-------
^->
T5
ai «i >.
3 10 C-
C 10 W
E
**oe
C L D
o ui in
o a
— • — «j
U. 4-*
a
c< c o
1 O
— — >
n 4-- i.
1 10 <->
* — u>
3 3
01 in T)
— C C
13 »-• 1-1
10
1—
tt
<
U
>
z
l-
u>
o
U
D
OP
D
C
•^
4-1
C
o
o
*— '
1
w
in
t-
en
T-
C
O
—
.-•
.—
"-
s.
*— •
V)
J~
(/)
o
0
—1
o
a:
>—
z
o
U
UI
00
0
r-
01
in
a>
o>
p)
00
r-
V)
4J
10
O
0
TJ
91
N
•«~
•~
«j
c
c
•I
(0
00
m
o
U)
o
^
ui
4^
••-
Q.
10
O
TJ
01
N
•r-
r—
10
c.
c
at i/>
••— i- •—
1
o
o
HI
a. ui
111
4-' 01 in
C t- —
m m ID
E J^ ) -
*»(_!« O
tfl ^ (-
Ol I- IM
> <]> »j T3
C (/) O C
>-< "J t- ro
1.3
are computed on the assumption of a 15 year useful life
val ue.
Ul
. <-• HI
VI Ol
O ra
u >
. —
*-• Q
C U)
to
E O
4-< C
io 01
Q) M
C.
4-- £
41 4^
L. •»•
a 3
T3 4-.
C Ul
10 d>
c.
ai m
4-> 4-«
•" C
tn —
1
C 4J
O C
HI
tj 0
i]j t-
N 01
- Q
10 O
C
c *•
< 10
ot be relatable to the decade total of investment because
over the decade.
c
ui
> m
E D
4^
-M "~
in ~o
o c
O 01
ix
t) X
oi ru
r-i
"- 4^
— C
nj a
3 E
C *-"
C Ul
10 Hi
>
••- C
o .-
. — *4-
10 O
4-»
O Ol
4-> C
.V
(U E
t) •-
O
ID 111
T3 fZ
4-J
111
.C t.
I- O
estment made in the year plus all prior year investments
re in any year bears no particular relationship to the
> 3
C 4J
T3
O C
4^ U
a
Ol X
> HI
v S
IS
t, C
«J 0) 4-.
I nj
(- j;
10 4-<
m •
>P1 C
t- —
>,0l
c «- ai
ra TJ
C 10
r - 6
01 4J
tf> C C
4-. -^ HI
in u E
O C 4^
o ai in
_ E OJ
§"~ O C
u —
the municipal treatment charges. The investment com-
ry.
HI
w- >
O O
o
4-* HI
C i.
to
C 4-1
O C
a HI
£ E
0 *'
y in
tit
S >
«» c
a —
a L
r m
*j r>
c
Hi 3
4J
O Tl
C 01
91 4J
TJ O
C
ui at
Ql "O
O1
t. o
c. O
w i
ui
3 JC
n -
C D
— 13
in TJ
en c
10 10
01 •
c. in
C 10
3
di in
c. c
t- —
01
^
I
<*)
-------
FLAT GLASS INDUSTRY
Production Characteristics and capacities. The flat glass
industry may be divided into six major subcategories based
on the processes employed. However, since the sheet and
rolled glass manufacturing industries do not contribute a
wastewater discharge, they will not be considered for the
purposes of this report. The major division in the industry
is between primary and automotive glass manufacturers and
the processes they use. Automotive glass manufacture is a
fabrication process using primary glass. The four industry
subcategories covered in this study are: plate and float-
primary glass production, and tempering and lamination—
automotive glass production.
There were 47 establishments in the flat glass industry in
1972. Of these, it is estimated that 34 have waste process
water. The plants that are contributing to effluent
discharge produced 7,400 metric tons per day of primary
glass and 172,700 square meters per day of automotive glass
in 1972.
Glass is produced by combining the following raw materials:
sand (silica), sodium carbonate, calcium carbonate,
magnesium carbonate, and cullet (waste glass of which 25
percent can be reused). The float glass process is the
major user of these materials.
In primary glass production, the following processes affect
wastewater discharge: (1) washing, (2) batching, and
(3) grinding and polishing. In the production of automotive
glass, the following processes affect wastewater discharge:
(1) seaming, (2) grinding, (3) drilling, (4) cooling, and
(5) washing.
The batching process in primary glass manufacturing brings
together the raw materials and mixes them to a homogeneous
consistency.
The grinding and polishing process is used for plate, float,
and tempered glass. This process uses either a single or
twin configuration. (The twin configuration grinds and
polishes simultaneously.) The grinding part of the process
uses a slurry of sand and water which is continuously being
blown down in order to be recycled and classified as a
progressively finer grinding medium is needed. The
polishing process uses a polishing surface of animal felt,
and a polishing medium of water and iron oxide or cerium
oxide slurry. The glass is reduced 15 percent by the
combined grinding and polishing process.
3-29U
-------
The washing process is used for plate glass to remove the
slurry, and in float glass to remove the protective
chemicals coated on the rollers which prevents the glass
from getting marked.
The cooling process utilizes water for cooling in all the
melting tanks, the float tanks, and bathing tanks. Water
for cooling is also used on rollers for plate glass, to cool
the annealing lehr, bending the lehr and in the tempering
process.
The seaming and drilling processes in automotive glass
manufacture are basic fabrication processes that aid in
handling and meeting product specifications.
The tempering process includes heating and then rapidly
cooling the glass.
Primary glass is used for all architectural and building
requirements and is the basic component for fabricated flat
glass products. Automotive glass is used primarily for
windshields and safety glass.
In 1972, a total of 222 million square meters of primary
glass and 77 million square meters of automotive glass was
produced. It is estimated that plants contributing
wastewater produced 7,400 metric tons per day of primary
glass and 172,700 square meters per day of automotive glass.
The number of flat glass plants has increased in recent
years but plate glass plants have decreased due to the
greater profitability of the float glass process; U. S. flat
glass exports are not significant. There has been a gradual
increase in the amounts of imports, with imports comprising
about 21 percent of total consumption. The demand for
tinted or colored glass for reflective architectural uses
and for tempered glass for safety applications in buildings
is expected to grow. It should be noted, however, that the
consumption of flat glass moves with the level of
residential construction and automobile manufacturing.
Waste Sources and Pollutants. The major glass manufacturing
wastes include: sand, silt, clay, grease, oil, tar, animal
and vegetable fats, fibers, sawdust, hair sewage materials,
phosphorus, alkaline flow (affecting pH) from plate glass
manufacturing and thermal pollution (t.7° C over ambient
temperature).
The main sources contributing to the total waste load come
from the following processes in each segment of the
industry: Float—washing; Plate—batching, grinding and
3-295
-------
polishing, and washing; Tempered*-seaming, grinding
drilling, cooling and washing (wash-water is the major
source); and Laminated—cooling, seaming, and washing.
In order to define waste characteristics, the following
parameters were used to develop effluent guidelines for
meeting BPT and BAT: total suspended solids, oil, pH, and
total phosphorus.
Effluent limitations and standards of performance for new
sources are no discharge for the sheet plate glass
manufacturing subcategory and best available control
technology for the three remaining subcategories.
At the present time, the waste from about 70 percent of the
industry is discharged to municipal sewage systems, and 20-
30 percent of the wet process flat glass manufacturers
discharge to municipal sewers. The typical discharge for
each segment is as follows; Float-138 liters per metric ton;
Plate-US,900 liters per metric ton; Tempered-t9 liters per
square meter: and Laminated-175 liters per sguare meter.
Control Technology and Costs. Waste treatment practices
vary in each segment of the flat glass industry. Some use a
lagoon system with a polyelectrolyte or partial recycling of
process water. Others use no treatment or have only
eliminated detergent in the wash water, control methods
include: filtration, filtration and recycle, total recycle
with a reverse osmosis unit, coagulation sedimentation, a
two-stage lagoon with mixing tank for proper
polyelectrolytic dispersion, an oil absorbing diatomaceous
earth filter and sludge dewatering by centrifugation.
The guidelines for; BPT call for control and removal of total
suspended solids (TSS), oil, pH, and total phosphorus. BPT
calls for the following control methods for each segment of
the industry:
• Plate. Two-stage lagoon with a mixing tank for proper
polyelectrolytic dispersion.
• Float. Cream separator type centrifuge for sludge
dewatering, and elimination of detergent use.
• Tempered and Laminated, coagulation/sedimentation.
The BAT assesses the availability of in-process controls, as
well as calling for additional treatment techniques. The
following additional treatment methods for each segment of
the industry are:
3-296
-------
* Plate. Add a return of filter backwash to lagoon systems.
• Float. Eliminate all detergent use and add oil absorptive
diatomaceous earth filtration.
• Tempered. Add oil absorptive diatomaceous earth filtration,
• Laminated. Recycle post-lamination washing and initial hot
water rinse, gravity separation of remaining rinse waters,
reduce detergent usage and add oil absorptive diatomaceous
earth filtration.
The most recent analysis of costs for this sector is that of
Gianessi and Peskin (G6P)i. This analysis was conducted in
somewhat greater depth than, and subsequent to the general
data gathering efforts associated with the SEAS uniform cost
calculation procedure, and is considered to be more precise.
However, time and resource constraints prevented
incorporating these costs into the scenario analyses using
the SEAS model procedure. The G&P estimates are as follows
(in million 1975 dollars):
Incremental BPT Investment $2.5
Incremental BPT 06M $0.6
Estimates from the earlier SEAS calculation are presented
below, with projected pollutant discharges associated with
these costs. Principal reasons for differences between
these cost estimates and the newer data are that these were
changes in plant inventory estimates and that G&P considers
plate glass plants and tempering and lamination of auto
glass, whereas SEAS includes float glass but not plate
glass.
Gianessi, L. P. and H. M. Peskin, "The Cost to Industries
of the Water Pollution Control Amendment of 1972",
National Bureau of Economic Research, December, 1975.
(Revised January, 1976)
3-297
-------
in
o>
l
*- o
CO O
in o
s
o
o
o
m
CD
O)
*»
*
o
(MM
IS-
»
(O
CO
CM
in
CO
cn
*-
n f-
o cn
CM O
O CN
«- en
CD in
CM t~ t- CO
*- •» •» 0
o o o o
ce
Ul
a
a
UJ
H
<
0
UJ
cr
o
m
i
CD
!"-
cn
T-
Mg
m
F- O
*t o
. •
n o
00
in
•
o
•o
o
.
o
in
o
i
co
en
O
P>
CD
0>
Vi
CO
O)
cn cn co e-
f~ O CO CO
"if lO (JP *~"
o o o o
a.
m
Table 4-32-1 .
Flat Glass
Industry Data Summary
LEVEL 1977
^.
(—
*_l
>
»—
(_)
<
n
a
a
\
t>
>
,r.
u
a
a
ra
u
Growth Rate Over the Period 1976-1985 = 4.
„
a
3
C
C
<
•- CM CM CO
K in r- CN o
CO T- O
— o
>- in ifl
"•^ W> QJ
i~ its in
S — it
u a)
0 C
0 W v U
o - n
O — "D
•- c. u- c
~, *J — flj
c
i/) o in w
>- u i/> o a —
z in o a —
UJ r- 1- (10 O O
D (^
-i a>
u. *~
u.
UJ
ated Controls:
0.87
5 (Flat Glass only) 0.40
5.55
s and Greases 5.55
— in o o -
in in o o •-
•- t- CO O O
CD
0
.J
o
f»
z
o
L)
r--
r-
i
cn
4-1
C
11)
E
in
m
>.
c
t-*
ng Plants
site Treatment 4.67
treatment 1.50
••— [
z
0
o
o
C-
41
0
0
0)
4-J
C
CD
C
t-t
a
..—
o
•^
c
3
S
CM
CO
V}
c—
(0
4_*
O
h-
co
en
-------
t~*
•Q
Q)
D
C
>r-
+1
C
o
•V
*
•r-
|
CS
CO
1 -
tf
0)
^~
£>
i —
>,
L
(0
E
E
in 3
in tfl
IU
— 19
O 4^
(0
4-t O
10
U. C
4^
in
3
TJ
c
4«4
in oi O) *- o oi
OB co t- r- 1/1 o o o <•>
• • • ...
i->- OOO OOOOI
U
U
z c*> oi *- CD to in
>-i co d in •- 10 o o o 01
!-•-»- O O O OOO •-
Irt
o •
t- in 10 0) . ... ...
