fluoride exchange with chlorinated
propane
Vinyl toluene/Dehydrogenation (thermal) of ethyltoluene
X-15
-------
TABLE X-4.
NONCOMPLEXED METAL-BEARING WASTE STREAMS
FOR CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND ZINC
(by product/process) (Continued)
Copper
Methylhydroabietate/Esterification of hydroabietic acid (rosin) with methanol
Acetaldehyde/Oxidation of ethylene with cupric chloride catalyst
Acetic acid/Catalytic oxidation of butane
Acetone/Dehydrogenation of isopropanol
Acrylaraide/Catalytic hydration of acrylonitrile
Acrylic acid/Oxidation of propylene via acrolein
Acrylonitrile/Propylene amraoxidation
Adipic acid/Oxidation of cyclohexanol-cyclohexanone mixture
Adipic acid/Oxidation of cyclohexane via cyclohexanol-cyclohexanone mixture
Allynitrile/Allychloride ? sodium cyanide
Aniline/Hydrogenation of nitrobenzene
Benzofurans, 2,3-Dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranol/from o-Nitrophenol +
Hethallyl chloride
n-Butyl alcohol/Hydrogenation of n-Butyraldehyde, Oxo process
1,4-Butanediol/Hydrogenation of 1,4-butynediol
Butyrolactone/Dehydrogenation of 1,4-butanediol
Caprolactam/From cyclohexane via cyclohexanone arad its oxime
Lilian (hydroxydihydrocitronellal)/Hydration and oxidation of citronellol
1,2-Diehloroethane/Oxyhydrochlorination of ethylene
Dialkyldithiocarbamates, metal salts/Dialkylamines -f carbon disulfide
2-Ethylhexanol/from n-Butyraldehyde by Aldo condensation and hydrogenation
Fatty amines/Hydrogenation of fatty nitriles (batch)
Geraniol/B-Myrcene + Hydrogen chloride, esterification of geranyl chloride,
hydrolysis of qeranyl acetate
X-16
-------
TABLE X-4.
NONCOMPLEXED METAL-BEARING WASTE STREAMS
FOR CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND ZINC
(by product/process) (Continued)
Copper (Continued)
Furfuryl alcohol/Hydrogenation of furfural
Geranial (Citral)XOxidation of geraniol (copper catalyst)
Glyoxal/Oxidation of ethylene glycol
Isobutanol/Hydrogenation of isobutyraldehyde, Oxo process
Isopropanol/Catalytic hydrogenation of acetone
2-Mercaptobenzothiazoles, copper salt/2-Mercaptobenzo-thiazole + copper salt
Methanol/High-pressure synthesis from natural gas via synthetic gas
Methanol/Low-pressure synthesis from natural gas via synthetic gas
Methyl ethyl ketone/Dehydrogenation of sec-Butanol
Oxo alcohols, C7-Cll/Carbonation & hydrogenation of C6-C10 olefins
Phenol/Liquid phase oxidation of benzoic acid
Polyoxyalkylene amines/Polyoxyalkylene glycol + ammonia
Polyphenylene oxide/Solution polymerization of 2,6-xylenol by oxidative
coupling (cuprous salt catalyst)
Polyoxypropylene diamine/Polypropylene glycol + Ammonia
Quinaldine (dye intermediate)/Skraup reaction of aniline + crotonaldehyde
Silicones, silicone fluids/Hydrolysis and condensation of chlorosilanes
Silicones, silicone rubbers/Hydrolysis and condensation of chlorosilanes
Silicones, silicone specialties (grease, dispersion agents, defoamers & other
products)
Silicones: silicone resins/Hydrolysis & condensation of methyl, phenyl &
vinyl chlorosilanes
Silicones: silicone fluids/Hydrolysis of chlorosilanes to acyclic & cyclic
organosiloxanes
Styrene/Dehydration of a-Methylbenzyl alcohol (coproduct of propylene oxide)
X-17
-------
fABLE X-4.
NONCOHPLEXED METAL-BEARING VASTE STREAMS
FOR CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND ZINC
(by product/process) (Continued)
Copper (Continued)
Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)/0xyhydroehlorlnation of
te t rachloroe thane
Tris(anilino)s-triazine/Cyanuric chloride + aniline + cogeners
Trichloroethylene/Oxyhydrochlorination of tetraehloroethane
Unsaturated polyester resin/Reaction of maleic anhydride + phthalic anhydride
+ propylene glycol polyester with styrene or methyl methacrylate
Lead
Alkyd resin/Condensation polymerization
Alkyd resins/Condensation polymerization of phthalic anhydride + glycerin +
vegetable oil esters
Anti-knock fuel additive/Blending purchased tetraethyl lead & tetramethyl lead
additives
Dialkydithiocarbamates, metal salts/Dialkylamines + carbon disulfide
fhiuram (dimethyldithiocarbamate) hexasulfide/Dimethyl-dithioearbamate +
sulfur
Triphenylmethane dyes (methyl violet)/Condensation of Formaldehyde +
N-Hethylaniline 4- N,N-dimethylaniline, oxidation of reaction product
, 4,4*-Bis-(N,N-dimethylaniline) carbinol, Michler's hydrol/Oxidation of
4,4'-Hethylene-bis(N,N-dimethyl aniline) with lead oxide
Naphthenic acid salts
Stearic acid, metal salts/Neutralization with a metallic base
Tetraethyl lead/Alkyl halide + sodium-lead alloy
Tetramethyl lead/Alkyl halide -«- sodium-lead alloy
Nickel
Acetates, 7,11-Hexadecadien-l-ol (gossyplure)/Coupling reactions, low-pressure
hydrogenation, esterification
X-18
-------
TABLE X-4.
NONCOMPLIXED METAL-BEAR]:NG WASTE STREAMS
FOR CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND ZINC
(by product/process) (Continued)
Nickel (Continued)
Acetates, 9-dodecen-l-ol (pheromone)/Coupling reactions, low pressure
hydrogenation, esterification
Acrylic acid/oxidation of propylene via acrolein
Acrylonitrile/Propylene ammoxidation
n-Alkanes/Hydrogenation of C6-C22 alpha ol«ifins (ethylene oligomers)
Adiponitrile/Direct cyanation of butadiene
Alkyl amines/Amination of alcohols
4-Aminoacetanilide/Hydrogenation of 4-Nitroacetanilide
BTX/Hydrogenation of olefins (cyclohexenes)
Terphenyls, hydrogenated/Nickel catalyst, hydrogenation of terphenyl
Bisphenol-A, hydrogenated (Biscyclohexanol-A)/Hydrogenation of Bisphenol-A
Butadiene (l»3)/Extractive distillation of C-4 pyrolyzates
n-Butanol/Hydrogenation of n-Butyraldehyde, Oxo process
1,3-Butylene glycol/Hydrogenation of acetaldol
1,4-Butanediol/Hydrogenation of 1,4-butynedlol
Butylenes (mixed)XDistillation pf C4 pyrolyzates
4-Chloro-2-aminophenol/Hydrogenation of 4-Chloro-2-nitrophenol
Lilial (hydroxydihydrocltronellal)/Hydration and oxidation of citronellol
Cycloparaffins/Catalytic hydrogenation of aromaties in kerosene solvent
Cyclohexanol/Hydrogenation of phenol, distillation
Cyclohexanone/From phenol via cyclohexanol by hydrogenation-dehydrogenation
Dialkyldithiocarbamates, metal salts/Dialkylamines + carbon disulfide
Ethylamine/Reductive amination of ethanol
X-19
-------
TABLE X-4.
NONCOMPLEXED METAL-BEAEING WASTE STIEAMS
FOR CHROHIUM, TOPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND ZINC
(by product/process) (Continued)
Nickel (Continued)
Ethylamlnes (mono, di, tri)/Eeductive ammination (ammonia + hydrogen) of
ethanol
Isoeugenol, high % trans/Separation of mixed cis & trans isoeugenols
2-Ethylhexanol/from n-Butyraldehyde by Aldol condensation and hydrogenation
Patty acids, hydrogenated/tallow & coco acids » Hydrogen
Patty amines/Hydrogenation of fatty nitriles (batch)
Fatty amines/Hydrogenation of tallow & coco nitriles
Glyoxal-urea formaldehyde teKtile resin/condensation to N-bis(hydroxymethyl)
ureas & N,N'-(dihydroxyethyl) ureaa
11-hexadecenal/Coupling rxns, low-pressure hydrogenation
Hexahydrophthalic anhydride/Condensation of butadiene & maleic anhydride
(Diels-Alder reaction) + hydrogenation
Isobutanol/Hydrogenation of isobutyraldehyde, Oxo process
Diisobutyl amine/Ammonolysis of isobutanol
Isopropyl amines (mono, di)/Reductive ammination (Ammonia + Hydrogen) of
isopropanol
Linalool/Pyrolysis of 2~Pinanol
Hethanol/High-pressure synthesis from natural gas via synthetic gas
Hethanol/Low-pressure sythesis fron natural gas via synthetic gas
Hethanol/Butane oxidation
Tris-(hydroxymethyl) methyl amine/Hydrogenation of tris-(hydrpxymethyl)
nitromethane
N-Methyl morpholine/Horpholine + Methanol
N-Ethyl morpholine/Morpholine + Ithanol
2-Hethyl-7,8-epoxy octadecane/Coupling reactions, low-pressure hydrogenation,
epoxidation
X-20
-------
TABLE X-4.
NONCOMPLEXED METAL-BEARING WASTE STREAMS
FOR CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND "ZINC
(by product/process) {Continued)
Nickel (Continued)
Alpha-Olefins/Ethylene oligomer, & Zeigler Cat.
Petroleum hydrocarbon resins, hydrogenated/Hydrogenation of petroleum
hydrocarbon resin products
Pinane/Hydrogenation of A-Pinene
2-Pinanol/Reduction of pinane hydroperoxide
Bis-(p-Octylphenol) sulfide, Nickel salt/p-Octylphenol + sulfur chloride
(S2ei2), neutralize with Nickel base
Piperazine/Reductive amination of ethanol amine (ammonia & hydrogenation,
metal catalyst)
N,N-Dimethylpiperazine/Condensation piperazine + formaldehyde, hydrogenation
Polyoxylalkylene amines/Polyoxyalkylene glycol + Ammonia
Polyoxypropylene diamine/Polypropylene glycol + Ammonia
2-Amino-2-methyl-l-propanol/Hydrogenation of 2-Nitro - 2-methyl-l-propanol
3-Methoxypropyl amihe/Reductive amination of acrylamide with raethanol &
hydrogen
N-Propylamine/Reductive ammination (ammonia + hydrogen) of n-propanol
Sorbitol/Hydrogenation of sugars
Sulfolane/Condensation butadiene + sulfur dioxide, Hydrogenation
Thionocarbamates, N-Ethyl-o-isopropyl/Isopropyl xanthate + Ethylamine
Toluene diamine (mixture)/Catalytic hydrogenation of dlnitrotoluene
Mehtylated urea-formaldehyde resins (textile)XMethylation of urea-formaldehyde
adduct
Methylated urea-formaldehyde glyoxol (textile resin)/Reaction of methylated
urea-formaldehyde + glyoxal
X-21
-------
TABLE X-4.
NONCOMPLEXED METAL-BEARING WASTE STREAMS
FOR CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND ZINC
(by product/process) (Continued)
Zinc
Methylhydroabietate, diels-alder adducts/Derivatives of abietic esters from
rosin
Acrylic resins/Emulsion or solution polymerization to coatings
Acrylic resins (latex)/Emulsion polymerization of acrylonitrile with
polybutadiene
Acrylic fibers (852 polyacrylonitrile) by solution polymerization/Wet spinning
Alkyd Resins/Condensation polymerization of phthalic anhydride » glycerin +
vegetable oil esters
Benzene/By-product of styrene by ethylbenzene dehydrogenation
Benzene/By-product of vinyl toluene (from ethyl toluene)
n-butyl alcohol/Hydrogenation of n-Butyraldehyde, Oxo process
Coumarin (benz-a-pyrone)/Sailcylaldehyde, Oxo process
Cycloparaffins/Catalytic hydrogenation of aromatics in kerosene solvent
Dithiocarbamates, zinc salt/Reaction of zinc oxide + Sodium dithiocarbamates
Dialkyldithiocarbamates, -metal salts/Diakylamines + Carbon disulfide
Dithiocarbamates, metal salts/Dithioearbamie acid + metal oxide
Ihiuram (dimethyldithiocarbamate) hexasulfide/Dimethyl-dithiocarbamate +
sulfur
Fluorescent brighteners/Coumarin based
Ethyl acetate/Redox reaction (Tschenko) of acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene/Benzene alkylation in liquid phase
Ethylbenzyl chloride/Chloromethylation (Hydrogen chloride + formaldehyde, zinc
chloride) of ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl hexanol/Aldol condensation-hydrogenatiom of n-Butyraldehyde
Glyoxal-urea formaldehyde textile resin/Condensation to N-bis (hydroxymethyl)
ureas + N,N'-(Dihydroxyethyl) ureas
K-22
-------
TABLE K-4.
NONCOMPLEXED METAL-BEARING WASTE STREAMS
FOR CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND ZINC
(by product/process) (Continued)
Zinc (Continued)
Isobutanol/Hydrogenation of isobutyraldehydef Oxo process
Isopropanol/Catalytic hydrogenation of acetone
Methallylidene diacetate/Condensation of 2-Methypropenal + acetic anhydride
Methanol/Low-pressure sythesis from natural gas via synthetic gas
Methyl chloride/Hydrochlorination of methanoIL
Methylethyl ketone/Dehydrogenatin of sec-Butanol
Naphthenic acid salts
Nylon
Nylon 6 & 66 copolymers/Polycondensation of Nylon salt + Caprolatam
Nylon 6 fiber/Extrusion (melt spinning)
Oxo alcohols-, C12-C15/Hydroformylation & hydrogenation of C11-C14 olefins
Phenolic urethan resins/Phenol + excess formaldehyde + Methylene aniline
diisocyanate
Polystyrene (crystal) modified/Polystyrene + sulfonation, chloromethylation
and/or amination
Rayon/Viscose process
SAN nesin/Emulsion polymerization
Silicones: silicone rubbers/Hydrolysis and condensation of chlorosilanes
Silicones: silicone specialties (grease, dispersion agents, defoamers & other
products)
Silicones: Silicone resins/Hydrolysis & condensation of methyl, phenyl & vinyl
chlorosilanes
Silicones: silicone fluids/Hydrolysis of chlorosilanes to acyclic & cyclic
organosiloxanes
Stearic acid, metal salts/Neutralization with a metallic base
X-23
-------
TABLE X-4.
NONCOHPLEXED HETAL-BEAEING WASTE STREAMS
FOR CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND ZINC
(by product/process) (Continued)
Zinc (Continued)
Styrene/Dehydrogenation of ethylbenzene
Styrene-butadiene resin/Emulsion polymerization
Vinyl acetate/Reduction of acetylene + acetic acid
Vinyl toluene/Dehydrogenation (thermal) of ethyltoluene
Xylenes, mixed/By-product vinyl toluene (from ethyltoluene)
X-24
-------
product/process OCPSF raw waste data indicated that the concentrations of the
metals of concern are generally within the range of concentrations found at
metal finishing plants (see Table VII-4). Also, the metal finishing waste-
water matrices contained organic compounds that are used as cleaning solvents
and plating bath additives. Some of these compounds serve as complexing
agents and their presence is reflected in the metal finishing industry data
base. This data base contains hydroxide precipitation performance results
from plants with waste streams from certain operations (electroless plating,
immersion plating, or printed board circuit board manufacturing) containing
complexing agents. This is important because the data base reflects both
treatment of waste streams containing complexing agents and segregating these
waste streams prior to treatment.
The transfer of technology and limitations from the metal finishing
industry is further supported by the principle of precipitation. Given
sufficient retention time and the proper pH (which is achieved by the addition
of hydroxide frequently in the form of lime), and barring the binding up of
metals in strong organic complexes (see dicussion below), a metal exceeding
its solubility level in water can be removed to a particular levelthat is
the effluent can be treated to a level approaching its solubility level for
each constituent metal. This is a physical/chemical phenomenon that is
relatively independent of the type of wastewater, barring the presence of
strong complexing agents.
However, some product/processes do have wastewaters that contain organic
compounds that bind up the metals in stable complexes that are not amenable to
optimal settling through the use of lime. Strongly complexed priority
pollutant metals are used or created, for instance, in the manufacture of
metal complexed dyestuffs (metallized dyes) or metallized organic pigments.
The most common priority pollutant metals found in these products are triva-
lent chromium and copper. The degree of complexing of these metals may vary
among different product/processes. Consequently, each plant may need to use a
different set of unique technologies to remove these metals. Thus, metals
limits are not set by this regulation and must be established by permit
writers on a case-by-case basis, for certain product/processes containing
complexed metals. These product/processes are listed in Table X-5.
X-25
-------
TABLE X-5.
COHPLEXBD METAL BEARING WASTE STREAMS FOR
CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND ZINC
(by product/process)
Chromium
Azo dye intermediates/Substituted diazonium salts » coupling compounds
Vat dyes/Mixing purchased dyestuffs (Anthraquinones, polycyclic Quinones and
Indigoids)
Acid dyes
Azo dyes, metallized/Azo dye + metal acetate
Acid dyes, Azo (including metallized)
Organic pigments, miscellaneous lakes and toners
Copper
Disperse dyes
Vat dyes/Mixing purchased dyestuffs (Anthraqulnones, polycyclic Quinones and
Indigoids)
Acid dyes
Direct dyes
Vat dyes
Sulfur dyes
Disperse dyecoupler/N-substitution of 2-Amino-4-acetamidoanisole
Azo dyes, metallized/Azo dye + metal acetate
Direct dyes, Azo
Disperse dyes, Azo and Vat
Organic pigment Green 7/Copper phthalocyanine
Organic pigments
Organic pigments/Phthalocyanine pigments
Organic pigments/Copper phthalocyanine (Blue Crude)
Organic pigments, miscellaneous lakes and toners
X-26
-------
TABLE X-5.
COMPLEXED METAL BEARING WASTE STREAMS FOR
CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, AND ZINC
(by product/process) (Continued)
Lead
Organic pigments, Quinacridines
Organic pigments, Thioindigoids
Nickel
Azo dyes, metallized/Azo dye + metal acetate
Zinc
Organic pigments/Azo pigments by diazotization and coupling
X-27
-------
The list in Table X-5 has been compiled based upon an analysis summarized
in Section V of this document. SPA concluded that all other metal-bearing
process vastewaters (whether listed in Table X-4 or established as metal-
bearing by a permit writer) can be treated using hydroxide precipitation to
the levels set forth in the regulation.
Finally, EPA established a separate zinc limitation for rayon manufac-
turers using the viscose process and acrylic fibers manufacturers using the
zinc chloride/solvent process. Process wastewaters from the rayon/viscose and
acrylic/zinc chloride/solvent processes contain zinc at levels that are
typically a hundred times the levels in other OCPSF wastewaters. EPA has
collected data assessing the performance of chemical precipitation with lime
and clarification in treating zinc in these discharges. The final limitations
are based on these data.
4. Other Organic Pollutants
The Agency considered two in-plant technologies for the removal of
organic pollutants other than those removed by steam stripping. These are
activated carbon adsorption and in-plant biological treatment.
Activated carbon adsorption is a proven technology primarily used for the
removal of organic chemical contaminants from individual process waste
streams. The carbon has a large surface area per unit mass and removes
pollutants through adsorption and physical separation mechanisms. In addition
to removal of most organic chemicals, activated carbon achieves limited
removal of other pollutants such as BODg and metals. Carbon used in a fixed
column, as opposed to being directly applied in a granular or powdered form to
a waste stream, may also act as a filtration unit.
Eighteen OCPSF plants in the data base for this regulation are known to
use activated carbon as an in-plant treatment technology. Although perform-
ance data for a specific individual in-plant carbon adsorption unit prior to
biological treatment was not available, the Agency collected performance data
from an in-plant carbon adsorption unit following steam stripping at an OCPSF
facility for which the carbon adsorption unit treated a separate process waste
X-28
-------
stream prior to discharge. This unit was sampled during the EPA 12-plant
sampling study. This plant manufactures only inter-related products whose
similar waste streams are combined and sent to a physical/chemical treatment
system consisting of steam stripping followed by activated carbon. The toxic
pollutants associated with these waste streams are removed by either steam
stripping or activated carbon, or a combination of these two technologies.
The Agency has decided to use this available performance data from the
end-of-pipe carbon adsorption unit as the basis for establishing BAT limits
for four pollutants (2-nitrophenol, 4-nitrophenol, 2-4-dinitrophenol, and
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol) and the combination of steam stripping and activated
carbon adsorption for nitrobenzene. These data show good removals for the
carbon adsorption unit of 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol, 2-nitrophenol, and
4-nitrophenol. However, the data indicate that for 2,4-dinitrophenol and
nitrobenzene, the carbon adsorption unit is experiencing competitive adsorp-
tion phenomena. This condition exists when a matrix contains adsorbable
compounds in solution that are being selectively adsorbed, and desorbed. The
data from the plant sampled by EPA and from another carbon adsorption unit for
nitrobenzene at a plant that submitted data yield effluent limitations that
are higher when compared to the other organic pollutant effluent limitations
in this regulation. However, EPA believes that the final limitations based
upon this currently available data are generally achievable across the
industry. Nonetheless, even this level of demonstrated treatment gives
significant removals for these compounds. (Current levels of 150,000 pounds
annually would be reduced to less than 10,000 pounds annually after BAT and
PSES.) Therefore, limitations for 2,4-dinitrophenol and nitrobenzene are
based upon this technology data. Further work to identify additional tech-
nologies or use of carbon adsorption units in series for removal of these
compounds will be conducted to determine whether removal of these compounds
can be improved.
For certain waste streams and pollutants, in-plant biological treatment
is an effective and less costly alternative to carbon adsorption for control
of toxic organic pollutants, especially those that are effectively absorbed
into the sludge and relatively biodegradable. In-plant biological treatment
may require a longer detention time and certain species of acclimated biomass
X-29
-------
to be effective as compared to end-of-plpe biological treatment that is pre-
dominantly designed to treat BOD5| EPA has determined that in-plant biological
treatment with an acclimated biomass is as effective as activated carbon
adsorption for removing priority pollutants such as polynuclear aromaties,
phthalate esters, acrylonitrile, phenol, and 2,4-dimethylphenol. EPA has thus
selected this treatment for BAT control of these pollutants.
In-plant biological treatment is demonstrated at 33 plants in the OCPSF
data base. Three plants' data were available for use in developing the
in-plant BAT limitations for the above pollutants. The performance data for
in-plant biological treatment were taken from plants that treat major sources
of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalate esters, acrylonitrile, phenol,
and 2,4-dimethylphenol in biological treatment systems. The Agency determined
that these data are appropriate for use in characterizing the performance of
in-plant biological treatment based upon the waste stream characteristics of
the influent to the treatment systems. For the pollutants that have limits
derived on the basis of this in-plant technology, the limitations for the
non-end-of-pipe biological treatment subcategory are more stringent than the
category for which end-of-pipe biological treatment is added. Both biological
treatment systems (end-of-pipe and the dedicated systems used for the in-plant
biological treatment basis) remove these pollutants from the waste stream in
most cases to levels at or below the analytical minimum level. However,
available data indicate that the variability of the larger end-of-pipe
biological systems in the data base is greater. This may be explained by the
fact that the larger end-of-pipe systems receive commingled waste streams with
a larger number of organic pollutants, and thus may be more susceptible to
daily fluctuations in performance.
The Agency also relied on the ability of end-of-pipe biological treatment
to achieve additional pollutant removal beyond carbon adsorption and in-plant
biological treatment, except in the case of 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol. For this
pollutant only the in-plant activated carbon technology is used as a basis in
both BAT subcategories. Thus, BAT limitations are lower for several
pollutants regulated by the end-of-pipe biological treatment subcategory.
X-30
-------
Four pollutants (2-chlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene,
and 2,6-dinitrotoluene) are regulated in the end-of-pipe biological treatment
subcategory that are not regulated in the non-end-of-pipe biological treatment
subcategory because the Agency lacks sufficient in-plant data on which to base
limits.
The promulgated BAT effluent limitations guidelines for the end-of-pipe
and non-end-of-pipe biological treatment subcategories and shown in Tables X-l
and X-2, respectively. These limitations were determined by multiplying the
long-term averages for each subcategory, shown in Table ₯11-64, by the appro-
priate pollutant variability factors shown in Tables VII-66 and VII-67 for
organics and in Tables VII-68 and VII-69 for metals.
F. COST AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS
As described in Section VIII of this document, the Agency estimated the
engineering cost of compliance with the promulgated BAT effluent limitations
guidelines and the associated pollutant reduction benefits. The Agency esti-
mated that compliance with the BAT regulations, incremental to BPT, would cost
the OCPSF direct discharge plants $315,2 in capital investment and $154.7 for
annual O&M and monitoring (in 1982 dollars) and would remove a total of
1.1 million Ib/yr of priority pollutants beyond removals by the BPT tech-
nology. EPA determined that Option II is the best available technology
economically achievable for all plants except for a subset of small plants.
For plants whose annual OCPSF production is less than or equal to 5 million
pounds, EPA concluded that Option II is not economically achievable. For
these plants, EPA has set BAT equal to BPT.
G. IMPLMENTATION OF THE BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
1. NPDES Permit Limitations
The promulgated effluent limitations guidelines are concentration-based,
thus not regulating flow. As described in Section IX, the permit writer must
use a reasonable estimate of process wastewater discharge and the concen-
tration limitations to develop mass limitations for the NPDES permit. The
final NPDES permit limitations will be the sum of the OCPSF mass effluent
X-31
-------
limitations and any mass effluent limitations developed on a case-by-case
basis using best professional judgment by the permit writer to take into
account non-OCPSF and nonprocess wastewater discharges.
In the case of chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and total cyanide,
the discharge quantity (mass) shall be determined by multiplying the concen-
trations listed in Tables X-l and X-2 for these pollutants times the flow from
metal-bearing waste streams for the metals and times the flow from cyanide-
bearing waste streams for total cyanide. Metal- and cyanide-bearing waste
streams are defined as those waste streams listed in Tables X-4 and X-3,
respectively, plus any additional process wastewater streams identified by the
permitting authority on a case-by-case basis as metal- or cyanide-bearing
based upon a determination: 1) that such streams contain significant amounts
of,the pollutants identified above, and that 2) the combination of such
streams, prior to treatment, with the Tables X-3 and X-4 waste streams, will
result in substantial reduction of these pollutants. This determination must
be based upon a review of relevant engineering, production, and sampling and
analysis information. Compliance could be monitored in-plant or, after
accounting for dilution by noncyanide- and nonmetal-bearing process wastewater
and nonprocess wastewaters, at the outfall. (Of course, the permit writer may
on a case-by-case basis provide additional discharge allowances for metals and
cyanide in non-OCPSF process or other wastewaters where they are present at
significant levels. These allowances must be based upon the permit writer's
best professional judgment of BAT as well.) This approach is similar to that
taken by EPA in other industry effluent limitations guidelines. (See 40 CFR
Parts 433 and 439 for monitoring requirements related to their cyanide
limitations.)
2. NPDES Monitoring Requirements
The final OCPSF regulations regulate 63 toxic pollutants for BAT (and
47 toxic pollutants for PSES). Regulating such a large number of the toxic
priority pollutants is unprecedented in the effluent guideliens rulemaking
program, reflecting the fact that many of the organic toxic pollutants are
directly manufactured by OCPSF facilities as well as used as raw materials or
generated as by-products in industry processes.
X-32
-------
EPA determined that the OCPSF industry should not be subcategorized based
on product mix for the BAT rule because the pollutants are treatable to
comparable levels for a wide variety of plants within the industry. However,
EPA promulgated BAT limitations for two subcategories that are largely
determined by conventional pollutant raw waste characteristics (see Section IV
of this document). Nevertheless, most OCPSF plants routinely discharge only a
limited subset (e.g., 5 to 15) of the toxic pollutants regulated. Thus, in
the case of a typical plant in the industry, the regulations impose 'limita-
tions for many pollutants that are not in fact discharged by the plant.
EPA sought to address this concern in the July 17, 1985 Federal Register
Notice by proposing a monitoring scheme whereby monitoring for pollutants
could be drastically reduced if preliminary monitoring and other information
indicated that the pollutants would not be discharged at significant levels.
The July 17, 1985 proposal of a monitoring scheme provoked substantial
comments from both sides of the issue. Some argued that the scheme required
more initial monitoring than was necessary to determine whether pollutants
were likely to be present in the discharge during the permit term. Many of
these commenters also argued that EPA's test for determining which pollutants
would require- more frequent monitoring was too stringent (i.e., too inclu-
sive). In contrast, one commenter argued that the test did not adequately
account for discharge variability, and thus would result in the incorrect
conclusion that certain pollutants were not likely to be discharged (were not
"pollutants of concern") when in fact they would be discharged at levels and
frequencies that warrant frequent compliance monitoring.
In the final rule, EPA decided that each discharger in a subcategory
should be subject to the effluent limitations for all pollutants regulated for
that subcategory. First, EPA recognized the difficulty in guaranteeing that a
plant will never during the permit term discharge a pollutant regulated for
the applicable subcategory. Many factors do cause changes in the nature of
OCPSF plant wastewater discharges, such as process changes, raw material
changes, and product line changes, as well as more subtle factors that may
result in changes in the wastewater matrix. Inserting a limitation in a
plant's permit for a pollutant not generally expected (based on initial
X-33
-------
infoimation) to be discharged ensures that in fact the plant will be vigilant
not 10 introduce the pollutant into its discharge without adequate treatment.
Secoi d, limitation of each such pollutant is fair, since in the event that a
plant does discharge such a pollutant, EPA has determined that each of the
regulated pollutants can be successfully treated by OCPSF dischargers by the
use of the best available technology economically achievable.
Once a pollutant is regulated in the OCPSF regulation for dischargers in
a particular subcategory, it must also be limited in the NPDES permit, issued
to an/ discharger in that subcategory (see Sections 301 and 304 of the Act;
see also 40 CFR §122.44(a)). The question remains, however, as to how much
monitjring will be required for the various pollutants regulated by the
permi:.
",PA believes that industry's concern that OCPSF dischargers not be
requi "ed to expend unnecessary resources to monitor for nonexistent pollutants
is legitimate. While dischargers will normally monitor frequently for at
least some organic toxic pollutants that are expected to be discharged, their
moniti ring costs would increase if other organic pollutants were added to the
list. Whether the cost increase would be significant would depend on several
factois, including whether the plant used GC/CD or GC/MS methods (which in
turn cepends on the number of organic pollutants discharged by the plant) and
whether the additional pollutants were members of the same class of compounds
as the pollutants expected to be discharged. The incremental cost of monitor-
ing ujing Methods 1624 and 1625 for organics and atomic adsorption for metals
could range from $295 for one organic compound and one metal to $1,350 for a
scan cf all regulated organic and metal priority pollutants. Thus, it is
desirable to minimize unnecessary monitoring. However, as discussed above and
in the July 17, 1985 Notice, there is legitimate concern that pollutants may
be discharged even if some initial information (e.g., a permit application)
suggests that the pollutants are not currently discharged.
Alter considering the comments submitted on both sides of the issue
raised by the July 17, 1985 Notice, EPA has decided that the appropriate
monito "ing scheme for plants in this industry, as in other industries for
which ;PA has promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and standards in the
X-34
-------
past, Is best determined on a case-by-case basis. EPA has generally refrained
from setting inflexible monitoring requirements in effluent guideline regula-
tions for other industries, and the NPDES permit regulations have similarly
been written to allow the permit writer to establish in the permit (subject to
all the procedural and substantive safeguards afforded by the NPDES permit
procedures of 40 CFR Parts 122 and 124 and by the judicial review provision of
Section 509(b) of the Act) a set of monitoring requirements that are appro-
priately tailored to the plant (see 40 CFE Sections 122.44(i) and 122.48).
The NPDES regulations provide guidelines setting forth minimum monitoring
and reporting requirements for NPDES dischargers. Section 122.48 requires
that each permit specify requirements regarding monitoring type, intervals,
and frequency sufficient to yield data that are representative of the
monitored activity. Secton 122.44(i) adds that the monitoring results must be
reported with a frequency depending on the nature and effect of the discharge,
but in no case less than once per year. Sections 122.41, 122.44, and 122.48
contain numerous other requirements concerning monitoring and reporting.
However, the NPDES regulations do not establsh more specific requirements
as to the frequency of monitoring that should be required. The frequency with
which compliance monitoring should be performed will normally depend upon a
variety of factors. One factor, of course, Is the level at which particular
pollutants are likely to be discharged in the event that the plant fails to
treat its effluent adequately. This level would depend on production-,
process-, and raw material-related factors, as discussed above and elsewhere
in this document. Other factors relevant to setting monitoring requirements
include the size of the plant, the volume of the plant's flow, the nature and
sensitivity of standards applicable for the receiving water, and other
site-specific factors. Permit writers have throughout the history of the
NPDES permit program made judgments as to the appropriate monitoring
frequencies for particular plants, based upon these site-specific considera-
tions. EPA believes that this approach remains the most appropriate for the
OCPSF industry as it has been for all other industries.
X-35
-------
EPA recognizes that specific guidance on appropriate monitoring require-
ments for OCPSF plants would be useful, particularly to ensure that monitoring
not be needlessly required for pollutants that are not likely to be discharged
at a plant. One noteworthy factor is the monitoring scheme assumed by EPA for
purposes of estimating the costs of complying with the OCPSF regulation, EPA
has assumed that all plants would monitor their toxic pollutants four times
per month. In addition, EPA has assumed that three of the four analyses would
include only those toxic pollutants expected to be present at levels of
regulatory concern. However, the fourth monthly analysis included all
regulated toxic pollutants.
In assessing wastewater data as part of the analysis for developing
appropriate monitoring frequencies for toxic pollutants, permit writers should
take special care to account for the effects of dilution, which may indicate
the absence of pollutants that may be discharged. For example, as shown in
Appendix VTI-G, an indication on an NPDES permit application Form 2C that a
pollutant is absent or is present only at very low concentrations may reflect
dilution and may fail to reveal that the pollutant is genuinely associated
with and discharged from particular plant processes, and thus needs to be
monitored frequently. Thus, permit writers should obtain in-plant,
pre-dilution data when necessary to characterize properly the wastewater for
purposes of establishing monitoring requirements.
To address issues of particular concern in permitting OCPSF dischargers,
EPA intends to publish guidance on OCPSF monitoring in the near future. This
guidance will address both the issues of compliance monitoring and of
initially determining which pollutants should be subject only to infrequent
monitoring based on a conclusion that they are unlikely to be discharged.
H. NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and 306 of
the Act require EPA to consider the non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) of certain regulations. In compliance with
these provisions, EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air
pollution, solid waste generation, and energy consumption.
X-36
-------
The non-water quality environmental impacts associated with this
regulation are described below:
1, Air Pollution
The effect of compliance efforts to meet BAT will result in significant
reduction in air emissions, because many plants are expected to comply with
the BAT limitations by installing in-process controls that effectively remove
volatile organic compounds before they reach the end-of-pipe controls. These
in-process controls would be accompanied by effective air pollution controls.
Thus, there should be a net decrease in both air loadings and concentrations
of volatile organic compounds in the treated effluents.
The air emissions of the 32 volatile organic priority pollutants selected
to represent a portion of the OCPSF air emissions are projected to be reduced
from the current air emission loadings of 18,0 million pounds per year to
3.1 million pounds per year based on the installation and proper operation of
the BAT in-plant control technology (see Table VIII-111).
2. Solid Waste
EPA considered the effect these regulations would have on the production
of solid waste, including hazardous waste defined under Section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCM). EPA estimates that increases
in total solid waste of- 22,102 metric tons of sludge per year, including
hazardous waste, resulting from the OCPSF regulation will be insignificant
compared to current levels. The Agency included sludge incineration in the
estimated engineering costs of compliance for any incremental sludge generated
by the BAT model treatment systems. Therefore, the net residual solid waste,
in the form of ash, will be negligible.
3. Energy Requirements
EPA estimated that the attainment of BAT will increase energy consumption
by a small increment over present industry use. The estimated increased
energy consumption for BAT treatment systems is, with the exception of sludge
incineration, 416,440 barrels of No. 2 fuel oil per year. The estimated
increased energy consumption associated with the corresponding sludge
incineration is 166,011 barrels of No. 2 Jiuel oil per year.
X-37
-------
-------
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
NEV SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
A. INTRODUCTION
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under Section 306
of the Clean Water Act is the best available demonstrated technology. Nev
plants have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production
processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the most stringent numerical values attainable through the appli-
cation of best available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants
(toxic, conventional, and nonconventional).
B. POLLUTANT AND TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
EPA promulgated NSPS on the basis of the best available demonstrated
technology for all new sources. NSPS are established for conventional
pollutants (BOD5, TSS, and pH) on the basis of BPT model treatment technology.
Priority pollutant limits are based on the BAT model treatment technology.
The Agency considered the same technology options as discussed previously
for BPT and BAT. BPT Options II (biological treatment plus polishing ponds)
and III (biological treatment plus multimedia filtration) were rejected
because they were not well-demonstrated in the OCPSP category. BAT Option I
(equivalent to BPT) was rejected as the basis for priority pollutant limits
for the same reason that it was rejected for BAT; BAT Option I is not the best
available demonstrated technology. BAT Option III, which included end-of-pipe
activated carbon, was rejected because of its high cost and the relatively
small incremental removal it would achieve, and because it is not a well-
demonstrated end-of-pipe technology, either with or without biological
treatment technology.
The Agency issued conventional pollutant new source performance standards
for the same seven subcategories for which BPT limits were established. These
standards are equivalent to the limits established for BPT (see Table IX-1).
XI-1
-------
Priority pollutant new source performance standards are applied to new
sources according to the same subcategorization scheme applicable under BAT.
The set of standards in the end-of-pipe biological treatment subcategory will
apply to new sources that use biological treatment in order to comply with
BODg and TSS standards. Standards are established for 63 priority pollutants
in this set (see Table X-l). The standards in the subcategory for sources
that do not use end-of-pipe biological treatment apply to new sources that
will generate such low levels of BODg that they do not need end-of-pipe
biological treatment or that choose to use physical/chemical controls to
comply with the BOD5 standard. These facilities will have priority pollutant
standards for 59 constituents, based on the application of the in-plant
control technologies with or without end-of-pipe physical/chemical treatment
(see Table X-2).
EPA has determined that NSPS will not cause a barrier to entry for new
source OCPSP plants.
XI-2
-------
SECTION XII
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES AND
PRETREATHENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
A. INTRODUCTION
Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to promulgate
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). These standards must be
achieved within 3 years of promulgation. PSES are designed to prevent the
discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTVs).
The legislative history of the Clean Water Act of 1977 indicates that
pretreatment standards are to be technology-based, and analogous to the best
available technology.
Section 307(c) of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promulgates NSPS,
New indirect discharging facilities, like new direct discharging facilities,
have the opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated tech-
nologies, including process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe
treatment technologies, and to use plant site selection to ensure adequate
treatment system installation.
General pretreatment regulations applicable to all existing and new
source indirect dischargers appear in 40 CER Part 403. These regulations
describe the Agency's overall policy for establishing and enforcing pretreat-
ment standards for new and existing users of a POTW, and delineate the
responsibilities and deadlines applicable to each party in this effort. In
addition, 40 CFR Part 403, Section 403.5(b), outlines prohibited discharges
that apply to all users of a POTU.
B. POLLUTANT SELECTION
PSES and PSNS applicable to indirect dischargers are generally analogous
to BAT limitations and NSPS applicable to direct dischargers. The Agency
promulgated PSES and PSNS for 47 priority pollutants determined to pass
XII-1
-------
through POTWs. The standards apply to all existing and new indirect dis-
charging OCPSF plants. EPA determined which pollutants to regulate in PSES
and PSNS on the basis of whether or not they pass through, cause an upset, or
otherwise interfere with the operation of a POTtf (including interference with
sludge practices).
The principal means by which the Agency evaluates pollutant pass-through
is to compare the pollutant percentage removed by POTVs with the percentage
removed to comply with BAT limitations. The development and implementation of
the POTO pass-through analysis are discussed in Section VI.
C. TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
Indirect dischargers generate wastewaters with the same pollutant
characteristics as the direct discharge plants} therefore, the same technology
options as discussed previously for BAT and NSPS are appropriate for
application at PSES and PSNS. The Agency promulgated PSES and PSNS for all
indirect dischargers on the same technology basis as the BAT Option II
non-end-of-pipe biological treatment subcategory. EPA did not include end-of-
pipe biological treatment in the final PSES model technology based on the
considerations discussed below.
As a matter of treatment theory, biological pretreatment may be largely
redundant to the biological treatment provided by the POTtf. The primary
function of biological treatment is to reduce B01)5 loadings, whether at the
OCPSF plant or at the P6TW. Of course, an OCPSF treatment system may be more
acclimated to the types of wastes discharged by the OCPSF plant than would the
POTW. However, this distinction is of limited importance once the OCPSF
wastewaters are pretreated by BAT-level-in-plant physical/chemical or
biological treatment.
The data indicate that biological pretreatment over and above the
in-plant treatment that is implemented in the model technology for BAT and
PSES regulation results in very modest incremental removals of priority
(toxic) pollutants. This can be seen by comparing the BAT limitations for
plants with and without end-of-pipe biological treatment. Since both sets of
XII-2
-------
limitations are quite low for virtually all pollutants, the total incremental
increase of toxic pollutants removed by adding end-of-pipe biological treat-
ment to in-plant treatment would be less than 13,000 pounds. Actually, the
quantity removed would be less, because biological treatment probably would
not be used by a number of indirect dischargers with low BOD . These plants
would be subject only to limitations equivalent to BAT limits without
end-of-pipe biological treatment. As described in the Economic Impact
Analysis, the cost of achieving these removails would be $20.8 million annually
(in 1986 dollars). Moreover, this option would result in the closure of two
additional plants, with 371 incremental job losses. Based upon all of these
factors (relatively small incremental removals, high cost, significant
j
economic impact, and redundancy of treatment equipment), EPA did not
promulgate PSES and PSNS based upon end-of-pipe biological treatment.
In addition, while information is limited, EPA believes that at least
some indirect dischargers located in urban areas may lack sufficient land to
install end-of-pipe treatment. (Indirect dischargers tend to have more
limited access to land than direct dischargers, although this is not always
the case.)
Although EPA rejected the option of adding end-of-pipe biological
treatment, the Agency has sometimes used biological .treatment as part of its
model technology for the in-plant treatment of certain nonvolatile pollutants.
Specifically, for such pollutants, EPA has in some cases used biological
treatment systems as an alternative to in-plant activated carbon adsorption
for some adsorpable/biodegradable organic pollutants. Thus, EPA has in fact
used biological treatment as part of PSES model treatment technology where
appropriate.
D. PSES AND PSNS
The pretreatment standards for existing and new sources for the
47 pollutants determined to pass through POT₯s are shown in Table XII-1.
These pretreatment standards are identical to the effluent limitations
guidelines established for BAT and NSPS for the non-end-of-pipe biological
treatment subcategory.
XII-3
-------
TABLE XII-1.
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES (PSES and PSNS)
Pollutant
Number
1
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
23
25
26
27
29
30
32
33
34
38
39
44
45
52
55
56
57
58
60
65
66
68
70
71
78
80
81
84
85
86
87
Pollutant Name
Acenaphthene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Tr i chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1-Trlchloroethane
Hexachloroe thane
1-1-Dichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Chlo roe thane
Chloroform
1 , 2-Di chlorobenzene
1 , 3-Di chlorobenzene
1 , 4-Di chlorobenzene
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Trans-dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
2 , 4-Dirae thylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene ,
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Hexachlorobutadiene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Ni t rophenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Te t rachlo roe thy lene
Toluene
Tr i chloroe thylene
Pretreatment
Maximum for
Any One Day
47
134
380
380
794
794
574
59
794
59
127
295
325
794
380
380
60
66
794
794
47
380
54
170
295
380
47
6,402
231
576
277
47
258
43
113
47
47
47
47
48
164
74
69
Standards
Maximum for
Monthly Average
19
57
142
142
196
196
180
22
196
22
32
110
111
196
142
142
22
25
196
196
19
142
22
36
110 i
142
19
2,237
65
162
78
19
95
20
46
19
19
19
19
20
52
28
26
XII-4
-------
TABLE XII-1.
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND
NEW SOURCES (PSES AND PSNS) (Continued)
Pollutant
Number
88
121
122
128
Pollutant Name
Vinyl Chloride
Total Cyanide
Total Lead
Total Zinc3'4
Pre treatment
Ma.ximum for
An,y One Day
172
1,200
690
2,610
Standards
Maximum for
Monthly Average
97
420
320
1,050
1A11 units are micrograms per liter.
Cyanide limitations apply only to cyanide-beiaring waste streams, including
those listed in Table X-3.
3Metals limitations apply only to noncomplexdd metal-bearing vaste streams,
including those listed in Table X-4. Discharges of lead and zinc from
"complexed metal-bearing process vastevater," listed in Table X-5, are not
subject to these limitations.
Total zinc limitations and standards for rayon fiber manufacture by the
viscose process and acrylic fiber manufacture by the zinc chloride/solvent
process are 6,796 pg/1 and 3,325 yg/1 for Maximum for Any One Day and Maximum
for Monthly Average, respectively.
XII-5
-------
E. COST AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS
As described in Section VIII of this document, the Agency estimated the
engineering cost of compliance with the promulgated pretreatment standards for
existing sources and the associated pollutant reduction benefits. The Agency
estimated that compliance with the PSES regulations would cost the OCPSF
indirect discharge plants $268.1 million in capital investment and $145.5 mil-
lion for annual operation and maintenance (O&M) and monitoring (in 1982
dollars), and would remove a total of 8.8 million Ib/yr of priority
pollutants. EPA has therefore concluded that promulgation of PSES as
described above is warranted for OCPSF indirect dischargers.
EPA has determined not to exempt small plants from PSES and PSNS, or to
establish less stringent PSES or PSNS for them. While the impacts on small
plants are significant, they are in the Agency's opinion neither so high nor
so disproportionate as to justify an exemption, especially in light of the
continued discharge of substantial amounts of toxic pollutants that an
exemption would permit. EPA believes that an exemption for small indirect
dischargers is not compelled by the fact that a segment of small direct dis-
chargers have received some regulatory relief in the form of a lower level of
regulation. Since the mid-1970s, small direct dischargers have been regulated
by NPDES permits and will continue to be subject to BPT limitations, thereby
assuring that most toxic pollutants will be removed from their wastewaters.
In contrast, most indirect dischargers have to this day failed to install any
pretreatment. The Agency has determined that PSNS will not cause a barrier to
entry for new OCPSF plants.
F. NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and 306 of
the C₯A require EPA to consider non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) of certain regulations. In compliance with
these provisions, EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air
pollution, solid waste generation, and energy consumption-
XII-6
-------
The non-water quality environmental impacts associated with this
regulation are described below,
1* AirPollution
The effect of compliance efforts to meet: PSES will result in significant
reduction in air emissions, because many plants are expected to comply with
the PSES limitations by installing in-process controls that effectively remove
volatile organic compounds before they reach the end-of-pipe controls or
sewer. These in-process controls would be accompanied by effective air
pollution controls. Thus, there should be a net decrease in both air loadings
and concentrations of volatile organic compounds in the treated effluents.
The air emissions of the 32 volatile organic priority pollutants selected
to represent a portion of the OCPSF air emissions are projected to be reduced
from the current air emission loadings of 2.8 million pounds per year to
0.015 million pounds per year, based on the installation and proper operation
of the PSES in-plant control technology (see Table VIII-112).
2. Solid Waste
EPA considered the effect these regulations would have on the production
of solid waste, including hazardous waste defined under Section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA estimates that increases
in total solid waste of 3,992 metric tons of sludge per year, including
hazardous waste, resulting from the OCPSF regulation will be insignificant
compared to current levels. The Agency included sludge incineration in the
estimated engineering costs of compliance for any incremental sludge generated
by the PSES model treatment systems. Therefore the net residual solid waste,
in the form of ash, will be negligible.
3. Energy Requirements
EPA estimated that the attainment of PSES will increase energy
consumption by a small increment over present industry use. ₯ith the
exception of sludge incineration, the estimated increased energy consumption
for PSES treatment systems is 343,269 barrels of No. 2 fuel oil per year. The
estimated increased energy consumption associated with the corresponding
sludge incineration is 52,020 barrels of No. 2 fuel oil per year.
XII-7
-------
-------
SECTION XIII
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act added Section 301(b)(2)(e)»
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology (6CT) for the
discharge of conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources.
Section 304(a)(4) designated the following as conventional pollutants: BOD5,
TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by the
Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease a
conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 PR 44501).
BCT is not an additional limitation; BCT merely replaces BAT for the
control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors specified in
Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that the BAT effluent limitations
guidelines be assessed in light of a two-part "cost-reasonableness" test [see
American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660 F 2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981)1- The first
test compares the cost for private industry to reduce its discharge of con-
ventional pollutants with the cost to publicly owned treatment works (POTUs)
for similar levels of reduction in their discharge of these pollutants. The
second test examines the cost-effectiveness of additional industrial treatment
beyond BPT. EPA must find that limitations are "reasonable" under both tests
before establishing them-as BCT. In no case may BCT be less stringent than
BPT.
EPA has promulgated a methodology for establishing BCT effluent limi-
tations guidelines (51 PR 24974, July 8, 1986). EPA did not establish BCT
limitations as part of the final OCPSF rulemaking.
XIII-1
-------
-------
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) appreciates the
contributions to the OCPSF rulemaking effort by the Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) personnel of McLean, Virginia, and Paramus,
New Jersey. Mr. Arthur E. Shattuck (Senior Project Manager), Mr. John B.
Sunda (Environmental Engineer), Dr. Maurice E.B. Owens (Senior Project
Manager), Dr. William D. Grubbs (Senior Statistician), Mr. Wai-Kouk W. Yu
(Senior Systems Analyst), and Mr. George R. Wilkie (Programmer/Analyst) were
the key contributors in completing the detailed technical study and drafting
the initial report on which this document is based. Other personnel who
contributed to the project investigations and reports were Ms. Joyce S.
Schlesinger (Principal), Mr. Frank 0. Marrazza (Senior Associate Engineer),
and Mr. Peter R. Karasik (Senior Associate Engineer) of the Environ
Corporation, Washington, D.C. Dr. Gary L. Liberson of Lloyd Associates,
Washington, D.C., and Dr. William A. Lowenbach, currently with Karch &
Associates, Washington, D.C., provided expert assistance in the areas of
statistical analysis and process chemistry, respectively. Word processing was
performed at SAIC by Ms. Lenore Wagner, Ms. Wendy Witz, and Mr. Frank Tennant.
The entire contractor technical staff consistently exhibited personal
dedication and resourcefulness in developing, managing, and interpreting one
of the Agency's largest and most complicated industrial data bases.
The Agency acknowledges the plant managers, engineers, and other industry
representatives whose cooperation and assistance in site visitations and
information gathering activities greatly contributed to the completion of this
projec't. The Agency also appreciates the careful review and comments provided
by many members of the public in response to the interim OCPSF reports,
studies, and rulemaking record material.
A number of people within EPA made major contributions to this rulemaking
effort. Mr. William A. Whittington (Director, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards), Mr. Devereaux Barnes (Director, Industrial Technology Division),
and Mr. Marvin B. Rubin (Chief, Chemicals Industry Branch) were instrumental
in resolving many complex issues. Their deft guidance and tireless efforts
XIV-1
-------
were essential to the successful completion of this project. Dr. Hugh I, Wise
provided the principal coordination for the field sampling and priority
pollutant data base development activities. His process chemistry expertise
and dedicated service were integral elements in the development of the
technical analyses and preparation of this report. Dr. Frank H. Hund, Ms.
Wendy D. Smith, and Ms. Janet K. Goodwin were the major contributors to the
completion of the comment response documents. Dr. Hund served as acting
project officer during a portion of the final regulation formulation stage
and, along with Ms. Goodwin, contributed extensively to the preparation of the
preamble, regulations, and other parts of the rulemaking package. Dr. Henry
D. Kahn and Dr. R. Clifton Bailey (Analysis and Evaluation Division) provided
expert statistical support and advice for data base interpretation. Mr. Mark
A. Luttner and Ms. Kathleen M. Ehrensberger (Analysis and Evaluation Division)
and Mr. Rodney E. Frederick and Dr. Richard P. Healy (Monitoring and Data
Support Division) conducted the economic impact and environmental impact
analyses, respectively. Mr. Peter P. Caulkins (Office of Policy Analysis)
conducted the human health and environmental risk assessment of volatile
organic compounds as well as the national water quality benefits assessment
portion of the environmental impact analysis. Mr. Dov Weitman (Office of
General Counsel) is especially acknowledged for his extensive, dedicated
efforts and major contributions to the accuracy, readability, and legal
rationale of the preamble, regulations, comment response documents, and this
report. Word processing for the preamble, regulations, and comment response
documents was performed by Ms. Carol M. Swann. Her personal sacrifices and
long hours contributed to the completion of this rulemaking under stringent
deadlines.
Other EPA personnel made significant contributions to various facets of
the rulemaking effort. These include:
Mr. Charles N. Gregg, Office of Water
Dr. Mahesh K. Podar, Office of Policy Analysis
Mr. Kenneth A. Dostal, Office of Research and Development (Cinn.)
Mr. Gary Amendola, EPA Region V
Mr. Ed McHam, EPA Region VI
Ms. Susan Wyatt, Office of Air and Radiation (RTF)
Ms. Vivian Thompson, Office of Air and Radiation
XIV-2
-------
SECTION XV
GLOSSARY
ABSORPTION. A process in vhieh one material (the absorbent) takes up and
retains another (the absorbate) vith the formation of a homogeneous mixture
having the attributes of a solution. Chemical reaction may accompany or
follov absorption.
ACCLIMATION. The ability of an organism to adapt to changes in its immediate
environment.
ACID. A substance vhich dissolves in vater forming hydrogen ions.
ACTIVATED CARBON. Carbon which is treated by high temperature heating with
steam or carbon dioxide to produce an internal porous particle structure. It
is used for adsorbing gases, vapors, and colloidal particles.
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION. A method of wastewater treatment used to remove
dissolved and colloidal organic material. Treatment systems can involve the
application of wastewater to a fixed-bed column containing granular carbon, or
the addition of powdered activated carbon to vastevater in a contacting basin.
ACTIVATED CARBON REGENERATION. Regeneration of carbon after its adsorptive
capacity has been reached, involving oxidation and removal of organic matter
from the carbon surface.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE. Floe produced from rav or settled vastevater by the growth
of aerobic microorganisms during activated sludge treatment.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS. A biological wastevater treatment process in which
a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated and aerated. The
activated sludge is subsequently separated from the treated wastewater (mixed
liquor) by sedimentation and wasted or returned to the process as needed.
ADDITIONAL POLYMERIZATION. The combination of monomers by the direct addition
or combination of the monomer molecules with one another to form polymers.
ADSORPTION. A phenomenon whereby molecules in a fluid phase are attracted to
and held on a solid surface by a physical or weak chemical bond.
ADSORPTION ISOTHERM. A plot used in evaluating the effectiveness of activated
carbon treatment by showing the amount of impurity adsorbed versus the amount
remaining. They are determined at a constant temperature by varying the
amount of carbon used or the concentration of the impurity in contact with the
carbon.
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT. Any treatment method or process employed following
biological treatment to increase the removal of pollutants, to remove
substances that may be deleterious to receiving waters or the environment, or
to produce a high-quality effluent suitable for reuse in any specific manner
or for discharge under critical conditions. The term tertiary treatment is
commonly used to denote advanced waste treatment methods.
XV-1
-------
AERATED LAGOON. Bacterial stabilization of wastewater in" a natural or
artificial wastewater treatment pond in which mechanical or diffused-air
aeration is used to supplement the oxygen supply.
AERATION. Contact between oxygen and a liquid by one of the following
methods: spraying the liquid in the air, bubbling air through the liquid, or
agitation of the liquid to promote surface absorption of air.
AERATION PERIOD. (1) The theoretical time, usually expressed in hours, that
the mixed liquor is subjected to aeration in an aeration tank undergoing '.
activated-sludge treatment. It is equal to the volume of the tank divided by
the volumetric rate of flow of wastes and return sludge. (2) The theoretical
time that liquids- are subjected to aeration.
AERATION TANK. A vessel for injecting air into the water.
AEROBIC. Taking place in the presence of free molecular oxygen.
AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION. Any waste treatment or process utilizing
aerobic organisms,in the presence of air or oxygen, as agents for stabilizing
the organic load in a wastewater.
AEROBIC DIGESTION. A process in which microorganisms obtain energy by
endogenous or auto-oxidation of their cellular protoplasm. The biologically
degradable constituents of cellular material are slowly oxidized to carbon
dioxide, water and ammonia, with the ammonia being further converted into
nitrates during the process.
ALKALI. A water-soluble metallic hydroxide that ionizes strongly.
ALKYLATION. A process wRerein an alkyl group (-E) is added to a molecule.
ALUH. A hydrated aluminum sulfate or potassium ialuminum sulfate or ammonium
aluminum sulfate which is used as a settling agent. A coagulant.
AHHONIA NITROGEN. A gas released by the microbiological decay of plant and
animal proteins. ₯hen ammonia nitrogen is found in waters, it is indicative
of incomplete treatment.
AMMONIA STRIPPING. A modification of the aeration process for removing gases
in water.Ammonium ions in wastewater exist in equilibrium with ammonia and
hydrogen ions. As pH increases, the equilibrium shifts to the right and above
pH 9 ammonia may be liberated as a gas by agitating the wastewater in the
presence of air. This is usually done in a packed tower with an air blower.
AHHONIFICATION. The process in which ammonium is liberated from organic
compounds by microorganisms.
AHHONOLYSIS. The formation of an amino compound using aqueous ammonia.
AHHOXIDATION. The introduction of a cyanide group into an organic compound
via interaction with ammonia and oxygen to form nitriles.
XV-2
-------
ANAEROBIC. Taking place only in the absence of free molecular oxygen.
ANAEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT. Any treatment method or process utilizing
anaerobic or facultative organisms, in the absence of air, for the purpose of
reducing the organic matter in wastes or organic solids settled out from
wastes.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION. Stabilization of biodegradable materials in primary and
excess activated sludge by oxidation to carbon dioxide, methane and other
Inert products. The primary digester serves mainly to reduce volatile
suspended solids (VSS), while the secondary digester is mainly for
solids-liquid separation, sludge thickening, and storage,
ANION. An ion with a negative charge.
API SEPARATOR. A primary physical vastewater treatment process capable of
removing free oil and settleable solids from water.
AQUEOUS SOLUTION. A solution in which water is the solvent.
AUXILIARY FACILITIES. The non-productive facilities which provide utilities
and other services used by the manufacturing plant; also known as "offsite" or
"off-battery-limits" facilities. Includes "non-process equipment" and other
service facilities and buildings, change houses, etc.
AVERAGE. See "Mean."
AZEOTROPE. A liquid mixture that is characterized by a constant minimum or
maximum boiling point which is lower or higher than that of any of the
components and that distills without change in composition.
BACKWASHING. The process of cleaning a rapid sand or mechanical filter by
reversing the flow of water.
BAPCT (NSPS) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS. Limitations for new sources which are
based on the applicationof the Best Available Demonstrated Control
Technology.
BASE. A substance which dissolves in water forming hydroxyl ions.
BASIN. See "Lagoon."
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS. Limitations for direct discharge point sources,
other than publicly owned treatment works, which are based on the application
of the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable. These limitations
must be achieved as expeditiously as practicable but no later than March 31,
1989.
BATCH PROCESS. A process which has an intermittent flow of raw materials into
theprocess and, consequently, an intermittent flow of product and process
waste from the process.
XV-3
-------
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS. Limitations for conventional pollutants from direct
discharge point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which are
based on the application of the Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology. These limitations must be achieved as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than March 31, 1989.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD). A measure of organic pollution in a water or
wastewater sample.It is determined by measuring the oxygen used by
microorganisms to oxidize the organic contaminants of a sample under standard
laboratory conditions.
BIOLOGICAL VASTEWATER TREATMENT. Forms of wastewater treatment in which
aerobic or anaerobic microorganisms are used to stabilize, oxidize, and
nitrify the unstable organic matter present.
BIOLOGICALLY REFRACTIVE. A substance which is partially or totally
nonbiodegradable in biological waste treatment processes.
BIOTA. The plant and animal life of a stream or other water body.
SLOWDOWN. The removal of a portion of any process flow to maintain the
constituents of the flow at desired levels.
BODS. The standard measure for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) involving
incubation of the water or wastewater sample at: 20C for 5 days,
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS. Limitations for direct discharge point sources,
other than publiclyowned treatment works, which are based on the application
of the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available. These
limitations must be achieved by March 31, 1989 if the limitations require a
level of control substantially greater or based on fundamentally different
control technology than existing permits.
BREAK POINT. The point at which impurities first appear in the effluent of a
granular activated carbon adsorption bed.
BREAK POINT CHLORINATION. The addition of sufficient chlorine to destroy or
oxidize all substances that create a chlorine demand with an excess amount
remaining in the free residual state.
BUFFER. A solution containing either a weak acid and its salt or a weak base
and its salt which thereby resists changes in acidity or basicity, i.e.,
resists changes in pH.
BULK ADDITION. See "Addition Polymerization."
CARBON ADSORPTION. A process used to remove pollutants from wastewaters by
contacting the water with activated carbon.
CARCINOGEN. A substance that causes cancer in animal tissue.
CATALYST. A substance which changes the rate of a chemical reaction but
undergoes no permanent chemical change itself.
XV-4
-------
CATION. An ion with a positive charge.
CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM. A statistical result which states that for a
sufficiently large sample size n» the distribution of means of random samples
from a population with finite variance will be approximately normal in form,
regardless of the form of the underlying population distribution.
CENTRATE. The liquid fraction that is separated from the solids fraction of a
slurrythrough centrifugation.
CENTRIFUGE, (a) The treatment process whereby solids such as sludge can be
separated from a liquid by the use of centrifugal force, (b) The machine used
to separate solids by centrifugal force.
CHELAT1NG. Forming a compound containing a metal ion in a ring-like molecular
configuration.
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD). A measure of the,oxygen demand equivalent to
that portionof organic matter in a sample which can be oxidized by a strong
chemical oxidant.
CHLORINATION. The application of chlorine to water, sewage or industrial
wastes, generally for the purpose of disinfection but frequently for
accomplishing other biological or chemical results.
CLARIFICATION. Process of removing turbidity and suspended solids by
settling.
CLARIFIER. A mechanical unit in which clarification is performed.
CLAYS. Aluminum silicates less than 0.002 mm (2.0 urn) in size. Because of
their size, most clay types can go into colloidal suspension.
CLEAN WATER ACT. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended
(33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.).
COAGULANTS. Chemicals, such as alum, iron salts, or lime, added in relatively
large concentrations to reduce the forces tending to keep suspended particles
apart.
COAGULATION. The process whereby chemicals are added to a wastewater
resulting in a reduction of the forces tending to keep suspended particles
apart. The process occurs in a rapid or flash mix basin.
COLLOID. Tiny solid, semi-solid, or liquid particulates in a solvent that are
not removable by sedimentation.
COMBINED SEWER. A sewer which carries both sewage and storm water run-off.
COMPLEXING. Forming a compound containing a number of parts, often used to
describe a metal atom associated with a set of organic ligands.
XV-5'
-------
COMPOSITE SAMPLE. A combination of individual samples of wastewater taken at
selected intervals to minimize the effect of the variations in individual
samples. Individual samples making up the composite may be of equal volume or
be roughly proportioned .to the volume of flow of liquid at the time of
sampling.
CONCENTRATION. The total mass of the suspended or dissolved particles
contained in a unit volume at a given temperature and pressure.
CONDENSATION, (a) The change of state of a substance from the vapor to the
liquid form, (b) A chemical reaction in which two or more molecules combine.
with the separation of water or some other simple substance.
CONDUCTIVITY. A measurement of electrolyte concentration by determining
electrical conductance in a water sample.
CONSENT DECREE. The Settlement Agreement entered into by EPA with the Natural
Resources Defense Council and approved by the U.S. District Court for the ;
District of Columbia on June 7, 1976 (8 ERG 2120, D.D.C. 1976), modified on;
March 9, 1979 (12 ERC 1833, D.D.C. 1979) and again by Order of the Court dated
October 26, 1982, August 2, 1983, January 6, 1984, July 5, 1984, January 7,
1985, April 24, 1986 and January 8, 1987. One of the principal provisions of
the Settlement Agreement was to direct EPA to consider an extended list of 65
classes of toxic pollutants in 21 industrial categories in the development of
effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards. This
list has since been limited to 126 specific toxic pollutants and expanded to
34 industrial categories.
CONTACT STABILIZATION. Aerobic digestion.
CONTINUOUS PROCESS. A process which has a constant flow of raw materials into
the process and consequently a constant flow of product from the process.
CONTRACT DISPOSAL. Disposal of waste products through an outside party for a
fee. ;
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS. Constituents of wastewater as determined under
Section 304(a)(4) of the Clean Water Act of 1977, including pollutants
classified as biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH,
and oil and grease.
COOLING WATER - (PROCESS WASTEWATER). Water used for cooling purposes which
may become contaminated through contact with process raw materials,
intermediate, or final products.
COOLING WATER - (NON-PROCESS ₯ASTE₯ATER). Water used for cooling purposes ,
which has no directcontact with any process raw materials, intermediates, or
final products. !
CRACKING. A process wherein heat and pressure are used for the rearrangement
ofthe molecular structure of hydrocarbons or low-octane petroleum fractions.
CRYSTALLIZATION. The formation of solid particles within a homogeneous phase.
Formation of crystals separates a solute from a solution and generally leaves
impurities behind in the mother liquid.
XV-6
-------
CYANIDEA. Cyanides amendable to chlorinatlon as described in 40 CFR Part
IW.
CYANIDE, TOTAL. Total cyanide as determined by the test procedure specified
in 40 CFR Part 136.
CYCLONE. A conical shaped vessel for separating either entrained solids or
liquid materials from the carrying air or vapor. The vessel has a tangential
entry nozzle at or near the largest diameter, with an overhead exit for air or
vapor and a lower exit for the more dense materials.
DAILY DATA. Flow and pollutant measurements (BOD, COD, TOC, pH, etc.) taken
by certain plants on a daily basis for extended periods of time.
DEALKYLATION. The removal of an alkyl group (-R) from a molecule.
DEEP WELL INJECTION. Disposal of wastewater into a deep well such that a
porous,permeable formation of a larger area and thickness is available at
sufficient depth to ensure continued, permanent storage.
DECREASING. The process of removing greases and oils from sewage, waste and
sludge.
DEHYDRATION. The removal of water from a material.
DEHYDROGENATION. The removal of one or more hydrogen atoms from an organic
molecule.
DEMINERALIZATION. The removal of ions from wastewater. Demineralization
processesinclude reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, and ion exchange.
DENITRIFICATION. Bacterial mediated reduction of nitrate to nitrite. Other
bacteria may further reduce the nitrite to ammonia and finally nitrogen gas.
This reduction of nitrate occurs under anaerobic conditions. The nitrate
replaces oxygen as an electron acceptor during the metabolism of carbon
compounds under anaerobic conditions. The heterotrophic microorganisms which
participate in this process include pseudomonades, achromobaeters and bacilli.
DESORPTION. The reverse of adsorption. A phenomenon whereby an adsorbed
molecule leaves the surface of the adsorbent.
DIAZOTIZATION. The conversion of an amine (-NH2) to a diazonium salt by
reaction with nitrous acid.
DIGESTER. A tank in which biological decomposition (digestion) of the organic
matter in sludge takes place.
DIGESTION, (a) The biological decomposition of organic matter in sludge, (b)
Theprocess carried out in a digester.
DIRECT DISCHARGE. Discharge of wastewater into navigable water.
DISCHARGE, (a) To dispose of wastewater before or after .treatment to a water
source (stream, river, etc.) or to an additional treatment facility (e.g.,
POTW). (b) The wastewater being disposed.
XV-7
-------
DISSOLVEDAIR FLOTATION. A flotation process that adds air to wastewater in
theform of fine bubbles which become attached to suspended sludge particles,
increasing the buoyancy of the particles and producing more positive
flotation.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO). The oxygen dissolved in sewage, water or other
liquids, usually expressed either in milligrams per liter or percent of
saturation. It is the test used in BOD determination.
DISTILLATION. A separation or purification process that involves vaporization
ofa portion of a liquid feed by heating and subsequent condensation of the
vapor.
DOUBLE-EFFECT EVAPORATORS. Double effect evaporators are two evaporators in
series where the vapors from one are used to boil liquid in the other.
DRYING BED. A wastewater treatment unit usually consisting of a bed of sand
on which sludge is placed to dry by evaporation and drainage.
DUAL MEDIA FILTRATION. A deep-bed filtration system utilizing two separate
and discrete layers of dissimilar media (e.g., anthracite and sand) placed one
on top of the other to perform the filtration function.
EFFLUENT, (a) A liquid which leaves a unit operation or process, (b) Sewage,
water or other liquids which flow out of a reservoir basin, treatment plant or
any other unit operation.
EFFLUENT LIMITATION. A maximum permissible concentration or mass of pollutant
per unit of production (or time or other unit) of selected constituents of
effluent that is subject to regulation under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). .
ELECTRODIALYSIS. The separation of a substance from solution through a
membrane accomplished by the application of an electric potential across to
the membrane.
ELECTROLYTIC. Relating to a chemical change produced by passage of a current
through a conducting substance (such as water).
ELUTION. (1) The process of washing out or removing a substance through the
use of a solvent. (2) In an ion exchange process, the stripping of adsorbed
ions from an ion exchange resin by passing solutions containing other ions in
relatively high concentrations through the resin. :
ELUTRIATION. A process of sludge conditioning whereby the sludge is washed,
either with fresh water or plant effluent, to reduce the sludge alkalinity and
fine particles, thus decreasing the amount of required coagulant in further
treatment steps or in sludge dewatering.
EMULSION. A suspension of fine droplets of one liquid in another.
EMULSION ADDITION. See "Addition Polymerization,"
XV-8
-------
END-OP-PIPE (BOP) TECHNOLOGIES. Final treatment processes used to remove or
alterselected constituents of the wastewater from manufacturing operations.
