MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
      EPA-440/9-76-011
        WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY DOCUMENTATION FOR ENDRIN
                         MANUFACTURE
                                  FINAL REPORT
                                 February 6, 1976
                               Contract No. 68-01-3524
                               MRI Project No. 4127-C

                                 EPA Project Officer
                                 Mr. Ralph H. Holtje
                             REGION III LIBRARY
                             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTK^TTOK AGENCY
                                       For
                                  :
                         Office of Water Planning and Standards
                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                              Waterside Mall, Room 2834
                                  Mail Stop WH595
                                 401 M Street, S.W.
                              Washington, D.C. 20460
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD. KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI 64110   816 561-0202

-------

-------
            WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY DOCUMENTATION FOR ENDRIN
                           MANUFACTURE
                                       by

                           Midwest Research Institute
                              425 Volker Boulevard
                          Kansas City, Missouri  64110
                                  FINAL REPORT
                                February 6, 1976
                             Contract No. 68-01-3524
                             MRI Project No. 4127-C

                              EPA Project Officer
                              Mr. Ralph H. Holtje
                                       For

                     Office of Water Planning and Standards
                      U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                            Waterside Mall, Room 2834                               ,
                                 Mail Stop WH595                                    [
                               401 M Street, S.W.
                             Washington, D.C.  20460
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE  425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110  816561-0202

-------
PREFACE
This is one of four reports on pesticide-containing wastewaters pre-
pared by Midwest Research Institute for the Office of Water Planning and
Standards.
These reports concern the wastewater" treatment technology in-
I
volved in the manufacture
of aldrin/dieldrin, endrin,
toxaphene, and DDT.
This report is concerned with endrin.
These reports were prepared by Dr. Alfred F. Meiners, Mr. Charles E.
Mumma, Mr. Thomas L. Ferguson, and Mr. Gary L. Kelso.
This program (MRI
Project No. 4l27-C) has been under the general supervision of Dr. Edward W.
'Lawless, Head, Technology Assessment Section.
Dr. Frank C. Fowler, Presi-
dent, Research Engineers, Inc., acted as consultant to the program.
Approved for:
\
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE


~~ ~~a~ Director

Physical Sciences Division
February 6, 1976
ii

-------
INTRODUCTION
Midwest Research Institute has performed a comprehensive examination
of the wastewater treatment technology applicable to aldrin/dieldrin, endrin,
DDT, and toxaphene.
The work was performed for the Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-01-3524.
The basic objectives of the program were:
(a) to perform an examina-
tion of the wastewater management practices currently employed in the manu-
facture
of the specified pesticide; (b) to examine the state
of the art of potential wastewater treatment processes that might be appli-
,cable to this industry; and ('c) to select those processes that would be ap-
plicable to EPA toxic pollutant control technology requirements.
Of special
interest was the cost of existing and proposed wastewater treatment methods.
This
report concerns the wastewater treatment technology for
endrin manufacture.
iii

-------
CONTENTS
List of Figures
. . -. . . .
. .,- . .
. . . .
.....
List of Tables.
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . .
.....
. . .
ENDRIN MANUFACTURE
Sections
I
Summary. .
. . . .
.....
. . .
II
Manufacture
.........
. . . . .
.....
.....
Characterization of Industry. . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing Process. . . . . . .
Wastewater Characteristics. . . . . . .
In-Plant Controls. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
III
Wastewater Treatment Methods.
. . . .
.....
Present Treatment System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternate Treatment Systems
Effluent Quality Achievable Using A1terante Treatment
Systems. . .'. . . . . .
.....
.......
.....
.......
IV.
Wastewater Treatment Cost Estimates
.....
. . . . . eo .
Description of Alternate Treatment Systems. . . . . . . .
Estimated Capital Investment Costs for the Resin Adsorp-
tion System and the Reductive Degradation System. . . .
Annual Operating Costs for the Resin Adsoption System
and the Reductive Degradation System. . . . . . . . . .
Total Cost Estimates for the Resin Adsorption System and
the Reductive Degradation System . . . . . . . . .
Carbon Adsorption Process Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'-References. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.----. . ... -- _...----- - -
. - ~ -- - ."
_. - - .. . -- . - . . .. - ~ ---.--
Appendix A -
Definition of Terms and Discussio~ of Conventional
- Engineering Practices Used in Estimating Costs of .
Pesticide Wastewater Treatment Processes
. ---'-'~~ -'..-".:.=--. <~-------..:..:..:--==-- .-~....;:..----_.-
... _. --- 0""__-
~._- ...----
iv
Page
v
vi
1
7
7
8
12
16
18
18
19
25
31
31
38
50
59
59
75
-- ----.-.

-------
~
FIGURES
Title
ENDRIN MANUFACTURE
1
Production and Waste Schematic for Endrin . .
........
2
Conceptual Flow Diagram of a Resin Adsorption System for
the Treatment of Endrin Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Conceptual Flow Diagram of a Reductive Degradation System
for the Treatment of Endrin Wastewater. . . . . . ~ . . . .
4
Conceptual Flow Diagram of a Resin Adsorption System and a
Reductive Degradation System in Series for the Treatment
of Endrin Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Conceptual Flow Diagram of an Activated Carbon Adsorption
System for the Treatment of Endrin Wastewater. . . . . . .
--- .- - . -_.'._---'---'-~'----'-- -----.--______A ------- ----.-
... - -- ___.._0' _._- .
v
Page.
10
32
33
34
35
--...--.-

-------
I'
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
. - - ._..
TABLES
Title
Summary of Costs for Endrin Wastewater Tre~tment Systems
(1975, $ ) . ... . . . .' . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . .
Effluent Limitations Guildelines for Halogenated Organic
Pesticides (Tentative Recommendations). . . . . . . . . . .
Installed Capital Equipment Cost for the Resin Adsorption
System, The Reductive Degradation System, and The Two
Systems in Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Investment Cost and Annual Operating Cost for Three
Endrin Wastewater Treatment Systems Treating Either 300
or 600 Gal/Min Wastewater Effluent. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instal~ed Capital Equipment Cost for the 300 GPM Carbon
Adsorption System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
Estimated Total Investment and Annual Operating Costs for
Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption Systems (300 gpm
Endrin Wastewater Flow Rate). . . . . . . . . . . . .
- --- --- --------- ------_. .---..------------. ---- --_..
.---- ...- --.
---- - .-- --_.- .".-- -"
Appendix A
A-I
Estimating Information Guide
.........
. . . . . . .
vi.
Page.
6
30
51
60
73
74
A-3

-------
ENDRIN MANUFACTURE

-------
Ir;
SECIION I
SUMMARY
The Ve1sicol Chemical Corporation is currently the sole manufacturer
of endrin in the United States and produces endrin only at its plant at
Memphis, Tennessee.
Data on the plant capacity and current production
rate are not available, but the estimated production for 1975 is 6 mil-
lion pounds of endrin.
The manufacture of endrin results in the production of both process
(
wastewaters and cooling waters that are contaminated with endrin.
In May
1975, two direct discharges into Cypress Creek totaled 1,031 gpm (gallons
per minute).
The discharge on the NW Branch contained 0.002" lb of endrin
per day at a concentration of 2 ppb.
The discharge on the SW Branch con-
tained 0.071 1b of endrin per day at a concentration of 6 ppb.
In the
same period, the Ve1sico1 discharge to the Memphis Municipal Sewage System
averaged 2,483 gpm (3.576 million gallons per day) at an endrin concentra-
tion of 81 ppb and contained 2.429 1b of endrin per day.
The total waste-
water discharge from the Ve1sico1 plant averaged 3,514 gpm and contained
an average of 2.5 lb of endrin per day.