T- O OOO. OOO «-
'
1
.-* 1
TJ
41
3 •
• £ '
»_ • '
: ~+j
C '
0
o
1^
1
• .-.
•4)
in
t-
0)
T-
C
o >.
.<_ L
— 4-1 Ol
•*• *™~ C >
10 41 10 O
E in *• E Oi U
*— ' +J 'r- 4>J tJ) (]J
01 a 10 4-- c. a «
u> o re a> c n a>
*— o o c. 4> £ 4> 01 tn
in i~ E o c c. —
o TJ TJ *-• 41 re re
U O 0) 4110 — E £ 4J
N N »->aitn re 4-ioin o
_1 — — — c — O. 10 — 1-
o — — W4-ire — oit-io
cc ig 4^ u > ai " n
i- 3 :j ceo - cmo c
2: C C SQQ.t- C I-.DI- (0
a c c "0 3 c
U 1 •* O S (3
01
01
in
c.
in
10
o
c
o
4-*
1
3
in
m
41
r
4-1
C
o
TJ
01
4-*
3
a
E
O
o •
41
41 3
C *—
re re
in
4-> 41
w> en
o re
o >
<-• 10
£ in
g>
E O
4-» C
ra ai
41 N
C-
4-- £
Q) +J
C* ••—
a ?
TJ 4-1
C in
re 41
01 01
— c
in —
C +•*
o c
Ol
TJ 0
N 01
— a
re o
3 .-
C
CT *^
•t re
total of investment because
S
a
u
41
TJ
?
4-,
o
**
4) 4>
•- TJ
D a
10 U
4-1 4)
re T)
,~
41 Q)
e. £
4-1
41
O C.
4-1 >
O O
c
in
> 01
ID (-
E 3
4-* ••-
in t>
o c
U 41
a
TJ X
4i 41
N
«- 4-*
•- C
Q Ol
3 e
c in
re oi
>
M- C
O —
-— 4-
re o
O D
4J C
—
ra ~
U
>U 4l
TJ £
HI
C »-
1- O
all prior year investments
ular relationship to the
u
w «-
3 4-"
^- t
a 10
a
t
n o
41 C
. .
ra
E >>
C
4-- 10
C
01 C
E -^
4-*
VI 41
41 C.
> 3
C 4J
^3
O C
Q.
4i X
> 41
>4_
4-- S
10 a3
- O •
O >
I- C
10 0) 4->
I ra
C £
n 4->
01 •
>* n c
t*. .P-
>*• Ol
£ •- 41
re TJ
c re
C — E
Ol 4-*
in c c
4J — 01
"IOC
o o •-
s. The investment com-
41
o
c.
10
C
u
4>J
c
E
4-*
10
Ol
£-
*J
.—
ID
a
o
c
3
E
41 •
£ >
4J C.
01
o o
o
4J 41
C t-
4i
C 4J
O c
a oi
E E
0 v
O in
(U
S >
^J c
o --
4) t-
£ 41
w TJ
C
41 3
4-*
O T3
C 4)
01 4J
TJ 0
£
n oi
41 TJ
o>
L I/)
m •>-
£
O *-•
C
C 41
4> C
tn o
o n
o>
c
in
01
«i
O
O
c
a.
TJ
01
4-1
10
c
..-
E
<0
,—
TJ
C
19
TJ
41
C
4)
a
E
a>
in
41
TJ
3
U
C
;x
C
4-1
—
..
41
o
z
o
O)
-------
PRESSED AND BLOWN GLASS INDUSTRY
Production Characteristics and Capacities. The effluent
limitations guidelines for the pressed and blown glass
manufacturing industry cover manufacturers of glass
containers for commercial packing, bottling, home canning,
and the manufacturers of glass and glassware, which is
pressed, blown, or shaped from glass produced in the same
establishment.
The industry has been divided into the following
subcategories, based upon differences in production
processes and wastewater characteristics:
• Glass containers
• Machine-^pressed and blown glass
• Glass tubing
• Television picture tube envelopes
• Incandescent lamp envelopes-forming and frosting
• Hand-pressed and blown glass-leaded and hydrofluroic
acid finishing, non-leaded and hydrofluoric acid
finishing, and non-hydrofluoric acid finishing.
Four manufacturing steps are common to the entire pressed
and blown glass industry: weighing and mixing of raw
materials, melting of raw materials, forming of molten
glass, and annealing of formed glass products. Further
processing (finishing) is required for some products,
especially television tube envelopes, incandescent lamp
envelopes, and hand-pressed and blown glass.
Sand (silica) is the major ingredient of glass and accounts
for about 70 percent of the raw materials batch, other
ingredients may include soda or soda ash (13-16 percent),
potash, lime, lead oxide, boric oxide, alumina, magnesia,
and iron or other coloring agents. The usual batch also
contains between 10 and 50 percent waste glass (cullet).
Melting is done in three types of units: continuous
furnaces, clay pots, or day tanks. Methods used to form
glass include blowing, pressing, drawing, and casting.
After the glass is formed, annealing is required to relieve
strains that might weaken the glass or cause it to fail.
The entire piece of glass is brought to a uniform
temperature that is high enough to permit the release of
internal stresses, and then it is cooled at a uniform rate
3-300
-------
to prevent new strains from developing; finishing steps
include abrasive polishing, acid polishing, spraying with
frosting solutions, grinding, cutting, acid etching, and
glazing.
In 1972, approximately 300 plants manufactured pressed and
blown glass products in the Dnited States, and almost half
of these manufactured glass containers. The glass container
industry is relatively concentrated with the eight largest
firms producing about 80 percent of the industry's shipments
and operating about two-thirds of the individual plants.
Because of the special nature of their products, the
machine-pressed and blown glass industry is also relatively
concentrated; as are the tubing, television picture tube
envelope, and incandescent lamp envelope industries. On the
other hand, the hand-pressed and blown glass industry is
characterized by a large number of family-owned and-
operated, single-plant companies. Of the 16 firms in this
industry, only four operate more than one plant.
Haste Sources and Pollutants. Water is used in the pressed
and blown glass manufacturing industry fbr non-contact
cooling, cullet quenching, and product rinsing following the
various finishing operations. Water may also be added to
the raw materials batches for dust suppression. Wet fume
scrubbers used in acid polishing areas also contribute
wastewater discharge.
For the purposes of establishing effluent limitations
guidelines, the following pollution parameters have been
designated as significant: fluoride, ammonia, lead, oil,
chemical oxygen demand(COD), suspended solids(SS), dissolved
solids, temperature(heat), and pH. These parameters are not
present in the wastewater from every subcategory, and may be
more significant in one subcategory than in another.
Wastewaters from non-contact cooling, boilers, and water
treatment are not considered process wastewaters and are not
covered by the guidelines.
Control Technology and Costs. The pressed and blown glass
industry is currently treating its wastewaters to reduce or
eliminate most of the pollutants. Oil is reduced by using
gravity separators. Treating for fluoride and lead involves
adding lime, rapid mixing, flocculation, and sedimentation
of the resulting reaction products. Several glass container
plants recycle non-contact cooling and cullet quench water.
Treatment for ammonia removal is presently not practiced in
the industry.
Additional treatment systems that are applicable to the
industry include chemical or physical methods to further
3-301
-------
reduce oil levels, such as high-rate filtration,
diatomaceous earth filtration, and chemical addition or
coagulation; additional treatment of fluorides by ion-
exchange or activated alumina filtration; and ammonia
removal by stream or air stripping, selective ion exchange,
nitrification/denitrification, or break-point chlorination.
Because current treatment practices in the pressed and blown
glass industry provide wastewater pollutant concentrations
that are already at low levels, no additional control
technologies are proposed for most subcategofies to meet BPT
guidelines. The major exception is the addition of steam
stripping to control ammonia discharges from the
incandescent lamp envelope manufacturing subcategory.
Additional technologies required for BAT and NSPS guidelines
include segregation of non-contact cooling water from the
cullet quench water, recycling cullet quench water,
treatment of cullet quench water blowdown by dissolved air
flotation and diatomaceous earth filtration, and treatment
of finishing wastewaters by sand filtration and activated
alumina filtration!
Table 4-33-1 summarizes the control technologies recommended
for each subcategory; as indicated, most of the plants in
the pressed and blown glass industry already have sufficient
operating technology to meet BPT guidelines. In addition,
as shown in Table 4-33-1, only about one-third of the
approximately 300 plants covered by these guidelines
discharge to surface waters. The remaining plants either
have no discharge or, as in most cases, tfiey discharge to
municipal systems.
All annualized costs are detailed in Table 4-33-2.
3-302
-------
Table 4-33-1.
Pressed and Blown Glass
Industry Pollution control Technologies
Subcategories
Glass Containers
Machine-pressed S
blown glass
Glass tubing
TV tube envelopes
Incandescent lamp
envelopes
Hand-pressed S
blown glass
BPT
Housekeeping
Housekeeping
Housekeeping
Lime addition,
coagulation,
and sedimen-
tation
Steam stripping,
lime precipi-
tation and re-
carbonization
Batch lime pre-
cipitation,
coagulation,
sedimentation
BAT
Recycle, gravity oil
separation and
filtration
Recycle, gravity oil
separation and
filtration
Cooling tower and
filtration
Sand filtration,
activated alumina
filtration
Sand filtration,
activated alumina
filtration
Sand filtration,
activated alumina
filtration
NSPS are the same as BAT for all subcategories.
3-303
-------
in
CO
ID
f-
01
oo o o
in o i-
to o
in ex
*- 01
in
CD
en
in
CD
01
cr
ui
PJ
CO
I
CD
e'-
en
CN o
« o
o
CM
HI
in
03
o
<*>
c-
ro
o>
en
o
o
tn 41
CD 3
0) IA
•• 0
Table 4-33-2.
Pressed & Blown Glass
Industry Data Summary
LEVEL 1977
>
1-
»*••
>
*-4
h-
u
<
•»
1Q
Q
•V
O>
j£
JH
>
4*
._
O
ID
a
ID
O
IO
tl
in
00
at
o
CD
^1
a
Of
c
4J
3
O
c_
O
t—
a
3
c
c
<
r-
r-.
o>
i.
>-
^^
H-
£
O
O
O
I/)
1-
z
UJ
3
^
U-
u.
LU
sidual data not available at time of Report
ontrol s:
HI u
ce
T-
f-
o> cn
4-* ^
O
z
ated Controls:
__
in
'01
cu
_*
M
in
r-
o
c
0
S
in
i-
10
o
o
-i
o
cr
h-
2
a
o
t-
r-
i
*r
r-
cn
4^
C
Oi
E
+~<
in
cu
>
c
t~H
ng Plants
site Treatment 4.70
treatment • 0.00
— i n
*•" C C.
in a a.
X
LU
ants 2.26
pal Investment Recovery 8.69
.— -r-
a. o
3 C
* 3
Z £
ID
CO
ui
in
ft
-M
o
t-
o
(*3
t
-------
m
TJ
41 in
3 at
C 10
4-» O
c
O C
O 3
— O
• CO
CM
i OB
PJ
P3 TJ
1 41
*r o
in
4)
— L,
n CL
10
i—
>
c
n>
E
B
3
I/)
ID
4-*
IS
O
>
C_
+4
IA
3
TJ
C
1-4
or
UJ
^.
z
f-4
I—
t/t
O
o
**.
TJ
41
3
C
4-1
C
o
CJ
1
- -~
tfl
in
f*.
o>
T-
c
o
,—
, —
,,-
s
to
k~
v>
O
O
J
o
cc
]_
2j
o
u
in
CD
CO
o>
m
CO
en
CO
CO
41
N
._
F—
<0
3
C
C
<
C* i »- »-
— t- O t-
n o o o
U> CM CM
t CM CM
CD CM 0 CM
• ' . . .