ENTRAINMENT SEPARATOR. A device to remove liquid and/or solids from a gas
stream. Energy source is usually derived from pressure drop to create
centrifugal force.
EQUALIZATION. A process by which variations in flow and composition of a
waste stream are averaged in an impoundment or basin.
EQUALIZATION BASIN. A holding basin in which variations in flow and
composition of a liquid are averaged.
ESTERIFICATION. The production of esters from carboxylic acids by the
replacement of the hydrogen of the hydroxyl group with a hydrocarbon group.
EVAPORATION POND. An open holding facility which depends primarily on
climatic conditions such as evaporation, precipitation, temperature, humidity,
and wind velocity to effect dissipation (evaporation) of wastewater. External
means such as spray recirculation or heating can be used to increase the rate
of evaporation.
EXISTING SOURCE. Any facility from which there is or may be a discharge of
pollutants, the construction of which is commenced before the publication of
proposed regulations prescribing a standard of performance under Section 306
of the Act.
FACULTATIVE. Having the ability to live under both aerobic or anaerobic
conditions.
FACULTATIVE LAGOON. A treatment method combining both aerobic and anaerobic
lagoons.It is divided by loading and thermal stratifications into an aerobic
surface and an anaerobic bottom.
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972. Public Law 92-500
which provides thelegal authority for current EPA water pollution abatement
projects, regulations, and policies. The Federal later Pollution Control Act
was amended further on December 27, 1977, in legislation referred to as The
Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217) and in 1978, 1981, and 1987.
FEEDSTOCK. The material initially supplied to a process and used in the
production of a final product,
FERMENTATION. Oxidative decomposition of complex substances through the
action of enzymes or ferments produced by microorganisms.
FERRITE. A chemical compound containing iron.
FID. Flame ionization detection.
FILTER CAKES. Wet solids generated by the filtration of solids from a liquid.
This filter cake may be a pure material (product) or a waste material
containing additional fine solids (i.e., diatomaceous earth) that has been
added to aid in the filtration.
XV-9
-------
FILTRATION. A process whereby a liquid is passed through a porous medium in
order to capture and remove particles from the liquid.
i-'LUCCULENTS Water-soluble organic polyelectrolytes that are used alone or in
conjunction with inorganic coagulants, such as lime, alum or ferric chloride,
or with coagulant aids to agglomerate solids suspended in aqueous systems.
FLOCCULATION. The agglomeration of colloidal and finely divided suspended
matter thai will settle by gravity.
FLOTATION. The raising of suspended matter as scum to the surface of the
liquid in a tank by aeration, the evolution of gas, chemicals, electrolysis,
heat, bacteiial decomposition or natural density difference, and the.
subsequent removal of the scum by skimming.
PLOWRATES. The amount of water or wastewater going into or out of a plant
during a certain time period (GPH, HGD, etc).
FRACTIONATION (OR FRACTIONAL DISTILLATION). The separation of constituents,1
ot gtoup of constituents, of a liquid mixture of miseible and volatile :
substances bv vaporization and recondensing at specific boiling point ranges.
GC. Gas chromatography.
GC/CP. Gas chromatography/conventional detectors.
GC/HS. Gaf> chromatography/mass spectrometry.
GENERIC PROCESS CHEMISTRY. As defined in this document, classes of chemical
reactions which share a common mechanism or yield related products (e.g.,
chlorination, oxidation, ammoxidation, cracking and reforming, and
hydrolysis). Forty-one major generic processes have been identified in the
Organic Chemicals and Plastics/Synthetic Fibers Industries.
GRAB SAMPLE, (a) Instantaneous sampling; (b) a sample taken at a random
location and at a random time.
GRAVITY SEPARATOR. A treatment unit that uses density differences and
gravitational pull to separate two immiscible substances.
GRIT CHAMBER. A small detention chamber or an enlargement of a sewer designed
to reduce the velocity of flow of the liquid and permit the separation of ;
mineral from organic solids by differential sedimentation. ;
i
GROUND tfATER. The body of water that is retained in the saturated zone which
tends to move by hydraulic gradient to lower levels.
HALOGENATION. The incorporation of one of the halogen elements (bromine,
chlorine, or fluorine) into a chemical compound.
HARDNESS. A measure of the capacity of water for precipitating soap. It is
reported as the hardness that would be produced if a certain amount of CaCOS
were dissolved in water.
XV-10
-------
HEAVY METALS. A general name given for the ions of metallic elements, such as
copper, zinc, iron, chromium and aluminum. Heavy metals are normally removed
from a wastewater by the formation of an insoluble precipitate (usually a
metallic hydroxide)..
HYDROCARBON. A compound containing only carbon and hydrogen.
HYDROFORMYLATION. Addition of a formyl molecule (H-CHO) across a double bond
to form an aldehyde.
HYDRQGENATION. A reaction of hydrogen with an organic compound.
HYDROLYSIS. A chemical reaction in which water reacts with another substance
to form two or more new substances.
HYDROXIDE. A chemical compound containing the radical group OH.
IMHOFF TANK. A combination wastewater treatment tank which allows
sedimentation to take place in its upper compartment and digestion to take
place in its lower compartment.
IN-PLANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES. Controls or measures applied within the
manufacturing process to reduce or eliminate pollutant and hydraulic loadings
of raw wastewater.
IN-PLANT SOURCE CONTROL. Controls or measures applied at the source of a
waste to eliminate or reduce the necessity for further treatment.
INCINERATION. The combustion (by burning) of organic matter in wastewater
sludge.
INDIRECT DISCHARGE. The discharge of wastewaters to publicly owned treatment
works (POTV).
INFLUENT. Any sewage, water or other liquid, either raw or partly treated,
flowing into a reservoir, basin, treatment plant, or any part thereof. The
influent is the stream entering a unit operation.
ION EXCHANGE. A treatment process in which metal ions and other contaminants
may be removed from waters by exchanging them with ions on a solid (resin)
matrix.
LAGOON. A pond containing raw or partially treated wastewater in which
aerobic or anaerobic stabilization occurs.
LANDFILL. A controlled dump for solid wastes in which garbage, trash, etc.,
is buried in layers separated and covered by dirt.
LC50. Lethal concentration 50; the concentration of a toxic material at which
50 percent of the exposed test organisms die.
LD50. Lethal dose 50; the dose of a toxic material at which 50 percent of the
exposed test organisms die.
XV-1.1
-------
LEACH. To dissolve out by the action of a percolating liquid, such as water,
seeping through a sanitary landfill.
LIME. A substance formed from limestone, which is an accumulation of organic
remains consisting mostly of calcium carbonate. When burned, limestone yields
lime (a solid). The hydrated form of chemical lime is calcium hydroxide.
LIQUID-LIQUID EXTRACTION. The removal of a solute from another liquid by
mixing that combination with a solvent preferential to the substance to be
removed.
MASS FLOtf. A measure of the transfer of mass; in units of mass per time-area
mass (time x area). '
MAXIMUM FOR ANY ONE DAY LIMITATIONS. Effluent limitations determined by ;
multiplying long-termaverage effluent concentrations by appropriate
variability factors.
MAXIMUM MONTHLY FOR AVERAGE LIMITATIONS. Effluent limitations determined by
multiplying long-term average effluent concenttrations by appropriate
variability factors.
MEAN. Average; the sum of the items in a set divided by the number of items.
MEDIAN. The number lying in the middle of an increasing or decreasing series
ofnumbers such that the same number of values appears above the median as do
below it.
METAL CATALYZED ADDITION. See "addition polymerization."
HICROBIAL. Of or pertaining to microbes, single-celled organisms (e.g., '
bacteria). :
MIXED LIQUOR. A mixture of activated sludge and organic matter undergoing
activated sludge treatment in an aeration tank.
MIXED LIQUOR SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MLSS). A measure of the concentration of
matter in a biological treatment process.
MODE. The number which occurs with the greatest frequency in a set of values.
MOLECULAR WEIGHT. The relative weight of a molecule compared to the weight of
an atom of carbon taken as exactly 12.00; the sum of the atomic weights of the
atoms in a molecule.
HUTAGEN, Substance causing mutations or changes in the genetic material of an
organisms.
NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES). A federal program
requiring industry to obtain permits to discharge plant effluents to the
nation's water courses.
XV-12
-------
NAVIGABLE VATSRS. Includes all navigable waters of the United States;
tributariesof navigable waters; interstate waters; intrastate lakes, rivers
and streams which are utilized by interstate travellers for recreational or
other purposes; intrastate lakes, rivers and streams from which fish or
shellfish are taken and sold in interstate commerce; and intrastate lakes,
rivers and streams which are utilized for .industrial purposes by industries in
interstate commerce.
NEUTRALIZATION. The restoration of the hydrogen or hydroxyl ion balance in a
solntion so that the ionic concentrations of each are equal.
NEW SOURCE. Any facility from which there is or may be a discharge of
pollutants, the construction of which is commenced after the promulgation of
regulations prescribing a standard of performance under section 306 of the
Act.
NITRATE NITROGEN. The final decomposition product of the organic nitrogen
compounds. Determination of this parameter indicates the degree of waste
treatment.
NITRATION. The replacement of a hydrogen on a carbon atom with a nitro group
(-NO,)EKrough the use of nitric acid or mixed acid.
NITRIFICATION. The conversion of nitrogenous matter into nitrates by
bacteria.
NITRITE NITROGEN. An intermediate stage in the decomposition of organic
nitrogen to the nitrate form. Tests for nitrite nitrogen can determine
whether the applied treatment is sufficient.
NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER. Water used for cooling that does not come into
direct contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste product or
finished product.
NON-PROCESS WASTEWATERS.. Vastewaters generated by a manufacturing process
which have not come in direct contact with the products, wastes, or reactants
used in the process. These include such streams as noncontact cooling water,
cooling tower blowdown, boiler blowdown, etc.
NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS. Pollutant parameters which have not been
designated as either conventional pollutants or toxic pollutants.
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Effects of wastewater control and
treatment technologies upon aspects of the environment other than water,
including, but not limited to, air pollution, noise, radiation, sludge and
solid waste generation, and energy usage. Consideration of non-water quality
environmental impacts during the development of effluent limitations
regulations is required in sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
XV-L3
-------
NORMAL SOLUTION. A solution that contains 1 gm molecular weight of the
dissolved substance divided by1 the hydrogen equivalent of the substance (that
is, one gram equivalent) per liter of solution. Thus, a one normal solution
of sulfuric acid (H2S04, mol. wt. 98) contains 98/2 or 49 gms of H2S04> per
liter.
NSPS. New Source Performance Standards for new sources.
NUTRIENT. Any substance assimilated by an organisms which promotes growth and
replacement of cellular constituents.
NUTRIENT ADDITION. The process of adding nitrogen or phosphorous in a
chemically combined form to a waste stream.
OILAND GREASE. (a) Oligenous liquids or gels that form scums and slicks on
water.(b)Those substances soluble in freon which are present in water and
wastes. Oil and grease are conventional pollutants as defined under EPA
regulations.
OIL-RECOVERY SYSTEM. Equipment used to reclaim oil from wastewater.
ORGANIC LOADING. In the activated sludge process, the food to microorganisms
(F/M) ratio defined as the amount of biodegradable material available to a
given amount of microorganisms per unit of time.
OXIDATION, (a) A process in which an atom or group of atoms loses electrons.
(b) The introduction of one or more oxygen atoms into a molecule, accompanied
by the release of energy.
OXIDATION POND. A man-made lake or body of water in which wastes are consumed
by bacteria. An oxidation pond receives an influent which has gone through
primary treatment in contrast to a lagoon which receives raw untreated sewage.
OXIDATION/REDUCTION (OR). A class of chemical reactions in which one of the
reactingspecies gives up electrons (oxidation) while another species in the
reaction accepts electrons (reduction).
0X0 PROCESS. A process wherein olefinic hydrocarbon vapors are passed over
cobalt catalysts in the presence of carbon monoxide and hydrogen to produce
alcohols, aldehydes, and other oxygenated organic compounds. Also known as
hydrocarbonylation and hydroformylation.
OXYACETYLATION. A process using ethylene, acetic acid, and oxygen commonly
used to produce vinyl acetate.
OXYGEN ACTIVATED SLUDGE. An activated sludge process using pure oxygen as an
aeration gas (rather than air). This is a patented process marketed by Union
Carbide under the trade name "UNOX".
OXYGEN, AVAILABLE. The quantity of atmospheric oxygen dissolved in the water
of a stream;the quantity of dissolved oxygen available for the oxidation of
organic matter in sewage.
XV-14
-------
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED. The oxygen (usually designated as DO) dissolved in sewage,
water, or another liquid and usually expressed in parts per million or percent
of saturation.
OZONATION. A water or wastewater treatment process involving the use of ozone
as an oxidizing agent.
OZONE. That molecular oxygen with three atoms of oxygen forming each
molecule. The third atom of oxygen in each molecule of ozone is loosely bound
and easily released. Ozone is used sometimes for the disinfection of water
but more frequently for the oxidation of taste-producing substances, such as
phenol, in water and for the neutralization of odors in gases or air.
PARAMETER. A representative variable which describes some sort of pollution
(BOD, TOC, etc.).
PART PER BILLION (PPB). Parts by weight in sewage analysis, equal to
micrograms per liter divided by the specific gravity. Parts per billion (ppb)
is always understood to imply a weight/weight ratio, although in practice
volume may be measured instead of weight usually in units of micrograms per
liter (ug/L).
PARTS PER MILLION (PPM). Parts by weight in sewage analysis, equal to
milligrams per liter divided by the specific gravity. Parts per million (ppm)
is always understood to imply a weight/weight ratio, although in practice
volume may be measured instead of weight usually in units of millograms per
liter (mg/L).
PERCOLATION. The movement of water beneath the ground surface both vertically
and horizontally, but above the groundwater table.
PHOSPHATE. Phosphate ions exist as an ester or salt of phosphoric acid, such
as calcium phosphate rock. In municipal vastewater, it is most frequently
present as orthophosphate.
PHOSPHORUS PRECIPITATION. The addition of the multivalent metallic ions of
calcium,iron and aluminum to wastewater to form insoluble precipitates with
phosphorus.
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL WASTEVATER TREATMENT. Processes that utilize physical and
chemicalmeans to treat wastewaters.
POINT SOURCE. Any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance from which
pollutants are or may be discharged.
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY. A collection of industrial sources with similar
function or product, established for the purpose of establishing federal
standards for the disposal of wastewter.
POLISHING. A final water treatment step used to remove any remaining organics
from the water.
POLISHING PONDS. Stabilization lagoons used as a final treatment step to
remove any remaining organics.
XV-15
-------
POLLUTANTLOADING. The ratio of the total daily mass discharge of a
particular pollutant to the total daily production expressed in terms of (g
pollutant)/(kg wet production).
POLYELECTROLYTES. Linear or branched synthetic chemicals (polymers) used to
speed up the removal of solids from sewage. These chemicals cause solids to
coagulate or clump together more rapidly than do chemicals such as alum or
lime. They can be anionic (negative charge), nonionic (positive and negative
charges) or cationic (positive eharge-the most common). They have high
molecular weights and are water-soluble. Compounds similar to the
polyelectrolyte flocculants include surface-active agents and ion exchange i
resins. The former are low molecular weight, water soluble compounds used jto
disperse solids in aqueous systems. The latter are high molecular weight,
water-insoluble compunds used to selectively replace certain ions already
present in water with more desirable or less noxious ions.
POLYMER. A large molecule consisting of 5 or more identical connecting units.
PRECIPITATION. The phenomenon which occurs when a substance held in solution
passes out of that solution into solid form.
PRETREATMENT. Any wastewater treatment process used to reduce the pollution
load before the wastewater is discharged to a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW).
PRIMARY TREATMENT. The first major treatment in a wastewater treatment works
normally consisting of clarification, neutralization, and related
physical/chemical treatment.
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS. One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a subset of
the toxic pollutants specified in the 1976 Consent Decree and that were the
focus of study in the development of BAT regulations for the Organic Chemicals
and Plastics/Synthetic Fibers Industry.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT. All equipment and appurtenances employed in the actual
manufacturing process.
PROCESS WASTEWATER. Any water which, during manufacturing or processing,
comes into contact with or results from the production or use of any raw
material, intermediate, finished product, by-product, or waste product.
PROCESS WATER. Any water (solid, liquid, or vapor) which, during the
manufacturing process, comes into direct contact with any raw materials,
intermediate product, by-product, waste product, or finished product.
PRODUCT/PROCESS. That chemical process used for producing a certain chemical
product; one process may be used for producing many products and, similarly,
one product may be made using different chemical processes.
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS(POTff). Facilities that collect, treat, or
otherwise dispose of wastewaters, and are owned and operated by a village,
town, county, authority or other public agency.
PYROLYSIS. The transformation of a compound into one or more substances by
heat alone (i.e., without oxidation).
XV-16
-------
pH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a water sample; equal to the
negative common logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration.
QA/OC. Quality assurance/quality control.
RAW WASTE LOAD. The quantity of pollutant in wastewater prior to treatment.
RECEIVING WATERS. Rivers, lakes, oceans or other courses that receive treated
or untreated wastewaters.
RECYCLING. The reuse of materials by returning them to the process from which
they came or by using them in another process.
REDUCTION. A process in which an atom (or group of atoms) gains electrons.
REFORMING. A process wherein heat and pressure are used for the rearrangement
of the molecular structure of hydrocarbons or low-octane petroleum fractions.
REGENERATION. The renewing for reuse of materials such as activated carbon,
single ion exchange resins, and filter beds by appropriate means to remove
organics, metals, solids, etc.
RESIN. The solid substrate used in ion exchange process.
RETENTION TIME. Volume of the vessel divided by the flow rate through the
vessel.
REVERSEOSMOSIS. The separation of a solvent and a solute by the application
of pressure in excess of natural osmotic pressure to the solution side of the
membrane forcing the solvent to the other side.
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR. See "rotating biological disc."
ROTATING BIOLOGICALDISC. A treatment unit used to remove pollutants from
wastewaters whereby rotating discs containing sludge are partially submerged
into the wastewater allowing the sludge microorganisms to degrade the wastes.
SANITARY LANDFILL. A sanitary landfill is a land disposal site employing an
engineered method of disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner that
minimizes environmental hazards by spreading the wastes in thin layers,
compacting the solid waste to the smallest practical volume, and applying
cover material at the end of each operating day. The two basic sanitary
landfill methods are trench fill and area or ramp fill. The method chosen is
dependent on many factors such as drainage and type of soil at the proposed
landfill site. .
SCREENING. The removal of relatively coarse, floating, and suspended solids
by straining through racks or screens.
SECONDARY TREATMENT. The second major step in a waste treatment system,
generally considered to be biological treatment.
SEDIMENTATION. The separation of suspended solids from wastewater by gravity.
SEED. To introduce microorganisms into a culture medium.
XV-17
-------
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC POLLUTANTS. For purposes of this report, organic
pollutants which are analyzed and measured by EPA analytical Method 625 for
base/neutrals and acids and Method 1625 for semi-volatile organic compounds by
isotope dilution GC/MS. '
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS. Suspended solids which will settle out of a liquid waste
in a given period of time.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. See "Consent Decree."
SETTLING PONDS. An impoundment for the settling out of solids.
SIC CODES. Standard Industrial Classification Codes used by the U.S.
Department of Commerce to denote segments of industry.
SKIMMING. The process of removing floating grease or scum from the surface of
wastewater in a tank.
SLUDGE. The accumulated solids separated from liquids, such as water or
wastewater, during processing.
SLUDGE POND. A basin used for the storage, digestion, or dewatering of
sludge.
SOLUBILITY. The ability of a substance to dissolve or become soluble in
another substance, usually water.
SOLUTE. The substance dissolved in a solvent.
SOLVENT. A liquid commonly used to dissolve or disperse another substance.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION. The extraction of selected components from a mixture of
two or more components by treating with a substance that preferentially
dissolves one or more of the components in the mixture (liquid-liquid
extraction).
SPENT. Used material that will no longer accomplish that purpose for which
it Is designed (e.g., spent activated carbon which will no longer adsorb
pollutants to an acceptable degree).
SPRAY EVAPORATION. A method of wastewater.disposal in which the water in a ;
holding lagoon equipped with spray nozzles is sprayed into the air to expedite
evaporation.
i i
SPRAY IRRIGATION. A method of disposing of some wastewaters by spraying them
on land, usually from pipes equipped with spray nozzles.
STABILIZATION POND. Large, shallow, earthen basins used for the treatment of
wastewater by natural processes involving the use of both algae and bacteria.
STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. A maximum concentration or mass of pollutant per
unit ofproduction (or time or other unit) for selected constituents of an
effluent that are subject to regulation.
i
STEAM DISTILLATION. Fractionation in which steam is introduced as one of the
vapors or in which steam is injected to provide the heat of the system.
XV-18
-------
STEAMSTRIPPING. A treatment process used to remove volatile components by
passing steam through a solution which transfers the components from a liquid
mixture to the gas phase.
STILL BOTTOM. The residue remaining after distillation of a material. The
residue can vary from a watery slurry to a thick tar which may turn hard when
cooled.
STOICHIOMETRIC. Characteristic of a chemical reaction in which reactants are
present in proportions such that there is no excess of any reactant following
completion of the reaction.
SUBCATEGORY. A segment of a point source category where selected
characteristics of that segment are related but are distinpt from other
segments of the category and are therefore subject to uniform national
standards.
SUBSTRATE. (1) Reactant portion of any biochemical reaction; the material
transformed into a product. (2) Any substance used as a nutrient by a
microorganisms. (3) The liquor in which activated sludge or other material is
kept in suspension.
SUPERNATANT. A substance floating above or on the surface of another
substance.
SJJRGE TANK. A tank for absorbing and dampening the wavelike motion of a
volume of liquid; an in-process storage tank that acts as a flow buffer
between process tanks.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS. Solids that either float on the surface of, or are in
suspension in, water, wastewater, or other liquids.
SUSPENSION ADDITION. See "Addition Polymerization."
TERATOGEN. Substance causing birth defects in the offspring following
exposure of one or both of the parents.
TERTIARY TREATMENT. The third major step in a waste treatment facility,
generally referring to treatment processes following biological treatment.
THICKENING. A process by which sludge is concentrated, usually by
sedimentation or centrifugation.
308 DATA. Information gathered from plants under authority of Section 308 of
the Clean Water Act.
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOG). A measure of the organic contamination of a water
sample.
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS). The entire amount of suspended solids in a
sample of water.
TOXIC POLLUTANTS. Pollutants declared "toxic" under Section 307(a)(l) of the
Clean Water Act.
XV-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY. Any pretreatment or end-of-line treatment unit which is
used in conjunction with process wastewater. The unit may be used at any ;
point from the process wastewater source to final discharge from plant
property.
TRICKLING FILTER. A treatment unit consisting of broken stone or other coarse
material over which wastewater is applied and is allowed to trickle through.
Attached to the media are microorganisms (sludge) which degrade wastes in the
wastewater.
ULTRAFILTRATION. A treatment similar to reverse osmosis except that
ultrafiltration treats solutions with larger solute particles so that the
solvents can more easily filter through the membrane. ;
UPSET. An unintentional noncompliance occurring for reasons beyond control of
the permittee.
VACUUM FILTRATION. A process used to reduce the water content of sludge. ;A
filter consisting of a cylindrical drum mounted on a horizontal axis and
covered with a filter cloth revolves partially submergenced in the liquid, and
a vacuum is maintained under the cloth for the larger part of each revolution
to extract moisture. The cake which forms on the filter is continuously
scraped off.
VARIABILITY FACTORS. Pollutant-specific peaking factors that relate the
numerical limitations for the maximum for any one day and the maximum for
monthly average to the long-term average value.
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs). For purposes of this report, the 32 ;
volatile and semi-volatile organic pollutants listed in Table VI-9 and
selected based on Henry's Law Constants to represent a portion of the OCPSF
priority pollutant air emissions. (The EPA Office of Air defines VOCs as any
organic compound which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactionsi;
that is, any organic compound other than those which the Administrator
designates as having negligible photochemical reactivity. The EPA Office of
Air is currently considering reformulating this definition.)
VOLATILE ORGANIC POLLUTANTS. For purposes of this report, organic pollutants
which are analyzedandmeasured by EPA analytical Method 624 for purgeables
and Method 1624 for volatile organic compounds by isotope dilution GC/MS.
i
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (VSS). The quantity of suspended solids lost after
theignitionof total suspended solids. [
VOLATILITY. The ability of a substance to volatilize or evaporate. \
WASTE STREAM. A separated or combined polluted water flow resulting from a
plant's process(es).
WASTE TREATMENT PLANT. A series of tanks, screens, filters, pumps and other
equipment by which pollutants are removed from water.
WASTEWATER. Process water contaminated to such an extent that it cannot be
reused in the process without repurification.
XV-20
-------
WATER USAGE. Ratio of the spent water from a manufacturing operation to the
total production, expxessed in terms of (liters of wastewater/day)/(kilogram
of production/day),
VET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. The technique of air pollution abatement utilizing
water as an absorptive media.
WET SCRUBBER. An air pollution control device which involves the wetting of
particles in an air stream and the impingement of wet or dry particles on
collecting surfaces, followed by flushing.
ZERO OR ALTERNATE DISCHARGE. Methods of wastewater discharge from point
sources which do not involve discharge to navigable waters either directly or
indirectly through publicly owned treatment works. Zero or alternate
discharge methods include wastewater reuse, evaporation ponds, deep well
injection, incineration, contract hauling, land application, and off-site
privately owned treatment.
XV-21
-------
-------
Appendix III-A contains lists of the products and product groups within
each BPT subcateogry (product groups are noted with an "*")j
Table Is layon Fibers Subcategory List of Products and Product Groups
Table II: Other Fibers Subcategory Li«t of Products and Product Groups
Table III: Thermoplastic Resins Subcategory List of Products and Product
Groups
Table IV: Thermosetting Resins Subcategory List of Products and Product
Groups
Table V: Commodity Organic Chemicals Subcategory List of Products and
Product Groups
Table VI: Bulk Organic Chemicals Subcategory List of Products and
Product Groups
Table VII: Specialty Organic Chemicals Subcategory List of Products and
Product Groups
III-Al
-------
TABLE I
.RAYON FIBERS SUBCATEGORY
RAYON FIBERSCVISCOSE PROCESS ONLY}
TABLE II
OTHER FIBERS SUBCATEGORY LIST OF PRODUCTS AND PRODUCT GROUPSc*>
* ACRYLIC FIBERSC85X POLYACRYLONITRILE)
* CELLULOSE ACETATE FIBERS
* FLUOROCARBON (TEFLON) FIBERS
* HOOACRYLIC FIBERS
* HYLON 6 FIBERS
NYLON 6 MONOFILAMENT
* NYLON 66 FIBERS
NYLON 66 NONOFILAMENT
* POLYAMIDE FIBERS (OUI/NA)
* POLYARAMIO (KEVUR) RESIN-FIBERS
* POLYARAMID (NOMEX) RESIN-FIBERS
* POLYESTER FIBERS
* POLYETHYLENE FIBERS
* POLYPROPYLENE FIBERS
* POLYURETHANE FIBERS (SPANDEX)
TABLE III
THERMOPLASTIC RESINS SUBCATEGORY LIST OF PRODUCTS AND PRODUCT GROUPSC*)
* ABIETIC ACID & DERIVATIVES
* ABS RESINS
* ABS-SAN RESIN
* ACRYUTE-METHACRYLATfc LATEXES
* ACRYLIC LATEX
* ACRYLIC RESINS
CELLOPHANE
CELLULOSE ACETATE BUTYRATES
CELLULOSE.ACETATE RESIN
CELLULOSE ACETATES
CELLULOSE ACETATES PRCPIONATES
CELLULOSE NITRATE
CELLULOSE SPONGE
* ETHYLENE-METHACRYL1C ACID COPOLYHERS
* ETHYLENE-VINYL ACETATE; COPOLYHERS
* FATTY ACID RESINS
* FLUOROCARBON POLYMERS
NYLON 1.1 RESIN
* NYLON 6 - 66 COPOLYHERS
* NYLON 6 NYLON 11 BLI'NDS
NYLON 6 RESIN
NYLON 612 RESIN
NYLON 66 RESIN
* NYLONS
* PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON RESINS
* POLVtNYL PYRROLIDONE ft COPOLYHERS
* POLY(ALPHA)OLEFIKS
POLYACRYLIC ACID
* POLYAMIDES
* POLYARYLAKIDES
POLYBUTADIENE
* POLYBUTENES
III-A2
-------
TABLE III(CONTINUED)
THERMOPLASTIC RESINS SUBCATEGORY LIST Of PliOOUCTS AND PRODUCT GROUPS(*>
POLYBUTENYL SUCC1NIC ANHYDRIDE
POLYCARBONATES
* POLYESTER RESINS
* POLYESTER RESINS, POLYBUTYLENE TEREPHTHALATI
* POLYESTER RESINS, POLYOXYBENZOATE
POLYETHYLENE
* POLYETHYLENE - ETHYL ACRYLATE RESINS
* POLYETHYLENE - POLYVIHYL ACETATE COPOLYMERS
POLYETHYLENE RESIN (HOPE)
POLYETHYLENE RESIN (LDPE)
POLYETHYLENE RESIN, SCRAP
POLYETHYLENE RESIN, MAX (LOU N.U.)
POLYETHYLENE RESIN,LATEX
POLYETHYLENE RESINS
* POLYETHYLENE RESINS, COMPOUNDED
* POLYETHYLENE, CHLORINATED
* POLYIMIDES
* POLYPROPYLENE RISINS
POLYSTYRENE (CRYSTAL)
POLYSTYRENE (CRYSTAL) MODIFIED
. * POLYSTYRENE + COPOLYMERS
* POLYSTYRENE - ACRYLIC LATEXES
POLYSTYRENE IMPACT RESINS
POLYSTYRENE LATEX
POLYSTYRENE, EXPANDABLE
POLYSTYRENE, EXPANDED
* POLYSULFONE RESINS
POLYVINYL ACETATE
* POLYVINYL ACETATE £ PVC COPOLYMERS
* POLYVINYL ACETATE COPOLYMERS
* POLYVINYL ACETAVE RESINS
POLYVINYL ALCOHOL RESIN
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE, CHLORINATED
* POLYVINYL ETHER-MALEIC ANHYDRIDE
* POLYVINYL FORMAL RESINS
* POLYVINYLACETATI! + METHACRYLIC COPOLYMERS
* POLYVINYLACETATI ACRYLIC COPOLYMERS
* POLYVINYLACETATE-2-ETHYLHEXYLACRYLATE COPOLYMERS
POLYVINYLIDENE CHLORIDE
* POLYVINYLIDENE CHLORIDE COPOLYMERS
* POLYVINYLIOENE-VINYL CHLORIDE RESINS
* PVC COPOLYMERS, ACRYLATES (LATEX)
* PVC COPOLYMERS, ETHYLfNE^VINYL CHLORIDE
* ROSIN DERIVATIVE RESINS
* ROSIN MODIFIED RESINS
* ROSIN RESINS
* SAN RESINS
* SILICONES;SILICONE RESINS
* SILICONES:SILICONE RUBBERS
* STYRENE MALEIC ANHYDRIDE RESINS
STYRENE POLYMERIC RESIDUE
* STYRENE-ACRYLIC COPOLYMER RESINS
* STYRENE-ACRYLOMITRILE-ACRYLATES COPOLYMERS
* STYRENE-BUTAOIENE RESINS
III-A3
-------
TABLE IIKCONTINUEO)
THERMOPLASTIC RESINS SUBCATEGORY LIST OF PRODUCTS AW PRODUCT CROUPSC*)
* STYREME-BUTADIENE RESINS (<50X BUTADIENE)
* STYRENE-BUTADIENE RESINS (LATEX)
* STYRENE-DIVINYL BENZENE RESINS (ION XCHAN6E)
* STYRENE-NETHACRYUTE TERPOLYMER RESINS
* STYRENE-METHYL HETHACRYUTE COPOLYMESS
* STYRENE, BUTADIENE, VINYL TOLUENE TERPOLYHERS
* SULFOMATED STYRENE-RALEIC ANHYDRIDE RESINS
* UNSATURATED POLYESTER RESINS
* VINYL TOLUENE RESINS
* VINYL TOLUENE-ACRYLATE RESIHS
* VINYL TOLUENE-BUTADIENE RESINS
* VINYL TOLUENE-METNACRYLATE RESINS
* VINYLACETATE-N-BUTYLACRYLATE COPOLYMERS
TABLE IV
THERHOSETT1NG RESINS SUBCATEGORY LIST OF PRODUCTS AND PRODUCT GROUPSC*)
* ALICYD RESINS
DICYANODIAHIDE RESIN
* EPOXY RESINS
* FUMARIC ACID POLYESTERS
* FURAN RESINS
GLYOXAL-UREA FORMALDEHYDE TEXTILE RESIN
* KETONE-FORMALDEHYDE RESINS
* MELAHINE RESINS
* PHENOLIC RESINS
* POLYACETAL RESINS
POLYACRYLAHIDE
* POLYURETHANE PREPOLYHERS
* POLYURETHANE RESINS
* UREA FORMALDEHYDE RESINS
* UREA RESINS
TABLE V
COMMODITY ORGANIC CHEMICALS SUBCATEGORY LIST OF PRODUCTS AND PRODUCT GROUPSC*)
A. ALIPHATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETIC ACID
ACETIC ANHYDRIDE
ACETONE
ACRYLOHITRILE
ADIPIC ACID
* BUTYLENES (BUTENES)
CYCLOHEXANE
ETHANOL
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE GLYCOL
ETHYLENE OXIDE
FORMALDEHYDE
ISOPROPANOL
METHANOL
POLYOXYPROPYLENE GLYCOL
PROPYLENE
PROPYLEHE OXIDE
III-A4
-------
TABLE V(CONTINUED)
B. AROMATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS
VIMYL ACETATE
1,3-IUTADtENE
BENZENE
CUNENE
DINETHYL TEREPHTHALATE
ETHYLBENZENE
M-XYLENE(IMPURE)
P-XYLENE
PHENOL
* PITCH TAR RESIDUES
* PYROLYSIS GASOLINES
STYRENE
TEREPHTHALIC ACID
TOLUENE
* XYLEHES, NIXED
0-XYLENE
C. HALOGENATED ORGANIC CHEMICALS
VINYL CHLORIDE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
TABLE VI
BULK ORGANIC CHEMICALS SUBCATEGORY LIST OF PRODUCTS AND PRODUCT GROUPSC*)
A. ALIPHATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS
* ACETIC ACID ESTERS
* ACETIC ACID SALTS
ACETONE CYANOHYDRIK
ACETYLENE
ACRYLIC ACID
* ACRYLIC ACID ESTERS
* ALKOXY ALKANOLS
* ALKYLATE
* ALPHA-OLEFINS
BUTANE (ALL FORMS)
* C-4 HYDROCARBONS(UMSATURATED)
CALCIUM STEARATE
CAPROLACTAM
CARBOXYMETHYL CELLULOSE
CELLULOSE ACETATE BUTYRATES
* CELLULOSE ETHERS:
CITRIC ACID
CUMENE HYDROPERCXIDE
CYCLOHEXANOL
CYCLQHEXANOL, CYCLOHEXAKONECMIXED)
CYCLOHiXANONE
CYCLOHEXENE
* C12-C18 PRIMARY ALCOHOLS
* C5 CONCENTRATES
* C9 CONCENTRATES
DECANOL
01ACETONE ALCOHC1
* DICARBOXYLIC ACIDS £ SALTS
PIETHYL ETHER
DIETHYLENE GLYCOL
DIETHYLENE GLYCCC DIETHYL ETHER
III-A5
-------
TABU VI (CONTINUED)
A. ALIPHATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPSCCONT.)
OIETHVLENE GLYCOL DIMETHYL ETHER
DIETHYLENE GLYCOL HONOIiTHYL ETHER
DIETHYLENE GLYCOL NONOHETHYL ETHER
* DIMER ACIDS
DIOXANE
ETHANE
ETHLYENE GLYCOL MONOPHENYL ETHER
* ETHOXYLATES, KISC.
ETHYLENI 6LYCOL DIHETHVL ETHER
ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOBUHL ETHER
ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOETHYL ETHER
ITHYLENE GLYCOL MONOHEfHYL ETHER
* FATTY ACIDS
GLYCERINE(SYNTHETIC)
GLYOXAL
HEXANE
* HEXANES AND OTHER C6 HYDROCARBONS
IS06UTANOL
IS08UTYLENE
IS06UTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPHORONE
ISOPHTHALIC ACID
ISOPRENE
ISOPROPYL ACETATE
L1GNINSULFONIC ACID, CALCIUM SALT
MALE1C ANHYDRIDE
H£THACRYLIC ACID
« HETHACRYIIC ACID ESTERS
METHANE
HETHYL ETHYL 1CETONE
METHYL KETHACRYLATE
HtTHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER
METHYLISOBUTYL KETONE
* M-ALKANES
H-BUTYL ALCOHOL
W-BUTYLACETATE
M-BUTYRALDEHYDE
N-8UTYRIC ACID
H-BUTYRIC ANHYDRIDE
* H-PARAFFINS
M-PROPYL ACfTATE
N-PROPYL ALCOHOL
HITRILOTRIACETIC ACID
MUM SALT
OXALIC ACID
* 0*0 ALDEHYDES & ALCOHOLS
PENTAERYTHRITOL
PENTANE
* PEHTENES
* PETROLEUM SULFONATES
PINE OIL
POLYOXYBUTYLENE GLYCOL
POLYOXYETHYLENE GLYCOL
PROPANE
PROPIONALDEHYDE
III-A6
-------
TABLE VI(CONTINUED)
A. ALIPHATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GfKXJPS(CC#J1\)
PROPION1C ACID
PROPYLENE GLYCOL
SEC-BUTYL ALCOHOL
SODIUM FORMAT!
SORBITOL
STEARIC ACID, CALCIUM SALT (WAX)
TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL
1-BUTEHE
1-PENTENE
1,4-BUTANEDIOL
1SOBUTYL ACETATE
2-8UTENECCIS AND TRANS)
2-ETHYL KEXANOL
2-ETHYLBUTYRALDEHYDE
2,2,4-TRIMETHYl.-1,3-PENTANEDIOL
B. AMINE AND AMIDE ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL CROUPS
2,4-DIAMlNOTOLUENE
* ALKYL AMINES
ANILINE
CAPROLACTAM, AQUEOUS CONCENTRATE
DIETHANOLANINE
DIPHENYLAMINE
* ETHANOLAMINES
ETHYL WINE
ETHYLENEDIAMINE
ETHYLENEDIAMINETETRjlCETIC ACID
* FATTY AMINES
HEXAMETHYLEME DIANIHE
ISOPROPYLAMINE
M-TOLUIDINE
MELAMINE
MELAMINE CRYSTAL
* METHYLAMINES
METHYLENE DIANILINE
N'BUTYLAMINE
N.N-DIETHYLANILINE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMII>E
* NITROANILINES
POLYMERIC METHYLENE DIANILINE
SEC-BUTYLAMINE
TERT-BUTYLAMINE
TOLUENEDIAMINE (MIXTURE)
* TOLUIDINES
0-PHENYLENEDIAMINE
2,6-DIKETHYLANILINE
4-CS-HWROXYETHYLETHYLAMINO)-2-HYDROXYETHYL ANILINE
4,4' "HETHYLENEBISCN,N' -DIMETHYD-ASILINE
4,4'-METHYLENEDIANIt.INE
C. AROMATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL CROUPS
A-METHYLSTYRENE
* ALKYL BENZENES
* ALKYL PHENOLS
* ALKYLBENZENE SULFONIC ACIDS, SALTS
III-A7
-------
TABLE VI(CONTINUED)
C. AROMATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AMD CHEMICAL CROUPSCCONT.)
AMINOBENZOIC ACID (META AND PARA)
ASPIRIN
B-NAPHTHALENE SULFOHIC ACID
BENZENEDISULFONIC ACID
BENZOIC ACID
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHAUTE
BISPHENOt A
BTX-BENZENE,TOLUENE,XYLENE(M1XED>
BUTYL OCTYL PHTHALATE
COAL TAR
* COAL TAR PRODUCTS (MISC.)
CREOSOTE
* CRESOLS, MIXED
CYANURIC ACID
« CYCLIC AROMATIC SULFONATES
DfBUTYL PHTHALATE
DIISOBUTYL PHTHALATE
DIISOOECYL PHTHALATE
DIISOOCTYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DINITROTOLUENE (MIXED)
DITRIDECYL PHTHALATE
M-CRESOL
METANILIC ACID
METHYLEHEDIPHENYLDIISOCYANATE
NAPHTHALENE
* NAPHTHAS,SOLVENT
NITROBENZENE
HITROTOLUENE
NONYLPHENOL
P-CRESOL
PHTHALIC ACID
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
* TARS £ PITCHES
TERT-BUTYLPHENOL
* TOLUENE DIISOCYANATES (MIXTURE)
TRIHELLITIC ACID
0-CRESOL
1-TETRALOL, 1-TETRALONE MIX
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
3,6-DlNITROTOLUENE
D, HALOGENATED ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS
1,4-PHENYLENEDIAMINE DIHYDROCHLORIDE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZYL CHLORIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINATED PARRAFINS,35-64 PCT.CHLORINE
CHLOROBENZENE
* CHLOROBENZENES (HIKED)
CHLORCCIFLUOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
* CHLOROMETHANES
* CHLOROPHEHOLS
CHLOROPRENE
III-A8
-------
TABLE VI(CONTINUED)
D. HALOGENATED ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPSCCONT.)
CYANOGEN CHLORIDE
CYANURIC CHLORIDE
DICHLOROPROPANt:
EPICHLOROHYORIII
ETHYL CHLORIDE
* FLUOROCARBONS CFREONS)
METHYL CHLORIDIER
METHYLEHE CHLCHtlOE
PENTACHLOROPHEUOL
PHOSGENE
TETRACHLOROeTHYLENE
TRICHLOROETHYLI-NE
TRICHLOROFLUOROHETHANE
VINYL1DENE CHLORIDE
1,1-0ICHLOROETDANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
2-CHLORO-5-HETHYLPHENOL (6-CHLORO-M-CRESOL)
2,4-DICHLOROPHI-NOL
E. OTHER ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS
ADIPONITRILE
CARSON DISULFIDE
DITHIQPHOSPHATI-S, SODIUM SALT
FATTY NITRIIES
* OR6ANO-TIN COMPOUNDS
* PHOSPHATE ESTERS
TETRAETHYL LEAD
TETRAMETHYL LEAD
* URETHANE PREPOI.YMERS
* WAXES, EMULSIONS S, DISPERSIONS
TABLE VII
SPECIALTY ORGANIC CHEMICALS SUBCATEGORY LIST OFPROOUCTS AND PRODUCT GROUPSC*)
(INCLUDES ALL ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND ORGANIC CHEMICAL GROUPS WHICH ARE NOT LISTED
AS COMMODITY OR BULK ORGANIC CHEMICALS. SPECIALTY ORGANIC CHEMICALS PRODUCTS AND
PRODUCT GROUPS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE CHEMICALS LISTED BELOW.)
A. ALIPHATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS
(+-)-1.2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE
ACETAL
ACETALDOL
ACETYL PEROXIDE
* ACETYLENIC ALCOHOLS & OIOLS
ACROLEIN
* ACYCLIC ACID SALTS
* ADIPIC ACID ESTERS (MISC.)
ADIPIC ACID, OK2-ETHYLHEXYLJESTER
ADIPIC ACID, DI-ISOOECYL ESTER
ADIPIC ACID, DI-TRIDECYL ESTER
ADIPIC ACID, N-OCTYL-N-DECYL ESTER
ALLYL ALCOHOL
* AMYL ACETATES
* AMYL ALCOHOLS
BIS(D!METHYLETHYL>PEROIDE
BISC2-ETHYLHEXYDSEBACATI
III-A9
-------
TABLE VII(CONTINUED)
A. ALIPHATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AMD CHEMICAL GROUPSCCOMT.)
BUTYL STEARATE
* BUTYRIC ACID ESTERS
BUTYROLACTONE
CELLULOSE SPQNGi
CELLULOSE,OXIDIZED
* CHLOROFORHATES
CITRONELLOL
CROTONALDEHYDE
CROTONIC ACID
CYCLAMEN ALDEHYDE(P"ISOPROPYL-A-METHLHYDROCINNAMALDEHYDE)
CYCLONITE
CYCLOOCTADIENE
CYCLOPENTADIENE DINER
CYCLOPENTAME
* CYGLOPROPAMES
DECABORANE
DI<2-ETHYLHEXYL)-AZELATE
DI(2-ETHYLHEXYL)-F-itOXY DICARBONATE
DIETHYL CARBAHAZINE CITRATE
DIETHYL CARBONATE
DIETHYLENE GLYCOL HONOBUTYL ETHER
DI ETHYLENE CLYCOL MOMOBUTYL ETHER ACETATE
DIETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOETHYL ETHER ACETATE
DIISOBUTYLENE
DIKETENE
DILINOLE1C ACID, AKIfONIUN SALT
DINYRISTYL THIODIPROPIONATE
DIPROPYLENE GLYCOL
DOOECENE (PROPYLENE TETRAMIR)
ENDRIN KETONE
* EPOXIOIZED ESTERS
ERYTHRITOL ANHYDRIDE!
ETHLYENE GLYCOL HONCMETHYL ETHER ACETATE
ETHYL ACETATE
ETHYL BUTYRIC ACID
ETHYL CELLULOSE
ETHYL ORTHOFORHATE
ETHYL OXALAT6
ETHYLENE CARBONATE
ETHYLENI GLYCOL 01ACETATE
ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOIiUTYL ETHER ACETATE
ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOETHYL ETHER ACETATE
ETHYLENE GLYCOL MOttOPROPYL ETHER
ETHYLENEDIAMINE-N.N1-DISTEARIC ACID
* FATTY ACID ESTERS
FORMIC ACID
FUHARIC ACID
GERANIOL
GERANYL NI TRUE
GLUCOHEPTANATE, SODIUM SALT
GLUTAH1C ACID, MONOSODIUN SALT
GLYCEROL T8I (POLYOXHPROPYLENE) ETHER
* GLYCERXL ESTERS, MIXED FATTY ACIDS
CLYCERYL STEARATE
GLYCIOOL
in-Aio
-------
TABLE VII(CONTINUED)
A. ALIPHATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS(COHT-)
GLYCINE
GLYCOLOLNITRILE (HYDROXYACETONITR tLE)
* GLYOXAL-FORMALDEHYDE MIXTURES
HEPTANE
HEPTENE
HEXADECYL ALCOHOL
HEXAHYDROPHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
HEXAMETAPOL
HEXAMETHYLENE GLYCOL(1,6-HEXANEDIOL)
HEXANOIC ACID (CAPROIC ACID)
HEXYLENE GLYCOL
* HYDANTOINS
* HYDROCARBON SOLVENT (SHELL SOL 140)
HYDROXYACETIC ACID (GLYCOL1C ACID)
HYDROXYETHYL CELLULOSE
HYDROXYPROPYL CELLULOSE
IMINOOIACETIC ACID
IONONE
ISOAMYL'ALCOHOL
ISOBUTYL MALEATE-HEPTANOL-KEROSINE NIX
ISODECANOL
ISOOCTYL ALCOHOL
ISOPENTANE
ISOPROPYL STEARATE
ISOPROPYLETHER
KETENE
LACTIC ACID
LAURIC ACID
LIMONENE
MAGNESIUM METHYLATE
MALEIC ACID
MES1TYL OXIDE
* METALLIC CARBOXYLATES
* METHACRYLAMIDES, DIMETHYLAMINOPROPYL
METHYL ACETATE
METHYL ACETOACETATE
METHYL BUTYNOL
METHYL CELLULOSE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE PEROXIDE
METHYL FORMATE
METHYL RED
METHYL STEARATE
METHYL-12-HYDROXYSTEARATE
METHYLAL
HETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
HETHYLCYCLOHEXANOL
HETHYLCYCLOHEXANONE
METHYLCYCLOPENTANE
METHYLCYLOHEXYL CARBINOL
METHYLISOBUTYL CARBINAL
METHYLPENTYNOL
MICHLER'S KETONE
N-BUTYLACRYLATE
Ill-All
-------
TABLE VII(CONTINUED)
A. ALIPHATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS(CONT.)
N.N-OIETHANOL STEARAHIDE
OCTANE
OLE 1C ACID
P-MENTHANE-8-HYDROPEtOXIDE
PARALDEHYOE
PERACETIC AGIO
» PEROXYESTERS
POLYETHYLENE CLYCOL STEARATE
POLYGLYCEROL
POLYISOPRENE SOLUTION
POLYVINYL ACETATE
POLYVINYL ALCOHOL
POLYVINYL BUTYRAL
* PROPOXYLATES
PROPYLENE TETRAHER
PROPYLENE TRIMER
PROPYNE AND ALLENE
SODIUM DIBUTYLDITHIOCARBAMATE
SODIUM FORHALDEHYDE SULFOXYLATE
SODIUM LAURYLSULFATE
SODIUM METHYLATE
STEARIC ACID
STEARIC ACID, CALCIUM SALT (EMULSION)
* STEARIC ACID, METAL SALTS
STEARIC ACID, STARCH ESTER
STEARIC ACIO, ZINC SALT
TERT-BUTYL PEROXYPIVAUTf
TERT-BUTYLHYDROPEROXIDS
TERT-BUTYLPEROXIDE
« TETRA-ALKYL LEAD MIXTURES
TETRAiTHYLENE GLYCOL
TETRAK1SCHYDROXYHETHYI)PHOSPHONIUM HYDOXIDE
TRANS CROTONALDEHYOE
TRIETHYL CITRATES
TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL
TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL DIMETHYL ETHER
TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOETHYL ETHER
TRIISO8UTYLENE
TRIPHENYL PHOSPHATE
TRIPROPYLENE GLYCOL
TRIPROPYLENE OXIDE
TRIS(ISOPROPYLPHENYL) PHOSPHATE
TRIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHOSPHATE
* VEGETABLE OILS, SULFATEO
1,2-DIHYDRO-2,2,4-TRIMETHYL QU1NOUNE
1,2-IPOXYPROPANE
1,2,4-BUTANETRIOL
1,3 BUTYLENE GLYCOL
1,4 CYCLOHEXANEDIMETHANOL
1,4-BUTENEDIOL
1,4-BUTYNEDIOL
12-HYDROXYSTEARIC ACID
2-(2-(2-METHOXYETHOXY)ETHAHOL
III-A12
-------
TABLE VII(CONTINUED)
A. ALIPHATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPSCCONT.)
2-(2-BUTOXYETHOXY)-ETHANOL
2-(2-ETHOXYETHOXY)-ETHANOL
2-(2-METHOXYETHOXY)-ETHANOL
2-ETHYLHEXAMOIC AGIO
2-HEPTANONE
2-HEXANONE
2-METHYL-1-PENTANOL
2-METHYLPENTANE
2-METHYLPROPENAL (MKTHACROLEIN)
2,2-IHINOOIETHANOL
2,4-PENTADIONE PEROXIDE
2,5-DIMETHYL-2,4-HEXADIENE
2t5-DIMETHYL-2,5-Dia-BUTYL PEROXY)HEX-3-YNE
2,5-DIMETHYL-2,5-Dia-BUTYL PEROXY)HEXANE
4-NETHYL-1-POLYMETHYLPENTENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANOL
4-NITRO-2.5-DIETHOXV CHLOROBENZENE
5-METHYL-2-HEXANONE
5-NETHYL-3-HEPTANONI:
9.10-EPOXY-OCTADECAIIOIC ACID,BUTYL ESTER
B. AHIHE AND AMIDE ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS
<2-B£THYLPHENYL)<3-METHYL-4-AMINO)DIAZENE
ACETAMIDE
ACETANILIDE
* ACETAHHIDES & COGEtlERS
* ACETOACETANILIDES & COGENERS
ACRYLAHIDE
ALLYLAMINE
AMINOALCOHOL SULFATI:
AMINOETHYLETHANOLAMliNE
AMYLAHINE
ANILINE HYDROCHLORHIE
ANISIDINE
* ARYLAMIDES AND COGEIIERS
AZOOICARBONAHIDE
BENZAHIDE
BENZOIC ACID, H-
-------
TABLE VII(CONTINUED)
B. AM I HE AND AMIDE ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GBOWSCCONT.)
DOOECYL SULFATE T8IETHAHOLAMINE SALT
DOOECYLAMINE
DOOECYLANILINE
FORMAMIOE
HEXAMETHYLENEIMIHE
HEXAMETHYLENETETRAMINE
HYDROXYLAMINE
ISATOIC ANHYDRIDE
ISOSAFROLE
* LONG-CHAIN AMIDES, N-ETHOXYSULFATE
M-D1METHYL AMINO PHENOl
M-PHENYLENEDIAMINE
MECHLORETHAMINE
HORPHOLINE
N-CYCLOHEXYL-2-BENZOTHHAZOLESULFENAMIOE
H-ETHYL-H-PHENYL BENZYL AMINE
H-HETHYLANILINE
N-PHENYL-2-NAPHTKYLAMIHE
N-I-HAPHTHYL-ETHYLENEDIAMINE-OIHYDROCHLORIOE
N.N-DIMETHYL-P-NITROSOANILINE
N,N-OIMETHYLANILINE
N.N'-DIPHENYL-P-PHENYLt-NEDIAMINE
NIACIKAMIDE
NITRAMINE
P-(PHENYLAZO)-ANILINE
P-AHINOPHENOL
P-AN1SIDINE
P-NITRQANILIHE
P-PHENETIDIHE
P-PHENYLENEOIAMINE
PERYLENE TETRA CARBOXYLIC ACID DIIMIDE
PHEHYLDIMETHYL AHMOJ1IL*! CHLORIDE
* PHENYLENE DIAMINES
PKENYLHYDROXYLAMINE
PHTHALIMIDE
* POLYETHYLENE POLYAMINES
* POLYOXYALKYLESE AMINES
PROPYLAMINE
* PYRIDINES, SUBSTITUTED
* PYRIMIOINES
* PYRROLIDONES
QUINALIDINE
SALICYLANILIDE
* SUBSTITUTED BEHZENE DIAZONIUM CHLORIDES
* SUCCINIMIDES
TETRAETHYLENEPENTANINE
TETRAHETHYLENEDIAMIHE
TETRAMETHYLETHYLENEDIAMINE
TKIAHIHE PYROPHOSPHATE
THIOACETAHIDE
* TH10NOCA8BAMATES
TOLUENESULFONAHIDE
TOLYLTRIAZOLE
TRIALLYLAMINE
III-A14
-------
TABLE VI[(CONTINUED)
8. AMI HE AND AMIDE ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS{CONT.)
TRIETHANOLAMINE
TRIETHVLAMINi;
TRIETHYLINED1AM1NE
TR1ETHYLENETETRAMINE
TRIMETHYUWIME
* TRIMETHYLAMIItOETHYLETHANOLAMINE-BASED FORMULATIONS
* XYLIDINES
0-METHYL-HYDROXYLAMINE
0-NITROANILIHE
0-NITROANISOlf
0-PHENETIDINE
1-AMINO.-2-BROHO-4-HYDROXYANTHROQUINONE
2-AMINO-5-NITROTH1AZOLE
2-AMINO-6-METHYL PYRIDINE
2-AHINOTNIAZOLE NITRATE
2-AM1NOTHIOPHENOL
2-BIPHENYLAHINE
2-BROMO-4.6-DIN1TROANILINE
Z-DIMETHYLAHINOETHANOL
2-ETHYL-4-MI-THYL-IMIDAZOLI
2-NITRODIPHI-NYL AMINE(REFINED)
2,4-DINITROANILINE
2,4,5-TRIMETHYLANILINE
2,4'-BIPHEN'fU>!AMINE
2,5-DIAHILOO TEREPHTHALIC ACID
2,6-TOLUENE DHDIAZONIUM CHLORIDE)
3-AH1HOPROPIONITRILE
3-DIMETHYLANINOPHENOL
3-N-BUTYLANINO-4-METHOXY BENZENE SULFOHAMIDE
4-ANINOACETANILIDE
4-BIPHENYLAMINE
4-FLUORO-3-NITROANILINE
4-ISOPROPOXYDIPHENYLAMIHE
4>4>-BIS-{K.H-DINETHYlANILINE} CAR8INOL
C. AROMATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS
(EPOXYETHYL)-BENZENE
A-NAPHTHOL
ACEMAPHTHEME
ACEHAPHTHYl.EHE
ACETOPHENONi
* ALKYLNAPHTHALENES (METHYL)
* ALPHA TOLUI-NiSULFONIC ACIDS
ALPHA - HEXYI.C INNAMALDEH YDE
AMYL PHENOL
AHISOLE
ANTHRACENE
ANTHRAQUIN3NE
* ARYLESTERS AND COGENERS
AZOXYBENZEHE
B-NAPHTHOL
BENZALDEHYDE
BENZIL
III-A15
-------
TABLE VII(CONTINUED)
C. AROMATIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GHOUPSCCOHT.)
BENZ1LIC ACID
BENZO-A-PYRENE
* BENZOATE ESTERS
* BEHZOFURANS
BENZOIN
BENZOIN GUM (BENZORPHENYLCARBANOL)
BENZOPNEHONE
BENZOYL PEROXIDE
BENZYL ACETATE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BENZYL BENZOATE
BIPHENYL
BIS(ALPHA,ALPHA-DIMETHYLBENZYL)PEROXIOE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHAUTE
BUTYL PHTKALYL BUTVL GLYCOLATE
COUMARIN
CRESYLIC ACID
C11-CH PHTHALATE
* C15-C19 PHTHALATE
* C7-C10 PHTHALATE
D.L-MENTHOL
OI-N-HEXYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBENZYL AZO OICARBOXYLATE
DICYCLOHEXYL PHTHALUTE
D1DECYL PHTHALATE
OIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIISONONYL-DECYL PHfHALATE
DIISOPROPYL BENZENE
DIISOPROPYL BENZENE EMULSION
DIMETHYL ETHER
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE ESTER
OIHETHYLBENZYL HYDROPEROXIDE ALPHA,ALPHA
DIPHENYL OXIDE
DIPHENYL PHTHALATE
* DIPHENYLALKANES
DIPHENYLTHIOUREA
01VINYLBENZENE
DODECYLBENZENE SULFONIC ACID SCCIUM SALT
DOOECYLPHENOL
ETHYL ACETOACETATE
EUGENOL (2-METHOXY-4-ALLYLPHENOL)
* FURFURALS
FURFURYL ALCOHOL
HYDROQUINONE
INDENO <1,2,3,-C,D) PYRENE
ISOPROPYL PHENOL
M-PHENOXYBENZALDEHYOE
H-PHENOXYBENZYL ALCOHOL
M-PHENOXYTOLUENE
METHYL SALICYLATE
* MIXED ALCOHOL PHTHALATE
N-HEPTYL-NONYL-UNOECYL PHTHALATE
III-A16
-------
TABLE VII(CONTINUED)
C. AROMATIC, ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL BROUPSCCONT.)
K-HEXYL-<2-iTim.H£XYL> PHTHALATE
li-HEXYL-<2-ITmHEXYL>-ISODECYl PKTHALATE
NHEXYLHEPTYLNONYL-UNDECYL PHTHALATE
N-HEXYL-OCTYL-DECYL PHTHALATE
N-OCTYL N-DECYL PHTHALATE
NEOPENTANOIC ACID
OCTYL DECYL PHTHALAT1
OCTYLPHENOL
P-BEHZYL OXYPHEHOL
P-HYDROXYBENZOIC ACID
P-TERT-BUTYL BENZOIC ACID
PHENOXYETHYL ISQBUTYRATE
PHENYL ACETIC ACID, POTASSIUM SALT
PHENYLACETALDEHYOE, D1METHYLACETAL
* POLYARYL ETHERS
* POLYBENZYLALKYLBENZENES
POLYETHYL BENZENE
PYRENE
PYRIDINE
» PYRROLES
OJINONE
SAL1CYLALDEHYDE
SALICYLIC ACID
SODIUM BENZOATE
SODIUM CARBOXYMETHYL CELLULOSE
SODIUM PHENATE
SODIUM THIOiULFATE
SORB1C ACID
TANNIC ACID
TERT-AHYLENI--A- METHYLSTYRIHI
TERT-BUTYLESTER PEROXYBENIOIC ACID
TETRAHYDROFURAN
TETRAHYDROPHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
* TOLUIC ACID!!
TRIPHENYL CYANURATE
1,2 BENZANTHRACENE
1,2-DIPHENOXYETHANE
1,2,3,4-TETRAHYDRONAPHTHALENE
1,2,5,6 DIB{>NZANTHRACENE
1,3-DIMETHOXYBENZENE
1,3,5-BEHZEMETRICAR80XYLIC ACID
1,4-DIBUTOXVBENZENE
2-HYOROXY-4-COCTYLOXY)BEMZOPHENOHE
2-HYDROXY-4-METHOXY-BENZOPHENON6
2-PHENOXYETKANOL
2,4 XYLENOL
2,4-"DI-T-BU7YL PHENYL-8.5-OI-T-BUTYL-4-HYDROXY BENZOATE
2,4-PENTADIOWE PEROXIDE
2,4,6-TRINlTROPHENOL
2,5-XYLENOL
3,4-XYLENOL
3,5-XYLENOL
8-HYDiOXYOUIHOLINE
III-A17
-------
TABLE VII(CONTINUED)
D. HALOGENATED ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS
A-BROHOACETOXYKETHYI. DIOXOUttff
A, B-EPOXY-B-HETHYLIIYDROCINNAHIC ACID, ETHYL ESTER
ACETYL CHLORIDE
* ACID CHLORIDES
* ALKYL BROMIDES
* ALKYL CHLORIDE CELLULOSE
AMYL CHLORIDE
BEHZOTRICHLORIDE
BENZOTRIFLUORIDE
BENZOYL CHLORIDE
BENZYL DICHLORIDE
BIS (2-CHLOR06THOXY) METHANE
BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS C2-CHLROETHYL-1HYDROXYETHYL) PHOSPHONIC ACID
BIS(2-CHLOfiOETHYL)VINYL PHOSPHONATE
BIS<2,3-DIBBHOPROPYLETHER)TETRABROMOBISPHENOLATE
BISC4-CHLQROPHENYDSULFONE
BISHEXACHLOROCYCLOPEMTADIENE
BORONTRIFLUORIDE-METHANOL COMPLEX
BROMOBEMZENE
BRQHOCHLOREHDOCYCLOO:TACIEHE
BROMOCHLOROMtTHANE
* BROMOETHYL BENZENES {-WONO, -DI, -TRI)
BROMONAPHTHALENE
BROMOTRIFLUOROMETHANI:
CARSON TETRABROHIDE
CARBON TETRAFLUORIDE
CiTYL BROMIDE
CHLORAL HYDRATE
* CHLORINATED PARAFFIN SULFONATES
* CHLORINATED POLYPHOSI'HATES
CHLORO-ACETALDEHYDE
CHLORO-ACETOPHENOHE
CHLOROACETIC ACID
CHLOROACETONE
CHLOROBENZALDEHYDE
* CHLOROBENZOIC ACID AND ESTERS
CHLOROBENZOTR'ICHLORICC co,p>
CHLOROBENZOYL CHLORIDE
CHLORODI FLUOROMETHANEi
CHLOROHETHYLHETHYL ETHER
CHLORONAPHAZINE
* CHLORONAPHTHALENES
CHLOROPICRIN (TRICHLCSONITROHETHANE)
CHLOROSTYRENE
CHLOROSULFONIC ACID
CHLOROTRIFLUOROHETHANE
CHOLINE CHLORIDE
DECABROMOBIPHENYL
DECABROMOBIPHENYL ETHER
OIBROHOBUTENEDIOL
DIBROMOOIFLUOROHETHANE
III-A18
-------
TABLE VIKCONTINUED)
D. HALOGEMATED ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GRCUPS
OIBROHOMETHANE
ftlBRONONEOPENTYL GLYCOC
D1CHLOROANILINE
DICNLOR08ROMOHETHANE
DICHLOROOIFLUCROHETHAHE
01CHLOROFLUQRCMETHANE
OICHLOROHYORIN
DICHLORONETHYL ETHER
DICHLOROHITROBENZENe
* OICHLOfiOMITROflENZEMES
OIETHYL CHLORCCTHYUN1NE
DIETNYL 2-BROH06THYLPHOSPHONATE
DIFLUOROETHANi
ETHYL BROMIDE
ETHYL CHLOROACETATE
ETHYL IODIDE
ETHYLBEHZYL CHLORIDE
ETHYLENE CHLOftOHYDRIN
ETHYLENE DIBROWIDE
FLUOROACETAHIOE
FLUOROACETATE, SODIUM SALT
HEPTACHLOR IPOXIDE
HEXABROHOBEHZI:NE
HEXABRONOBIPHiNOL
HEXABROMOCYCLiDOCOECANE
HEXACHLOROBEH2ENE
HEXACHLOROBUTAOIENE
HEXACH LOfiOCYC LOPENTADIENE
HEXACHLOftOETHANE
HEXAFLLKWOPROPYLENE DIOXIDE
IOOOHETHAHE
1SOPHTHALOYL CHLORIDE
ISOPROPYL CHLORIDE
* LONG-CHAIN CHLORIDES
M-CHLORQANILINE
N-CHLOROHITRceEHZENE
M-CHLOROTOLUENE
H-DICHLOROBEMZENE
HETHALLYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIC
METHYL IODIDE:
HOHOCHLOROHYDRIN (3-CHLORO-1, 2-PROPAHEDIOL)
H-BUTYLCHLOR1DE
0-DICHLOR06EHZENE
P-CHLOROANIL1NE
P-CHLORONITRC«ENZENE
P-CHLOROPHENVL ESTER ISOCYANIC ACID
P-CHLOROTOLUEME
P-DICHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHL.OROHAPTHALENE
PHENYLACETYL CHLORIDE
PHTHALOYL CHLORIDE
III-A19
-------
TABLE Vll(CONTINUED)
D. HALOGENATED ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPSCOOHT.)
POLYCHLORINATEO DIPHEMYL ETHERS
PCM.YCHLORINATED TRIPHEHYLS
PROPYL CHLORIDE
PROPYLENE CHLOR0HYI5RIN
PRQPYLENE 01CHLORIDE
SODIUM CHLOROACETATE
SOYBEAN OIL. BROHIMATED
TEREPHTHALOYL CHLORIDE
TETRABROMO-TETRANEfHYLDIHYDROXYBIPHENYL
TETRABROMOPHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
TETRACHLOR061SPHENOL A
* TETRACHLOROETHANES
TETRACHLOROPHEKQL
TETRACHLOROPHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
TETRAFLUORODICHLORGTHANE
TETRAFLUOROETHYLENE
TETRAKISCHYDROXYHETHYDPHOSPHOMIUM BROMIDE
TETRAKIS(HYDROXYMETHYL)PHOSPHOHIUH CHLORIDE
TOLUENESULFONYL CHLORIDE
TRANS-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRI8ROMONEOPENTYL A1COHOL
TRICHLOROACETIC ACID
* TRICHLOR06ENZENES
TR1FLUOSOACETIC ACID
TRIFLUOfiODICHLOROET MANE
TRIFLUOROETHANOL
TRIGLYCOL DICHLORIDE
TRIPHENYLMETHANE
TRIS(2-CHLORCTHYL) PHOSPHATE
TRIS(2,3-OIBROHOPROPYL) PHOSPHATE
TRIS(2,3-DICHLOROPRCPYL) PHOSPHATE
TRIS(2,4,6-TRIBROHOPHENYL) PHOSPHATE
TRIS(4-BROMOPBENYL) PHOSPHATE
VINYL BROMIDE
0-CHLOROANILINE
0-CHLORONITROBENZENE
0-CHLOROTOLUENE
1-CHLORO-2-HETHYLPROPENE
1,1.1,2-TETRACHLOROETKAHE
1,1,1,5,3,3-HEXAFLUO?0-2-PROPAKO«E
1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFUORCTHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANI:
1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRABROHOETHANE
1,2 TRANS-DICHLOROET11YLEHE
1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRlCHLOSOBENZEME
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPAWE
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORdBENZENE
1,2,3,5-TETRACHLOROeEHZfHE
1,2,4*TR1CHLOROBEHZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZEHE
III-A20
-------
TABLE VII(CONTIHUED)
D. HALOGENATED ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS(CONT.)
1,3-DICHLOROPROPEME
1,3,5-TRICHlOROBfNZENE
2-BR0MOETHANOL
2-BROMOPYRIDINE
2-CHLORO-1,3-BUTWIENE
2-CHLORO-4-TRIFLUOROMETHYL-3-CARBOXY-4'-NITRODIPHENYL ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER (NIXED)
2-CHLOROHYDROOUI HONE
2-CHLORONAPHTHALflNE
2 CHLOtON ITROPHEIKX.
2-CHLOROPHENOt
2-CHLOROPYRIDINE
2,2-OICHLOROETHYI. ETHER
2,3'DIBRCMOPROPAUOi
2,3-OICHLOROOUINOXALINE
2,4,6-TRICHLORO-S-TRIAZINf
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPiENOL
3CHLORO-2-METHYIPROPENE
3-TRICHLORO-METHfL-S-CHL(»0-1,2,4-THIAOIAZOLE
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
3,4,5-TRICHLOROPHCMO.