-------
Velsicol is presently involved in an extensive effort to reduce water
usage and to separate the noncontact cooling waters from the process waste-
waters in order to minimize the amount of contaminated water that will re-
quire treatment.
Velsicol expects eventually to reduce the amount of con-
taminated water to about 150 gpm or less.
\
The present wastewater treatment system consists of sedimentation,
sand filtration, fine cartridge (2 ~ mesh) filtration, and neutralization.
The treated wastewater is then discharged into the municipal sewer system.
The present treatment system is capable of compliance with the effluent
limitation guidelines and regulations (suspended solids, BOD and pH) issued
under Section 306 of P.L. 92-500.
In the present system, sedimentation takes place in a sump which is
equipped to remove floatable, tar-like material as well as sludge.
The
floatables and sludge removed from the sump are incinerated onsite in a
natural gas-fired incinerator equipped with an exit gas scrubber to scrub
out the hydrogen chl~ride produced during incineration.
The acidic water
from the scrubber goes to a neutralization pit prior to entering the city
sewer system.
The wastewater which is discharged from the sump is saturated with
endrin and contains other contaminants.
This wastewater stream contains
300 ppb endrin, 400 ppm carbon tetrachloride, 30 to 50 ppb hexachloro-
norbornadiene, and 30 to 50 ppb heptachloronorbornene.
2

-------
.
This report examines in detail four wastewater treatment systems that
have promise of effectively reducing the concentration of endrin and the
daily load.
These are:
(a) resin adsorption, (b) reductive degradation,
(c) resin adsorption and reductive degradation in series, and (d) activated
carbon adsorption.
Extensive laboratory experUnents have shown the feasibility of the
above systems although there is no prior experience in applying these sys-
tems to endrin-contaminated wastewater.
The first three systems are under
laboratory pilot plant study at the site.
This is a Velsicol/EPA supported
grant project to ascertain process feasibility, scale up design factors,
and achievable effluent quality.
The pilot-scale studies are expected to
be on stream early in 1976; however, at least 6 months will probably be
required to obtain significant data.
The activated carbon system is not under study at the site, but tech-
no logy is available in other industries and is probably transferable.
Laboratory isotherm data for endrin are available and endrin contaminated
lake water has been treated using a temporary system operating in a flow
range of 175 to 198 gpm.
This system reduced the endrin content from 6.7
ppb (influent concentration) to less than 0.05 ppb (effluent concentration).
The resin adsorption system would use a patented synthetic polymeric
adsorbent which can be regenerated with recovery of the pesticide.
The
resin adsorption pilot plant at Velsicol has a capacity of 100 gpm.
At
a presumed full scale wastewater flow rate of 300 gpm, the process h~s
3
,

-------
1.---'
I .
I :
the potential of reducing the effluent concentration down to 1.4 ppb
(0.0049 lb/day) endrin at an amortized annual operating cost of $2.87/
1,000 gal. of wastewater.
The reductive degradation system would use a packed column of copper-
catalyzed iron to decompose chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides.
A 100 gpm
pilot plant will be operated at the Velsicol site in parallel (or in seri~s)
with the resin adsorption system.
At a presumed full scale wastewater flow.
rate of 300 gpm, the reductive degradation proce.ss has the potential of re-
ducing the effluent concentration to 1.0 ppb (0.0036 lb/day) endrin at an
amortized annual operating ~ost of $1.20/1,000 gal. of wastewater.
The special capabilities of the resin adsorption system and the reduc-
tive degradation system may be utilized by placing the processes in series.
It is anticipated that the two systems in series would produce a higher qual-
ity effluent than would be achievable by either process operating singly.
At a presumed full scale wastewater flow of 300 gpm, the series arrangement
has the potential of reducing the effluent concentration down to 0.1 ppb
(0.00036 lb/day) endrin at an amortized annual operating cost of $3.55/
1,000 gal. of wastewater.
The fourth treatment system would use activated carbon.
A full scale
300 gpm plant having a 30 min carbon contact time has the potential of re-
ducing the effluent concentration down to less than 2 ppb endrin at an am-
ortized annual operating cost of $l.3~/l,000 gal. of wastewater.
Activated
carbon adsorption might also be considered as a polishing process following
either the resin adsorption system or the reductive degradation system.
4

-------
Following is a summary table of the estimated installed capital equip-
ment costs and annual operating costs for the four treatment systems de-
scribed above.
The cost of each system is esthuated at two different waste-
water flow rates--300 gpm and 600 gpm--to provide a cost range for each
system.
The associated unit operating cost per 1,000 gal. of wastewater
and per pound of endrin produced is esthnated for each treatment system.
Assumptions made in determining the costs shown in the table are given in
detail in the report.
---
5

-------
Table 1.
SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR ENDRlN WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS (1975, $)
    Endrin in Installed   
  Wastewater  treated capital Annual Cost per Cost per pound
 Treatment flow rate  effluent equipment operating 1,000 gal. of endrin
 system (gpm) .2E. 1b/day co s t, $ cost, $ wastewater produced, $
Resin adsorpt ion 300 1.4 0.0049 770,000 . 433,200 2.87 0.072
  600 1.4 0.0098 1,260,000 741,300 2.45 0.124
.Reductive degradation 300 1 0.0036 433,000 181,800 1.20 0.030
  600 1 0.0072 631,000 249,000 0.82 0.042
Resin adsorption plus 300 0.1 0.00036 954,000 537,200 3.55 0.090
reductive degradation 600 0.1 0.00072 1,541,000 889,700 2.94 0.148
0\        
Activated carbon        
adsorption:        
30 min contact t~e 300 < 2 < 0.0072 692,000 204,000 1.35 0.034
60 min contact time 300 < 2 < 0.0072 870,000 242,000 1.60 0.040

-------
SECTION II
MANUFACTURE
CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRY
---'
General
The Ve1sicol Chemical Corporation Plant at Memphis, Tennessee, is cur-
rent1y the sole manufacturer of endrin in the United States.
She 11 Chemica 1 .
Corporation formerly manufactured endrin at its Denver, Colorado, plant, but
ceased production in 1963.
Ve1sico1 has been producing endrin for over 20
years.
Information on the production capacity is not available.
.Ve1sicol manufactures 95% technical endrin by using a Diels-A1der reac-
tion of hexach1orocyc10pentadiene with vinyl chloride.
The plant operates
24 hr/day, 7 days/week, and maintains a fairly steady production rate through-
out the calendar year (Vitalis, 1975).
The 1975 production volume is esti-
mated (on the basis of general knowledge of endrin use patterns) to be in the
range of 3 to 6 million pounds.
The higher figure has been used in this re-
port as a basis of cost calculations.
Endrin is formulated into various products by numer~us formulators.
The most c~on formulation is an emulsifiable concentrate containing 1.6
lb of endrin per gallon.
Dusts and granules (2% endrin) are also formulated
in small quantities.
7