• oi » CO CO
*9 C^ O 1"*
* • » •
en — o *-
n o o
en to o to
• • • •
0 000
J
i
'
'
4-*
— c
m 41
•H E
"- 4-1
a IB 4-1
10 41 C
tj cm
h- E
TJ <-i
4) 41 10
N " 4) in
— •*- t_ I—
— M 41 nj
10 i a; »-i
3 C c. O
c s a a i-
C ofl
< O
o «r «r
en CD t-
...
1- (O *
in in —
«- CM «»•
01 n CM
o t- to
* • •
*- p> «»•
CM CM *
«- in u>
u) in >-
• • •
O CM PI
CM rM V
CM CM f
r- 10 n
» . •
s
C
QJ
^
Ifl O
0) U
CH 41
t- OC IA
10 41
jE 4-1 CJI
CJ C C
- EC
<0 4^ O U)
a. if. —
4) L 10
O > 4) 4-.
c « o
C 1-1 D l-
5
fw
in
CO
CD
CD
CO
*
0
<0
ID
CO
•
t
in
10
CO
.
UJ
in
• —
10
o
t—
TJ
C
{.
o
01
.._
_
r_.
3
14-
41
to
L.
a
41
U)
10
14-
0
c
o
4^
a
2
(A
in
10
41
£
C
O
TJ
111
3
a
E
O
O •
4)
41 3
C, —
nj 10
in
4-. 41
in en
O 10
o >
f~.
4-1 fl
C in
E O
f C.
10 at
tu N
c.
4-* C
dl 4-^
. L •-
a s
T5 4J
c in
<0 4)
c.
01 111
4-* 4^
— c
U) —
1
C 4J
O c
41
TJ O
01 C-
IM 41
•- a
ID O
3 r-
C
C 4-1
< (0
01
in
3
c
.*-
ik-
O
r—
ID
4-J
O
44
41
•a
10
u
41
TJ
41
C
*-•
O
4^1
•
41 41
— TJ
O 10
m u
4-4 Qf
10 TJ
*—
(U 41
(- C
4J
41
_Q £_
4)
O O
c
in
2- 41
>o c.
6 3
4V
4J -r-
tn TJ
o c;
U 41
a
t> X
41 Oi
N
•— 4-1
— c:
n 01
>
>4- C
o —
— >4-
10 0
4-1
o o*
4-1 C
.*>
41 E
TJ —
10 4J
O
01 CI
t> r
4-1
cu
^~ ^
»- o
m
4J
C 41
41 C.
E *•
4-*
in o
41 4J
>
C Q.
" C
c. in
18 C
01 o
> —
4>
c 19
0 —
.- ai
c c
a
— IB
— —
(0 3
O
to —
3 4J
— C,
a 10
a
L.
10 O
41 C
>»
in
41 c.
C 10
4J (U
1}
c
— c
(0
H) Q,
XJ >
10
E >>
c
4-- 10
c
41 C
E --
3
C 4^
••— •--
TJ
0 C
4-^ Q)
a
41 X
> Si
4^ S
n) co
- O •
41 c.
t- • 10
HI 01
at o >
c. c
10 HI <-•
X ra
c_ c
10 *-•
m •
>P) C
^ Ol
C ^ 41
10 TJ
C 10
C — E
Ol n
in c c
M U E
O C 4J
o 41 m
E 01
S E >
03 O C
a u —
1
E
o
u
4-*
4)
E
4-1
in
41
>
c
-.-
41
c
1—
«
4-1 t_
41
14, >
O O
t)
4-1 01
C C_
01
o c
a 41
£ E
O <-•
O [fl
41
S >
C
o
u
t>
c
a
3
4-*
•
- O
to c
Q| -r-
jD in
3 in
4-t 41
Q
> o
•V. C
t- a.
M- n
O 41
m
C lit
o at
— c.
v a
U 1
3 TJ
a c
O 10
c- JC
a
•o
41 C
C 10
4-1
»
IA a>
m c
"O '••"*
3 in
— • a
c.
4J TJ
in 41
3 m
TJ IA
C 41
• - c.
a
in i
in 41
rt c
— -,-
o c
u
C (0
3 E
O
a> m
a
TJ —
C 3
nj fl
TJ 4>
41 C
at 41
in u
41 in
c- 41
0. TJ
«J
01 U
x: c
41
o
10
o
-------
ELECTROPLATING
Production Characteristics and capacities. The
electroplating industry is a subcategory of the metal
finishing industry and includes establishments engaged in
applying metallic coatings on surfaces by electrode
position. These coatings provide corrosion protection, wear
or erosion resistance, antifrictional characteristics,
lubricity, electrical conductivity, heat and light
reflectivity, or other special surface characteristics.
This analysis covers the Phase I guidelines for the
electroplating of copper, nickel, chromium, and zinc on
ferrous, nonferrous, and plastic materials. Phase II
regulations, which cover the additional metal-finishing
operations of anodizing, buffing, and polishing, were
promulgated too late for inclusion in this report.
An electroplating process involves cleaning, electroplating,
rinsing, and drying. The cleaning operation comprises two
or more steps, usually sequential treatments in an alkaline
solution and an acid solution, to remove grease, oil, soil,
and oxide films from the basic metal surfaces to insure good
adhesion. In the electroplating operation, metal ions in
either acid, alkaline, or neutral solutions are reduced on
the work pieces being plated, which serve as cathodes.
Hundreds of different electroplating solutions have been
adopted commercially, but only two or three types are
utilized widely for a single metal or alloy. For example,
cyanide solutions are popular for copper, zinc, and cadmium.
Acid sulfate solutions and non-cyanide alkaline solutions
containing pyrophosphate or another chelating agent are also
used. The parts to be plated are usually immersed in the
electroplating solutions upon racks, although small parts
are allowed to tumble freely in open barrels.
Mechanized systems have been developed for transferring both
barrels and racks from cleaning, plating, and rinsing tanks.
In some instances, dwell time and transfer periods are
programmed on magnetic tape or cards for complete
automation.
Approximately 20,000 companies are engaged in metal
finishing activities. In over 85 percent of these
companies, metal finishing is merely one step in a
manufacturing process. Because these "captive shop"
operations are not classified, it is extremely difficult to
obtain good information on most of the U.S. metal platers.
Hence, this analysis addresses only independent (non-
captive) electroplating facilities.
3-306
-------
Electroplating facilities vary greatly in size and
character. Over 70 percent of the shops have fewer than 20
employees, while the largest shops have more than 150
employees. The area of the products being electroplated
varies from less than 10 to more than 1,000 square meters
per day. Products being plated vary in weight from less
than 30 grams to more than 9,000 kilograms. Most of the
plants perform specialized batch operations, but in some
plant operations, continuous strip and wire are plated on a
24-hour per day basis, some companies have capabilities for
electroplating 10 or 12 different metals and alloys; others
specialize in just one or two.
Waste Sources and Pollutants. Water is used in
electroplating operations to accomplish the following tasks:
• Rinsing of parts, racks, and equipment
• Washing equipment and washing away spills
* Washing the air in ventilation ducts
• Dumps of operating solutions
• Cooling water to cool solutions (usually reused for
rinsing).
Approximately 90 percent of the water is used in rinsing
operations; this water is used to rinse away the films of
processing solutions from the surface of the work pieces.
In performing this task, the water is contaminated by the
operating solutions and is not directly reusable.
In electroplating facilities, the wastes are derived
principally from the material plated and the operating
solutions. The most important wastes are made potentially
toxic by the formation of heavy metal salts and cyanide
salts.
For the purpose of establishing effluent limitations
guidelines for copper, nickel, chromium, and zinc plating
operations, the major wastewater constituents of polluting
significance have been defined to be: copper, nickel,
hexavelent chromium, total chromium, zinc, cyanide which is
amenable to oxidation by chlorine, total cyanide, suspended
solids (SS), and pH. Other wastewater constituents of
secondary importance that are not the subject of the
guidelines include: total dissolved solids, chemical oxygen
demand, biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease,
turbidity, color and temperature.
3-307
-------
Control Technology and Costs. Pollution control and
wastewater treatment technologies for reducing the discharge
of pollutants from copper, nickel, chromium, and zinc
electroplating processes include both in-plant controls and
end-of-process treatment system. The most commonly-used
treatment in the electroplating industry is the chemical
method. The rinse waters are usually segregated into these
three streams prior to treatment:
• Those containing hexavalent chromium,
• Those containing cyanide, and
• The remainder containing water from acid dips, ackali
cleaners, acid copper, nickel, and zinc baths, etc.
The cyanide is oxidized by chlorine, and the hexavalent
chromium is reduced to trivalent chromium with sulfur
dioxide or other reducing agents. The three streams are
then combined, and the metal hydroxides are precipitated by
adjusting the pH through chemical addition. The hydroxides
are allowed to settle out, often with the help of
coagulating agents, and the sludge is hauled to a lagoon or
filtered and used as land fill. These chemical facilities
may be engineered for batch or continuous operations.
Water conservation can be accomplished by: in-plant process
modifications and materials substitutions requiring little
capital or new equipment (substituting low concentration
electroplating solutions for high concentration baths or the
use of noncyanide solutions); good housekeeping practices;
reducing the amount of rinse water lost when parts are
removed from the solution; and reducing the volume of rinse
water used by installing counterflow rinses, adding wetting
agents, and installing air or ultrasonic agitation.
Significant amounts of water can also be conserved by using
advanced treatment methods, such as ion exchange,
evaporative recovery, or reverse osmosis to treat and
recycle in-process waters. Other more experimental in-
process treatment methods include freezing, electrodialysis,
ion-flotation, and electrolytic stripping. One system
currently in operation has achieved zero discharge of
pollutants through the use of reverse osmosis followed by
evaporation and distillation of the concentrated waste
stream from the reverse osmosis unit.
BPT for the electroplating industry is based upon the use of
chemical methods of treatment of the wastewater at the end
of the process controls to conserve rinse water and reduce
the amount of treated water discharged. NSPS are based upon
the above technology plus the utilization of the best multi-
3-308
-------
tank rinsing practices after each process. Maximum use of
combinations of evaporative, reverse osmosis, and ion
exchange systems for in-process control are also
recommended. BAT is the use of in-process and end-of-
process control and treatment to achieve no discharge of
pollutants.
An informal survey suggests that substantial amounts of
waste treatment equipment are currently installed in metal
finishing plants. These data indicate that most
electroplating establishments have at least some of the BPT
equipment already in place. Some of this will have to be
upgraded to satisfy BPT requirements, but a total investment
in new technology will not be necessary. In addition, the
majority of electroplaters discharge their wastewaters to
municipal sewage systems.
The most recent analysis of costs for this sector is that of
Gianessi and Peskin (G&P).l This analysis was conducted in
somewhat greater depth than, and subsequent to the general
data gathering efforts associated with the SEAS uniform cost
calculation procedure, and is considered to be more precise.
However, time and resource constraints prevented
incorporating these costs into the scenario analyses using
the SEAS model procedure. The G&P estimates are as follows
(in million 1975 dollars):
Total Phase I Phase II
Incremental BPT Investment 1,991.1 1,794.1 200.
Direct Discharging 516.6 470,6 46.1
Pretreating 1,447.5 1,323.5 154.0
Incremental BPT O&M 856.5 816.3 40.3
Direct Discharging 223.6 215.2 8.4
Pretreating 633.0 601.1 31.9
Estimates from the earlier SEAS calculation are presented
below, with projected pollutant discharges associated with
these costs. SEAS addressed only those costs associated
with Phase I production. As noted in the industry
description, SEAS addresses only independent electroplating
facilities, and does not calculate costs for captive shops,
as does G&P. Growth rate assumptions also affect the
forecasts.
3-309
-------
1 Gianessi, L. P. and H. M. Peskin, "The Cost to Industries
of the Water Pollution Control Amendment of 1972,"
National Bureau of Economic Research, December 1975.
{Revised January 1976)
3-310
-------
in
CD
CD o
••- o
Ol O
CO
(0
en
to
ID
o
o
o
ID
ID
n o n
•r" Ifl «
• • *
ot PI
n CM
a
DC
to
D
O O
UI CD
t- I
< CD
O t-
111 CD
5
13
mo to
MO —
ft
at
to
en
00
cn
cn
»•
CM
O V ID
n o o
in o o
CM
a.
ca
P>
• n
in
oo
cn
I-
t~
en
cn
IB
o> E
• c £
l 4-> tn
•3 (8
P) — 19
I Q.U
^r o ia
L. O
41 4->
— U >
n o; t.