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO- 2-AMINOPHENOL
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
E. OTHER ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS
A-NAPHTHALENE SULFONIC ACID
A-TERPIMEOL
ACETOMITRILE
* ALKYL MALE1C ANHYDRIDE, SODIUM SALT
* ALKYL NITRATES
* ALKYLNITRITES
* ALKYITHIOIS, C14, C16, CIS
ALLYLNITRILE
ALPHA-CEDREHE ('rtRTOfIX C06UR)
ALUMINUM ALKYLS,, TRIETHYL
AMINOETHYL HYDROGEN SULFATE
AMYL NERCAPTAM
ANTHRAHILIC ACID
* AROMA CHEMICALS(FRAGRACES)
B-PICOLINE
BENZENESULFONIC ACID
BENZONITRILE
BENZYL CYANIDE
BETA-MYRCENE
BIS(CHLORENDO) SICYCLOPENTADIENE
BIS(CHLORENDO) CYCLODCTADIENE
BIS(CHLORENDO) FURAM
BIS(DIBUTYLDITHIOCARBAMATO) ZINC
BIS(DIETHYLDITHIOCARBAHATO) ZINC
BIS(P-OCTYLPHENOL) SULFIDE, NICKEL SALT
CALCIUM CYANAMIDE
CANPHENE
III-A21
-------
TABLE VII(CONTINUED)
E. OTHER ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPSCCONT.) :
* CARBAHATES
CARYOPHYLLENE (4,11,11 TRIM£THYL-8-HETHYLEHEBICYCLO(7-7-0) UHDEC-4-ENE)
CASTOR OIL (INCLUDING (ISP)
CELLULOSE NITRATE
CELLULOSE TETRANITRATE
CHLORENDIC ACID
* CHLORENDIC SALTS
CHLORENOQCYCLOOCTADlEWi
CRESYL DIPHEHYLPHOSPHATE
CYANOACET1C ACIO
D1ANISIDINE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIETHYL BIS (2-HYOROXY1THYL) PHOSPHONATE !
DIETHYL SULFATE
DIMETHYL HYDRAZINE
DIMETHYL SULFATE
DIMETHYL SULFIDE
DINETNYL SULFOXIDE
* DINITRC*ENZENES
-------
TABLE VII(CONTINUED)
E. OTHER ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS(COHT.)
MALE1C NYDRA2IDE
MALIC ACID
MALONOIANILIDE
MANN1TOL, CRYSTAL
MECRYLATE
METHALLYLIDENE 01 ACETATE
METHIONINE
* METHYL IONONE8
METHYL ISOCYANATE
HETHYLHYDRAZIIIE
MONOHYDRATEHYURAZINE
N-BUTYRONITRI1.E
H-NITROSOB1-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSOOIMETHYLAMINE
»-NITROSODIPHfNYLAMINl
* NAPHTHENIC ACID SALTS
HAPHTHENIC ACIO.COPPER SALT
NAPTHEH1C ACID, LEAD SALT
NITRILOTRIS(METHYLENE) TRIPHOSPHON1C ACIO
NITROBENZ01C ACID CM,0,P)
NITROETKANE
NITROMETHANE
NITROPHENOL
NITROPROPANE
NONENECMIXED 1SOHERS)
OCTYL SULFATI:, SODIUM SALT
* ORGANIC PIGMENTS
* ORGANO-TIH COMPOUNDS
P-BENXOQUINONE DIOXIME
DIOXANE
-NITROACETANILIDE
NITROANISOLE
N1TROPHENC1 & SODIUM SALT
NITROTOLIKNE-O-SULFONIC ACID
PERCHLOROMETHYL MERCAPTAN
* PERFUMES & FLAVORS, MISC.
* PHENOLSULFONIC ACIDS
PHENYL ANTHRANILIC ACID
* PHOSPHINES--ALKYL,ARYL OR ALKOXY (MIXED)
PICRIC ACID
PIGMENT BLU: 15, ALPHA AND BETA FORMS
PIGMENT GREIEN 7
PIGMENT YELLOW 12
PINANE
PINANE KYDROPEROXIDE
PINENE (ALPHA & BETA)
PIPERAZINE
POLYAZELAIC ANHYDRIDE
» POLYBENZIMIDAZOLES
* POLYBENZOTHIAZOLES
POLYNAPHTHALEHE SULFONATE, SODIUM SALT
POLYPHENYLENE OXIDE
POLYPHENYLENE SULFIDE
III-A23
-------
TABLE VI!(COHT1NU£D)
E, OTHER ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS!CONT.)
POLVSULFIDE POLYETHER
POLYUKETHAHE RESINS
POLYVINYL PYRROLIOQNE
POLYVINYL PYRROLIDONE IOOOPHORE
POTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE
PYRONES
QUATERNIZED COMPLEX ETHER
QUINOLINES, COPPER-B-HYDROXYQUIIIOUWXATE
* RAFFINATE
RESORCINOL
RESORCYLIC ACID
S,S,S-TRI8UTYL ESTER PHOSPHOROTRITHIOIC ACID
SACCHARIN
SELENIUM DIHETHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE
SEHICARBAZIOE HYDROCHLOR1DE
SORBITAN FATTY ACID ESTERS
SPIROGERMANIUK
STILBENE
SUCCINIC ACID
SUCCINONITRILE
SULFAHILIC ACID
SULFOLANE
* SULFURI2ED NATURAL FATS & OILS
SYHCLOSENE
TERPEHE OIL
TETRABRMOPHENYLHEXACHLOROBICYCLOHEPTA0IENE
TETRABUTYL PHOSPHONIUH SILONOLATE
TETRAKIS(DIETHYLDITHIOCARBANATO)SELENIUH
TETRAKIS(HYDROXYNETHYL)PHOSPHONIUM SULFATE
THIOPHENE ACETIC ACID
THIOUREA, COMPLEX
THIRAN
TOLUENE 2,4-DIISOCYAHATE
TOLUENE 2,6-DIISOCYANATE
TOXAPHENE
TRANS-BIS (N-PROPYLSULFONYL) ETHENE
TRICARBONYL 2-METHYLCYCLOPENTADIENYL
TRICYCLOOE.CENYL PROPIONATE
TRIDECYL SULFATE, SODIUM SALT
TRITOTYL PHOSPHATE
VAT BLUE 6
* VINYL ETHERS
* XAHTHOGENS
XYLENESULFONIC ACID, SODIUM SALT
* XYLEHOLS(MIXED)
1-A2IRIDINEETHANOL
t-HYDROXYETHANE-1,1-DIPHOSPHONIC ACID
1-NITRONAPHTHALENE
1,1-DIHETHYLHYDRAZINE
1,1-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
1,1'-OXYDI-2"PROPANOL
1,12-BENZOPERYLENE
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
III-A24
-------
TABLE VII{CONTINUED)
E. OTHER ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS(CONT.)
1,4-DIETHOXYBENZENE
2-(MORPHOLlNO-THIO)-BENZOTH!AZOLE
2-AHINO-4-NITROPHENOL
2-NETHYLAZ1RIDIN6
2-NlTROPHfNOL
* 2-PICOLINES & COCENERS
2-PIMANOl
2-PYRIDINETHIONE-H-OX10E, ZINC SALT
2,2*-DITHIOBISBENZOTHIAZOLE
2,2',*'-TRIHVDROXY-5-CHLORO AZOBENZENE-2,2'-COPPER COMPLEX, SOLUTION
2,4-DINITROPHENOl,
* 3-HYDROXY-Z-HAPH1HALEHE CAR80XANIDES
3-HYDROXY-2-KAPHTHALEHE CAR80XYL1C ACID (HNC)
3-SULFOLENE
3,5-DINITROBENZOIC ACID
4-NITRO-0-PHENYLI:NEDIANIHE
4-NITROSODIPHENYI.AMINE
4-NITROSOPHENOL
4-VIMYL-1-CYCLOHEXENE
4,4>-DIAMINO-STILBENE-2,2-DISULFOKIC ACID
4,6 OINITRO-0-CR£SOL
6-NITROBEZIMIDAZOLE
7-METHYL NAD1C ANHYDRIDE
III-A25
-------
-------
APPENDIX IV-A
RATIONALE FOR THE FORM OF THE BPT BOD5 REGRESSION MODEL
-------
-------
APPENDIX IV-A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RATIONALE FOR TIE FORM OF THE BP1 BODg REGRESSION MODEL
EXHIBIT 1 - BPT BOD5 Regression Model
Including Note on Interpretation of Regression Analysis
EXHIBIT 2 - BPT TSS Regression Model
EXHIBIT 3 - Significance of Flow
Biological and 95/40 with Plot
Biological and not 95/40 with Plot
Not Biological and 95/40 with Plot
Not Biological and Not 95/40 with Plot
EXHIBIT 4 - Significance of Production
Biological and 95/40 with Plot
Biological and not 95/40 with Plot
Not Biological and 95/40 with Plot
Not Biological and Not 95/40 with Plot
EXHIBIT 5 - Significance of Flow Normalized by Production
Biological and 95/40
Biological and not 95/40
Not Biological and 95/40
Not Biological and Not 95/40
EXHIBIT 6 - Significance of Degree Days
Biological and 95/40
Biological and not 95/40
Not Biological and 95/40
Not Biological and Not 95/40
EXHIBIT 7 - Significance of Age
Biological and 95/40
Biological and not 95/40
Not Biological and 95/40
Not Biological and Not 95/40
EXHIBIT 8 - BPT Regression Model. Data Listings
BOD Effluent, BODg Influent, Percent Removal, and Production Proportions
By Plant (157 plants)
Treatment Type, Performance, Flow, Production, Degree Days, and Age by
Plant (157 plants)
BOD5 and TSS by Plants for Plants Satisfying the 95/40 BODg Performance
and the TSS < 100 mg/1 Criteria (61 plants)
IV-A1
-------
RATIONALE FOR THE FORM OF THE BPT BODg REGRESSION MODEL
This section contains the general rationale for the use of a logarithmic
regression model to develop long-term average BOD. effluent values, which are
to be applied to production-based subcategories to develop subeategory-
specific BOD5 effluent limitations and plant targets based on each facility's
product mix.
A standard approach used in many effluent guidelines to determine average
aggregate performance for an industrial subcategory is to estimate the median
of a set of plant average treated effluent values. The estimation of the
median average performance is performed after it has been determined that each
plant in the data set satisfies minimum requirements for BPT treatment system
performance. Given the characteristics of the OCPSF industry, there is
general recognition that the BOD5 effluent long-term averages will not
necessarily be the same across all seven subcategories. Thus,
subcategory-specific estimates are required to be developed for each plant.
Most plants in this industry do not confine their OCPSF production to a single
OCPSF subcategory. The data base actually used in this analysis contains
approximately 40 percent of the plants with 95 percent or more of their OCPSF
production concentrated in a single subcategory; about 60 percent are multiple
subcategory plant operations. . ;
In the course of developing this regulation, EPA could not practically ;
obtain average BOD5 effluent concentration data for individual product groups
in multiple subcategory facilities, except in a very few cases in which a
plant operated a single production process. This is primarily because the
general practice in the industry is to treat conventional pollutants (BODg and
TSS) in combined wastewaters from the individual product process. Wastevater
flow rates, moreover, from the individual product processes within multiple \
subcategory plants are not available. However, subcategorical (product or
product group level) production rates are available and provide a link between
the facility's average BODg effluent concentration of the treated OCPSF
combined wastewaters and its subcategorical sources of those wastewaters.
This link is important to provide estimates of the contributions of BODS ,
effluent specifically attributable to each subcategory.
IV-A2
-------
Because the data available for determining subcategorieal specific aggre-
gate BOD5 effluent performance will not support seven separate analyses for
each subcategory, the EPA standard approach was modified. The modification
retained the characteristics of the standard approach in two major respects.
It provides estimates of long-term average BOD5 effluent in the form of
medians of plant-level averages, and it provides these estimates for each
subcategory. Although most plants have multisubcategory operations, the
regression model allows aggregate estimates to be made of subeategory-speeific
BODg contributions to the treated effluent. Moreover, by having the logarithm
of plant average BODg effluent as the dependent variable for the BODg
regression model, the predicted value is actually an estimate of the median
long-term average for the subcategory, as explained in the paragraph below.
Effluent concentration measurements within plants and effluent concentra-
tions across plants behave according to lognormal distributions. Given log-
normally distributed data, an estimate of the median is given by the anti-
logarithm of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the measurements. Since
the data analyzed are plant averages, the median estimated is a median of
plant long-term averages.
The BOD5 effluent plant means exhibit a highly skewed distribution as
illustrated by the histogram in Figure 1. The histogram of the natural
logarithm of BODg effluent means, however, is highly symmetric as indicated in
Figure 2, indicating that the plant average BODg effluent measurements are
lognormally distributed. Accordingly, when the estimated regression function
is evaluated for a plant having, for instance, 100 percent of its production
in thermosets, it yields a median estimate of plant averages for the
thermosets subcategory. In this manner, the estimated regression model yields
an appropriate estimate for each of the given subcategories based on existing
data.
IV-A3
-------
FIGURE 1
PLANT AVERAGE BODS EFFLUENT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
NUMBER OF PLANTS
120
110
100
SO
80
70
60
50
AQ -
30-
20-
10-
25 75 125 175 225 275 325 375 425 475 525 575 >625
PL ANT_ AVEBABE BODS EFFLUENT (mg/1)
(INTERVAL MIDPOINT)
-------
FIGURE 2
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF PLANT AVERAGE BODS EFFLUENT
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
NUMBER OF PLANTS
50-
40-
30-
EO-
10-
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5
LN (PLANT AVERAGE BODS EFFLUENT (mg/1))
(INTERVAL MIDPOINT)
-------
EXHIBIT 1 - BPf BOD5 REGRESSION MODEL
7
ln(BOD1) » a + £ vij'Tj + B'I4i + c*Ibi
3*1
vhere:
ln(BODi) m natural logarithm (In) of the 1980 annual arithmetic
average BOD. effluent in mg/1, which has been adjusted for
dilution vilh uncontaminated miscellaneous wastevaters (as
described in Section VII) for plant i
I4£ = performance indicator variable for plant i
« 1, if plant i meets the 95 percent BOD5 removal or at most,
40 mg/1 BOD5 effluent editing criteria (the final BOD5
performance editing criteria)
» 0, otherwise
Ibi » treatment indicator variable for plant i
* 1, if plant i has only biological treatment
» 0, if plant i has treatment in addition to biological
treatment
wij * proportion of OCPSF 1980 production from plant i from
subcategory j
ei « statistical error term associated with plant 1
The seven subcategories, represented by the subscript j, are as follows:
J=ls Thermoplastics
j-2: Thermosets
j=3: Rayon
j»4: Other Fibers
j«5$ Commodity Organics
j=6; Bulk Organics
j=7: Specialty Organics.
IV-A6
-------
NOTE ON INTERPRETATION OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS
SAS COMPUf ER OUTPUTS
The computer regression analysis outputs in this appendix are generated
by the SAS computer system, a veil-recognized and widely used statistical
analysis system. The regression results are, accordingly, represented in the
standard SAS output format. Readers not familiar with this format should
refer to Chapter 31 of
SAS User's Guide: Statistics
Version 6 Edition
SAS Institute Inc.
Gary, NC 27511-8000
The reader should take care to observe the parametric form of the regres
sion model being used in this and in other exhibits. In particular, the BPT
BOD regression model is stated as
(1)
Observe that because
7
I w . 1,
the regression coefficients (a) and (T^) can be replaced by (a+x) and (T^-x)
for any value of x, and there is no change in the model. The consequence is
that the regression model above is not uniquely specified and the coefficients
can not be uniquely estimated by regression methods vith the model in this
form. It is commonplace, therefore, to add the constraint
7
£ T, = 0
IV-A7
-------
to force the regression coefficients in the model to be uniquely defined. In
the first regression analysis in this exhibit, the model is implemented with
this constraint in the form
6
(2) InCBOD^ = a 4 E w^-T., + B-I4. + C-Ib± + ei
with
6
T = - £ T
In the second regression analysis in this exhibit, the form of the model is
7
(3) ln(BODi) m E wlj-Tj» + B-I4i + C-I^ + e£
j=l
and because there is no intercept term, no constraint is necessary.
These two parameterizations actually result in the same model. The
reader may verify from the printouts that
a + Tj = T.J'
Different parametric forms of models are implemented for different pur-
poses. The model based on the form (3) is best for estimating the coeffi-
cients directly; whereas, the model based on (2) is preferred to assess the
relative contribution of the subcategorical coefficients.
The reader should also note that standard statistics related to the dif-
ferent parametric forms are not the same. For instance, the coefficient of
determination (R-square) is not the same for the two implementations. The
value associated with regression model given in (2) is the appropriate one for
this BPT BOD5 regression model.
IV-A8
-------
SUBCATEGORY COEFFICIENTS FOR BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT (BPT OPTION I)
MITH >= 952 BODS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <= 40 MS/L
REGRESSION ON NATURAL LOGARITHM (LN) OF BODS EFFLUENT
DEP VARIABLE: LNBOOEFF LnCBOOS Effluent)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
MODEL 8
ERROR 148
C TOTAL 156
ROOT MSE
DEP MEAN
C.V.
sun OF
SQUARES
160.01064
123.48726
263.49790
0.9134404
''"3.455732
26.43262
MEAN
SQUARE
20.00132974
0.83437337
R -SQUARE
ADJ R-SQ
F VALUE
23.972
0.5644
0.5409
PROB>F
0.0001
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X3
X5
X7
X8
DPFM40
DTRT
OF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
4.56410137
-0.29139627
0.66475573
-0.23663157
-0.52627652
-0.06626001
0.09852574
-1.94453768
0.41834828
STANDARD
ERROR
0.20213671
0.18899101
0.36929208
0.56499625
0.27618759
0.21807276
0.23717796
0.16608368
0.15299342
T FOR HO:
PARAMETERS
E2.579
-1.542
1.800
-0.419
-1.906
-0.304
0.415
-11.708
2.734
PROB
( > ITI
0.0001
0.1252
0.0739
0.6760
0.0567
0.7617
0.6784
0.0001
0.0070
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl: Thermoplastics Deviation
T2: Thernosets D*vi*tion
T3: Rayon Deviation
T4: Other Fibem Deviation
T5: Commodity Organic* Deviation
T6: Bulk Organ ic» Deviation
B: 95/40 Performance Shift
C: Biological Only Treatment £
(hii
-------
SUBCATEGORY COEFFICIEKTS FOR BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT (BPT OPTION I)
HITH >= 95X BOOS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <= 40 M6/L
REGRESSION ON NATURAL LOGARITHM CLN) OF BOOS EFFLUENT
DEP VARIABLE: LNBOOEFF LnCBODS Effluent)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
MODEL 9
ERROR 140
U TOTAL 157
sun OF
SQUARES
2034.91725
123.48726
2158.40451
ROOT MSE 0.9134404
DEP MEAN 3.455732
C.V. 26.43262
NOTE: NO INTERCEPT TERM IS USED. R-SQUARE IS REDEFINED.
MEAN
SQUARE
226.10192
0.83437337
R-SQUARE
ADJ R-SQ
F VALUE
270.984
O.V428
0.9393
PR06>F
0.0001
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
M
<
I
VARIABLE OF
Zl
Z2
Z3
Z5
Z7
za
Z9
DPFM40 1
DTRT 1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
4.27270510
5.22885710
4.32746980
4.03782486
4.49784137
4.66262711
4.92138427
-1.94453768
0.41834828
STANDARD
ERROR
0.22750044
0.44161961
0.68493274
0.33656702
0.24319147
0.24607213
0.23840174
0.16608368
0.15299342
T FOR HO:
PARAMETERS
18.781
11.840
6.318
11.997
18.495
18.948
20.643
-11.708
2.734
PROB > ITI
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0070
VARIABLE
LABEL
a+Tl: Thermoplastic*
»+T2: Tharno*«t»
+T3: R»yoo
+T4: Other Fibers
a+T5: Commodity Organic*
a+T6: Bulk Organic*
a+T7: Specialty Organic*
B: 95/40 Performance Shift
C: Biological Only Treetawnt Shift
-------
EXHIBIT 2 - BPf TSS REGRESSION MODEL
) = a + b-lln(BODt)J + ei
where t
ln(TSSt) = ln(1980 annual arithmetic average TSS effluent in mg/1,
which has been adjusted for dilution vith Uncon laminated
miscellaneous wastewaters, as described in Section VII),
for plant i.
ln(BODi) = natural logarithm (In) of the 1980 annual arithmetic
average BODS effluent in mg/1, which has been adjusted for
dilution with uncon laminated miscellaneous wastewaters (as
described in Section VII) for plant i.
IV-A11
-------
SUBCATESORY COEFFICIENTS FOR BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT CBPF OPTION 11
WITH >= 9SX BODS REMOVAL OR 8005 EFFLUENT <= 40 HG/L
RE6RESSION ON NATURAL LOGARITHM ILHJ OF TS3 EFFLUENT
DEP VARIABLEI LNTSSEFF LNCTS3 EFFLUENTI
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE
i
IP-
SOURCE OF
MODEL 1
ERROR 59
C TOTAL 60
ROOT USE
OEP MEAN
C.V.
SUM OF
SQUARES
9.34423219
28.79051661
38. 13475080
0.698552
3.340707
20,91031
MEAN
SQUARE
9.34423219
0.46797489
R-SWARE
ADJ R-SQ
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE OF
INTERCEP 1
LNBODEFF 1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
1.84996248
0.52810227
STANDARD
ERROR
0.35221246
0.12068268
T FOR HOs
PARAMETERS
5.252
4.376
F VALUE
19.149
0.2450
0.2322
PROB>F
0.0001
PROB > ITI
0.0001
0.0001
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
b: LrUBOOS Effluent)
-------
EXHIBIT 3 - SIGNIFICANCE OF FLO₯
InCBOD^ = a + I w^-T.. + F
where:
ln(BOD1) = natural logarithm (In) of the 1980 annual arithmetic
average B00? effluent in mg/l» which has been adjusted for
dilution with uncontaminated miscellaneous wastevaters (as
described in Section VII) for plant i
ln(flowi)= ln(total flow(MGD), corrected for nonprocess waste
streams) for plan i, with associated coefficient B
wi. = proportion of OCPSF 1980 production from plant i from
subcategory j
The seven subcategories, represented by the subscript j, are as follows:
j=l: Thermoplastics
j=2s Thermosets
j=3: Rayon
j=4: Other Fibers
j=5: Commodity Organics
j=6: Bulk Organics
3=7: Specialty Organics.
The model was examined separately for the following four subsets of the data
base:
(1) Biological only and 95/40
(2) Biological only and not 95/40
(3) Not biological only and 95/40
(4) Not biological only and not 95/40
IV-A13
-------
FIQURE3
PLOT OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BODS EFFLUENT VERSUS NATURAL LOGARITHM OF FLOW
PLANTS WITH 'BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT WITH >- 95X
BOD5 REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <- 40 MB/L
NATURAL LOBARITHM OF
BODS EFFLUENT (MS/LJ
I
l_>
4>
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
0-
1 I "
4
+4. 4. +*
*++ + + +
4++ +
1 I *
-3
1 I
-i
' l '
2'
1 i
3
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF FLOMIMSD)
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL IOSARITHH OF FLOW
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT HITH >= 95%
BOOS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUEKT <= 40 H6/L
DEP VARIABLE i LNBODEFF LnlBODS Effluantl
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SUn OF MEAN
SOURCE OF SQUARES SQUARE F VALUE
MODEL 7 6.63489617 0.94784231 1.361
ERROR 62 43.17897666 0.69643511
C TOTAL 69 49.81387303
ROOT .USE 0.8345269 R-SQUARE 0.1332
DEP MEAN 3.026033 ADJ R-SQ 0.0353
C.V. 27.57825
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X3
X5
X7
X6
LNFLOH
OF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
3.01200421
-0.41004061
0.04767335
-0.02370051
-0.35944248
0.14229816
0.30473966
-0.07497803
STANDARD
ERROR
0.13459565
0.23226027
0.44680844
0.55357003
0.33255868
0.30398275
0.34489606
0.07066758
T FOR HO:
PARAMETERS
22.378
-1.765
0.107
-0.643
-1.081
0.468
0.884
-1.061
PROB>I
0.2371
VARIABLE
PROB > IT|
0.0001
0.0824
0.9154
G.%61
0.2840
0.6413
0.3803
0.2928
,
MT
Tlj
T2s
TS:
T4:
TSs
T6s
F:
LABEL
ERCEF
Than
Then
Rayei
Othei
Cooau
Bulk
LntFl<
Tharnosata Deviation
SsvSsifori
Other Fibers Deviation
Cooniodity Organic* Deviation
-------
FIGURE 4
PLOT OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BODS EFFLUENT VERSUS NATURAL LOGARITHM OF FLOW
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT AND NOT MEETING
95X BODS REMOVAL OH BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 MG/L
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF
BODS EFFLUENT (MB/L)
9
8-
7-
6
5-
4-
3-
a-
i-
0-
ill i i i i i i i i i i i i t i
i > i i i i i i i i i i i
i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i i I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I
«R
-4
-3 -2 -i 0
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF FLOW (MBDJ
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF FLOW
PUNTS MITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TRIATHENT NOT HEETINS
95X BODS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <= 40 HG/L
DEP VARIABLEi LNBODEFF LnCBODS Effluent)
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE
SOURCE
MODEL
ERROR
C TOTAL
ROOT
SUM OF MEAN
DF SQUARES SQUARE
6 26.49323674 4.41553946
20 16.31711772 0.91585589
26 44.61035447
MSE 0.9570036 R-SQUARE
OEP MEAN 5.008538 AOJ R-SQ
VARIABLE OF
INTERCEP 1
XI 1
X2 1
X5 1
X7 1
X8 1
LNFLOH 1
C.V.
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
4.12015655
-0.06475491
1 . 18957665
-1.76 148289
0.35608348
-0.28471864
-0.45047057
19.10744
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
STANDARD T FOR HO:
ERROR PARAMETERS
0.35120697 11.731
0.53121655 -0.122
0.89585184 1.328
1 1 X A 1 TA 11* ,, 1 C 1 H
0.62707648 0.568
0.58398484 -0.488
0.09846494 -4.575
F VALUE
4.821
0.5912
0.4686
PHOB > iTi
0.0001
0.9042
0.1992
0.1447
0.5765
0.6312
0.0002
PROB>F
0.0034
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl: ThermoplMtic* Deviation
T2: Thermoaeti Deviation
T4: Other Fibers Osv-aticn
T5: Commodity Organtcs Oevietion
T6: Bulk Organic* Deviation
Fi ln[FloM(HGO>l
-------
FIGURES
PLOT OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BODS EFFLUENT VERSUS NATURAL LOGARITHM OF FLOW
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT
HITH >- B5X BODS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 MB/L
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF
BODS EFFLUENT (MG/L)
>
i-"
oo
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
0-
i
-6
+ «. +*
+
-f
I
-4
i I i i i i i i i i i ! i i i i i i i i i ! i > i i i i i i
_3 _2 _i
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF FLOW (MBO)
r-p
2
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF FLOW
PUNTS WITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT HITH
>= 95X BOOS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <= 40 H6/L
OEP VARIABLE: LNBODEFF Ln(B005 Effluent!
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCf
MODEL
ERROR
C TOTAL
SUM OF MEAN
OF SQUARES SQUARE
6 4.69507319 0.78251220
30 15.94508334 O.S3152944
36 20.64095653
ROOT HSE 0.7290607 R-SQUARE
OEP MEAN 2.461709 ADJ P-SQ
C.V. £$.61604
VARIABLE OF
INTERCEP 1
XI 1
X2 1
X5 1
X7 1
xa i
INFLOW 1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
2.70429551
-0.23137651
1 .64432008
-0.73451794
-0.02254183
-0.38232423
0.02665183
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
STANDARD T FOR HO:
ERROR PARAMETERS
0.19768356 , 13.660
0.27529146 -0.640
0.64816186 2. S3?
0.34202949 -2.148
0.34604099 -0.065
0.38321655 -0.998
0.07744000 0.373
F VALUE
1.472
0.2275
0.0730
PROS > 1TI
O.OOOJ
0.4073
0.0166
0 .4400
0.9485
0.3264
0.7121
PROB>F
0.2213
VARIABLE
LABEL .
INTERCEPT
Tl: Thermoplastics Deviation
T2: Thernos«t» Deviation
T4: Other Fibers Deviation
T5: Commodity Organic* Deviation
T6: Bulk Organic* Deviation
F: LnlFlow(HGD)]
-------
FIGURES
PLOT OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BODS EFFLUENT VERSUS NATURAL LOGARITHM OF FLOW
PLANTS WITH BIOLOilCAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT
NOT MEETING 95X BODS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <- 40 MG/L
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF
BODS EFFLUENT (MB/L)
S3
o
9-
B-
7
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1
OH
JT
-B
~s
"4"
-3"-' - - -2" " -1 ' " "0
NATURAL L06ARITHM OF FLOW (MBD)
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF FLOW
PUNTS WITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT NOT HEETING
95X BODS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 M6/L
DIP VARIABLE I LNBODEFF Ln(B005 EffllMntl
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
MODEL
ERROR
C TOTAL
SUM OF MEAN
OF SQUARES SQUARE
5 4.24595926 0.84919185
13 10.46414322 0.80493409
18 14.71010248
ROOT USE 0.8971812 R- SQUARE
DEP MEAN 4.691448 ADJ R-SQ
C.V. 19.12376
F VALUE
1.055
0.2886
0.0150
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X7
X8
LNFLOH
OF
1
1
I
1
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
-1.28922983
5.67710801
-23, 139S4413
5.50741483
5.76784669
-0.18492094
STANDARD T FOR HO:
ERROR PARAMETERS
6.68971947 -0.193
6.71373016 0.875
26.98010482 -0.8SS
6.69871464 0.822
6.89484919 0.837
0.11755003 -1.573
PROS > ITI
0.8502
0.3972
0,4066
0.4258
0.4180
0.1397
, VAI
IN"
Tl
T2
TS
T6
F:
PROB>F
0.4278
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Th«rtBopl»stic« Deviation
Th«rvo«*ts Deviation
Commodity Organics Deviation
Bulk Organic* Deviation
LnlFloMlMBO)!
-------
EXHIBIT 4 - SIGNIFICANCE OF PRODUCTION
7
= a + E w «T. -» G'llnCprodj)! + ei
j=l
where:
ln(BOD1) = natural logarithm (In) of the 1980 annual arithmetic
average BOD5 effluent in mg/1, which has been adjusted for
dilution with uncontaminated miscellaneous wastewaters (as
described in Section VII) for plant i
In(prod4)= ln(OCPSF 1980 total production) from plant i, in millions
of pounds per year, with associated coefficient G
wt. = proportion of OCPSF 1980 production from plant i from
subcategory j
The seven subcategories, represented by the subscript j, are as follows:
J«l: Thermoplastics
j=2: Thermosets
j»3: Rayon
j~4: Other Fibers
j=5: Commodity Organics
j=6s Bulk Organics
j«*7: Specialty Organics.
The model was examined separately for the following four subsets of the data
base:
(1) Biological only and 95/40 -
(2) Biological only and not 95/40
(3) Not biological only and 95/40
(4) Not biological only and not 95/40
IV-A22
-------
TEST FOB SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF PRODUCTION
PLANTS HITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT HOT MEETING
95X BOOS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 MG/L
DEP VARIABLE I LNBODEFF Ln(BOD5 Effluent)
i
>
ts>
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE DF
MODEL 6
ERROR 21
C TOTAL 27
ROOT MSE
DEP MEAN
C.V.
SUM OF
SQUARES
25. 002 12*64
19.86067391
44.86279855
0.9724949
5.016867
19.36451
MEAN
SQUARE
4.16702077
0.94574630
R-SQUARE
ADJ R-SQ
F VALUE
4.406
0.5573
0.4300
PROB>F
0.0049
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X5
X7
X8
LNPROD
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
8.46545855
-0.01619212
0.86678756
-1.62977938
1.55445022
0.46471597
-0.72219739
STANDARD
ERROR
0.83370537
0.54260067
0.91074620
1.17593400
0.72721926
0.56734719
0.16415462
T FOR HO:
PARAMETERS
10.154
-0.030
0.974
-1.386
2.138
0.819
-4.399
PROB > iTl
0.0001
0.9765
0.3413
0.1803
0.0445
0.4219
0.0002
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl:
T2:
T4:
T5:
T6:
Thermoplastic* Deviation
Th*rmoaet9 Deviation
Other Fibers Deviation
Commodity Organic* Deviation
Bulk Organic* Deviation
S: LnlProduction (Millions lbm./yr.)]
-------
FIGURES
PLOT OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BODS EFFLUENT VERSUS NATURAL LOGARITHM OF PRODUCTION
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT AND NOT MEETING
95X BODS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <- 40 MG/L
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF
BODS EFFLUENT (MG/L)
i
>
ro
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-J
3-1
2-
1-
0-
-3
-E
-1
+ -f
+
T"
4
~T
5
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF PRODUCTION
(MILLIONS LBS/YH)
~r
10
-------
FIGURE 9
PLOT OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BODS EFFLUENT VERSUS NATURAL LOGARITHM OF PRODUCTION
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT
WITH >- 95% BODS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 MG/L
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF
BODS EFFLUENT (MB/L3
<
IsJ
9-
B-
7-
6-
5-
A-
3-
0-
+ + +
+ +.+ ,+
T ' T
-1 0
~r
3
~T
4
T
5
NATURAL LOGARITHM OF PRODUCTION
(MILLIONS LBS/YR)
T
9
10
-------
TEST FOR SIBNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF PRODUCTION
PLANTS NITH BIOLOSIGAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT HITH
>= 95X BOOS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 HS/L
DEP VARIABLE! LNSOBEFF LnCBODB Efflu«nt»
00
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
MODEL 6
ERROR 31
C TOTAL 37
ROOT USE
DEP MEAN
C.V.
SUM OF
SQUARES
4. 76300917
17.22*24778
21.98725715
0.7453998
2.492653
29.90387
MEAN
SQUARE
0.79383W9
0.55562090
R -SQUARE
ADJ R-SQ
F VALUE
1.429
0.2166
0.0650
PHOB>F
.0.2354
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
m
X5
X7
X8
LNPROD
OF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
2.34230310
-0.09180545
1.54530398
-0.71750036
-0.16849940
-0.34139324
0.05758375
STANDARD
ERROR
0.86093570
0.27408724
0.62978540
0.34175760
0.52271885
0.38710469
0.14839957
T FOR HO:
PARAMETERS
2.721
-0.335
2.454
-2.099
-0.322
-0.882
0.388
VARIABLE
PROB > ITI LABEL
0.0106 INTERCEPT
0.7399 Tl: Thermoplastics Deviation
0.0200 T2: Thermosefs Deviation
0.0440 T4: Other Fibers Deviation
0.7494 T5: Commodity Organic* Deviation
0.3846 T6: BulK Organic* Deviation
0.7006 6: Ln!Product!en (eillicns Iba./yr.)1
-------
FIGURE 10
PLOT OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BODS EFFLUENT VERSUS NATURAL LOGARITHM OF PRODUCTION
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT
NOT MEETINS 95% BODS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <- 40 MS/L
NATURAL LOiARITHM OF
BODS EFFLUENT (MG/L)
S3
vD
7-
61
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
0-
-3
* + t
T
0
~r
2
~T
5
~T
6
NATURAL LOSARITHM OF PRODUCTION
(MILLIONS LBS/YH)
~T
8
T
10
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF PRODUCTION
PLANTS HITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT NOT MEETING
95K BODS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 HG/L
OEP VARIABLE! LNBOOEFF LnCBDOS Ef«u«nt>
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
MODEL 5
ERROR 14
C TOTAL 19
ROOT MSB
DEP MEAN
C.V.
SUH OF
SQUARES
3 .35324294
11.45364578
14.60683872
0.9044985
4.707408
19.21436
MEAN
SQUARE
0.67064659
0.81811756
R-SWARE
AOJ R-SU
f VALUE
0.620
0.2265
-0.049ft
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X7
X8
LNPHOO
DP
1
1
1
1
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
-0.44480084
6.27639744
-24.25737613
6.06934562
6.14290402
-0.18075998
STANDARD
ERROR
6.66201534
6.75398710
27.16089698
6.71383449
6.92902326
0.14540804
T FOR HO:
PARAMETERS
-0.065
0.929
-0.893
0.904
0.887
-1.243
PROS > iTi
0.9492
0.3685
0.3869
0.3613
0.3903
0.2342
PROB>F
0.5556
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl: Thormopla»tic» Deviation
T2: Tharmosets Deviation
T5; Coflsoodity Organ! cs D«vi«tion
T6: Bulk Orgonica D*vi«tion
6: Ln£Product ion (millions lb«./yr.)l
-------
EXHIBIT 5 - SIGNIFICANCE OF FLOW NORMALIZED BY PRODUCTION
7
ln(BOD4) = a + E wtj*T., + H» Iln(365*£low1/prodi)]
where:
= natural logarithm (In) of the 1980 annual arithmetic
average BOD5 effluent in mg/1, which has been adjusted for
dilution with uncontaminated miscellaneous wastewaters (as
described in Section VII) for plant i
365*flowi/prod. = Annual total flow (MGY), corrected for nonprocess waste
streams, for plant i, divided by OCPSF 1980 production (in
millions of pounds per year) for plant i, with associated
coefficient H
wtj = proportion of OCPSF 1980 production from plant i from
subcategory j
The seven subcategories, represented by the subscript j, are as follows:
j=l: Thermoplastics
j=2: Thermosets
j =3 : Rayon
j=4: Other Fibers
j=5: Commodity Organics
j=6: Bulk Organics
j=7s Specialty Organics.
The model was examined separately for the following four subsets of the data
base:
(1) Biological only and 95/40
(2) Biological only and not 95/40
(3) Not biological only and 95/40
(4) Not biological only and not 95/40
IV-A31
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF C365*FLO«/PRODUCTIONl
PLANTS HITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT HITH >= 95X
BOOS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <= 40 H6/L
OEP VARIABLE! LN80DEFF LnCBODS Effluent)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
CO
K3
SOURCE 0F
MODEL 7
ERROR 62
C TOTAL 69
ROOT MSE
OEP MEAN
C.V.
SUM OF
SQUARES
6U4722298
43.66665005
49.81387303
0.8392263
3.026033
27.73355
MEAN
SQUARE
0.87617471
0.70430081
R-SfJUARE
AOJ R-SQ
F VALUE
1.247
0.1234
0.0244
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE OF
INTERCEP 1
XI 1
XZ 1
X3 1
XS 1
X7 1
xe i
LNFLPROD 1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
3.05086641
-0.38196519
0.19476567
-0.08873423
-0.37323100
-0.04905026
0.26790416
-0.05254497
STANDARD
ERROR
0.13867151
0.23151394
0.43069904
0.56804519
0.33471779
0.35558761
0.35455304
0.06100934
T FOR HOs
PARAMETERS
22.001
-1.650
0.452
-0.156
-1.115
-0.138
0.756
-0.649
PROB > ITI
0.0001
0.1040
0.6527
0.8764
0.2691
0.6907
0.4527
0.5190
PHOB>F
0.2912
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl: ThernoplesticB Deviation
T2: Thermo»et» Deviation
T3: Rayon Deviation
T4: Other Fibers Deviation
T5; Commodity Organic* Deviation
T6: Bulk Organics Daviaticn
H: Lnt365«FloM/Produetion
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF (365*FLOW/PRODUCTION I
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT NOT MEETING
95/5 BOOS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 MS/L
DEP VARIABLE! LNBODEFF LnCBODS Effluent!
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
HOTEL 6
ERROR 20
C TOTAL 26
ROOT HSE
DEP MEAN
C.V.
SUM OF
SQUARES
13.56836775
31.24198672
V*. 81035447
1.24984
S, 008538
24.95418
MEAN
SQUARE
2.26139462
1.56209934
R-SQUARE
AOJ R-SQ
f VALUE
1.448
0.3028
0.0936
PHOB>F
0.2462
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X5
X7
X8
LNFLPROD
OF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIHATE
4.73111987
-0.40156260
1.60881924
-1.31216492
-1.10339104
-0.09397531
-0.32881103
STANDARD
ERROR
0.40653414
0.68406754
1.16657845
1.50743640
0.76578019
0.77815216
0.16446326
T FOR HO:
PARAMETERS
11.638
-0.587
1.379
-0.870
-1.441
-0.121
-1.999
VARIABLE
PROB > 1T| LABEL
0.0001 INTERCEPT
0.5638 Tl: Th«r»opla»ties Deviation
0.1831 T2: Theraoset* Deviation
0.3944 T4: Other Fibers Deviation
0.1651 T5: Commodity Organic* Deviation
0.9051 T6: Bulk Organic* Deviation
0.0593 H; Lnl365*Flo*/Production (C»l./lb.)l
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF CASHFLOW/PRODUCTION}
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT WITH
>= 95X BOOS REMOVAL OB BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 HS/L
DEP VARIABLES LNBQDEFf Ln(BOD5 Effluent)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE DF
MODEL 6
ERROR 30
C TOTAL 36
ROOT USE
DEP MEAN
C.V.
SUM OF
SQUARES
4.62847666
16.01247987
20.64095653
0.7305815
2.461709
29.67782
MEAN
SQUARE
0.77141273 .
0.53374933
R-SQUARE
AOJ R-S(}
F VALUE
1.445
0.2242
0.0691
PROB>F
0.2306
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE
INTERCIP
XI
X2
X5
X7
X8
LNFLPROD
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
2.67494890
-0.22676297
1 .59805348
-0.71872894
0.04090520
-0.36620338
S. 01081085
STANDARD
ERROR
0.20098260
0.28154394
0.66543918
0.34953856
0.32655932
0.40526037
0.09318321
T FOR HOl
PARAMETER^!)
13.309
-0.805
2.402
-2.056
0.125
-0.904
0.116
VARIABLE
PROS > III LABEL
0.0001 INTERCEPT
0.4269 Tl:'Thermoplastics Deviation
0.0227 T2: Tharaoset* Deviation
0.0486 T4; Other Fiber* Deviation
0.9012 T5; Cotnodity Organic* Deviation
0.3734 T6; Bulk Organic* Deviation
0.9084 H: Lnl365«Flon/PrtxHiction (6al./lb.)l
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF (365»FLOH/PROOUCTION)
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT NOT MEETING
952 BOOB REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <= 40 HG/L
DEP VARIABLE: LNBOOEFF LnCBOOS Effluent)
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
MODEL 5
ERROR 13
C TOTAL 18
ROOT MSE
OEP MEAN
c.v.
SUM OF
SQUARES
2.73315539
11.9769*709
14.71010248
0.9598456
4.691448
20.45947
MEAN
SQUARE
0.54663106
0.92130362
R-SQUARE
ADJ R-SQ
F VALUE
0.593
0.1858
-0.1274
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
CO
UI
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X7
X8
LNFLPROO
OF
1
1
1
1
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
-1.93240875
6.77638013
-26.62021651
6.03152456
6.52042804
-0.11330832
STANDARD
ERROR
7.14423996
7.15206256
28.76609580
7.15491152
7.35634219
0.15711270
T FOR HO:
PARAMETERS
-0.270
0.947
-0.925
0.843
0.886
-0.721
PROB > ITI
0.7910
0.3607
0.3716
0.4145
0.3915
0.4836
PROB>F
B.7857
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl: TherBOplasties Deviation
T2: Theroosets Deviation
T5: Commodity Organics Deviation
T6: Bulk Organic* Deviation
N: Ln[36S«FloM/Production (Bal./lb.ll
-------
EXHIBIT 6 - SIGNIFICANCE OF DEGREE DAYS
7
a + E w^-T^ + J- (degree daysA) + e4
where:
ln(BOD4) - natural logarithm (In) of the 1980 annual arithmetic
average BOD5 effluent in mg/1, which has been adjusted for
dilution vith uncontaminated miscellaneous waste waters (as
described in Section VII) for plant i.
degree daysi = the number of degrees that the mean daily outdoor
temperature is below 65°F for a given day, accumulated
over the number of days in the year that the mean
temperature is below 65°F at plant i (with associated
coefficient J)
wij * proportion of OCPSF 1980 production from plant i from
subcategory j
The seven subcategories, represented by the subscript j, are as follows:
j«l: Thermoplastics
j=2: Thermosets
j»3: Rayon
j=4: Other Fibers
j=5: Commodity Organics
j-6: Bulk Organics
j*7: Specialty Organics.
The, model was examined separately for the following four subsets of the data
base:
(1) Biological only and 95/40
(2) Biological only and not 95/40
(3) Not biological only and 95/40
(4) Not biological only and not 95/40
IV-A36
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF HEATING
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT HITH >= 95X
BODS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <= 40 H6/L
DIP VARIABLE I LNBOOEFF Ln(B005 Effluent!
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
sun or MEAN
SOURCE OF SQUARES SQUARE F VALUE
MODEL 7 6.98999760 0.99857109 1.383
ERROR 63 45. 47474849 0.72182140
C TOTAL 70 52.46474609
ROOT USE 0.8496007 R-SQUARE 0.1332
OEP MEAN 3.002938 ADJ R-SQ 0.0369
C.V. 28.29232
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X3
X5
X7
X8
HEATING
OF
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
3.01816038
-0.44301621
0.19308259
-0.22621612
-0.35074500
0.09644572
0.32476822
.00000119645
STANDARD
ERROR
0.27443687
0.23266861
0.44049708
0.52857814
0.33851393
0.33263018
0.35398966
0.000065069
T FOR HO:
PARAMETERS
10.998
-1.904
0.438
-0.428
-1.036
0.290
0.917
0.018
PROS > IT!
0.0001
0.0615
0.6626
0.6701
0.3041
0.7728
0.3624
0.9854
VAI
IN
Tl
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
J:
PROB>F
0.2274
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Thermoplastics Deviation
Therixjsets Deviation
Rayon Deviation
Other Fibers Deviation
Commodity Organic* Deviation
Bulk Organic* Deviation
J: Keating (Degree Days)
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF HEATING
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT NOT MEETING
95X 8005 REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 HG/L
DEP VARIABLEI LNBODEFF LnCBODB EffluentJ
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
i-t
i
>
UJ
00
SOURCE
MODEL
ERROR
C TOTAL
SUM OF MEAN
DF SQUARES SQUARE
6 6 . 83745585 1 . 1 3957597
21 38.02534270 1.81073060
27 44.86279855
ROOT USE 1.345634 R-S iTl
0.0001
0.4691
0.3676
0.5439
0.6312
0.6962
0.7831
PROB>F
0.7052
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl: Thermoplastic! Deviation
T2J Theraosets D*vf*tion
T4; Other Fibers Deviation
T5: Cowroodity Organic* Deviation
T6: Bulk Organic* Deviation
J: Heating (Degree Days I
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF HEATING
PUNTS WITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT WITH
>= 95X BODS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <= 4« M6/L
DEP VARIABLE! LNBOOEFF LntBODS Effluent!
i
>
w
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
MODEL
ERROR
C TOTAL
SUN OF MEAN
OF SQUARES SQUARE
6 4.756764B8 0.7927941S
31 17.23049227 0.55582233
37 21.96725715
ROOT MSE 0. 7*5534 9 R -SQUARE
OEP MEAN V 492653 ADJ R-SQ
C.V. 29.90*29
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
XS
X7
xa
HEATING
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
2.7661050ft
-0.09167350
1.57425802
-0.74462410
-0.03399448
-0.36426122
-0.000025590 0
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
F VALUE
1.426
0.2163
0.0647
STANDARD T FOR HO: VA1
ERROR PARAMETERS)) PROS > ITI
0.30405592 9.097
0.27451913 -0.334
0.63333553 2.466
0.34551368 -2.1SS
0.32806048 -0.104
0.36024083 -0.958
.000068570 -0.373
0.0001
0.7407
0.0185
0.0390
0.9181
0.3455
0.7115
IN"
Tl
T2
T4
T5:
T6
J:
PROB>F
0.2363
LABEL
: Th*rnoplBstic» Deviation
: Th«raoset* Deviation
f Other Fiber* Devietion
: Commodity Organic* Deviation
Bulk Organic* Deviation
Heating (Degree Days)
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHH OF HEATING
PLANTS HITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT NOT HEETINS
95X BOOS REMOVAL 08 iOOS EFFLUENT <» 40 MS/L
DEP VARIABLE: LNBOOEFF Ln(BOD5 Effluent)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
VARIABLE OF
INTERCEP 1
XI 1
X2 1
X7 1
X8 1
HEATIN6 1
SOURCE
MODEL
ERROR
C TOTAL
ROOT
DEP,
c.v.
PARAMETER
ESTIHATE
0.12746563
5.29184047
-20.19276763
4.46770741
5.00594252
-0.000129705
SUM OF MEAN
OF SQUARES SQUARE
5 2.61216928 0.52243386
14 12.19471944 0.87105139
19 14.80688872
nSE 0.9333013 R-SQUARE
MEAN 4.707408 ADJ R-SQ
19.82621
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
STANDARD T FOR HO:
ERROR PARAMETERS 1
7.57112738 0.017
7.35197014 0.720
29.65460234 -0.681
7.44379277 0.600
7.S5301268 0.663
0.000167356 -0.775
F VALUE
0.600
0.1764
-0,1177
PROB > IT I
0.9868
0.4835
0.5070
0.5580
0.5183
0.4512
PHQ6»F
0.7011
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl; Thermoplastics Deviation
T2: Thermosets Deviation
T5: Commodity Orgnnics Daviation
T6: Bulk Organic* Deviation
J: Ha*ting (Dcgra* Days)
-------
EXHIBIT 7 - SIGNIFICANCE OP AGE
7
ln(BOD1) = a + I ₯ij*Tj + K«(agei)
where:
ln(BODt) = natural logarithm (In) of the 1980 annual arithmetic
average BOD, effluent in mg/1, which has been adjusted for
dilution with uncontaminated miscellaneous wastewaters (as
described in Section VII) for plant i, ,
age. - the age of the oldest process at plant i (with associated
coefficient K)
wi, = proportion of OCPSF 1980 production from plant i from
subcategory j
The seven subcategories, represented by the subscript j, are as follows:
j=ls Thermoplastics
j=2: Thermosets
j=3$ Rayon
j=4: Other Fibers
j=5; Commodity Organics
js=6s Bulk Organics
j=7: Specialty Organics.
The model was examined separately for the following four subsets of the data
base:
(1) Biological only and 95/40
(2) Biological only and not 95/40
(3) Not biological only and 95/40
(4) Not biological only and not 95/40
IV-A41
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL L06ARITHH OF AGE
PLAMTS HITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT HITH >= 95/J
BOOS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <= 40 M6/L
DEP VARIABLE: LNBQDEFF Ln(B005 Effluwit)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
MODEL
ERROR
C TOTAL
SUM OF MEAN
DF SQUARES SQUARE
7 7.59586289 1.08512327
63 44.86888320 0.71220450
70 52.46474609
HOOT HSE 0.8439221 R-SQUARE
VARIABLE
IMTERCEP
XI
X2
X3
X5
X7
X8
A6E
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
BEP
c,v
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
3.25505128
-0.47969369
0.25355673
-0.19809893
-0.32906639
0.09818071
0,27673597
-0.006750249
MEAN 3.002938 ADJ R-SQ
28.10321
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
STANDARD T FOR HO:
ERROR PARAMETERS
0.28595747 11.383
0.23173926 -2.071
0.43746647 0.560
0.52551235 -0.378
0.33699022 -0.976
0.30055238 0.327
0.35230019 0.786
0.007317224 -0.923
F VALUE
1.524
0.1448
0.0498
PROS > ITI
0.0001
0.0425
0.5642
0.7063
0.3326
0.7450
0.4351
0.3598
PROB>F
0,1750
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl: Thermoplastics Deviation
T2: Tharoosets Deviation
T3: Rayon Deviation
T4: Other Fibers Deviation
T5: Commodity Organic* Deviation
T6: Bulk Organic* Deviation
K: Age of Oldest Process (years)
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF A6E
PUNTS WITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT NOT MEETING
95X BODS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUENT <= 40 MG/L
DEP VARIABLEi LNBODEFF Ln(BOD5 Effluent!
<
*
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X5
X7
X8
AGE
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOURCE
MODEL
ERROR
C TOTAL
ROOT
DEP
C.V.
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
6.30329522
-0.41622968
1.07940679
-2.07531234
-1.01868945
1.70148886
-0.04764443
SUM OF MEAN
DF SQUARES SQUARE
6 14.06990546 2.34498424
21 30.79289309 1.46632024
27 44.86279355
MSE 1.21092 B -SQUARE
MEAN 5.016867 ADJ R-SQ
24.13699
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
STANDARD T FOR HO:
F VALUE
1.599
0.3136
0.1175
ERROR PARAMETERS PROB > IT|
0.67445522 9.346
0,66110237 -0.630
1.13479119 0.951
1.52396712 -1.362
0.69430555 -1.467
0.93261474 1.824
0.02124713 -2.242
0.0001
0.5357
0.3523
0.1877
0.1571
0.0823
0.0359
PR(B>F
0.1967
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl: ThenBOplastic* Deviation
T2: Thermosets Deviation
T4: Oth*r Fibers Deviation
T5: Commodity Organic* Deviation
T6: Bulk Organic* Deviation
K: Age of Oldest Process (years)
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM OF AGE
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT WITH
>= 95X BOOS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <= 40 MG/L
DEP VARIABLE) LNBODEFF Ln(BOD5 Effluent)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
MODEL
ERROR
C TOTAL
SUM OF MEAN
DF SQUARES SQUARE
6 4.77347880 0.79557980
31 17.21377835 0.55528317
37 21.98725715
ROOT USE 0.7451732 R-SQUARE
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X5
X7
X8
AGE
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DEP
C.V
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
3.59309835
-0.09456543
1.57093686
-0.72594996
-0.003608846
-0.38212798
0.002776871
MEAN 2..4926S3 AOJ R-SQ
29.89478
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
STANDARD T FOR HO:
ERROR PARAMETERS
0.24849495 10.435
0.27356678 -0.347
0.63168425 2.487
0.34117745 -2.128
0.32082296 -0.011
0.36076564 -1.004
0.006744540 0.412
F VALUE
1.433
0.2171
0.0656
PROB > ITI
0.0001
0.7310
0.0185
0.0414
0.9911
0.3234
0.6834
PROB>F
0.2340
VARIABLE
LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl: Thermoplastics Deviation
T2: Thermosets Deviation
T4: Other Fibers Deviation
T5: Commodity Organic* Deviation
T6: Bulk Organic! Deviation
K: Age of Oldest Process (years)
-------
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL LOGARITHM CF AGE
PLANTS HITH BIOLOGICAL PLUS TERTIARY TREATMENT NOT MEETING
95X BOOS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT <- 40 H6/L
OEP VARIABLE! LNBOOEFF Ln(B005 Effluent)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
MODEL
ERROR
C TOTAL
SUH OF MEAN
OF SQUARES SQUARE
5 3.00300864 0.76060173
14 11.00388008 0.78599143
19 14.80668872
ROOT USE 0.8865616 R-SQUARE
DEP MEAN 4.707408 AOJ R-SQ
C.V. 18.03333
VARIABLE
INTERCEP
XI
X2
X7
xa
AGE
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
-3.41890129
9.08977702
-34.03939669
8.09862489
6.65532547
-0.01577138
PARAMETER ESTIMATES
STANDARD T FOR HO:
ERROR PARAMETERS
6.62003392 -0.516
6.70275495 1.356
26.83984986 -1.293
6.64430164 1.219
6.68049396 1.287
0.01067991 -1.477
F VALUE
0.968
0.2568
-0.0066
PROB > IT]
0.6136
0.1965
0.2152
0.2430
0.2190
0.1619
PROB>F
0.4701
VARIABLE
, LABEL
INTERCEPT
Tl: Thermoplastics Deviation
T2: Tharoosets Deviation
T5: Comodity Organic* Deviation
T6: Bulk Organic* Deviation
K: Age of Oldest Process (years)
-------
EXHIBIT 8 - BPf REGRESSION HODEL DATA LISTINGS
BOD. EFFLUENT, BOD INFLUENT, PERCENT REMOVAL, AND PRODUCTION
PROPORTIONS BY PLANT
TREATMENT TYPE, PERFORMANCE, FLOW, PRODUCTION, DEGREE DAYS AND AGE BY
PLANT
BOD AND TSS BY PLANTS FOR PLANTS SATISFYING THE 95/40 BOD5
PERFORMANCE AND THE TSS < 100 mg/1 CRITERIA
IV-A46
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS INVOLVING NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BOOS EFFLUENT ~
FULL RESPONSE DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AW BOOS EFFLUENT INFORMATION
003 PLANT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1*
17
18
19
20
21
22
IBS'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
If
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
61
63
63
102
154
177
227
250
254
267
269
264
296
352
364
367
392
394
399
415
443
PLANT
1
61
63
63
162
154
177
227
250
254
267
249
284
296
352
364
387
392
394
399
415
443
BOOS BOOS BOOS PROPORTION PROPORTION PROPORTION
EFFLUENT INFLUENT PERCENT PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
(N6/L1 (M6/L) REMOVAL THERMOPLASTICS THBtHOSETS RATON
91 123? 0.9!
2940
6 ITS .97
36 1516 .9?
7 1908 .00
11 505 .96
12* 2046 .9*
86 S91 .77
127 1212 .90
* 1*61 i.oo
i*
16*
21 104 O.BO
21* 4495 0.9S
45 524 0.91
7
14 ITS 0.92
34
9 2169 1.00
24 1*3 0.8S
45 415 0.69
. 20 716 0.97
.66542 0.000000
.00000 0.000000
.33676
.51972
.00000
.00000
.02667
.00000
.22951
.00000
.53669
.00000
.96922
.00000
.01625
.16947
.00000
.00000
.95025
.00000
.09424
.00000
.000000
.000000
.092319
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.015722
.000000
.000000
.000000
.014475
.000000
.000000
.993860
.000000
.000000
.060000
.000000
.00000
.00000
.21156
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.97477
.00000
.00000
PROPORTION PROPORTION PROPORTION PROPORTION
PRODUCTION PRODUCTION HH50UCTIOH PRODUCTION
OTHER FIBERS COMMODITY OHSANICS BULK ORCANIC3 SPECIALTY ORCANICS
.00000
.00000
.2016$
.46026
.00000
* iPPOB
.00000
.00000
.00000
00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.MOM
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.02523
.00000
.00000
.334577
.00000*
.064014
.000008
.000001
.000000
.520367
.000000
.7*7509
.000000
.2*3021
.000008
.000008
.646631
.000009
.794663
.000000
.400000
.000000
.000000
.7746ft
.MOM
.00000
.96965
.16602
.00000
.62509
.00000
.45097
.00000
.00296
.00000
.00550
.00000
.02042
.114*4
.56554
.01564
.MOM
.MHO
.00000
.coeoo
.I176C
.6C79S
.00000
.05035
.00000
.00000
.20219
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
OMOO
.1770*
.00000
.01036
.«S6f3
.40373
.00000
.00000
.00612
.04975
.00000
.0132*
.97267
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS INVOLVIHS NATURAL LOGAHITHH OF BOOS EFFLUEKT
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT DISCHARSERS
PRODUCTION AND BOOS EFFLUENT INFORHATION
063 PLANT
.
i
00
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
SB
39
40
41
42
43
44
CBS
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
51
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
444
481
SOD
525
580
602
606
659
662
662
683
695
741
802
Sll
am
844
851
866
871
883
90S
PLANT
444
481
506
525
580
602
60S
659
662
662
683
69S
741
802
Sll
825
844
851
66
71
463
906
BOOS
EFFLUENT
IM6/L)
24
368
49
9
45
1050
46
35
29
14
12
20
96
12
22
176
5
30
10
35
20
53
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
BOOS BOOS
INFLUENT PERCENT
.IH6/LJ REMOVAL
.
*
* *
180 0.95
» " »
9420 0.69
» »
316 . 0.89
» «
911 0.98
79 0.85
* *
2271 0.96
145 0.92
*
. .
» *
565 0.95
3195 1.00
468 0.93
300 0.93
3176 0.98
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
OTHER FIBERS COTtWOITY ORSANICS
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.02507
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.36848
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.85174
.00000
.00000
.00000
.76972
.13000
.18491
.00000
.31834
.67997
.00000
.00000
.59744
.00000
.73637
.83300
.00000
.00000
.00000
.61066
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
THERMOPLASTICS
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.78296
0.04711
0.60021
0.07708
0.07923
0.00000
0.00000
0.25871
0.00000
0.092S9
0.00000
0.72950
0.43848
1.00000
0.05135
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
BULK OR6ANICS
.00000
.00000
.14491
.10083
.00000
.20368
. 1S055
.00000
.63502
.00000
.51937
.21661
.00000
.00000
.13984
.00000
.15730
.06522
.27059
.19226
.00000
.32889
PROPORTION PROPORTION
PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
THERMOSETS RAYON
0.000000 0.000000000
0.000000 0.000000000
0.000000 0.000000000
0.064513 0.000000000
0.000000 0.000000000
0.000000 0,000000000
0.000000 0.000000000
0.087033 0.000000000
0.000000 0.000000000
0.194664 0.000000000
0.000000 0.000000000
0.014039 0.000000000
0.000000 0.000000000
0.000000 0.000000000
0.000000 0.000000000
o.oooooo o.ooooooooo
0.000000 0.000000000
0.013462 .000000000
0.000000 .000000000
0.000000 .000781076
0.000000 .000000000
o.oooooo .010000000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
SPECIALTY ORGANIC*
0.00000
i.eoooe
'.-
.00335
.3465
.00000
.79632
.07973
.00000
.13295
.18005
.08521
.01015
.00000
.00000
.00400
.00000
.01144
.06832
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00910
-------
DATA FOR RE6RES3IONS INVOLVING NATURAL LOSARITHH OF BOOS EFFLUENT ~
FULL RESPONSE. DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AND BOOS EFFLUENT INFORMATION
DBS
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
SB
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
DBS
45
46
47
40
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
PLANT
909
948
970
964
990
1012
1020
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1241
1299
1319
1323
1340
PLANT
909
948
970
984
990
1012
1020
1036
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1241
1299
1319
1323
1340
8005
6FFLUENT
(R6/L)
21
12
10
22
16
20
12
5
32
6
24
68
23
23
36
37
21
5
10
194
150
6
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
OTHER FIBERS
0.00000
0.19949
1.00000
0.00000
0.77178
1.00000
0.00000
0.16947
0.00000
0.10942
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000-
o.ooooe
0.00000
0.00000
BOOS BODS
INFLUENT PERCENT
(M6/L) REHOVAL
.
1366 0.99
401 0.98
. *
1057 0.98
«
, .
» *
120 0.73
878 '; 0.97
* *
1947 0.99
1698 0.99
. ,
"
387 0. 95
*
. ,
-
-
839 0.99
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
COMMODITY OHGANICS
0.84744
O.S8886
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
O.OOODO
0.00000
0.83053
0.52868
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.53543
0.04296
1.00000
0.68710
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.50724
0.63657
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
THERMOPLASTICS
0.00089
0.12674
0.00000
0.97617
0.22822
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.17302
0.00000
0.46457
0.31190
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.35838
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
BULK OR6ANICS
0.151666
0.069281
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0,000000
0.000000
0.009000
0.278930
0.890581
0.000000
0.614670
0.516403
0.000000
0.533455
O.OOOOQO
0.298429
0.000000
0.976261
0.000000
0.492760
0.005048
PROPORTION PROPORTION
PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
THE8HQSETS RAYON
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 > -0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
0.00000 0
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
SPECIALTY ORSANICS
0.00000
0.01563
0.00000
0.02363
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.19239
0.00000
0.00000
0.21231
0.48360
0.00000
0.11169
0.00000
0.01447
0.00000
0.02174
1.00000
0.00000
0.00000
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS INVOLVING NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BOOS EFFLUENT
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT DISCHARSERS
PRODUCTION AND BOOS EFFLUENT INFORMATION
Ul
o
»s
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
60
81
82
03
84
85
86
87
88
PLANT
1343
1407
1409
1438
1446
1494
1572
1609
1616
1617
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1695
1690
1714
1717
1753
1766
1769
BODS
EFFLUENT
CM6/L)
8
28
8
29
15
62
45
65
101
65
921
18
58
29
97
17
68
32
38
37
166
10
BODS
INFLUENT
CM6/L)
183
366
.
2249
.
413
1128
1972
80
469
.
483
1192
.
2456
2C6
4706
125
490
435
3595
115
BOOS
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0.96
0.92
f
0.99
t
0.85
0.96
0.97
-0.26
0.86
,
0.96
0.95
0.96
0.92
0.99
0.74
0.92
0.91
0.95
0.91
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
THERMOPLASTICS
0.92587
0.0016A
0.00000
0.21350
0.00000
0.00000
0.09172
0.00000
1.00000
1.00000
C. 48584
1.00000
0.00000
0.26270
0.00000
0.43966
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
DBS
PLANT
PROPORTION PROPORTION
PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
THERMOSETS RAYON
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
OTHER FIBERS
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
64
85
86
87
88
1343
1407
1409
1438
1446
1494
1572
1609
1616
1617
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1695
1698
1714
1717
1753
1766
1769
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.78650
0.00000
0.00000
0.40637
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
COMMODITY ORGANICS
0.000000
0.000000
0.443905
0.000000
0.000000
0.083860
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.405799
0.000000
0.560337
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
BULK ORGANICS
0.043013
0.000000
0.547417
0.000000
0.617476
0.769604
0.207825
0.550939
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.331505
0.747888
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000.
0.000000
0.761269
0.03111
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.13234
0.02581
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.51416
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
1.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.02170
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
SPECIALTY ORGANICS
0.00000
0.99832
fl.00868
0.00000
0.25019
0.12073
0.29408
0.44906
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
0.25211
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
0.21703
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS INVOLVING NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BOOS EFFLUENT
FULL RESPONSEi DIRECT DISCHARSER3
PRODUCTION AND BOOS EFFLUENT INFORMATION
i
>
u»
DBS
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
10S
106
107
108
109
110
06S
PLANT
1802
1869
18B1
1090
1905
1911
19*3
1973
1977
2009
2026
2049
2110
2148
2161
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
PLANT
8005
EFFLUENT
(MG/L)
50
18
63
47
5
25
22
3
27
82
40
32
112
5
4
15
8
75
5303
55
16
189
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
OTHER FIBERS
BODS
INFLUENT
tHS/L)
872
80
.
2442
*
375
664
3155
f
f
«
351
.
2S3
572
80
456
BODS
PERCENT
REMOVAL
.
0.95
e.4i
,
0.99
,
0.99
0.96
.
0.99
^
»
.
0.99
»
0.97
0.87
. *
0.31
0.96
PROPORTION-
PRODUCTION
COMMODITY OR6ANIC3
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
THERMOPLASTICS
1.00000
0.67125
0.25908
0.05485
0.00000
0.13368
0.46393
1.00000
0.54071
0.00000
0.09530
0.00000
0.01232
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
i.ooooo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
BULK ORGANICS
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
THERMOSETS
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.02596
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
0.61198
0.00000-
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
RAYON
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SPECIALTY OR6ANICS
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
1802
1869
1681
1890
1905
1911
1943
1973
1977
2009
2026
2049
2110
2148
2181
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
0.0000
0.0000
8.7132
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0900
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.00000
0.32875
0.00000
0.00068
0.00000
0.54211
0.53607
0.00000
0.44436
0.08108
0.00003
0.00000
.72633
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.01432
0.00000
0.42095
0.92827
0.00000
0.00000
0.02772
0.94447
0.00000
0.31153
0.00000
0.00000
0.01493
0.24324
0.19892
0.00000
0.14726
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,84623
0.31202
o.ooooe
o.ooooo
o.ooooo
o.ooooo
0.00000
1.00000
0.01247
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.67568
0.70575
1.00000
0.08814
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.36802
0.98568
0.15177
0.26704
0.07173
-------
OAT* FOR RECESSIONS INVOLVING NATURAL LOSARITHH OF BOOS EFFLUENT
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PHOOUCTIOH AND BOOS EFFLUENT 1NFORHATION
083
PLANT
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
126
129
,130
131
132
OBS
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
2296
2307
2313
2315
2328
23S3
2360
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2528
2536
PLANT
2296
2307
2313
2315
2328
2353
.2160
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2430
2445
2447
24SO
2461
2471
2474
2528
2536
BOOS
EFFLUEHT
(HG/Ll
18
359
244
9
19
SS9
2
40
46
27
57
57
VI
B
48
15
S
43
17
455
35
, 3
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
BOOS
INFLUENT
tttS/L)
ei
.
577
444
.
.
60
1385
,
324
2317
829
.
496
668
71
44B
717
110
,
679
366
BOOS
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0.78
*
0.58
0.98
.
*
0.97
0.97
.
0,92
0.98
0.93
^
0.98
0.93
0.79
0.99
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.99
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
OTHER FIBERS COMMODITY ORSANICS
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.92573
0.43919
0.00000
0.38819
0.09067
0.00000
0.65708
0.57809
0.00000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
THERHOPLASTICS
1.00000
1.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.45643
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.92247
0.00000
0.00000
0.80000
0.02249
0.05233
0.00000
0.00000
0.07327
0.00000
0.00000
0.32052
1.00000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
BULK ORSANICS
0.00000
0.00000
0.28629
0.00000
0.54357
0.78543
0.00000
0.58340
0.00000
0.00000
0.16482
0.23256
1.00000
O.OS178
0.26410
0.00000
0.60663
0.39060
0.79386
0.34292
0.07129
0.00000
PROPORTION PROPORTION
PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
THERKQSETS RAYON
0.000000
0.000000
0.033736
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.077527
0.000000
0.000000 '
0.000000
0.000000
0.244381
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SPECIALTY ORSANICS
0.00000
0.00000
0.67998
0.00000
0.00000
0.21457
0.00000
0.41660
0.00000
0.00000
0.83510
0.76744
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.00516
0.44546
0.20612
0.00000
0.03009
0.00000
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS INVOLVINS NATURAL LOGARITHM OF BOOS EFFLUENT
FULL RESPONSE DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AND BODS EFFLUENT INFORMATION
063
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
146
149
150
151
152
153
154
PLANT
2551
2556
2573
2592
2626
2631
2633
2673
2678
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2763
2764
2795
2816
2818
3033
4017
4021
BOOS
EFFLUENT
IMG/L)
11
19
264
27
14
22
91
101
79
4
86
25
26
985
4
14
26
10
55
190
4
21
BODS
INFLUENT
(MG/L)
1305
210
1371
1187
349
694
,
f
274
510
*
,
f
962
150
f
f
785
.
1686
f
1767
BOOS
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0.99
0.91
0.79
0.96
0.96
0.97
»
.
0.71
0.99
.
*
-0.02
0,97
f
f
0.99
.