-------
Endrin is used principally for. the control of insects on cotton and
certain other field crops.
MANUFACTURING PROCESS
Endrin is l,2,3,4,lO,lO-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-
octahydro-1,4-endo-endo-5,8-dLmethanonaphthalene.
It is a stereo-isomer
of dieldrin (Ferguson and Meiners, 1974).
The first step in endrin manufacture is a Diels-A1der reaction of
hexach1orocyclopentadiene with vinyl chloride.
According to Vita1is (1975)
this reaction is almost stoichiometric resulting in a high yield, probably
96% of theory.
The resulting product is dehydrochlorinated withethano1ic
potassium hydroxide.
The product is further reacted with cyc10pentadiene
to provide an intermediate compound, isodrin.
Isodrin is then oxidized with
peracetic acid to produce the epoxide, endrin (Vita1is, 1975).
Alternatively, a slightly more straightforward process may be practiced
involving condensation of hexach1orocyclopentadiene with acetylene to give
the intermediate which may then be condensed with cyc10pentadiene and epoxi-
dized to give endrin.
8

-------
The various steps in endrin manufacture are as follows:
   Cl
Cl 0 Cl + CHCl Cl ~ Cl
II > ICC12
Cl Cl CH2 Cl 
C12   Cl
L+ CH  
III  
 CH  
Cl
Cl
-HCl
> Cl
=;~;::~~
$