ID ^ 4J
t- uJ in
TJ
c
i
to
t-
in on
H> —
to
t-
t^
cn
v at CM
co — in
in n u>
in --
B
>-
i-
t-
u
t-
t-
i
•»
i--
01
t~ o
no tM
in
CM
cn in
cn i- co
m co <-
co n co
co »- o>
in o r~
C.
I-
>
U
•—
U
ID
a
(0
o
a.
44
t.
0)
o
n
4J .
at
DC
r
4-»
3
O
c.
C3
^
ID
3
C
C
c_
>•
^v
K
E
o
0
o
i~~
i/>
i-
z
UJ
TJ
_l
LL
t)
O
in
-- TJ
o tu
i- >
4-« ^~
C O
O 10
u ta
.«-
»• a
r-
on
in
c
to
— «
c. 13
«W >•"
3 O
Z •*
d Controls:
ved Sol ids
(D —
4J 0
n i/i
— 10
— o
a
QJ
^1
C
01
— in
C T3
4^1 ..-
3 O
2 <
in
cn
c
o
s
IA
1—
I/)
O
o
_J
o
Q:
h>-
Z
4-«
C
0)
e
0)
>
Plants
e Treatment
atment
4-* (U
O) •— C.
C Iffl 4J
W C C.
VI O 0.
X
UJ
.1(1
4^
c
ID
CL
•J
4)
Investment Recovery
«~
ni
a
o
c
£
-------
r**-
•o
01 >.
3 c.
C 10
- 9 E
+> C E
C •"• 3
O «•• t/>
O ID
~-" •— ID
Qw
- O ID
— L O
1 *•
T O >
D 0> t-
1 "- 4-*
^ iu iff
3
«, ?
fl i~>
ID
1-
te
<
•
z
IH
&—
U)
O
U
^
t>
0
3
C
•*-
4«*
C
O
(J
»-«
1
• ~-
(rt
in
r-
o>
•—
O
•—
r~
-,-
3:
»^
in
t-
tfl
0
o
.J
o
o:
t-
z
o
o
in
on
to
t»
a>
in
00
at
T-
i*)
CD
O>
•—
*
t-
r-
O)
«•
M
4-1
U)
O
U
TJ
01
N
••-
r—
(0
3
-c
'C
•<
q>
in
S
n
o
in
•
o
w
in
on
n
•
o
o
in
i-
i*»
•
(O
00
T"
I—
ID
4*t
>r-
Q
ID
(J
TJ
Oi
N
•*-
_
10
3
C
C
-
to onto
* *- to
Ol *- O
N n
t~ f tO
u» r- m
• • •
in CM m
en 10 in
n n 10
in « on
^ Qi 00
• I •
CM •- V
r- r* «r
IN t*)
0 IN CN
01 P* »-
- • «
^* Ul (*>
CN — *^
*•" T"
4J
c
HI
e
ID *-•
01 C
C (U
»- E
• 01 10
4J Ol (ft
— C- —
in 4^ io
1 01 w
C L O
E a a i-
O
ID— B> t-
o op co in
o oi cd t-'
O O) O) 1-
tO t- P» O
»- 00
N Ol CO *
CO Oft O> 03
• • » •
to «fr »- o
-^ C")
to
7~
o co ** on
10 to n o
• • * •
in to o ^f
(S. (Q (*} (1Q
«- 0)
to oi ex ts
in oi in 7
... .
PI t» T- «-
in
O C t- —
- E 2 S
as ^ o in o
a in — *-
— Ol C- 18
O > 0) 4-1 t)
c » o c
C >-i 3 1- 10
3 C-
2 0
*
3
H-
01
M
3
a
01
in
ID
i*.
o
c
O
'«••
4-*
3
U)
in
01
f"
4rf
C
o
TJ
01
4J
3
a
E
O
i o •
0 ID
O >
*—
•»-* to
c w
a>
E 0
t-* C-
(0 (1)
0) N
c_
*J £
fl> -M
C. • —
a s
TJ 4-.
c in
10 9>
c.
Ol 01
ID TJ
oi
o o
c
in
> Ol
ID C.
E 3
4-f
4^ "—
in TJ
0 C
O Ol
a
TJ X
41 (1)
N
••- 4-»
— c
ra 41
3 g
C !-•
c in
10 41
•4- C
o •-
— f.
(11 O
o o*
4-- C
fl> E
u
41 Ol
t> JC
01
c. «~
1- O
r year investments
ationship to the
O —
.- 01
C. £.
a
c.
— «
"io "3
o
in -^
3 4-<
»- t.
a m
a
L.
HI O
0) C
M
01 C.
.C ID
4^ 01
XI
C
— C.
ID
(U Ol
TJ >
E >>
c
4-. l«
C
AI C
*^
in at
01 C.
> 3
C 4*
•^3
O C
4-1 Ol
a.
Ol X
./-
4> S
ra °o
— D •
HI c.
I. - 10
Hi (U
0) O >.
I- C
ra at 4-1
r is
L c
<0 4>
01 •
>» CO C
t- —
^ O)
C »- 01
ID TJ
C <0
C - E
CX 4^
<0 C C
4-- — Ol
in u E
O c <-•
u ai to
E 01
S E >
§o c
0 —
investment com-
01
n
t—
,
in
01
CD
C.
a
c
u
4-1
C
Ol
E
ID
at
4J
«~
10
a
u
c
3
E
$) '
C >
01
o o
o
4-- 01
C i- \
C *< '•
O C i
a. oi
e e :
O 4-1
u u>
01
S >
=9 C
O —
01 t.
j; oi
4J T)
c
O 3
O "O
c ai
01 4-1
TJ 0
C
in oi
a TJ
c
"5
a
ID
4-1
ID
£
10
C
o
4J
10
c
01
a
0
a
o
V)
a
o
M
TJ
3
O
C
^,
c
4_r
in
TJ
c •
— in
Ot
CT 0
•— 4-
4-» C.
10 3
— m
a
o —
C- ID
O c.
— 4-1
tU 10
E
Ol
c. O
(- 4-1
4*
a>
*J
o
z
i
rt
-------
STEAM ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY
Production Characteristics and Capacities. The electric
utility industry is composed of three types of companies:
those owned by investors, those owned by the public
(Federal, state or local governments), and those owned by
cooperatives. Companies owned by the public or by
cooperatives are engaged primarily in the distribution of
electricity; companies owned by investors are engaged in
generation, transmission, and distribution.
The 500 investor-owned companies serve fewer separate
electrical systems than cooperatives or publically-owned
companies, but they account for most of the generating
capacity and generate most of the electricity. In 1973,
investor-owned companies had 78 percent of the generating
capacity; publically-owned companies had 20 percent, and
cooperatives had 2 percent.
The steam electric power industry has been divided into
three sub-categories according to size and age of generating
plants, and a fourth based on area; a summary of the
subcategories follows:
t
Generation Capacity
Subcategory (megawatts) Date Initial Operation1
Generating Unit > 25 After 1/1/71
>500 After 1/1/70
Small Unit , < 25
Old Unit >500 On or before 1/1/70
<500 On or before 1/1/71
Area Runoff All Sizes
»Final effluent guidelines were issued on October 8, 1974,
in the Federal Register (39FR36186). These guidelines
exempt all units placed into service before 1970 from
meeting limitations on the discharge of heat.
The generating capacity of the industry may be further
classified by the type of fuel employed to drive the
generator. AS shown in Table 1-35-1, coal is the
predominant fuel used. In recent years, there has been a
shift from coal to oil, principally because state and local
3-313
.
-------
environmental restrictions required the use of low sulfur
fuels, a requirement more easily met by oil then coal. More
recently, the increasing prices of foreign crude oil have
caused a reversal of this trend as utilities return to lower
priced coal as their fuel.
3-31U
-------
•w a
— OB
«»- u
to 10
«- in
o>
o
• 10 Ol
o — o
Z 0.
o
eg
o>
n
n
« • o — ~ n
•«•• a
.33
«
0)
O 0
• (8 n m in n
o — «- »• rt
zo.
** a
o (0
»- u
o •- «-
* • *
CP O *•
• a in —
o— *• o
z a. «- -
CO •
v a
O 10
t- o
o
in
o
Ol
o
c
T3
C
O
c
• no »-
o — (o in
z a »-
— i- o •- ^ n
o
u
in
c
• a n r- n
o — «- n i~
z a r* m »-
o
CO
in in
CM
u>
w-
o
10
u
Of
o
o
o
13
a
a
o
c
a
u
g
a.
o
o
en
i
n
A
ID
U
IB
C
U
m o o to
« o o —
aio ' m in a c.
N 41 I *• V
— 6 • " in on.
^ v PI A t-
a.
UJ
o
o
c.
O
w
-------
Waste Sources and Pollutants. The major waste product from
electric power generation is heat. Depending on the type of
fuel consumed, substantial quantities of metal cleaning
wastes, water treatment wastes, miscellaneous housekeeping
wastes, bottom ash and fly ash may also be produced. Waste
cooling water may contain corrosion inhibitors and biocides,
principally chlorine.
The main sources contributing to the total waste load come
from both power generation and housekeeping: cooling water
and cooling water blowdown, boiler blowdown, metal cleaning
wastes, ash transport water, low volume wastes, and
construction and storage runoff.
In order to define waste characteristics, the following
parameters were used to develop guidelines for meeting BPT
and BAT: (1) total suspended solids, (2) oil and grease,
(3) free available chlorine, (H) total copper, (5) total
iron, (6) zinc, (7) chromium, (8) phosphorous, (9) other
corrosion inhibitors, (10) polychlorobiphenyls (PBC),
(11) pH, and (12) heat.
Specific waste loads have not been characterized, but they
may be expected to vary with the type of fuel:
• Coal burning plants produce the heaviest burden of
wastes because of the large amounts of fly ash and
bottom ash produced. Pollutants are caused by runoff
from coal storage areas, boiled blowdown, metal
cleaning wastes, once-through cooling water or cooling
water blowdown, and low volume wastes, including wet
scrubber wastes, water treatment wastes, laboratory and
sampling wastes, and housekeeping wastes, such as pump
seal oil.
• Oil burning plants generate no bottom ash and much less
fly ash then coal burning plants. Otherwise, the
wastes are about the same except that there are
substantial quantities of oily water from oil use and
storage, but no runoff from coal storage.
• Gas burning plants produce almost no ash and require no
air pollution equipment for control of particulates and
sulfur dioxide. Otherwise, the wastes are the same as
for coal and oil except that there is no waste stream
associated with fuel storage, and none associated with
maintenance cleaning of the stack.
• Nuclear plants produce no ash or fuel storage waste
streams, and metal cleaning wastes are limited to the
cooling tower basin and generator tubes. Otherwise,
3-316
-------
the wastewaters are similar -to those of fossil fuel
plants. Radioactive wastes are not covered in effluent
guidelines.
Control Technology and Costs. Wastewater treatment
generally has not been practiced in the steam electric power
industry; however, based on assumptions concerning the
nature of the wastestreams, the treatment technology is
readily projected.
• Cooling Water. Where unlimited discharge of heated
water is permitted, there is no requirement for
treatment. Where recirculating cooling water systems
are in use, it will be unnecessary to remove corrosion
inhibitors from the blowdown to meet 1983 criteria.
This can be achieved by treatment with sulfur dioxide
to reduce hexavalent chromium followed by chemical
precipitation of heavy metals and phosphate, and
filtration. Since new source performance standards
permit no discharge of corrosion inhibitors, it will be
necessary to construct cooling facilities of corrosion-
inhibiting materials.
• Metal Cleaning Wastes and Boiler Blowdown. Metal
cleaning wastes are generated on an intermittent basis.
Treatment of this stream, as well as the boiler
blowdown stream, can be achieved by equalization,
chemical precipitation of heavy metals, and filtration.
Where chemical treatment of cooling waters blowdown is
necessary, these streams can be combined for treatment.
• Ash Transport Water and Low Volume Wastes. The
blowdown from recirculating ash transport water can be
treated to meet all standards by neutralization, oil
separation, and clarification. Where discharge of
pollutants from fly ash transport is prohibited, it
will be necessary to resort to dry removal methods.