0.89
f
0.99
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
THERMOPLASTICS
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.90313
0.00000
0.88338
0.00000
1.00000
1.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.65379
0.00000
0.23001
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.96707
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
THERMOSETS
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.015274
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.528866
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
RAYON
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OBS
PLANT
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
OTHER FIBERS
133
134
iJS
136
137
136
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
2551
2556'
2573
2592
2626
2631
2633
2673
2676
2692
Z693
2695
2701
2711
2763
2764
2795
2816
2618
3033
4017
4021
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
COMMODITY ORSANIC3
0.00000
1.00000
Q.OCOOO
0.00000
0.00000
0.65307
0.11662
0.03132
0.00000
0.00000
0.30625
0.16145
1.00000
0.47113
0.00000
0.34621
0.00000
8.76999
0.95192
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
BULK ORGANICS
0.055397
0.000000
0.152415
0.000000
0.002348
0.131654
0.000000
0.148847
0.000000
0.000000
0.472698
0.679490
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.048077
0.925016
0.000000
0.032929
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
SPECIALTY ORGANICS
0.94460
0.00000
0.84758
0.00000
0.09452
0.00000
0.00000
0.81983
0.00000
0.00000
0.22106
0.15906
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.07496
0.00000
0.00000
-------
DATA FOB REGRESSIONS INVOLVING NATURAL LOSA8ITHH OF BOOS EFFLUENT ~
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AND BOOS EFFLUENT INFORMATION
DBS
PUNT
155 4037
156 4040
157 4051
DBS
PLANT
155 4037
156 4040
157 4051
BOOS
EFFLUENT
(M6/L)
s
195
27
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
OTHER FIBERS
0
0
0
BOOS
INFLUENT
tMG/L)
645
BOOS
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0.96
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
COMMODITY ORGANICS
0.000000
0.760289
0.000000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
THERMOPLASTICS
0
0
1
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
BULK ORGANICS
0.740805
0.239711
0.000000
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
THERHOSETS
0
0
0
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
RAYON
0
0
0
PROPORTION
PRODUCTION
SPECIALTY ORGANICS
0.259195
0.000000
0.500000
I
>
Ul
-------
DATA F08 REGRESSIONS IKVOLVINS BOOS EFFLUENT
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AND BODS EFFLUENT INFORMATION
DBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
DBS
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
PLAKT
1
61
63
63
102
1S4
177
227
2SO
254
267
269
284
2%
352
384
387
392
394
399
415
443
BIOLOGICAL 95/40 BIOLOGICAL BIOLOGICAL
ONLY?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOT BIOLOGICAL
ONLY AND
NOT 95/40
X
X
CRITERIA? ONLY AND
FLOW
(MSO)
l.SSOO
0.9200
5.9624
0.3743
0.4116
0.3810
0.2633
2.743B
l.iOTO
0.2530
1.5471
0.0090
0.8500
0.1311
0.0858
3.2440
13.8000
0.0290
0.7190
8.5400
11.4439
0.0057
9S/40
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
PRODUCTION
(MILLION IBS.
PER YEAR)
750.2
12.2
548.3
431.0
141.9
263.4
1102.3
15.5
im.s
381.9
900.6
254.1
358.9
3795.9
23.2
2997.8
215. 0
81.7
32.0
157.0
6636.S
5.3
ONLY AND
NOT 95/40
X
X
X
X
X
X
HEATZNS
(DEGREE DAYS)
4680
5800
3696
2598
6180
5344
1498
2146
1670
4333
7143
2844
1496
146S
3163
1434
5231
5838
4947
2626
1670
4947
NOT BIOLOGICAL
ONLY AND
95/48
X
X
X
X
X
X
A6E OF
OLDEST PROCSESS
(YEARS)
45
37
36
23
29
35
22
14
13
45
87
68
21
18
21
14
44
29
61
32
28
34
-------
DATA F08 REGRESSIONS IKVOLV1N6 BOOS EFFLUENT
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AND BOOS EFFLUEKT INFORMATION
I
>
ui
OSS
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
36
39
40
41
42
43
44
DBS
23
24
25
26
Z7
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
PLANT BIOLOGICAL 95/40 BIOLOGICAL BIOLOGICAL
ONLY? CRITERIA? ONLY AND ONLY AND
95/40 NOT 95/40
444 X X X
481
500
525 X X X
580 X X
602 X X
606 X X
659 X X Y
662 X X X
6S2 X X X
683 X X X
695 X X X
741 X X X
802 X XX
Sll X
825 X X
844 X
851 X X X
866 X
871 , X X X
883 X
908 X X X
NOT BIOLOGICAL FLOW PRODUCTION HEATING
ONLY AND (HSU) (MILLION LBS. (DEGREE DAYS)
NOT 95/40 PER YEARJ
0.7410
X 0.0043
X 0.8890
0.6320
0.7090
0.0358
1.2440
0.7500
3.1496
2.1518
0.8700
16.0624
1.2050
1.0730
0.4670
0.1860
0.0380
1.S084
0.0720
0.9943
0.1300
1.7340
679.6
0.1
2087.5
558.3
12.6
6.4
819.0
467.3
933.9
280.5
2300.1
11568.0
218.0
192.4
544.6
7.5
787.8
4027.6
93.9
167.7
82.0
3470.6
1224
2598
2678
1284 .
S753
2598
1670
5070
4590
4817
5344
1224
2547
3505
1513
6192
4374
1434
6180
4237
6180
0
NOT BIOLOGICAL
ONLY AND
95/40
X
X
X
X
A6E OF
OLDEST PHOCSESS
(YEARS)
26
18
30
24
54
16
26
32
41
36
31
43
19
36
29
36
22
22
13
56
19
25
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS INVOLVING BOOS EFFLUENT
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AND BODS EFFLUENT INFORMATION
089
45
46
47
46
49
SO
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
56
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
DBS
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
53
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
PUNT
BIOLOGICAL 95/40 BIOLOGICAL
ONLY? CRITERIA? ONLY AND
909
948
970
984
990
1012
1020
103S
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1241
1299
1319
1323
1340
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOT BIOLOGICAL FLOW
ONLY AND
NOT 95/40
X
X
X
(USD)
0.8073
6.5875
0.6350
0.6370
0.1630
0.5790
0.1996
2.1430
3.4533
3.4010
0.7120
0.2000
0.7004
0.2901
0.0099
2.2900
2.7347
0.2800
0.0063
0.0115
,
o.oaoo
95/40
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
PRODUCTION
(MILLION LBS.
PER YEAR)
18614.3
3366.0
108.6
239.2
459.4
74.7
335.1
2797.0
69.9
165.5
170.0
405.7
147.3
1456.2
76.6
1260.0
1462.7
38.0
36.6
9.6
227.9
2079.9
BIOLOSICAL
ONLY AND
NOT 95/40
HEATING
(DE6REE DATS)
1434
3695
4307
4220
2566
3671
2678
2433
5827
3939
6180
4750
2844
2598
1434
3199
146S
1498
1224
6381
2844
6160
NOT BXOLOeiCAL
ONLY AND
95/40
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A61 OF
OLDEST PROCSESS
( YEARS 1
Z?
63
43
28
10
26
7
16
79
55
17
77
32
18
14
18
29
30
9
20
74
15
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS IMVOLVIH6 BOOS EFFLUENT
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AND BOOS EFFLUENT INFORMATION
Ul
oo
083 - PUNT BIOLOGICAL 95/40 1IOLOSICAL BIOLOGICAL
ONLY* CRITERIA? ONLY AND ONLY AND
95/40 HOT 95/40
67 1343 X
68 1407 XXX
69 1409 XXX
70 1436 X
71 1446 X
72 1494
73 1572 X . X X
74 1609 XXX
75 1616 X . X
76 1617
7? 1624 X X
78 1643 X X X
79 1647 XXX
£0 1650 XXX
81 1656 XXX
82 1695 X
83 1698 X
84 1714 XXX
85 1717 X
86 17Ji3 XXX
87 1766 XXX
88 1769
DBS NOT BIOLOSICAL
ONLY AND
HOT 95/40
67
68
69
70
71
72 X
73
74
75
76 X
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
64
85
86
87
88
FLOM
(MSB)
0.2910
0.3401
1.2800
0.2760
0.7820
1.3640
3.4721
0.5500
0.1110
0.8313
0.0036
0.3600
0.6320
11.1706
0.0434
2.3650
0.0110
0.0184
,
3.2900
0.3090
9.3000
X
PRODUCTION
(MILLION IBS.
PER YEAR)
209.24
17.90
860.77
647.30
456.86
568.80
668.35
204.05
152.00
398.76
71.05
138.73
15.13
2607.20
7.69
1069.00
258.98
0.83
ISO .69
205.74
211.63
599.00
HEATING
(BESSIE OAYS1
5558
3105
1434
3679
1224
5930
3199
4947
4374
4865
5567
4699
5972
1498
4865
7277
4739
1551
3514
4817
4590
4947
NOT BIOLOSICAL
ONLY AND
95/40
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
AGE OF
OLDEST PSCCSESS
(YEARS!
29
14
42
18
14
30
32
23
23
67
22
22
30
37
29
16
20
57
13
29
25
68
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS INVOLVING BODS EFFLUENT
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT OISCHASCERS
PRODUCTION 'AND BOOS EFFLUENT INFORMATION
I
>
ui
DBS
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
96
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
DBS
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
10Z
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
PLANT BIOLOGICAL
ONLY?
1802
1869
1661
1890
1905
1911
1943
1973
1977
2009
2026
2049
2110
2148
2181
2221
2222
2227
2226
2236
2242
2254
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOT BIOLOGICAL
ONLY AND
NOT 95/40
X
X
9S/40 BIOLOGICAL BIQL06ICAL
CRITERIA? ONLY AND ONLY AND
95/40 HOT 95/40
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FLOW
CKSO)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PRODUCTION
(MILLION LB3.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEATING
(DEGREE DAYS)
PER YEAR)
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
0
0
2
.08000
.86600
.05532
.42283
.00949
.72517
.52300
.31700
.63100
.93030
.65510
.03103
.57380
.70000
.22800
.50700
.50000
.98100
.00413
.06736
.45829
593
523
80
1754
69
4121
1095
377
636
11
115
6
2793
133
83
136
46
76
3
116
481
227
.00
.50
.44
.00
.84
.10
.00
.80
.42
.10
.42
.25
.08
.80
.00
.00
.90
.60
.84
.07
.77
.65
1498
5930
3163
1434
2678
2167
1434
2146
3218
3352
6224
1224
930
1743
6404
6672
2566
5139
4590
5017
4640
2433
NOT BIOLOCICAL
ONLY ANO
95/40
X
X
X
A6E OF
OLDEST PROC9ESS
(YEARS)
23
41
13
36
9
32
22
11
36
a
51
12
39
26
24
43
23
32
31
69
33
16
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS INVOLVING BOOS EFFLUEHT
FULL RESPONSE. DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AND BOOS EFFLUEHT INFORMATION
i
o
085
11}
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
083
PLANT BIOLOGICAL 95/40 BIOLOGICAL BIOLOGICAL
2296
2307
2313
2315
2326
2353
2360
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
247*
252S
2536
ONLY?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOT BIOLOGICAL
ONLY
AND
CRITERIA? ONLY AND
FLOW
(ttGO)
HOT 95/40
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
lie
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
126
129
130
131
132
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.41400
0.02320
0.59380
1.16356
0.21500
0.05499
0.47000
0.09620
0.93830
0.69760
0.06357
2.13136
0.04000
0.63000
2.33320
0.00576
4.76600
0.3S286
1.11900
0.78130
3.41100
1.69000
95/40
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
1
X. X
X X
X X
X
X
X
PRODUCTION
(MILLION IBS.
PER YEAR)
152.40
31.03
12.92
290.40
337.40
93.66
120.00
71.60
792.60
211.54
12.79
30.77
39.27
4055.70
1022.34
9.36
2163.10
2S2.72
75.20
1101.78
3028.26
243.70
ONLY AND
NOT 95/40
X
X
X
HEATING
(DEGREE DAYS)
4940
2300
S79S
4162
6180
1670
3163
2598
2146
4817
6719
3218
4590
1670
4624
4290
1670
4220
5208
1224
930
4S90
NOT BIOLOGICAL
ONLY AND
95/40
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A6E OF
OLDEST PROCSESS
(YEARS)
19
19
36
55
26
8
16
31
6
33
31
48
54
44
24
13
17
26
19
22
30
27
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS INVOLVING BODS EFFLUENT
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AND BOOS EFFLUEKT INFORMATION
<
>
003
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
ISO
151
152
155
154
OBS
133
134
115
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
PLANT BIOLOGICAL
ONLY?
2551
2556
Z573
2592
2626
2631
2633
2673
2678
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2763
2764
2793
2616
2818
3033
4017
4021
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOT BIOLOGICAL
ONLY AND
NOT 95/40
X
95/40
CRITERIA?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FLOW
(nso)
BIOL08ICAL BIOLOGICAL
ONLY AND ONLY AND
95/40 HOT 95/40
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PRODUCTION
(MILLION LBS.
X
X
X
X
X
HEATING
(DEGREE DAYS)
PER YEAR)
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
.21200
.17000
.21985
.59900
.51820
.S4798
.56500
.11318
.24846
0.48000
X
X
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
.53149
.61800
.73100
.04670
.
.78700
.56902
.27800
.26000
.65950
.15720
.08540
129
391
31
442
136
9152
686
104
S3
51
773
927
1910
98
255
1332
30
1306
773
50
141
57
.61
.70
.24
.30
.30
.60
.00
.41
.19
.40
.56
.21
.00
.04
.50
.70
.84
.90
.76
.02
.50
.70
Z311
1670
4640
2598
6098
1434
1518
1434
5567
5012
4590.
1434
1224
4640
3514
1434
6890
3696
1670
4590
1678
4699
NOT BIOL08ICAL
ONLY AND
95/40
X
X
A6E OF
OLDEST PROCSESS
(YEARS)
62
15
27
34
26
43
32
24
30
60
53
32
17
13
31
26
68
59
17
28
S
37
-------
DATA FOR REGRESSIONS INVOLVING BOOS EFFLUEHT
FULL RESPONSE, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
PRODUCTION AND BOOS EFFLUEKT INFORMATION
083 PLANT BIOLOGICAL 95/40 BIOLOGICAL BIOLOGICAL HOT BIOLOGICAL
ONLY? CRITERIA? ONLY AND ONLY AM) ONLY AM)
95/40 NOT 95/40 95/40
155 4037 XXX
156 4040 X X
157 4051 XXX
OBS HOT BIOLOGICAL FLOW PRODUCTION HEATINS A6E OF
ONLY AND CMGD) (MILLION LBS. (DEGREE DAYS) OLDEST PROCSESS
NOT 9S/40 PER YEAR) (YEARS)
155 0.0430 191.4 6180 IS
156 0.0074 179.S 1434 21
157 0.1160 122.5 1465 6
-------
PUNTS MXTH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT
WITH >= 95X BOOS REMOVAL OR BOOS EFFLUENT
USED FOR NATURAL LOGARITHM OF TSS REMISSIONS
083 PUNT
1 63
2 S3
3 254
* 38?
5 392
6 394
7 399
8 444
9 525
10 659
11 662
12 662
13 663
14 69S
15 802
16 871
17 908
< 18 915
I 19 970
g; 20 984
£ 21 1012
22 1059
23 1062
24 1133
25 1137
26 1139
27 1149
26 1241
29 1267
30 1407
31 1409
32 1572
33 1609
34 1650
35 1869
36 1973
37 2026
36 2049
39 2181
40 2221
41 2222
42 2242
43 2296
44 236S
45 2390
46 2430
47 2447
46 2450
49 2556
50 2592
BOOB
INFLUENT
(HS/L)
175
1516
1681
175
#
2169
163
4
180
316
911
79
.
145
468
3176
.
401
m
4
120
878
1947
1698
367
,
.
366
.
1128
1972
.
.
375
3155
f
351
.
253
456
81
1385
2317
4%
71
440
210
1187
BOOS
EFFLUENT
ins/D
6
38
4
14
34
9
24
24
9
35
29
14
12
20
12
35
53
15
10
22
20
32
24
23
23
36
21
5
24
28
8
45
65
29
18
3
40
32
4
15
8
16
18
40
. 57
8
15
S
19
27
TSS
EFFLUENT
IHS/L)
6
18
25
21
46
19
59
40
33
58
21
48
12
52
15
92
40
13
46
34
9
30
61
23
76
33
59
7
24
13
11
63
61
48
4
15
52
68
35
20
30
38
76
92
48
9
3
14
97
75
BOBS
PERCENT
REMOVAL
0.97
0.97
1.00
0.92
,
I. 00
0.85
0.95
0.89
*
0.98
0.65
»
0.92
0.93
0.98
*
0.98
m
0.73
0.97
0.99
0.99
,
0.95
m
f
0.92
4
0.96
6.97
»
,
0.99
0.99
f
0.99
«
0.97
0.96
0.78
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.79
0.99
0.91
0.98
-------
PLANTS WITH BIOLOGICAL ONLY TREATMENT
HITH >= 95X BOOS REMOVAL OR BODS EFFLUEKT
USED FOR NATURAL LOGARITHM OF TSS REGRESSIONS
DBS PLANT BOOS BOOS ' TSS BODS
INFLUENT EFFLUENT EFFLUENT PERCENT
(MS/LI ' (H6/LI (HS/L) REMOVAL
SI 2626 349 14 22 0.%
52 2631 694 22 22 0.97
S3 2692 510 . 4 23 0.99
54 2695 .25 16
SS 2763 150 4 14 0.97
M 56 2764 .14 4§
< 57 2795 .26 55
' SS 2816 785 10 23 0.99
§v 59 4021 1767 21 24 0.99
* 68 4037 . 5 16
61 4051 645 27 95 0.%
-------
APPENDIX VI-A
LIST OF THE 126 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
-------
-------
LISTING OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS AND NUMBERS USED
IN THE OCPSF DATA BASE
Organ!cs
001 Acenaphthene 045
002 Acrolein 046
003 Acrylonitrile 047
004 Benzene 048
005 Benzidine 051
006 Carbon tetrachloride 052
007 Chlorobenzene 053
008 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 054
009 Hexachlorobenzene - 055
010 1,2-Dichloroethane 056
Oil 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 057
012 Hexachloroethane 058
013 1,1-Dichloroethane 059
014 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 060
015 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 061
016 Chloroethane 062
018 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 063
019 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 064
020 2-Chloronaphthalene 065
021 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 066
022 4-Chloro-m-cresol 067
023 Chloroform 068
024 2-Chlorophenol 069
025 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 070
026 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 071
027 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 072
028 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 073
029 1,1-Dichloroethylene 074
030 1,2-trans-Diehloroethylene 075
031 2,4-Dichlorophenol 076
032 1,2-Dichloropropane 077
033 ,1,3-Dichloropropene 078
034 2,4-Diraethylphenol 079
035 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 080
036 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 081
037 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 082
038 Ethylbenzene 083
039 Pluoranthene 084
040 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 085
041 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 086
042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 087
043 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 088
044 Methylene chloride 129
Methyl chloride
Methyl bromide
Bromoform
Diehlorobromomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Ni trophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dini trophenol
4,6-Dini tro-o-cresol
N-Ni trosodimethylamine
N-Ni t rosod i phenylami ne
N-Ni trosodi-n-propylamine
Pen tachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4-Benzofluoran thene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaph thylene
Anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Pluorene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthraeene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
VI-A-1
-------
Metals
114 Antimony 119 Chromium 123 Mercury 126 Silver
115 Arsenic 120 Copper 124 Nickel 127 Thallium
117 Beryllium 122 Lead 125 Selenium 128 Zinc
118 Cadmium
Miscellaneous
121 Cyanide 116 Asbestos
VI-A-2
-------
APPENDIX VII-A
BPT LONG-TERM AVERAGE BOD5
AND TSS PLANT-SPECIFIC TARGETS
-------
-------
304 DIRECT DISCIUWeiRf BOOS AND TSS EFFLUENT
ACTUAL, IMPUTED, AND TARGET CONCENTRATIONS
BS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
PUNT
1
12
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
2SO
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
306
352
373
384
387
392
394
399
408
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
PRODUCTION BIOLOGICAL?
AMD RESPONSE (YES-X)
SOURCE
1980
1980
1982
1980 -
1980
1980 -
1982
1980 -
1980
1980
1980
1982
1982
1980
1980
1980 -
1980
1980
1980
1980
1982
1982 -
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980 -
1980
1980 -
1980
1980
1980
1982
1982
1980
NONE -
1980
1980
1980
1980 -
1980
NONE
1980
1980
1980
1980
1982 -
1980 -
1982
FULL
FULL
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PAST A
PAST A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PAST A
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
FULL
PART A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ACTUAL BOOS
EFFLUENT
.
36
15
154
.
,
35
.
66
*
35
1S8
«
62
.
,
1934
37
11
1S
*
m
.
,
,
,
«
*
.
.
15
15
.
»
»
»
.
.
,
35
.
»
*
34
«
36
BOOS
TAR6ET
CPPNJ
17
21
24
28
23
17
24
14
34
41
27
24
16
16
16
23
20
21
40
21
24
24
23
30
19
12
. 19
23
20
23
16
21
21
24
24
26
*
19
16
41
17
16
.
16
20
30
23
16
30
16
ACTUAL TSS
EFFLUENT
CPPH5
228
.
.
.
.
6
.
18
44
.
18
,
,
89
24
282
,
266
»
.
«
46
23
230
25
,
8
33
53
13
119
142
.
.
41
155
19
21
46
19
59
.
,
63
38
40
»
22898
.
IMPUTED TSS
EFFLUENT
CPPH)
.
52
24
122
748
»
44
*
.
75
,
44
54
,
*
.
253
,
744
52
24
24
f
*
*
219
,
*
.
.
.
24
24
. ,
,
.
.
.
,
.
42
,
.
.
43
,
43
TSS
TARGET
-------
304 OIUCT DISCHARGERS - KM MO TSt
ACTUAL, IHPUTED, AW TARttT CONCENTRATIONS
MS
51
52
55
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
7*
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
93
96
97
99
99
100
PUUIT
481
485
486
488
500
502
511
518
523
525
536
569
580
586
601
602
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
7*1
758
775
802
811
814
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
883
888
908
909
PRODUCTION BIOLOGICAL?
AMD RESPONSE CYES-X)
SOURCE
1980
1982 -
1980
1982 -
1980 -
1980
NONE -
1982 -
1982
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980
HONE *
1980 -
1980
1980
1982 -
1980 -
1980
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1960 -
1980
1980 -
1980 -
1960 -
1960
1980 -
1980
1980 -
1982 -
1960
1960 -
1960 -
1982 -
1980 -
1980 *
1960 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980
1980
1982
1980
1980
1980
1980
FULL
PART A
FULL
PART A
FULL
FULL
PART A
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ACTUAL SOBS
EFFLUENT
(PPM)
388
*
*
49
93
,
.
9
M
.
45
*
1050
46
.
16
35
29
7
S
56
14
12
20
91
84
96
*
*
12.
22
*
»
176
5
30
225
10
35
90
m
20
*
53
21
IMPUTES IOCS
EFFLUENT
(PPM)
a
15
42
15
*
.
56
46
*
»
70
«
232
*
*
24
ZS2
S3
*
*
M
«
*
»
*
*
*
»
46
61
*
35
215
*
*
*
M
*
,
24
*
148
#
*
COS
TAROfT
(PPM)
30
24
23
24
20
30
*
41
24
*30
16
20
30
.
30
29
21
41
30
20
16
19
23
16
12
20
23
22
21
23
20
23
24
23
12
19
24
30
30
20
21
30
18
16
23
41
16
25
21
20
ACTUAL TSS
EfFLUENT
(PPM)
31
.
.
«
79
58
*
.
.
33
1
,
133
.
.
*
.
,
17
58
21
47
7
42
48
12
52
98
108
136
tt
6
15
30
*
128
168
54
161
4369
23
92
76
.
27
.
40
41
1KPOTEO TSS
EFFLUENT
(PPM)
.
24
57
24
,
,
,
37
60
*
69
163
401
60
34'
163
50
*
*
.
*
*
*
»
*
,
*
60
»
44
*
.
.
*
*
*
.
*
34
.
118
.
*
TSS
TARGET
(PPM)
38
34
33
34
31
38
.
45
34
38
27
31
38
,
38
37
32
45
38
31
27
29
33
27
24
31
33
33
31
33
31
33
34
S3
24
30
34
38
38
31
32
38
29
27
33
45
27
34
32
31
VII-A2
-------
304 DIRECT DISCHARGERS -- BOOS AND TSS EFFLUENT
ACTUAL, IMPUTED, AND TARGET CONCENTRATIONS
DBS
PLANT
PRODUCTION BIOLOGICAL?
AND RESPONSE (YES*X)
SOURCE
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
913
915
938
942
948
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1167
1203
1241
1249
1267
1285
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1342
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1980
NONE
1980
1980
1980
1982
1982
1980
1982
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1982
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
NONE
1980
1980
1982
1982
NONE
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
HONE
1980
1982
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
FULL
FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
PART A
FULL
- FULL
PART A
FULL
- FULL
FULL
- FULL
- FULL
FULL
PART A
- FULL
- FULL
FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
- FULL
FULL
PART A
- FULL
- PART A
FULL
- FULL
- FULL
FULL
- FULL
- PART A
- FULL
- PART A
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
FULL
- FULL
- FULL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ACTUAL BODS
EFFLUENT
(PPH)
4
15
*
71
12
,
17
10
.
22
16
.
.
20
12
,
5
32
6
24
68
23
23
36
37
21
»
*
.
5
«
24
*
10
194
150
.
6
.
'8
.
,
36
28
8
«
29
302
15
.
IMPUTED BODS
EFFLUENT
CPPfO
*
«
99
.
34
.
.
15
,
.
2491
232
.
,
35
.
.
*
.
.
.
»
.
»
.
34
*
18
,
35
«
.
.
.
226
»
.
.
16
18
.
.
.
52
.
.
,
33
BOOS
TARGET
21
,
26
20
18
16
12
12
24
16
13
41
30
12
16
24
19
23
22
16
23
26
18
21
20
21
23
%
16
16
24
16
.
23
30
21
30
19
17
24
16
16
30
22
33
13
23
27
20
ACTUAL TSS
EFFLUENT
-------
304 DIRECT DISCHARGERS - BOOS AND TSS EFFLUENT
ACTUAL, IKPUTE0. AND TARGET CONCENTRATIONS
MS
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
ISO
181
182
163
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
PLANT
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1670
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1776
1785
1794
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
PRODUCTION . BIOLOGICAL?
AJO RESPONSE (YES-X)
SOURCE
1980 - FULL
1982 PART A
1980 - FULL
1982 - PART A
1980 - FULL
1980 FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 FULL
1980 FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 FULL .
1982 * PART A
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1982 * PART A
1980 - FULL
1980 FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1982 - PART A
1930 - FULL
1980 FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 FULL1
1982 PART A
1980 FULL
1980 FULL
1980 - FULL
1982 « PART A
1980 FULL
1980 FULL
1982 - PART A
1980 > FULL
1980 FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 FULL
1980 - FULL
1980 - FULL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ACTUAL BODS
EFFLUENT
IffW
62
,
. >
.
110
18
45
*
65
101
65
4
921
18
58
29
97
«
.
142
17
68
32
38
,
37
166
10
8
«
.
.
50
,
16
*
a
*7
5
«
25
,
22
3
27
81
82
40
IMPUTED BODS
EFFLUENT
(PPIO
.
15
35
158
.
,
232
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
27
.
.
.
.
15
.
.
.
.
61
35
71
*
35
«
15
*
.
.
15
.
53
15
.
.
*
.
33
.
BODS
TARGET
133
.
18
*
»
44
63
,
61
90
»
11
100
154
275
48
147
H
.
46
26
46
194
25
*
120
121
S3
5
100
»
99
«
4
33
92
11
.
127
.
*
16
15
156
122
144
.
52
IMPUTED TSS
EFFLUENT
CPPH)
.
24
,
54
96
.
.
163
,
*
74
,
,
.
,
.
44
43
.
»
.
.
9
24
.
»
.
.
.
44
70
«
42
.
24
,
»
*
24
.
66
24
.
.
.
.
50
.
TSS
TARGET
-------
304 DIRECT DISCHARGERS - BOOS AND TSS EFFLUENT
ACTUAL, IMPUTED, AND TARGET CONCENTRATIONS
DBS
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
PLANT
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
PRODUCTION BIOLOGICAL?
AND RESPONSE (YES-X)
SOURCE
1982
1982 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980
1980
1980 -
1980
1980
1980 -
1982
1980
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1982
1982 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980
1980 -
1982
1982 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980 -
1980
1980 -
1980
1980
1980 -
1980
1980
1980 -
1980 -
1982 -
1982 -
1980
1980
1980 -
1980
1980 -
1980 -
PART A
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
PART A
PART A
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
FULL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ACTUAL BOOS
EFFLUENT
.
*
32
168
.
6
862
112
5
4
.
,
.
15
8
75
5303
55
16
189
.
.
.
.
18
359
244
9
.
,
19
50
559
2
.
40
46
27
57
57
47
5640
.
.
8
48
15
5
43
17
IMPUTED BODS
EFFLUENT
35
34
.
.
61
.
.
*
*
.
151
64
35
»
«
.
»
.
.
72
30
15
15
»
.
,
.
15
15
.
.
»
.
14
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
158
15
.
.
.
.
.
.
BODS
TARGET
24
16
30
16
23
16
28
22
12
16
17
30
16
41
16
37
30
24
24
21
24
19
24
24
16
16
28
12
24
24
20
23
25
12
14
26
20
18
29
28
23
31
16
24
20
26
30
22
25
24
ACTUAL TSS
EFFLUENT
(PPH)
.
.
68
i
.
to
SO
134
13
35
,
.
.
20
30
160
737
3
38
240
264
.
.
,
76
263
2051
42
.
,
37
29
195
6
.
92
39
32
48
35
36
1175
.
,
9
114
3
14
75
25
IMPUTED TSS TSS
EFFLUENT TARGET
(PPM)
44 34
43 27
38
130 27
63 33
27
37
32
24
27
53 28
74 38
42 27
45
27
43
38
34
34
31
34
46 30
24 34
24 34
27
27
37
24
24 34
24 34
31
33
34
24
30 26
35
31
29
37
37
33
38
54 27
24 34
31
35
38
32
35
34
VII-AS
-------
304 DIRECT DISCHARGERS 8005 AMD TSS EFFLUENT
ACTUAL, IMPUTED, AND TARGET CONCENTRATIONS
OSS
PLANT
PRODUCTION BIOLOGICAL?
AND RESPONSE (Y£S*X)
SOURCE
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2624
2626
2631
2633
2647
2660
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4005
4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
1980
1982
1980
19SO
1980
1980
1980
1982
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
NONE
1980
1980
1980
1980
1982
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1982
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1982
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
NONE
1980
1980
1982
1980
1980
FULL
PART A
- FULL
FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- PART A
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
FULL
- PART A
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- PART A
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
FULL
- FULL
FULL
FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- PART A
FULL
- FUIL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
PART A
FULL
FULL
- FULL
- FULL
- FULL
FULL
- PART A
FULL
- FULL
- PART A
- FULL
FULL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ACTUAL BODS
EFFLUENT
(PPM)
455
.
,
35
639
*
3
.
.
11
19
284
16
27
.
»
14
22
91
47
939
101
79
48
4
86
25
28
985
8
.
4
14
16
140
.
.
80
26
10
55
190
109
»
B
4
21
5
IMPUTED BOOS
EFFLUENT
(PPM)
m
15
39
.
.
35
,
158
64
.
,
»
.
«
61
.
«
,
.
m
24
»
. .
,
,
.
*
,
56
.
.
,
184
15
4
f
*
.
61
15
t
,
BOOS
TARGET
(PPH)
21
24
23
19
41
16
16
16
30
30
20
29
26
12
23
,
17
21
16
30
41
16
29
16
23
16
24
24
20
31
16
20
16
17
30
25
28
24
20
30
19
20
24
20
.
23
16
24
16
25
ACTUAL TSS
EFFLUENT
1309
.
79
145
31
18
.
9
97
125
13
75
.
.
22
22
123
51
5866
92
96
26
23
32
16
101
739
21
.
14
45
31
17
13
.
55
55
23
319
21
83
»
176
20
.
24
16
IMPUTED TSS TSS
EFFLUENT TARGET
(PPM) (PPM)
32
24 34
54 33
30
45
27
27
54 27
74 38
38
31
38
35
24
63 33
. ,
29
31
28
38
34 45
27
37
27
33
27
34
34
31
38
27
37 30
27
29
38
35
17
24 34
31
38
30
31
34
31
.
33
27
24 34
28
35
VII-A6
-------
oes
PLANT
301 4040
302 4051
303 4055
304 4058
PRODUCTION
AND RESPONSE
SOURCE
1980 FULL
1980 FULL
1982 PART A
NONE PART A
304 DIRECT DISCHARGERS BODS AND TSS EFFLUENT
ACTUAL, IMPUTED. AND TARGET CONCENTRATIONS
BIOLOGICAL?
(YES«X>
ACTUAL BODS
EFFLUENT
(PPM)
195
27
IMPUTED BODS
EFFLUENT
(PPM)
15
BODS
TARGET
(PPM)
21
16
24
ACTUAL TSS
EFFLUENT
(PPM)
264
95
IMPUTED TSS TSS
EFFLUENT TARGET
(PPM) (PPM)
24
32
27
34
VII-A7
-------
-------
APPENDIX VII-B
SAW WASTEWATER AND fMAfED EFFLUENT
BOD5, TSS, COD, AND TOC DATA BEFORE AND AFTER
ADJUSTMENT BY PLANT-SPECIFIC DILUTION FACTORS
-------
-------
RAW UASTEUATER BODS, TSS. COO AMD TOC
DATA BEFORE AND AFTER ADJUSTMENT WITH PUNT SPECIFIC DILUTION FACTOR
BS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
PLANT
NUHSiR
63
154
177
250
384
392
394
443
569
683
844
866
938
970
990
1059
1340
1616
1617
1688
1714
1717
1776
1911
1943
2222
2296
2360
2394
2445
2450
2471
2528
2556
2626
2631
2692
2711
3033
REPORTED
BOOS
175
372
779
300
0
*
718
«
79
,
2334
w
401
741
120
819
48
441
,
58
248
.
2442
«
253
54
60
»
657
440
79
210
349
434
245
w
1515
REPORTED
COD
327
0
0
668
750
m
,
1101
.
.
1479
3389
.
637
1745
913
1386
1861
799
B
348
768
»
1044
31
637
SO
B
1160
905
138
436
1425
1216
410
2850
.
REPORTED
TSS
0
17
0
370
70
2000
.
,
0
269
629
226
.
109
23
97
2966
59
96
740
39
»
« 174
.
302
2374
15
,
93
234
35
,
92
1604
96
41
f
f
REPORTED
TOC
0
0
268
0
Tt
*
.
.
110
n
,
,
119
*
«
*
*
m
m
2M
,
1562
*
.
,
310
300
*
.
*
*
*
151
*
»
DILUTION
FACTOR
0.0000
0.3570
1.6270
3.0400
0.0000
0.8320
*
0.0000
0.0000
0.0030
0.5340
0.3690
0.0000
0.0000
0.4270
0.0000
0.0240
0.6760
0.0632
1.4510
1.1600
0.9770
,
0.0000
0.5760
0.0000
0.4950
0.0000
*
0.0170
0.0000
0.3890
0.0000
0.0000
0.5980
1.0800
0.0870
0.1140
ADJUSTED
BOOS
175.00
504.80
2046.43
1212.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
718.00
0.00
79.24
0.00
3195.25
0.00
401.00
1057.41
120.00
838.66
80.45
468.87
0.00
125.28
490.30
0.00
2442.00
0.00
253.00
80.73
60.00
0.00
668.17
440.00
109.73
0.00
210.00
349.03
693.53
509.60
0.00
1687.71
ADJUSTED
COD
327.00
0.00
0.00
2698.72
750.00
0.00
0.00
1101.00
0.00
0.00
2268.79
4639.54
0.00
637.00
2490.12
913.00
1419.26
3119.04
849.50
0.00
751.68
1518.34
0.00
0.00
1645.34
31.00
952.32
50.00
0.00
1179.72
905.00
191.68
0.00
436.00
1425.00
1943.17
852.80
3097.95
0.00
ADJUSTED
TSS
0.00
23.07
0.00
1494.80
70.00
3664.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
412.65
861.10
226.00
0.00
155.54
23.00
99.33
4971.02
62.73
235.30
1598.40
77.10
0.00
174.00
0.00
302.00
3549.13
15.00
0.00
94.58
234.00
48.62
0.00
92.00
1604.00
156.60
85.28
0.00
0.00
ADJUSTED
TOC
0.00
0.00
704.04
0.00
77.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
120.00
79.24
0.00
0.00
119.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
521.93
0.00
1562.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
315.20
300.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
314.08
0.00
0.00
VII-81
-------
TREATED EFFLUENT BOOS, T5S, COO AND TOC
DATA BEFORE AND AFTER ADJUSTMENT WITH PLANT SPECIFIC DILUTION FACTOR
OSS
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ir
15
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2?
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
PLANT
NUMBER
61
63
8?
159
225
254
259
260
3?3
392
443
447
602
663
682
844
851
866
888
909
938
970
990
1241
1319
1409
1532
1569
1579
1616
1624
1643
1714
1717
1776
1690
1911
1986
2055
2062
2090
2110
2222
2228
2254
2353
2360
2394
REPORTED
8005
196.0
5.0
710.0
318.0
13.6
4.0
2.0
12.0
8.0
12.0
20.2
2492.0
105.0
5.0
10.0
3.0
24.0
7.0
1.0
9.0
-1.0
10.0
12.0
5.0
19.0
5.0
10.0
9.0
14.0
60.0
1.0
18.0
15.0
21.0
1.0
19.0
25.0
12.0
'158.0
.
690.0
39.0
8.0
842.0
89.0
166.0
2.0
41.0
REPORTED
COD
1,0
35.0
1079.0
615.0
22.4
69.0
1.0
40.0
40.0
46.0
102.0
10046.0
1.0
54.0
78.0
111.0
182.0
107.0
'i423.0
115.0
.
70.0
126.0
-1.0
-1.0
40.0
1.0
50.0
99.0
323.0
1000.0
45.0
147.0
198.0
-1.0
230.0
426.0
65.0
56S.O
.
2959.0
193.0
23.0
959.0
357.0
258.0
25.0
387.0
REPORTED
TSS
-1.0
5.4
34.0
-1.0
6.5
25.0
1.0
5.0
20.0
16.0
38.0
2415.0
-1.0
35.0
35.0
32.0
128.0
17.0
1.0
18.0
27.0
46.0
16.0
7.0
22.0
7.0
1.0
22.0
10.0
54.0
100.0
154.0
90.0
14.0
7.9
37.0
127.0
18.0
-1.0
.
40.0
47.0
30.0
117.0
113.0
58.0
6.0
25.0
REPORTED
TOC
1
-1
-1
317
1
1
-1
-1
1
-1
.
3442
476
54
36
23
-1
-1
-1
.
45
.
1
40
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
429
-1
1
1
123
-1
-1
1
-1
-1
140
-1
-1
.
793
-1
1
.
76
DILUTION
FACTOR
14.000
0.123
0.308
0.348
6.031
0.000
174.051
0.660
6.730
1.859
0.000
8.482
9.000
0.341
0.36*
0.700
0.259
0.369
(3.629
1.288
0.000
0.000
0.311
0.000
9.217
0.625
10.000
1.000
0.000
0.676
0.000
0.000
1.160
0.808
11.670
1.482
0.000
5.783
0.065
0.727
0.250
1.861
. 0.000
5.298
1.120
2.370
0,000
0.381
ADJUSTED
BODS
2940.0
5.6
928.9
428.6
95.6
4.0
350.1
19.9
61.8
34.3
20.2
23628.1
1050.0
6.7
13.7
5.1
30.2
9.6
-1.0
20.6
-1.0
10.0
15.7
5.0
194.1
8.1
110.0
18.0
14.0
100.5
1.0
18.0
32.4
38.0
1.0
47.2
25.0
81.4
168.2
0.0
862.2
111.6
8.0
5302.9
188.7
559.5
2.0
56.6
ADJUSTED
COD
1.0
39.3
1411.7
828.8
157.5
69.0
-1.0
66.4
309.2
131.5
102.0
95252.2
1.0
72.4
106.7
188.7
229.2
146.5
2318.1
263.1
0.0
70.0
165.2
-1.0
1.0
65.0
1.0
100.0
99.0
541.3
1000.0
45.0
317.5
357.9
-1.0
570.8
426.0
440.9
601.4
0.0
3697.4
552.3
23.0
6039.8
756.8
869.6
25.0
534.4
ADJUSTED
TSS
1.00
6.06
44.48
-1.00
45.70
25.00
-1.00
8.30
154.60
45.74
38.00
2898.10
1.00
46.95
47.88
54.39
161.17
23.27
1.00
41.18
27.00
46.00
20.98
7.00
224.78
11.38
1.00
44.00
10.00
90.49
100.00
154.00
194.42
25.31
100.09
91.83
127.00
122.09 ,
-1.00
0.00
49.90
134.49
30.00
736.87
239.56
195.48
6.00
34.52
ADJUSTED
TOC
1.0
1.0
-1.0
427.2
.0
.0
.0
- .0
.0
- .0
0.0
32635.7
4760.0
72.0
49.0
39.1
1.0
1.0
-1.0
0.0
45.0
0.0
-1.0
40.0
1.0
-1.0
1.0
-1.0
1.0
718.0
1.0
1.0
-1.0
222.3
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
1.0
241.0
1.0
-1.0
0.0
4994.3
1.0
- .0
0.0
105.0
VII-B2
-------
TREATED EFFLUENT BOOS, TSS, COD AND TOC
DATA BEFORE AND AFTER ADJUSTMENT UITH PLANT SPECIFIC DILUTION FACTO*
06$
49
SO
51
52
53
54
55
56
5?
58
59
60
61
PLANT
NUMBEI
2450
2471
2474
2531
2573
2631
266t
2711
276*
2795
2818
3033
4010
REPORTED
MD5
5
14
8
53
200
14
4
16
14
23
23 '
171
*
REPORTED
COO
54
41
82
80
304
170
17
25
56
388
174
645
as
REPORTED
TSS
14
21
23
12
86
14
25
12
45
49
134
19
16
REPORTED
TOC
.
15
19
48
131
2
23
'1
-1
-1
68
233
29
DILUTION
FACTOR
0.000
0.194
55.926
11.065
0.420
0.598
233.6S2
60.544
0.000
0.132
1.384
0.114
9.980
ADJUSTED
BODS
5.00
16.72
455.41
639.45
284.02
22.37
938.61
984.70
14.00
26.04
54.83
190.43
0.00
ADJUSTED
COD
54.00
48.95
4667.93
965.21
431.71
271.64
3989.08
1538.60
56.00
439.22
414.82
718.30
911.34
ADJUSTED
TSS
14.00
25.0?
309.30
144.78
124.97
22.37
866.29
738.53
45.00
55.47
319.46
21.16
175.61
ADJUSTED
TOC
0.00
17.91
1081.59
579.12
186.03
3.00
5396.98
1.08
1.00
1.00
162.11
259.4«
318.00
VII-83
-------
-------
APPENDIX VII-C
LISTING OF 69 BPT DAILY"DATA PLANTS INCLUDED AND
EXCLUDED FROM BPT VARIABILITY FACTOR CALCULATIONS
-------
-------
Rationale for Retention of Daily Database Plants for Analysis
Plant No. 0387: This plastics plant manufactures rayon. It utilized an
activated sludge system for wastewater treatment. BODg and TSS data were
available for 1980 (January-December) but were limited to effluent data.
In addition to direct discharge, 0.9 MGD of process wastewater was
recycled and 0.8 MGD was evaporated. The plant was contacted regarding
the flow metering locations. (Source; Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0444; Plant 444 is an organic chemicals plant manufacturing bulk
organics. It used a two stage activated sludge system. Only effluent
BOD5 and TSS data were available for 1980 (January-December). Heavy
organic wastes were incinerated* (0.002 MGD) and deep well injected
(0.07 MGD) in addition to the discharge of treated wastewaters. The
plant was contacted regarding the flow metering locations and seasonal
effects on the treatment plant performance. (Source: Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0525; Plant 525 manufactures thermoset resins and bulk and
specialty organics. The plant used an activated sludge system for
wastewater treatment. BOD5 and TSS data were available for 1980
(January-December). The BOD5 data included influent, effluent, and
intermediate data. Intermediate sampling was before the aeration basins.
All wastewaters were treated and discharged to surface waters. The plant
was contacted regarding specific observations in the daily data and slug
loadings to the treatment system. (Source: Supplemental 308
Ques t ionnai re)
Plant No. 0682: Plant 682 is a combined organics and plastics plant,
manufacturing thermoplastics, thermoset resins, and specialty organics.
The plant treated its wastewater in an activated sludge system. BOD5 and
TSS data were available for the period 1/1/79 - 8/1/81 and included both
influent and effluent data. In addition to the discharge of treated
wastewater to surface waters, 0.223 MGD of wastewater is discharged after
neutralization and primary clarification. 3.703 MGD was discharged
untreated and 0.003 MGD was deep well injected. The plant was contacted
VII-C1
-------
regarding the flow metering locations. (Source: Public Comments on
March 1983 Propoasl)
Plant No. 0741; Plant 741 is an organics plant, manufacturing bulk organics.
The plant treated its wastewater in an activated sludge system. The data
included influent and effluent BOD5 and effluent TSS. In addition to the
discharge of treated wastewater, 0.072 MGD of waste was sold and <0.001
HGD was incinerated. The plant was contacted regarding slug loadings and
treatment plant upsets. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0908? This combined organics and plastics plant manufactures
thermoplastics, and commodity, bulk, and specialty organic chemicals.
The plant treated its wastewater in an activated sludge system. BODs and
TSS data were available for 1980 and included both influent and effluent
data. Intermediate BODg data before the aeration basins was available.
In addition to the discharge of treated wastewater, 0.08 MGD of untreated
wastewater was discharged and an unquantified amount of waste was
incinerated. The plant was contacted regarding specific observations in
the data. This plant was scheduled to cease all production activities on
January 31, 1985. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0970: Plant 970 is a plastics plant, manufacturing fibers. The
plant treated its wastewater in an activated sludge system. BOD5 and TSS
data were available for the period 2/16/78-12/31/79 and included both
influent and effluent data. All wastewater was treated and discharged to
surface waters. The plant was contacted regarding treatment plant
upsets. (Source: Public Comments on March 1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 1012; Plant 1012 is a plastics "plant, manufacturing fibers. The
plant used a trickling filter followed by an RBC to treat its waste-
waters. BODg and TSS data were available for 1980 (January-December) and
included influent, effluent, and intermediate BOD5 and effluent TSS data.
Intermediate BOD5 data was obtained prior to biological treatment. All
process wastewater was treated and discharged to surface waters.
(Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
VII-C2
-------
Plant No. 1062; This plastics plant manufactures thermoplatics. It used an
activated sludge system to treat its wastewater. BOD5 and TSS data were
available for the period 1/1/79-5/31/80 and included influent and
effluent data. All wastewater was treated and discharged to surface
waters. (Source: Data Retained from March 1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 1149: This plant is an organics plant, manufacturing commodity
organic chemicals. The plant treated its wastewater in a pure oxygen
activated sludge system. BOD5 and TSS data were available for the period
6/1/78-6/29/80 but were limited to effluent data. In addition to the
direct discharge of treated wastewater, 0.439 MGD of wastes were deep
well injected and 0.0054 MGD were incinerated. (Source; Data Retained
from March 1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 1267; This plastics plant manufactures thermoplastics. The waste-
water was treated in an aerated lagoon. BOD5 and TSS data were available
for 1980 (January, March-November) but was limited to effluent data. All
plant wastewater was treated and discharged to surface waters. The plant
was contacted regarding data gaps and specific observations in the data.
(Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 1407; This combined organics and plastics plant manufactures
thermoplastics and specialty organic chemicals. It used an activated
sludge system for wastewater treatment. BOD5 and TSS data were available
for the period 1/2/80-12/21/82 and included both influent and effluent
data. In addition to the discharge of treated wastes to surface waters,
70 gpd are incinerated. The plant was contacted regarding flow metering
locations and plant upsets. (Source: Public Comments on March 1983
Proposal)
Plant No. 1647; Plant 1647 is an organics plant manufacturing specialty
organic chemicals. The plant used an activated sludge system to treat
its wastewater. BOD5 and TSS data were available for the period 1/1/83
3/31/84 and included influent and effluent waters. An undetermined
quantity of wastes were recycled or contract hauled from the plant. The
plant's NPDES permit specified a BODg limit during the winter and a TOD
VII-C3
-------
limit during the summer months. The plant was contacted regarding slug
loadings to the treatment plant. (Source; Data Obtained During 12 Plant
Sampling Study)
Plant No. 1973; This plastics plant manufactures thermoplastics and fibers.
The plant used an activated sludge system to treat its wastewaters. BOD5
and TSS data were available for the period 1/1/75-12/31/77 and includes
both influent and effluent data. In addition to direct discharge of
treated wastewater, 260 gpd of waste was contract hauled for disposal.
(Source: Data Retained from March 1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 1977; This plastics plant manufactures cellulosics and commodity
and bulk organic chemicals. The plant used an aerated lagoon for waste-
water treatment. Data were available for the periods 1/1/79-12/31/80 and
1/1/82-12/31/82 and included influent BOD5 and effluent BODg and TSS
data. All wastewater was treated and discharged to surface waters. The
plant was contacted regarding apparent seasonal trends and specific
observations in the daily data. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire
and South Carolina Public Comments on the March 1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 2181; Plant 2181 is a plastics plant, manufacturing thermoplastics.
It used a two stage activated sludge system to treat its wastewater.
BODg and TSS data were available for 1980 (January-December) and included
both influent and effluent data. All wastewater generated by the plant
was treated and discharged to surface waters. The plant was contacted
regarding specific observations in the daily data. (Sources
Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
PlantWo. 2430; This plant is a combined organics and plastics plant,
manufacturing thermoplastics and bulk and specialty organic chemicals.
The plant used a trickling filter followed by a pure oxygen activated
sludge system for waste treatment. BODg and TSS data were available for
1980 (January-December) and included influent, effluent, and intermediate
data. The intermediate data were obtained after the trickling filter.
All wastewater was treated and discharged to surface waters. The plant
was contacted regarding plant upsets. (Source: Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
VII-C4
-------
PlantNo. 2445; Plant 2445 is a combined organics and plastics plant,
manufacturing thermoplastics, thermoset resins, and bulk and commodity
organic chemicals. The plant treated its wastewater in a pure oxygen
activated sludge system. BOD5 and TSS data were available for 1982
(January-December) and included influent, effluent, and intermediate
data. The intermediate data was obtained prior to biological treatment.
In addition to the discharge of treated wastes to surface waters, an
undetermined quantity of wastes were deep well injected or contract-
hauled. The plant was contacted regarding specific observations in the
daily data. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 2592; Plant 2592 is a plastics plant manufacturing fibers and
miscellaneous organic chemicals. The plant treated its wastewater in an
activated sludge system. BOD5 and TSS data were available for the
periods 1/2/79-1/21/79 and 1/1/80-7/31/81 and included influent and
effluent data except for January-June 1980 during which only effluent
data were available. All wastewater was treated and discharged to
surface waters. The plant was contacted regarding apparent seasonal
trends and specific observations in the daily data. (Source:
Supplemental 308 Questionnaire and Public Comments on the March 1983
Proposal)
Plant No. 2626; This combined organics and plastics plant manufactures
thermoplastics and bulk and specialty organic chemicals. The plant used
an activated sludge system to treat its wastes. BOD5 and TSS data were
available for 1980 (January-December) and included influent, effluent,
and intermediate data. The intermediate data was obtained after primary
clarification. All wastewater was treated and discharged to surface
waters. The plant was contacted regarding plant upsets and large changes
in the flow of wastewater to the plant, (Source: Supplemental 308
Questionnaire
Plant No. 2695; This is an organics plant, manufacturing bulk, commodity, and
specialty organic chemicals. The plant used an aerated lagoon followed
by a facultative lagoon to treat its wastewaters. Data were available
for 1980 (January-December) and included influent TSS and effluent BOD5
VII-05
-------
and TSS data. All vastevater was treated and discharged to surface
waters. The plant was contacted regarding specific observations in the
daily data. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
VII-C6
-------
Rationale for Exclusion of Daily DatabasePlants from Analysis
Plant No. 0063? The plant effluent is the combined discharge from two
treatment systems. One system uses an aerobic lagoon to treat process
and nonprocess wastewaters. The other system includes equilization,
activated sludge, and secondary clarification but also treats both
process and nonprocess wastes. The plant was excluded because 1) the
effluent data do not represent a single waste treatment system, 2) the
influent data represent only the wastewater to the activated sludge
system, and 3) more than 25% of the wastewater treated by both systems
consists of nonprocess wastewater. (Source: Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
Plant No, 0083; A telephone conversation with plant personnel revealed that
in August 1980, an unauthorized off-site discharger had tapped into their
chemical sewer, thereby drastically increasing their treatment system
effluent flow. The practice was later terminated. The plant was
excluded due to this change in their treatment system data. The plant
was contacted for more detailed waste treatment information. (Source:
South Carolina Public Comments on March 1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 0093; Sampling was infrequent (less than once per week during
operation) so there was insufficient data available for the plant. The
plant discharges to a POTW. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0296; The plant was excluded because it did not meet the BOD5
editing rule of at least 95% BODs, removal or greater, or 40 tng/1
effluent BOD5 or less. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0500: No influent BOD5 or TSS data are available for this plant.
The plant has 3 treatment trains (2 biological, 1 physical/chemical)
which discharge to a polishing pond after which the effluent is sampled.
The effluent data does not reflect the actual performance of any
individual treatment system. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
VII-C7
-------
Plant No. 0659; The plant was excluded because it had summer/winter NPDES
permit limitations for BOD,. The plant vas contacted for more detailed
waste treatment information. (Sources Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0662; The plant was excluded because it had summer/winter NPDES
permit limitations for BOD5, TSS, and TOC. The plant was contacted for
more detailed waste treatment information. (Source: Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0683; The plant was excluded because more than 25% of their treated
wastewater flow consists of nonprocess wastewater. (Source:
Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
PlantNo. 0851; The plant was excluded because the effluent data included
dilution with cooling water and ion exchange wastes which accounted for
60% of the flow. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0866; The plant was excluded because it had insufficient BOD5 and
TSS data (samples taken once per month). The plant was contacted for
more detailed wastewater information. (Source: Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0871; The plant was excluded because it had summer/winter NPDES
permit limitations. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0909; The treatment plant included four independent biological
treatment systems, each treating a wastestream from a different
production unit. No influent BOD5 or TSS data were available. Effluent
BODg data were also not available. The plant was excluded due to the
lack of effluent BODg data. (Source; Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No.0913 The plant effluent is the combined discharge from two non-
biological treatment systems. The data available for this plant do not
reflect the actual process wastewater performance of either treatment
systems due to- dilution of process wastewaters by nonprocess wastewaters,
which account for over 801 of the flow from one system and 30% of the
VII-C8
-------
flow from the other. One treatment system consists of steam stripping
and chemical oxidation and the other consists of phase separation and
steam stripping. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 0942: No influent BOD5 or TSS data were available for this plant.
Nonprocess wastevater introduced midway through the treatment system
accounts for 75% of the plant effluent flow. (Sources Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
Plant No. 1148! The plant was excluded because it had a polishing pond in its
treatment train. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnnaire)
Plant No. 1323: The data available for this plant include nonprocess
wastewater streams introduced before the sampling point which account for
over 90% of the flow. Also, no effluent TSS or influent BOD5 and TSS
data were available. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 1343; The plant was excluded because part of the wastestream is
treated by chemical oxidation. -The plant was contacted for more detailed
wastewater information. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 1349: This plant was excluded because it did not submit data for a
full year, and because it had polishing pond in its treatment train.
(Source: Data Retained from March 1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 1438: The plant was excluded because more than 25% of the waste-
water treatment stream flow consists of nonprocess water. The plant was
contacted for more detailed wastewater information. (Sources South
Carolina Public Comments on the March 1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 1446: The plant was excluded because the effluent data was taken
after tertiary treatment (activated carbon columns). The plant was
contacted for more detailed wastewater information. (Source:
Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
VII-C9
-------
Plant No. 1494; The plant was excluded due to periods of production cutbacks.
The plant was contacted regarding the abrupt changes in its wastewater
flow. (Source; Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 1522; No BODS data were available for this plant. Also, several
additional process wastestreams enter the treatment plant midway through
the treatment system. No data are available for these sidestreams which
account for 70% of the wastewater treated by the system. (Sources
Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 1609; The plant was excluded due to periods of production shutdown
during June, July, and August 1980. The plant was contacted for more
detailed wastewater information. (Sources Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
Plant No. 1617; The plant was excluded because it had a summer/winter NPDES
permit limitation for BOD5 and because it had a polishing pond in its
treatment train. The plant was contacted for more detailed wastewater
information. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
PlantNo. 1650; No influent BOD5 or TSS data were available for this plant.
Several side streams enter the treatment plant midway through the
treatment train. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire and Public
Comments on the March 1983 Proposal)
PlantNo. 1695; A telephone conversation with plant personnel revealed that
several events occurred in 1980 which affected the wastewater treatment
system operation. They were 1) a 40% increase in production, 2) the
addition of new process units, and 3) periods of total production
shutdown during the installation of the new units. The plant also has a
polishing pond in its treatment train. The plant was excluded due to
these factors, The plant was contacted regarding observations in its
data. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
VII-C10
-------
Plant No. 1753s The plant was excluded because it had summer/winter NPDES
permit limitations for BOD5 and COD. The plant was contacted for more
detailed wastewater information. (Source: Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
Plant No. 1766; The plant was excluded because it added powdered activated
carbon to its wastewater. (Sources Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 1769s Flow data are reported for the treated process wastewater,
but the effluent BOD5 and TSS samples were collected after dilution of
Isl with noncontact cooling water in a polishing pond. (Source:
Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 2110; No influent BOD5 or TSS data were available for this plant.
Also, more than 25% of the treated wastewater consists of nonprocess
wastewater. (Source; Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 2222; The data available for this plant do not reflect actual
process wastewater treatment system performance. Flow data are reported
for the treated process water but the effluent BODg and TSS data were
collected after dilution with nonprocess wastewaters (one part treatment
plant effluent to eight parts nonprocess wastewater). The plant was
contacted for more detailed wastewater treatment information. (Source;
Public Comments on March 1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 2227; The plant was excluded because it had a summer/winter NPDES
permit limitation for BOD,. The plant was contacted for more detailed
wastewater information. (Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 2242; This plant had submitted 1982 data instead of 1980 data (with
EPA's permission). A telephone conversation with plant personnel
revealed that a production change in 1981 had resulted in a 50% decrease
in the load to the treatment system. As a result, the plant only
operated one of their two aeration basins. The plant was excluded
because their 1982 treatment efficiency is not representative of what
they could achieve if they operated both basins. The plant was contacted
VII-C11
-------
for more detailed wastewater information. (Sources Supplemental 308
Ques t i onna ire)
Plant No. 2260; The plant was excluded due to insufficient information
regarding the technical assessment of their treatment system. The plant
was contacted for more detailed wastewater information. (Sources Public
Comments on the March 1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 2313; The plant was excluded because it had summer/winter NPDES
permit limitations. The plant was contacted for more detailed wastewater
information. (Sources Data obtained during 12 Plant Sampling Study)
Plant No. 2315; The data available for this plant do not reflect actual
process wastewater treatment system performance due to dilution of
treated process wastewaters with cooling water and stormwater which
accounted for over 75% of the flow. (Source: Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
Plant No.2376; The plant was excluded because it used a three-stage, pure
oxygen activated sludge system plus tertiary treatment to treat its
wastewater. The plant was contacted regarding apparent seasonal effects
in the daily data. (Source; Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 2394; The plant was excluded because it added an aerated lagoon to
its system in 1982, and because they employ a polishing pond in their
treatment train. The plant was contacted for more detailed wastewater
information. (Source; Data obtained during 12 Plant Sampling Study)
Plant No. 2474s Nonprocess wastewaters account for over 95% of the raw
wastewater entering the treatment system. Consequently the data are not
representative of raw and treated OCPSF wastes. The plant was contacted
for more detailed wastewater information. (Sources Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
VII-C12
-------
Plant No. 2528; The plant was excluded because they employ a polishing pond
in their treatment train, and the effluent data is taken after this step.
The plant was contacted for more detailed wastewater information.
(Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 2531; No influent BODg or TSS data were available for this plant.
Effluent samples were taken once per week and do not reflect process
wastewater treatment system performance due to dilution of the treated
process wastewaters with noncontact cooling water and stormwater which
accounted for over 80% of the flow. The treatment system consists solely
of physical/chemical treatment processes. (Source; Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
Plant No. 2536; The plant was excluded because it had a summer/winter NFDES
permit limitation for BOD, since 1982, and because its wastewater
received tertiary treatment. The plant was contacted for more detailed
wastewater information. (Source; Supplemental 308 Questionnaire and
Data Obtained During the 12 Plant Sampling Study)
Plant No. 2631; The plant was excluded because its wastestream is diluted by
more than 25% nonprocess wastewater. The plant was contacted for more
detailed wastewater information. (Source: Supplemental 308
Questionnaire)
Plant No. 2680; No influent BODg or TSS data were available for this plant.
Effluent samples were taken once per week and do not reflect process
wastewater treatment system performance due to dilution of the treated
process wastewater with nonprocess wastes which accounted for over 30% of
the flow. The treatment system employs physical/chemical treatment only,
(Source: Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 2693; The plant was excluded because it had summer/winter NPDES
permit limitations for BOD5, TSS, and TOC. The plant was contacted for
more detailed wastewater information. (Source; Public Comments on the
March 1983 Proposal)
VII-C13
-------
Plant No. 2770; No influent BOD5 or TSS data were available for this, plant.
The treatment system employs equalization, neutralization, and
clarification only. (Source? Supplemental 308 Questionnaire)
Plant No. 2816t The plant was excluded because its wastestream contains more
than 25% nonprocess wastewater, and its effluent data were taken after
additional treatment steps. The plant was contacted regarding
observations in its daily data. (Source: Public Comments on the March
1983 Proposal)
Plant No. 3033: The plant was excluded because it had a summer/winter NPDES
permit limitation for BOD5, and because they had a polishing pond in
their treatment train. The plant was contacted regarding observations in
its daily data. (Source: Data Obtained During 12 Plant Sampling Study)
VII-C14
-------
APPENDIX VII-D
BPT STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
-------
-------
A. VARIABILITY FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR BODS AND TSS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
A.I. DAILY VARIABILITY FACTORS
Assuming that the distribution of concentration values X is lognormal,
then Y = ln(X) is normally distributed with mean y and variance a2 (Aitehison
and Brown 1957). Thus, the 99th percentile on the natural logarithm (base e)
scale is
Y99 = y + 2.326ff,
and the 99th percentile on the concentration scale is
P99 = exp(Y99) = exp(y + 2.326*). (1)
The expected value, E(X), and variance, V(X), on the concentration scale are:
E(X) . exp(y + 0.5s2) (2)
and V(X) = exp(2p + o2)(exp(a2) - I). (3)
The estimates of any of the above quantities are calculated by substituting
the sample mean and variance of the natural logarithms of the observations for
y and o , respectively. Hence, the 99th percentile daily variability factor,
VF(1), is
Pqq - - -
VF(1) = ^ . exp(2.3260 - O.Sff2), (4)
E(X)
« 1 n
where y = Z y. (5)
y.
n i=l a '
"or2 = I (y. - v)2 / (n - 1).
and i.l (6)
VII-D1
-------
A.2 30-DAY MEAN VARIABILITY FACTORS
Variability factors for 30-day average concentrations, VF(30), are based
on the distribution of an average of values drawn from the distribution of
daily values and take day-to-day correlation into account. Positive auto-
correlation between concentrations measured on consecutive days means that
such concentrations tend to be similar. An average of positively correlated
concentration measurements is more variable than an average of independent
concentrations. The following formulas incorporate the autocorrelation
between concentration values measured on adjacent days.
Using the first-order autoregressive model commonly found to be
appropriate in water pollution modeling, and assuming that these concentration
values follow a lognormal distribution with parameters u and a, the mean and
variance of an average of n daily values, where this average is denoted by Xn,
are approximated by
E that adjusts
for the presence of autocorrelation, with "p denoting the correlation between
adjacent days' measurements (i.e., the lag-1 autocorrelation).
Finally, since X30 is approximately normally distributed by the Central
Limit Theorem, the estimate of 95th percentile (P95) of a 30-day mean and the
corresponding 95th percentile 30-day mean variability factor (VF(30)) are
approximately
P95 - E(X30) + 1.645
-------
and VF(30) = P95/E(X30)
= 1 + 1.645[(exp(a2) - l)£30("p)/3011/z (11)
where E(XJO) and V(X30) are calculated by setting n = 30 in equations (7) and
(8), using p and a2 as defined in (5) and (6), and defining p as the Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficient between the logarithm of adjacent days'
measurements (i.e., the estimated lag-1 autocorrelation).
The sampling patterns of BODg and TSS vary from plant to plant, and
certain plants have no or a sparse number of adjacent days' measurements from
which to estimate a lag-1 autocorrelation. For these plants, the estimated
correlation used in the above formula was set equal to the arithmetic average
of the estimated correlations from the other plants. For BOD5 effluent, this
average was 0.610713, based on 16 plants. For TSS effluent , this average was
0.511823, based on 14 plants. The following plants use these arithmetic
averages of the estimated correlations:
BOD5 TSS
908 444
1267 525
1407 908
2181 1267
2695 1407
2695
VII-D3
-------
APPENDIX VII-D, SECTION B. REFERENCES
Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown, 1957. The Lognormal Distribution, London:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 95-6.
VII-D4
-------
APPENDIX VII-E
DISTRIBUTIONAL HYPOTHESIS TESTING
-------
-------
A. GOODNESS-OF-FIT PROCEDURES
The Studentized range test was used to test the assumption that concen-
tration values follow a lognormal distribution (i.e., the natural logarithm of
the concentration values follows a normal distribution). This test was used
for all plant-pollutant combinations for which variability factors were devel-
oped. The pollutants included both priority pollutants and conventional pol-
lutants (BOD5 and TSS effluent). To conduct this test, let xi, x2, ..., xn be
a set of n nonzero concentration values for a particular plant-pollutant
combination, and let y£ (i = 1, ..., n) be the natural logarithm of these
concentrations (i.e., yi = ln(xi), i = 1, ..., n). The Studentized range test
is based on the test statistic U = R/S, where
R = y - y(1)» where y(n) is the natural logarithm of the largest
concentration value, and y is the natural logarithm
of the smallest concentration value,
and S =
1/2 _ n
, where y = 1 £ yi
n
An upper tail test was used to guard against alternative distributions with
heavier tails than the lognormal distribution, and a significance level of
a = 0.01 was employed for each test.
Critical values for the hypothesis test involving the U statistic are
given in David, et al. (1954), and selected values for various sample sizes
are sh'own below (in particular, upper percentage points for a= 0.01).
VII-E1
-------
n U0>99 n U0,99
3 2,000 17 4.59
4 2.445 18 4.66
5 2.803 19 4.73
6 3.095 20 4.79
7 3.338 30 5.25
8 3.543 40 5.54
9 3.720 50 5.77
10 3.875 60 5.93
11 4.012 80 6.18
12 4.134 100 6.36
13 4.244 150 6.64
14 4.34 200 6.85
15 4.43 500 7.42
16 4.51 1000 7.80
When the hypothesis of a lognormal distribution is tested at a signifi-
cance level of a = 0.01 for the various plant-pollutant distributions of
detected priority pollutant concentration values used for variability factor
analysis, only one hypothesis test (out of 40 distinct plant-pollutant combi-
nations investigated) shows a significant resultf (Propylene Chloride [32J,
Plant 415T, n = 15, U = 4.44, p-value <0.01; used for BAT Subcategory One
limitations). The remaining 39 distributions corresponding to the various
plant-pollutant combinations used in variability factor analyses are
nonsignificant at the a = 0.01 significance level. Results of hypothesis
tests of the lognormality of the distributions of conventional pollutant (BODg
and TSS effluent) concentrations, for the plants used for variability factor
analyses, are given in Tables E-l and E-2, respectively.
VII-E2
-------
TABLE E-l.
GOODNESS-0F-FIT TESTS FOR BOD EFFLUENT DAILY
DATAs NULL HYPOTHESIS OF LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
Plant
387
444
525
682
741
908
970
1012
1062
1149
1267
1407
1647
1973
1977
2181
2430
2445
2592
2626
2695
Test
Statistic*
5.23
6.36
4.59
4.61
5.85
4.83
6.47
5.73
5.86
7.28
4.70
4.68
6.48
4.36
5.36
3.85
7.96
7.48
6.05
5.75
6.25
n
160
154
203
207
156
96
155
357
261
160
84
48
359
157
153
124
366
347
154
363
143
Significance**
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
<0.005
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
<0.005
<0.005
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
*Test Statistic U = R/S (see discussion of Studentized range test)
**N.S. indicates nonsignificant at a = 0.01 level of significance; when
results are significant at the a = 0.01 level, an approximate p-value is
given.
VII-E3
-------
TABLE E-2.
GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR TSS EFFLUENT DAILY
DATA: NULL HYPOTHESIS OF LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
Plant
387
444
525
682
908
970
1012
1062
1149
1267
1407
1647
1973
1977
2181
2430
2445
2592
2626
2695
Test :
' Statistic*
6.02
6.71
4.77
7.32
4.87
6.34
5.86
6.00
6.42
5.34
4.99
6.77
4.92
4.35
6.08
4.23
8.39
6.01
6.38
5.54
n
158
159
155
361
99
362
366
260
363
130
48
366
347
154
366
366
365
135
366
146
Signi f icance**
N.S.
<0.01
N.S.
<0.01
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
<0.005
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
*Test Statistic U = R/S (see discussion of Studentized range test)
**N.S. indicates nonsignificant at a = 0.01 level of significance; when
results are significant at the a = 0.01 level, an approximate p-value is
given.
VII-E4
-------
APPENDIX VII-E, SECTION B. REFERENCES
David, H.A., H.O. Hartley, and E.S. Pearson. 1954. The Distribution of the
Ratio, in a Single Normal Sample, of Range to Standard Deviation. Biometrika
41?482-93.
VII-E5
-------
-------
APPEMDIX VII-P
BAT STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
-------
-------
A. VARIABILITY FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
In the process of developing limitations for effluent concentrations, EPA
used a modification of the estimation procedure for the delta-lognormal
distribution for determining variability factors. The delta-lognormal
distribution (discussed in Aitchison and Brown 1957) can be expressed as a
mixture of the lognormal distribution for concentration values greater than
zero, and a point distribution for concentration values of zero. That is, the
delta-lognormal distribution for concentration values x can be expressed as
f(x) = 5 I(x0) + (1 - 8) g(x)
where 0 < 8 < 1,
I(x0) = 1 for xc » 0
= 0 elsewhere,
and g(x) = (2na2ri/2 exp f " - ^'l i for x > 0
L 2o2 J x
= 0 elsewhere.