Cl
1=) Cyc10pentadien
Cl

Cl t$
C12 CH2 
Cl
Cl
Peracetic acid
Cl

~~~

Cl
Isodrin
<
Endrin
Dipicolinic acid
(catalyst)
The production and waste schematic for endrin are shown in Figure
1 (CYwin, 1975).
The following reaction conditions are described by H. Bluestone in U.S.
Patent 2,676,132 (April 20, 1954). (to Shell Development Company).
Temperature:
The acetylene-hexach1orocyclopentadiene condensation is
carried out, pr~ferab1y, in the range of 150 to 175C.
The second stage
condensation with cyc10pentadiene is carried out at 50 to 90C.
This reaction
is exothermic.
The final epoxidation step, which is mildly exothermic, is
conducted at 20 to 45C.
Pressure:
In the condensation of acet~lene and hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
the preferred operating range is from 2,000 to 4,000 psi.
The second stage con-
\
densation with cyclopentadiene is carried out at atmospheric pressure, as is
the final epoxidation step.
9
REGION III LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
Hexachloro-
cyclopenta-
diene
Vinyl
Chloride
....
o
Endri n
Source:
Reactor
Rotary
Vacuum
Dryer.
T ai I Waters
To Sewers
Cywin (1975)
Figure 1.
Potassium
Hydroxide
Isopropyl
Alcohol
Tank
Reactor
To Sewer
\
\
Alcohol
Recovery
Isopropyl Alcohol
Cyclopentadiene
Reactor
Alcohol
Recovery
Acetic Acid
Peracetic Acid
Endrin
Slurry
Reactor
Isodrin
Acetic Acid
Recovery
Steam Jet
To Sewer

-------
. -
Reac t ion time:
Contact times in the Diels-Alder condensation with ace-
ty1ene is usually from 0.5 to 3.0 hr.
The second stage of endrin preparation,
the condensation with cyc10pentadiene, involves a 2 hr reaction period fol10w-
ing completion of gradual reactant addition.
The epoxidation step is fai~ly
slow.
After slow reactant addition, the mixture is agitated at length and
finally heated to 45C for about 1 hr.
Reaction medium:
The condensation of acetylene with hexachlorocyc10-
pentadiene is carried out in the homogeneous liquid phase in the absence of
any solvent other than the hexach1orocyc1opentadiene.
The second stage
condensation with cyclopentadiene is also conducted in the li~uid phase in
the absence of any added solvent. -A benzene solvent is used in the final
epoxidation step.
Catalyst:
No catalyst is employed either in the Diels-Alder condensa-
tion of hexachlorocyc1opentadiene'with acetylene, or in the subsequent Diels-
Alder condensation of the product of the first reaction with cyclopentadiene.
The epoxidation reaction may be carried out in the absence of a catalyst or
a catalyst may be used.
Product recovery:
The Diels-Alder reaction mixture from the acetylene
reaction is passed to a suitable product separator.
The reaction mixture
f~om the second stage of endrin preparation is cooled, whereupon the product
begins to precipitate out.
The mixture is poured into a suitable s91vent
(for example, boiling acetone-methanol mixture) and then crystallized
therefrom.
11

-------
After the final epoxidation step, the reaction mixture may be steam dis-
tilled to remove excess peracid, carboxylic acid and benzene solvent.
The
residue may be ether extracted and the ether solution washed and dried.
The
ether may then be evaporated to give the final endrin product in crystalline
form.
Improved epoxidation procedure:
A process developed by D. R. Marks;
U.s. Patent 2,899,446; August 11, 1959; assigned to Ve1sico1 Chemical Cor-
poration, provides an improved technique for endrin manufacture.
The B1ue-
stone Patent (U.S. Patent 2,676,132, summarized above) describes a process
for the preparation of endrin in which the last step is the oxidation of
isodrin with peracetic acid.
This step, if performed in the absence of im-
purities and under optimum conditions, produces high yields of a relatively
pure product (95 to 100%).
However, when this oxidation is run in the
presence of metallic contamination, serious difficulties are encountered,
in that several undesired side products are produced, the product is of low
purity and it is rendered somewhat unstable.
Marks found that this problem
can be solved by the addition of dipico1inic acid in the production of endrin.
Dipico1inic acid is ~-2,6-pyridine dicarboxy1ic acid.
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
The manufacture of endrin results in the production of both process.
wastewaters and cooling waters that are contaminated with endrin (Vita1is,
1975).
At the present time, cooling waters are discharged into the nea~by
12

-------
Cypress Creek, and the process wastewaters are discharged into the Memphis
Municipal Sewage System following treatment (Vital is , 1975).
Ferguson and Meiners (1974) provided information concerning wastewater
characteristics obtained from a report, "Endrin Pollution in the Lower
Mississippi River Basin," prepared by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior, September 1967,
reporting the investigations of fish kills in 1963 and 1964:
1.
Based upon results obtained during 31 wee~s of sampling (January
1965 to February 1967) the Velsico1 process wastes contained an average of
179.45 ppb of endrin with values ranging from 0 to 12,133 ppb.
Discharge
flows in the period averaged 3,190 gpm (7.1 cfs) with a range of 314 to
10,400 gpm (0.7 to 23.2 cfs).
The average endrin load discharged was ca1-
cu1ated to be 7.09 1b/day.
2.
The mean concentration of endrin in 215 grab samples of cooling
water taken in the period January 1965 to February 1967 was reported to be
10.67 ppb.
Flows averaged less than 449 gpm (1 cfs)',
Endrin loads ranged
from 0 to 0.75 1b/day with an average of 0.5 1b/day.
3.
The average endrin concentration was 60.86 ppb in sanitary wastes
in a 33 in. municipal sewer that received Velsicol sanitary wastes during
the July 1965 to April 1966 period.
Flow measurements indicated an average
daily load of 1.20 lb/day of endrin.
13

-------
4.
Corrective measures were taken to reduce flows and concentrations
in these discharges in an attempt to reach consistent concentrations of less
than 168 ppb as a pollution control goal.
a.
Ve1sico1's monitoring program showed the following discharges:
June 1973 average daily endrin discharge of 1.3 1b
May 1973 average daily endrin discharge of 1.4 1b
April 1973 average daily endrin discharge of 4.9 1b
------
March 1973 average daily endrin discharge of 2.4 1b
b.
In 1973, Ve1sico1 was in the process of reworking water dis-
ti11ation and usage in an effort to achieve 1 1b/day endrin average.
c.
Independent engineering personnel have assisted Ve1sico1 in
the development of a solvent extraction procedure to reduce endrin discharges.
A summary of a telephone conversation between Ralph Holtje, EPA,
Washington, and Charles Brouils, EPA, Atlanta, Georgi~, on September 25,
1973, has been reported by Ferguson and Meiners (1974).
This conversation
revealed the following:
1.
Ve1sico1 was at that time under a 180 day order to meet 1 1b/day
endrin limit in its discharge to the Memphi~ publicly owned sewage sy~tem.
2.
The current treatment was lime neutralization, and settling prior.
to discharge.
Noncontact cooling water went to the river.
3.
Ve1sicol was considering use of a Rohm and Haas ion exchange resin
said to be capable of reducing effluent concentration levels to 1 to 2 ppb.
14

-------
On August 1, 1973, W. Robb Nisbet, Vice President, Ma~ufacturing and
Engineering, Ve1sico1 Chemical Corporation, submitted a letter to Dr. C. H.
Thompson of EPA.
Ferguson and Meiners (1974) provided a summary of this
letter:
1.
At the current effluent flow (1973), a permissible limit of 168 ppb
amounts to 5.0 1b of endrin per day discharged.
2.
An EPA survey in February 1972, resulted in setting an effluent ob-
jective of 1 Ib endrin per day to be in effect by December 31, 1974.
Accord-
ing to Vitalis (1975), this objective was presented in a joint National Field
Investigation Center in Denver and Region IV EPA Report on "Evaluation of Indus-
trial Waste Discharges at Velsicol Chemical Company, Memphis, Tennessee,"
April 1972 (p. 21).
The endrin process wastewater has been analyzed by Envirogenics Systems
Company (May and September 1974).
They have found that the concentration of
endrin in the process wastewater prior to treatment varies between 100 and
1,500 ppb with an average value of about 700 ppb.
They estimated that the
suspended solids content of the stream ranged from 500 to 800 ppm.
In May 1975, the total water discharge at Ve1sico1 was reported (Vitalis,
1975) to average 3,514 gpm and to contain an average of 2.5 lb endrin per
day.
The quantity of endrin in the wastewater presently discharged by Velsicol
15

-------
I
was determined by analyzing daily samples of three wastewater streams.
These
data are shown below.
  Average of Average endrin 
Stream Average May May pH concentration 
No. flow (gpm) readings (ppb) Iblday
1 65 10.6 2 0.002
2 966 10.9 6 0.071
3 2.483 11.4 81 2.429
 3,514   2.502
Stream No.1 is discharged into Cypress Creek,NW and contains surface
runoff from the north side of the plant (ch1or-a1ka1i area) and cooling
water.
Stream No.2 is discharged into Cypress Creek 5W and contains sur-
face runoff from the south side of the plant and cooling water.
Stream No.