Low volume wastes are treated by equalization,
neutralization, oil separation, and clarification.
They may be combined with the blowdown from ash
transport water for treatment.
• Area Runoff. Area runoff may be treated by
impoundment, lime addition for pH control, and
discharge of the neutral, settled water.
3-317
-------
The most recent analysis of costs for this sector was
provided to the Agency by Temple, Baker 6 Sloane, Inc.,
(TBS)1. This analysis was conducted in somewhat greater
depth than, and subsequent to the general data gathering
efforts associated with the SEAS univorm cost calculation
procedure, and is considered to be more precise. However,
time and resource constraints prevented incorporating these
costs into the scenario analyses using the SEAS model
procedure. The TBS estimates are as follows (in million
1975 dollars):•
Incremental
Incremental
Investment (1974-1983)
OSM (1974-1983)
4,500
2,100
Estimates from the earlier SEAS calculations are presented
in Table 4-35-1 (with capital expenditures during the period
1974-1983 equal to 5.2 billion dollars). The SEAS valuejs
were based upon the EPA report Economic Analysis of ''**'
Efficient Guidelines, Steam Electric Plants (December t.974) .
Costs for enhancement were not estimated in this earlier
report, and thus are not included in the SEAS projections.
Two significant modifications are included in the revised
baseline estimates for the electric utility industry. ||
First, capital expenditures requirements have declined ^
primarily because reduced growth for the industry means
fewer new units will be built than had previously been
expected. The OGM costs have risen due to the increased
fuel costs acclerating the cost of making up the energy
penalties associated with closed-cycle cooling. The net
change from the results associated with the 1974 report has
been approximately a seventeen percent reduction in
kilowatts covered by the relatively expensive thermal
guidelines, a twelve percent reduction in capital
expenditure impacts and a substantial increase in operations
and maintenance expenses.
1 "Economic and Financial Impacts of EPA's Air and Water
Pollution Controls on the Electric Utility Industry,"
Temple, Barker S Sloane, Inc., May 1976.
3-318
-------
in
CO
to
i-
01
«o v-
rv o «»•
co o
en
tO
O ID
«T O CN
r- r-
to co
v . in
in
m
en
o
o
o
t-
(0
CM
CO
I-
eo
u>
O
CM
CM
CO
a
UJ
ec
o
O
oo
co
r»
en
4
co
CO O (0
*- o *
I- o
in
m
in
o
o to
o o
u>
CM
Table 4-35-2.
Steam Electric Power
Industry Data Summary
LEVEL 1977 1983
V
r~<
>
t_<
H-
O
<
O
O
o
CM
o
to
Ul
10
CM
r-
ta
4-<
10
3
ro
a>
£
4-»
O
fl
a
10
o
X
to
l>
II
in
CO
(0
t-
T3
o
c_
at
a.
c
4V
C_
O
01
in
a;
C.
3
O
c.
ft)
3
C
C
m
a>
t-
c.
>-
•^
h-
o
o
o
i—
UJ
3
_J
U.
u.
UJ
in o
CO O
a) •- UJ
C O TJ
•• o in c
O 10 01 —
c. O > "J
<-/ a — o
C " 0 0
o w —
u m at
m .-
»- 1- Q
en
01
c —
4-" C
c O
O
O —
a
•a o
(U o
1C
in irt
•— t-
rji
0)
CO
in
in
n
CM
o
CM
ro
00
CM
U>
10
- o
0 U
to • —
to
Q
tf>
in
en
c
O
s
in
t—
in
o
o
_j
o
CE
1-
-£
a
t~
r~
en
4-1
C
g
t<»
in
41
s
C
fc^
g Plants
its Treatment 1,018.50 (BPT)
reatment 0.00
C 10 **
*-• c c
moo.
,~
X
Ul
ID
CO
o
(O
U)
c
10
a
^
HI
2
0
O
>
c.
dj
o
o
a>
a:
4-»
c
01
e
u)
41
C
ID
Q
O
•.-
C
3
S
1-
to
to
CM
(D
N
^?
ra
4^
O
h-
PI
I
-------
in
m
01
in
CO O CO
•- O T- ,
C*l C*l •
o o o
o o o
o o o
000
CM
en
CM
I-
01 t- >.
3 111 C.
c 3t a
4-> O. 6
C , 3
o u
u —
— c. 10
• U 10
CM in a
I —
in ui >
O e.
I E 4J
<»• IB w
01 3
Q) 4-» "O
— in c
•o
V
c
0
o
in
Ol
c
o
l/>
o
(J
o
cc
I—
z
Q
o
in a.
o n
o o
•o
Ol
N
TI
01
N
c
01
E
4-«
M 4J
Ol C
£1
Ol 10
4J Ol
— IA 4-> 10
IQ • I 01 4-«
3 ceo
c 5 a a i-
C
4-- 10
c in
m
E= o
t-> c_
10 01
ID N
c
41 4^
C —
a s
"O 4-»
C u)
10 01
i.
dl 01
••- c
(A •-
C 4J
O C
tJ O
Ol C
N 111
— a.
10 O
3 —
C
C 4-1
A 10
19
U
01
T3
01 01
.- TJ
n ra
ID u
4-> 01
10 t)
01,
10 C
e 3
in T)
O C
U Ol
a.
C 4J
C «)
n) dj
«- c
O —
O Ol
4-1 C
TJ .-
Ifl -M
U
(tl (U
13 r
HI
C 0)
15
4J
as o
41 4-1
>
c a
" c
i. 1»
(0 C
ai o
> —
4-1
c- (0
.2«
C. f.
Q.
10 3
u
3 *•
a a
a
t,
« o
ai c
in
01 c.
£ fl
4J 01
e
-^ c.
m
01 Ol
•a >
10
E >
4-> ra
c
01 C
ui ai
Ol t-
> 3
C 4-1
O C
V 01
a
Ol X
> 01
4^ S
10 tt>
- O •
111 C
i. • ft,
01 ai
.
c. C
nj 0) 4-.
£- JC
<0 4--
01 •
>F> C
t- —
C r- tl
19 T>
C 10
C - E
O4-.
com-"
nvestmen
The
charges
19
Ol
(_
ra
a
c
3
01 •
£ >
4-" C.
41
14- >
O O
u
4J 41
C C-
41
C 4J
O C
Q 01
e e
O 4-i
O W
41
S >
o£ ^
o —
Oj L
Ol
we
in o 6
o c 4^
u CO in
E 01
s e >
<« o c
o u —
o -a
C {tl
01 4J
•a o
tA at
O D
Ol
C- W
r
O 4J
•a
a
w
10
0
ID
O
o
o
c
01
3
C
o
01
c
41
O>
L
01
3
O
a
U)
Ol
t>
m
3
t3
C
oi in
Ul Ctt
6 «-
ID
11 U
.c 3
I- C
o
z
o
c\
p>
I
-------
SOAP AND DETERGENT INDUSTRY
Production Characteristics and Capacities. Data from the
Census of Manufacturers^ 1967, identify 668 establishments
in the industry. In spite of this large number, production
is highly-concentrated in the industry with 12
establishments accounting for «*7 percent of the industry's
value-added, and 28 establishments accounting for 73 percent
of value-added. The "big three" companies. Proctor and
Gamble, Lever Brothers, and Colgate-Palmolive, dominate the
package detergent industry with 80-85 percent of the market.
The soap and detergent industry establishments are engaged
in the manufacture of soap, synthetic organic detergents,
inorganic alkaline detergents, or any combination of these
processes. Crude and refined glycerine production from
vegetable and animal fats and oils is also accomplished by
firms in the industry. In popular use, the term "soap"
refers to those cleaning agents based primarily on natural
fat. The term "detergent" is generally restricted to
cleaning compounds derived largely from petrochemicals.
Detergents can be formulated with entirely different organic
and inorganic chemicals to exhibit the same cleaning power
or have the same biodegradability.
Basic raw materials used in the manufacture of soap come
from chemical and agricultural processors and include
caustic soap, fats, and oils. Raw materials for detergents
are supplied mostly from large chemical and petrochemical
companies and consist primarily of detergent alkylate,
alcohols, and surfactants.
Soaps and detergents are produced with a variety of
manufacturing processes. In the traditional'batch-kettle
process of manufacturing soap, a mixture of refined and
bleached fats, oils, caustic soda, and salt is alternatively
boiled, settled, and drained of lye, etc., over a period
from a to 6 days. Another process first converts the fats
and oils to fatty acids, then mixes these with caustic soda,
soda ash, and salt to produce soap; this "fatty acid
neutralization" process is faster and produces less
wastewater.
Detergents customarily consist of two main components, the
surfactant or active ingredient, and the builder which
performs many functions including buffering the pH and soil
dispersion. Surfactants, usually alcohol sulfate or alkyl
benzene sulfonate, are produced from a variety of processes
in which alcohols, alkyl benzene and/or ethoxylates are
combined in a reactor with sulfur compounds, usually sulfur
3-321
-------
trioxide. The resultant products are then neutralized and
blended with the requisite builders and additives to produce
the desired detergent.
waste sources and Pollutants. Waste loads from the
different soap and detergent manufacturing processes vary
considerably. Some processes are completely dry and produce
no wastewaters. The major pollution sources from other
processes are leaks and spills, washout waters, scrubber
water from air pollution control equipment, barometric
condensate, and cooling tower blowdown. Wash and
wastewaters produced by some of the processes result in some
very strong pollutants, such as sewer lyes, salt brine,
acids, glycerine foots, and spent catalysts.
Pollutants covered by the effluent limitations guidelines
include BODS, COD, suspended solids, surfactants, oil and
grease, and~pH.
Control Technology and Costs. Almost all (98 percent) of
the plants in the soap and detergent industry discharge
their wastewater into municipal treatment systems. This
leaves fewer than a dozen plants which are point-source
dischargers into navigable waters. Of these, only one has a
complete primary-secondary treatment system. Several plants
have aerated or non-aerated lagoons.
The major pollutants and the treatment methods usually
employed to handle them are as follows:
3-322
-------
Pollutants
Treatments
Oil and grease
Suspended solids
Dispersed organics
1. Gravity separation
2. Coagulation and sedimentation
3. Carbon absorption
U. Mixed-media filtration
5. Flotation
1. Plain sedimentation
2. Coagulation and sedimentation
3. Mixed-media filtration
1. Bioconversion (i.e., aerated
lagoons, extended aeration,
activated sludge, contact
stabilization, trickling
filters)
2. Carbon absorption
1. Reverse osmosis
2. Ion exchange
3. Sedimentation
1. Evaporation
1. Neutralization
1. Digestion
2. Incineration
3. Lagooninq
4. Thickening
5. Centrifuging
6. Wet oxidation
7. Vacuum filtration
Source: EPA Development Document, April 1974, p.96.
Probably the largest reductions in the pollution load from
this industry can be made through lower process water usage.
One of the biggest improvements would be either changing the
operating techniques associated with the barometric
condensers or replacing them entirely with surface
condensers. Large reductions in water usage in the
manufacture of liquid detergents could be achieved through
the installation of additional water recycling, and by the
use of air rather than water to blow out filling lines.
BPT guidelines call for plants to adopt good housekeeping
procedures, adopt recycling where appropriate, and install
biological secondary treatment (bioconversion) . BAT
guidelines assume improvement in manufacturing processes
Dissolved solids
(inorganic)
Acidity or alkalinity
Sludge disposal
3-323
-------
such as the replacement of barometric condensers by surface
condensers, the installation of tandem-chilled water
scrubbers (for spray-dried detergents), and the use of a
batch counter-cur rent process in air-SO_3 sulfation and
sulfonation. In addition, improvements in end-of-pipe
treatment are expected including the addition of sand or
mixed-media filtration or the installation of a two-stage,
activated sludge process. New source performance standards
are the same as BAT for most product subcategories.
Improvements over BAT are expected where the installation of
new, lower-polluting processes, such as continuous processes
instead of batch processes, is possible.
Since approximately 90 percent of the soap and detergent
manufacturers discharge into municipal sewers, the total
cost to the industry of meeting these guidelines is low.
Annualized control costs and industry statistics are
detailed in Table 4-36-1.