The 99th percentile of this distribution is P99 = exp(u + z*a), where
z* « f"1 [ *|"_"'* J » where t"1 represents the inverse of the standard normal
cumulative distribution function.
The mean or expected value, E(X), and the variance, V(X), of the delta-
lognormal distribution, are as follows:
E(X) - (1 - 8) exp(u + 0.5
-------
Consider now a modification of the estimation procedure for this
distribution vhere a certain proportion of values are assumed to be at a
non-negative value D. This modification is used for a combination of positive
concentration values and observations that can only be quantified as nondetect
(ND) at some minimum level (or detection Unit), D. All nondetects will be
Incorporated at this point D. That is:
f(x) = 8 I(x0) + (1 - 8) g(x)
where 0 < 8 < 1,
I(x0) = 1 for x0 = D (for nondetected values)
= 0 elsewhere,
f-(ln (x) - u)2] 1
and g(x) « (2iw2) /2 exp - - for x > 0
I 2er2 J x
- 0 elsewhere.
The 99th percentile is:
P99 « max (D, exp(w + z*o)),
and the mean and variance are:
E(X) m & D + (1 - 5) exp(u + 0.502)
V(X) . (1 - 8) exp(2u + a2) (exp(02) -,(1 - 8)) +
8 (1 - 8) D (D - 2 exp(p -i- O.Sff2)).
VII-F2
-------
B. MODIFICATION OF THE ESTIMATION PROCEDURE
FOR THE DELTA-LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
B.I DAILY VARIABILITY FACTORS
The 99th percentile of daily concentrations was estimated by substituting
the sample logmean and logvariance of concentration values and the sample
proportion of nondetects into the mathematical formula for the 99th percentile
of the modification of the estimation procedure for the delta-lognormal
distribution described previously, the expectation of the daily values was
estimated by substituting the sample lograean and logvariance of concentration
values and the sample proportion of nondetects into the formula for the mean
of this distribution.
Let xi , x2 , ..., x , x +1, . .., xn be a random sample of size n, with r
observations recorded as nondetects, and n - r observations recorded as
concentration values. Assume these n - r observations come from a lognormal
distribution, and let w and a be the sample mean and variance, respectively,
of ln(X). Let 8 be the sample proportion of nondetects. Then the estimate of
the mean of this distribution, based upon the modification to the estimation
procedure for the delta-lognormal distribution, is:
E(X) = 8 D + (1 - 8) "exp(y + O.Scr2) (B-l)
I In (x4)
i-r+1
where \i = - (calculated for r < n), (B-2)
n - r
' E (In (x ) - ft)2
a = i-r+1
n - r - 1
(calculated for r < n - 1), (B-3)
and 8 = - . (B-4)
n
VII-F3
-------
The ln(«) notation presented above represents the natural logarithm (base
e), and this notation will be used in subsequent formulas. The estimate of
the 99th percentile is:
& > 0.99
P
c
We
99
ax (D, exp(u + z*a)) elsewhere
where z*
rO.99 - 61
~
1 -
Using expressions (B-l) and (B-5) the 99th percentile daily variability
factor, VF(1), iss
VF(1)
E(X)
B.2 VARIABILITY FACTOR OF 4-DAY MEANS
The procedure for estimating the 95th percentile of 4-day means was first
to substitute the sample logmean, sample logvariance, and sample proportion of
nondetects into the mathematical formulas of the logmean and the logvariance
of 4-day means of values, where the modification of the estimation procedure
for the delta-lognormal distribution, as described previously, was used. The
logmean and the logvariance of 4-day means, in turn, were used to estimate the
95th percentile of the distribution of 4-day means, based on this modifica-
tion. The estimate of the expectation of 4-day means is the same as the
estimate of the expectation of daily values, assuming this modification of the
estimation procedure for the delta-lognormal distribution (as in section B.I),
where values of the sample logmean, sample logvariance, and sample proportion
of nondetects are incorporated. The 95th percentile 4-day mean variability
factor was derived as the ratio of this estimate of the 95th per.centile of
4-day means to this estimate of the expectation.
VII-F4
-------
The mean of the distribution of concentration values, based on this
modification, is
E(X) = 8 D + (1 - S) exp(w + 0.5o2) (B-6)
Making the assumption that the approximating distribution of X4, the sample
mean for a random sample of four independent concentrations, is also derived
from this modification of the estimation procedure for the delta-lognormal
distribution, with the same mean as the distribution of concentration values,
and with variance proportional to the variance of the distribution of concen-
tration values (Barakat 1976), it follows that the mean of this distribution
is
E(X4) = 64 D + (1 - S4) exp(»4 + 0.50*) (B-7)
Using (B-7), it can be seen that
v . in ! !_ _ Q.50J . (B-8)
I 1 - S4 J
Since E(X) - E(X4) and 54 = S4 ,
- 0.50' .
-------
Using (B-7) and (B-ll) it follows that
' (1 - 54)[V(X4) - S4(l - S4)D[D - 2-exp(y4
In
- 64)
[E(X4) - S4
(B-12)
From (B-7), by rearranging terms.
exp(p + 0.
E(X4) - S4D
-
(1 - V
(B-13)
using (B-12) and (B-13),
In (1 - 5)
V(X)
&4(1 - S4)DZ
[E(X4) - S4D]2 [E r-£ ^ ^
))
S > 0.95
elsewhere
(B-16)
VII-F6
-------
.95 - S4'
. (0.95 - f\
where z. = * 1 .
I 1 - S4 J
Using (B-16) and (B-l), since E(X) « E(X4), the 95th percentile 4-day mean
variability factor is
VF(1) . ~
E(X)
VII-F7
-------
C. POLLUTANT VARIABILITY FACTORS
Using the methodology.described in section B, daily and 4-day mean
variability factors were calculated for plant-pollutant combinations in the
5-plant study and the 12-plant sampling study, vhich have at least 3 single-day
averages for which detected concentration values are recorded. At least seven
single-day averages for which concentration values (including detected and
nondetected values) are present for all of these plant-pollutant combinations.
Plants 267P and 1753P, received from public comments, are also used for
determining variability factors for BAT subcategory one. For BAT subcategory
two, plant 913P, received from public comments, was used for determining
variablity factors, as well as plants from the 5-plant and 12-plant studies.
All of the 5-plant study plants, all of the 12-plant study plants, and the
plants above from the public comments are subsequently referred to as daily data
plants.
Average daily and 4-day mean variability factors for each pollutant were
calculated by averaging plant-pollutant variability factors across all plants
for each pollutant for which variability factor information was present. For
some pollutants, variability information was limited. For these pollutants for
BAT subcategory one, variability factors were extrapolated from the variability
factors for groups of pollutants with related chemical structure and thus
comparable treatment variability. This extrapolation involved using the average
variability factor of all existing pollutant variability factors in the group.
Variability factors for pollutants for which no group variability factor was
available were extrapolated by averaging all pollutant-specific variability
factors. The daily variability factor was 4.83045 and the 4-day variability
factor was 1.91724. These variability factors are used for the following
pollutants for BAT subcategory one:
3: Acrylonitrile
35s 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
36: 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
42: Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)Ether
52: Hexachlorobutadiene
56: Nitrobenzene.
VII-F8
-------
Transfer of variability factors, for pollutants regulated in BAT
subeategory two without individual variability factors, was accomplished by the
in-plant control technology present. Details on this transfer are given in
Chapter VII.
VII-F9
-------
D. LONG-TERM AVERAGES AND LIMITATIONS
To estimate long-term averages for each plant-pollutant combination in the
5-plant study, the 12-plant sampling study, data from public comments, and the
verification study, the Agency has estimated long-term averages (m) as follows:
8D + (1 - 5) i=l
where x, , i = 1, ..., n. , denotes the nx detected observations, D is the
pollutant-specific analytical minimum level, and 5 is an estimate of the
proportion of nondetects. For those plant-pollutant combinations for which all
nondetects are present, m = D, and for those combinations for which all detects
are present, m is the arithmetic average of these observations. The Agency
believes that the value of &, derived from the proportion of nondetects present
in the daily data (as defined in Section C), is the best estimate of the percent
of nondetect values reported. That is, S, the best estimate of the proportion
of nondetect values, is
total number of reported nondetect values
from all daily data plants
for a particular pollutant
§ "
total number of values reported from all
daily data plants for a particular pollutant
t
For pollutants not present in the daily data base, the value of 8 was estimated
from the proportion of nondetect values within the associated group.
After estimating plant-pollutant long-term averages in this fashion, the
median value of these estimated long-term averages for a given pollutant is
determined, and this median of estimated long-term averages is multiplied by the
average pollutant daily variability factor to determine daily limitations for
each pollutant. The average 4-day,mean variability factor is multiplied by this
median average value to determine 4-day mean limitations for each pollutant.
VII-F10
-------
I. METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING 4-DAT VARIABILITY FACTORS
FOR TRANSFER OF METAL FINISHING LIMITATIONS
The OCPSF BAT monthly maximum limitations are based on an assumed
4 samples per month, but the metal finishing monthly maxima are based on
10 samples per month. Thus, to transfer the metal finishing limitations
(EPA 1983) to the OCPSF industry, 4-day variability factors must be derived to
yield equivalent monthly maximum limitations based on an assumed 4 samples per
month.
For a particular pollutant, let LTA denote the long-term average and let
VFj be the daily variability factor from the metal finishing industry. For
the OCPSF effluent guideline, the daily maximum is given by LTA-VFj and the
monthly maximum is given by LTA-VF4, where VF4 is the 4-day variability
factor.
To derive VF. to complete the transfer of limitations, we assume
consistent with both OCPSF and metal finishingthat the daily samples are
lognormally distributed and that the basis of VFj is the 99th percentile. If
the parameters in the lognormal distribution are y and a, then the mean, 99th
percentile, and daily variability factors are given by
E(X) = exp(p + 0.502),
99th percentile = exp(w -f Zgg-a),
and
VF1 = exp(Zg9-
-------
where
2 - 95
ln[l +
-------
TABLE P-l.
INTERMEDIATE COMPUTATIONS
Pollutant
(all total) LTA - mg/1* VFj* g _Jr4_ VP4
Chromium .572 4.85 .825 .467 1.93
Copper .815 4.15 .725 .399 1.78
Lead .197 3.52 .625 .336 1.64
Nickel .942 4.22 .735 .406 1.80
Zinc .549 4.75 .811 .458 1.91
Cyanide .18 6.68 1.056 .644 2.34
*Prom EPA 1983, page A-ll.
TABLE F-2.
OCPSF LIMITATIONS
Daily Monthly
Pollutant Maximum (mg/1) Maximum (mg/1)
Chromium 2.77 1.11
Copper 3.38 1.45
Lead .69 .32
Nickel 3.98 1.69
Zinc 2.61 1.05
Cyanide 1.20 .42
VII-F13
-------
APPENDIX VII-F, SECTION E. REFERENCES
Aitchison, J., and J.A.C. Brown. 1957. The Lognormal Pi s t r i but i on. London:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 95-6.
Barakat, R. 1976. Sums of Independent Lognormally Distributed Random
Variables. JournalOptical Society ofAmerica, 66:211-16.
U.S. EPA, Development Document forEffluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the; Metal iFinishing Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-83/091,
June 1983.'
VII-F14
-------
fcf-
APPENDIX VII-G
EVALUATION OF THE VALIDITY OF
USING FORM 2C DATA TO CHARACTERIZE
PROCESS AND FINAL EFFLUENT WASTEWATER
JUNE 17, 1985
-------
-------
APPENDIX VII-G
FINAL
EVALUATION OF THE VALIDITY
OF USING FORM 2C DATA TO
CHARACTERIZE PROCESS AND FINAL EFFLUENT WASTEWATER
PREPARED FOR:
The Industrial Technology Division
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
June 17, 1985
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6947
SAIC/JRB Project No. 2-835-07-688-01
VII-Gl
-------
-------
VI. EVALUATION OF THE VALIDITY OF USING FORM 2C DATA TO CHARACTERIZE
PROCESS AND FINAL EFFLUENT WASTEWATER
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction 1
l.l Background 1
1.2 Summary and Conclusions 1
1.3 Selection of Plants with Form 2C Application and
308 Questionnaire Data " 3
1.4 Selection of Industrial Facilities 4
2. Methodology, Calculations and Data Analysis 5
2.1 General Methodology 5
2.2 Data Analysis 8
Appendix A; Pollutants Reported at/or Below Levels of Detection 50
Appendix B: Limits of Detection for Priority Pollutants 51
Appendix C: List of 129 Priority Toxic Pollutants 54
VII-G2
-------
-------
VI. EVALUATION OF THE VALIDITY OF USING FORM 2C DATA TO CHARACTERIZE
PROCESS AND FINAL EFFLUENT WASTEWATER
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Miscellaneous Wastewater Generation 11
2 Direct Dischargers Submitting Full 308 Questionnaire Responses 13
3 Plants Without Dilution 15
4 Plants With 2C Data 16
5 2C Data Plants With Dilution 17
6 Plants With Only Questionnaire Data 19
7 Questionnaire Data Plants With Dilution 20
8 Plants With Dilution That Did Not Submit Toxics Data 21
9 Plant Totals 22
10 Percent of Total Plants Submitting Data 23
11 Table of 2C Data Plants With Dilution {As Percent) 24
12 Table of Questionnaire Data Plants With Dilution (As Percent) 25
13 Table of Questionnaire Data Plants With Dilution of
Conventional Pollutants (As Percent) 26
14 Raw Water Quality Parameters, Dilution Factor and Adjusted
Water Quality Parameters 30
15 Plant A 36
16 Plant A 37
17 Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Data - Plant A 38
18 Plant B 39
19 Plant C 40
20 Plant D - Final and Intermediate Wastewater Data 41
21 308 Questionnaire Data - Plant E 42
22 308 Questionnaire Data - Plant F 43
VII-G3
-------
List of Tables (Cont.)
Table, Page
23 308 Questionnaire Data - Plant G 44
24 308 Questionnaire Data - Plant H 45
25 308 Questionnaire Data - Plant I 46
26 308 Questionnaire Data - Plant J 47
27 308 Questionnaire Data - Plant K 48
28 308 Questionnaire Data - Plant L 49
VII-G4
-------
VI, EVALUATION OF THE VALIDITY OF USING FORM 2C DATA TO CHARACTERIZE
PROCESS AND FINAL EFFLUENT WASTEWATER
List of Graphs
Graph Page
1 2C Data Plants 27
2 Questionnaire Data Plants 28
3 Questionnaire Data Plants With Dilution of Conventional 29
Pollutants Only
VII-G5
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Industry comments on the March 21, 1983, proposed OCPSF regulations stated
that the toxfc pollutant loadings were overestimated and suggested that the Agen-
cy rely on the NPDES permit application Form 2C toxic pollutant data for determin-
ing toxic pollutant loadings. Industry representatives also questioned the need
to establish BAT Limitations on a wide range of toxic pollutants. They maintain
that available NPDES Permit application Form 2C data constitute the most appropri-
ate and extensive data base for predicting the extent of occurrence of priority
pollutants in the OCPSF industry. They argue.that NPDES Form 2C data submitted
by OCPSF manufacturers indicate that only a few priority pollutants are detected
in treated discharges and conclude that existing treatment systems, installed prin-
cipally for the control of conventional pollutants, do an excellent job of control-
ling priority pollutant discharges.
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the validity of the industry's in-
terpretation of effluent data in general and NPDES Form 2C toxic pollutant data
in particular.
1.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Since the OCPSF regulations apply to process wastewater only, the Agency de-
termined the relative contributions of process and nonprocess wastewater at the
effluent sample sites. This data was used to calculate plant-by-plant "dilution
factors" for use in adjusting or assessing analytical data at effluent sampling
locations. This information was used to determine if reported Section 308 and
Form 2C final effluent concentration data could be used to adequately character-
ize actual process wastewater pollutant parameter concentrations. For example,
if a pollutant was reported as 30 ppb at the final effluent sampling location
VII-G6
-------
with 1 MGD of process wastewater flow and 9 MGD of noncontamlnated nonprocess
cooling water flow, then the concentration of the pollutant In the process waste-
water was actually 300 ppb. Similarly, If the same plant reported that another
pollutant was not detected at the same sampling location and the analytical
method detection limit was 10 ppb, then the other pollutant concentration in
the process wastewater could be as high as 90 ppb without being detected In the
diluted final effluent.
One hundred-six plants reported Form 2C toxic pollutant data in the 1983
Section 308 Questionnaire, Of these, 70 plants diluted the process wastewater
before the effluent Form 2C sampling point. The following table relates the
number of plants with Form 2C data to the range of dilution at the effluent
sampling point.
No. of Plants Range of Dilution
with Form 2C Data (%} in Percent
36 (34%) 0
20 (19%) >0 to 25
20 (19%) >25 to 100
17 (16%) >100 to 500
13 (12%) >500 to 6,054
The Agency was also able to identify 12 facilities that reported measured
toxic pollutant concentrations of treated process wastewater both before and
after dilution with nonprocess wastewater. In general, analyzing the diluted
effluents yielded underestimated or undetected values for organic toxic pollut-
ants that were measured in the undiluted process wastewater. However, this was
not generally the case for toxic pollutants metals such as cadmium, chromium,
lead, and cyanide. These metals are commonly found in cooling water additives
that may be utilized to inhibit biological growth or the formation of rust and
scale in cooling equipment. Therefore, the presence of a portion of these
metals in the diluted effluent seems to be caused by the nonprocess cooling
VII-G7
-------
water. Therefore, the assumption that the nonprocess dilution wastewater is
relatively clean seems to apply to the organic toxic pollutants but not nec-
essarily to all of the toxic metal parameters.
In conclusion, the use of unqualified plant effluent data which includes
dilution with nonprocess wastewater, does not provide an adequate assessment
of process wastewater pollutant constituents and concentrations. The use of
unqualified Industry supplied Form 2C data tends to underestimate organic toxic
pollutant constituents and concentrations in process wastewater and may actually
overestimate metal toxic pollutant constituents and concentrations. Furthermore,
keeping these constraints in mind, process wastewater pollutant concentrations
can be predicted on a case-by-case basis (especially for conventional pollutant
parameters) using a dilution factor and the overall plant effluent quality.
1.3 SELECTION OF PLANTS WITH FORM 2C APPLICATION AND 308 QUESTIONNAIRE DATA
308 Questionnaires were reviewed and all direct discharging plants (249)
submitting full responses were separated from all other types of plants (in-
directs, zeros). One hundred and thirteen (113) of these plants did not dilute
their process wastewaters at all, while 70 plants that submitted Form 2C appli-
cation data and 66 plants that submitted questionnaire data had some form of
dilution.
There were 100 plants that did not submit toxic pollutant data, (only
conventional pollutants) but had their process wastewaters diluted. Conventional
pollutants for these plants were adjusted to reflect the changes resulting from
dilution.
VII-G8
-------
1.4 SELECTION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Industrial facilities were selected for inclusion in this study if data
were available for both final effluent (Form 2C), and intermediate process
streams. The availability of both sets of data for a facility made it possible
to compare overall effluent quality-and process effluent quality. In addition
facilities showing substantial additions of nonprocess wastewater to process
effluents immediately upstream of monitoring points were also included for
consideration. These facilities proved useful in demonstrating the effect of
nonprocess waters upon the characterization of process effluents.
Facilities meeting the preceding criteria were obtained by reviewing 308
Questionnaire data submitted by organic chemical manufacturers, and Draft
Engineering Reports prepared by JRB for the development of BAT and BPT permit
limitations for industrial facilities in New Jersey. A total of thirteen
industrial facilities were obtained for use in this study. Four of the
facilities included are from JRB's permit development files, and the remaining
nine are from the OCPSF 308 Questionnaire data.
VII-G9
-------
2.0 METHODOLOGY CALCULATIONS AND DATA ANALYSIS
2.1 GENERAL METHODOLOGY
2.1.1 Sampling Data
The approach used in determining the viability of using overall plant ef-
fluent quality to characterize process wastewater discharges was to compare data
for process effluents only and total discharges for each facility. In this man-
ner it was possible to discern whether data obtained at a final outfall truly re-
flected the contribution and strength of process wastewater flow. The compari-
son was of particular importance if the overall effluent showed a pollutant to be
below the level of detection, while the process effluent reported higher levels.
2.1.2 Dilution Factor: Definition and Calculations
In order, to collect data Chat would most accurately characterize process
effluents in the absence of actual data, a term called the dilution factor was
developed.' It is equal to the quotient of the nonprocess flow divided by the
process flow. The dilution factor (plus one) for each facility multiplied by
the corresponding reported final effluent concentration, generated an adjusted
concentration which was considered to characterize, in an approximate manner,
the process effluent before the addition of other flows. This assumed no
contamination of the nonprocess wastewaters or minimal background of pollutants.
Other minor contaminated nonprocess wastewaters, such as boiler blowdown, were
not considered appropriate for Inclusion because of their unknown quality.
Table 1 presents the miscellaneous wastewaters that were considered process and
nonprocess wastewaters for the purposes of calculating the dilution factor.
VII-G10
-------
2.1.3 Plants with Dilution of their Process Wastewaters
Two hundred and forty-nine (249) plants in the OCPSF industry that sub-
mitted full responses (parts A, B, and C) to the 308 questionnaires are direct
dischargers. These plants are presented in Table 2. The purpose of this study
was to determine what plants diluted their process wastewaters with nonprocess
waters as defined in Table 1. A total of 113 facilities either did not dilute
their process wastewaters or did not provide accurate treatment system informa-
tion to determine if dilution was occurring.
A review of the 308 questionnaires indicates that certain plants submit-
ted Form 2C application data (for toxic pollutants) in questions C13 to C16
of the questionnaire (Table 4). Seventy of these plants diluted their process
wastewaters with nonprocess water (Table 5).
Other plants submitted only questionnaire toxic pollutant data for ques-
tions C13 to C16 (Table 6). Sixty-six of these plants diluted their process
wastewater streams, they are presented in Table 7.
As mentioned earlier, some plants did not report toxic pollutant data
when they submitted their 308 Questionnaires, but were found to have diluted
their process wastewater streams. There are 100 plants with conventional pol-
lutant data; these are presented in Table 8.
There were 106 plants that submitted Form 2C toxic pollutant data of
which 70 diluted their process wastewaters. This represents 66% of all plants
that submit-ted Form 2C data. Likewise 109 plants submitted questionnaire tox-
ics data but only 66 plants with dilution. This represents 61% of all plants
that submitted questionnaire data (Tables 9 and 10).
VII-G11
-------
Bar graphs are presented to Illustrate the range of percent dilution for
the Form 2C, questionnaire, and conventional pollutant data discussed earlier
(Bar graphs 1,2, and 3 and Tables 11 to 13). This data indicates that 29 to
35% of all plants are diluted in the range 0-25 while 33 to 48% of all plants
are diluted greater than 100%.
Table 14 presents dilution factors developed from 308 questionnaire data
covering a variety of OCPSP product/processes for the parameters TOG, COD,
TSS, and 6005. Dilution factors range from 0.00031 to 2,519; and the adjusted
pollutant concentrations are affected accordingly,, This table also shows the
variability in concentrations between the adjusted and reported conventional
pollutant parameters.
These results indicate that there can Cf considerable differences between
the reported and actual pollutant concentrations submitted by OCPSF plants,
and that there Is considerable dilutioA oi process wastewaters with nonprocess
waters by plants that submitted priority pollutant, and conventional pollutant
data. Approximately 55% of all plants that submitted toxic data were found to
have diluted their process wastewaters with nonprocess water.
2.1.4 Draft Engineering Permit Report Data
Intermediate and final discharge data were obtained for four industrial
facilites from JRB's files. The facilities are listed below:
1. Plant number A - An Oil Refinery Facility
2. Plant number B - A Bulk Organlcs Facility
3. Plant number C - A Pharmaceuticals Facility
4. Plant number D - A Speciality Organics Plant
VII-G12
-------
Data for these facilities are presented in Tables 15-through 20. In gen-
eral, the data present for the facilities show that concentrations of pollutant
parameters measured at combined, outfalls which include nonprocess flow are mark-
edly lower than the levels measured directly at process outfalls. This is a
good indication that pollutant data obtained from a final outfall is not truly
indicative of the effluent quality of a process discharge.
Data presented in Tables 16 and 18, are of particular importance because
several pollutant parameters which were reported in the final outfalls at
concentration levels below those of:detection were present at concentration
levels above detection at isolated process discharge points. Nominal detec-
tion levels for pollutant parameters are presented in Appendix B, These occurr-
ences are especially meaningful because they indicate that analyses of combined
outfall effluents do not necessarily provide a true characterization of process
was.t-ewater quality.
2.1.5 308 Questionnaire Data
308 Questionnaire Data was reviewed to obtain facilities with available
Intermediate and final effluent data. These facilities are presented in Tables
21 through 28. As mentioned before, facilities were selected on the basis of
their process flows undergoing dilution with nonprocess flows immediately pre-
ceding sampling sites. The data tabulated includes pollutant levels reported
at final outfalls, and calculated adjusted concentrations which represent lso~
lated process flows.
2.2 DATA ANALYSIS
2.2.1 Analysis of Q.CPSF Section 308 Information
Plant data from the 1983 Section 308 Questionnaires were analyzed by com-
paring total facility effluent quality with process effluent quality before
VII-G13
-------
mixing. Tables 15 through 26 present the data obtained. Examination and com-
parison of the data for each plant indicates that the final facility effluent
quality Is not truly Indicative of process effluent quality. Final discharge
concentrations are noticeably lower than concentrations in undiluted process
streams. In those cases where total effluent concentrations are below detection
limits, virtually no indication of process quality is provided.1 This is illus-
trated in Table 18. Chloroform, ethylbenzene, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene were all
reported to be undetected in the overall facility effluent, but were reported
in varying quantities in the process effluent. In this case, the overall
effluent quality is not indicative of the process effluent quality. Addition-
ally the variations in the concentrations of the three pollutants in the process
discharge indicate that the application of a dilution factor based on process
and total flows, to project process effluent quality, is not totally accurate
for this particular facility. It is also true for Plant A whose data were pre-
sented in Table 15. Concentrations reported at Plant A's treatment plant, repre-
sentative of process effluent, were greater than those reported at the main out-
fall for 1005, TSS, phenols, oil & grease, and zinc. However, calculation of a
dilution factor, based on reported concentrations, yields values ranging from
3.12 to 7.39. The actual dilution factor calculated for the facility, based on
flow data, is 17.875. For those pollutants reported at higher concentrations in
the main outfall than in the treatment plant effluent, it is no longer reason-
able to speak about dilution with respect to the process effluent. For these
pollutants, which include cadmium, chromium, lead, and cyanide, it is actually
the cooling water that Is being diluted with process effluent. Table 15 also
indicates that pollutant loadings may be primarily caused by contributions from
nonprocess sources. The loading attributable to the noncontact cooling water,
which mixes with the treatment plant effluent prior to the oain outfall samp-
ling point, was calculated using the appropriate flow based dilution factor.
VII-G14
-------
Therefore, the strict use of a dilution factor to project process effluent
quality is not reliable In all cases and its limitations should be known on a
piant-by-plant basis. It also nay not be advisable to assume that noncontact
cooling water is devoid of pollutants in all cases.
2.2.2 308 Questionnaire DataAnalysis
Data from those industrial facilities obtained from a review of 308 Ques-
tionnaire information, were analyzed by projecting adjusted concentrations
based on reported concentrations and appropriate dilution factors. Although
the dilution factor is not considered rigorously applicable to the accurate
calculation of process pollutant concentrations, as discussed in Section 2.2.1,
it was deemed reasonable to use it to estimate such concentrations; lacking
additional data, and keeping In mind its limitations. Comparison of reported
and adjusted .concentrations for the nine Industrial facilities presented in
Tables 21 through 28 shows adjusted concentrations with the degree of difference
being dependent upon the associated dilution factor. Large dilution factors
resulted in larger adjusted concentrations than smaller dilution factors, given
equal reported concentrations. Dilution factors for the facilities that submitted
toxic pollutant data ranged from 0.748 to 60.54.
VII-G15
-------
TABLE 1
Miscellaneous Wa«tewater Generation
Process
Non-Process (Dilution)
I Air Pollution Control Wastewater
2 Sanitary (receiving biological trt.)
3 Boiler blowdown
4 Sanitary (Indirect discharge)
S Steam Condensate
6 Vacuum Pump Seal Water
7 Wastewater Stripper Discharge
S Biol. froa Vertac
9 Boiler Feedwater Lime
10 Softener Slowdown
11 Contaminated Water Offsite
12 Condenaate
13 Storage, Labs, Shops
14 Laboratory Waate
IS Steam Jet Condensate
16 Water Softener Backwashlng
17 Misc. Lab Wastewater
IB Raw Water Clarification
19 Landfill Leachate
20 Water Treatment
21 Technical Center
22 Scrubber Water
23 Utility Streams
24 Washdown N-P Equipment
25 Contact Cooling Water
26 Vacuum Steam Jet Slowdown
27 Densator Slowdown
28 Bottom Ash-Quench Water
29 Deminerallzer Washwater
30 Water Softening Backwash
31 Lab Drains
32 Closed Loop Equipment Overflow
33 HVAC Slowdown
34 Filter Backwash
35 Deminerallzer Wastewater
36 Laboratory Offices
37 Deminerallzer Slowdown
38 Utility Clarlfier Slowdown
39 Steam Generation
40 RO Rejection Water
Non-Contact Cooling Water (one pass)
Sanitary (no biological trt., direct disch
Cooling Tower Slowdown
Stormwater Site Runoff
Delonlzed Water Regeneration
Miscellaneous Wastewater (conditional)
Softening Regeneration
Ion Exchange Regeneration
River Water Intake
Make-up Water
Fire Water Make-up
Tank Dike Water
Deminerallzer Regenerant
Dilution Water
Condensate Losses
Shipping Drains
Water Treatment Slowdown
Cooling Tower Overflow
Chilled Water Sump Overflow
Air Compressor and Conditioning Slowdown
Firewall Dralnings
Other Non-Contact Cooling
Misc. Leaks and Drains
Boiler House Softeners
Fire Pond Overflow
Boiler Regeneration Backwash
Groundwater (Purge)
Firewater Discharge
Freeze Protection Water
H2 and CO Generation
Dendneralizer Spent R£ gene rants
Line Softening of Process
Miscellaneous Service Water
Reclrculatlng Cooling System
VII-G16
-------
TABLE 1 (Com.)
Miscellaneous Wastewaeer Gentration
Process
Non-Proeesa (Dilution)
41 Power House Slowdown
42 Inert Gas G«n. Slowdown
63 Contaminated Groundwater
44 Potable Water Treatment
45 Unit Washes
46 Non-Contact Floor Cleaning
4? Slop Water from Bist. Facilities
48 Laboratory and Vacuum Truck
49 Ion B«d Regeneration
SO Tankcar Washing (HCH)
51 Film Wastewater
52 Generator Slowdown
53 Ash Sluice Water
54 Eeoearch and Development
55 Quality Control
56 Steam Desuperheating
5? Pilot Plant
58 Other DuPont Off-site Waste
59 Ion Exchange Resin Rinse
60 Iron Filter Backwash
61 Area Uashdown
62 Vacuum Pump Wastewater
63 Garment Laundry
64 Hydraulic Leaks
65 Grinder Lubricant
66 Utility Area Process
67 Contact Rainwater
VII-G17
-------
TABLE 2
DIRECT DISCHARGERS SUBMITTING FULL 308 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
PLANT NUMBER
1
12
61
63
83
87
101
102
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
225
227
250
254
260
267
269
284
294
296
352
373
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
447
481
486
500
502
523
525
536
569
580
602
608
626
633
657
659
662
663
664 .
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
883
888
908
909
913
915
938
942
948
970
984
990
991
1012
1020
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1532
1569
1572
1593
1609
1616
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1753
J766
1767
1774
1776
1802
1839
1869
1881
1890.1
1890.2
1905
1911.1
1911.2
1928
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2241
2242
2254
2268
2272
2296
2307
2313
2315
2328.1
2328.2
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471.1
2471.2
2474
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
VII-G18
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
2701
2711
2735
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4021
4037
4040
4051
4055
VII-G19
-------
TABLE 3
PLANTS WITHOUT DILUTION
PLANT NUMBER
1 741 1624 2307
101 758 1643 2345
102 775 1647 2364
180 825 1650 2365
227 851 1656 2394
254 888 1684 2400
260 942 1714 2447
267 970 1753 2461
296 991 1769 2471.1
373 1059 1774 2471.2
392 1133 1776 2527
412 1139 1881 2541
415 1148 1905 2551
444 1157 1928 2556
481 1203 1973 2573
502 1267 1977 2590
523 1299 1986 2592
536 1327 2020 2606
569 1343 2049 2631
608 1349 2055 2701
626 1407 2073 2770
633 1414 2198 2816
659 1438 2206 3033
662 1446 2221 4002
663.1 1464 2236 4021
663.2 1520 2254 4037
664 1522 2272 4055
669 1572 2296
683 1593
709
VII-20
-------
TABLE 4
PLANTS WITH 2C DATA
1 844 1656 2450
63 859 1688 2461
83 876 1717 2474
102 883 1753 2531
114 887 1853 2551
154 909 1869 2556
159 913 1881 2573
183 942 1891 2590
269 984 1943 2626
294 990 2009 2633
296 992 2026 2635
352 1012 2055 2668
373 1020 2073 2673
387 1069 2090 2680
394 1137 2148 2692
399 1149 2228 2693
415 1241 2268 2701
500 1319 2272 2711
536 1407 2300 2735
601 1532 2315 2786
657 1569 2328 2795
669 1572 2353 2818
717 1616 2364 3033
722 1617 2390 4010
727 1618 2430 4021
811 1643 2445 4040
1647 4051
VII-G21
-------
TABLE 5
2C DATA PLANTS WITH DILUTION
Plant i
63
83
102
114
154
159
183
269
294
352
373
387
394
399
500
657
727
811
844
859
876
883
909
913
942
984
990
1012
1020
1137
1149
1241
1319
1532
1569
1618
1688
1717
1869
1943
2009
2090
2148
2228
2268
2315
2328
2353
2390
2430
2445
2450
2474
Dilution Factor
.16308
.0720
.02792
.74803
.5480
.3477
3.1667
.4440
5,61905
.31071
.730
.00091
.0011
.01590
3.9113
.2254
14.46667
.6273
.6288
6.27
2.791
.3462
2.087
.2632
3.0
.3595
.3113
4.6139
.88268
.05932
.02664
2.35163
9.5652
10.00
1.0
.45045
.2210
1.3514
1.346
.58594
.1111
.2495
.05106
5.298
14.5143
3, -6-2
2.36318/2.35714
2.37
.02812
.28351
.60737
16.7129
52.94
VII-G22
-------
TABLE 5 (continued)
2C DATA PLANTS WITH DILUTION
Plant t Dilation Factor
2531 11.0651
2626 .1963
2633 .150
2668 33.6515
2673 1.4074
2680 .375
2692 1.0833
2693 .2069
2711 60.5439
2735 .1478
2786 .53127
2795 .1455
2818 1.184
4010 9.9867
4040 2.00
4051 3.30
Note: In addition to 2C data all of the above plants
have questionnaire data except: 114
913
2711
4010
VII-G23
-------
TABLE 6
PLANTS WITH ONLY QUESTIONNAIRE DATA
12 682 1323 2026 2678
61 683 1327 2049 2695
87 695 1340 2062 2763
155 709 1343 2110 2764
177 775 1389 2181 2767
225 802 1409 2222 2770
227 819 1414 2227 >>i i\
250 825 1439 2236 2816
254 851 1446 2241 4017
259 866 1464 2242
267 871 1494 . 2313
284 908 1522 2360
384 915 1593 2368
417 938 1609 2376
443 948 1695 2399
447 970 1698 2447
486 976 1766 2527
502 1038 1769 2528
523 1061 1774 253?
525 1062 1802 2536
580 1067 1839 2541
602 1133 1877 2534
608 1139 1890 25')2
659 1203 1911 26il
662 1299 1928 2-547
VU-G24
-------
TABLE 7
QUESTIONNAIRE DATA PLANTS WITH DILUTION
Plant I
12
61
87
155
177
225
250
284
384
443
447
486
525
580
602
682
695
802
819
866
871
908
915
938
948
1038
1061
1062
1067
1323
1340
1389
1409
1439
1494
1609
1695
1698
1766
1802
1839
1890
1911
Dilution
Factor
7.147
10.0
0.308
1.215
3.67
0.530
1.190
0.2868
1.2123
48.571
84.8165
250.0
0.0912
.00047
9.000
6.4393
0.012
0.933
0.0591
0.8406
1.910
0.0016
0.0645
5.5069
0.0164
1.0564
0.0113
1.6573
15.90
2.1177
0.1720
0.10337
2.3516
69.333
0.2638
0.0727
0.1543
1.0909
0.6084
1.290
2518.9
1.480/.5174
4.1667
V1I-G25
-------
TABLE 8
PLANTS WITH DILUTION THAT DID NOT SUBMIT TOXICS DATA
PLANT NUMBER
30 888 1936 2507
94 944 1977 2556
199 962 1986 2573
203 990 1993 2578
214 1053 2055 2590
220 1059 2073 2609
249 1086 2108 2631
254 1117 2177 2635
259 1139 2221 2679
260 1188 2243 2/36
303 1237 2254 2756
312 1238 2261 2776
392 1432 2288 2793
444 1437 2293 3033
449 1438 2296 4002
481 1504 2307 4007
494 1539 2328 4008
543 1579 2345 4017
614 1621 2365 4023
663 1624 2394 4037
669 1643 2400 4040
683 1657 2402 4051
709 1714 2436
717 1740 2447
720 1764 2471
771 1776 2485
851 1838 2487
887 1891 2495
VII-G26
-------
fABLE 9
PLANT TOTALS
Total Number
of Plants
1, Direct Dischargers 249
2. Plants Submitting Fora 2C Data 106
3. Plants Submitting Only Questionnaire
Data 109
4. Plants With 2C Data and Questionnaire
Data 65
VII-G27
-------
TABLE 10
PERCENT OF TOTAL PLANTS SUBMITTING DATA
Total Number
ri:ofjPlants^ m As Percent
1. Form 2C Plants With Dilution 70 661
2. Questionnaire Data Plants With Dilution 66 60.62
3. Plants Submitting Only Conventional
Pollutant Data 100
As percent of total plants submitting Form 2C toxics data.
As percent ot total plants submitting questionnaire data.
VH-G28
-------
TABLE 11
TABLE OF 2C DATA PLANTS WITH DILUTION
(AS PERCENT)
0-25Z
Plant #
63
83
102
387
394
399
657
1137
1149
1618
1869
2009
2090
2148
2390
2626
2633
2693
2735
2795
Z
16
7
3
.09
.11
16
23
6
3
22
10
11
25
5
3
20
15
21
15
15
25-50
Plant *
159
269
352
883
913
984
990
1616
2430
2680
Z
35
44
31
35
26
36
31
45
28
38
50-75
Plant *
114
154
373
811
844
1943
2445
2786
Z
75
55
73
63
63
59
-61
53
75-100
Plant t I
1020 88
1569 100
100-500
Plant t
183
500
876
909
942
1012
1241
1688
1717
2315
2328
2353
2673
2692
2818
4040
4051
Z
317
391
279
209
300
461
235
135
135
362
236
237
141
108
118
200
330
>500
Plant *
294
727
859
1319
1532
2228
2268
2450
2474
2531
2668
2711
4010
Z
562
1447
627
957
1000
530
1451
1671
5294
1107
3365
6054
999
VII-G29
-------
TABLE 12
TABLE OF QUESTIONNAIRE DATA PLANTS WITH DILUTION
(AS PEECBNT)
0-2SZ. 25-50 50-75 75-100
Plant
525
580
695
819
908
915
948
1061
1340
1389
1609
1695
2026
2181
2227
2241
2313
2528
2536
2695
2771
4016
~f X Plant f I Plant * X Plant i %
9.1 87 308 225 53.0 802 933
.047 284 28.7. 1766 60.8 866 84.1
1.2 1494 26.4 1890.2 51.7 2062 81.8
5.9 2242 25.5 2368 54.6
.16 2763 28.95 2376 50.8
6.45
1.64
1.1
17.2
10.3
7.27
15.4
1.4
3.95
2.51
12.3
19.37
6.86
.031
4.66
8.33
15.06
100-500
Plant
155
177
250
384
871
1038
1062
1323
1409
1698
1802
1890
1911
2110
2360
2399
2533
2764
2767
* %
120.15
367
119.0
121.2
191.0
105.6
165.7
211.8
235.2
109.1
129.0
.1 148
416.7
186.1
194.4
188
108.0
118.2
159.0
>500
Plant
12
61
443
447
486
602
682
938
1067
. 1439
1839
2222
2678
i I
714.7
1000
4857
8481.6
25000
900
643.9
550.7
1590
6933
251900
1446.7
1156.5
VII-G30
-------
TABLE 13
Table of Questionnaire Data Plants with Dilution of Conventional Pollutants
(as percent)
0 - 25%
25 - 50
50 - 75%
75 - 100%
100 - 500%
>500%
30
199
199
220
254
312
449
,683
717
720
990.1
1053
1059
1086
1139
1188
1237
1432
1504
1579
1764
1977
1993
2055.1
2221
2261
2402
2436
2485
2487
2495
2507
2736
2756
3033
4007
4008
4017
4023
6
00
4
9
0
20
11
19
23
7
0
5
.2
14
1
8
2
6
20
17
7
8
12
7
.5
18
.4
14
20
10
21
5
3
2
5
.1
24
15
.2
203
214
494
663.1
663.2
771
851
990.2
1238
1539
1621
1657
1714
1740
1891
1936
2073
2293
2471.1
2471.2
2573
2609
27
30
49
34
34
33
26
31
33
41
29
37
27
33
33
42
40
35
25
39
42
43
162 74
260 66
444 50
962 66
2296 50
2394 55
2590 58
2631 64
2679 50
4073 60
614 80 249
2177 83 303
2345 80 392
543
887
888
1117
1437
1438
1643
1838
2108
2243
2254
2288
2328
2365
2556
2635
2793
4002
4040
4051
109
426
.186
108
140
163
150
140
164
331
217
192
335
112
200
236
100
212
119
325
167
200
330
259
481
669 ,
709
944
1624
1776
1986
2055.2
2307
2400
2447
2578
2776
17405
3000
916
1532
715
8929
1167
6063
2552
2170
2250
17400
654
VII-G31
-------
30
GRAPH 1
2C Data Plants
20
28.6%
10
14.3%
11.4%
2.9%
24.31
18.5%
25
50
75
100
500
6100
PERCENT DILUTION
VII-G32
-------
GRAPH 2
Questionnaire Data Plants
30'
20
10
32.8%
7.5%
7..JX
25 50
4.5%
28.4Z
19.3Z
75
100 500 252,000
PERCENT DILUTION
VII-G33
-------
GRAPH 3
Questionnaire Data Plants with Dilution of Conventional Pollutant* Only
30
20
10
35.1%
19.8%
25
9%
2.7%
20.7%
12.61
50 75 100 500
Percent Dilution
750,000
VII-G34
-------
fable 14
k«K Mtift 8UAUI* PMHwntltkS. UUUfKlN FACilik Mht ABJubltU Mltft UUAt II*
MikMlEURS.
OJ
Ul
II 1
t
12
$0
61
61
13
87
14
102
114
154
155
159
162
177
183
Iff
2u3
214
220
22S
249
2SO
254
25*
260
269
284
294
361
312
352
J73
384
387
142
394
399
443
444
447
44*
481
486
494
500
525
543
560
CliJAt
MB
-l.w
l2Jb.U
I9&.U
I.u
31.0
71C..O
-i.a
6,4
8.6
7.0
-1.0
318.0
-1.0
,27.u
-t.u
149. u
3o.O
648.0
58297.0
13.6
986. u
5o.w
0.0
1.6
11.8
116.0
16.0
8.6
4U1.0
340. »
34.0
8.2
3.0
14. u
I2.o
8.8
24.0
20.2
H.U
2492. u
-1.0
12.5
-1.0
-I.u
lu.u
6.0
1.6
41. u
(t£tU*l.
CwB
-l.w
-1.0
-I.u
31. u
144.0
Iu7₯.0
17ol.O
2*1.0
31, u
1.0
fuu.u
615. u
-I.u
-1.0
-i.ii
I.U
9u.li
1.0
I6U97.0
1'2.4
2uli.il
l.U.U
u.o
-1.0
4u.3
259-. U
43. U
11.0
718.0
9781.0
10 0.0
J*,f
41. J
B3.U
4o.u
62, S
79.0
Iu2,u
-I.U
lOk/io.O
1037u,u
-l.w
641. j
77u.i»
67. u
I.u
£₯42. u
' 2111.0
",r
-l.o
I.U24.U
-I.u
1.4
I7.u
34.1
234. U
17.2
SI."
15.4
128.U
-1.0
30.0
57.0
-l.»
37..U
28. M
duo.o
23.0
6.1
47. j
101. u
U.O
-1.0
5.4
37. u
10. u
18. u
96. U
3181.0
11. *
2u. I
8.6
21. u
16.0
19.4
16.0
37. i
27. u
2411. u
3616.0
I.U
-l.o
6l . V
Ib.U
Jtl.U
4u. a
ISi.l"
ALT 0 At 1/KullJti
IOC fACIDk
66.0
-l»»
-l.d
-1.0
-Ml
-1.0
-1.4
-l.»
-I.u
28.0
-1.0
317.0
1.0
27. u
-1.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
1.0
l.o
-1.0
-I.I"
-1,0
-I.U
9.»
104. u
-I.U
J.2
-.1.0
"I.U
l.o
-1.0
-l.o
l.o
-1.6
21.4
30.i)
-1.0
19, »
3442. V
-I.u
-i.u
-1.0
-l.o
38. o
-l.o
-I.u
-1.0
;.i4/«o
0,uS'20
IU.VMW.IU
u. loiub
U.u72v0
u, Su83u
u. 2uuuu
U.U27*U
o,74B
-------
Table 14 (Cont.)
IM Mitt 9UM.IIT PMifUtflEfcS, OlLUllOM fMTOk ANb ADJUSIED HAIEK UIMU.HT
I
o
»i
602
614
657
663
«63
649
482
6BI
695
709
JIT
720
m
in
8v2
11
IV
844
51
85»
866
871
076
883
(87
888
908
tM
til
915
93B
942
944
948
962
914
WO
990
990
1012
1038
IOSS
tost
1061
IW2
1U67
Iu86
1117
ACTUAL
IOD
105.2
-1.0
13.0
1.0
4.0
56. 0
9.8
lu.O
20.0
S.7
25.0
268.0
1.4
374,0
6.6
13.6
-1.0
3.0
23.5
31.0
6.5
12.0
24.0
15.0
14733.6'
-I.*
13.0
f.o
3.0
14.0
-1.0
17. 8
28.0
12.1
10. 0
16.0
0.0
12.4
15.9
3.i
3.0
-1.0
32.0
6.1
9.u
4.U
-1.6
t.lu.0
ktlUU.
COO
1.0
1.0
oO.O
14.0
34.6
-I.O
77.4
-1.0
153.0
if. 3
03.0
SOu.O
-I.O
198.0
21.0
92.1
-I.O
111.0
1*2.4
1.0
10/.0
52.6
24S.O
-I.O
5*97.0
1425.0
331.0
US. 6
Io3.o
69.0
-1.0
93.1
4«7.0
-l.u
-1.6
182.0
0.0
126.0
0.0
22.0
So.O
Bc.10.0
354.0
29. S
Uu.«
10,0
-l.u
"i.O
AC) UAL
T...
'-1.0
14.0
35. u
35.0
42.0
31.3
10. u
51.0
0.0
11. 0
18.0
7.0
141.0
a.o
18.4
121.0
32.0
128.1
601.0
17.3
3l.6
20.0
2u.O
104.0
-1.4
46. «
Id. u
43.1)
12.0
27.«
16.4
?.u
K. 2
is. a
3S.O
ii.0
IS. 9
U.O
-1.0
11.0
521.0
30.0
11. 1
23. M
Iv.J
i.i.fc
11.3
AC!ML ftUunuk AljJuiltD HWusILD kUJuSIEO AUJuSTEO
TOD
476,0
"1.9
19.0
31.0
53.0
-I.O
34.0
20.0
74.0
IT.O
-1.0
-I.O
-I.O
-I.O
-I.O
$5,6
-1.0
23. 0
-1.0
-I.O
-l.o
-I.O
47,0
-I.O
1.0
-I.O
80,0
-l.u
1,2
-I.O
41.0
2H.I
-I.O
59.u
-I.O
92.0
0.0
-I.O
0.0
-1.0
-I.O
-1.0
i.O
-l.u
-1.0
-1.0
-1.4
-l.u
fACIOK
9,00000
U. 79274
u,'.'214u
0.34IUU
u. 33874
9.15790
6.43930
u.19178
U.012oo
15.32353
0.22100
0,07140
14,46667
0* 333&d
0* 93 Jufe
0.62730
O.iiSHO
0,62360
,0.25913
6. 2700V
O.B4060
1.91UOO
2.79100
6.34620
1.39 Wo
l.*3ovO
U. OOUli
2.ut!7S7
0.26320
U.U64SO
1.10610
I.uuuuu
7.11UUU
U.0164U
O.ooOuO
0.31V5u
u.Ououu
u. 71130
u.uOuou
4.61392
1 . OS64»
a. 05370
O.H02U3
u.dllib
1.1,1? JO
1S.9MUUM
M. 142ui)
1 . 100'JO
100
1012.0
-1.0
IS. 9
6.7
5.3
168, e
72.9
11.9
2o,2
?3.6
30,6
287. 1
8S.S
498,5
11.1
22.1
-1.0
4.8
29.5
225.1
11.9
34.9
90.9
20.1
35285. S
-I.O
S3.0
27.7
$.7
14.9
-1.0
71.2
226.::
12.2
16.6
21.7
0.0
16*. 2
IS.*
20.2
10.2
-I.O
32.0
6.1
2S.«
»7.6
-I.O
1625.0
COII
1."
-l.u
7J.1
72.4
72.2
-I.O
177.2
-l.u
1S4.U
liil. 2
101.6
535. 7
-1.0
797.1
40. S
149.4
-I.O
ibu. 7
229.6
l.u
196. V
153. u
928.7
-l.M
1}(.44. ]
374;. 4
355.1
3SS.O
130.1
73.4
-l.fc
372,4
}806.U
-l.u
tiO
247.4
0.0
1&5.2
0.0
125. 5
US. 1
W72.S
354. 7
39.11
il2,i
1121. u
-l.u
-l.u
ISS
-I.O
-1.0
17.1
46.9
46.8
426.6
262.4
11.9
Sl.4
*7.9
13.4
H.2
loS.2
I9B.6
15.4
29.9
128, 1
S2.I
141.2
436V. 2
31.8
91.9
75.8
26.9
249.0
-l.u
4u.O
11.5
S4.3
12.7
175.6
63.6
i7,0
32.7
24.9
33.9
0.0
20.8
0,0
-J.O
22.6
336.2
3U.O
15,2
61.1
Ittu.ft
366.5
33.2
IOC
476U.O
-I.O
2i.2
72.4
70.9
-1.0
267.
23.
74.
27T.
-I.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-I.O
57.9
-1.6
37.4
-I.O
-I.O
-1.0
-l.u
178.1
-i.o
-I.O
-1.0
80. 1
-1.0
1.5
-I.O
292.8
112.4
-I.O
59.9
-1.0
121.0
0.6
-1.6
0..0
-1.0
-1.6
-1.0
-I.O
-l.M
l.M
-1.0
-1.4
-l.u
-------
Table 14 (Cont.)
DM M!C* BUM-IT* PMftHEfEftS, IKuIlON FACIOfi AMI ADJUSUO NAIEh DUAL IfY
PARAMETERS,
I
HI 1
III?
1139
1149
nag
1237
1238
1241
1319
1323
1340
1389
1409
1412
143?
I43»
1439
1494
1504
1532
1539
1549
1579
1409
1616
1618
1621
1624
1643
145?
1481
1695
1698
1714
1717
I74u
17*4
1766
1776
IB02
1831
1839
1169
1890
1990
1891
1911
1136
1943
ACtUM.
BOB
22.0
36.0
20.0
341.0
69.0
-1.4
19.4
1*. 0
48.1
5.4
33.0
l.u
-I.M
442.5
II. u
4.3
49.0
-1.0
10.1 .
1637.0
9.2
13.7
61.0
60.0
3.0
1011.4
10.2
18.0
1641.0
60.5
14.3
32.6
14.6
21. u
11.0
242.0
103.0
u.O
22.0
-1.0
0.0
16.0
19.6
ti.O
45,0
14, u
Htl.O
14.0
ACTUAL
COD
-l.u
197.0
117.0
6U7.0
-1.0
910U.O
-1.0
-l.u
ISS.4
6d,u
3u3.0
44.0
2446.0
-1.0
114,0
-1.0
:-as,o
921.0
-1.0
-I.U
10.0
9V. 0
-1.0
323,0
14.0
28d2.0
63.8
154.0
-I.M
171.8
-1.0
274.0
147.0
198. U
38. u
4130.U
419.0
u.O
51.0
-1.0
0,0
57,0
230. ft
71.0
JI^.O
ivi. u
-l.d
18.0
ACIUAI.
IS
f
72.0
31. u
S7.0
12.5
42.0
-1.0
38.7
22.0
16.2
17.4
61.0
7.0
104.0
29.1
12.U
2u,a
101.0
114. U
-l.u
336.6
21.7
9. H
57.0
14.0
9.3
31. «
16.0
41. U
119.0
11,1
22,6
21.9
9vi,U
14.4
18. 0
28e3.0
75. q
7.9
4J.O
3491, U
0.0
4,0
37.0
6.0
l.u
74, u
Su * y
to. a
AC 1 UAL
IOC
54.0
-l.u
40.0
-
-
-
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i'
-
-
-
-
-
.0
.0
.0
.6
.0
.0
,b
.0
.Q
.0
.0
,u
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
IOu.0
429.0
8.0
-1.0
-1.0
u.u
-l.u
177. u
-I.U
-l.u
-l.u
123.0
-1.0
-1.4
220.0
-1.0
-1.0
-I.U
20,0
-1.0
-I.U
-1.0
-1.0
72.0
-1.0
-1,4
OlLUllUH ADJUSTED
f AC I Oft
u.
u.
0,
u.
0.
0.
0.
9.
2.
u.
4.
2.
0.
1.
1.
69.
U.
u.
10.
0.
1.
u.
0.
0.
0.
u.
&9.
3.
M.
1.
0.
1.
0.
I.
u.
0.
u.
11.
1.
2.
2118.
a.
1.
u.
u.
4.
U.
u.
OS13W
01010
02664
07750
01500
332i'0
623uO
51,522
11765
17204
1033?
31163
06160
40UOU
6J7ob
32333
2 6 -SHU
2uOuO
00400
40770
ooooO
|74uu
U7273
41u41
22104
285uu
28571
31ooO
37330
3114u
11429
09u*l
2690U
34611
SSlOu
06590
6o»41
6666?
29000
17oou
8675.'
09770
48196
11734
J29uu
1666'
41VOO
18194
600
23,3
34.3
20.5
371.7
7.4.0
-1.0
31.4
200.7
149.9
6.3
36.4
16,7
-I.U
342.1.
29,4
io2.4
61.9
-1.0
111.1
2304.4
18.4
16. U
61.4
87.0
3.6
1299.1
920,1
??.S
2253.5
142.2
16.5
68,1
18. 5
4*. 2
14.6
257.1
165.6
0.0
10.3
-1.0
0.0
17.5
47.1
12.1
SI. 8
72.3
116.0
22,2
HbJUSrtD
C0l»
-1.0
1 98.*
161.1
654.0
- .0
1212 .:
- -u
- ,u
42 .1
79.6
3J4. 3
134.0
2S16.6
-l.u
300.6
-l.u
360, 1
1105.2
l.u
-l.u
tuu.u
116.2
l.u
468. 4
17. u
;?u3.J
S76U.2
663. 7
-l.u
403,%
-l.u
172.9
186.1
464.3
50.5
44U2.I
073.9
u.O
116.7
-l.u
O.u
62.5
570.8
Iu7. 7
450.5
loo/. j
-l.u
11.9
AtJUiilEO
ISS
74.2
33.3
58.1
13.4
42.6
-1.0
62.8
232.4
JO. 5
20.3
71.7
2J.4
110.4
49.8
31.6
Hoi. 9
132.6
134.8
-1.4
4 73. d
43.4
11.5
41.1
78.3
11.3
39.8
1444.5
193.9
U3.4
41.8
26.0
45.7
1 14'. Z
33*. 7"
23"i.9:
lusm^i
120.6
104.0
98.4
11079.1
0.0
4.3
91.8
1.1
-1.0
382.1
42.5
15.8
ADJUSTED
IOC
51.3
-1.0
41.0
-1.0
-1.4
-1.4
163.2
-1.4
-1.0
-1.0
-1.4
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-l.u
-I.U
' 107.4
M.O
-1,4
-1.0
-1.0
-l.u
107.2
622.2
9.7
-1.4
-1.0
U.4
-1.0
416.1
-1.0
-I.Ot
-1.8,
28tt,S
-1,0.
-1,4,
353.8
-1.4
-1.0
-1.4
10397.3
-1.0
-1.0
-1.4
-1.0
372.0
-1.0
-l.o
-------
r* I ii i i i ** -i * i t^pirx-i i -a » i -o i T * j iT*T <> vn c* «CI *! O »» ^»»^t«rfl»^ O a » »* -
«^ 2 * ***M
at *
a
CM »» o P« « i
MI
- H ll
9<*-3(M
e* w
e» o*-> o-o«-»oOrficoK»c«»*»<»0[i»'O^or>4-»r'4^**"-«wT'3r-*»i
«Rsiu.«o P-*' * » *"**(
.
n «o »
1m la l7?T7??i^T?Tirl?T^TiT^Tf7rrii^|2jj5j«-'2|Sj221!
tal I,,,*
»»- 2
13
i
st
e <9M3OOO94t *% 3i9>i3-SIO-3miA«>«tOOOOO'99<5»9-09O3O'9i9Oai9a'^>
ia.«t-9,^i1a]4a«Mi«*«*79>'9i> «* - 9 19 I <
₯»ci««jircp»«o-** t»pfli(**(»'»«r₯i»*»««**i»i-» a » ffl **» eirfij
IM « ^*^»4irt«r«^o«o»r^« M^«r^^^-^m-^^^^^igBaoMOinai-aOv^gN^^oji^
* « »^»O3^«OOO^ ^^2(s*Me^p4r««N«Mr*NfHN»^M5*^»^M»^i«»n*^*-iMMW*»»»'»^*
VII-G38
-------
Table 14 (Cont.)
RAM MAtU BUM.lit PMMIEIERS, DILUTION FACTO* AM! ADJUSTED HAIER DUALITY
PARABEHIiS.
I
O
W
vO
KAkT a
24S6
2471
2471
2474
2483
2487
249S
2507
252»
2211
2513
2536
251*
257J
2578
259*
2*6»
2*26
Jill
2635
2615
26*8
2*73
2&7B
2*7*
26BS
2**2
26»S
2495
2711
2715
271*
275*
27*1
27*4
27*7
2771
277*
2781.
2793
27M
2B1B
201$
4002
4007
4UUI
4i>IO
4UI7
ACIUAL
Oft
5,8
42,*
u.a
8.0
2302.0
390.5
1200.0
464.0
33.0
52. o
-1.*
1.1
6.0
iOU.O
32u9.0
IM.O
0*4.0
11.5
14.0
79. M
10.*
4.1
42,1)
6.1
211,6
34.9
2.0
71. u
24.0
16.0
7.0
-l.y
!>6:,u
I.M
14.0
6.3
-1.8
440U.I)
52. U
"l.U
21.0
21,0
171.0
41. 4
215B.O
-l.U
-1.8
1.6
ACIUAL
COO
54, «
-1.6
41. a
62. U
4503.0
-1.0
1596.0
-1.0
IlB.O
NW.U
51.0
48. 4
49.0
104. d
-1.0
.*:.«
14JS.8
247. «
I7U.O
113.6
7U.9
16.9
211. 0
-1.8
-1.6
lu4.8
4.U
166. U
42. U
25.0
52.0
3&4B.O
131*. u
-1.0
Se.6
-l.U
67.0
lou7u.O
21o.O
loti'.Q
16*. o
174, 0
645.0
167.0
1.0
iil'.U
U3.U
35.1
ACIUAL
ISS
14'. 9
S2.4
21.0
21.0
109.0.
336.5
8HU.U
147J. 0
74.0
12.0
15.0
17.9
11.0
88.0
*.9
d.O
26.5
18. 5
14. u
ll>7.u
21.3
2i. «
3S.D
J.6
124.0
19.2
u, a
45. M
15.0
12. 0
18. U
tn.*
l.i)
11.0
45.8
12. 1
12.0
-l.o
36.0
51. 0
4*. it
134. 0
l».2
Jl.u
151. b
OJ.u
la. o
17.4
ACIUAL
IOC
-l.«
-t.«
14.7
I9.«
l.«
-1.8
-1.0
-l.»
§8.0
48. u
-1.8
-i.«
-1.8
131.0
-1.8
13V.U
-1.8
-1.0
2.»
-1.0
-1.4
210. V
72. A
-1,4
-1.8
-1.8
26. H
68. i
19.0
-t.8
-1.0
-1.0
-l.w
-l.y
-1.4
22. u
19. V
-1.0
53.0
-1.0
-1.8
66.0
211. u
-l.u
-l.o
-1.0
29.0
-1.8
QlLllIlUM
FACTOR
Ik. 71 290
|>.24S*«
II, 381)90
i2. 94000
0.19700
0.09980
0. 20*00
tt.o5uuC>
0.06060
11.06510
I.uBOuO
0.00031
2.11765
0.4J009
7io0.oOOOu
0.57730
0.42BUO
v. 19*30
U,el63tt
4. 15000
I.!b5o0
211.65152
1.4u741
H.5654u
O.tlOMUU
0, 37SMM
1 . oa 3 *w
U.2U69K
U.U466U
60.54390
J.147bO
v.Jwi>4u
l'.0:-3B*
U.2tfl46
i . ia:'uo
I.t9i)oo
0.08133
6.536UO
>'. 53127
1.25uuO
0.14550
I.1B40U
0.0539*
1.670UU
o.0o!2i
0.24IUO
9.96*69
0.15063
AO JUS I tO
BOO
88.5
51,4
H.I
411,5
2755.4
429.4
1447.2
487.2
15.2
639.4
-1.8
3.3
18.7
;-li4.d
0.0
IS. 7
991.0
13:7
22.9
90,8
23.1
9n2.W
101.1
7f.t
149.5
47.9
4.1
65. 6
JS.l
984.7
B.b
-l.t
575.3
Ld
10.5
U.3
-1.8
146*5.*
79.6
il.O
2*.l
50.2
180.2
109,4
21*0.9
-l.u
-1.4
4.1
ADJUSTED
COD
956.4
-l.ft
56.9
1421.0
5390.0
-l.U
1924. /
-l.o
UH.d
965..'
to*, o
48.4
152.7
411.7
-l.o
34. /
^1»49,1
295.4
278.1
1*1.4
154.9
39e5.e
565.7
-l.l.
-i.u
H4.1
tf.3
:oo. :
41.9
1538.5
59.6
37jb.d
1347.3
-l.w
122.1
-l.o
7 2- 5
bl9!6.1
330.7
4271.2
444.4
IBu.v
679. B
712.8
-l.l)
682.5
911.8
18.3
AUJbSUS
ISS
247.1
64.7
29.1
i:40.6
130.4
37».i)
1061.2
ii*v.a
7V.U
144.7
31.2
17.9
9».6
124.9
74159.9
12. 6
37. 8
22.1
22.9
12J.O
5«*.9
SB**. 2
91.4
95.4
lBo.0
2o.4
22.9
51. u
15.6
738.5
20.6
V59.3
-I.M
14.1
98.1
31.3
12.9
-1.4
55.1
216,7
56.1
292.6
20.2
B7.7
151.9
lu3.«
175.7
20.0
AtJUSTEfi
IOC
-1.8
-1.0
26,4
I024.H
-1,6
-1.0
-1.8
-1.0
V4.6
57*. 1
-J.ii
-1.0
-I.M
186.0
-1.8
219,2
. -1.8
-1.0
3.2
-1.0
-1.8
53969.8
173.1
-1.8
-1.8
-1.0
5<.l
U2.0
19.8
-1.0
-1.4
-1.4
-1.0
-l.u
-1.8
56.9
20.5
-1.6
81. 1
-1.0
-1.8
I4B.5
245.5
-1.8
-l.o
-1.6
318.6
-1.0
-------
Table 14 (Coat.)
*M M1ER BiiM-ifr PAHWlEtEfcS, OllUllON FDC10H AM MiUStlD M1£h UtMUIf
fLAMI 1
4023
4037
>4$40
4051
ACItiAi.
kOD
1177.0
5.U
61.0
6.2
AC tUAl.
COO
-1.0
-1.0
as. o
s&.o
ACTUAL
IS5|
116. 0
10.0
88, 6
22. u
SCTUAl DlLUflUH ftOJuSIEE HflJuSItU MlJUSlEt flOJbSIcD
IOC
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
FUCIOfi
O.UU151
0.59(>?u
Z.U6WUU
5.3uuCj
too
iieo.7
«.7
195. u
2&.6
COO
-l,u
-l.tt
;'sa.«i
154. a
ISS
ija.a
15. 7
2&4.0
74. i
roc
-i.a
-1.0
-1.0
"1.0
I
o
-------
TABLE IS
Plant A
Parameter
BOD
COO5
TSS
Otl and Greaae
Phenola
TOC
Arsenic
Aluminum
BerylliuB
Cadalua
Chroalua(2)
Capper '
Ue«d(2)
Kercury
Nickel
SelenluB
Hnc(2)(l)
Cyanlde(2)(3)
DISCHARGE 001 (MAIN OUTFALL)
Mass Load Concentration
(kg/day)
DISCHARGE 002 (TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT)
COOLING WATER(l)
5,949.58
11,304.20
1,368.40
11.30
16.06
60.69
113.04
83.89
8.33
10.00
11.00
2.30
0.019
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.027
0.102
NA
0.190
NA
NA
NA
0.141
0.014
Haas Load
(kg/day)
1,041.80
_
2,962.31
565.83
3.66
-
3.33
0.07
0.13
0.07
0.77
0.90
2.66
0.03
1.36
5.33
14.68
0.43
Concentration
(«g/D
31.3
HA
89.0Q
17.00
0.110
NA
0.100
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.023
0.027
0.080
0.001
0.041
0.160
0.441
0.013
Mass Load
(kg/day).
4,907.78
-
8,341.89
802.57
7.64
-
-
-
-
15.99
59.92
-
110.38
-
_
-
69.21
7.89
Concentration
<«*A)
8.73
_
14.85
1.43
0.014
-
-
_
_
0.028
0.107
_
0.20
-
_
-
0.123
0.014
Flows: Discharge 001: 157.3 MOD;
Discharge 002; 8.8 HOB
(I) Calculated by nasa balance
(2) 1977 Data for Discharge 001
(3) 1977 Data for Discharge 002
-------
TABLE 16
Plabt A
Parameters (ug/1)
1
-------
TABLE 17
Discharge Monitoring Report (MS) Data
Plant A
DISCHARGE 001 (MAIN OUTFALL)
<
1-1
M
o
Month
Parameter
Feb. 1982 Total Organic Carbon (TOO)
Harch 1982 TOC
April 1982 TOC
Hay 1982 TOC
June 1982 TOC
July 1982 TOC
August 1982 TOC
Sept. 1982 TOC
Oct. 1982 TOC
Nov. 1982 TOC
Dec. 1982 TOC
Jan. 1983 TOC
Mean Flow
(HCD)
132
132
130
132
147
151
150
141
126
122
129
143
Mass Load
(kg/day)
1,110
1,231
956
549
1,009
740
655
549
593
725
860
909
Concentration
(08/1 ))
2.22
2.46
1.94
1.10
1.81
1.30
1.15
1.03
1.24
1.57
1.76
1.68
DISCHARGE 002 (TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT)
Mean Flow
(MOD)
10.03
9.41
9.54
7.50
9.01
7.76
7.76
7.98
7.37
8.32
9.5
10.01
Mass Load
(kg/day)
783
1,336
1,010
748
756
516
554
589
536
776
827
888
ConcentratJh
("I/1*
20.60
37.54
27.99
26.37
22.18
17,79
18.87
19.51
19.23
24.65
23.01
23.45
Average
TOC
116.3
824
1.61
8.68
776
23.43
-------
TABLE 18
Plant B
Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall 001
Parameter Effluent Stream (ug/1) (ug/1)
Bromoforn 100.0 19.0
Chloroform 51.0 HD
Ethylbenzene 6.5 up
Methylene Chloride 18.0 7.6
Toluene 4.1 2.2
1,4-dichlorobenzene 470.0 ND
Phenol 17.7 1.4
N0 - Not Detected; Limit of Detection is 5 ppb.
VII-G44
-------
TABLE 19
Plant C
INDUSTRIAL PUNT EFFLUENT
DISCHARGE 001
Mean Flov* '
<
-I
I
O
«/>
Month (1980)
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Auguat
September
October
November
December
Parameter
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
COD
COD
COD
COD
COD
COD
COD
COD
COD
COD
COO
(MCD)
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
Concentration
(mg/1)
117
HO
126
119
123
13?