3 is discharged into the Memphis Municipal Sewage System and contains most
of the process wastewaters from the plant as well as cooling water.
IN-PLANT CONTROLS
Ve1sico1 is presently involved in an extensive effort both to reduce
the water usage and to segregate the noncontact cooling waters (by diversion
, into Stream No.2) from the process wastewaters in order to minimize the
amount of contaminated water that will require treatment.
According to
Vita1is (1975) one method of reducing water usage will involve elimination
of "water hogs" such as the steam jet barometric condenser units and re-
placing them with vacuum pumps.
16

-------
Dr. Robert R. Swank, Jr., Acting Chief, Industrial Pollution Branch,
EPA, Southeast Environmental Research" Laboratory, Athens, Georgia, described
some of the efforts made by Velsicol to reduce wastewater flow (Swank, 1975).
At one t~e, all drains at the Velsicol plant were connected to the same
sewer.
A major effort has been made to disconnect and reconnect drains in
order to segregate the heptachlor and endrin wastewater discharges from
other wastewater discharges.
This segregation will allow the heptachlor
wastewater and the endrin wastewater to be treated individually.
According
------
to Swank (1975), the cost of achieving this segregation will be between $0.5
and $1 million.
I
17

-------
SECTION III
WASTEWATER TREA'lMENT METHODS
PRESENT TREATMENT SYSTEM
In September 1973, the wastewater at the Memphis plant was being
neutralized with lime, the solids were then allowed to settle, and the water
was discharged (Ferguson and Meiners, 1974).
The present treatment involves
sedimentation and filtration (Swank, 1975) with ultimate discharge ~o the
Memphis Municipal Sewer System.
According to Swank (1975), Ve1sico1 has made a major effort to develop
pretreatment facilities inc1uding'a filtration system and a sump.
Swank
(1975) estimates that the cost of these pretreatment facilities was over
$1 million.
The present Ve1sico1 wastewater system includes a sand filter
and a fine cartridge filter (stainless steel, about 2 ~ mesh).
These two
filters are backwashed periodically into the sump.
According to Vita1is
(1975), this sump is constructed of acid brick and is 20 ft x 30 ft x 15 ft
deep.
Swank (1975) stated that the sump, which has about an 8 day retention
capacity, is equipped with (a) a skimmer bar at the top to remove tar-like
material which is incinerated and (b) a sludge-collecting section in the-
18

-------
bottom.
Swank (1975) estimates that the cost of the sump was $100,000.
The sludge is also sent to an incinerator which is located. on-site.
Be-
cause of the nature of this sump operation, all water leaving the ~ump is
saturated with endrin.
According to Swank (1975) the solubility of endrin
is about 300 ppb.
According to Swank (1975), this stream also contains
about 400 ppm carbon tetrachloride, 30 to 50 ppb hexach10ronorbornadiene and 30
to 50 ppb heptachloronorbornene.
Velsicol expects eventually to reduce the
flow of this stream down to about 150 gpm or less..
According to Vitalis (1975), the incinerator is natural gas-fired and
is equipped with an exit gas scrubber which contains 1-1/2 in. stoneware
packing.
Hydrogen chloride produced during the incineration of chlorinated
hydrocarbon wastes is scrubbed out of the exit gases with water.
The acidic
water from the scrubber goes to a neutralization pit prior to entering the
cfty sewer system.
ALTERNATE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Many treatment systems have been investigated for removing endrin from
wastewater.
A detailed consideration of a11 these systems would be b~yond
the scope of this report.
We have examined in detail the four treatment
systems that have shown the greatest promise of becoming effective and eco-
nomical methods of reducing the concentration of endrin in wastewaters.
Two of these systems have been investigated extensively in the labora-
tory, and are currently nearing pilot-stage testing; these are the resin
adsorption system and the reductive degradation system.
The Velsico1 Chemical
19

-------
Corporation is studying these systems under an EPA grant (EPA Demonstration
Grant 803159-01).
The Envirogenics Systems Comp,any of E1 Monte, California,
is also working on this grant as a subcontractor to Velsicol.
Ve1sico1 is
studying the resin adsorption system and Envirogenics is examining the reduc-
tive degradation system.
A third sy~tem involves a combination of the above two treatment methods.
Recent developments have indicated that th~ two systems may be more effective
..--'
when operated in series (Swank, 1975).
The fourth system considered in this report is adsorption on carbon.
Carbon is the most widely used, adsorbent for removing contaminants from water
and adsorption on carbon would likely become the treatment method of choice
if the resin adsorption system does not prove to be feasible.
These alternate treatment systems are described below.
The qua lity of
the effluent that can be obtained from each system and the costs of each
system are discussed in separate sections of this report.
, Resin Adsorption System
The Rohm and Haas Company has developed a synthetic, polymeric adsorbent
which shows excellent promise for the removal of pesticides from wastewater.
According to this process (Kennedy, 1973) pesticides are adsorbed on Amberlite
XAD-4, a. recently developed synthetic, polymeric adsorbent possessing high
2
porosity (0.50 to 0.55 m1 of pore/ml of bead), high surface area (850 m /g)
and an inert, hydrophobic surface.
The'adsorbent is regenerated with an or-
ganic solvent, and the adsorbed pesticides are recovered in a concentrated
form.
20

-------
The process appears to have important advantages over carbon adsorp-
tion.
For example, the XAD-4 resin is superior to activated carbon both in
terms of pesticide leakage and in overall operating capacity.
Although the laboratory data look pramising, several problems must be
worked out before a practical process can be operatio~al.
These problems
include a dete~ination of (a) the necessity for prefi1tration of the resin
column feed, (b) opt~um flow rate, (c) optimum pH of the feed, (d) opt~um
resin column height, (e) bed life of resin before regeneration, and (6) the
flow ~esistance of the bed.
The Amberlite XAD-4 resin adsorption system is presently being studied
by Velsico1 Chemical Corporation.
To date the work has been done on a lab-
oratory scale.
A pilot plant unit (100 gpm flow rate capacity) has been
designed, and installation of the unit at the Memphis plant is scheduled to
begin in November 1975.
According to Dr. Robert Swank (1975), EPA project
monitor for this study, the concrete pad has been poured and the unit should
be on-stream early in 1976.
Reductive Degradation System
Promising laboratory results have been shown by a degradation process
involving the catalyzed reduction of chlorinated pesticides to relatively
nontoxic products which do not contain chlorine.
The process consists of a
copper-catalyzed reduction of the pesticide in water by iron.
The pesticide-
containing wastewater is passed through a packed column with the reductant
suitably diluted with inert particles to obtain good flow properties.
21

-------
This process appears to be attractive for the destruction of a wide
range of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, including endrin and other cyclo-
diene pesticides (Sweeny and Fisher, 1970; Sweeny and Fisher, 1973).
In
laboratory studies, the process was found to proceed smoothly at ambient
temperatures to remove all or a substantial amount of the chlorine from dis-
solved pesticides.
In a laboratory test using a column reactor, a solution containing 30
ppb of endrin was prepared and passed through the column.
The pH was ad-
justed to 7.0 and the solution passed through the column at about 165 mIl
min.
Endrin was not observed in the effluent at the limit of detection used
in the test  0.1 ppb).
Unidentified product peaks were observed, however.
The identity of these products is .under study at the time of this report.
Although no detailed information is presently available, it is believed
that these products contain very little chlorine and are very volatile com-
pared to endrin (Swank, 1975).
Additional laboratory studies of this system have been in progress for
about 1 year. The system is being studied by the Envirogenics Systems Company.
A pilot plant unit (100 gpm flow rate capacity) has been designed, and instal-
lation of the unit at the Memphis plant is scheduled to begin in November
1975.
According.to Dr. Robert Swank (1975), EPA project monitor for this
study, the concrete pad has been poured and the unit should be on-stream
early in 1976.
22

-------
Resin Adsorption System Combined with Reductive Degradation System
The combination of the resin adsorption system with the reductive degra-
dation system constitutes a third alternate treatment system.
There are in-
dications that the two systems could be operated effectively in series; the
first stage would be absorption of most of the endrin on the synthetic resin,
the second stage would be reductive degradation of a substantial amount of