The most recent analysis of costs for this sector is that of
Gianessi and Peskin (G&P).l This analysis was conducted in
somewhat greater depth than, and subsequent to the general
data gathering efforts associated with the SEAS uniform cost
calculation procedure, and is considered to be more precise.
However, time and resource constraints prevented
incorporating these costs into the scenario analyses using
the SEAS model procedure. The soap and detergent G6P
estimates are as follows (in 1975 dollars) :
Incremental BPT Investment
Incremental BPT O&M
7.0
1.1
Estimates from the earlier SEAS calculations are presented
below, with projected pollutant discharges associated with
these costs. The principal reason for the difference in the
estimates is that GSP assumes that 95 percent of total
process water flow is discharged to municipalities, and that
77 percent of the plants incur pretreatment costs, being
detergent plants. SEAS assumes no pretreatment costs, the
only costs to the industry being municipal charges. There
is also a substantial difference in growth assumptions about
the industry. The municipal charges listed by GSP for soaps
and detergents is 2».7 million dollars, as compared to the
SEAS estimate for Municipal Investment Recovery and User
Charges, summing to 28.0 million dollars over a comparable
period.
3-324
-------
Gianessi, L. P. and H. M. Peskin, "The cost to Industries
of the Water Pollution Control Amendment of 1972,"
National Bureau of Economic Research, December, 1975.
(Revised January 1976)
3-325
-------
in
00
o o
o o
Q *- *-
O O
Table 4-36-1 .
Soap and Detergent
Industry Data Summary
1977 1983 1985
_j
HI
>
UJ
_l
>
&—
»•*
>
|_4
»—
c_>
«t
in
«
en
tO
*»
ro
r-
i>
IN
IB
a
--^
•^
%z
*^.
>,
4-t
•f
O
nl
a
ro
O
IO
t-
n
in
CO
i
Ol
TJ
o
c_
m
Q.
•x.
t-
£
o
o
«-
*_
in
>-
7.
UJ
^3
_j
UL
U.
1U
n o «r h-
ro co GO en
o> t» *- o
n n
to m 10 en
in in o co
n in o o
cv ct
f
i
^ T* t^ CO
in in en in
' in 10 CM o
(U
ift
in
01
•• t.
in o
r—
0
i.
*j
C
o
O I/I
I/)
r~ l~
c«.
en
in
o
a
03
TJ
C
n)
m
o —
O -
0 0
ontnol s:
(J
t)
0)
4J
<0
_-
[rt
.^
Ol
^
CO »- CO CO
«>O <* -r-
i- « f» O
in ^- r- 10
Ul U> >- >-
T- CV C^ O
^r co co o*
«- M O CM
CM 10 10 O
10
HI
in
a
41
C-
O
in
l/l O
in o
i- m
t)
c
ra .
U]
Q —
a —
u o
UJ
O
o
t-
<
UJ
1
<=»
in
i^.
en
c
O
s
I/I
k-
(/}
o
^
o
a:
7
6
o
m
CO
at
i
r-
+-«
c
01
c
4>
c
*-H
c
c c. m
* i-
QL Qj
4J
01-
c m
*-• c
in o
.,-
X
IU
E
4-*
01
c
4-»
d>
t.
CL
O
O
o
o
in
±*
c
_
a.
1C
IU
z
en
CO
u>
en
eo
c.
HI
a
o
en
c
01
e
IB
0)
c
*-*
_
10
a
u
c
75
c^
en
at
09
to
Ol
03
CO
U)
aj
4_l
o
t-
IO
fl
-------
4-36-1 .
d Detergent
Data Summary
$) - (Continued) COST IN YEAR
41 C
— 10 >• lit
at. t-
10 Q.4V 01
_§3 ^
(/> T> C
C O
»-» ••-
.—
._
£
(A
^
in
O
U
_j
O
ae
t_
z
o
U
in
00
to
at
•in
CO
CO
01
t-
OI
in
4V
in
o
u
41
N
r-r
10
3
C
C
*f
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
a
,-.
4-*
Q
ra
u
41
,_
_
10
3
[.:
c
<
o o o
o o o
o o o
O 0 0
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
4J
c
d>
e
4V
flj 4V
41 C
c. n>
i- t
4) n!
4V O1 0)
•r- t- <—
in 4V ID
c c. o
S O O- »~
'0
O
in
4>
01
c.
10
£
O
1JJT
10
a
o
c
z~
V M ID
•^ 01 10
«- to to
o w «
<^ t- CM
01 ID 9
»* h- 01
p> n ID
T- in u>
O) CO P-
CM CM in
»- T- C*
CO f> OJ
CO ID O
>»
c.
(U
o
41
CE IA
01
4-J Q)
C c.
12
4v o in
in —
41 c- 10
> 01 4V
C in O
i_* ^ i—
(D
ID
CD
IO
CN
ID
in
o
in
—
ID
4V
O
h-
"O
C
10
e.
O
treatment costs are computed on the assumption of a 15 year useful life
h zero salvage value.
HI 4V
c. —
a s
n 4V
c in
10 m
c.
41 41
4V 4V
•i- C
in •-
1
C *v
O C
41
T> O
a> c-
N 01
•- a
ID O
-j ^.
i:
C 4V
'I 10
ized cost may not oe relataole to the decade total of investment because
t expenditures over the decade.
— c
Iti Oi
3 E
C 4V
c in
to a>
•4- C
o -
-— 14-
ffl O
4V
O O
••-
01 £
T3 —
10 4V
O
01 01
"D C
4V
41
£ **-
1- O
relative to investment made in the year plus all "prior year investments
. OSM expenditure in any year bears no particular relationship to the
ar .
01 01
41 O >
c. C
c. n
10 4V
41 •
>* o c
t"- "-
>s O>
C «- 01
10 T}
C 10
C - E
D> 4J
ID C C
4V — t>
LA U E
O C 4V
o oi in
E 0)
& E >
* O C
o u —
M component of the municipal treatment charges. The investment com-
vestment recovery.
08 C
o —
4) c-
£ 41
4v T3
C
41 3
4-»
o n
c 01
ID .M
TJ O
C
IA 41
4> T3
O
C. (ft
10 —
O 4V
C
i. 01
nj C
m o
a Q
nt industry includes the manufacturing of soap, organic and Inorganic
combination of the three.
41
O> >
C- C
01 (0
* -o
o c
<0
n
c -
10 V)
Q. C
10 4)
o o
in c.
41
Q) 4V
JC 41
1- T3
..
(II
4V
O
Z
I-
CM
-------
-------
Section Four
A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL:
IMPACT MEASUREMENT UNDER ALTERNATIVE FUTURES
This Section presents national- and sectoral-level estimates
of the key economic, environmental, and energy impacts of
Federal pollution control laws and regulations. These
impacts are examined under different sets of basic
assumptions about economic activity levels and energy
conservation policies and programs. The period of 1971
through 1985 is evaluated since it includes the time frame
during which the Federally mandated environmental policies
will be put into effect. The analysis is conducted by
running alternative scenarios through a computerized system
for impact estimation and analysis; the computer system used
is the Strategic Environmental Assessment System (SEAS).
The magnitude and interrelationships of estimated relative
impacts are forecast based upon the assumptions made
explicit in each scenario. The basic structure of the
economy, and the fiscal policies which help guide it, are
maintained for each specific run of the model system.
Changes in these and other basic assumptions are what
constitute a specific scenario.
All industrial pollution control cost functions utilized in
this section are those used in the original SEAS
calculations. They have not been modified by the more
recent data which accompany SEAS cost estimates in Sections
2 and 3, and which have been included in nationally
aggregated cost totals presented elsewhere in the report.
This situation has little>eT?QCt on the analyses in this
section, since the principle objective is to indicate the
relative impacts of potential/alternative future conditions
on the national pollution control costs and residual
discharges, and not to precisely define the pollution
control costs for particular sectors of the economy.
-------
chapter 1
Impact Estimation Using
The Strategic Environmental
Assessment System (SEAS)
In several previous studies and reports, there have been
estimates made of the projected impacts on the national
economy of pollution abatement programs. The Environmental
Protection Agency (e.g., see The Economics of Clean Water-
1973 and The Economic Impact of the Federal Environmental
Program-197H).t the council on Environmental Quality (Annual
Reports), the U. S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, and
other agencies have utilized a variety of economic models to
project impacts upon overall price inflation and levels of
economic activity. These models have included procedures
developed either by the agencies themselves or by private
groups, such as Chase Econometrics Associates, the Brcokings
Institute, and Data Resources Incorporated. For the most
part, this previous work has led to forecasts indicating
that the inflationary influences of pollution abatement
programs would be comparatively minor relative to the
presence of numerous other inflationary influences, and that
the effects on national income would also be relatively
minor.
several of the previous studies of pollution abatement
impacts have also devoted considerable attention to
evaluating the benefits and costs attributable to pollution
abatement programs. The purpose of such benefit/cost
analyses has been to assess whether the nation would receive
economic and environmental benefits greater than the
expenditures required to achieve them.
The work described in this section departs from these
previous efforts in three important ways:
• First, no attempt is made to develop a single set of
impact projections; rather, impacts are measured
relative to different sets of general socioeconomic
assumptions of future conditions;
• Second, the analysis focuses on how these impacts are
differentially affected by the various basic
assumptions about future economic and pollution control
activities and energy policy, rather than their
absolute levels (although these are also presented);
• Third, control costs and resultant pollution estimates
are developed at a greater level of industrial detail
-------
and the effect of cost feedbacks by sector are
included. (Feedbacks are purchases made for pollution
control implementation and operation that increase
purchases from sectors that produce such items.)
The present imprecise state of knowledge regarding the
evaluation of future benefits makes any attempt to compile a
national aggregate figure for benefits subject to large
uncertainties. As a substitute approach, consequences of
pollution abatement programs are analyzed through tradeoffs
among the various costs and impacts of achieving legislated
Federal control objectives.
The general procedure used for tradeoff analysis is as
follows:
1, Select a consistent set of general economic,
environmental, demographic and resource-energy
assumptions;
2. Calculate a set of forecasts of the economy, industry
outputs, environmental residuals and energy usage given
that specific industry environmental controls are not
increased beyond those present in 1971.
3. Calculate the same forecasts, given that environmental
controls, costs, and equipment purchases are
superimposed on the original economic structure as
necessary to comply with Federal pollution control
legislation.
ft. compare the differences in forecasts between the
abatement case and the non-abatement case for national
level statistics and for industry-detailed statistics.
This procedure was performed for three alternative sets of
assumptions, plus one variation on environmental controls
and costs. Steps 1 and 3 draw on the data provided in
Sections Two and Three of this report. The forecasts
required in steps 2 and 3 are derived from operation of SEAS
using these data. Step 4, the impact analysis, is a
quantitative analysis of the SEAS simulation results for
each scenario to determine impacts upon environmental
pollution, pollution control costs, and economic and
resource usage statistics. (See Appendix A for a brief
description of the SEAS system used for this application.)
4-3
-------
Chapter 2
Scenario Assumptions
Six major scenarios were constructed to develop impact
estimates through 1985 for alternative sets of assumptions
about the future. The six scenarios are divided into three
pairs, with each pair representing a predefined "case" of
future economic and energy-consumption conditions. The
three cases selected for this study are a Reference Case, a
Low Productivity Case, and an Energy Conservation Case.
A "non-abatement" scenario and an "abatement" or
"compliance" scenario were run to provide the two
alternative forecasts for each case, thereby showing the
incremental impacts of pollution control. Each forecast
provides annual projections through 1985 of major
macroeconomic and demographic variables, industrial outputs,
energy usage, domestic demand for virgin stocks, recycling
levels, transportation demand, and environmental pollution
levels. The first, or non-abatement scenario, estimates the
value of these variables in the absence of Federal pollution
control legislation after 1970. It assumes that no
incremental expenditures are made by industries, utilities,
and municipalities to improve pollution control beyond
processes in place in 1971, and that all new industrial
facilities will control pollution to the same extent as that
practiced in 1971. It also assumes that Federal
expenditures do not include any additional subsidies for
pollution control past 1971. The non-abatement scenario,
however, does allow for pollution reductions resulting from
switching to new process technologies which would have
occurred without Federal legislation.
The second or abatement scenario in each pair assumes that
sufficient abatement expenditures are made to bring air and
water pollution from industry, utility, municipal, and
mobile sources into full compliance with Federal statutes.