169
158
no
94
60
103
Mass Load
(kg/day)
31.9
38.2
34.3
32.4
33.4
37.3
46.0
A3.1
29.9
25.5
21.8
28.1
Mean flow
(MCD)
0.41
0,41
0.40
0.39
0.43
0.36
0.39
0.31
0.36
0.31
0.30
0.29
Concentration
<»g/D
0.02
NA
38
25
NA
21
41
30
18
32
42
42
Haas Load
(kg/day)
0.3
-
57.4
36.8
-
28.5
60.4
35.1
24.5
37.6
47.6
46.1
Average
COD
0.072
123
33.5
0.36
28.1
37.4
(1) Estlontrd
-------
TABLE 20
Plant D
Final and Intermediate Wastewater Data
Treatment Plant Effluent (1) Final Effluent (2) Calculated Cooling Water Quality(3)
Parameter
BOD
TSS
COD
(fflg/1)
169.67
94.69
396.14
(kg/day)
76.77
42.85
179.25
(og/D
145.82
47.15
145.12
(kg/day)
115.51
37.34
114.95
(mg/D
132.69
-
1.47
(kg/day)
104.69
-
1.16
(1) Flow: 119,633 GPD
(2) Flow: 329,058 GPD
(3) Dilution Factor = 1.7505
-------
TABLE 21
308 Questionnaire Data
Plant E
Reported Actual
Pollutant Concentration (ug/1) Concentration (ug/l)(l)
Aluminum 140 245
Boron ND 16
Barium 70 122
BODS 8,600 15,033
Cobalt ND 16
COD 31,000 54,188
Iron 570 996
Magnesium 5,300 9,264
Manganese 40 70
Molybdenum ND 16
Nitrogen, Ammonia 70 122
Nitrogen, Nitrate 850 1,486
Oil & Grease 2,600 4,545
Phenols ND 0.80
Tin 140 245
Ti 10 18
Organic Nitrogen 430 752
TSS 51,000 89,148
Antimony 28 49
Arsenic 60 105
Cadmium 8 14
Chromium (Total) 5 »9
Copper 65 114
Lead 6 11
Nickel 27 47
Selenium 7 12
Thallium 3 5
Zinc 78 136
Toluene 15 26
Vinyl Chloride 19 33
Priority Pollutants reported
as ND (2) ND 1.6-399.3
(1) Adjusted concentrations were generated through a mass balance, using the
reported concentrations for combined process and dilution waters; and
calculating an actual process water concentration through the use of a
term designated as the dilution factor. The dilution factor was calcula-
ted by dividing dilution water flow by the process flow. The equation
developed is as follows: Actual Concentration " Reported Concentration (1
f Dilution Factor)
The dilution factor for this plant is 0.748
(2) Priority pollutants reported as ND are presented in Appendix A. Detection
levels are presented in Appendix B.
VII-G47
-------
TABLE 22
308 Questionnaire Data
Plant F
Reported Actual
Pollutant Concentration(ug/1) Concentration (ug/l)(l)
BOD 25,000 165,475
COD3 55,000 364,045
Oil & Grease 1,000 6,619
TOC 9,700 64,204
TSS 29,000 191,951
Antimony 11 73
Arsenic 36 238
Beryllium 3.8 25
Cadmium 7.4 49
Chromium (Total) 74 490
Copper 37 245
Lead 28 185
Mercury 3 20
Nickel 21 139
Selenium 28 185
Silver 8 53
Thallium 72 477
(1) Adjusted concentrations were generated through a mass balance, using the
reported concentrations for combined process and dilution waters; and
calculating an actual process water concentration through the use of a
term designated as the dilution factor. The dilution factor was calcula-
ted by dividing dilution water flow by the process flow. The equation
developed is as follows: Actual Concentration « Reported Concentration (1
f Dilution Factor)
The dilution factor for this facility is 5.619
VII-G48
-------
TABLE 23
308 Questionnaire Data
Plant G
Reported Actual
Pollutant Concentration (ug/1) Concentration (ug/l)(l)
Mercury 0.20 1.45
Zinc 190 1,378
Acrylonitrile 49,000 355,250
Ethylbenzene 640 4,640
Benzene 54 392
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 12 87
Toluene 270 1,958
(1) Adjusted concentrations were generated through a mass balance, using the
reported concentrations for combined process and dilution waters; and
calculating an actual process.water concentration through the use of a
term designated as the dilution factor. The dilution factor was calcul-
ated by dividing dilution water flow by the process flow. The equation
developed is as follows; Actual Concentration » Reported Concentration (1
-I- Dilution Factor)
The dilution factor for this facility is 6.27
VII-G49
-------
TABLE 24
308 Questionnaire Data
Plant H
Reported Actual
Pollutant Concentration (ug/1) Concentration (ug/!)(!)
Mercury 0.4 2.1
Ethylbenzene 10 56
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 36 202
(1) Adjusted concentrations were generated through a mass balance, using the
reported concentrations for combined process and dilution waters; and
calculating an actual process water concentration through the use of a
tern designated as the dilution factor. The dilution factor was calcula-
ted by dividing dilution water flow by the process flow. The equation
developed is as follows: Actual Concentration = Reported Concentration (1
f Dilution Factor)
The dilution factor for this facility is 4.6139
VII-G50
-------
TABLE 25
308 Questionnaire Data
Plant I
Reported Actual
Pollutant Concentration (ug/1) Concentration (ug/l)(l)
Arsenic 10 46
Cadmium 3 14
Chromium (Total) 340 1,571
Copper 70 323
Nickel 50 231
Selenium 12 55
Silver 40 185
TCDD(2) 26 120
(1) Adjusted concentrations were generated through a mass balance, using the
reported concentrations for combined process and dilution waters; and
calculating an actual process water concentration through the use of a
term designated as the dilution factor. The dilution factor was calcula-
ted by dividing dilution water flow by the process flow. The equation
developed is as follows: Actual Concentration = Reported Concentration (1
+ Dilution Factor)
The dilution factor for this facility is 3.620
(2) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
VII-G51
-------
TABLE 26
308 Questionnaire Data
Plant J
Pollutant
Reported
Concentration (ug/1)
Cyanide (Total) 366
Mercury 300
Selenium 100
Thallium 400
Antimony <110
Beryllium <110
Cadmium <110
Chromium <110
Copper <110
Lead <110
Nickel <110
Silver <100
Zinc <110
2,4-Dinitrophenol <250
4,6-Dinitro-o-eresol <250
Priority Pollutant Organies(2) <10
Priority Pollutant Organics(3) <25
Actual
Concentration (ug/1) (1)
4,416
3,620
1,207
4,826
1,328
1,328
1,328
1,328
1,328
1,328
:1,328
1,207
1,328
3,016
3,016
121
302
(1) Adjusted concentrations were generated through a mass balance, using the
reported concentrations for combined process and dilution waters; and
calculating an actual process water concentration through the use of a
term designated as the dilution factor. The dilution factor was calcula-
ted by dividing dilution water flow by the process flow. The equation
developed is as follows: Actual Concentration = Reported Concentration (1
+ Dilution Factor)
The dilution factor for this facility is 11.065
(2) Pollutants are presented in Appendix A.
(3) Pollutants are presented in Appendix A.
VII-.G52
-------
TABLE 27
308 Questionnaire Data
Plant K
Reported Actual
Pollutant Concentration (ug/1) Concentration (ug/l)(l)
Barium 100 3,465
Iron 580 20,998
Magnesium 520 18,019
Manganese 50 1,733
NO as N 100 3,465
NO^ as N 900 31,186
Oil & Grease 1,400 48,512
Phosphorous 280 9,702
SO, 29,000 1,004,894
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1,200 41,582
TOC 23,000 796,985
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 9 312
Cadmium 0.9 31
Chromium (Total) 1.1 38
Copper 6.5 225
Benzene 9 312
N-nitrosodiphenylamlne 1 35
Phenol 8 277
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4 139
Diethyl phthalate 0.1 4
(1) Adjusted concentrations were generated through a mass balance, using the
reported concentrations for combined process and dilution waters; and
calculating an actual process water concentration through the use of a
term designated as the dilution factor. The dilution factor was calcula-
ted by dividing dilution water flow by the process flow. The equation
developed is as follows: Actual Concentration = Reported Concentration (1
+ Dilution Factor)
The dilution factor for this facility is 33.6515
VII-G53
-------
TABLE 28
308 Questionnaire Data
Plant L
Reported Actual
Pollutant Concentration (ug/1) Concentration (ug/1)(1)
BOD5 16,000 984,640
COD 25,000 1,538,500
fSS 12,000 738,480
Phenol 15 923
(1) Adjusted concentrations were generated through a mass balance, using the
reported concentrations for combined process and dilution waters; and
calculating an actual process water concentration through the use of a
term designated as the dilution factor. The dilution factor was calcula-
ted by dividing dilution water flow by the process flow. The equation
developed is as follows: Actual Concentration = Reported Concentration (1
+ Dilution Factor)
The dilution factor for this facility is 60.54
VII-G54
-------
APPENDIX A
Pollutants Reported at or below Levels of Detection
Industrial Facility Pollutants^ )
Plant E 1-8; 10-16; 18-26; 28-49; 51-85; 87;
89-113; 117; 121; 123; 126
Plant J 1; 4; 5; 7-30; 32; 33; 35-56; 61-63;
Reported as <10 ug/1 66-78; 80; 81; 84-113
Reported as <25 ug/1 31; 34j 57; 58; 64; 65; 79; 82; 83
(1) Pollutants are presented by number in Appendix C
VII-G55
-------
APPENDIX B
Limits of Detection for Priority Pollutants
Detection Limit (ug/1)
Plant
Code Ho. Pollutant a J14 2531
1 Acenaphthene 10 <1Q
2 Acrolein 100
3 Acrylonitrile 100
4 Benzene 10 <10
5 Benzidene ,10 <10
6 Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) 10
7 Chlorobenzene 10 <10
8 1,2,4-triehlorobenzene 10 <10
9 Hexaehlorobenzene - <1Q
10 1,2-dichloroethane 10 <10
11 1,1,1-trichloroethane 10 <10
12 Hexaehloroethane 10 <10
13 1,1-dichloroethane 10 <10
14 1,1,2-trichloroethane 10 <10
15 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 10 <10
16 Chloroethane 10 <10
17* bi«-4eM:er
-------
APPENDIX S (Cone.)
Detection Limit (ug/l)
Plant
Ho. Pollutants 114 2531
45 Methyl chloride (chloromethane) 10 <1Q
46 methyl bromide (bromomethane) 10 <10
47 Bromofora (tribromemethane) 10 <10
48 Dichlorobromomethane 10 <10
49** Trichlorofluoromethane 10 <10
50** Dichlorodifluorome thane - <10
51 Chlorodibrotnomethane 10 <10
52 Hexachlorobutadiene 10 <10
53 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 10 <10
54 Isophorone 10 <10
55 Naphthalene 10 <10
56 Nitrobenzene 10 <10
57 2-nitrophenol 25 <25
58 4-nitrophenol 25 <25
59 2»4-dinitrophenol . 25
60 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol 250
61 N-nitrosodimethylamine 10 <10
62 N-nitroaodiphenylamine 10 <10
63 N-nitro8odi-n-propylamine 10 <10
64 Pentachlorophenol 25 <25
65 Phenol 25 <25
66 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 10 <10
67 Butyl benzyl phthalate 10 <10
68 Di-n-butyl phthalate 10 <10
69 Di-n-octyl phthalate 10 <10
70 Diethyl phthalate 10 <10
71 Dimethyl phthalate 10 <10
72 Benzo (a)anthracene (1 ,2-benzanthracene) 10 <10
73 Benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene) 10 <10
74 3,4-benzo'fluoranthene 10 <10
75 -B»nzo(k)fluoranthene (11,12-benzofluoranthene) 10 <10
76 Chrysene 10 <10
77 Acenaphthylene 10 <10
78 Anthracene 10 <10
79 Benzo(ghi)perylene (1 ,12-benzoperylene) 25 <25
80 Fluorene 10 <10
81 Phenanthrene 10 <10
82 Dibenzo (a ,h) anthracene
(1,2,5,6-dibenzanthraeene) 25 <25
83 Indeno (l,2,3-cd)pyrene (2,3-o-phenylenepyrene) 25 <25
84 Pyrene 10 <10
85 Tetrachloroethylene 10 <10
86 Toluene - <10
87 Trichloroethylene 10 <10
88 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene) - <10
89 Aldrin 10 <10
** Deliated 46 FR 2266
YII-G57
-------
APPENDIX B (Cent.)
Code No. Pollutanta ___
90 Dieldrin 10
91 Chlorodane (technical mixture and raetabolitiea) 10
92 4,4'-DDT 10
93 4,4'-DDE (p.p'DDX) 10
94 4,4'-DDD (p.p'TDE) 10
95 A-endosulfan-Alpha 10
96 A-endosulfan-Beta 10
97 Endosulfan sulfate 10
98 Endrin 10
99 Endrin aldehyde 10
100 Heptachlor 10
101 Heptachlor epoxide 10
102 A-BHC-Alpha 10
103 B-BHC-Beta 10
104 R-BHC (lindane)-Gamma 10
105 G-BHC-Delta 10
106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242) 10
107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254) 10
108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221) 10
109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232) 10
110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248) 10
111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260) 10
112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016) 10
113 Toxaphene 10
114 Antimony -
115 Arsenic -
116 Asbestos (Fibrous) -
117 Beryllium 1
118 Cadmium -
11$ Chromium (Total) -
120 Copper -
121 Cyanide (Total) 50
122 Lead
123 Mercury 5
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
126 Silver 1
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
129 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Detection Limit (tig/1)
Plant
114 2531
VII-G58
-------
APPENDIX C
List of 129 Priority Toxic Pollutants
Code No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17*
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidene
Carbon tctrachloride (tctrachloromethane)
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1 ,2-diehloroethane
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
Hexachlo roe thane
1 ,1-dichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-trichloroethane
1,1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (nixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6 trichlorophenol
Para-chloro meta-cresol
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
2 chlorophenol
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
1 ,1-dichloroethylene
1 , 2-trans-dichloroethylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
1 ,2-dichloropropane
1 ,3-dichloropropylene (1 ,3-dichloropropene)
2 ,4-dimethyl phenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2 ,6-dinitrotoluene
1 , 2-d iphenylhydrazine
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyi ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bi« (2-chloroethoKy) methane
Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
Methyl chloride (chlorotae thane)
methyl bromide (brosnotaethane)
* Deliated 46 FR 10723
VII-G59
-------
APPENDIX C (Cent.)
Code No.
47
48
49**
50**
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Pollutant
Brooioform (tribromeinethane)
pichlorobromoine thane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Dichlorodifluorotnethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Hexac h1o rob u tad iene
Hexachloroc yclopent ad iene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitroeoditnethylamine
N-nitro8odiphenylamine :
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthai ate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-jsutyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benz'o (a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene)
Benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
3,4-benzofluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (11,12-benzofluoranthene)
Chryeene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene)
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzo (a.h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene)
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene (2,3-o-phenylenepyrene)
Pyrene
TetrachloroethyIene
Toluene
frichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlorodane (technical mixture and metabolities)
** Delisted 46 FE 2266
VII-G60
-------
APPENDIX C (Cont.)
Code No.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
Pollutant
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE (p.p'DDX)
4,4'-DDD (p.p'TDE)
A-endosulfan-Alpha
A-endosulfan-Beta
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
A-BHC-Alpha
B-BHC-Beta
R-BHC (lindane)-Ganma
G-BHC-Delta
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
Toxaphene
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos (Fibrous)
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Copper
Cyanide (Total)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
2,3,7»8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
VII-G61
-------
-------
APPENDIX VIII-A
METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING BPT TARGETS
AND IMPUTING MISSING ACTUAL BOD5 AND TSS
EFFLUENT VALUES
-------
-------
METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING BPT TARGETS AND IMPUTING MISSING
ACTUAL BOD5 AND TSS EFFLUENT VALUES
The following discussion describes the methodology for deter-
mining costing targets for 304 direct discharge plants (both full
response and Part A) for BOD5 effluent and TSS effluent, and imputed
values of BODg effluent and TSS effluent when no actual concentration
information is available. The estimates are based on the Master
Analysis File with revisions through September 11, 1987, using the
statistical methodology for determining targets as given in Chapter
IV of the Development Document.
A, Targets
Estimation of the parameters for the regression model used for
determining BOD5 effluent targets required knowledge of BODs effluent
and percentage of total 1980 OCPSF production in each of the seven
categories: 1) thermoplastics; 2) thermosets; 3) rayon; 4) other
fibers; 5) commodity organics; 6) bulk organics; and 7) specialty
organlcs. Only full response direct discharge plants with biological
treatment having BODg effluent and production information were used
in the regression (157 plants). Two "shift" parameters are present
in the model also: (a) whether the plant has a BODs effluent less
than or equal to 40 mg/1 or a BOD5 percent removal of at least 95
percent ("performance shift"), and (b) whether the plant has biological
treatment only ("treatment shift"). There are 109 plants meeting
condition (a) and 99 plants meeting condition (b)71 plants meet
both (a) and (b).
The estimated coefficients for the model are given below:
a = 4.56410137
TI - -0.29139627
T2 = 0.66475573
T3 = -0.23663157
T4 = -0.52627652
T5 - -0.06626001
T6 = 0.09852574
T7 = 0.35728290
B - -1.94453768
D = 0.41834828,
VIII - Al
-------
or alternatively.
(Thermoplastics)
(Thermosets)
(Rayon)
(Other Fibers)
(Commodity Organics)
(Bulk Organics)
(Specialty Organics)
(Performance Shift)
(Treatment Shift).
BODs effluent targets for an individual subcategory j (j - 1 7)
are found by rounding results from the following formula to the
nearest mg/1:
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
+ TI
4" T£
+ TS
+ 14
* TS
+ T6
+ Ty
B
D
4.27270510
5.22885710
4.32746980
4.03782486
4.49782486
4.66262711
4.92138427
-1.94453768
0.41834828
Cj - exp(a + TJ + B + D)
These BODs targets for each category (Cj) are as follows
(1)
GI
C2
03
4
GS
Cg
Cy
Thermoplastics;
Thermosets:
Rayon:
Other Fibers:
Commodity Organics
Bulk Organics:
Specialty Organics
16 mg/1
41 mg/1
16 mg/1
12 mg/1
20 mg/1
23 mg/1
30 mg/1
effluent targets for an Individual plant (Pj) are calculated by
rounding, to the nearest mg/1, results from the following equation:
J-l
W-H*C.i
3 J
(2)
ith
where w^. is the proportion of total 1980 OCPSF production in the
. 7
category (as defined above) from the icn plant, with I w<4 1.
j-1 iJ
These BODs effluent targets are termed "implementation" targets,
and are weighted averages of the subcategory BODs effluent targets.
Of the 304 direct discharge plants, 250 are full response
plants and 54 are "Part A" plants. It can be seen from (2) that
only production information is needed to calculate a target, given
the results from formula (1). Of the 250 full response plants,
244 have 1980 OCPSF production information in the seven subcategories,
VIII - A2
-------
and this Is used as the basis for the W-M'S in formula (2). Of
the 6 remaining full response plants, 4 have 1982 production infor-
mation, and 2 have neither 1982 nor 1980 production. Production
from 1982 is used as the basis of the wjj's in these 4 plants, and
targets are not calculated for the other 2 plants. Production from
1982 is not divided separately into commodity, bulk, and specialty
organics , however only an overall organics production is given.
For plants with organics production, the proportion of total
organics production is divided equally among the commodity, bulk,
and specialty categories; that is,
WI5 = Wi6 = Wi7 = 1/3 of the proportion of total 1982
OCPSF production in the organics designation.
Only total 1982 OCPSF production is available for the Part A
direct discharge plants, and only 45 of the 54 Part A direct
dischargers have production information. BODj effluent targets are
calculated similar to the 4 full-response direct discharge plants
which do not have 1980 OCPSF production but do have 1982 OCPSF
production, and the methodology for determining targets for these
45 plants has been described above. Targets are not calculated for
the 9 Part A direct dischargers without 1982 production information.
In summary, BOD5 effluent targets are calculated for 293 out
of 304 direct discharge plants. Production information is summarized
for the 304 plants below.
Production
Information
Used Ful 1_ JRejsja o n se Part A Total
1980 244 0 244
1982 4 45 49
Not Available _ 2_ __9 __11 .....
250 54 304
Estimation of the parameters for the regression model used for
determining TSS effluent targets required knowledge of the BOD 5
effluent level and the TSS effluent level. Only fullresponse direct
dischargers with only biological treatment that have 6005 effluent
and TSS effluent and meeting the 95/40 editing criteria for 8005
and the 100 mg/1 editing criterion for TSS effluent (as described
in Chapter IV and Chapter VII of the Development Document) were used
(61 plants).
VIII - A3
-------
The coefficients for the model are given below: :
a = 1.84996248
b - 0.52810227
TSS effluent targets for an individual category j are found by
rounding results from the following formula to the nearest mg/1.
Fj - exp(a + b*Cj) (3)
These TSS targets for each category (Fj) are as follows:
FI - Thermoplastics: 27 mg/1
F£ - Thermosets: 45 mg/1
F3 - Rayon: 27 rag/1
F4 - Other Fibers: 24 mg/1
15 - Commodity Organics: 31 mg/1
Fg - Bulk Organics: 33 mg/1
Fj - Specialty Organics: 38 mg/1
TSS effluent targets for. an individual plant Rj are calculated
by rounding, to the nearest mg/1, results from the following equation:
7
Ri - .E,wij*Fj
j=l^ J J (4)
These TSS effluent implementation targets are weighted averages
of the subcategory TSS effluent targets.
As can be seen from equation (3), only the BOD5 effluent
subcategory target is needed to calculate a TSS effluent target,
and only subcategory production information is needed in equation
(4) to determine a plant-specific target. Consequently, TSS targets
are calculated for 293 direct discharge plants, using the same
rules for assigning subcategory production from either 1980 or
1982, as described previously for BOD5 effluent targets.
B. Actual BODs and TSS Effluent Information
Of the 304 direct discharge plants, 204 have actual BODs
effluent information and 206 plants have actual TSS information.
The following table describes the number of plants with actual BOD§
and TSS effluent information by response (full response or Part A)
and production information used (1980, 1982, or not available).
VIII - A4
-------
Production Number Plants Plants Plants With
Information of with with Both 8005 and
Response Used Plants BOP5 Effluent TSS Ef fluent TSS Effluent
Full 1980 244 200 202 192
Full 1982 42 22
full Not available 22 22
Part A 1982 45 0 00
Part A Not available 9 0_ 0_ 0
304 204 206 196
C. BOD5 and TSS Effluent Imputed Values
1. Full Response Plants
As can be seen from the table above, 204 out of 250 full
response direct discharge plants have BOB 5 effluent concentration
values, and 206 of these plants have TSS effluent concentration
values. For the remaining 46 plants for BOD5 effluent and 44 for
TSS effluent, concentration values are imputed. These estimates of
the actual values are used for comparison with targets for estimating
cost of compliance to BPT Standards.
The imputations for the full-response direct discharge plants
are done separately by presence of biological treatment (yes or
no). The following regression equations are used for Imputing 8005
effluent and TSS effluent:
7
ln(BODi>= a + I wij*Tj + ei> and ($)
** a + bAlnCBODj) + e4 (6)
Separate equations are estimated for plants with biological
treatment and for plants without biological treatment. Plants with
BOD5 effluent and 1980 production information are used for equation
(5) and plants with TSS and 8005 effluent information are used for
equation (6). Below is a table describing the number of plants
and the estimates of these equations for plants with biological
treatment and without biological treatment.
VIII - A5
-------
Biological Treatment No Biological Treatment
BOPq Effluent
Plants
a -t-
a +
a +
a +
a +
a +
a +
T6
T7
157
2.90633792
4.19053443
.78329807
,38146232
.50845226
.79345998
2,
2.
3.
3.
4.16274198
43
3.54696580
7.82045895
2.07944154
1.60943791
4.24986735
4.11536832
5.44690773
Plants
a
b
155
1.78022967
0.60571767
fSS Effluent
41
1.19856018
0.71533813
Imputation of the 46 missing BOD5 effluent concentration values
and 44 missing TSS effluent concentration values conies from these
parameter estimates. Of the 46 plants for BOD5 effluent,-21 are
biological and 25 are not biological plants. Of the 44 plants for
TSS effluent, 24 are biological and 20 are not biological plants.
Imputations for BOD5 effluent for a particular plant (Bj) are
calculated as follows:
exp[ E wjiCa + T*)], or
J J *
(7)
exp[a +
since
1.
- A6
-------
TSS imputations for a particular plant (Sj) are calculated from
the BOD Imputations using the following formula;
$1 = exp[a + b*ln(Bj)l (8)
Both Bj and Sj are rounded to the nearest mg/1. The values for
these parameters depend upon whether the plant for which the imputation
is necessary has biological treatment or not. Imputations for
mixed plants are based on subcategory parameter estimates and
plant-specific BOD5 effluent estimates, rather than from subcategory
long-term averages, as is done with the "implementation" targets.
2. Part A Only Plants
Equations (5) and (6) were also used to impute actual BODs and
TSS effluent values for plants which only submitted Part A responses.
This was necessary because BOD5 and TSS effluent data submitted in
Question No. A21a of the Section 308 Questionnaire was obtained
from the final outfall which contains over 25 percent nonOCPSF
wastewater flow. As noted previously, Part A only plants submitted
1982 OCPSF production data which did not allow the separation of
organic chemicals into commodity, bulk and specialty 'and, therefore,
required the proportion of total organics to be used for parameter
estimates rather than separate proportions for commodity, bulk, and
specialty organics. Also, to estimate equation parameters a, Tj
and b, BOD and TSS effluent values were obtained from Question No.
A21a of the questionnaire, rather than some estimate of effluent
values from the fullresponse plants; this was done to retain some
continuity between plant product mix and effluent quality. Finally,
as with full response plants, separate parameter estimates were
derived for biological and nonbiological treatment systems to
account for the difference in effluent quality between these systems.
There are a total of 24 biological plants and 5 nonbiological
plants with BOD5 effluent and 1982 production information, which
are direct dischargers, in question A21a. All of these plants have
TSS effluent information. These plants produce either thermoplastics,
thermosets, or organics no rayon or other fibers plants are
present. The coefficients used in formulas (5) and (6) are given
below (Tg is used to represent organics production).
VIII - A7
-------
-------
APPENDIX VIII-B
BPT, BAT, AND PSES
COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES
AND TECHNOLOGY BASIS
-------
-------
APPENDIX VIII-B
Appendix VIII-B contains computer listings of BPT, BAT and PSES
compliance cost estimates and the corresponding technology basis costed for
the final regulation (starting on page VIII-B53). The compliance cost column
headings in the computer listings are defined as follows:
Total Capital Costs - total of capital costs for all technologies (except
sludge handling)
Total O&M Costs - total of operation and maintenance costs for all
technologies (except sludge handling)
Total Land Costs - total of land costs for all technologies (including
sludge handling)
Capital Sludge Costs - total of capital costs for all sludge handling and
disposal technologies
O&M Sludge Costs - total of operation and maintenance costs for all
sludge handling and disposal technologies
Annual Monitoring Costs - total of annual monitoring costs for toxic
pollutants (no BPT annual monitoring costs were estimated).
These cost estimates were summarized in section VIII as follows:
BPT Capital Costs = Total Capital Costs + Total Land Costs + Capital
Sludge Costs
BPT O&M Costs = Total O&H Costs + O&M Sludge Costs + Contract
Hauling Costs
No BPT annual monitoring costs were estimated.
BAT Capital Costs = Total Capital Costs + Total Land Costs + Capital
Sludge Costs
BAT O&M Costs = Total O&M Costs + O&M Sludge Costs + Contract
Hauling Costs
BAT annual monitoring costs were estimated.
PSES Capital Costs = Total Capital Costs + Total Land Costs + Capital
Sludge Costs
PSIS CSM Costs = Total O&M Costs + O&M Sludge Costs + Contract
Hauling Costs
PSES annual monitoring costs were estimated.
VIII-B1
-------
LIST OF 8PT COST DATA -- IT OPTION
OBS
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
PLANT
1
12
15
33
£1
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
481
485
486
488
500
50H
TOTAl
CAPITAL COSTS
2148497
180874
0
749380
84151
0
281469
181862
265566
.
0
323707
*
241351
0
338881
358407
818190
.
357748
0
0
229464
1935676
866127
0
276458
0
0
68749
113202
106642
2425129
0
249389
0
0
0
0
2289537
117697
1872048
0
296959
87942
233064
834724
27229
0
194555
0
1373260
40391
TOTAl
OSH COSTS
1B4672
18790
0
68731
33440
0
34471
42663
42407
.
0
40812
.
28357
0
47365
69134
77191
,
40346
0
0
39653
185623
82093
0
43077
0
0
33280
8618
33670
, 299145
0
28887
0
0
0
0
262234
33793
201524
0
36804
33470
39920
62589
32795
0
21206
0
124032
32974
TOTAL
LAW COSTS
141330
2797
0
42819
1347
0
4672
2044
1936
.
0
38018
,
6566
0
7506
2006
82527
.
7774
0
6
2693
88393
87754
0
8326
0
0
661
0
2038
301084
0
1520
0
0
0
0
7000
27282
34159
0
8590
1798
4320
48915
944
0
9336
0
284601
1659
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
1100630
63274
0
566440
37220
0
744400
746261
539690
.
0
578275
472694
0
898863
139389
816179
.
658794
0
0
388949
1158637
910350
0
580632
0
0
22332
0
67368
1057344
0
289013
0
0
0
0
1685950
83745
1117344
0
857921
42877
401976
333145
1861
0
101611
0
933028
5397
0 C M
SLUDGE COSTS
390896
13627
0
140784
8016
0
160320
160721
116232
,
0
143725
,
101803
0
193586
30020
202855
.
141883,
0
0
83767
404394
226260
0 ,
125050
0
0
4810
0
14509
375522
0
62244
8
0
0
0
627888
18036
416125
0
184769
9234
86573
118319
401
0
21884
0
331371
1162
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
.
.
«
,
.
.
,
.
,
4453
.
,
111325
,
.
f
,
44530
.
,
f
.
f
'. 9
,
: B
m
.
%
i m
m
.
»
*
,
»
.
.
.
.
,
f
B
fc
.
.
VIII-B2
-------
LIST OF 3PT COST DATA BY OPTION
OBS
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
PLANT
518
523
525
536
569
580
601
602
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
3746
256452
0
56877
200730
604454
72640
106642
785303
0
117697
188254
0
631575
584467
179503
0
110338
1085016
0
3099055
.
1507133
899892
381354
342597
0
0
654241
1092319
218681
26890
1109521
1015264
0
909184
313017
0
13128
302005
233064
513324
893264
265566
236664
0
.
99208
466572
0
429711
0
.
TOTAL
OSH COSTS
2001
29711
0
33157
37442
57750
33317
33674
76098
0
33782
20688
0
59683
20379
24522
0
33721
152559
0
439795
*
137189
82239
42615
47565
0
0
89646
109426
38745
70000
116141
97928
0
84912
46650
0
3379
44924
40018
68914
124634
42407
40150
0
*
33598
620 K
0
50874
0
»
.... uriiua=i
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
6170
0
1858
9882
3630
1744
1576
12794
.0
2843
5061
0
3424
0
5161
0
5931
18792
0
97195
,
85264
101117
8132
4059
0
0
6845
42427
2875
0
21610
19782
0
5348
9504
0
0
6651
7070
15085
24811
1936
11486
0
.
1499
5701
0
5650
0
.
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
311717
0
13585
292177
711084
26054
66475
336260
0
87095
106077
,0
758625
0
124687
0
70718
951020
0
2533003
,
791820
29,8780
744400
915612
0
0
607062
268163
346146
0
722008
809200
0
398813
761149
0
0
707180
407559
396174
996373
539690
413142
0
.
55830
330717
0
644325
0
.
0 I M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
67134
0
2926
62926
176734
5611
14317
119425
0
18757
22846
0
188550
0
26854
0
15230
354182
0
1231398
.
281220
106114
160320
197194
0
0
215602
95240
.74549
0
256426
201120
0
141641
163927
0
0
152304
87775
140704
353868
116232
88978
0
.
12024
117456
0
160142
0
.
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
.
.
.
*
.
.
*
.
*
.
.
.
«
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
133590
,
«
m
.
^
9
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
*
71248
,
«
.
.
26718
VIJI-B3
-------
LIST OF BPT COST DATA
BY OPTION
oes
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
a
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
SO
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
PLANT
518
523
525
536
569
580
601
602
608
611
614
633
657
6S9
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
,811
814
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
TOT At
CAPITAL COSTS
3746
256452
0
56877
200730
604454
72640
106642
785303
0
117697
188254
0
631575
584467
179503
0
110338
1085016
0
3099055
.
1507133
899892
381354
342S97
0
0
654241
1092319
218681
26890
1109521
1015264
0
909184
313017
0
13128
302005
233064
513324
893264
265566
236664
0
.
99208
466572
0
429711
0
.
TOTAL
OtM COSTS
2001
29711
0
33157
37442
57750
33317
33674
76098
0
33782
20688
0
59683
20379
24522
0
33721
152559
0
439795
.
137189
82239
42615
47565
0
0
89646
109426
38745
70000
116141
97928
0
84912
46650
0
3379
44924
40018
68914
124634
42407
40150
0
,
33598
62014
0
50874
0
,
.... urilUN*!
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
6170
0
1858
9882
3630
1744
1576
12794
0
2843
5061
0
3424
0
5161
0
5931
18792
0
97195
.
85264
101117
8132
4059
0
0
6845
42427
2875
0
21610
19782
^0
$348
9504
0
0
6651
7070
15085
24811
1936
11486
0
.
1499
5701
0
5650
0
.
CAPITA!.
SLUDGE COSTS
0
311717
0
13585
292177
711084
26054
66475
336260
0
8709S
106077
0
7S8625
0
124687
0
70718
951020
0
2533003
*
791820
298780
744400
915612
0
0
607062
268163
346146
0
722008
809200
0
398813
761149
0
0
707180
407559
396174
996373
539690
413142 .
0
.
55830
330717
0
644325
0
.
0 i M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
67134
0
2926
62926
176734
5611
14317
119425
0
18757
22846
; 0
188550
0
26854
0
15230
354182
0
1231398
.
281220
106114
160320
197194
< 0
0
215602
95240
74549
0
256426
201120
0
141641
163927
0
0
152304
87775
'140704
353868
116232
88978
0
.
12024
117456
0
160142
0
.
CONTRACT
HAUL IMG COSTS
-
.
,
,
«
,
*
*
»
,
*
«
.
*
,
.
,
.
B
*
.
133590
,
*
t
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
f
.
.
,
.
«
.
,
.
*
«
71248
«
.
«
.
*
26?18
V-H-B4
-------
LIST OF 8PT COST DATA - BT OPTIOK
08$
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
m
115
116
nr
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
1*1
142
U3
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
,158
159
PUNT
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
113J
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1670
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
60872
572058
0
»
0
617533
0
498529
225869
0
553812
2647
876578
697317
10000
11640
0
184239
58679
0
64828
110338
796198
0
284565
0
17680
653985
0
0
170074
15000
236664
409598
908830
1174531
0
795838
215088
1023159
225316
1392807
189968
734465
261944
975301
0
1S7632
453201
688818
1835050
117697
'
TOTAL
DM COSTS
33204
63566
4312
.
0
21643
0
55630
39313
0
68369
1733
83708
95967
14000
19000
0
19037
6428
0
33202
33703
82652
0
34938
0
44500
48654
0
0
15107
30000
40244
53586
91177
101012
0
37783
38487
101572
25861
140903
36598
59464
42102
81855
0
34229
60038
52168
260709
33787
,
.... uriiun'1
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
1452
496S
0
.
0
0
0
7275
8224
0
3342
0
2078
19203
0
0
0
5002
0
0
1059
899
73103
0
5,721
0
0
19703
0
0
4700
3428
11767
11954
15421
105959
0
0
6486
124128
2165
3493
2550
81394
7911
33603
0
2775
12533
44999
56409
6406
.
CAPITAL
SLUOCe COSTS
16042
96901?
0
,
0
0
0
738395
372200
0
314458
0
393271
674763
0
0
0
148880
0
0
21401
74626
617015
0
766732
0
0
636233
0
0
20471
625107
418725
976806
469813
592545
0
0
334980
399869
374061
915872
260540
768740
521080
400001
0
169351
312505
759636
1343463
35606
.
0 t M
SLUDGE COSTS
3455
240841
0
.
0
0
0
183522
80160
0
111682
0
139673
Z39646
0
0
0
32064
0
0
4609
16072
153354
0
165130
0
0
158131
0
0
4409
155365
90180
242777
166857
210446
0
0
72144
142016
80561
325278
56112
191064
112224
142063
0
36473
110988
188801
655S44
18437
.
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
.
,
89060
*
.
^
(
*
«
»
f
.
B
m
.
B
B
.
B
«
^
..
B
.
.
^
,
*
*
B
.
,
.
.
.
,
*
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
4453
VIII-B5
-------
LIST OF BPT COST DATA - « OPTION
OBS
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
PLANT
1684
1688
169S
1698
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1776
1785
1794
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
10000
1068593
0
68750
168984
188703
0
1685179
305671
322330
0
68749
36402?
22597
810485
243874
0
0
135942
1032804
0
0
956147
132307
0
46613
0
1869736
56877
806271
171655
942791
342907
225869
200321
99208
72640
0
168427
676510
0
250595
27229
218681
110338
0
0
1871009
48749
154027
0
839183
117697
TOTAL
OSM COSTS
13000
106304
0
33252
15610
20581
0
169S88
45132
1300000
0
33280
46622
32694
65222
40790
0
0
33984
109344
0
0
117666
33947
0
5812
0
207459
33124
70103
16343
80047
43678
39313
21837
33586
33317
9530
34578
59S33
0
29778
32795
38887
33703
0
0
163118
33057
34191
0
82156
33781
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
112509
0
7520
4523
1774
0
18180
9258
0
0
1597
6082
15232
97501
11905
0
0
1904
20182
0
0
23834
3085
0
a
0
9856
2547
44444
4700
4565
9236
10966
5756
2564
2837
0
3188
71352
0
1137
944
4082
2100
0
0
316833
2374
7870
0
28434
6334
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
349457
0
24193
65135
98633
0
1266912
722068
0
0
22332
758625
1228
282416
447198
0
0
120034
1369268
0
0
800087
111660
0
0
0
1216685
14888
930530
37220
351040
662532
372200
232625
57691
26054
0
193544
508784
0
532246
1861
353590
74440
0
0
1090072
9305
156324
0
671636
87467
01* CONTRACT
SLUDGE COSTS HAULING COSTS
0
124112
0
5210
14028
21242
0
449952
155510
0
0
4810
188550
265
100302
96312
0
0
25852
340320
0
0
24669S
24048
0
0
0 .
453122
3206
231288
8016
124674
164667
80160
50100
12425
5611
0
41683
126454
0
114629
401
76152
16032
0
0
387146
2004
33667
0
166930
18838
VIII-B6
-------
LIST OF BPT COST DATA
BY OPTION
oes
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
PLANT
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2326
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
24S1
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2647
2660
2668
2673
2678
2680
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
1073402
0
0
316205
106642
324073
20180
0
0
179597
204318
128667
0
397686
329541
828090
154750
172020
1187913
1356450
233064
189968
0
0
1690705
0
0
1029598
'-* o
251092
0
309342
1758608
236664
276458
0
150420
656361
0
218670
276458
0
908572
.
0
0
1086614
952532
0
218681
189968
916456
172020
TOTAL
O&H COSTS
109277
0
0
39690
33853
46472
54000
0
0
35630
37634
33900
0
51820
37851
66044
9942
34986
104361
1 18223
40049
36510
0
0
152499
0
0
86321
0
41370
0
45427
134850
40244
43180
0
34148
53354
0
24812
43256
0
87132
.
0
0
101045
78105
0
38745
36556
75978
34947
" uriimt=i
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
20036
0
0
3060
3178
7337
0
0
0
3270
10761
6785
0
4836
1863
27970
0
3267
69897
11726
4355
5802
0
0
6636
0
0
8598
0
13248
0
16361
382142
4400
14583
0
2064
26126
0
5833
8415
0
3922
.
0
0
146635
137946
0
4776
10129
35720
5300
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
640582
0
0
546210
42059
826284
0
0
0
26054
299249
107938
0
918442
576724
308810
0
206199
641110
659850
409420
256818
0
0
979217
0
0
390631
0
479394
0
744400
1227321
418725
588076
0
150741
556325
0
334980
593659
0
421512
.
0
0
450282
447906
0
346146
2586?9
304824
204710
OIK
SLUDGE COSTS
227507
0
0
135756
9058
177955
0
0
0
5611
64449
23246
0
228271
124208
109676
0
44409
227694
234350
88176
55310
0
0
347775
0
0
158735
0
103246
0
160320
435891
90180
126653
0
32465
138270
0
72144
127855
0
149703
»
0
0
1599ZO
159077
0
74549
55711
108260
44088
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
.
B
%
t
,
t
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
'
,
f
«
a
%
.
t
f
.
,
t
.
,
.
4453
.
.
,
»
VIII-B7
-------
LIST OF BPT COST DAT*
BY OPTION
06S
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
2S8
289
290
291
292
OPTIOB
OBS
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
PLANT
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
273S
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
4040
4051
405S
PLANT
1
12
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
712482
0
374284
143192
0
797094
0
416596
0
258323
327767
0
995226
298203
0
294684
236664
247481
324070
0
0
11582
0
52838
227522
0
99574289
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
3093191
398256
207097
1148227
293703
0
638913
739583
590491
.
437025
725381
»
554583
368874
718497
598840
TOTAL
GiH COSTS
0
59792
0
45170
34072
0
63463
0
54622
0
41792
46704
0
88807
36991
0
44545
40150
41173
46534
0
0
3205
0
33114
26136
0
13202017
TOTAL
08M COSTS
267051
44260
21506
113515
57204
0
75589
83807
80473
.
47991
85838
,
65280
42152
90473
98005
UPIIUW=1 »
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
45282
0
8897
4498
0
56810
0
12164
0
7778
16473
0
78256
1927
0
14525
7113
12166
6110
0
0
0
0
4237
1422
0
4687175
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
151936
5266
585
47467
2409
0
8731
3820
2808
,
6319
71086
«
12271
5109
10679
3157
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
642302
0
508784
131573
0
981155
0
1011500
0
502470
844894
0
409450
867226
0
681126
413142
468972
831867
0
0
0
0
11166
215876
0
88326328
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
1100630
63274
0
566440
37220
0
744400
746261
539690
.
0
578275
,
472694
0
898863
139389
0 i X
SLUDGE COSTS
0
159639
0
126454
28337
0
243858
0
251400
0
108216
181963
0
145419
186773
0
146693
88978
101002
179158
0
0
0
0
2405
46493
0
25068308
DIM
SLUDOE COSTS
390896
13627
0
140784
8016
0
160320
160721
116232
. =
0
143725
.
101803
0
193586
30020
CONTRACT
HAUL I MS COSTS
'
,
»
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
f
m
.
,
.
f
f
f
489830
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
.
.
.
»
,
,
.
4453
,
111325
.
.
.
.
VIII-B8
-------
LIST Of BPT COST DATA BY OPTION
08$
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
31?
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
J34
335
336
S37
338
S39
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
PLANT
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
481
485
486
488
500
502
518
523
525
536
569
580
601
602
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
1272554
.
702100
266540
294354
527094
2897190
1339627
359932
608240
0
681822
275846
113202
325331
3350445
1005773
526524
837048
1641582
214445
472291
3725982
341577
3009491
207102
670859
299039
533203
1376375
234326
921029
423958
282989
2241474
247488
211321
538459
504690
56877
478553
1036413
279970
325046
1329040
207097
342626
419007
572356
1073820
1592502
775130
0
TOTAL
OHM COSTS
126593
.
80256
32011
35012
75003
268978
133022
41345
81802
0
66011
55762
8618
59370
380390
85889
62072
75948
118195
24915
50833
370699
60341
294686
22518
79405
57649
75527
118733
52886
80993
48577
33817
201877
53399
25003
63423
53356
33157
70702
105324
56151
59324
132397
20635
60491
48252
58395
108102
106396
94137
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
91382
.
14528
4690
8691
3966
94835
97093
2380
12037
0
3642
1246
0
3431
324013
8968
2842
21540
22947
1387
9479
13305
44915
64671
3996
16057
3166
6351
53918
2006
24559
17527
9*54
307247
3459
585
11537
10936
1858
14781
6790
3238
2657
23980
1368
4663
9499
11970
6406
15980
16792
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
816179
.
658794
0
0
388949
1138637
910350
0
580632
0
0
22332
0
67368
1057344
0
289013
0
0
0
0
1685950
83745
1117344
0
857921
42877
' 401976
333145
1861
0
101611
0
933028
5397
0
311717
0
13585
292177
711084
26054
66475
336260
0
87095
106077
0
758625
0
124687
0
0 t M CONTRACT
SLUDGE COSTS HAULING COSTS
202855
44530
141883
0
0
83767
404394
226260
0
125050
0
0
4810
0
14509
375522
0
62244
0
0
0
0
627888
18036
416125
0
184769
9234
86573
118319
401
0
21884
0
331371
1162
0
67134
0
2926
62926
176734
5611
14317
119425
0
18757
22846
0
188550
0
26854
0
VIII-B9
-------
LIST OF BPT COST DATA
BY OPTION
oes
365
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
360
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
39S
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
PLANT
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
614
819
625
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139.
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
330094
2127312
0
5404826
,
2307419
1418025
738798
342597
525644
396412
1359182
1588623
507821
490214
1874765
1468177
256687
1493406
672949
252931
283096
653S36
534269
1095887
1790857
590491
538928
21440S5
.
314235
1006592
539488
846757
475709
267969
1057093
256965
»
0
1485128
0
936429
520223
572356
1082794
209744
1457312
1438201
262931
324538
0
TOTAL
OiM COSTS
59603
240504
0
586437
.
210861
136620
83733
47565
54948
44574
157195
162137
73213
120120
187601
147213
30874
144162
87995
30427
35775
85528
75733
128045
204240
80473
75973
140074
.
58628
118037
55983
97205
51103
.
55021
115401
35219
.
0
99450
0
103693
74325
58395
123568
23951
142707
165864
44427
55890
0
uciiun-iii
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
9933
35528
0
186360
*
92419
111617
15198
4059
3730
6252
12868
46889
4260
3166
40670
21906
3387
10031
13598
1695
3565
9542
10387
28295
46800
2808
16864
25995
,
2576
10684
11071
10566
2543
.
2820
9296
4874
.
0
5680
0
13610
12139
1785
6262
4230
3897
36125
4800
2130
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
70718
951020
0
2533003
»
791820
298780
744400
915612
0
0
607062
268163
346146
0
722008
809200
0
398813
761149
0
0
707180
407559
396174
996373
539690
413142
0
,
55830
330717
0
644325
0
,
16042
969017
0
0
0
0
738395
372200
0
314458
0
393271
674763
0
0
0
0 t H
SLUDGE COSTS
15230
354182
0
1231398
.
281220
106114
160320
197194
0
0
215602
95240
74549
0
256426
201120
0
141641
163927
0
0
152304
87775
140704
353868
116232
88978
0
B
12024
117456
0 '
160142
0
.
3455
240841
0
'
0
0
0
183522
80160
0
111682
0 '
139673
239646
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
.
»
,
.
133590
,
t
.
.
*
,
.
,
f
B
f
t
,
m
,
,
f
t
m
f
B
f
.
,
71248
.
B
f
.
f
2471«
t
*
69060
.
.
,
*
f
,
^
*
f
,
VIII-B10
-------
UST OF BPT COST DATA -- BY OPTION
OBS
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
PLANT
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1670
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1776
1785
1794
1802
1839
1869
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
427307
427179
213349
271925
331337
1206967
675949
645322
207097
513215
1069182
0
0
377171
427640
539982
896143
1536285
1871590
332396
2285652
501947
1608043
520037
2252955
460781
1178865
583A83
1560268
0
406213
980843
1131279
3389647
342161
»
244020
1621088
707365
275914
386961
417198
207097
2702235
659761
4056790
0
275846
806272
229694
1317062
552482
0
TOTAL
O&N COSTS
48247
48547
24690
55591
59792
128453
65617
76358
21684
97151
94830
0
0
37402
75960
76174
105539
153479
168039
38783
148833
72715
160870
60911
218260
69088
108058
79859
141198
0
64128
115136
100604
374845
60425
41018
163249
67709
55913
41185
47821
21460
256415
85943
1497958
0
55762
95241
52785
118723
77252
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
9374
7334
4230
2004
1497
81034
11212
10693
4230
10088
21840
0
0
8930
6410
17265
22381
28949
115608
6475
44519
9627
136447
4047
6585
3841
90159
11490
36938
0
4302
23483
49848
107366
10524
,
620
123933
2698
14063
8513
3331
2943
34358
13271
168391
0
3010
11379
32368
107696
17412
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
148880
0
0
21401
74626
617015
0
766732
0
0
636233
0
0
20471
625107
418725
976806
469813
592545
0
0
334980
399869
374061
915872
260540
768740
521080
400001
0
169351
312505
759636
1348463
85606
.
0
349457
0
24193
65135
98633
0
1266912
722068
0
0
22332
758625
1228
282416
447198
0
0 t N CONTRACT
SLUDGE COSTS HAUL INC COSTS
32064
0
0
4609
16072
153354
0
165130
0
0
158131
0
0
4409
155365
90180
242777
166857
210446
0
0
72144
142016
80561
325278
56112
191064
112224
142063
0
36473
110988
188801
655544
18437
4453
0
124112
0
5210
14028
21242
0
449952
155510
0
0
4810
188550
265
100302
96312
0
VIII-B11
-------
LIST OF BPT COST DATA BY OPTION
OSS
469
470
471
472
473
47*
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
48S
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
SOS
506
507
SOS
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
PLANT
1877
1681
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2323
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
351831
370835
1883704
0
417276
1892125
364731
312329
477907
562160
3062027
263974
1283760
381207
1496329
764078
520223
464678
314821
279970
592129
423249
1061233
624169
574251
234326
50,9326
331278
767462
589010
2810999
255846
154027
823934
1262400
342743
1796302
208245
217384
710165
317506
693480
570235
207097
909057
724475
483667
359979
0
872794
660677
1353187
591118
TOTAL
0&M COSTS
40604
62121
203362
0
46350
215117
6f745
36833
53331
57654
303545
54808
121348
40107
137069
90355
74325
53600
58729
56151
69346
65231
103090
62073
67722
52886
73513
59782
71602
59593
245223
54034
34191
75141
129004
60508
178006
23320
25470
84052
57974
88672
110766
20451
80286
97736
71060
61543
0
102876
76514
1209S1
57879
m-iiuw-iii
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
2448
3033
37750
0
1184
44724
4946
5584
8931
3164
18674
4977
49164
8930
8558
17274
16186
10770
4390
5267
12522
4895
79087
11277
2125
2006
6041
3498
8143
3365
340694
4804
7870
12110
31513
10384
37680
. 585
3987
5721
5608
10467
5106
1062
22376
10801
16073
10909
0
9052
3481
30862
2932
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
120034
1369268
0
0
800087
111660
0
0
0
1216685
14888
930580
37220
351040
662532
372200
232625
57691
26054
0
193544
508784
0
S32246
1861
353590
74440
0
0
1090072
9305
156324
0
67T636
87467
640582
0
0
546210
42059
826284
0
0
0
26054
299249
107938
0
918442
576724
308810
0
Din CONTRACT
SLUDGE COSTS HAULING COSTS
0
25852
340320
0
0
246695
24048
0
0
0
453122
3206
231288
8016
124674
164667
80160
501 00
12425
5611
0
41683
126454
0
114629
401
76152
16032
0
0
387146
2004
33667
0
166930
18838
227507
0
0
135756
9058
177955
0
0
0
5611
64449
23246
0
228271
124208
109676
0
VIII-B12
-------
LIST OF BPT COST DATA
BY OPTION
oes
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
5*1
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
PLANT
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2647
2660
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2S18
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
429999
1911093
2089527
534623
459936
207575
0
2580401
0
0
1608665
760701
565522
477509
666786
2758712
539982
609466
656587
393998
1052773
0
505529
610381
0
1506898
.
406286
1246584
1702426
1566916
645975
507821
460359
1438796
429631
493220
1129066
772687
759007
381415
687656
1284481
645975
909816
254351
576829
327767
209086
1586092
673412
1205671
642514
TOTAL
OS* COSTS
66012
173108
187614
75800
68906
23002
0
231634
0
0
145200
86263
78411
51245
86545
220417
76174
82022
64306
63423
97928
0
59040
82185
0
147388
45421
98924
162535
139494
63581
73213
68999
130677
65930
52472
106084
71934
88727
62654
66401
115481
63581
107094
30597
79234
46704
23620
148532
79709
96790
84779
" Wl HJH-Ill
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
4995
76132
22055
6397
8745
7839
0
12515
0
0
16126
8774
19314
5846
23427
409656
6456
21072
8903
3228
28962
0
10905
12155
0
7358
.
5761
37374
160858
151340
6452
7076
15261
39419
8107
4426
50191
19313
16632
7111
16492
62814
5355
22778
4559
11315
16473
3996
85989
3602
11537
20867
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
206199
641110
659850
409420
256818
0
0
979217
0
0
390631
0
479394
0
744400
1227321
418725
588076
0
150741
556325
0
334980
593659
0
421512
0
0
450232
447906
0
346146
258679
304824
204710
0
642302
0
508784
131573
0
981155
0
1011500
0
502470
844894
0
409450
867226
0
681126
0 I M
SLUDGE COSTS
44409
227694
234350
88176
55310
0
0
347775
0
0
138735
0
103246
0
160320
435891
90180
126653
0
32465
136270
0
72144
127855
0
149703
.
0
0
159920
159077
0
74549
55711
108260
44088
0
159639
0
126454
28337
0
243858
0
251400
0
108216
181963
0
145419
186773
0
146693
CONTRACT
HAUL1N6 COSTS
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
t
,
f
.
.
.
,
.
»
. -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4453
.
f
,
.
.
,
r
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
VUI-B13
-------
LIST OF BPT COST DATA BY OPTIMO
OPTION»Itt
MS PtAHT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CAPITAL 0 t H CONTRACT
CAPITAL COSTS OSM COSTS UNO COSTS SLUDGi COSTS SLUDGf COSTS HAULING COSTS
575 3033 53S9Z8 75973 10443 413142 88978
576 4002 560044 78029 17754 468972 101002
577 4010 69*275 88806 8715 831867 179158
578 4017 322539 37835 5797 0 0
579 4018 230192 27484 4110 0 0
580 4021 263270 33483 4513 0 0
58t 4037 0000 0
582 4040 259935 54339 846? 11166 2405
583 4051 487869 57438 2662 215876 46493
S84 4055 207097 21460 4230 0 0
omOtt 223286748 25543997 6696206 88326328 25068308 489830
atarxcaanuKai ssaaassm »«mmamm« xatmaassse ssnasaeats: sssss-ssf
322861037 38746014 11383381 176652656 50136615 979660
VIII-B14
-------
SAT COST DATA - OPTION I (09/09/87)
as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
a
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
41
44
4$
46
47
48
49
SO
51
52
53
54
PLAHT
HUME!
1
12
15
33
61
S3
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
2SO
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
481
485
486
488
500
502
518
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
8
0
0
0
0
0
1431660
0
0
0
0
1079744
0
1020130
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
963834
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
572195
0
0
0
870824
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
our COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
1561007
0
0
0
0
2052382
0
367341
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
143474
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81880
0
0
0
81870
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
44796
0
0
0
0
319782
0
28062
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22681
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62487
0
0
0
5165
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
193544
0
0
0
0
276731
0
472694
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81884
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
41683
0
0
0
0
59599
0
101803
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17635
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6052
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COHTiACT
HAUL IMG COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
111325
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
12468
0
ANNUAL
MON1TOIUNS COSTS
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
51259.2
29539.2
33782.4
29539,2
33782.4
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
4120S.6
26827.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
29539.2
Z9539.2
41205.6
33782.4
26827.2
33782.4
29539.2
51259.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
41205.6
29539.2
51259.2
65286.0
26827.2
26827.2
36573.6
26827.2
51259.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
41205.6
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
VIII-B15
-------
BAT COST DATA OPTION 1 (09/09/8?)
oas
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
7t
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
64
B5
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
PLANT
NUMBER
523
525
536
569
580
602
608
611
6U
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
883
686
908
909
913
938
942
948
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
' 0
0
944486
0
0
0
0
887896
0
0
0
0
0
858500
919793
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2940266
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1204208
0
0
0
0
965727
0
0
0
0
782986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
COM COSTS
0
0
239229
0
0
0
0
143612
0
0
0
0
0
692391
530584
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1197374
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
929219
0
0
0
0
195760
0
0
0
0
67022
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
0
16051
0
0
0
0
10093
0
0
0
0
0
18605
10537
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47702
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21308
0
0
0
0
38423
0
0
0
0
2865
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
13529
0
0
0
0
2419
0
0
0
0
0
115382
716485
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
604877
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65879
0
0
0
0
464270
0
0
0 ,
0
55830
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 t M
SLUOCi COSTS
0
0
2914
0
0
0
0
521
0
0
0
0
0
24850
154308
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150337
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14188
0
0
0
0
164889
0
0
0
0
12024
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
57889
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
151402
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71248
0
0
0
0
0
4453
0
0
0
ANNUAL
HONITORIHC COSTS
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
41205.6
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
33782.4
29539.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
51259.2
51259.2
51259,2
. 29539.2
51259.2
41205.6
29539,2
29539.2
29539.2
33782.4
41205.6
41205.6
29539.2
33782.4
41205.6
41205.6
33782.4
33782.4
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
51259.2
41205.6
41205.6
29539.2
29539.2
51259.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
26827.2
33782.4
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
VIII-B16
-------
BAT COST DATA OPTION i (09/09/87)
OSS
109
110
111
11?
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
12?
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
1S3
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
PIA»T
NUN8ER
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1299
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1647
16SO
1656
1670
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1724
1753
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
635556
974879
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
962196
0
0
0
0
0
599718
0
0
20575507
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
OM COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99018
123424
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
173358
0
0
0
0
0
103666
0
0
4527482
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24064 -
22049
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7399
0
0
0
0
0
11604
0
0
1058825
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
521080
24565
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
186100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1732309
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 t M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112224
5291
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40080
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
645153
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COHTRACT
MAULING COSTS
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
133590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITOR I HG COSTS
29539.2
51259.2
41205.6
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
51259.2
33782.4
41205.6
4120S.6
33782.4
26827.2
26827.2
33782.4
29539.2
26827.2
41205.6
33782.4
33782.4
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
26827.2
33782,4
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
29539.2
57597.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
51259.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
33782.4
29539,2
57597.2
29539.2
29539.2
33782.4
26827.2
51259.2
26827.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
VIII-B17
-------
BAT COST DATA - OPTION I (09/09/87)
095
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
175
m
175
176
177
178
179
160
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
196
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
PUNT
NUMBER
1766
1769
1774
1785
1602
1839
1669
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
22S4
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
TOTAl
CAPITAL COSTS
0
0
1035891
804355
0
782792
0
0
(1
0
0
0
0
826194
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
785051
1341764
0
0
0
0
0
0
674950
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
TOTAL
OSM COSTS
0
0
243484
136503
0
44B66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75304
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
to
50058
2106075
0
0
0
0
0
0
135544
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
UNO COSTS
0
0
13226
19563
0
8886
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5583
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5652
47319
0
0
0
0
0
0
5916
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
871002
758625
0
9863
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7072
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14330
878392
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 t M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
309342
188550
0
2124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1523
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3086
189178
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ;
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
26827.2
41205.6
29539.2
51259.2
29539.2
26827.2
51259.2
29539.2
33782.4
33782.4
33782.4
41205.6
33782.4
26827.2
29539.2
33782.4
29539.2
51259.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
33782.4
41205.6
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539,2
29539.2
29539.2
29539,2
29539.2
26827.2
33782.4
29539.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
51259.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
33782.4
29539.2
VIII-B18
-------
BAT COST DATA - OPTION I <09/09/87)
08$
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
256
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
PLAKT
NUMBER
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2660
2667
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
270.1
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
812266
0
0
0
0
0
12586
394955
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5761104
0
0
0
66487
0
0
TOTAL
OSM COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73371
0
0
0
0
0
18853
63313
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
909911
0
0
0
32015
0
0
TOTAL
LANO COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12660
0
0
0
0
0
6437
6140
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
198687
0
0
0
4494
0
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1861
0
0
0
0
0
0
21774
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
q
571430
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 4 «
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
" 0
0
0
0
0
0
401
0
0
0
0
0
0
4689
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
202947
0
0
0
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539.2
26827.2
33782.4
29539.2
41205.6
33782.4
29539.2
41205.6
29539.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
33782.4
29539.2
41205.6
33782.4
41205.6
26827.2
51259,2
51259.2
51259.2
268Z7.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
41205.6
41205.6
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
41205.6 "
26827.2
29539.2
51259.2
29539.2
41205.6
29539.2
295S9.2
33782.4
VIII-B19
-------
BAT COST DATA - OPTION I (09/09/8?)
oas
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
260
281
282
283
284
285
PLANT
MJK8EK
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
4040
40S1
40SS
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52488500
TOTAL
OiM COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17198894
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2107061
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8690029
0 t H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2455391
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1441881
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539
41206
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
9394810
VIII-BEO
-------
BAT COST DMA - BY OPTION
oes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
SO
51
52
53
PLANT
NUMBER
1
12
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
481
485
486
488
500
502
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
583831
849624
0
829916
0
1277396
328468
531156
0
0
898841
0
1207525
328468
2116382
0
867448
0
1495492
551965
667323
9S1120
454726
354104
366729
0
1055789
1610056
524563
390373
0
473934
6243569
436361
1616191
2969660
450142
461491
0
666327
1661701
868974
459701
913050
4965706
0
498115
159456J
878280
1047576
328709
0
TOTAL
CAM COSTS
0
166496
96840
0
83145
0
1524624
31298
188588
0
0
2014544
0
893544
33389
6663637
0
283504
0
3114221
1033337
721441
2650463
28989
50601
54659
0
790125
1447952
114698
121071
0
85115
3547114
193736
12320661
841368
33874
47794
0
743001
3470415
154617
44146
409860
1649624
0
37693
2908387
140147
434293
38823
0
u
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
20085
3804
0
3306
0
39928
310
3666
0
0
280375
0
59607
2412
44618
0
12928
0
78241
57051
73642
14101
2124
8063
3248
0
50184
20844
4383
15347
0
15344
62641
6915-
59820
37964
2736
8211
0
174569
53539
28737
8658
12623
42878
0
2374
100132
59242
97858
5380
0
n IUN»IIA
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
3536
0
37220
0
193544
11724
0
0
0
276731
0
472694
74440
738817
0
48386
0
0
0
193544
375178
0
385227
470833
0
81884
776832
0
111660
0
661521
329397
3908
358431
1827258
0
0
0
0
660906
7816
0
28101
545805
0
0
0
10608
82256
163396
0
OIK
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
762
0
8016
0
41683
2525
0
0
0
59599
0
101803
16032
159118
0
10421
0
0
0
41683
80801
0
82966
101402
0
17635
193075
0
24048
0
164416
116988
842
127299
888306
0
0
0
0
234725
1683
0
6052
135655
0
0
0
2285
17715
35190
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
111325
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
12468
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539
29539
51259
29539
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
41206
33782
26827
33782
29539
51259
29539
26827
29539
41206
41206
29539
51259
65286
26827
26827
36574
26827
51259
29539
29539
26827
41206
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
VIII-B21
-------
BAT COST DATA
BY OPTION
oes
54
55
56
5?
58
59
60
61
£2
65
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
PLANT
NUMBER
518
523
525
536
569
580
602
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
883
888
90S
909
913
938
942
948
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
992
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
1698814
72315
0
889183
0
211640
0
6SSS40
854017
328468
783186
5941450
454557
1851491
8S8SOO
919793
0
697987
1133412
0
0
471403
0
0
540068
551554
0
1462857
5841784
837227
0
926723
0
0
451103
552177
1081607
0
0
448303
991512
1410215
115653
0
1681279
0
782986
469119
569496
328468
328468
0
454718
TOTAL
OAK COSTS
2240039
42686
0
207438
0
131825
0
1052470
111834
34168
41680
1097543
52002
2943165
692391
530584
0
146981
735789
0
0
84419
0
0
644016
106422
0
1074671
2826628
t> 151315
0
2996038
0
0
39242
305539
894569
0
0
78050
937986
3638271
84916
0
842980
0
67022
83791
233249
32299
35924
0
22868
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
12602
7095
0
14194
0
12224
0
14970
8867
1578
9000
128317
2826
51150
18605
10537
0
15825
26359
0
0
5792
0
0
3151
6680
0
22443
66614
4430
0
42517
0
0
6002
6730
18818
0
0
8660
23914
79665
1951
0
27175
0
2865
6785
32421
1695
1112
0
2736
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
329397
0
0
13529
0
0
0
0
2419
87095
2680
374795
0
764871
115382
716485
0
429694
866855
0
0
651406
0
0
0
984189
0
604877
268163
346146
0
0
0
0
0
0
65879
0
0
560371
372200
464270
0
0
850671
0
55830
642302
604825
55830
115382
0
0
0 i M
SLU066 COSTS
70942
0
0
2914
0
0
0
0
521
18757
577
133111
0
164729
24850
154308
0
152609
215450
0
0
161902
0
0
0
244612
0
150337
95240
74549
0
0
0
0
0
0
14188
0
0
139276
80160
164889
0
0
211427
0
12024
159639
130260
12024
24850
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
'o
0
0
57889
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124684
0
0
0
151402
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
71248
0
0
d
0
0
4453
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
51259
51259
51259
29539
51259
41206
29539
29539
29539
33782
41206
41206
29539
33782
41206
41206
33782
33782
29539
26827
29539
26827
51259
41206
41206
29539
29539
51259
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
33782
26827
29539
VIII-B22
-------
BAT COST DAT* - it OPTION
oes
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
12?
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
116
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
US
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
PLANT
NUMBER
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1S19
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1670
1684
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
454779
349821
0
1295098
0
458705
0
521385
286180
3287518
454732
835903
833465
0
332097
1001546
1087887
0
0
0
499807
4710868
923980
1740987
0
0
411405
1002773
1303663
449882
373116
1470942
350850
465892
8463828
933530
811772
328468
332452
1066193
0
0
867565
331423
576429
742283
778350
0
912609
44924177
0
0
98341
TOTAl
O&H COSTS
79839
49140
0
528181
0
113196
0
362868
549524
363035
29133
185891
4798387
0
41724
367938
911826
0
0
0
73195
1565503
423844
2625061
0
0
67752
580864
2141931
14197
56619
1876635
718244
89871
2288557
220262
4092048
36119
41931
472198
0
0
288820
41307
1291980
1097559
41593
0
479951
13885082
0
0
145514
u
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
6443
8310
0
28492
0
8284
0
24813
5395
25280
8460
4611
23760
0
2210
22055
49471
0
0
0
3984
120778
14793
58497
0
0
3220
9225
41565
8460
3606
68080
42480
8602
84297
40549
22573
2583
5860
16906
0
0
19941
3524
4296
33142
2855
0
10155
427954
0
0
3599
ruun*iiA
CAPITAL
SLUDQE COSTS
585658
355451
0
524713
0
488885
0
37220
0
278325
0
604423
0
0
214015
521080
24565
0
0
0
0
617015
409104
541551
0
0
772315
772315
287695
0
513636
195405
0
0
340219
30334
0
118546
217737
186100
0
0
502470
206571
0
0
1359
0
232625
1732309
0
0
0
0 ( N
SLUDGE COSTS
145561
76553
0
186355
0
105290
0
8016
0
98849
0
214665
0
0
46092
112224
5291
0
0
0
0
153354
88108
116633
0
0
166332
166332
102177
0
110621
42084
0
0
120831
6533
0
25531
46894
40080
0
0
108216
44489
0
0
293
0
50100
645153
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
133590
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539
29539
51259
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
51259
33782
41206
41206
33782
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
26827
41206
33782
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
33782
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
57S97
26827
29539
29539
51259
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
33782
26827
29539
57597
29539
29539
33782
VIII-B23
-------
BAT COST DATA BY OPT10M
OSS
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
ISO
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
195
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
20S
206
207
20&
209
210
211
212
PLANT
NLMSE*
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
172*
1753
1766
1769
1774
1785
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
343107
1356394
449882
778350
328468
807902
67H37
378121
7875173
1035891
1506055
4446S5
782792
544531
1238476
328468
653805
393974
945647
395837
824791
1125226
0
599338
0
0
1031252
0
454718
1120249
328468
378242
0
785051
2541426
63318
783186
657716
0
0
355187
881043
861504
670350
1717297
783186
585005
820138
627915
1430431
1242271
370204
567188
TOTAL
DIM COSTS
46699
35ni039
13302
56004
31437
74204
139572
58125
9689672
243484
6051564
77041
44868
705348
84S461
31617
548225
122286
'213596
63313
122465
593334
0
119580
0
0
1456023
0
17720
1349140
34770
59210
0
50058
9302657
35647
42100
216786
0
0
50962
1594703
222780
139270
1113595
42642
508123
130368
184929
2902047
2229997
86736
128311
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
7103
7001
13086
9912
826
1840S
15144
6076
157155
13226
49643
13785
8886
3628
24115
631
49374
24192
9998
11808
12105
55202
0
5777
0
0
28563
0
2736
69884
3724
6012
0
5652
98879
1953
10725
28974
0
0
3103
17082
7759
6606
57123
5329
36335
9467
27213
61784
38446
2901
31533
r 1 tUK*l IA ------
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
307065
2768?3
0
33684
36848
3350
397230
547134
0
871002
758625
546210
9863
0
183867
41872
290316
15204
308740
666238
7072 .