the remaining pesticide.
The two pilot-scale units being installed at Ve1sico1 are constructed
so that they can be operated in series or in pare1le1 (Swank, 1975).
. Adsorption on Carbon
Considerable laboratory data are available concerning. the adso~ption
of endrin on activated carbon (Robeck
et al., 1965; Hager and Rizzo, 1974).
Also, endrin has been removed from water on a relatively large scale (175 to
198 gpm) in a program designed to remove endrin from a contaminated lake
(Ryckman et al., 1971).
In this study, the endrin concentration was reduced
from 6.7 ppb to less than 0.05 ppb.
Isotherm Data - Robeck et a1. (1965) and Hager and Rizzo (1974) have pre-
pared isotherm data for the adsorption of endrin on carbon.
The adsorption
isotherm is the relationship, at a given temperature and other conditions,
between the amount of a substance adsorbed and its concentration in the..
surrounding solution.
A reading taken at any point on an isotherm gives the
amount of material adsorbed per unit weight of carbon.
In very dilute solu-
tions, such as wastewater, a logarithmic isotherm plotting usually yields a
straight line.
23

-------
From adsorption isotherm data, a determination can be made of whether
or not a particular degree of organic removal can be effected by adsorption
alone.
Isotherm data will also show the approximate adsorptive capacity of
the carbon for the application.
Isotherm data also afford a convenient means
of studying the effect of pH and temperature on adsorption.
Isotherms ob-
tained under identical conditions using the same test solutions for two test
carbons can be quickly and conveniently compared to reveal the relative merits
----- of the carbons.
Thus, isotherm data represent a large amount of information
condensed into concise form for ready evaluation and interpretation.
. "
The adsorption isotherm data of Robeck et a1. (1965) were obtained using
powdered carbon and pesticides dissolved in distilled" water and river water.
The data of Hager and Rizzo (1974) were obtained using granular carbon and
pesticide in distilled water.
In general, the results of these two studies
are in agreement, and show that both powdered and granular carbon are capable
of producing endrin concentrations of 0.2 ppb"and below.
Pilot-Scale Studies - Although the treatability "of a particular wastewater
by carbon and the relative capacity of different types of carbon for treat-
ment may be estimated from adsorption isotherms, carbon performance and de-
sign criteria are best determined by pilot tests.
Pilot carbon column tests
are performed for the purpose of obtaining design data for full-scale plant
" construction.
Adsorption isotherms are determined using batch tests, but
the actual treatment of wastewater by activated carbon most often is effected
in a continuous system-involving packed beds similar to filtering operations.
24

-------
Pilot tests are required in order to provide the required estimates of per-
formance that can be expected in a full-scale unit.
To the best of our know1ege,
pilot carbon column tests for the removal
of endrin from water have not been performed.
EFFLUENT QUALITY ACHIEVABLE USING ALTERNATE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Laboratory studies are available from which the quality of. effluent
achievable from each alternate treatment system can be estimated.
An im-
portant point to remember is that these data are based only on laboratory
studies, and, therefore, the quality of the effluent from a full-scale treat-
mentp1ant may differ significantly.
The influent to each alternate system is presumed to be saturated with
endrin (see discussion of the "Present Treatment Syst.em").
Dr. Robert Swank
(1975b) has stated that the solubility of endrin is about 300 ppb.
However,
Marks (Vita1is, 1975) has stated that the solubility of endrin is 200 ppb
.(in distilled water at 20C).
According to Richardson and Miller (1960),
the solubility ~f endrin is 230 ppb at 25C, 380 ppb at 35C and 510 ppb
at 45C.
On the basis of the above experimental data, we have presumed that the
influent to the various alternate treatment systems contains about 200 ppb
endrin.
25

-------
Resin Adsorption System
Velsicol CMarks, 1974a) has demonstrated in the laboratory that the
XAD-4 resin absorbent system can reduce the concentration of endrin in the
wastewater down to an average of 1.36 ppb.
Endrin levels of 0.5 to 1.0 ppb
were reached on occasion.
Recent laboratory studies using 3 in. diameter
glass columns have shown that the concentrations of endrin and associated
products could be maintained below 1 ppb CMarks, 1975b).
Reductive Degradation System
Envirogenics Systems Company (1973) has demonstrated in the laboratory
that the reductive degradation system using copper-catalyzed iron can reduce
the concentration of endrin down to 1 ppb, but the results have been erratic
depending upon the operating conditions.
In ~everal experimental runs, con-
ducted by Envirogenics Systems Company (1974b) for example, the concentration
of' endrin in the treated effluent exceeded 100 ppb.
Recent laboratory studies
have indicated that, at a flow rate of 8.5 to 9.7 gpm/ft2, all pesticide
.
components in the effluent were less than 1 ppb .CMarks, 1975b).
We assume here that the reductive degradation system can maintain the
concentration of endrin in the treated process wastewater at less than
1 ppb (since this has been achieved in some cases) with the realization
that several refinements to the existing process may be necessary to main-
tain this level of control.
26

-------
Amber1ite XAD-4 Resin System and Reductive DeRradation System in Series
In this combined system, the endrin wastewater is treated initially
using the resin adsorption process; the effluent is subsequently treated
using the reductive degradation process.
The reductive degradation process has been shown to be capable of treat-
ing low concentrations of endrin in water; Envirogenics Systems Company (1974b)
has demonstrated that the reductive degradation system can reduce a low con-
---.
centration of endrin in water (30 ppb) down to less than 0.1 ppb (at a pH of
7.0).
Thus, it is probable that the two processes acting in series will be
capable of reducing the endrin' concentration in the wastewater down to about
0.1 ppb.
Carbon Adsorption System
According to the published isotherm data of Hager and Rizzo (1974) and
those of Robeck et a1. (1965), activated carbon is capable of reducing the
concentration of endrin in water to approximately 0.2 and 0.03 ppb, respect-
tive1y.
Robeck et a1. (1965) have also' shown that greater than 99% endrin
removal (at 10 ppb load) can be achieved at a flow rate of 0.5 gpm/ft3 using
a bed of activated carbon.
On the basis of the above. experimental data, we
estimate that the carbon adsorption system which we have examined (see the
following section of this report dealing with I~astewater Treatment Cost
. Estimates") would reduce the endrin concentration from 200 ppb to less than
2 ppb.
27

-------
Potential for Zero Discharge
When the planned endrin wastewater treatment system is in operation at
Velsicol CMemphis, Tennessee), the potential for zero discharge is reported
to be good (Swank, 1975).
For example, the treated wastewater discharged from
the reductive degradation process could be recycled back into the process for
use as cooling water and for use in the gas scrubber system.
Thus," for treat-
ment applications in which reductive degradation is used alone or in series
with an XAD-4 resin system, there is apparently a significant potential for
zero discharge of effluent.
However, there appears to be no way to prevent
the runoff of surface water (Swank, 1975b).
Comparison of Effluents Produced by Alternate Treatment Systems with Effluent
Limitations Guidelines
The Environmental Protection Agency in their "general instructions" to
contractors (Part II) describes effluent limitations guidelines in terms of
Levels I, II, and III technology.
These levels of technology are briefly
defined below and replace the terms "best practicable control technology cur-
. rently available" (BPCTCH), "best available technology economically achiev-
able" (BATEA), and "best available demonstrated control technology."
Level I control and treatment technology must be achieved by all plants
in each industry not later than July 1, 1977.
"Level I technology should be.
based upon the average of the best existing performance by plants of various
sizes, ages, and unit processes within each industrial category or subcategory.
This average shall not be based upon a broad range of plants within an indus-
trial category or subcategory, but shall be leased upon performance levels
achieved by exemplary plants."
28

-------
Level II control and treatment technology is to be achieved not later
than July 1, 1983.
"Level II technology is not based upon an average of
the best performance within an industrial category, but is to be determined
by identifying the very best control and treatment technology employed by
a specific point source within the industrial categor~ or subcategory, or
where it is readily transferable from one industry process to another, such