It also provides for additional Federal expenditures to
cover the cost of pollution abatement at Federal plants and
the cost of other Federally-sponsored pollution control
programs. The abatement scenarios provide estimates of the
incremental costs of pollution control through 1985, in
addition to estimates of the same variables forecast in the
non-abatement scenarios.
The six scenarios run for the three cases are summarized
below:
-------
Case
Reference
Low
Productivity
Energy
Conservation
Non-Abatemeht
Scenarios (Without
incremental Control
Costs)
Scenario 1
Scenario 3
Scenario 5
Abatement Scenarios
(With Incremental
control Costs)
Scenario 2
Scenario 4
Scenario 6
The following names are used in the remainder of this
Section to identify each scenario:
Scenario 1 - The Reference Scenario
Scenario 2 - The Reference Abatement Scenario
Scenario 3 - The Low Productivity scenario
Scenario 4 - The Low Productivity Abatement Scenario
scenario 5 - The Energy scenario
Scenario 6 - The Energy Abatement Scenario
The six scenarios were produced in the sequence shown in
Figure 1. This sequence is designed to permit a comparative
analysis of the relative impacts and tradeoffs between
logical scenario pairs. Certain pairs are compared to
analyze the consequences of pollution control under the
conditions assumed for each case: (1,2), (3,4) and (5,6).
Other pairs provide an analysis of the impacts of the
assumptions themselves, both in the absence of incremental
abatement costs: (1,3) and (1,5); and with these costs
applied: (2,4) and (2,6).
4-5
-------
Figure 1.
Scenario Run Sequence
KEY:
- SINGLE SCENARIO RUN
SCENARIO COMPARISON RUN
SI - THE REFERENCE SCENARIO
52 - THE REFERENCE ABATEMENT SCENARIO
S3 - THE LOW PRODUCTIVITY SCENARIO
S4 - THE LOW PRODUCTIVITY ABATEMENT SCENARIO
S$ - THE ENERGY SCENARIO
S6 - THE ENERGY ABATEMENT SCENARIO
0-6
-------
The objective in comparing the economic, environmental, and
energy consequences of two scenarios is not to claim that
one is better or more realistic than the other, but to
develop an analysis that will provide meaningful abatement
cost forecasts for a range of economic and energy
projections. Examples of the kind of analysis afforded by
constrasting scenario cases is presented below:
• The Reference Case vs. The Low Productivity Case - The
two Reference Case scenarios call for the U.S. economy
to approach full employment in the early 1980's along a
relatively high productivity, high growth supply-
oriented path. The alternative Low Productivity Case
scenarios reflect a lower productivity and growth
profile. By comparing first the Low Productivity
Scenario with the Reference Scenario, and then the Low
Productivity Abatement Scenario with both the Low
Productivity Scenario and the Reference Abatement
Scenario, one can analyze the economic, environmental,
and energy consequences of implementing pollution
controls with alternative labor-productivity
conditions. Such an analysis affords insights into the
differences in abatement cost impacts arising from two
relatively realistic, but potentially very different,
economic futures. By 1985, the difference in GNP due
to these alternative productivity conditions is about
12 percent.
• The Reference Case vs. The Energy Conservation Case -
The Reference Case scenarios contain a number of basic
energy conservation policy measures. The alternative
Energy Conservation Case scenarios provide for an even
more stringent set of energy conservation policies and
programs. A comparison of the Energy Scenario with the
Reference Scenario, followed by comparisons of the
Energy Abatement Scenario with the Energy Scenario and
the Reference Abatement Scenario, affords insight into
the differences in the potential economic,
environmental, and energy consequences of legislated
pollution controls under a range of energy consumption
assumptions.
The detailed assumptions used to construct the Reference and
Reference Abatement Scenarios are presented in Appendix B
along with the changes in those assumptions made for the Low
Productivity and the Energy Conservation Cases.
U-7
-------
Chapter 3
Macro-Analysis Results
Results from the six SEAS scenario runs were subjected to
both macro- and sector-level analyses of the estimated
economic, environmental, and energy consequences of
pollution control. The following discussion presents the
macro-level findings, beginning with the Reference Scenario
and proceeding through the selected scenarios and scenario
comparisons. In addition. Appendix C presents an analysis
of the Municipal scenario, a variant of the Reference
Abatement Scenario that assumes a continuing appropriation
of $7 billion a year for municipal sewage treatment
facilities through the 1976-1985 decade.
A summary of the major results from the SEAS scenarios is
presented in Table 1. These results show that, over the
decade 1976-85, the total cost of complying with Federal air
and water pollution control legislation constitutes a
relatively small portion of the decade's cumulative gross
national product (GNP). Total decade abatement costs, as a
percentage of GNP, range from 2.09 percent for the Reference
Case to 2.25 percent for the Reference Case variant
identified above as the Municipal Scenario.
Table 1 indicates a fairly constant increase in energy use
by 1985 of 4.2 to 4.9 quadrillion Btu1s resulting from the
addition of pollution abatement practices in each of the
four abatement scenarios. It also shows the reduction in
net residuals (residuals discharged to the environment
either before or after treatment) achieved by 1985 as a
percentage of the Reference Scenario forecasts for each of
five air and four Water pollutants. In general, the
greatest abatement (reduction of residuals released to the
carrier medium) is attained in the Low Productivity Case,
except for the lower amounts of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), suspended solids, and nutrients are achieved in the
Municipal Scenario.
The annual composition of detailed data on the economy,
energy use, resource demand, pollutant residuals, and
abatement costs are presented in the individual scenario
analyses which follow.
4-8
-------
."»*• O
« 3 O
g* -
9 O
c. •
Ot o
<*-(/) O
o o
U) O
itwi «-
o
in a o
a o o
en a .-
— o
o o
too «-
"5 o
TJ O
"- O O
at *"
a O
*• O
c* o c>
z z *-
C. O
o a
c —-
W *• 3
C OL +*
Hf g (o ^^
3 •
in w tj en
CD C 10 O
en o a «•
•- oo
in
O CO Ol
00 CM Ot
o o
CO O
n>
CM CM CO
ID O CO
in ID
in en
co in «-
e»
o> o>
en
in in
r- U) CM
CM «- en
ID IO
o en
CM Ol
m
CO W 9
CM CM CO
in in CM
en at K
w o) co
in
•- "• CD
Ol CD CO
O — ID
O
in
«
•
en
CO
CM
in
r«
o
in
oa
co
in
•
n
CM
in
o
8 5
(0
o
in
en
o
o
« 0
in M c o *-
co c w o oa
i & 13 •*- Z
too o
ID 10 — o
r~ O —
»- O — CM
c.
W ^ IO
in co en
»• •- in
o
cv
o a>
CM —
O
05
CO
CM
3
o
c f-
c
c. «
At O
a. >
x
•O
en
i
«r
0
c.
a
c
u
U)
9
O
C
w
c
a
H.
01
DC
4^
C
dj
E
4)
10
D
r-
10
a
u
c
3
s
o
3
Q
C.
a
$
o
u
3 w
TJ C
O 41
c- E
a a*
*-*
3 10
o a
-j <
^
0
L.
O
c
UI
^f
c
4)
> e
0 4i
u ^
ai a
C JO
111 <
in
a>
^
ID
p-
41
41
C.
a
a
u
Iff
O
U
X ••-
0 E
C. £
309
in
M
a
a
ss
-------
THE REFERENCE SCENARIO
The Reference Scenario, which acts as the baseline for all
subsequent projections, includes the general forecast
assumptions described below. (See Appendix B for a detailed
discussion of these assumptions.)
1. High productivity and government policy to achieve a
full-supply labor force economy by the mid-1980s will
produce a 1985 GNP of $2.36 trillion (1975 constant
dollars) with an unemployment rate of *».4 percent for a
projected labor force of 107.7 million civilian
workers.
2. No municipal or industrial process will increase its
pollution control treatment efficiency levels above
those in use during 1971.
3. Energy usage and conservation will be consistent with
energy forecasts of the $7.00/barrel "Business-as-usual
Without Conservation" scenario of Project independence,
with an aggregate energy requirement of 109 quadrillion
Btu's in 1985.
Based on these assumptions, the Reference scenario forecast
was projected over the decade 1976-85. Some general
statistics that characterize the baseline projections appear
in Table 2.
The picture of the national economy for this baseline is one
in which the economy will gradually grow out of the 1975
recession to achieve an unemployment rate of l.ft percent by
1985. GNP grows at a 6.5 percent rate between the years
1975-80 and at a t.O percent rate between 1981-85.
Over the decade, the personal consumption expenditures and
equipment investment components of the GNP show greater
growth rates than the overall GNP growth rate. Non-Federal
government expenditures increase at rates well ahead of the
increases in the exogenously set Federal expenditures level
(ft.tj percent annual increase compared to 1.6 percent).
Total industrial output grows at a rate somewhat greater
than GNP with the sectors related to agriculture and mining
showing the slowest rates of growth, manufacturing sectors
growing at a rate slightly less than that for total output,
and the sectors related to services, transportation, >
communications, and electric utilities exhibiting the
highest growth rates. The slowdown in the growth rate for
the GNP in the years 1980-85 as the country catches up from
-10
-------
the downturn of the early seventies is also reflected in
decreasing rates for most of these industrial output growth
rates.
The energy requirement to support this economic pattern
reflects a growing demand for electricity. By 1985, coal
and nuclear sources will account for 63 percent of all
energy used in electrical generation, with coal accounting
for 33 percent. Growth in natural gas, petroleum and coal
usage to meet non-electrical energy demands on an annual
rate basis over the decade is 1.1 percent, 2.8 percent and
3.8 percent, respectively.
-------
o oo
•
(O
r»
a> tD«-
in n
ov
int-
ooo in
• in m
no
en —<
n m n « «- n
• • * • « *
N »- O OO O
n
en
n
CD •-
01 no
o tOCPCO ID
a> —
CM ^ 00 in K
onn n
n.no
i-air-ot
Ol 09
(O
CD cnnto
a t
ooo
*• into
i-
o
CD
a>
in en to CD n in
n ^ t'
oo
CM «- CO
o ton*.
o> o r» in in
n
«* to i-
(D
in co
CD
to
n
r-
O)
u>nin
(MO
« in t<- n in
M w p» »• «
«- o o o o
m
in
n
o 01«t^ »-
7 in in ID to
IB o to in n
o OD CM <0
a>
*~
OI
OI
ooo
•r- OB •-
• • *
V «- III
n o
w •-
ooo
en n in
• * •
»- o in
n o
n •-
•
r-
V
o
»»
Q)
0) ^>
IH a> i
_ ) O »-
00 tO O 10
CO . • • •
en T- o>
«- m «• to n t
o CM n w •- CN
n T- o o o o
01 at n in n n
oo • %- n co v* n
*- T- O O O O
n CM
»- n
an
CO
en
«- »- o o o o
rn n CD in u>
to i in in o
n o in in n
en n n n
M CM CM oo o
T- o> in n t
o en tr
CD *- ro
P) CO O ^* CD
to ^ w o r-
CD oo
n aa u>
in
co o n
r- *r v
CO d> CD
000 CM •*
n t* oo n
C-UJCD ^
to r- •
m too m
i*- v»- n
ooo en
o
o
.
0> *- 0>
»- n
t> ' CM o> m ft «-
to o CM o •- n
— ' -- O O O O
o
€0
a) 10 co en us
^r en n oo CM
co oa CM « f-
oa «- <•> n
tn T- in
in o) «-
o to
in
t~ r- o>
CM
in
to r- to CM CM o
in en CM rt — n
•- o o o o o
ID
CM
t- to to o> in
an o co in a>
o t» in
CM an 10
— in
co oi oo to
t- — Q.
•— J3 fl « — — o 0) o ra
U-OQU ;:—ACEEC.C,
— c ID n>
a £> ID w a.
in
r-
en
3 C
QO
U —
o —
a,
1/1
O — c
<- «
C) Ct *-*
>>u-O
c- —
Q) .»
C c-
LJ 13
a
p— 3
ra o
IA
ID
o e
«J —
L O
3 t. —
-^ *^ m
M HP o
z ft. o
VI
o
u
c.