121523
0
311449
0
0
0
0
0
0
96772
57691
0
14330
878392
0
34801
816280
0
0
392671
0
320092
395910
1047842
5620
10515
280267
622275
65135
814763
9119
0
DIM
SLUOOf COSTS
66132
98333
0
7254
7936
721
141079
117835
0
309342
188550
135756
2124
0
39599
9018
62525
3275
"66493
143486
1523
26172
0
110613
0
0
0
0
0
0
20842
12425
0
3086
189178
0
7495
202880
0
0
84569
0
68938
140610
372148
1210
2265
60360
154661
14028
202503
1964
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MCW I TORINO COSTS
26827
51259
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
41206
29539
51259
29539
26827
51259
29539
33782
33782
33782
41206
33782
26827
29539
33782
29539
51259
26827
29539
29539
33782
41206
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
51259
29539
29539
VIII-B24
-------
BAT COST DATA -- BY OPTION
oes
213
2H
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
24S
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
PLANT
NUMBER
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
24SO
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2660
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
0
0
424577
840396
1842569
0
341793
0
426189
328468
581822
543298
454821
0
1228402
0
0
328468
536321
1497273
41S461
0
1059679
346669
0
661183
1068738
870231
1369101
521479
366452
0
328468
1718347
0
0
974373
802217
422449
0
0
1094156
672524
12586
0
811229
339927
1018611
0
0
1257905
613699
TOTAL
OU< COSTS
0
0
0
90041
85276
2484507
0
46190
0
71906
31298
221285
104153
52884
0
182965
0
0
32929
84761
6300412
68897
0
1420471
55348
0
422004
320795
417182
2174059
190457
54573
0
32169
2295209
0
0
335447
69156
70859
0
0
2629712
139875
18853
0
89648
45444
490372
0
0
1803263
669010
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
0
0
6312
6288
96802
0
7518
0
3452
624
9374
5081
2830
0
13864
0
0
1874
54895
48393
3285
0
31753
10154
0
23500
17744
56775
44681
3733
9703
0
723
31514
0
0
16631
24943
3394
0
0
28470
26412
6437
0
27069
2365
26144
0
0
39263
14248
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
411281
1489
566116
0
297202
0
874670
16563
0
948787
0
0
524449
0
0
66810
0
344970
800230
0
691866
15446
0
0
930580
329925
363445
0
468972
0
53411
465250
0
0
407559
1861
848616
0
0
289758
398549
0
0
4094
282872
11166
0
0
990258
0
0 & M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
38577
321
^21923
0
64008
0
188376
3567
0
235813
0
0
186261
0
0
14389
0
122518
172344
0
171958
3327
0
0
2S1288
117175
129080
0
101002
0
11503
100200
0
0
87775
401
182765
0
0
62405
141547
0
0
882
60922
2405
0
0
246121
0
CONTRACT
MAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
41206
33782
29539
41206
29539
26827
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
41206
33782
41206
26827
51259
51259
51259
26827
26827
29539
26827
29339
26827
2682?
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
41206
41206
2682?
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
41206
41206
VIII-B25
-------
BAT COST 0ATA if OPTION
oes
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
2?3
274
275
276
277
278
279
250
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
OPTION
DBS
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
PLAXT
MJM8ER
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2731
2786
2795
2816
2818
3053
4002
4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
4040
40S1
40S5
PLANT
HUH8£R
1
12
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
160
183
190
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
451459
13085442
117139
464278
S06987
411670
778726
458155
872021
32B468
1080229
1792522
454718
471100
0
0
0
925107
720401
1028742
559580
332273
22055
262337721
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
583211
881543
0
912273
0
1431660
32S468
541052
0
0
1079744
0
1020130
328468
140&902
0
1011495
0
862959
731177
TOTAL
OUt COSTS
40786
8598676
86578
82458
94189
236087
67022
40786
1256S4
31404
665104
855118
17720
10A6005
0
0
0
Z06194
735096
711796
178322
41828
28903
201492139
TOTAL
OSN COSTS
0
77154
12M18
0
115757
0
1561007
31298
196316
0
0
2052382
0
367341
33389
668691
0
103592
0
451S49
1071083
TOTAL
LAND COST!
4960
194719
8235
5650
18345
24882
6555
8157
30052
1321
6742
32079
7848
27722
0
0
0
36632
49103
33788
32115
1578
16932
5895830
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
8994
4324
0
4653
0
44796
310
1937
0
0
319782
0
28062
2412
22693
0
21556
0
27831
66000
CAPITAL
5 SLUDGE COSTS
0
571430
0
623084
796050
21774
55830
0
9119
35731
575543
792876
0
0
0
0
0
27171
158929
72579
0
215876
0
57547664
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
3536
0
37220
0
193544
11724
0
0
0
276731
0
472694
74440
738817
0
48386
0
0
0
0 t N
SLUDGE COSTS
0
202947
0
154862
197852
4689
12024
0
1964
7695
143047
281595
0
0
0
0
0
5852
34228
15631
0
46493
0
15354187
DIM
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
762
0
8016
0
41683
2525
0
0
0
59599
0
101803
16032
159118
0
10421
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1566565
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
o :
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
111325
0
0
0
0
0
222650 ;
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
26827
29539
51259
29539
41206
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
41206
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
9475252
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539
29539
51259
29539
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
VIII-B26
-------
BAT COST DATA BY OPTION
068
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
PLANT
NUMBER
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
481
485
486
488
500
502
518
523
525
536
569
580
602
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
821587
610771
454726
354104
366729
0
963834
1411929
60026
384432
0
594489
8973044
405958
6856767
2969660
450142
461491
0
572195
3551871
868974
110889
.870824
2745254
0
4981 15
1866959
872136
893795
328709
0
1950998
72315
0
944436
0
116439
0
655540
887896
328468
809134
4149193
454557
1247646
858500
919793
0
697987
1403937
2383893
0
TOTAL
0&M COSTS
757824
115960
28989
50601
54659
0
143474
651263
31856
67491
0
119654
3754917
63704
3047519
841368
33874
47794
0
81880
3621418
154617
34022
81870
1026242
0
37693
2951008
102024
109571
38823
0
2281636
42686
0
239229
0
34318
0
1052470
143612
34168
73458
393797
52002
428399
692391
530584
0
146981
781729
184490
0
............ y
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
86733
5036
2124
8063
3248
0
22681
13206
626
5018
0
21801
96349
1466
248419
37964
2736
8211
0
62487
129088
28737
6542
5165
41564
0
2374
114488
27793
34598
5380
0
14440
7095
0
16051
0
2395
0
14970
10093
1578
12751
141987
2826
22673
18605
10537
0
15825
40680
94475
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
193544
375178
0
385227
470833
0
81884
776832
0
111660
0
661521
329397
3908
358431
1827258
0
0
0
0
660906
7816
0
28101
545805
0
0
0
10608
82256
163396
0
329397
0
0
13529
0
0
0
0
2419
87095
2680
374795
0
764871
115382
716485
0
429694
866855
0
0
0 I M
SLUDGE COSTS
41683
80801
0
82966
101402
0
17635
193075
0
24048
0
164416
116988
842
127299
888306
0
0
0
0
234725
1683
0
6052
135655
0
0
0
2285
17715
35190
0
70942
0
0
2914
0
0
0
0
521
18757
577
133111
0
164729
24850
154308
0
152609
215450
0
0
CONTRACT
MAULiliG COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
12468
0
0
0
0
0
0
57889
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124684
0
0
0
151402
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539
41206
33782
26827
33782
29539
51259
29539
26827
29539
41206
41206
29539
51259
65286
26827
26827
36574
26827
51259
29539
29539
26827
41206
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
41206
26837
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
51259
51259
51259
29539
VJII-B27
-------
BAT COST DATA BT OPTION
DBS
363
364
365
366
J67
268
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
(02
403
404
405
406
407
408
(09
410
411
412
*13
414
415
PLANT
NUMBER
727
741
7SB
775
802
811
814
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
956 ,
962
970
973
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
471403
0
0
540068
551SS4
0
2940266
8484607
837227
0
3377409
0
0
451103
552177
1204208
0
0
448303
2743896
965727
115653
0
1291236
0
782986
469119
828624
328468
328468
0
454718
454779
349821
0
972717
0
458705
0
438206
139529
2219293
479801
835903
833465
0
332097
635556
974879
0
0
0
501356
TOTAL
OW COSTS
84419
0
0
644016
106422
0
1197374
3028592
151315
0
3155331
0
0
39242
305539
929219
0
0
78050
1079582
195760
84916
0
448579
0
67022
83791
275200
32299
35924
0
22868
79839
49140
0
207113
0
113196
0
65409
55574
246146
60911
185891
4798387
0
41724
99018
123424
0
, 0
0
44739
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
5792
0
0
3151
6680
0
47702
109041
4430
0
138805
0
0
6002
6730
21308
0
0
8660
101930
38423
1951
0
13690
0
2865
6785
45089
1695
1112
0
2736
6443
8310
0
14621
0
8284
0
6155
1079
24383
12220
4611
23760
0
2210
24064
22049
0
0
0
1736
r i IL*I«I IB -
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
651406
0
0
0
984189
0
604877
268163
346146
0
0
0
0
0
0
65879
0
0
560371
372200
464270
0
0
850671
0
55830
642302
604825
55830
' 115382
0
0
585658
355451
0
524713
0
488885
0
37220
0
278325
0
604423
0
0
214015
521080
24565
0
0
0
0
0 t N
SLUOCE COSTS
161902
0
0
0
244612
0
150337
95240
74549
0
0
0
0
0
0
14188
0
0
139276
80160
164889
0
0
211427
0
12024
159639
130260
12024
24850
0
0
145561
76553
0
186355
0
105290
0
8016
0
98849
0
214665
0
0
46092
112224
5291
0
0
0
0
COMTUCT
HAUUNG COSTS
o
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
, 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71248
0
0
0
0
0
4453
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
HON1TOR1NC COSTS
51259
41206
29539
29539
29539
33782
41206
41206
29539
33782
41206
41206
33782
33782
29539
26827
29539
26827
51259
41206
41206
29539
29539
51259
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
51ZS9
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
51259
33782
41206
41206
33782
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
26827
VIII-B28
-------
BAT COST DATA
SI OPTION
OSS
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
42S
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
43S
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
PLANT
NUMBER
1327
1340
1343
134*
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
157Z
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1670
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1785
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
2953691
1199794
1740987
0
0
411405
1002773
4106377
454718
373116
1470942
350850
482849
8463828
1004494
811772
328468
425575
962196
0
0
905355
331423
S76429
599718
778350
0
912609
20575507
0
0
73357
343107
4893992
449882
778350
328468
841149
671437
378121
7875173
1035891
804355
444655
782792
618340
1389291
528468
529854
386297
1135742
686981
826194
TOTAL
OSH COSTS
1186459
466637
2625061
0
0
67752
§80864
2354667
14197
56619
1876635
718244
89871
2288557
252421
4092048
36119
T5044
173358
0
0
2BS820
41307
1291980
103666
41593
0
47W51
4527482
0
0
32245
46699
1257500
13302
56004
3U37
105982
139572
58125
9689672
243484
136003
77041
44868
705348
881655
31617
113692
63117
12S5931
106868
75304
u
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
117597
24908
58497
0
0
3220
9225
147923
8460
3606
68080
42480
6602
84297
45473
22573
2583
11239
7399
0
0
19941
3524
42%
11604
2855
0
10155
1058825
0
0
694
7103
2685!
13086
9912
826
21038
15144
6076
157155
13226
19563
13785
8886
3628
27052
631
19606
5875
11 405
27170
5583
n IUN*UB
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
617015
409104
541551
0
0
772315
772315
287695
0
513636
195405
0
0
340219
30334
0
118546
217737
186100
0
0
502470
206571
0
0
1359
0
232625
1732309
0
0
0
307065
276873
0
33684
36848
3350
397230
547134
0
871002
758625
546210
9863
0
183867
41872
290316
15204
308740
666238
7072
0 & N
SLUDGE COSTS
153354
88108
116633
0
0
166332
166332
102177
0
110621
42084
0
0
120831
6533
0
25531
46894
40080
0
0
108216
44489
0
0
293
0
50100
645153
0
0
0
66132
98333
0
7254
7936
721
141079
117835
0
309342
188550
135756
2124
0
39599
9018
62525
3275
66493
143486
1523
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
133590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
41206
33782
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
33782
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
57597
26827
29539
29539
51259
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
33782
26827
29539
57597
29539
29539
33782
26827
51259
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
41206
29539
51259
29539
26827
51259
29539
33782
33782
33782
41206
33782
26827
VIII-B29
-------
BAT COST DATA BY OPTION
OSS
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
PLANT
HUN8EK
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
1251214
0
599338
0
0
674383
0
454718
1312598
328468
378242
0
785051
1341764
63318
362960
657716
0
0
355187
674950
861504
670350
1717297
783186
458966
794312
564000
1430431
1521382
414832
623152
0
0
0
424577
864596
2093797
0
341793
0
426189
328468
537220
543298
464098
0
1228402
0
0
328468
577550
6501134
TOTAL
OSM COSTS
628168
0
119580
0
0
80766
0
17720
1387596
34770
59210
0
50058
2106075
35647
63158
216786
0
0
50962
135546
222780
139270
1113595
42842
66378
66472
115855
2902047
22729S4
118514
160108
0
0
0
90041
117054
2526055
0
46190
0
71906
31298
47124
104153
52884
0
182965
0
0
32929
116539
6661361
............ o
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
61880
0
5777
0
0
9318
0
2736
79420
3724
6012
0
56S2
47319
1953
6065.
28974
0
0
3103
5916
7759
6606
57123
5129
8085
9040
12674
61784
53161
3459
35602
0
0
0
6312
7232
109087
0
7518
0
3452
624
3521
5081
2830
0
13864
0
0
1874
62203
215084
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
121523
0
311449
0
0
0
0
0
0
96772
57691
0
14330
878392
0
34801
816280
0
0
392671
0
320092
395910
1047842
5620
10515
280267
622275
65135
814763
9119
0
0
0
0
411281
1489
566116
0
297202
0
874670
16563
0
948787
0
0
524449
0
0
66810
0
344970
0 t M
SLUCGE COSTS
26172
0
110613
0
0
0
0
0
0
20842
12425
0
3086
189178
0
7495
202880
0 '
0
84569
0
68938
140610
372148
1210
2265
60360
154661
14028
202503
1964
0
0
0
0
88577
321
121923
0
64008
0
188376
3567
0
235813
0
0
186261
0
0
14389
0
122518
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITOR INC COSTS
29539
33782
29539
51259
26827
29539
29539
33782
41206
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
51259
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
41206
33782
29539
41206
29539
26827
26827
29539
41206
YIII-B30
-------
BAT COST DATA BY OPTION
DBS
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
$49
S50
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
PLANT
NUMBER
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2660
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
4040
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
415461
0
1160796
356565
0
740217
1068738
870231
1614132
521479
366452
0
328468
1718347
0
0
1207405
812266
422449
0
0
1268164
672524
12586
0
8188S3
339927
1018611
0
0
1257905
613699
458155
5761104
117139
464278
506987
394955
778726
458155
828212
591020
1080229
1236899
62529
189850
0
0
0
992915
542838
1137313
553898
TOTAL
OtM COSTS
68897
0
1420471
63076
0
423814
320795
417182
1128181
190457
54573
0
32169
2295209
0
0
376056
73371
70859
0
0
2667176
139875
18853
0
84752
45444
490372
0
0
1803263
669010
40786
909911
86578
82458
94189
63313
67022
40786
75750
73529
865104
268670
31909
38322
0
0
0
238249
109519
745696
72254
«"«- U
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
3285
0
31753
2973
0
28735
17744
56775
57991
3733
9703
0
723
31514
0
0
23701
12660
3394
0
0
37870
26412
6437
0
12964
2365
26144
0
0
39263
14248
4960
198687
8235
5650
18345
6140
6555
8157
12825
9269
6742
16958
4280
5336
0
0
0
41090
17926
38271
14185
riiuMsti* «*"
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
800230
0
691866
15446
0
0
930580
329925
363445
0
468972
0
53411
465250
0
0
407559
1861
848616
0
0
289758
398549
0
0
4094
282872
11166
0
0
990258
0
0
571430
0
$23084
796050
21774
55830
0
9119
35731
575543
792876
0
0
0
0
0
27171
158929
72579
0
0 t M
SLUDGE COSTS
172344
0
171958
3327
0
0
231288
117175
129080
0
101002
0
11503
100200
0
0
87775
401
182765
0
0
62405
141547
0
0
882
60922
240S
0
0
246121
0
0
202947
0
154862
197852
4689
12024
0
1964
7695
143047
281595
0
0
0
0
0
5852
34228
15631
0
CONTRACT
HAULINC COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
33782
29539
41206
33782
41 206
2682?
51259
51259
51259
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
41206
41206
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
41206
41206
26827
29539
51259
29539
41206
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
41206
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
26627
29539
29539
VHI-831
-------
BAT COST DATA -* BY OPTIC*
OPT10N«Jli
OflS PIAKT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CAPITAL 0 t H CONTHACT ANNUAL
MUUER CAPITAL COSTS OiM COSTS UNO COSTS SLUDGE COSTS SLUDGE COSTS HAULING COSTS MONITORING COSTS
575 4051 332273 41828 1578 215876 . 46493 0 26337
576 4055 53273 60681 20687 0 0 0 29539
OPTIC* 250822705 128259096 6792303- 57547664 15354187 1566565 9475252
***»«*** *«»»«««*» SBBXXSSV xMm*umm*m mxmmtsGmm vaxxxcat SBSSSSS*
513160426 329751235 126S8133 115095328 30708374 3133130 18950504
VIII-B32
-------
BAT COST DATA - OPTION III (OCT 1. 198?)
IBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
PLANT
NUMBER
1
12
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
481
485
486
488
500
502
518
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
4248267
705873
906533
3513417
1030953
1231307
1778108
384575
1083677
0
282560
1533138
0
1786874
520106
2504489
211647
1732501
0
1849396
1177610
1168035
1249957
7027184
1006653
1131079
554660
1168880
6475516
130270
5460601
400524
6957558
13342682
544476
14528456
26S23520
603156
4504485
15615418
780550
16086565
912743
1436677
1071043
6218427
0
542510
2775269
924919
1079986
902712
0
2730885
TOTAL
OiK COSTS
390909
160134
145614
254677
195753
1400125
1840121
67499
683039
0
218086
2441148
0
1122873
171222
1872370
154772
801802
0
1498714
1452446
1036938
714703
820590
665313
807161
500353
292611
1185481
-77402
603890
333446
875968
4167471
158775
4022459
4247475
140279
401720
2222373
233836
5374536
182964
1577837
226915
1272967
0
66432
3891344
136049
242868
561285
0
3053861
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
40970
25196
6687
45036
11650
23447
68982
5732
8952
0
26981
510333
0
83634 -
25588
51415
8690
74692
0
93520
109554
151767
17186
38112
58964
22872
29411
56671
39126
3839
71816
14450
151538
129043
8869
408877
171057
12630
96263
34841
201851
334178
47626
81491
16121
68798
0
7416
177832
67037
95654
57327
0
22636
CAPITAL
SLUOOE COSTS
0
0
3536
0
37220
0
193544
11724
0
0
0
276731
0
472694
74440
738817
0
48386
0
0
0
193544
375178
0
385227
470833
0
81884
776S32
0
111660
0
661521
329397
3908
358431
1827258
0
0
0
0
660906
7816
0
28101
545805
0
0
0
10608
82256
163396
0
329397
0 t M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
762
0
8016
0
41683
2525
0
0
0
59599
0
101803
16032
159118
0
10421
0
0
0
41683
80801
0
82966
101402
0
17635
193075
0
24048
0
164416
116988
842
127299
888306
0
0
0
0
234725
1683
0
6052
135655
0
0
0
2285
17715
35190
0
70942
CONTRACT
HAUL1KC COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
111325
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
12468
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
51259.2
29539.2
33782.4
29539.2
33782.4
26827.2
26327.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
41205.6
33782.4
33782.4
33782.4
29539.2
51259.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
41205.6'
41205.6
29539.2
51259.2
65286.0
26827.2
29539.2
36573.6
26827.2
57597.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
41205.6
26827,2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
VIH-B33
-------
BAT COST DATA OPTION II! (OCT 1, 1987)
OSS
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
7*
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99-
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
PIAMT
NUMBER
523
525
536
569
580
682
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
883
868
90S
909
913
938
942
948
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
564882
3508463
1005847
526401
328086
0
4394224
910173
542737
832703
9055023
4267753
4888532
2182102
1990336
184821
6567631
6189236
14933550
0
4117262
4563316
875476
1848355
4739541
552104
6380877
12742634
1437478
1277578
9609589
3904078
265522
1442344
1371251
1434973
455531
122662
4075929
6638072
6707689
1423940
674702
8277120
0
939639
4100060
1645333
1353689
870323
0
556915
3992985
962607
TOTAL
O&H COSTS
473768
253703
278862
468502
189090
0
1350313
159035
191192
89627
900606
363759
707737
2232838
1695555
132162
819634
1267510
1939928
0
364706
446827
896509
2160918
486524
497450
1437592
3421247
704170
1470001
38S9S23
328553
202429
1092759
1128109
1100569
391046
82980
354854
1406314
846641
1601818
A41424
1309501
0
176313
361229
1094708
1133193
52177S
0
90747
339370
616663
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
55791
78240
25509
46454
14619
0
93918
15462
16081
29587
246631
31019
69943
93498
38942
30477
91249
127966
315719
0
34906
97846
57820
19795
37984
39790
74558
150108
17723
23838
276437
20021
26321
51803
41509
33951
32790
11762
55705
191286
158082
12254
51637
62200
0
10614
40977
101179
40081
13839
0
11281
39461
61724
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
13529
0
0
0
0
2419
87095
. 2680
374795
0
764871
115382
716485
0
429694
866855
0
0
651406
0
0
0
984189
0
604877
268163
346146
0
0
0
0
0
0
65879
0
0
560371
372200
464270
0
0
850671
0
55830.
642302
604825
55830
115382
0
0
585658
355451
0 1 M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
2914
0
0
0
0
521
18757
S?7
133111
0
164729
24850
154308
0
152609
215450
0
0
161902
0
0
0
. 244612
0
150337
95240
74549
0
0
0
0
0
0
14188
0
0
139276
80160
164889
0
0
211427
0
12024
159639
130260
12024
24850
0
0
145561
76553
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
57889
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
151402
0
0
, 0
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71248
0
0
0
0
0
4453
0
0
0
ANNUAL
KONHOSING COSTS
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
41205.6
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
51259.2
41205.6
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
51259.2
51259.2
57597.2
29539.2
51259.2
41205.6
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
33782.4
41205.6
41205.6
29539.2
33782.4
41205.6
41205.6
33782.4
33782.4
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
51259.2
41205.6
41205.6
29539,2
29539.2
51259.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
33782.4
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
VIII-B34
-------
BAT COST OAT* - OPTION III (OCT 1, 198?)
OBS
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
11?
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
134
137
158
139
HO
141
142
143
144
145
t46
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
PLAMT
NUMBER
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
U39
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1670
1684
1688
1695
1698
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
7001801
4842464
1246220
3758564
694472
426303
6749693
640783
7089413
7334693
58301
458693
1464078
1063536
1127885
29138
82256
547724
6543206
2381010
2595391
65178
1325788
1613937
2140729
84B4428
509151
1192190
2167652
1502882
831009
13161537
1098925
17926750
913606
846077
1335788
6924428
345305
2209262
735522
4491231
880466
808196
1013839
2209941
37668957
89107
0
227466
890091
11560287
498538
TOTAL
OlM COSTS
0
906880
495764
895154
301570
259447
257574
687169
173656
923692
5577998
37628
127673
933853
181645
1247460
19435
53753
74716
1455943
1792206
3493745
42157
1543815
1424908
1842972
2768716
49316
879189
2544890
2000906
370669
2759005
314727
6537094
571420
429145
479451
850646
277992
1799007
378426
1622504
320075
6U48
1084961
1980074
6969356
58537
0
139517
538348
2064875
44725
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
61990
27990
33102
59600
32108
6474
50681
43400
23696
155639
21862
12286
84909
45799
69713
17795
5474
4550
193881
74421
101402
22667
70802
21231
33945
249212
29849
24989
121396
112855
47737
146575
71171
268934
32670
53529
21903
20610
10556
90215
29286
26867
38515
8648
62812
49160
1324207
23792
0
4936
54317
49661
45031
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
524713
0
488885
0
37220
0
278325
0
604423
0
0
214015
521080
24565
0
6
0
0
617015
409104
541551
0
0
772315
772315
287695
0
513636
195405
0
0
340219
30334
0
118546
217737
186100
0
0
502470
206571
0
0
1359
0
232625
1732309
0
0
0
307065
276873
0
0 I H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
186355
0
105290
0
8016
0
98849
0
214665
0
0
46092
112224
5291
0
0
0
0
153354
88108
116633
0
0
166332
166332
102177
0
110621
42084
0
0
120831
6533
0
25531
46894
40080
0
0
108216
44489
0
0
293
0
50100
645153
0
0
0
66132
98333
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
HONI TORINO COSTS
29539.2
51259,2
41205.6
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
51259.2
33782.4
41205.6
41205.6
33782.4
26827.2
26827.2
33782.4
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
41205,6
33782,4
33782.4
26827.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
26827.2
33782.4
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
29539.2
57597.2
26827.2
29539.2
Z9539.H
51259.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
33782.4
26827.2
29539.2
57597,2
Z9539.2
29539.2
3J782.4
26827.2
51259.2
26827.2
VIII-B35
-------
BAT COST DATA OPTION III (OCT 1, 1987)
COS
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
IBS
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
19S
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
202
204
205
206,
207*
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
PtAVT
HUHflER
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1785
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
194S
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
219S
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
225*
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
889320
470378
867847
8431311
1274580
18623709
8810706
1160477
4806524
833216
6264654
1722826
569718
1202101
452349
1628833
1696262
867409
1497499
1215826
5341677
5392081
321364
1367191
65178
529868
1815629
963683
S3850S
140406
865908
5697157
414896
689845
4573343
704016
0
1017600
1048542
1999460
5702459
10490229
819151
734139
6588626
4162129
2333865
S434S34
457970
686774
1135719
131258
1063765
4903503
TOTAL
O&M COSTS
130284
129136
123976
1129089
982575
11162721
1235468
424663
48S214
77415
1339884
1148150
212218
752142
105855
1687587
1185466
102063
813250
1376960
597846
590933
254730
744242
42157
66589
1830166
628790
171380
96532
102843
2516096
319814
323209
547461
677226
0
677531
441639
1484888
668029
2269244
66378
277643
726287
386999
3835837
2603175
146468
201233
12S88S1
89494
1155324
521971
TOTAL
UNO COSTS
35149
11333
33134
108068
42256
346990
65609
44022
107400
28257
35573
41694
9776
75182
23641
18143
93528
13773
95946
72091
33235
30747
23460
35432
22667
10421
124994
54041
37140
12610
19646
140794
16912
47185
98999
44148
0
22608
19958
37542
35576
223391
16170
44334
83686
59212
120407
143019
6212
56464
233S9
16607
28903
49511
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
33684
36848
3350
397230
547134
0
871002
758625
546210
9863
0
183867
41872
290316
15204
308740
666238
7072
121523
0
311449
0
0
0
0
0
0
96772
57691
0
14330
878392
0
34801
816280
0
0
392671
0
320092
395910
1047842
5620
10515
280267
622275
65135
814763
9119
0
0
0
0
411281
0 t *
SLUDGE COSTS
7254
7936
721
141079
117835
Q
309342
188550
135756
2124
0
39599
9018
62525
3275
66493
143486
1523
26172
0
110613
0
0
0
0
0
0
20842
12425
0
3086
189178
0
7495
202880
0
0
84S69
0
68938
140610
372148
1210
226S
60360
154661
14028
202503
1964
0
0
0
0
88577
CONTRACT
HAUL IMG COSTS
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
! 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MM! TOR! NO COSTS
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
26827.2
46670.4
29539.2
33782.4
29539.2
26827.2
51259.2
29539.2
33782.4
33782.4
33782.4
29539.2
33782.4
26827.2
29539.2
33782.4
29539.2
51259.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539,2
33782.4
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
33782.4
29539.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
41205.6
,29539.2
29539.2
51259.2
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
VIII-B36
-------
BAT COST DATA - OPTION III (OCT 1, 1987)
oes
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
244
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
PLAIT
NUNBfR
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2361
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
253?
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2660
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
880598
2385359
356689
875160
111791
1686170
398213
690965
4674115
1140271
358388
7018100
191638
122662
4894SO
616122
14583387
6546964
53303
6599524
423281
4117730
4390220
1799901
8090968
8711659
1119217
1128407
5640134
526846
2475S06
484686
559764
1889458
831586
5610035
0
1124525
5021759
5806809
27363
958906
1026547
853374
1246491
1281972
250041
5498035
4320895
641259
11823843
3535611
4063732
4389607
TOTAL
04M COSTS
128920
3313189
289222
522494
74885
1515220
76508
154107
473966
696093
290907
841992
,137833
82980
145674
141668
7704006
786040
34391
2019422
106257
367452
704891
1031630
1317283
2007745 .
740382
804046
633479
175660
3C38629
422480
506163
1026410
87104
626540
0
1242584
2967815
686339
30040
1008970
236144
499525
659197
1476686
188441
2192715
960928
171528
1615391
322331
353857
418792
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
11094
164418
29642
57874
25304
21843
10290
11216
29032
20849
15077
59728
19137
9961
19786
97893
369464
37405
12206
146186
16094
54618
111289
50849
210431
209738
22399
68369
73029
9198
52178
44869
47678
55827
28703
33144
0
48438
123394
143852
12874
27054
47324
18391
46607
30786
21222
137313
98459
23766
333392
51491
34276
107394
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
1489
566116
0
297202
0
874670
16563
0
948787
0
0
524449
0
0
66810
0
344970
800230
0
691866
15446
0
0
930580
329925
363445
0
468972
0
53411
465250
0
0
407559
1861
848616
0
0
289758
398549
, 0
0
4094
282872
11166
0
0
990258
0
0
571430
0
623034
796050
0 ( M
SLUDGf COSTS
321
121923
0
64008
0
188376
3567
0
235813
0
0
186261
0
0
14389
0
122518
172544
0
171958
3327
0
0
231288
117175
129080
0
101002
0
11503
100200
0
0
87775
401
182765
0
0
62405
141547
0
0
882
60922
2405
0
0
246121
0
0
202947
0
154362
197852
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539.2
29539.2
33782.4
29539.2
29539.2
26827.2
33782.4
29539.2
41205.6
33782.4
29539.2
41205.6
29539.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
51259.2
29539.2
41205.6
33782.4
41205.6
29539.2
33782.4
51259.2
51259.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
29539.2
41205.6
41205.6
26827.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
26827.2
29539.2
41205.6
41205.6
26827,2
29539.2
51259.2
29539.2
41205.6
VHI-B37
-------
BAT COST DATA -- OPTION III (OCT 1, 1987)
MS
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
PUNT
NUttE*
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
.4018
4021
4037
4040
4051
4055
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
478138
935379
641259
872607
5454095
4601906
8978842
137679
671902
761955
1178103
526918
1080670
874931
H2S5S3
615947
750052
77381
836000756
TOTAL
OtN COSTS
117709
176313
171528
104489
572888
1121401
1255224
80778
457938
749473
1320972
469079
295836
374613
880696
112340
393096
77163
269439332
TOTAL
LAW COSTS
29376
24285
39083
31795
73561
24314
69186
26325
33558
54422
25105
46474
64330
57021
61289
36491
12993
37619
18887628
CAPITAL
SLUOCE COSTS
21774
55830
0
9119
35731
575543
792876
0
0
0
0
0
27171
158929
72579
0
215876
0
57547664
0 I K
SLUOCE COSTS
4689
12024
0
1964
7695
143047
281595
0
0
0
0
0
5852
34228
15631
0
46493
0
15354187
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
, 0
1085641
ANNUAL
HQNrTQRlNG COSTS
29539
29539
33782
29539
41206
41206
41206
29539
29S39
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29S39
sssassa
9467282
VIII-B38
-------
PSES COST DATA - Bt OPTION
OSS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
PUNT
NUMBER
2
5
10
22
30
33
49
51
52
58
71
72
79
88
93
94
110
111
119
120
122
143
149
158
161
162
163
166
196
199
203
206
209
212
214
220
221
232
240
244
249
257
262
266
276
283
285
292
293
297
299
302
310
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
328468
454351
488548
783187
527873
4877037
898469
1084971
837000
454719
0
73322
511928
0
165266
825690
852438
0
483858
831449
454324
854924
884486
0
1391702
0
881017
97912
1274893
333811
479315
555210
0
26699
1249747
493292
1656951
489168
6376117
0
886230
13S7665
846923
805465
655540
3455858
0
1008647
1058805
783187
340166
618553
578958
TOTAL
OSH COSTS
31298
32339
70475
57541
211506
959685
857073
931710
159199
10720
0
75798
138122
0
511958
126041
108282
0
59309
143654
22613
114931
196224
0
2253528
0
185923
254896
1732918
1291428
49992
279103
0
43342
1812224
83951
4489517
103636
2480608
0
327282
5802891
96240
75291
1052470
496628
0
639667
2252275
43797
45542
542539
377841
u
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
451
7848
25511
2528
3608
51693
224668
50677
21233
2988
0
17643
122302
0
7906
118436
18782
0
40612
9765
34272
9684
31189
0
68794
0
30464
14951
61506
13412
103499
34724
0
4365
19594
112289
16863
7899
81595
0
15450
67317
104185
13438
15244
70825
0
46988
23212
11108
1843
12939
21138
rUUH = lV*
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
3722
0
3461
52666
0
139575
0
116126
4224
0
0
0
0
0
0
7444
3722
0
0
9305
29218
3722
14330
0
298690
0
11166
0
227414
0
0
0
0
0
182378
0
133061
0
213084
0
30148
74440
2419
2419
0
0
0
64018
0
76301
284733
0
0
0 & H
SLUDGE COSTS
802
0
74.5
11343
0
30060
0
25010
910
0
0
0
0
0
0
1603
802
0
0
2004
6293
802
3086
0
64328
0
2405
0
4S978
0
0
0
0
0
39278
0
28657
0
45892
0
6493
16032
521
521
0
0
0
13788
0
16433
61322
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
89060
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
133590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
356240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8906
0
0
22265
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
33782
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
33782
29539
33782
33782
29539
41206
29539
26827
29539
25539
26827
41206
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
VII1-B38 A'
-------
-------
PSES COST DATA - BY OPTION
08S
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
PUNT
NUMBER
321
326
334
348
354
357
417
423
428
430
433
438
449
451
458
468
492
494
508
522
529
543
544
567
592
60S
607
618
624
658
661
667
702
706
717
720
722
724
743
749
768
771
777
791
796
797
814
830
845
846
862
874
880
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
478828
896516
824403
0
999341
0
454982
901018
0
7910326
954381
691971
0
0
581 0843
866827
31081
1000112
0
1128622
454324
534636
0
802508
620341
0
918665
0
6797785
1187612
845487
0
45017
493962
790577
460286
1963987
479710
826957
905054
842587
1008640
0
491242
0
856509
1202754
15277
403855
0
1053095
866397
0
TOTAL
OSM COSTS
48007
233095
120532
0
781615
0
31332
436183
0
3768411
431484
835393
0
0
2563147
148334
53514
2245633
0
1119251
11526
212633
0
69156
541790
0
304874
0
23913S4
1721124
93338
0
89075
86653
1647789
45359
8563516
49992
129598
390095
87726
818740
0
78475
0
118042
870926
19766
226882
0
1010080
335120
0
u
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
102866
28322
10071
0
39094
0
34272
8888
0
155484
13592
11140
0
0
481491
9989
12601
21374
0
53079
27J6
11557
0
6263
27813
0
26317
0
120184
46783
5648
0
6522
23200
27017
3062
50222
21309
6577
12464
23257
44226
0
19074
0
9849
16193
23561
6529
0
47717
21295
0
K!1UN*1VA
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
19354
1675
0
84303
0
0
55830
0
748510
46525
0
0
0
0
16377
0
0
0
120965
0
0
0
1861
0
0
29032
0
263145
50433
1787
0
0
0
0
0
472694
0
7816
26426
1489
61599
0
0
0
4839
604877
0
20657
0
111697
478277
0
0 t H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
4168
361
0
18156
0
0
12024
0
186036
10020
0
0
0
0
3527
0
0
0
26052
0
0
0
401
0
0
6252
0
56673
10862
385
0
0
0
0
0
101803
0
1683
5691
321
13266
0
0
0
1042
150337
0
4449
0
24056
103006
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
102419
0
89060
0
0
0
22265
0
0
164761
0
222650
0
0
0
13359
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
133590
0
0
142496
0
13J590
0
0
26718
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS .
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
41206
29539
26827
26827
26827
51259
33782
29539
33782
29539
29539
26827
26827
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
41206
33782
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
VIII-B39
-------
PSES COST DAT* IT OPTION
OSS
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
13A
139
140
1*1
142
143
144
1*5
144
147
14S
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
PLANT
NUKBEK
887
905
912
917
929
931
932
944
958
975
976
987
988
992
997
1006
1011
1018
1026
1047
1052
1053
1057
1064
1069
1076
1083
1085
1086
1091
1094
1107
1117
1126
1162
1163
1172
1173
1175
1181
1188
1191
1194
1195
1197
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1236
1237
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
961483
479710
0
328468
471485
0
0
454719
113832
534636
902271
16003
0
556914
81S399
356808
333002
1061841
0
929054
960408
822696
14778
0
422716
0
817593
21324
758835
1135689
232550
457746
470722
1072994
475122
982400
1033940
14778
0
466983
792566
8845.01
480573
29139
819710
552631
912680
475058
36H21
434036
529869
1227218
514640
TOTAL
08H COSTS
2996506
49992
0
31351
33608
0
0
10295
311801
213496
1908599
21114
0
292807
98630
78386
42241
846505
0
1962111
616533
126523
18853
0
70934
0
103209
31661
S41111
1139686
1038091
39842
34147
2323057
126133
559349
937467
18853
0
436826
84182
196313
51745
48940
108525
279038
4763494
41415
89318
1819206
196331
1934961
146579
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
15084
9024
0
2095
97536
0
0
7992
27454
8216
23201
4974
0
11Z81
25967
4597
6053
16588
0
52852
9700
2667
3380
0
4781
0
19290
15515
196546
32958
38779
2167
3297
46200
8948
29057
34267
61284
0
30377
7428
8294
24278
8254
19538
34485
59968
6201
7990
11597
22419
48401
123620
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
198755
0
0
33498
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4652
3722
223320
88584
0
0
45408
6588
0
0
850477
0
3536
0
0
145158
0
0
0
0
0
9863
101797
0
0
46711
26054
14516
0
0
3908
0
0
0
4839
0
0
57133
0
0 i H
SLUDGE COSTS
42805
0
0
7214
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1002
802
48096
19078
0
0
9780
1419
0
0
183166
0
762
0
0
31262
0
0
0
0
0
2124
21924
0
0
10060
5611
3126
0
0
842
0
0
0
1042
0
0
12305
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
129137
0
0
218197
4453
200385
0
0
0
400770
178120
0
0
0
0
0
222650
; o
0
0
89060
66795
< 0
62342
0
267180
0
0
0
8906
0
0
0
0
0
223986
178120
0
0
0
51210
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
HONItMINC COSTS
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
26827
33782
33782
S»39
29539
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
26827
26827
26827
26827
33782
29539
26827
33782
33782
2953?
VIII-B40
-------
PSES COST DATA - 8T OPTION
08$
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
162
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
PLANT
NUMBER
1249
1253
1255
1264
1277
1310
1313
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356
1357
1361
1371
1386
1426
1432
1433
1437
1450
1478
150*
1507
1528
1534
1535
1539
1548
1556
1560
1562
1564
1566
1575
1595
1601
1608
1621
1622
1628
1645
1653
1657
1659
1666
1667
1706
1716
1718
1740
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
1064805
454324
454719
. 846923
1176246
1632568
13738
14395
481418
1007975
483059
870354
13738
855723
487672
1096293
0
0
1232310
927748
0
885936
13738
845905
885382
1063864
476043
514640
0
1454722
0
454479
846923
795*01
0
0
13738
599618
47664
923900
784293
1079221
862410
866490
657531
4346374
995468
907857
1399229
4709136
959060
454719
705738
TOTAl
O&H COSTS
899695
15794
27484
96240
1650240
13525071
16988
18160
53925
829775
70058
154617
16988
116050
68315
977368
0
0
1570098
483496
0
1533852
16988
94175
328343
2640732
41966
141787
0
3200303
0
34298
96240
95553
0
0
16988
460436
25803
322580
69261
1159013
132953
143887
1074092
919657
585218
269209
2647128
1663426
448973
22358
1196835
»
TOTAl
LAND COSTS
45675
8460
2124
24296
17672
33935
3743
4866
9128
43164
6558
10744
14084 -
26063
18694
17624
0
0
59527
39089
0
11844
27628
8998
11952
47746
23507
9869
0
67312
0
2736
21449
3438
0
0
14084
17816
2420
12444
11491
34913
117233
24784
15332
26826
43711
14F540
64847
31878
40183
2988
52162
'UOK»IVA
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
24565
0
0
2419
24193
148880
0
0
0
23262
0
7816
0
3908
0
122454
0
0
174190
65879
0
0
0
2233
29776
0
0
0
0
253468
0
0
2419
136970
0
0
0
0
0
31451
93050
33312
5583
6700
0
546210
67740
24193
304273
0
48944
0
722068
0 $ H
SLUDGE COSTS
5291
0
0
521
5210
32064
0
0
0
5010
0
1683
0
842
0
26373
0
0
37515
14188
0
0
0
481
6413
0
0
0
0
54589
0
0
521
29499
0
0
0
0
0
6774
20040
7174
1202
1443
0
135756
14589
5210
65531
0
10541
0
155510
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
115778
0
48983
0
0
0
115778
0
0
0
222650
44530
0
0
14250
0
115778
0
0
0
0
0
8906
0
75701
0
0
0
75701
44530
262727
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13359
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
33782
26827
26827
26827
33782
29539
33782
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
41206
41206
29539
29539
26827
41206
29539
29539
26827
VIII-B41
-------
PSES COST DATA * BY OPTION
DBS
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
PLANT
HUKBER
1742
1743
1744
1748
1751
1764
1773
1788
1793
1797
1801
1605
1803
1812
1826
1832
1833
1838
1843
1648
1853
1861
1876
1887
1883
1891
1894
1899
1904
1924
1931
1936
1945
1948
1970
1971
1974
1988
1993
2001
2004
2007
2018
2022
2033
2037
2050
2057
2070
2075
2080
2084
2093
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
917560
865893
846923
2257611
348201
902665
497222
654096
845319
0
782792
803024
0
0
948595
497222
1033269
454719
0
43397
6038074
375681
906833
0
0
1209391
888403
1009381
5762116
459292
840396
471124
454324
455222
454324
884987
77072
0
524963
454324
482849
867148
875984
0
0
852932
0
458694
1723136
793256
328468
672941
1359587
TOTAL
O&M COSTS
450175
142260
96240
7860591
S9691
391860
94743
683418
91646
0
42739
1392036
0
0
412789
93363
920173
10410
0
25019
2307948
57177
265958
0
0
3723375
20S119
823503
5139145
43282
166304
452466
17894
39756
12406
322401
184798
0
180342
15971
89871
145777
2428793
0
0
203585
0
41989
3956729
85650
32940
768592
2371343
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
162930
27463
24296
98815
15291
13570
9988
42283
111472
0
3270
42397
0
0
14493
19675
20488
8460
0
289
131180
3426
11731
0
0
17135
33638
39683
129238
2798
126388
29913
8460
4957
2124
9032
22641
0
11194
3600
37565
30024
14540
0
0
130943
0
7208
32990
10493
3087
176150
66069
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
44664
6532
2419
660655
1303
28473
0
0
19354
0
5397
0
0
0
37220
0
100494
0
0
0
748004
40384
23635
0
0
0
16005
89328
273759
0
8188
2437V
0
0
0
9491
0
0
0
0
0
8188
297760
0
0
4094
0
0
446640
36922
66996
0
232625
0 t H
SLUDGE COSTS
9619
1407
521
142284
281
6132
0
0
4168
0
1162
0
0
0
8016
0
21643
0
. 0
0
185910
8697
5090
0
0
0
3447
19238
97227
0
1764
5250
0
0
0
2044
0
0
0
0
0
1764
64128
0
0
882
0
0
96192
7952
14429
0
50100
CONTRACT
HAUL! WC COSTS
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155855
89060
0
0
0
129137
44530
396317
0
0
0
178120
71248
0
0
: 0
! 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
178120
111325
0
0
0
0
31171
84607
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
26827
29539
29S39
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
33782
29539
33782
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
41206
29539
26827
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
26827
26827
26827
33782
33762
26827
33782
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
VIII-B42
-------
PSES COST OAT* 8Y OPTION
DBS
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
283
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
PLANT
NUMBER
2108
2117
2123
2129
2147
2176
2177
2184
2191
2214
2232
2241
2243
2250
2253
2259
2261
2262
2288
2293
2300
2311
2318
2341
2346
2348
2350
2359
2402
2411
2426
2432
2436
2442
2459
. 2462
2465
2469
2485
2*87
2495
2498
2501
2507
2517
2521
2524
2539
2548
2565
2571
2578
2581
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
957992
340647
906833
0
865511
742090
597938
28340
0
1739682
2070962
1853773
834772
0
831844
1070061
0
481334
505143
1809652
842570
855411
2060275
577963
428959
835348
469102
0
402421
0
121867
703983
800795
848364
789713
905832
812326
4833515
1013815
1237188
847329
847660
454719
984568
0
844707
1000544
986198
1371922
0
0
0
TOTAL
C*H COSTS
0
621709
45736
265958
0
253660
2351856
301975
47088
0
4394874
6543198
4666559
14B897
0
143654
1084381
0
53729
118636
4769981
174476
211538
3236493
113686
295226
154041
29148
0
65201
0
341512
148658
65770
194630
101712
262616
90533
1575701
842119
1975716
187551
191980
22017
723016
0
178154
797822
550491
2510087
0
0
0
» w
TOTAL .
LAND COSTS
0
41548
1856
34268
0
11236
19326
11801
6238
0
54459
378140
30222 -
15766
0
30195
18223
0
21544
118865
28561
128838
11118
75702
7760
26522
ioaso
13550
0
11567
0
26581
26272
15941
131805
4355
9074
8663
96403
6622
56328
26795
11477
5886
31535
0
9662
43939
31485
63700
0
0
0
IIOH'IVA
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
65135
288455
23635
0
21588
0
0
0
0
26054
660655
524802
2419
0
9305
120593
0
0
0
649489
13827
4280
277289
286771
29032
10422
0
0
710902
0
0
437085
1563
14888
120965
23262
2605
452223
91561
78162
9863
14814
0
54527
0
3350
60669
62902
268455
0
0
0
0 1 H
SLWfii COSTS
0
14028
62124
5090
0
4649
0
0
0
0
5611
142284
113026
521
0
2004
25972
0
0
0
139879
2978
922
59719
101849
6252
2244
0
0
153i06
0
0
155233
337
3206
26052
5010
561
97394
19719
16834
2124
3190
, 0
11743
0
721
13066
13547
62124
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
Cf
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
138043
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
44530
111325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35624
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8906
0
6
142496
0
0
0
0
222650
0
4453
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
26827
. 29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
268Z/
26S27
26827
33782
33782
41206
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539 ,
29539
33782
29539
26827
41206
33782
29539
26827
26827
26827
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
VIII-B43
-------
PSES COST DATA - BY OPTION
DBS
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
34S
349
350
351
3SZ
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
PLANT
NUHBES
2608
2609
2634
2635
2636
2641
2642
2646
2647
2666
2677
2679
2685
2699
2714
2736
2741
2748
2756
2776
2779
2793
2794
2796
2805
2810
2814
4001
4003
4006
4007
4008
4009
4014
4022
4023
4024
4026
4027
4032
4042
4043
4044
4046
4047
4048
4050
4052
4057
4064
4066
4070
4072
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
328468
84565
4929099
782792
704302
0
1182468
0
497222
1073587
328468
505281
39243
799190
939874
938894
972677
4907104
12079413
485880
681796
4171026
510827
0
0
0
866969
1067237
B90603
724556
990448
0
343868
39243
738562
346732
976865
1036330
847908
454763
328468
1266139
0
442486
0
817593
0
832967
0
0
822096
864481
TOTAL
OSH COSTS
0
32496
209379
971202
44626
918580
0
1594754
0
92632
886151
36211
143156
73800
62707
958181
540782
2207430
1616385
7845356
96366
750424
838656
2248541
0
0
0
257380
1071940
214819
974076
570567
0
51290
73800
2282384
567S8
515627
746265
98283
29640
34584
1720825
0
219374
0
103209
0
144486
0
0
114532
138536
u
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
988
8736
51988
9033
16056
0
36993
0
7100
13250
4277
6960
6260
22864
20251
39874
12918
113738
205575
8849
15245
76755
16518
0
0
0
29084
51416
52555
24257
183211
0
5046
18285
6771
5229
41905
46561
25860
7992
2744
16331
0
6589
0
6194
0
28484
0
0
9109
9542
PIIUN'IVA *
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
59347
0
139575
2978
0
0
3722
0
0
109799
120034
0
0
1303
0
55458
0
535083
523103
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22016
119104
16935
0
55830
0
1210
0
0
1117
58063
76673
2233
0
93794
191869
0
16749
0
3536
0
6588
0
0
1563
7258
0 t H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
12782
0
30060
641
0
0
802
0
0
23647
25852
0
0
281
0
11944
0
132991
185783
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4741
25651
3647
0
12024
0
261
0
0
240
12505
16513
481
0
20200
41322
0
3607
0
762
0
1419
0
0
337
1563
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
89060
0
0
0
0
0
28499
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,0
0
218197
89060
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
24046
0
133590
0
22265
93513
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
33782
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
41206
29539
26827
41206
26827
29539
26827
33782
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
33782
29539
VIII-B44
-------
PSES COST DATA -- BY 0PTIOM
- QPTION=IVA
06S PLANT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CAPITAL 0 & H CONTRACT ANNUAL
NUMBER CAPITAL COSTS 04* COSTS LAND COSTS SLUDGE COSTS SLUDGE COSTS HAULING COSTS MONITORING COSTS
OPTION
DBS
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
585
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
PLANT
NUMBER
2
5
10
22
30
33
49
51
52
58
71
72
79
88
93
94
110
111
119
120
122
143
149
158
161
162
163
166
196
199
203
206
209
212
214
220
221
232
240
244
249
257
262
266
295963650
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
328468
454351
821645
1091340
527873
2350087
649607
1208479
834084
34492
0
108989
507323
0
100445
869915
885032
0
489412
830819
529030
860681
937793
0
845849
0
932438
97912
1440592
486518
486243
529234
0
33247
1066945
496397
1067727
489168
3280353
0
858441
963374
875020
812520
240435489
TOTAL
08* COSTS
31298
32339
73389
736108
211506
950037
155106
966409
76216
31778
0
107576
46421
0
33479
157819
140060
0
42647
76378
54909
99621
228003
0
1856S2
0
217701
2S4896
1769928
1327726
42240
47464
0
31778
305263
43653
149166
103636
1536781
0
86674
1571485
128018
73405
10632111
TOTAL
LAW COSTS
451
7848
12244
11512
3608
68628
77656
57374
9316
1342
0
21252
51643
0
1532
134731
21406
0
18979
4422
54795
4788
35249
0
16526
0
34467
14951
69861
16130
49516
13519
0
949
9581
50293
6213
7899
82113
0
6528
57301
119323
6681
20891825
CAPITAL
SLUDCf COSTS
3722
0
3461
52666
0
139575
0
116126
4224
0
0
0
0
0
0
7444
3722
0
0
9305
0
3722
14330
0
298690
0
11166
0
227414
0
0
0
0
0
182378
0
133061
0
213084
0
30148
74440
2419
2419
4817591
0 S M
SLUDGE COSTS
802
0
745
11343
0
30060
0
25010
910
0
0
0
0
0
0
1603
802
0
0
2004
0
802
3086
0
64328
0
2405
0
48978
0
0
0
0
0
39278
0
28657
0
45892
0
6493
16032
521
521
9911488
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
89060
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
133590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
356240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11082936
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
33782
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
33782
29539
33782
33782
29539
41206
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
VIII-B45
-------
PSES COST DATA * BY OPTION
OSS
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
42S
426
42?
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
434
43?
439
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
44?
448
449
4SO
451
452
453
454
45S
456
45?
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
46S
PLANT
MJK8ER
276
283
285
292
293
297
299
302
310
321
326
334
340
354
357
417
423
428
430
433
438
449
451
458
468
492
494
508
522
529
543
544
567
592
605
607
618
624
658
661
667
702
706
717
720
722
724
743
749
768
?7I
777
791
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
655540
1929*90
0
939307
694026
3S3746
340166
554638
53897S
485542
956025
826589
0
1115023
0
91684
901018
0
4211794
1038550
579776
0
0
29S2934
869474
36508
320636
0
1263725
454324
519222
0
829723
540727
0
418470
0
3540705
954554
872335
0
45804
496443
254220
460286
1445400
486243
871982
86686?
86678?
614579
0
494632
TOTAL
QSM COSTS
. 1052470
153681
0
132131
180783
65280
4S542
69876
60478
42188
264941
73371
0
815892
0
33044
436183
0
812682
464177
87484
0
0
1705805
104593
31778
44996
0
1154582
11526
50557
0
100934
61166
0
258962
0
1389209
101069
125116
0
31778
44631
41701
45359
4788154
42240
161376
81254
119504
589223
0
43391
TOTAL
LANS COSTS
15244
68756
0
21204
7103
6748
1843
4754
7994
49485
31986
4548
0
44723
0
23250
8888
0
159159
15350
39S7
0
0
477159
4984
2669
5493
0
60262
2736
4648
0
7207
9730
0
19007
0
122363
17102
6488
0
1315
10364
6073
3062
31161
10194
7481
5116
26809
39346
0 .
8614
CAPITAL
SLUOCE COSTS
0
0
0
64018
0
76301
284733
0
0
0
19354
1675
0
84303
0
0
55830
0
748510
46525
0
0
0
0
16377
0
0
0
120965
0
0
0
1861
0
0
29032
0
263145
50433
1787
0
0
0
0
0
472694
0
7816
26426
1489
61599
0
0
0 I M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
13788
0
16433
61322
0
0
0
4168
361
0
18156
0
0
12024
0
186036
10020
0
0
0
0
352?
0
0
0
26052
0
0
0
401
0
0
62S2
0
56673
10862
385
0
0
0
0
0
101803
0
1683
5691
321
13266
0
0
CONTRACT
MAULING COSTS
0
0
8906
0
0
22265
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
102419
b
89060
0
0
0
22265
0
0
164761
0
222650
0
0
0
13359
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
ANNUAL
HONITORING COSTS
41206
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
2682?
29539
2682?
41206
29539
26827
26827
26827
51259
33782
29539
33782
29539
29539
2682?
2682?
26827
2682?
33782
2682?
29539
29S39
41206
33782
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
VJII..B46
-------
PSES COST DATA 8Y OPTION
OSS
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
S14
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
PUNT
NUHBfR
796
797
814
830
845
846
862
874
880
887
905
912
917
929
931
932
944
958
975
976
987
988
992
997
1006
1011
1018
1026
104?
1052
1053
1057
1064
1069
1076
1083
1085
1086
1091
1094
1107
1117
1126
1162
1163
1172
1173
1175
1181
lisa
1191
1194
1195
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
358393
2680151
23508
408855
0
1183612
866397
0
1042092
511629
0
328468
479602
0
0
26279
80319
519617
650748
24200
0
529993
820505
391300
333002
963115
0
667320
887916
825086
23024
0
422716
0
822046
28933
605207
1271690
420856
457746
478747
1264676
475122
923546
787371
23024
0
557347
792566
839997
486918
35088
TOTAL
OS* COSTS
0
82077
993629
31778
226882
0
1045160
335120
0
287019
81770
0
31351
42073
0
0
31778
32524
51420
156492
31778
0
55186
74182
110164
42241
147770
0
136480
88677
83813
31778
0
70934
0
73405
31778
108521
1175067
1073598
39842
44829
2361477
126133
110346
91247
31778
0
469806
84182
78013
42078
31778
u
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
6596
4145"?
5816
6529
0
54707
21295
0
7160
10353
0
2095
49504
0
0
3552
5284
3304
8019
1216
0
4381
12327
5551
6053
7505
0
18046
3880
1236
840
0
4781
0
9029
3532
68634
37349
46526
2167
1690
53330
8948
11796
8989
15232
0
35748
7428
3581
11555
1767
K!IWI*IVB
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
4839
604877
0
20657
0
111697
478277
0
198755
0
0
33498
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4652
3722
223320
88584
0
0
45408
6588
0
0
850477
0
3536
0
0
145158
0
0
0
0
0
9863
101797
0
0
46711
26054
14516
0
0
DIM
SLUDGE COSTS
0
1042
150337
0
4449
0
24056
103006
0
42805
0
0
7214
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1002
802
48096
1907B
0
0
9780
1419
0
0
183166
0
762
0
0
31262
0
0
0
0
0
2124
21924
0
0
10060
5611
3126
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
133590
0
0
142496
0
133590
0
0
26718
0
0
129137
0
0
218197
4453
20038S
0
0
0
400770
178120
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
0
89060
66795
0
62342
0
267180
0
0
0
8906
0
0
0
0
0
223986
178120
0
0
0
51210
0
ANNUAL
HOW 1 TOR ING COSTS
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
26827
33782
33782
29539
29539
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
53782
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
26827
VIII-B47
-------
PSES COST DATA BY OPTION
COS
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
5(0
5(1
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
ssr
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
PLANT
NUMBER
1197
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1236
1237
1249
1253
1255
1264
1277
1310
1313
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356
1357
1361
1371
1386
1426
1432
1433
1437
1450
1478
1504
1507
1528
1534
1535
1539
1548
1556
1560
1562
1564
1566
1575
1595
1601
1608
1621
1622
1628
1645
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
823495
527681
1189322
489991
366311
612461
516853
964872
506835
952502
454324
454719
875020
951038
1464100
21995
22649
454324
851032
530131
915379
21995
890811
492562
1222672
0
0
551261
873254
0
687049
21995
873120
858461
719480
483733
509230
0
1037816
0
454479
875020
795401
0
0
21995
547788
47664
995874
784293
925380
902244
869137
TOTAL
OtM COSTS
73441
56387
4806328
£3565
63076
1856909
49629
104914
46872
111293
15794
27484
128018
88756
13051604
31778
31778
10583
93852
43045
186395
31778
147828
42073
1012223
0
0
111915
91591
0
154945
31778
125953
90722
207735
42085
42080
0
219900
0
34298
128018
95553
0
0
31778
65016
25803
354775
69261
91209
164731
100146
u
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
9078
13475
73744
3083
1924
14010
9096
17649
51844
18253
8460
2124
27826
6286
20425
944
1216
2988
14255
3403
12173
3552
29662
8574
19958
0
0
18729
16410
0
4255
6968
10326
5052
16527
11524
4139
0
27074
0
2736
24566
3438
0
0
3552
6605
2420
14049
11491
12936
133070
11877
riIUN*i₯B
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
3908
0
0
0
4839
0
0
57133
0
24565
0
0
2419
24193
148880
0
0
0
23262
0
7816
0
3908
0
122454
0
0
174190
65879
0
0
0
2233
29776
0
0
0
0
253468
0
0
2419
136970
0
0
0
0
0
31451
93050
33312
5583
6700
0 I II
SLUDGE COSTS
842
0
0
0
1042
0
0
12305
0
5291
0
0
521
5210
32064
0
0
0
5010
0
1683
0
842
0
26373
0
0
37515
14188
0
0
0
481
6413
0
0
0
0
54589
0
0
521
29499
0
0
0
0
0
6774
20040
7174
1202
1443
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
115778
,0
48983
0
0
0
115778
0
0
0
222650
44530
0
0
14250
0
115778
0
0
0
0
0
8906
0
75701
0
0
0
75701
44530
262727
0
0
0
0,
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
26827
26827
26827
33782
29539
26827
33782
33782
29539
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
33782
26827
26827
26827
33782
29539
33782
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
VIII-B48
-------
PSES COST DATA
BY OPTION
CBS
575
576
57?
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
PLANT
NUMBER
1653
1657
1659
1666
1667
1706
1716
1718
1740
1742
1743
1744
1748
1751
1764
1773
1788
1793
1797
1801
1805
1808
1812
1826
1832
1833
183S
1843
1848
1853
1861
1876
1887
1888
1891
1894
1899
1904
1924
1931
1936
1945
1948
1970
1971
1974
1988
1993
2001
2004
2007
2018
2022
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
657531
2124901
488007
408385
1059836
2337627
455843
74324
547859
871947
868747
875020
2257611
356042
865878
498944
566688
871403
0
782792
619821
0
0
1030952
498549
920530
454719
0
43397
3325536
375681
971267
0
0
734548
943792
904492
4333388
4S9292
836186
540640
454324
455222
454324
858066
63491
0
514350
454324
606246
910129
1077706
0
TOTAL
O&H COSTS
1074092
295903
521563
225344
251394
984420
394172
32282
101476
94278
100066
128018
7860591
63076
91874
44184
61373
123424
0
42739
122359
0
0
445401
42804
128879
10410
0
25019
1503725
57177
297915
0
0
290010
239910
118983
2425659
43282
74603
484576
17894
39756
12406
84780
31933
0
49141
15971
50452
177555
2467752
0
- u
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
15332
25893
32462
105779
27147
30730
29601
1784
20347
67586
13178-
27826
98815
3823
5602
4409
15066
126704
0
3270
14725
0
0
16388
8685
8370
8460
0
289
129308
3426
13245
0
0
5986
38005
16206
158900
2798
55729
34513
8460
4957
2124
3676
4391
0
4586
3600
68167
34013
17236
0
fliUH'lVH ---
CAPITAL
SLUOOE COSTS
0
546210
67740
24193
304273
0
48944
0
722068
44664
6532
2419
660655
1303
28473
0
0
19354
0
5397
0
0.
0
37220
0
100494
0
0
0
748004
40384
23635
0
0
0
16005
89328
273759
0
8188
24379
0
0
0
9491
0
0
0
0
0
8188
297760
0
0 i M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
135756
14589
5210
65531
0
10541
0
155510
9619
1407
521
142284
281
6132
0
0
4168
0
1162
0
0
0
8016
0
21643
0
0
0
185910
8697
5090
0
0
0
3447
19238
97227
0
1764
5250
0
0
0
2044
0
0
0
0
0
1764
64T28
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155855
89060
0
0
0
129137
44530
592249
0
0
0
178120
71248
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
178120
111325
0
0
0
0
31171
ANNUAL
TOXITORINS COSTS
41206
41206
29539
29539
26827
41206
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
33782
29539
33782
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
41206
29539
26827
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
26827
26827
26827
V1II-B49
-------
PSES COST DATA - BY OPTIC*
OSS
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
65«
655
656
657
6S8
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
67t
672
673
674
675
676
6?7
678
679
680
PLANT
NUMBER
2033
2037
2050
2057
2070
207S
2080
2084
2093
2108
2117
2123
2129
2147
2176
2177
2184
2191
2214
2232
2241
2243
2250
2253
2259
2261
2262
2288
2293
2300
2311
2318
2341
2346
2248
2350
2359
2402
2411
2426
2432
2436
2442
2459
2462
2465
2469
2485
2487
2495
2498
2501
2507
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
842954
0
525695
1921510
793256
32S468
573334
1097853
0
887300
340647
407442
0
849055
742090
572988
34492
0
1050903
1216450
2115976
832954
0
879871
1204983
0
487507
503406
1169155
847853
844231
1162583
577963
503474
885453
477348
0
402421
0
121867
703983
826482
840551
789713
969797
818275
2579322
1133643
985375
839997
839991
73357
TOTAL
COM COSTS
0
73942
0
62236
3997863
85650
32940
64072
545712
0
105463
45736
222266
0
82411
2351856
79324
31778
0
396647
525848
4708666
73405
0
175432
1119702
0
42354
46420
514664
76545
74120
335800
113686
327515
185819
42073
0
65201
0
341512
148658
97548
79082
101712
. 294561
73371
939894
876619
222026
75155
77377
32245
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
55342
0
11176
95106
10493
3087
62118
29225
0
17081
1856
24552
0
4833
19326
5006
1342
0
18899
164920
34691
6914
0
34327
20906
0
10208
51142
12732
58753
4847
29891
7760
31481
12332
7020
0
11567
0
26581
26272
18381
57941
4355
10245
4140
92929
7580
21924
11671
5048
3489
fllUN'IVB
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
4094
0
0
446640
36922
66996
0
232625
0
65135
2884S5
23635
0
21588
0
0
0
0
26054
660655
524802
2419
0
9305
120593
0
0
0
649489
13827
4280
277289
286771
29032
10422
0
0
710902
0
0
437085
1563
14888
120965
23262
2605
452223
91561
78162
9863
14814
0
0 ( H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
882
0
0
96192
7952
14429
0
50100
0
14028
62124
5090
0
4649
Q
0
0
0
5611
142284
113026
521
0
2004
25972
0
0
0
139879
2978
922
59719
101849
6252
2244
0
0
153106
0
0
155233
337
3206
26052
5010
561
97394
19719
16834
2124
3190
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
84607
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
o;
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
138043
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
44530
111325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35624
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
8906
0
ANNUAL
MONITOR IMG COSTS
33782
33782
26827
33782
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
26827
33782
33782
41206
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
41206
33782
29539
26827
26827
26827
VIII-B50
-------
PSES COST DATA BY OPTION
oes
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
6%
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
PLANT
NUMBER
2517
2521
2524
2539
2548
2565
2571
2578
2581
2608
2609
2634
2635
2636
2641
2642
2646
2647
2666
2677
2679
2685
2699
2714
2736
2741
2748
2756
2776
2779
2793
2794
2796
2805
2810
2814
4001
4003
4006
4007
4008
4009
4014
4022
40Z3
4024
4026
4027
4032
4042
4043
4044
4046
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
896224
0
838576
1118786
1081565
1570748
0
0
0
0
328468
151717
2287933
782792
586342
0
976295
0
498549
913257
328468
505281
39243
807387
661868
879977
677059
6440246
927294
485880
579023
4171026
196476
0
0
0
933745
932857
947133
590595
931076
0
352094
42119
738562
354747
1069128
951763
876841
88716
328468
1431624
0
TOTAL
O&N COSTS
92285
0
73672
832152
583715
2548891
0
0
0
0
32496
241414
193123
44626
92574
0
164794
0
42073
123267
36211
143156
73800
73371
170538
100137
135373
1742933
207907
96366
118246
838656
38678
0
0
0
289403
135969
246622
95992
127010
0
63076
31778
2282384
63076
548699
140146
130061
32902
34584
1757823
0
u
TOTAL
LAMD COSTS
12528
0
4146
50420
35583
73710
0
0
0
0
968
10425
50626
9033
5671
0
13110
0
3134
5026
4277
6960
6260
11885
6998
16397
4376
182506
33901
8849
5590
76755
3501
0
0
0
33061
20975
59369
8541
62363
0
1328
3747
6771
1323
47349
21028
29599
5308
2744
18590
0
P!IU*=IVB
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
54527
0
3350
60669
62902
288455
0
0
0
0
59347
0
139575
2978
0
0
3722
0
0
109799
120034
0
0
1303
0
55458
0
535083
10105
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22016
119104
16935
0
55830
0
1210
0
0
1117
58063
76673
2233
0
93794
191869
0
0 & M
SLUDGE COSTS
11743
0
721
13066
13547
62124
0
0
0
0
12782
' 0
30060
641
0
0
802
0
0
23647
25852
0
0
281
0
11944
0
132991
2177
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4741
25651
3647
0
12024
0
261
0
0
240
12505
16513
481
0
20200
41322
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
142496
0
0
0
0
222650
0
4453
89060
0
0
0
0
0
28499
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218197
89060
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
ANNUAL
MONITOR IMG COSTS
26827
26827 '
33782
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
29539
2V539
29539
29539 '
26827
29539
41206
29540
29539
26S27
41206
26827
29539
26827
33782
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539^
26827
29539
29539
33782
VIII-B51
-------
PSIS COST DATA -- BY OPTIC*
- OPT10N=IVB
0«$ PLANT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CAPITAL 0 « H CONTRACT ANNUAL
NURSE* CAPITAL COSTS OtN COSTS LAND COSTS SLUDGE COSTS SLUDGE COSTS HAULING COSTS MONITORING COSTS
734 4047 432268 88173 1892 16749 3607 0 29539
735 404ft 00000 24046 2682?
736 4050 822046 73405 2899 3536 762 0 26827
73? 4052 00000 133590 26827
738 4057 831886 74078 12759 6588 1419 0 26827
739 4064 00000 22265 29539
740 4066 00000 93513 29539
741 4070 825086 73371 4146 1563 337 ; 0 33782
742 4072 204416 74951 4316 7258 1563 ; 0 29539
OPTION 240426863 119673805 7347380 20349609 4627692 10094061 11068558
KXBBVXIC3B »XB3BK31:V Sa3«*X*V StteXaBKX SSXSBBtt BCSSSSS5* SSSSSSSIS
536390513 360109294 17979491 41241434 9445283 20005549 22151494
VIII-B52
-------
I PLANT t
TECNOLOGY COSTED
========
1
12
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
BPT OPTION I
3- ; S j - -a as ss sr ss=: ss ss =s as s± ssssss =s 52 ss
2SB
BU GAG
AS
2SB
CAC
BU CAC
AS
CAC
CAC
AS
AS
2SB
BU CAC
AS
2 SB
2 SB
AS
2SB
BU
AS
2SB
BU CAC
BU CAC
AS
BU CAC
CAC
CH
CH
CH
VIII-BS3
-------
PLANT #
446
447
451
481
485
486
488
500
| 502
| 518
523
525
536
569
580
601
602
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663.1
663.2
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
819 !
825
844 |
851
8"59 i
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
r ss as asas =K sc ss a ss ss=s SB as s ss s K
TECNOLOGY COSTED
BPT OPTION I
2 SB
2SB
2SB
2SB
2SB
BU CAC
BU
BU CAC
BU CAC
BU CAC
BU CAC
BU CAC
BU
CAC
CAC
CAC
BU CAC
CAC
BU CAC
CTPP
CH
CTPP
VIII-B54
-------
PLANT tt
SB SK SS atf S= MS O= 33
866
871
876
877
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
TECNOLOGY COSTED
BPT OPTION I
AS
2SB
2SB
BU CAC
BU
CAC
CAC
AS
AS
AS
CH
AS
CTPP
2 SB
CAC
BU CAC
BU CAC
BU
8U CAC
BU CAC
BU
BU CAC
CAC
BU CTPP
CTPP
CH
CH
CAC
BU
2 SB
2SB
AS
CAC
VIII-B55
-------
| PLANT ft
1= ===
| 1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656,.