technology may be identified as Level II techno1ogy~"
Level III control and treatment technology is to be achieved by new
sources.
"Level III technology shall be evaluated by adding to the con-
sideration underlying the identification of Level II technology a deter-
mination of what higher levels of pollution control are available through
the use of Unproved production processes and/or treatment techniques.
Effluent limitations guidelines have been tentatively recommended
(Weston, 1975) for the "Halogenated Organic Pesticides" subcategory of
the "Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals ,Industry" category (Table 2).
All of the alternate treatment systems for the removal of endrin from
wastewater require a pre1Uninary sedimentation and filtration step.
Thus,
the total suspended solids would be reduced to the approxUnate levels per-
mitted by Level III technology.
LUnited data are available concerning the COD, BODS and phenol concen-'
tration of the present wastewater but no data of this kind are available
for the reduced flows which would be treated in the alternate systems.
29

-------
Tab Ie 2. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES FOR HAIDGENATED
ORGANIC PESTICIDES (Tentative Recommendations)
Level of
technology
Level I
(BPCTCA)
Level II
(BATEA)
Level III
(BADCT)
Effluent
charac-
teristic
BODS
Pheno I
TSS
BODS
Pheno I
COD
TSS
BODS
Phenol
TSS
Effluent
Average of daily values
for 30 consecutive days
shall not exceed
kg/kkg~/ ~
limitations
Maximum for
any I day
kg/kkg IEfJ..L.
1.01
0.0015
1.80
0.002
84
156
1.01
0.0015
1.53
1.80
0.0020
2.12.
42
78
1.01
0.0015
1.80
0.0020 .
42
78
~/ kg/kkg production is equivalent to lb/l,OOO lb production.
Source: Weston (1975).
Thus, it is not possible to .make direct comparisons between the quality
of the effluent produced by the alternate treatment systems and the quality
of the effluent permitted by the effluent limitations guidelines; however,
the treatment required to reduce endrin concentrations to 1 ppb and below
require more extensive treatment than is required to meet effluent limitations
guidelines.
The effluent from the sedimentation/filtration steps would prob-
ably meet effluent limitations guidelines, even for Level III technology.
However, to achieve acceptable levels of endrin concentrations the waste-
water stream would require additional treatment as indicated in this report
in the description of "Alternate Treatment Systems."
ILJ
30

-------
SECTION IV
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COST ESTIMATES
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
--
Conceptual f1~w diagrams for the four alternate treatment systems are
presented in Figures 2 through 5.
In each case, the initial steps include
sedimentation and filtration.. These steps are required in order to remove
the suspended solids that would otherwise pass through the adsorption sys-
tems or overburden the reductive degradation system.
The figures show the
quality of the untreated wastewater, the quality of the treated effluent
discharged to the municipal sewer, and the sludge disposal operations.
. The treatment systems have been cost analyzed on the basis that the
discharge waters will be adequately segregated and that the flow rate of
the treated wastewater will be 300 gpm.
This flow rate represents a signi-
ficant decrease from the current flow rate which averages 3,514 gpm (Vitalis,
1975; see section of this report entitled "Wastewater Characteristics").
The reduced flow rate (300 gpm) is both desirable and possible, but the
possibility exists that the actual flow rate of wastewater requiring treat-
ment may be higher.
As the flow rate of the wastewater increases, the phys-
ica1 capacity of. the treatment system, and therefore, its cost, must also
increase.
31

-------
W
N
Untreated Endrin       
Wastewater (300 gpm )   Sedimentation Fi Itration  XAD-4
Endrin Concentration:", 700 ppb - - Res i n
 Process Process "
Suspended Solids: 500-800 ppm'  J Process
pH: 3-4 .      
      J( ~ Monitorin
   ,   '<
   Sludge Fi Iter   
   Backwash   
   !   
    Neutralization Pond I
   Incinerate 
   or landfj II    
Effluent Discharge to
Municipal Sewer
( 1 .4 ppb Endrin
pH: 7 300 gpm)
Figure 2. Conceptual flow diagram of a resin adsorption
system for the treatment of endrin wastewa~er.
g Point

-------
Untreated Endrin'    
Wastewater (300 gpm ) Sedimentation Fi Itration, Reductive
Endrin Concentration:",700ppb Process  Process Degradation
Suspended Solids: 500-800 ppm  Process
pH: 3 -4    ~ Moni
 Sludge - Fi Iter 
  Backwash 
w
w
Figure 3.
toring Point
!
Effluent Discharge
to Municipal Sewer
(1 ppb Endrin pH 7
300 gpm )
landfi II or
Incinerate
Conceptual flow diagram of a reductive degradation system
for the treatment of endrin wastewater.

-------
\
t,.)
~
Untreated Endrin
Wastewater (300 9pm )
Endrin Concentration:"" 700 ppb
Suspended Solids: 500-800 ppm
pH: 3-4
Sedimentation
Process
Filtration
Process
XAD-4
Resin
Process
Sludge
Filter
Backwash
J
I nci ne rate
or Landfj II
1 .4 ppb
Endrin
RD
Process
~ Monitoring
~ Point
Effluent Discharge
to Municipal Sewer
 0.1 ppb Endrin
pH 7 300 9pm )
4. Conceptual flow diagram of a resin adsorption system
and a reductive degradation system in series for
the treatment of endrin wastewater.
. Figure

-------
1:,
. Endri n
Wastewater
300 gpm
-700 ppb Endrin
Standby
Adsorption
Unit
1st Carbon
Adsorption
Unit
Figure 5.
Sedi mentation
Sludge to
Landfill or
. Incineration
2nd Carbon
Adsorption
Unit
"
Fi Iter
Neutralization
Treated Effluent
to Sewer
<2 ppb Endrin
Spent Carbon to
Incineration
~200 ppb Endrin
Conceptual flow diagram of an activated carbon adsorption
system for the treatment of endrin wastewater.
35

-------
In each system a neutralization step would De required because of
the relatively high acidity of the raw wastewater (pH 3 to 4).
The re-
ductive degradation process requires an essentially neutral effl~ent,
but the resin adsorption and carbon processea can operate using an acidic
influent.
In any case, it would not be legal to discharge the acidic ef-
fluent without a neutralization step.
Thus, the opt~um location of the
neutralization step within the system. is not known.
However, for purposes
of cost est~ation, it makes little difference at which point neutraliza-
t10n occurs.
Therefore, each treatment system, except carbon adsorption,
is costed at two different flow rates--300 and 600 gpm.
The 600 gpm flow
rate was arbitrarily chosen for comparative purposes, and shows how the
cost will increase for a given treatment system at twice the anticipated
flow rate of 300 gpm.
Figure 2 ~hows the resin adsorption system.
The resin adsorption
process operates by passing the wastewater through two vertical columns
packed with the resin that adsorbs endrin as it passes through the column.
The resin beds are about 7 ft in diameter and 15 ft high (Swank, 1975).
Periodically the resin is regenerated by flushing the resin beds with iso-
propyl alcohol to remove the accumulated endrin.
The treated wastewater
(pH 3 to 4) is then pumped into a neutralization pond and neutralized (pH
7) with limestone.
The treated wastewater is then discharged into the munic-
ipa1 sewer system.
36

-------
Figure 3 shows the reductive degradation ~ystem.
The reductive degra-
dation process operates by first neutralizing (pH 7) the acid wastewater
(pH 3 to 4) in a pH adjustment tank.
After neutralization, the wastewater
passes through reductant columns (in parallel) packed with copper-catalyzed
iron and sand, and the endrin is destroyed.
Subsequently, the treated
wastewater is discharged into the municipal sewer system.
Figure 4 shows the two systems in series.
The wastewater is processed
through the XAD-4 resin system, the reductive degradation system, and then
discharged into the municipal sewer system.
A conceptual flow diagram for a carbon adsorption process is shown in
Figure 5.
The portions of this process which deal with removal of sus-
pended solids and pH adjustment in the raw wastewater are taken to be
identical to the process steps of sedimentation, sand filtration and neu-
tralization, which are used in the reductive degradation system.
Hager
(1974) indicates that suspended solids in amounts exceeding about 50 mg/
liter should be removed prior to treatment of effluent in carbon adsorption
beds and that pH adjustment can be employed to enhance adsorption efficiency.
Following removal of suspended solids, the wastewater is conducted
through a two-stage carbon adsorption system which consists essentially of
(a) two on-stream carbon adsorption units operating in series and one stand-
by unit packed with granular activated carbon, and (b) the required auxiliary
equipment (pumps, piping, process instrumentation, etc.).
After treatment,
the wastewater is discharged into the municipal sewer.
37

-------
When the concentration of endrin in the effluent from the first unit
is equivalent to the feed concentration, the carbon in the unit is exhausted
and the unit is taken off stream.
The second unit then becomes the lead
unit and the standby column is put on stream as the second column in the