T3
c c
(0 O
e—c.
•"O
s o
c
—
ce
O3
0
O
»-
t T>
• O C.
i~ n w
CO —
. «-< a ra
I 01 c. 4-1
1 £ fli tt
! c « e s
O a. D M
I — •-» C 3
t — c. — O
i — a 3 c.
* ^ flj •"• 9
i — a. < u.
-------
MO
in
oo
o>
no •<•
•-MW
MM in — «-
O «•— OI N
CM oo r~ m in
O
n r»
«ov n
w — in
» (O ID Ift l/> O>
<•> «• CN •• 01
in »- (
in « r> u> i- «-
aj in v T (O
ra « w •- 01
O CD *~ C1)
in CM v «-
oooooo
~- a»
— o
o> o —
*t O
01
in *- +• en o
— (O t- « Oi
n *t CN «- 01
«t r- n o
PI at net
U) — «T «-
OOOOOO
o
09
OI
in r>
o o
in m r-
PJO> rt
CX 00 »- O
«- r- O CN
r» v n f o>
r* t-n a
•— 1^ N CX
oooooo
•» « «r o> «-
O> 01 »- CO M
«- a> r- to o
10 in o v «
in PI CN n it
c«j v ex «- oo
en o a><0
CO PI CO CM
oooooo
in n
a> co
CN n in
o oo M
•- «- PI O w
in v t^ CN o
oo •- o o co
** ^ c*i en
it c* *- t-
oo t» * co
tD tO — CM
oooooo
o CD to c*> « »• i
T p> in M
• • • •
*r o n »-
oooooo
u>
r~
cn
c*«- in ro t
ic to in t- »-
— »- CO O —
!•>• t in »~ o
nj tx CD ^- ro
o u> CD ex o
n) CO t- ^ i^.
co co IP m
PJ r» o »-
o> M »-
o o o o o'o
f>
w~
I
IA
U
£
W
«^
W
10
*4
(A
Ki lometens
w —
— n
0 C
— o
c —
> —
•~-
— t_
10 i-
O
>-
Metric Ton-
( Billions)
4"*
£ l/l
01 C.
•^ 0)
4) u
C- Of
u. E
0 0
*^ r~ —
3 10 —
< «- X
O
>-
JC
o —
a •-
c a
t- ec
in
0
»-
10 O Iff «
~ .- «t TJ
(0 (- « 13
3 w in at - MX
T3 <1» 4> TJ X c O
-•- S *-'••" O O C
01 HI X U 0
V> C — O C f. S
a: o u u IB
— u c o o c
c- — •- D O O O
••• •— *> «. C. C. jO
^ "~ t. ^ +"1 o L
Z (0 3 — >. 10
M — a. in z I o
a>
2
<0
0
10 1-
ro o
•o «7
(A 0)
ID S
c
i. O
a> .-
10 —
2s —
E
at
z
Oxygen
.—
o -o
— c
e in
21
u o
o
OI
vt n
"o o
i/> i/>
T3 n
ai a>
"O ^
c —
o> o
a i/>
tA (A
3 "~
I/) O
to
4^
C
H)
c.
4^
•J
Z
M
M
O
O
m "o
*J L
<» c
c o
c.
o t.
c —
0)
IA
O
U
4^ -a —
c n m
P -»* .»•
at 10 10
01 3 O
> c
c c
•- <
0 C
U 0
a E
a o
sir
ul
5 B «
*> *• O
O — *
a c.
(0 —
U O
-------
II)
CD
0>
O OOO O O
o o o ooo
3
ooo ooo
oo oooo
M
co
o>
o oo oo o
oo o oo o
o
L.
S
CM
01
ooo oo o
o o o o o o
oo oooo
o o o o o o
a
X
C
Q
a
o
o
o
(0
at
t-
O>
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o oo o
o o o o o o
O C.
- o
a 2
S »
C C
J —
0 TJ
n 3
a> o
— c
CO
r»
01
o o o o o o
oo o o o o
TJ
ra
01
O)
O 0 O O 0 O
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
in >
o c
o —
o —
*. 10
•c
o
0
U
c «
O tt>
•w «
10 M
*-• c
t ••-
a
in 1}
C 3
10 —
C. O
o
u
o
*•«
in
a
vt
c
c c
ul
as 10 «
id <4 <-* U
o o — «
a c.
10 —
u a
w
O II)
u <-<
U)
— o
10 U
a
•*• *J "O 5 -I
— o c oi a
c. > c
c. o> c c
o ** >-• <
c 10
d) C
U 01
M E
a. o
c a
UJ
10 «^
*•* o
a c
u o
*j o
IB T)
Iff N
01
TJ -
— 3
U C
C C
-------
Resource demand projections for the Reference Scenario
indicate increasing requirements for virgin ore resources.
For example, U.S. demand for iron ore increases at an
average annual rate of slightly over 2 percent per year over
the period, with higher rates during the 1970 decade.
Similar demand patterns, but with slightly higher rates of
increase, are noted for both aluminum and copper ores. This
usage reflects the growth pattern shown in Table 2 for total
output, with the annual growth rates of the late 1970*s two
times or more the rates for the early 1980fs. The patterns
noted for these metal ores are also found in the demand
statistics for recycling of paper/paperboard, aluminum and
ferrous metals. Demand for recycled aluminum is
particularly heavy over the decade, averaging about 8
percent growth per year.
As a final set of characterizations of the Reference
Scenario, the following patterns can be noted for annual
levels of air and water residuals released to the
environment.
First, the annual growth rates for all air- and water-borne
residuals are less than the economic growth rate and are
less than the manufacturing output growth rate. Thus, even
with no improved treatment efficiencies past 1971, relative
improvement in residuals per dollar of output produced are
noted for all major residuals categories due to increasing
use of cleaner production technologies. However, the change
is relatively small, and the absolute levels of annual
residual loads continue to increase for all air and water
residual categories throughout the decade.
Second, the decade projections also show that air residuals
are increasing at rates greater than the water residuals.
To provide greater detail on growth rates by generation
source (i.e., industrial, municipal, transportation, or
electric utilities), Figures 1 and 2 are provided for
evaluation and comparison. The data in Figures 1 and 2
demonstrate that although the growth rates of air residuals
connected with mobile sources are greater than those for
stationary sources, the growth rate of air residuals from
any source is consistently higher than the growth rate of
water residuals.
Finally, Table 3 presents the change in stationary source
treatment efficiencies from 1975 through 1985. These
efficiencies are calculated as gross residuals less net
residuals divided by gross residuals, where:
a-15
-------
Gross residuals equal the residuals that would occur if
there were no end-of-process treatment of discharges.
Net residuals equal the residuals that occur due to
end-of-process treatment of discharges by each
industrial process.
0-16
-------
Figure 1.
Trends in Air Residuals in Reference Scenario
410-
vn-
»M-
MO-
4K-
1WRTICULAUS
JWICOKWOUEO*
fTH
«oH
j»o-
170-
JSO-
330.
310 •
2*0-
J70-
150-
»0-
TOTAL ( ,
•WCexTKOLLEO 1
RESIDUALS '
CONTROLLED
INDUSTRIAL/
COMMERCIAL
ELECTRIC
UTILISES
TRAHSPOHTATIOK
INDUSTRtAty
OMMERCIAL
ecnic
H.ITKS
IAIIJPORTATMM
1M
TRANSPORTATION
WOUSTRtAL/
COMMERCIAL
TRANSPORTATION
85
2 JO
TRANSPORTATION
1-17
-------
Figure 2.
Trends in Water Residuals in Reference Scenario(1971-1985)
o u
4-18
-------
transferred from idle resources, thus resulting in a net
benefit to the economy. From 1980-85 however, the required
level of labor needed for pollution abatement is in excess
of the amount available, and so labor resources must be
taken away from other competing needs. Even in these years,
the fact that there are some unemployed resources before
abatement controls were mandated means that the GNP
increases in all years. Among the industries required to
implement abatement technologies, those that supply
abatement equipment and materials are impacted at various
levels. Although all supplying industries are required to
shift revenues away from production to pollution control in
their processes, some receive enough orders from other
industries to offset or more than offset the intra-industry
shifts. These industries are net gainers (i.e., platinum),
while remaining industries are net losers (i.e.,
agriculture).
1-21
-------
»
CO
0
•H
(0
flj
Q
(Q
^J
411
i
i
«
§
s
u
iBf (U CD
3) m fp*
_J U^ |
XJ 0) \O
f0 04 f"*
£•4 OV
fl)f-
J3
*M
O
w
g
w
I
O*
£
H
2
M
Q)
§
V
O
*
t
(A
lit
CO
en
^
CO
en
CO
o>
CO
Ol
*~
CO
o>
CO
Ol
*""
Ol
fo
Ol
1-
0)
^
r»
Ol
CD
lo-
ta
O
^j
UI
.r.
«J
•0
*•»
t/l
OOO
t- r» «-
in to *
to o
€M «-
OOO
V K *-
COtD'T
no
ooo
o r- CM
»- in <•
n o
ooo
to ui 19
oo e
co —
o —
•— — -»-»
— — 10
- S cs
S —
*_• *^
01 C
cocu
0 c. g
— O >
~ u. O
a —
— c. a
306
Q. D 0>
O CO C
a. _J 3
S
00
tv
m
to
en
CM
00
o
CO
CO
fo
|o
00
*
1".
CM
O
fj
*—
to
CO
CO
at
in
CM
CO
in
«
in
o>
o
o
oi o
6 -
O —
O —
c
i-< [Q
^
Q> -•-
— Q
Q <0
(0 tj
IA
O t-
Q 01
CM
0
CO
(4
M
CM
CM
CO
*.-'•
en
o
. CM
.
CM
O
CM
m
,_
o
CO
,_'
Ol
CD
^
ai
tn
*~
v
u
3 C
TJ *- 0
c ^
Q. in a
1- E
•- 01 3
BJ -- Iff
C C
oca
•- O CJ
H) -- r—
Z — 10
«l C. O
O — c.
c 01
u a
COCO CM <• CO
into T ^ r*
»• o o o o
Of- — «T !*•
in co «» •- CM
«- OO 0 0
int^ o w t<-
V .CO V ^- CM
»- o o o o
ffl CO Ol CO 10
CO CO CO ^ CM
— oo oo
co to eo co in
CO CO CO «™ CM
— o o o o
t- in !•«. CM in
CM to to — CM
«- o o o o
en co > U. O
C O
^^ o
O
O
^
in
ai
CO
CM
CO
CO
Ol
ID
CO
1-
in
to
^
<»•
CO
v
CM
CO
^
o
to
CD
CD
CM
ID
10
CM
~
in ^
3 C d
Q O c.
w -*- 4)
D — C
O ~ UJ
.*-
~~ f- *•"
(fl >— (Q
*-» ^- 4-*
O O
1- t-
•- in CM — n
in CM to co n
(0 CM •- ID CO
«~ CM 7 ^
*"
.in to t to CM
Ol O U> »- >-
OICM O CO «-
OCM * «
o CM CM CM m
CO t1* to O Ol
ID «- OI«J CO
O CM CO CO
h- to -r- Ol O .
Ol T tD CO O
IM v- co inr>
o CM co n
^
T to 10 CO CM
Ol d 1C to CM
01 — i- in in
Ol CM CO CO
to ro •- to 01
r~ OID to o T in o
00 CM. CO CO
in to 01 »- 01
^ in ^ »- M
to 01 o r-
co to to co ro
CM Ol CM T tn
CO T- to CM
•w
VI
3
m
c
O i» >
— n **
— O £ •—
— 3 O
c. —
•
Z3
inr- in
T'OI to
CO
•"
r~
u
01
K
t* ft coco
en co cO o
CM en CMO
en in
9 — OCO
co in to w
o oin at
CO T
to CO to O
COO) CM tO
CO «
0 COfO *•
co co CM n
in »CMIO
co •*•
*- >- o> en
CO Ul CM CM
CO CO CM CO
CO 9
O CO O Ol
•-•-•-•-
^ co CM in
co
-------
Ifl
o
Ol
•— »- «-
£- nnoio
0 lOOBCM Ol
• * • • •
m 0
• • •
0 — cr>
CO
0>
ton
p> p>
CM CM
ini»<0
o — in
U> h-