1670'
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1776
1785
1794
1802
1839
TECNOLOGY COSTED
BPT OPTION I
CTPP
AS
BU CAC
BU CAC CTPP
AS
CAC
BU CAC
2 SB
BU
2SB
AS
CAC
BU CAC
AS
2SB
2 SB
2SB
2SB
CAC
2SB
CAC
2SB
CH
BU CTPP
AS
2SB
CAC
BU CAC
BU CAC
2SB
CTPP
AS
CAC
AS
2 SB
AS
VIII-B56
-------
I PLANT *
TECNOLOGY COSTED
BPT OPTION I
1869
1877
1881
1890.1
1890.2
1905
1910
1911.1
1911.2
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
| 2254
I 2268
I 2272
j 2281
I 2292
| 2296
I 2307
2 SB
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
2 SB
BU CAC
BU CAC
BU CAC
BU CAC
BU
BU CAC
BU CAC
BU CAC
CAC
CAC
CTPP
AS
2SB
2SB
2 SB
2SB
2SB
2 SB
2SB
CAC
AS
BU CAC
CAC
2SB
VII1-B57
-------
PLANT i | TECNOLOGY COSTED
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328.1
2328.2
2345
'2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471.1
2471.2
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
| 2626
2631
2633
BPT OPTION
2 SB
'
CAC
AS
2 SB
CAC
BU CAC
2SB
BU
2 SB
2 SB
BU CAC
AS
AS
BU CAC
BU CAC
2SB
AS
AS
AS
AS
2SB
2 SB
CAC
AS
BU CAC
2SB
I
CTPP
CTPP
CH
VIII-B58
-------
PLANT #
2647
2660
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
4040
4051
4055
TEGNOLOGY COSTED
BPT OPTION I
AS
AS
AS
AS
2 SB
2 SB
2 SB
2 SB
BU CAC
CAC
AS
AS
AS
CAC
2 SB
2SB
2SB
AS
2 SB
BU
BU CAC
NOTES:
AS- ACTIVATED SLUDGE
2SB- SECONDARY STAGE BIOLOGICAL
BU- BIOLOGICAL UPGRADES
CAC- CHEMICALLY ASSISTED CLARIFICATION
CTPP- CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF POLISHING PONDS
CH- CONTRACT HAULING
VIII-B59
-------
PLANT # ;
I
1
12 |
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
TECNOLOGY COSTED
BAT
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
OPTION IIB
CN BP
AC CN BP
CN BP
AC CN BP
BP
AC CN BP
BP
CN BP
BP
BP
AC CN BP
AC BP
CN BP
CN BP
CN BP
BP
BP
BP
AC CN BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
AC CN
BP
CH
CH
CH
VIII-B60
-------
PLANT tt
446 CP
447 CP
45i
481
485
486 CP
488 CP
500 CP
502
518 CP
523
525
536
569
580
602
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
495
709
727
741
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
758
775
802 CP
811
814 CP
819 CP
825 CP
844
851
859
866
871
TECNOLOGY COSTBD
BAT OPTION IIB
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
CN
CN
AC CN
CN
AC CN
AC CN
CN
AC CN
AC CN
CN
AC CN
CN
BP
BP
CH
1
BP
BP
BP
CH
BP
BP
BP
CH
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
BP
BP
CH
BP
BP
BP
VIII-B61
-------
PLANT f
876
877 CP
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
956
962
970
973
984
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
990 | CP
991
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
TECNOLOGY COSTED
BAT
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
OPTION IIB
AC CN BP
BP
BP
CN
BP
CN BP
BP
CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
CN BP
CN BP
BP
AC
AC
CH
CH
CH
1
CH
VIII-B62
-------
PLANT #
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1670
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1785
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
TECNOLOGY COSTED
BAT
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
OPTION IIB
BP
AC
AC
AC CN BP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
CH
BP CH
BP
AC BP
AC
BP
AC CN BP
CN BP
VIII-B63
-------
PLANT #
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
TECNOLOGY
COSTED
BAT OPTION IIB
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
2236 I CP
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
AC
SS
SS AC
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
AC
SS AC
SS AC
SS AC
BP
CN BP
BP
BP
CN BP
BP
CN BP
CN
BP
CN
BP
CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
CN
CN BP
CN BP
CH
VIII-B64
-------
PLANT f
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2660
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
TECN(
BAT
SS
ss
SS
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
)LO(
OP'
AC
AC
AC
AC
BP
CN
CN
CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CN
CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
VIII-B65
-------
PLANT #
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
4040
4051
4055
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
TECNOLOGY COSTEI
BAT OPTION IIB
SS
SS
SS
CN
SS
SS .
SS AC CN
SS
SS AC CN
CN
SS AC CN
SS CN
AC
)
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
NOTES:
CP- CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
SS- STEAM STRIPPING
AC- ACTIVATED CARBON
CN- CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
BP- BIOLOGICAL PACKAGE
CH- CONTRACT HAULING
VIII-B66
-------
PLANT #
2
5
10
22
30
33
49
51
52
58
71
72
1 79
88
93
94
110
111
119
120
122
143
149
158
161
162
163
166
196
199
203
206
209
212
214
220
221
232
240
| 244
| 249
257
1 262
266
*~"
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
TECNOLOGY COSTED
PSES OPTION IVB
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
VIII-B6?
-------
| PLANT i
========
276
283
285
292
293
297
299
302
310
321
326
334
348
354
357
417
423
428
430
433
438
449
451
458
468
492
494
508
522
529
543
544
567
592
605
607
618
TECNOLOGY COSTED
======
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
624 I CP
658 j CP
661
667
702
706
717
CP
PSES OPTION
3 = = :=i= = = = = = === =
SS
SS CN
SS AC CN
SS
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS AC
SS
SS CN
SS AC CN
SS
SS CN
SS CN
SS AC CN
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS
IVB
======
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
SKSSCXMS;
CH
CH
CB
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
VIII-B68
-------
PLANT tt
720
722
724
743
749
768
771
111
791
796
797
814
830
845
846
862
874
880
887
905
912
917
929
931
932
944
958
975
976
987
988
992
997
1006
1011
1018
1026
1047
1052
1053
1057
1064
1069
1076
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
TECNOLOGY COSTED
PSES OPTION IVB
SS
SS CN
SS
SS AC
SS
SS AC CN
AC
SS
SS AC CN
SS CN
AC
SS AC
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
AC
SS CN
SS
ss
SS
5TSS3SSS
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
= S!=:=;s3
1
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH 1
VIII-B69
-------
PLANT #
1083
1085
1086
1091
1094
1107
1117
1126
1162
1163
1172
1173
1175
1181
1188
1191
1194
1195
1197
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1236
1237
1249
1253
1255
1264
1277
1310
1313
1314
1320
' 1322
1326
: 1351
1352
1356
1357
1361
1371
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
TECNOLOGY COSTE1
PSES OPTION IVB
SS
SS
SS AC CN
AC
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS CN
SS
AC ,
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS
SS
AC
SS
AC
SS
SS
SS
SS CN
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS AC CN
SS
SS AC CN
)
BP |
BP CH
BP
BP
BP
CH
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP CH
CH
BP
I
BP |
BP CH
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP CH
BP
BP CH
BP
BP
BP
BP CH
BP
BP
BP
CH
VIII-B70
-------
PLANT #
1386
1426
1432
1433
1437
1450
1478
1504
1507
TECNOLOGY COSTED
PSES OPTION IVB
CP
CP
CP
CP
1528 |
1534 |
1535 |
1539 | CP
1548
1556
1560
1562
1564
1566
1575
1595
1601
1608
1621
1622
1628
1645
1653
1'6S7
1659
1666
1667
1706
1716
1718
1740
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
1742 1 CP
1743 | CP
1744
1748
1751
1764
1773
1788
CP
CP
CP
CP
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
VIII-B71
-------
PLANT I
1793
1797
1801
1805
1808
| 1812
j 1826
| 1832
| 1833
1838
1843
1848
1853
1861
' 1876
1887
1888
1891
1894
1899
1904
1924
1931
1936
1945
1948
1970
1971
1974
1988
1993
2001
2004
2007
2018
2022
2033
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
2037 CP
2050
. 2057
2070 CP
2075 CP
2080 CP
2084
TECNOLOGY COSTED
PSES OPTION IVB
SS AC CN
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS
SS
CN
SS CN
CN
SS AC CN
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS
SS
SS
AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS AC CN
AC
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
. BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
VIII-B72
-------
PLANT #
2093
2108
2117
2123
2129
2147
2176
2177
2184
TECNOLOGY COSTED
PSES OPTION IVB
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
2191
2214
2232 CP
2241 CP
2243 CP
2250 CP
2253
2259
2261
2262
2288
2293
2300
2311
2318
2341
2346
2348
2350
2359
2402
2411
2426
2432
2436
2442
2459
2462
2465
2469
2485
2487
2495
2498
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
2501 CP
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
BP
BP
AC CN BP
BP
CN BP
BP
CN BP
BP
AC CN BP
BP
AC BP
AC BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
AC BP
AC BP
BP
AC
AC BP
BP
AC CN BP
BP
BP
AC BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
VIII-B73
-------
I PLANT #
TECNOLOGY COSTED
PSES OPTION IVB
2507 j
2517 | CP
2521
2524
2539
| 2548
2565
2571
2578
2581
2608
2609
2634
2635
2636
2641
2642
2646
2647
2666
2677
2679
2685
2699
2714
2736
I 2741
2748
2756
2776
2779
2793
2794
2796
2805
2810
2814
4001
4003
4006
4007
4008
4009
4014
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
ss
ss
SS AC
SS AC CN
SS AC
AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS
AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS AC CN
SS
SS
AC
SS AC
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
VIII-B74
-------
PLANT #
4022
4023
4024 CP
4026 CP
4027 CP
4032 CP
4042
4043 CP
4044 CP
4046
4047
4048
4050
4052
4057
4064
4066
4070
4072
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
TECNOLOGY COSTED
PSES
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
OPTION IVB
AC CN
CN
AC CN
AC CN
CN
AC CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
NOTES:
CP- CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
SS- STEAM STRIPPING
AC- ACTIVATED CARBON
CN- CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
BP- BIOLOGICAL PACKAGE
CH- CONTRACT HAULING
V!I!-B75
-------
-------
APPENDIX VIII-C
BPT PLANT-BY-PLANT
BOD5 AND TSS LOADINGS
-------
-------
8PT LOADING REVISED(09/08/87)
LANT
1
12
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
22S
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
481
485
BOO CURRENT
(LBS/YR)
1155893
3728
329
262693
179109
127204
42645
46416
820642
2
15480
60950
120
11606
14810
91218
97877
309692
589
39897
5940
9138
61116
1156386
348166
4983
332631
2120
91260
6141
86996
6285
2635753
214748
21287
70066
475449
3003
24509
651372
4798
809417
743
33702
2386
15546074
130722
1182
181394
TSS CURRENT
(LBS/YR)
2896082
5385
526
208108
45508
127204
53611
21987
38868
2
39806
76623
41
68859
32313
414893
57722
653795
227
57150
9504
14621
29285
302237
630537
31146
208132
848
215114
1937
5385S
13122
-1732764
343597
19395
190178
713174
4063
51741
1601289
5757
1133184
1412
56170
3018
15065770
165324
94
290230
BOO OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
215936
2175
329
47762
1401
127204
29242
17101
30034
1
15480
41795
12
11606
14810
33839
4563
51615
12
22644
5940
9138
14642
394223
52088
4983
18057
2120
91260
841
66283
2316
256254
214748
12299
70066
475449
3003
24509
434248
2193
359741
743
32297
1123
19739
61516
91
181394
TSS OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
368361
3314
526
64820
2071
127204
42645
21987
37101
1
39806
60950
21
21664
32313
50023
7301
81110
14
35584
9504
14621
22282
302237
84985
29900
28511
848
202076
1243
53855
3529
390482
343597
17503
190178
713174
4063
51741
759934
3838
575586
1412
47744
1965
26318
107653
94
290230
BOO OPTION 3
(LBS/YR)
215936
2175
329
47762
1401
127204
29242
17101
30034
1
15480
41795
12
11606
14810
33839
4563
51615
12
22644
5940
9138
14642
394223
52088
4983
18057
2120
91260
841
66283
2316
256254
214748
12299
70066
475449
3003
24509
434248
2193
359741
743
32297
1123
19739
61516
91
181394
TSS OPTION 3
(LBS/YR)
133372
1486
345
22090
874
127204
15779
11970
11440
1
28638
22552
21
8395
14608
18023
2875
30969
14
13587
5405
8316
8022
170173
31664
11337
10644
848
73008
537
53855
1467
162294
165356
6623
112105
356587
1237
28593
284975
1631
1 195159
637
16710
860
9672
39024
53
143906
VIII-C1
-------
BPT LOADING REVISED(09/05/87)
PLANT
486
438
500
502
518
523
525
536
569
580
601
602
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
BOD CURRENT
(LBS/YR)
6985
7767
527625
822
2559
23470
29060
689
33476
96362
9894
114246
178512
270
33073
5730
70181
7995?
416946
10107
5864
6482
214334
148405
1165427
83
767610
331023
56048
91419
42876
36857
245209
665384
99716
12946
249976
548293
3290
161091
112126
7311
8407
171311
35356
96015
45996
87453
48012
TSS CURRENT
(LBS/YR)
9646
12428
850661
336
1691
31123
106552
22
32998
284805
6951
43631
236722
382
23237
8681
74568
132504
301927
67860
8209
4862
734859
148405
3030110
90
986927
468949
74324
8992
53596
50260
308262
396135
95184
139815
1341537
10646627
7566
423440
94684
10357
11350
136586
26684
187458
620942
23851
44631
BOO OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
3825
7767
215357
265
1873
12245
29060
356
9565
64242
1279
3155
81495
270
4277
3473
70181
43407
330681
10107
5864
2315
214334
148405
1165427
21
182764
79308
29242
34469
42876
31831
168143
928U
16997
12946
174983
73106
3290
73642
28654
7311
6726
28938
14009
91443
45996
22967
13525
TSS OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
5655
12428
344572
336
1691
17858
106552
22
15303
85656
1706
4243
128063
382
5702
5556
74568
68537
301927
39611
8209
3704
520525
148405
1864683
31
283285
117237
42645
8992
53596
50260
245209
120698
22663
82853
274973
97474
7566
128873
42359
10357
11350
40513
21347
146309
379464
23851
21639
BOO OPTION 3
(LBS/YR)
3825
7767
215357
265
1873
12245
29060
356
9565
64242
1279
3155
81495
270
4277
3473
70181
43407
330681
10107
S864
2315
214334
148405
1165427
21
182764
79308
29242
34469
42876
31831
168143
92844
16997
12946
174983
73106
3290
73642
28654
7311
6726
28938
14009
91443
459%
22967
13525
TSS OPTION 3
< LBS/YR)
2270
7068
131906
186,
656
6964
44074
22
6361
29979
702
1676
47539
173
2245
2856
44521
24787
166060
15160
8209
1661
155392
148405
611849
31
95951
41033
16205
8992
30014
19937
85823
42244
8329
36248
99157
34116
3915
45106
15698
4051
4708
15395
7705
56009
136837
11749
8757
VIII-C2
-------
BPT LOADING REVlSED(09/08/87)
LANT
9*8
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
114S
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
BOO CURRENT
(LBS/TR)
625054
17
1553
38167
57114
42688
44400
455
6092
58363
3970
21
35639
344084
127350
53367
41427
100886
83469
1162
167930
163533
10357
13872
2426
8529
32210
825
6796
18322
419931
38380
10040
390
55487
68975
35395
50662
1742
54592
206981
44124
178926
423983
14347
1010685
86630
507628
11021
TSS CURRENT
(LB8/YR>
1718898
21
2285
175569
91382
65972
58274
163
4280
107971
14225
27
85534
322579
318375
135642
110268
100886
275811
1066
208778
459450
15535
26973
3397
10722
32210
1651
7882
6230
297297
127935
45179
585
107892
136034
16434
69661
2178
60239
1002690
147080
271100
909511
22955
519781
29608
443021
26939
BOO OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
625054
8
1097
38167
57114
31046
36075
7
788
35018
3970
15
35639
247311
127350
35578
14012
100886
65324
678
90773
163533
7006
12330
2426
5848
21474
825
1051
2565
55743
38380
10040
390
49322
30656
35395
50662
1106
24472
15763
44124
108440
164122
14347
606411
8773
92296
11021
TSS OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
1562634
14
2193
91601
91382
54330
58274
9
1050
70035
9262
21
85534
322579
318375
62262
20713
100886
108873
1066
145237
256980
10357
21578
3397
8529
32210
1651
1401
4031
72466
127935
36394
585
86313
53647
16434
69661
1374
47062
23302
108839
173504
239345
22955
519781
15352
147674
22654
BOO OPTION 3
(LBS/YR)
625054
8
1097
38167
57114
31046
36075
7
788
35018
3970
15
35639
247311
127350
35578
14012
100886
65324
678
90773
163533
7006
12330
2426
5848
21474
825
1051
2565
55743
38380
10040
390
49322
30656
35395
50662
1106
24472
15763
44124
108440
164122
14347
606411
8773
92296
11021
TSS OPTION 3
(LBS/YR)
528691
14
896
33396
47976
20374
26223
9
404
25534
3705
21
85534
124193
318375
23348
7889
56803
43186
463
54010
89943
4478
8631
3397
3412
14092
1242
589
1881
31866
82838
13617
384
32368
20118
16434
69661
493
17789
8636
37064
72113
81377
12721
313312
6141
59762
8572
VIII-C3
-------
BPT LOADING 8£VISEO(09/08/S?)
PLANT
1572
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1670
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1776
1785
1794
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
BOO CURRENT
(LBS/YR)
475644
98936
1S0476
86143
300061
1011
255294
64918
132681
899614
13592
1
5173
572686
119982
2693
3412
6135
320
540982
196191
1178829
80416
2230
79959
143
162965
25619
128301
17363
12378
193803
152
29151
164488
9687
11482
46909
12611
528828
1974
229796
2010
162051
69831
20713
12184
15864
2601
TSS CURRENT
(LBS/YR)
665902
69511
141216
76761
346224
2781
27719
555408
629090
1489017
20598
1
8430
185518
183501
1822
20683
4036
512
1754537
143007
6247796
50260
3655
100520
141
322670
30743
28511
27780
6484
379359
335
46641
835598
12062
18371
34116
63054
3055453
2973
403543
3533
210666
87788
26196
25892
12276
2687
BOO OPTIO« 1
(LBS/YR)
211397
12793
60190
13646
73861
1011
8039
57705
68628
620424
3503
1
4407
92759
119982
1624
3412
2583
320
438634
18910
1178829
80416
841
52545
40
52149
11712
121173
17363
2554
94840
152
29151
138170
4935
11482
38380
12611
352552
390
75664
1218
109384
47884
9747
11423
1511
981
TSS OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
327666
17058
85656
23881
129257
2781
10533
100983
91504
992678
5044
1
6514
137122
183501
1822
5011
4036
512
584846
33093
4243786
50260
1243
77675
62
91260
20495
28511
27780
4912
140198
335
46641
210544
6945
18371
34116
63054
587587
682
106491
1949
149897
69831
17058
15230
2644
1450
BOO OPTION 3
(LBS/YR)
21 1397
12793
60190
13646
73861
1011
8039
57705
68628
620424
3503
1
4407
92759
119982
1624
3412
2583
320
438634
18910
1178829
80416
841
52545
40
52149
11712
121173
17363
2554
94840
152
29151
138170
4935
11482
38380
12611
352552
390
75664
1218
109384
47884
9747
11423
1511
981
TSS OPTIOM 3
(LBS/YR)
107284
6567
29979
9552
46856
2781
3978
39131
32026
325722
2011
1
2414
46581
76577
582
,1530
1978
336
189344
12823
1320289
50260
537
27986
29
33082
9479
28511
15395
1994
47626
335
25167
78296
2815
10181
24627
42666
205655
281
37272
938
53882
25838
6610
6130
1025
657
VIH-C4
-------
BPT LOADING REVISED(09/08/87)
PLANT
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
BOO CURRENT
(LBS/YR)
28493
273074
171603
26790
3485
460
37040
4264
125742
37528
943520
80767
14073
155130
382270
10308
221784
777
1553
29608
24714
329999
35913
137
176824
19967
24490
98760
1621
38722
37759
163940
59462
19238
421738
357913
3779565
66417
685
101861
542444
338
94428
193852
50748
357024
42036
47519
495748
TSS CURRENT
(IBS/YR)
189953
15840
205311
69655
30491
161
42828
5117
167656
140728
2012844
11225
768
368434
485422
37796
347462
1243
2486
125011
18105
2773886
167595
219
282919
38883
14204
34451
4862
82975
86846
138992
70474
16200
258962
274146
787409
22699
1097
114593
1288305
68
264399
338114
74629
1027130
67257
67014
1118974
BOO OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
28493
8870
33708
26790
3485
52
17363
1949
125742
37528
465470
457
6141
155130
42474
3436
140463
777
1553
26318
1101
37869
35913
137
176824
19967
11266
4417
1621
38722
24543
71278
39642
9788
207169
175149
20774
6726
685
101861
293824
338
94428
112705
50748
16478
42036
28024
269120
TSS OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
132967
12038
50562
69655
24393
88
23150
3412
167656
131347
553532
594
768
339348
64723
5011
229177
1243
2486
46057
1928
51393
95768
219
282919
32578
14204
6184
4862
71912
33983
114045
66069
13163
258962
258916
26805
11770
1097
114593
406833
68
264399
162295
74629
25894
67257
41427
439091
BOO OPTION 3
(LBS/YR)
28493
8870
33708
26790
3485
52
17363
1949
125742
37528
465470
457
6141
155130
42474
3436
140463
777
1553
26318
1101
37869
35913
137
176824
19967
11266
4417
1621
38722
24543
71278
39642
9788
207169
175149
20774
6726
685
101861
293824
338
94428
112705
50748
16478
42036
28024
269120
TSS OPTION 3
(LBS/YR)
48201
4546
19305
46883
9452
43
8508
1365
96821
47613
149705
267
768
115378
25485
1804
82800
779
1522
17271
843
17988
33519
150
140281
12506
6343
2473
4862
31945
13216
43658
23124
5079
95816
103947
9616
4708
704
114593
130526
68
264399
59959
36568
9612
35310
' 13646
153682
VIH-C5
-------
BPT LOADING REV1SEOC09/08/87)
PLANT
2SS1
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2647
2660
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4018
4O21
4037
4040
4051
4055
BOO CURRENT
(LBS/YR)
437949
33690
18002
38984
107222
27543
10418
275962
7164
131344
2
25203
466548
472890
242952
138901
532008
42764
277915
16083
12184
166346
212540
42901
212127
53123
165463
23150
42645
5020
115141
254457
868
378030
36906
199822
61317
128483 '
83669
83057
3442
2559
6230
1386
3564
9540
320
TSS CURRENT
(LBS/YR)
99378
29839
108014
13324
123975
22535
53184
121462
5821
364843
2
39605
466548
639181
263628
196776
3323495
38953
337719
8712
70060
100581
136025
154750
159149
139449
109323
81025
137073
9726
13981
1-7978
1389
259895
78071
459591
355641
14201
63712
239640
17210
4094
7120
4435
4825
33568
512
BOO OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
28100
15401
18002
3948
50260 .
27543
10418
28179
7164
58375
1
25203
445342
83146
155075
138901
9065
12279
56287
7707
12184
46422
204038
30643
6676
53123
59094
23150
42645
5020
20561
38722
868
94507
36906
199822
22297
16229
15352
31317
3442
2559
4747
1386
384
5654
320
TSS OPTION 1
(LBS/YR)
32212
26952
108014
6908
67014
22535
17545
37896
5821
116750
1
39605
466548
150701
206767
196776
15864
16513
98501
8712
70060
67699
136025
49030
8614
139449
91595
81025
88336
9726
13981
17978
1389
151212
56779
459591
35676
14201
24564
46294
17210
4094
7120
4435
585
9894
512
BOO OPTION 3
(LBS/YR)
28100
15401
18002
3948
50260
27543
10418
28179
7164
58375
1
25203
445342
83146
155075
138901
9065
12279
56287
7707
12184
46422
204038
30643
6676
53123
59094
23150
42645
5020
20561
38722
868
94507
36906
199822
22297
16229
15352
31317
, 3442
2559
4747
1386
384
5654
320
TSS OPTION 3
(LBS/YR)
8875
10444
58807
2850
24627
22535
7292
13944
5821
40862
1
19532
252360
52741
72369
66846
6147
6224
38169
4456
31984.
24372
98193
18769
3015
65076
33093
56718
33050
4722
11226
17978
871
61194
19873
223801
14437
7810
9941
15726
9638
2448
3427
4435
275
3957
336
61488963
99587031 19758290 33319780
VIII-C6
19758290
13602190
-------
APPENDIX VIII-D
BAT AND PSIS PLANT-BY-PLANT
TOXIC POLLUTANT WASTEWAfER LOADINGS
-------
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING PLANT BY PLANT
DIRECT DISCHARGERS (PART A ONLY)
IBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
PLANT
NUMBER
15
76
105
112
190
205
301
306
408
446
451
485
488
511
518
586
611
814
877
956
973
1033
1167
1249
1285
1342
1348
1520
1524
1670
1724
1785
1877
1910
1937
2030
2047
2193
2281
2292
2316
2322
2419
2429
2481
2537
2624
2660
CURRENT LOAD
< LBS/YR)
70.8
5051.9
7279.4
0.7
1278.7
1967.2
46229.3
.
289.0
701.7
3652.2
39049.0
776.1
628.3
28.6
12.6
7.2
34376.5
196.3
0.5
12295.0
1.5
2.5
680.6
.
.
59.7
3088.5
1316.0
0.1
68.9
8285.9
3737.7
6275.4
2471 .8
37344.7
1688.0
2.9
167.2
334.4
29.5
38065.4
1009.0
147.5
8870.3
1255.4
0.1
3730.0
RAH HASTE LOAD
(LBS/YR)
18399
1022155
1460711
48
332200
511077
12010318
547045
4422
242237
10144886
56924
1189227
8284
23785
2041
5876511
S5323
31
3194234
511
4757
74237
.
.
20443
802391
31882
26
17888
695794
971047
1630337
642169
1673545
38001
192
43442
86883
7666
9889347
24443
38331
2350956
15060
250
1051133
BAT LOAD
OPT I
70.8
3934.4
5467.4
0.7
1278.7
1967.2
46229.3
289.0
133.0
3652.2
39049.0
776.1
628.3
18.4
12.6
7.2
21956.1
196.3
0.5
12295.0
1.5
2.5
631.1
.
.
59.7
3088.5
802.9
0.1
68.9
5776.2
3737.7
6275.4
2471.8
5729.7
1230.3
2.9
167.2
334.4
29.5
38065.4
615.6
147.5
8870.3
438.5
0.1
3730.0
BAT LOAD
OPT II
55. 8
3101.2
4367.9
0.7
1007.9
1550.6
36439.6
,
289.0
127.9
3652.2
30779.8
688.4
628.3
18.3
12.6
6.0
17532.7
163.9
0.5
9691 .4
1.5
2.5
563.9
.
.
59.7
2434.5
802.9
0.1
54.3
5146.1
2946.2
4946.5
1948.4
4470.0
1186.2
2.9
131.8
263.6
23.3
30004.5
615.6
116.3
6954.0
438,5
0.1
3113.3
BAT LOAD
OPT III
46.9
2603.4
3711.0
0.7
846.1
1301.7
30590; 2
.
235.5
124.8
3481.3
25839.0
653.0
512.0
14.9
10.2
4.0
14889.8
108.0
0.4
8135.7
1.2
2.0
516.4
.
.
49.8
2043.7
800.4
0.1
45.6
4750.4
2473.3
4152.5
1635.6
3717.4
1159.1
2.8
110.6
221.3
19.5
25188.1
613.7
97.6
5821.8
437.4
0.1
2051.3
VIII-D1
-------
SUMMATION FOR HATER LOADING - Pi.AMT BY PLANT
DIRECT DISCHARGERS (PART A ONLY)
OBS PLANT CURRENT LOAD RAU UASTE LOAD BAT LOAD BAT LOAD BAT LOAD
NUMBER (LBS/.YR) CLBS/YR) OPT I OPT II OPT ill
49 2739 20523 898783 7100 6285 5810
50 2781 87 6362 87 77 73
51 4005 201 380553 2<51 201 164
52 . 4018 551 143102 551 434 364
53 4055 69 17888 69 54 46
54 4058 38 71354 38 38 . 31
293992 58328628 228285 183431 155508
VIII-D2
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOWING PUNT BY PLANT
DIRECT DISCHARGERS (FULL RESPONSE}
BS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
PLANT
NUMBER
1
12
33
61
63
83
87
102
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
225
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
352
373
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
447
481
486
500
502
523
525
536
569
580
601
602
CURRENT LOAD
UBS/YR)
481
10
2505
1160
8520
375
272
9
1340
2861
3390
11
492
0
147
24
2151
41
133
4
995
10
9799
6287
4376
^46
5
1766
134482
8
446
541970
9
76033
11
540
1026
0
42
2731
1
123
576
8
101
386
6
1
RAW WASTE LOAD
CLBS/YR)
4457
82683
379937
86386
4071186
14642
84657
468
1374
2924
382927
2631
161404
2
43112
316037
64319
765
33715
80150
542959
3197
12405
6388
16008439
189957
1822
683867
6994631
213591
30199
541996
1352
6078568
9252
2918
3192
0
18323
1725797
18
210897
7710
641
18309
10452
87
1
BAT LOAD
OPT I
481
9
2505
14
8520
119
8
9
1340
2861
1258
11
98
0
95
6
99
41
133
4
992
2
9663
46
1814
34
5
1766
134468
8
446
14901
5
25344
11
483
2
0
31
1226
1
81
104
8
101
274
6
1
BAT LOAD
OPT H
480.fi
9.0
2504.7
13.8
8519.9
118.6
7.9
9.4
1340.0
2860.6
937.8
11.3
97.6
0.0
95.0
6.3
98.9
40.9
132.8
4.1
991.6
2.2
9663.2
45.8
1814.4
33.8
5.1
1766.0
24266.5
7.9
446.5
14900.9
5.3
14357.0
. 11.4
482.6
1.7
0.0
31.2
1226.1
0.8
80.5
104.1
4.9
100.7
274.4
6.0
0.7
8&T LOAD
6ft III
249.8
8.0
1398.3
13.8
6519.9
110.0
7.9
9.4
1324.1
2826.7
857.1
7.7
96.9
0.0
93.4
6.3
70.7
40.9
132.8
4.0
976.2
2.2
9495.2
44.9
1814.4
33.8
3.1
1738.5
24266.5
7.9
446.5
14719.8
5.3
11353.7
8.0
482.6
1.7
0.0
30.5
1071.1
0.6
80.5
61.1
4.6
69.3
233.8
5.7
0.7
V11I-D3
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING PLANT BY PLANT
DIRECT DISCHARGERS (FULL RESPONSE)
DBS
49
SO
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80*
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
PLANT
NUMBER
608
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
883
888
908
909
913
915
938
942
948
962
970
984
, 990
991
992
1012
1020
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
CURRENT LOAD
(LBS/YR)
6994.8
0.2
87.7
481.9
2696.0
39.9
33.1
79.4
650.6
982.1
7408.5
0.2
625.3
74.8
170.3
36.3
139.8
96.3
8542.7
851.2
130.8
5670.1
23.4
12.8
408.4
557.9
0.2
3.2
1815.8
68034.7
4280.0
47.0
597.2
181.4
5180.6
5.?
96.4
58.1
1214.1
0.0
69.5
2703.8
11.1
3772.8
87.6
231.2
162.6
9843.9
RAW WASTE LOAD
CLBS/YR)
158229
95
263
224825
2103554
3012
3600
79
207545
102024
488350
292
1101
43357
314919
39
118033
2706
468870
24127
18575
103539
523
3908
57095
50551
50
7
38310
68040
2092956
1802
10184
56740 .
2147255
399
79461
3628
2749
5
954
573299
33
3773
564
32687
186786
9844
BAT LOAD
OPT 1
3345.32
0.19
87.72
219.06
1673.36
39.93
33.06
6.46
604.08
982.07
5981.93
0.23
111.66
74.81
170.28
13.09
139.79
96.32
1324.18
183.78
130.85
4403.77
23.37
12.80
140.03
142.58
0.10
3.21
338.73
635.59
4279.97
46.97
174.93
47.87
4985.87
3.67
77.15
39.66
1214.07
0.00
13.18
1081.53
11.10
3583.55
87.61
231.19
162.56
291.96
BAT LOAD
OPT II
1292.62
0.19
87.72
219.06
1673.36
39.93
33.06
6.46
604.08
982.07
5981.93
0.23
111.66
74.81
170.28
13.09
139.79
96.32
781.41
183.78
130.85
4373.56
23.37
12.80
140.03
142.58
0.10
3.21
338.73
624.76
1829.20
46.97
174.93
47.87
4985.87
.3.67
77.15
58.10
1209.94
0.00
13.18
1081.53
11.10
3583.55
87.61
231.19
162.56
291.96
BAT LOAD
OPT III
648.73
0.19
87.72
219.06
1652.70
39.93
33.06
6.46
604.08
966.81
5061.64
0.19
111.66
74.81
119.77
13.09
139.79
63.02
558.87
176,71
128.00
3736.54
23.37
12.80
140.03
67.29
0.10
3.21
334.55
613.92
1154.35
29.06
174.93
47.87
4061.30
3.67
77.15
36.89
1113.36
0.00
6.52
1081.53
11.10
3583.55
87.61
231.19
162.56
288:24
VIII-D4
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING - PLANT BY PLANT
DIRECT DISCHARGERS (FULL RESPONSE}
DBS
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
PLANT
NUNBER
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1522
1532
1569
1572
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1753
1766
1769
1774
CURRENT LOAD
(LBS/YR)
40
822
3
129
1214
3
1
17
69
0
12
7
14
200
627
33
600
109
458
1
386
650
828
30
3563
0
2543
949
6423
225
55
92
8
19
75
1598
5902
16
3
10635
1295
2
18
36
6353
72
109922
31233
RAW WASTE LOAD
(LBS/YR)
379859
208985
811
1665
26267
720
1
51
2651
848
12
34492
37920
50714
296026
3305
78264
443
195210
6561
624
385527
380402
24045
861158
0
117168
1891
2316834
17216
1059
6923
2049
1688
2895
4715
345099
58
226700
1512743
336809
5307
39195
15672
607590
3852
1346145
2606334
BAT LOAD
OPT I
40
751
3
70
1098
3
0
17
69
0
1
2
4
200
627
33
250
109
458
1
133
54
583
26
1207
0
954
73
6423
94
10
20
8
1
75
1526
4249
16
3
1498
1295
1
18
21
774
7
109922
31233
BAT LOAD
OPT II
39.5
750.6
2.8
69.9
678.2
2.7
0.1
17.1
69.1
0.1
1.3
1.1
2.4
200.0
626.6
33.0
250.1
108.5
458.3
1.0
133.2
53.8
583.2
26.1
1206.8
0.0
654.4
73.0
6423.0
93.5
9.7
19.9
8.0
0.7
_ 75.5
1526.3
4249.4
16.3
3.0
1497.9
1295.3
0.9
8.2
21.0
774.0
6.5
94767.3
5472.9
BAT LOAD
OPT III
39.5
724.0
2.7
69.9
221.1
2.4
0.0
17.1
42.8
0.1
1.3
1.0
2.1
195.1
598.1
29.3
250.1
108.5
450.3
1.0
133.2
34.7
180.3
26.1
499.6
0.0
587.8
35.2
6423.0
67.3
9.7
19.9
8.0
0.7
46.7
1453.6
4249.4
9.5
3.0
1497.9
1274.1
0.9
4.5
21.0
735.5
6.5
84815.7
5472.9
VIII-D5
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING - PLANT BY PLANT
DIRECT DISCHARGERS (FULL RESPONSE)
DBS
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175-
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
PLANT
NUMBER
1794
1839
1869
1881
1890
1911
1928
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2296
2307
2313
2315
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
CURRENT LOAD
(LBS/YR)
0.2
50.3
938.4
33.8
803.6
3929,1
0.3
168.5
330.6
17704.2
7.6
210.1
0.2
235.5
89.9
95.9
35.4
21499.6
1062.8
76.2
580.2
104.9
20.6
1247.9
856.6
2303.6
43.7
323.4
512.2
454.5
1505.5
3362.9
112.9
6.2
432.5
282.8
27.6
153.0
8.9
67.6
4.3
3.8
43.1
510.9
0.5
965.8
2.6
1.4
RAW WASTE LOAD
(LBS/YR)
281
50
194506
6004- ,
846831
92287
46
6431
170013
43993
86
892825
20
4407
1061
35066
189095
21501
992277
9397
306063
15429
1297
266248
716885
713042
2510
91482
10575
2398
717634
208079
3837
2235
102349
106252
1361
211441
478
58814
20
73896
457
264836
118
21542
1248
4089
BAT LOAD
OPT I
0.2
50.3
611.1
7.0
363.3
3300.4
0.3
168.5
330.6
17704.2
7.6
69.2
0.2
164.9
89.9
95.9
25.0
3716,9
44.4
16.3
580.2
104.9
10.6
1247.9
856.6
230.2
0.5
182.3
512.2
57.7
501.8
2017.8
112.9
6.2
432.5
282.8
27.6
79.6
8.9
67.6
4-.3
3.1
20.6
264.9
0.5
370.3
2.6
1.4
BAT LOAD
OPT 11
0.2
50.3
611.1
7.0
363.3
3300.4
0.3
168.5
330.6
17704.2
7.6
69.2
0.2
96.7
69.3
95.9
8.3
3716.9
44.4
16.3
580.2
104.9
10.6
719.6
856.6
209.3
0.5
182.3
512.2
57.7
501.8
2017.8
112.9
6.2
432.5
282.8
27.6
79.6
8.9
67.6
4.3
3.1
20.6
264.9
0.5
370.3
2.6
1.4
BAT LOAD
OPT 114
0.2
. 50.3
611.1
7.0
363.3
3266.2
0.2
110.3
330.6
17593.5
7.6
69.2
0.2
34.1
63.6
95.9
5.1
3716.9
44.4
16.3
580.2
104.9
10.6
665.6
856.6
209.3
0.5
182.3
512.2
45.6
244.6
1984.7
69.9
3.8
237,1
282.8
27.6
79.6
5.6
67.6
4.3
3.1
20.6
206.1
0.5
266.8
2.6
1.4
VIJI-D6
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING PLANT BY PLANT
DIRECT DISCHARGERS (FULL RESPONSE)
DBS
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
PLANT
NUMBER
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2527
2528
2531
2536
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2647
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4021
4037
4040
4051
CURRENT LOAD
CLBS/YR)
2414.8
21498.4
6.3
1373.1
36030.2
87.4
3332.9
16920.6
1886.7
223.1
441.6
1497.7
1502.1
3.5
1067.5
2.6
1381.1
0.0
107.1
6293.0
167.2
30.7
46.2
498.9
147.3
14.7
28.9
5250.3
1952.0
21.4
263.8
0.0
177.9
0.6
1267.2
981.8
44S2.6
965.6
805.3
120.8
635.4
226.8
20.7
44.5
160.7
129.9
20.1
43.2
1303948
RAW WASTE LOAD
(LBS/tR)
830000
147779
14
126872
36030
105955
37038
64307
171981
175406
507421
1255397
1951575
2220
24584
4424
109529
0
2700
1589667
13288015
349
|299
2825
295060
852
29
854806
1431692
79208
2656
0
34588
1
170004
982
512879
226709
31078
1516
386205
101161
1837
1708
323
27958
70961
1151
sassssftsss:
93517424
BAT LOAD
OPT I
2369.55
2296.20
6.33
1373.05
53.89
87.40
161.15
7809.50
862.48
9.08
441.62
865.88
1502.06
3.46
131.56
2.58
371.49
0.00
107.09
6268.73
167.20
30.7&
41.23
101.03
85.90
14.66
10.69
5250.28
1603.44
4.99
263.80
0.00
177.91
0.64
271.54
19.41
1391 .45
965.58
805.29
57.11
66.89
226.78
20.66
44.54
145.41
129.94
4.22
10.57
482031
BAT LOAD
OPT 11
2369.55
952.34
6.33
1373.05
53.89
87.40
161.15
7809.50
862.48
9.08
441.62
865.88
1502.06
3.46
131.56
1.24
371.49
0.00
107.09
5116.57
..W.20
30.70
41.23
101.03
85.90
14.66
10.69
3057.12
698.17
4.99
263.80
0.00
177.91
0.64
271.54
19.41
757.61
965.58
805.29
57.11
66.89
226.78
20.66
44.54
145.41
129.94
2.18
10.57
306914
BAT LOAD
OPT III
2363.64
740.71
6.33
1339.56
53.89
87.40
146.50
7809.50
' 853.94
9.08
441.62
865.88
1152.61
3.46
131.56
0.44
371 .49
0.00
75. 8V
3383.81
167.20
30.70
41.23
101.03
42.22
14.66
10.69
2488.53
491.07
4.99
263.80
0.00
177.91
0.64
271.54
11.42
576.21
928.45
710.55
57.11
66.89
161 .50
20.66
27.55
145.41
129.94
1.93
10.57
:ss;s~ss
280752
VI I!-07
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING -- PLANT BY PLANT .
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING - PLANT BY PLANT
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS (PART A ONLY)
OBS
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
PLANT
NUMBER
1386
1450
1478
1560
1575
1608
1622
1659
1664
1666
1716
1744
1751
1793
1808
1812
1843
1848
1876
1888
1894
1931
1988
2007
2033
2037
2129
2153
2250
2253
2262
2311
2318
2446
2465
2469
2497
2498
2505
2517
2524
2539
2548
2642
2677
4006
4009
4024
CURRENT LOAD
(LBS/YR)
1
1651
6347
7053
80
91685
131222
34442
2640
9338
142464
7053
159
5642
5
1
0
2821
69116
1
46548
19979
.
23979
25
6840
9376
0
4208
.
1673
2920
12
18337
319
.
24768
0
33273
5633
7330
767329
0
54004
49369
5
2939
RAW WASTE LOAD
(LBS/YR)
165
1651
6347
7053
80
91685
231164
34442
437265
9338
142464
7053
159
5642
1486
80
1
2821
69116
226
46548
19979
23979
1004
6840
9376
0
4208
,
«
1673
29721
1730
18337
319
.
24768
3
33273
5633
7330
767329
106
54004
49369
846
2939
PSES LOAD
OPT IV
0.52
5.24
38.32
42.58
1.96
553.52
615.29
563.01
2639.85
152.64
860.08
42.58
3.92
34.06
4.71
0.58
0.02
17.03
417.27
1.36
281.02
63.37
.
144.77
24.71
48.98
153.26
0.00
30.14
.
m
41.19
50.96
12.39
110.70
7.85
»
78.55
0.10
238.29
40.34
180.45
4632.51
0.33
358.56
298.05
5.11
9.32
VI11-09
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING PLANT BY PLANT
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS (PART A ONLY)
OSS PLANT CURRENT LOAD RAW WASTE LOAD PSES LOAD
NUMBER (LBS/YR) (LBS/YR) OPT IV
97 4026 169264 169264 1021.9
98 4031
99 4048 0 89 0.3
100 4050 430 430 10.6
101 4052 . 2 495 1.6
102 4057 57 57 1.9
103 4064 0 71 0.4
104 4066 7 1128 6.8
105 4070 10898 10898 34.6
106 4072 4021 4021 49.9
5369025 5954336 35573.9
VIII-D10
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING - PLANT BY PLANT
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS (FULL RESPONSE)
IBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
PLANT
NUMBER
5
30
49
52
58
79
88
93
94
111
119
120
122
143
158
162
163
166
199
203
209
214
220
232
240
244
249
257
266
276
283
285
292
297
310
321
354
357
417
423
428
430
438
458
492
494
522
529
CURRENT LOAD
(LBS/YR)
199
62
506
63
304
3159
b
16
4010
0
3393.
1929
496
1296
0
0
1703
7
449
151
0
29261
2002
44129
355842
1
4624
1025928
25
253005
2598
0
194
112
1706
145
45307
0
3737
131655
3
1727732
5393
689649
4458
19042
610
23
RAW WASTE LOAD
(LBS/YR)
199
62
506
63
304
3159
55
22
4010
167
3393
1929
496
1296
4
12
1703
7
449
151
51
29261
2002
44129
355842
331
4624
1025928
25
253005
2598
19
194
112
1706
145
45307
10
3737
131655
1869
1727732
5393
689649
4458
19042
610
23
PSES LOAD
OPT IV
3.38
2.18
24.35
1.35
17.70
4.76
0.12
1.09
6.56
0.03
0.35
21.12
0.17
1.37
0.01
0.09
81.20
0.60
28.55
1.73
0.02
123.21
1.30
192.77
661.76
0.89
7.14
30.67
6.62
1105.21
195.52
0.00
5.19
2.98
1.64
0.65
235.27
0.04
6.43
625.12
3.43
3304.60
26.36
462.56
10.86
299.77
24.79
0.77
VIII-D11
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING PLANT BY PLANT
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS (FULL RESPONSE)
DBS
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
,64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
PLANT
NUMBER
543
592
624
661
667
702
706
717
720
722
724
743
771
791
830
845
862
874
880
887
912
929
931
944
958
975
976
997
1006
1018
1047
1053
1069
1076
1086
1094
1107
1117
1162
1163
1172
1173
1181
1188
1194
1195
1202
1219
CURRENT LOAD
ass/tR)
355768
14757
266174
3302
0
13139
4076
2500
17321
67092
2453
3089
2799
3300
40
5
61759
2565
0
13665
0
12
0
58
1
58590
1429
676
182
48
42677
3973
4168977
0
822
3
1150
621
3459
1398
976896
150
9265
31122
615
24
3564
1910
RAW WASTE LOAD
CLBS/YR)
355768
14757
266174
3302
0
13139
4076
2500
17321
67092
2453
3089
2799
3300
40
5
61759
2565
2
13665
94
25
27
58
1
58590
1429
676
182
48
42677
3973
4168977
9
822
3
1150
621
3459
1398
976896
150
9265
31122
615
24
3564
1910
PSES LOAD
OPT IV
0.47
12.58
2704.09
2.01
0.00
8.61
0.55
73.24
75.66
5486.73
1.62
15.61
13.93
0.40
0.07
3.21
132.43
83.99
0.24
27.08
0.10
0.29
0.14
0.38
0.10
144.27
41.59
0.05
0.27
43.84
41.54
2.52
4433.45
0.15
24.09
1.59
5.04
0.40
113.29
25.70
74.04
0.23
2.39
173.27
0.78
0.04
3.14
732.03
VHI-D12
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING - PUNT BY PLANT
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS (FULL RESPONSE)
DBS
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
PLANT
NUMBER
1220
1223
1224
1234
1237
1253
1255
1277
1310
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351
1356
1426
1432
1433
1437
1504
1507
1528
1534
1535
1539
1548
1554
1562
1564
1566
1595
1601
1621
1628
1645
1653
1657
1667
1706
1718
1740
1748
1764
1773
1788
1797
1801
1805
CURRENT LOAD
CLBS/VR)
653
1323
159
1296
439
26
220
9805
2804
6
815
3956
1974
6992
176
53
422865
0
96493
265127
51596
1033
18099
0
9006
0
266
19774.
0
0
16095
262681
8523
26106
127
244684
35414
193038
91113
209
9202
325669
73054
29690
2035
12
29
1102
RAW WASTE LOAD
(LBS/YR)
653
1323
159
1296
439
26
220
9805
2804
6
815
3956
1974
6992
176
53
422865
37
96493
265127
51596
1033
18099
4
9006
28
266
19774
186
18
16095
262681
8523
26106
127
244684
35414
193038
91113
209
9202
325669
73054
29690
2035
2616799
29
1102
PSEST LOAD
OPT- IV
1.50
13.01
10.22
123.48
2.14
0.52
32.15
21.14
113.86
0.01
0.21
11.85
8.39
4.97
4.42
0.22
107.65
0.03
40.68
6.14
42.16
0.56
58.23
0.01
58.23
0.02
1.01
305.58
0.49
0.01
28.28
9.09
186.16
13.75
3.54
1068.86
90.08
16.48
487.91
0.55
438.77
1411.58
6.75
0.12
9.28
11.52
0.95
16.60
VII1-D13
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING - PLANT BY PLANT
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS (FULL RESPONSE)
08S
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
PLANT
NUMBER
1826
1832
1833
1838
1853
1861
1891
1899
19Cf4
1924
1936
1945
1948
1970
1971
1974
1993
2001
2004
2018
2022
2050
2057
2070
2075
2084
2093
2108
2117
2147
2177
2184
2191
2214
2232
2241
2243
2259
2261
2288
2293
2300
2341
2348
2350
2359
2432
2436
CURRENT LOAD
(LBS/YR)
99
433
149322
912
90186
4652
1923
42272
43139
3429
15
74
368
28
195
134
8046
49
334
19967
0
0
2055
81494
4148
9571
12395
2
648
0
264269
123351
276
12
17172
173414
157030
6905
55858
14
4225
37754
3397
296
5887
2
10
8217
RAW WASTE LOAD
(LBS/YR)
99
433
149322
912
90186
4652
1923
42272
74036
3429
15
74
368
28
195
134
8046
49
334
19967
1
814
2055
81494
4148
9571
12395
2268059
648
0
264269
123351
276
10112
17172
173414
157030
6905
55858
14
4225
37754
3397
296
5887
2
10
8217
PSES LOAD
OPT IV
3.46
0.62
3.96
1.21
247.01
126.27
141.54
4.21
1590.05
14.98
3.76
1.32
1.38
0.11
5.57
2.21
3.37
1.33
17.82
30.05
0.00
0.32
9.78
852.71
26.00
14.61
275.85
2.49
0.53
0.00
1154.41
3.74
0.85
11.86
85.10
126.80
4682.75
12.55
1197.76
0.10
0.72
1893.43
565.03
3.58
14.54
0.02
0.82
362.72
VIII-D14
-------
SUMMATION FOR WATER LOADING - PLANT BY PLANT
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS (FULL RESPONSE)
DBS
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
PLANT
NUMBER
2442
2459
2462
2485
2487
2495
2501
2507
2521
2565
2571
2578
2608
2609
2634
2635
2636
2641
2646
2666
2685
2699
2714
2736
2741
2745
2748
2756
2776
2779
2793
2796
2810
4007
4008
4014
4022
4023
4027
4042
4047
CURRENT LOAD
(LBS/YR)
156
31270
616
326315
16976
3170
730
2097
0
1514
2
0
0
13661
64
19227
82
2137
164852
20
50003
2
21
1445
9156
35
61636
7171
1622
7198
27892
35595
0
1009693
606680
4
1
690579
8098
3355
22369
RAW WASTE LOAD
(LBS/YR)
156
31270
616
326315
16976
3170
730
2097
3
1514
2725
26
196
13661
64
19227
82
2137
164852
316
50003
2
21
1445
9156
6768
61636
7171
1622
7198
27892
35595
316
1009693
606680
4
1
690579
8098
3355
22369
sasrsjxssss:
PSES LOAD
OPT IV
3.8
1.5
20.2
154.1
95.5
70.6
0.5
8.3
0.1
101.0
1.7
0.0
0.2
65.7
7.0
283.5
0.3
19.5
135.2
0.9
218.4
0.1
0.4
104.1
31.6
35.3
56.9
563.8
31.0
34.9
10.0
102.0
0.0
5.1
291.7
0.2
0.4
3016.7
15.5
5.0
3.9
SSSSS3S33
17199515
22139400
45804.6
VUI-D15
-------
-------
APPENDIX VIII-E
BAT AND PSIS PLANT-BY-PLANT
AIR EMISSION LOADINGS
-------
-------
SUHHATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL INDIRECT DISCHARGERS--PART A
(PLANT BY PLANT)
IBS
1
2
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ir
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
PLANT
22
51
71
72
110
149
161
196
206
221
262
293
326
334
433
468
508
544
605
607
618
658
749
768
777
796
797
987
1026
1052
1057
1064
1083
1085
1091
1126
1191
1197
1236
1264
1313
1352
1357
1361
1386
1450
1478
CURRENT
LOADING
CLBS/TR)
3175.3
28741 .3
21.6
1197.3
897.9
4119.5
25334.4
56284.8
1190.7
25162.4
2395.3
34715.8
4790.2
329.0
11496.5
9043.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
98.1
0.7
8414.4
480.9
359.1
0.0
0.0
16.3
57.1
0.7
829.7
39.2
0.0
66.2
280.2
1362.0
61075.2
981.0
27.2
10812.6
599.0
39.4
45.0
196.3
23472.0
0.0
39.4
538.9
PSES
OPTION IV
LOAD I NO
43.9
342.8
21.6
14.5
10.7
49.1
180.3
671.6
16.5
379.2
28.2
404.4
57.6
4.8
136.9
108.3
1.4
0.0
0.0
6.1
0.7
117.0
16.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.6
0.7
27.5
0.6
0.0
2.2
2.9
44.6
729.1
10.7
0.8
162.8
7.2
0.5
0.6
2.7
280.5
0.0
0.5
7.1
VIII-E1
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL INDIRECT DISCHARGERS--PART A
(PLANT BY PLANT)
DBS
48
49
SO
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
BO
81
82
83
84
85
86
J7
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
PLANT
1560
1575
1608
1622
1659
1664
1666
1716
1744
1751
1793
1808
1812
1843
1848
1876
1888
1894
1931
2007
2033
2037
2129
2153
2250
2311
2318
2446
2465 .
2469
2498
2505
2517
2524
2539
2548
2642
2677
4006
4009
4024
4026
4048
4050
4052
4057
4C64
CURRENT
LOADING
(LBS/YR)
599.0
12.0
7784.1
5556.6
294.3
443.3
79.8
12095.3
599.0
24.1
479.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
239.4
5868.0
0.0
3951.8
480.2
2035.9
5.1
765.9
80.1
0.0
471.2
252.6
567.8
3.0
1557.2
48.1
595.4
o.o
3725.9
630.9
1106.3
65146.9
0.0
6312.9
4191.3
0.8
70.7
14370.5
0.0
65.0
0.0
45.4
0.0
PSES
OPTION IV
LOADING
7.2
0.3
93.0
77.2
18.3
443.3
5.0
144.6
7.2
0.7
5.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.6
70.5
0.0
47.6
6.6
24.3
5.1
11.5
5.0
0.0
7.1
8.3
9.8
3.0
18.3
1.7
8.2
0.0
56.1
9.7
36.7
777.6
0.0
14.8
50.4
0.8
0.9
171.9
0.0
2.1
0.0
1.5
0.0
VIII-E2
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL INDIRECT DISCHARGERS--PART A
(PLANT if PUNT)
DBS PUNT CURRENT PSE8
LOADING OPTION IV
(LBS/YR) LOADING
95 4066 1 1.2
96 4070 262 3.7
97 4072 752 7.8
mmmmmm xssmmm
460298 6066.5
VIII-I3
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOWING OF ALL INDIRECT DISCHARGERS--FULL RESPONSE
tPLANT 8t PLANT)
OSS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
56
37
36
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
PUNT
5
30
49
52
S3
79
88
93
94
111
119
120
122
143
158
1*2
163
166
199
203
209
214
220
232
240
244
249
257
266
276
283
285
292
297
310
321
354
357
417
423
426
430
430
458
492
494
522
CURRENT
LOADING
{LBS/YR)
159
37
422
6
10
86
0
0
89
0
265.
231
1
70
0
0
1172
6
179
119
0
1714
244
189
5768
1
35
36
4
1085
2169
0
113
4
61
27
419
0
128
565
2
162880
4236
132190
31
4108
410
PSES
OPTION IV
LOADING
2.7
1.3
17.3
0.4
0.4
2,4
0,0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0,5
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
25.0
0.5
20.9
1.3
0.0
12.9
0.7
8.5
320.0
0.7
1.6
13.9
0.3
49.0
110.8
0.0
4.3
0.4
0.9
0.3
3.1
0.0
0.2
27.7
1.5
308.6
13.7
238.0
4.9
100.8
3.1
VIII-E4
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OP ALL INDIRECT DISCHARGERS--FULL RESPONSE
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL INDIRECT DISCHARGERS--FULL RESPONSE
(PLANT BY PLANT}
DBS
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
132
123
124
125
126
127
120
129
130
131
152
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
V»0
141
PLANT
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1237
1253
125S
1277
1310
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351
1356
1426
1432
1433
1437
1504
)j>6/
1526
1534
1535
1539
-.:/.s
155*
1562
1564
1566
1595
1i01
1«1
16Zti
1645
tf3
16S7
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL INDIRECT DISCHARGERS--FULL RESPONSE
(PLANT BY PLANT)
OBS
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
1r2
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
PLANT
1797
1801
1805
1826
1832
1833
1838
1853
1861
1891
1899
1904
1924
1936
1945
1948
1970
1971
1974
1993
2001
2004
2018
2022
2050
2057
2070
2075
2084
2093
2108
2117
2147
2177
2184
2191
2214
2232
2241
2243
22S9
2261
2288
2293
2300
2341
2348
CURRENT
LOAD INC
(LBS/YR)
0.0
23.1
865.8
76.6
11.6
225.0
45.6
5979.2
1929,2
1743.4
6708.6
9141.8
14,7
5.4
59.0
294.4
22.5
33.9
0.0
1279.6
39.2
285.6
136.1
0.0
0.2
199.3
9845.1
17.8
252.3
9597.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
1133.5
39998.4
0.0
0.0
2432.8
16039.4
72163.7
312.7
30441.7
0.1
670.8
536.4
2717.9
3.2
PSES
OPTION IV
LOADING
0.0
0.8
12.2
2.5
0.3
1.8
0.1
90.0
17.6
80.2
1.7
867.9
0.7
2.5
1.1
1.1
0.1
3.0
0.0
1.4
1.1
12.3
20.6
0.0
0.2
1.1
58.2
1.2
7.3
150.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
51.2
0.9
0.0
0.0
44.9
74.8
1257.1
1.4
240.0
0.0
0.3
155.9
452.0
1.0
VIII-E7
-------
SUMHATI03 FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL INDIRECT DISCHARGERS--FULL RESPONSE
(PLANT BY PLANT)
DBS
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
PUNT
2350
2359
2432
2436
2442
2459
2462
2485
2487
2%95
2501
2507
2521
2565
2571
2578
2608
2609
2634
2635
2636
2641
2646
2666
2685
2699
2714
2736
2741
2745
2748
2756
2776
2779
2793
2796
2810
4007
4008
4014
4022
4C23
4027
4042
4047
CURRENT
LOADING
CLBS/YR)
331
1
8
6574
64
18
493
59836
0
613
1
72
0
1120
1
0
0
1051
25
4389
65
199
32708
4.
215
1
0
1323
68
0
6732,
3213
231
31
4434
2365
0
7096
50700
0
0
2962
20
115
0
PSES
OPTION IV
LOADING
1.6
0.0
0.7
290.2
0.1
0.7
16.2
85.7
0.0
36.2
0.4
0.2
0.0
28.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
10.4
5.1
107.8
0.2
8.9
103.6
0.1
9.7
0.1
0.0
59.0
7.2
0.0
29.9
138.7
4.3
1.5
4.1
53.9
0.0
2.1
72.3
0.0
0.0
133.7
0.5
0.1
0.0
1413677 8899.5
VIII-E8
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL DIRECT DISCHARGERS-PART A
(PLANT BY PUNT)
MS
1
2
3
4
5
6
T
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
56
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
PLANT
1
15
76
105
112
190
205
301
446
451
485
488
518
611
814
877
956
973
1033
1249
1348
1520
1524
1670
1724
1785
1877
1910
1937
2030
2047
2193
2281
2292
2316
2322
2419
2429
2481
2537
2660
2739
2781
4018
4055
CURRENT
LOAD ING
(LBS/YR)
*
1545
85854
491
3
119
183
1008779
328
17977
852096
10401
636
158
493249
4284
2
1144
43
20366
8
67395
2314
2
1502
499
81561
584
53937
140469
2849
14
16
7297
644
830633
1774
3220
197463
1041
81405
645
1162
12020
6
mmmmamm
3986120
SAT
OPTION I
LOADING
1545
366
491
3
119
183
1008779
3
17977
852096
10401
636
2
1975,
35
0
1144
0
59
8
67395
2314
0
1502
499
81561
584
53937
140469
2849
14
16
7297
644
830633
1774
3220
197463
1041
657
645
1162
12020
6
mmmzzmmm
3303525
BAT
OPTION II
LOADING
*
451
366
491
3
119
183
294785
3
17977
248999
3067
140
2
197S
35
0
1144
0
S9
8
19694
2314
0
439
499
23834
584
15761
40965
2849
14
16
2132
188
242728
1774
941
57703
1041
657
645
343
3512
6
mmmmmm
988447
AT
OPTION III
LOADING
.
451
366
491
3
119
183
294785
3
17977
248999
3067
140
2
1975
35
0
1144
0
59
8
19694
2314
0
439
499
23834
584
15761
40965
2849
14
16
2132
188
242728
1774
941
57703
1041
657
645
343
3512
6
mmmmmm
988447
VIII-E9
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADIKG OF ALL DIRECT DISCHARGERS--FULL RESPONSE
(PLANT BY PLANT)
»s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
PLANT
1
12
33
61
63
83
87
102
114
154
155
159
177
.180
183
225
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
447
481
486
500
502
523
525
536
569
580
602
608
CURRENT
LOADING
(L8S/YR)
1738
29385
206797
26460
712
12396
19113
0
1254
2677
185859
3
141082
0
27640
3
0
565
3069
25990
90800
902
8922
1032
153
88
376433
0
2702
7516
605
1065
4432218
1921
0
2553
0
5897
28
14
896
77
493
16109
0
0
122057
BAT
OPTION I
LOADING
1738
29385
0
26460
712
12396
19113
0
0
2677
185859
3
141082
0
27640
3
0
565
3069
1
90800
902
8922
1032
153
88
376433
0
2702
7516
605
3
4432218
1921
0
2553
0
5897
28
0
896
77
1
16109
0
0
122057
BAT
OPTION II
LOADING
1737.6
409.7
0.0
434.0
712.5
12396.1
912.4
0.0
0.0
2676.7
8024.9
2.7
5696.0
0.0
3277.5
2.5
0,0
565.0
3069.4
0.6
19062.7
902.0
8922.3
1032.5
153,2
87.8
58006.9
0.0
608.9
7055.3
605.4
3.3
34260.6
50.8
0.0
381.6
0.0
1045.6
28.5
0.2
896.1
76.8
0.7
16108.9
0.0
0.0
41692.3
BAT
OPTION III
LOADING
1737.6
409.7
0.0
434.0
712.5
12396.1
912.4
0.0
0.0
2676.7
8024.9
2.7
5696.0
0.0
3277.5
2.5
0.0
565.0
3069.4
0.6
19062.7
902.0
8922.3
1032.5
153.2'
87.8
58006.9
0.0.
608.9
7055.3
605.4
3.3
34260.6
50.8
0.0
381.6
0.0
1045.6
28.5
0.2
896.1
76.8
0.7
16108.9
0.0
0.0
41692.3
VIII-E10
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL DIRECT DISCHARGERS--FULL RESPONSE
(PLANT BY PLANT)
DBS
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
PLANT
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
833
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
962
970
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
CURRENT
LOADING
(LBS/YR)
49
0
17788
733527
2410
2880
2
4822
60707
1233
59
991
33233
142
35
841
1096
274973
104
8889
10768
0
461
23086
38060
4
6
80
44772
1517
132
16
271655
319
541
3304
551
0
635
0
0
0
451
0
9532
6519
301
BAT
OPTION I
LOADING
49
0
17788
733527
32
26
2
4822
60707
1233
0
991
33233
142
35
841
1096
274973
104
8889
10768
0
461
23086
38060
4
6
80
44772
1517
132
16
271655
3
541
3304
551
0
635
0
0
0
451
0
9532
6519
301
BAT
OPTION II
LOADING
5.9
0.0
6088.1
53147.3
31.8
26.4
2.5
4822.2
28979.0
1233.1
0.0
990.7
33233.2
142.4
35.3
841.2
1096.4
24398.2
103.5
8889.3
10767.7
0.0
460.7
14387.7
4852.2
3.9
5.7
79.5
18998.7
1516.6
131.5
16.2
68048.2
3.0
541.4
3304.0
550.6
0.0
587.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
450.9
0.0
9532.3
6518.9
301.4
BAT
OPTION III
LOADING
5.9
0.0
6088.1
53147.3
31.fr
26.4
2.5
4822.2
28979.0
1233.1
0.0
990.7
33233.2
142.4
35.3
841.2
1096.4
24398.2
103.5
8889.3
10767.7
0.0
460.7
14387.7
4852.2
3.9
5.7
79.5
18998.7
1516.6
131.5
16.2
68048.2
3.0
541.4
3304.0
550.6
0.0
587.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
450.9
0.0
9532.3
6518.9
301.4
VIII-Ell
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL DIRECT DISCHARGERS--FULL RESPONSE
(PLANT BY PLANT)
OBS
95
96
97
98
99
100
101 .
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
13?
138
139
140
141
PUUIT
1137
1139
1148
1U9
1157
1203
1241
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1522
1532
1569(.
1572
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1684
.1688
1695
1698.
1714
1717
1753
1766
1769
1774
CURRENT
LOADING
{LBS/YR)
1557
542
1332
23640
61
0
0
2427
0
9
11199
831
26949
3
2336
603
a,
100812
1041
0
204
140
17687
114303
1823069
149
1655
283
8465
847
5538
1614
302
2650
595
41150
24
2
13
189471
842
7537
132
485092
0
215436
0
BAT
OPTION I
LOADING
1557
542
. 1332
23640
61
0
0
2427
0
9
11199
831
26949
3
2336
603
0
100812
1041
0
204
140
17687
114303
" 1823069
149
56
283
8465
847
5538
5
302
2650
595
895
24
2
13
189471
842
7537
132
485092
0
215436
0
BAT
OPTION II
LOADING
1157
180
1332
23640
61
0
0
2427
0
9
54
55
9856
3
2336
603
0
14607
74
0
204
140
2563
2819
27718
149
56
283
1904
,847
4603
5'
27
2650
595
895
24
2 .
13
42322
70
231
132
485092
0
215436
0
BAT
OPTION HI
LOADING
1557
180
1332
2364C
6!
0
0
2427
0
9
54
55
9856
3
2336
603
0
14607
74
0
204
140
2563
2819
27718
149
56
283
1904
847
4603
5
27
2650
595
895
24
2
13
42322
70
231
132
485092
0
215436
0
VIII-E12
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL DIRECT DISCHARGERS-- FULL RESPONSE
(PLANT BY PLANT)
DBS
142
143
144
145
146
14?
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
PLANT
1839
1869
1881
1890
1911
1928
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2296
2307
2313
2315
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
CURRENT
LOADING
(LBS/YR)
48
145299
65
69
179
0
4643
1314
8013
71
5438
16
3947
362
28
152636
110
0
0
15138
879
901
44376
5357
162883
0
266
5568
255
95607
118291
55
1755
53299
4716
1079
3
271
401
0
1319
366
83597
0
13606
116
649
BAT
OPTION I
LOADING
m
145299
65
69
179
0
4643
1314
8013
71
5438
16
3947
362
28
7
26
0
0
15138
879
6
44376
5357
162883
0
266
5568
255
95607
118291
55
1755
53299
4716
1079
3
271
401
0
1319
366
83597
0
13606
116
649
BAT
OPTION II
LOADING
B
49617.4
64.6
69.1
17V.O
0.0
4642.8
1313.9
8013.4
71.1
5438.5
16.3
3114.6
361.7
28.2
7.3
26.3
0.0
0.0
15138.2
879.2
6.3
11213.8
5357.2
16446.5
0.0
265.7
5568.4
255.3
7546.0
28673.2
55.3
1755.4
53299.0
4716.1
1079.4
3.1
271.2
400.7
0.0
361.9
365.8
15233.5
0.0
13605.6
116.4
648.9
BAT
OPTION III
LOADING
.
49617.4
64.6
69.1
179.0
0.0
4642.8
1313.9
8013.4
71.1
5438.5
16.3
3114.6
361.7
28.2
7.3
26.3
0.0
0.0
15138.2
879.2
6.3
11213.8
5357.2
16446.5
0.0
265.7
5568.4
255,3
7546.0
28673.2
55.3
1755.4
53299.0
4716.1
1079.4
3.1
271.2
400.7
0.0
361,9
365.8
15233.5
0.0
13605.6
116.4
648.9
VIII-E13
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL DIRECT DISCHARGERS--FULL RESPONSE
CPLANT BY PLANT)
DBS
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
23S
PLANT
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2527
2528
2531
2536
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2763
. 2764
2767
2770
2771
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4021
4037
4040
4051
CURRENT
LOADING
(LBS/YR)
482502
51920
0
94837
28142
2932
10290
2061
115472
27831
25895
35263
289
0
0
7
5855
0
2242
32059
287
41
2543
»189
0
0
229795
1288209
3493
1815
0
1648
0
159931
730
526
972
5043
799
2440
190
0
1564
62
0
23013
921
8AT
OPTION I
LOADING
482502
51920
0
94837
28142
2932
10290
2061
115472
27831
25895
35263
289
0
0
1
5855
0
2242
32059
287
41
2543
29189
0
0
22979S
1288209
3493
106
0
1648
0
159931
730
526
972
5043
799
2440
190
0
1564
62
0
23013
921
BAT
OPTION II
LOADING
74013
51920
0
61162
28142
2932
8824
2061
43803
1049
25895
4193
289
0
0
1
5855
0
2242
7533
287
41
2543
561
0
0
58687
26326
577
106
0
1643
0
1312
730
526
972
5043
799
2440
190
0
1564
62
0
86
921
BAT
OPTION HI
LOADING
74013
51920
0
61162
28142
2932
8824
2061
43803
1049
25895
4193
289
0
0
1
5855
0
2242
7533
287
41
2543
561
0
0
58687
26326
577
106
0
1648
0
1312
730
526
972
5043
799
2440
190
0
1564
62
0
86
921
VIII-E14
-------
SUMMATION FOR AIR LOADING OF ALL DIRECT DISCHARGERS--FULL RESPONSE
(PLANT BY PLANT)
DBS PLANT CURRENT BAT BAT BAT
LOADING OPTION I OPTION II OPTION III
(LBS/YR) LOADING LOADING LOADING
B=C«=BSB C=C=C3CB SSSCSS3
U008062 13568012 2063161 2063161
U.S GOVERNMENTPWNTlNGOFnCB 1993 -715-003/87030
VIII-E15
-------
------- |