series.
The exhausted carbon is discharged and the unit is refilled with
fresh carbon, and used as standby.
Because of the small requirement for
activated carbon, regeneration of the carbon is not economically justified.
The exhausted carbon would be disposed of by incineration; the costs for
incineration are not included in this study.
One exhausted carbon unit
could be taken off stream about every 30 months.
ESTIMATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS FOR THE RESIN ADSORPTION SYSTEM AND THE
REDUCTIVE DEGRADATION SYSTEM
Information concerning the alternate treatment systems and their
associated costs is derived in part from information submitted by Velsicol
.' Chemical Corporation (Marks, 1974b), and in part from reports by Envirogenics
Systems Company (1974a, 1974b), concerning the pilot plant demonstration
units.
If the costs of required process equipment or labor were not stated
by the two above companies, these costs are estimated.
In addition, the
treatment systems are scaled up from the demonstration units (100 gal/min
flow) to 300 and 600 gpm, and the costs are given in April 1975 dollars.
38

-------
Since all of the alternate systems requir~ both a sedimentation and
filtration process, and the costs of these two processes are identical for
each system, these processes are given first.
Following the treatment and
filtration processes, each of the alternate systems is discussed separately.
The cost estimates for the systems are then summarized and totaled.
Sedimentation Process Costs
The sedimentation process will allow large solid undissolved particles
------
to settle out of the wastewater prior to filtration.
The installed capital
cost for a system to handle 300 gpm (432,000 gpd) and 600 gpm (864,000 gpd)
is estimated from a report by "Blecker and Nichols (1973).
The graph on
page 126 of their report shows that the installed cost (1972 dollars) of
a sedimentation system to handle 1 million gallons per day is $65,000.
The installed costs for the systems to handle 300 and 600 gpm flows are
extrapolated from the graph and are $25,000 and $45,000, respectively.
These installed systems for the sedimentation process include the pur-
chased cost of tanks, motors and drives, pumps, piping, concrete, struc-
tura1 steel, instrumentation, electrical, paint, and indirect costs.
Since these installed costs are given in 1972 dollars, the costs must
be escalated to April 1975 prices.
To do this, the Chemical Engineering
(CE) Plant Cost Index is used.
Chemical Engineerin~ (1975a) reports that
in 1972, this index was 137.2 but had risen to 180.6 by April 1975.
There-
fore, the estimated installed capital cost (rounded) of each sedimentation
process system is:
39

-------
300 ga1/min process:
($25,000)" (180.6) = -
137.2
($45 000) (180.6) = -
, 137.2
$33,000
600 ga1/min process:
$59,000
Blecker and Nichols (1973) reported that the annual maintenance cost
for each process is about 15% of the installed cost or $5,000 and $8,900,
respectively.
This report also states that the process requires no operator
attention.
However, operating labor is estimated at3 hr/day for routine
checks on the process to see that it functions properly.
Periodically the sludge must be removed and landfil1ed or incinerated.
The cost of sludge removal is included in the maintenance cost.
The cost
of land "for landfill or the cost of incineration of the sludge is excluded
in this estimate.
Blecker and Nichols (1973) report the expected life of these systems is
between 25 and 60 years, and is taken to be 40 years for the purpose of de-
preciation of the installed costs (see Appendix A).
Filtration Process Costs
The wastewater is pumped from the sedimentation"process (at the same
rate as the inflow) into a sand filter to further remove suspended solids.
The flow rate through a sand filter can vary depending upon the design, but
a typical flow rate, according to Envirogenics Systems Company (1973), is
about 3.2 gal/ft2/min.
Thus, the required filter area for the 300 and 600
gal/min flows is about 100 and 200 ft2, respectively.
A back-up filter is
required for each process since the plant operates 24 hr/day.
40

-------
L-
/
The installed cost for the filtration process is obtained from the re-
port by Blecker and Nichols (1973).
The graph on page 66 of this report
shows that the installed cost of a 100 ft2 filter is $60,000 and a 200 ft2
filter is $80,000.
Since these costs are in 1972 dollars, the April 1975
costs (rounded) are:
600 ga1/min filtration process:
(2) ($60,000) (180,6) = ..w $158,000
. 137.2
(2) ($80,000) (180,6) = ..w $210,000
137.2
300 ga1/min filtration process:
Blecker and Nichols (1973) reported that the annual maintenance cost
for each process is about. 5% of the installed cost, or $7,900 and $10,500,
respectively.
This report states that the filtration process requires no
operator attention.
However, operating labor is es.timated at 3 hr/day for
routine checks on the process to see that it functions properly.
Periodically the filters are backwashed into a sump to remove the fi1-
tered 80 lids.
Removal of the sludge from the sump is included in the
maintenance costs given above.
The costs of land for landfill or the cost
of incineration of the sludge is excluded in this estimate.
Blecker and Nichols (1973) reported that the expected life of the fi1-
tration process is between 11 and 20 years, and is taken to be 15 years for
the purpose of depreciation of the installed costs (see Appendix A).
41

-------
Resin Adsorption System Costs
Ve1sico1 Chemical Corporation designed a system and estimated the costs
for an Amber1ite XAD-4 resin process to treat 100 ga1/min of wastewater.
A
system is described and the costs are estimated in their R&D grant app1ica-
tion submitted to EPA to conduct a project entitled, "Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Pesticide Removal From Wastewater."
In another document written by Marks
(1974b), the installed capital equipment costs (1973 dollars) were estimated
by Ve1sico1 to be $60,000 (excluding the filtration process) for purchased
parts and $27,600 for installation of the process, or a total of $87,600.
These costs were itemized by Ve1sico1 as follows:
Purchased Parts
2 Resin columns with headers
2 Solvent tanks
3 Transfer pumps
Instrumentation
Valves and piping
. Contingency on purchased parts
$16,000
22,000
6,000
4,000
4,800
7,200
$60,000
. $60,000
Subcontrac ts
Mechanical and electrical construction
Slab and related civil works
$22 ,000
5,600
$27,600
$27,600
Total cost
$87,600
. Chemical Engineering (1975a) shows that the 1973 CE Plant Cost Index
was 144.1 so that the April 1975 estimated cost of the XAD-4 resin process
is:
42

-------
($87,600) (180.~= - $110,000
\J44.Y
This cost is for a 100 ga1/min flow rate and must be scaled up to 300
and 600 ga1/min, respectively.
Since this process involves tanks, pumps, pip-
ing, and resin columns, the best available method to scale up this plant is
the logarithmic relationship known as the "six-tenths factor" (see Appendix A).
Using this method, the installed cost for the XAD-4 resin process is:
300 gal/min process:
,/
($110,000)
( )0.6
300
100

( )0.6
. 600
($110,000) 100
= - $212 000
. ,
600 ga1/min process:
= - $322,000
These costs do not include the cost of neutralizing the treated waste-
/ .
water prior to discharging it into the municipal sewer system.
Since the
current practice at Ve1sico1 (Vita1is, 1975) is to pump the endrin waste-
water into a large lagoon and neutralize the wastewater with lime prior to
discharge, the only cost added by the XAD-4 resin system is the cost of the
lime since the lagoon already exists.
The cost of the lime is negligible in this treatment system compared
to the cost of the resin and isopropyl alcohol (discussed subsequently) since
the amount of lime required to neutralize the wastewater (from pH 3 to 7)
is about the same as the amount of sodium carbonate required in the reduc-
tive degradation system (CYwin and Martin, 1973), which amounts to
43

-------
44,lOO,lb/year for a 100 gal/min plant and the cost of lime is only 1/10
the cost of sodium carbonate, or about $lO/ton.
On an annual basis this
amounts to a cost of $220 to neutralize the wastewater of a 100 g4l/min
plant.
For the 300 and 600 gal/min plant the costs would be $660 and
,
$1.320. respectively. which are negligible in this case.
The mat~rial costs are essentially the Amber1ite XAD-4 resin and the
isopropyl alcohol used to regenerate the contaminated resin columns.
Ve1sicol (Vitalis. 1975) estimates that the cost of the resin to' charge the
- .
resin columns for the 100 ga1/min system is $63.000 (current prices). and
that the resin has an operating lifetime of 5 years.
Rohm and Haas Company
(Kennedy. 1973) estimates that the cost of the regeneration isopropyl alco-
. '.
hol makeup is $30,OOO/year (1972 prices) for. a 100 gal/min process.
The
average 1972 price of isopropyl alcohol was about $0.45/gal (Oil, Paint and
Drug, 1972) and is currently $0.70/gal. (Chemical Marketing Reporter, 1975)
so that the isopropyl alcohol cost in April 1975 prices is (0.70/0.45)
($30.000) or $46.700/year for a 100 ga1/min plant. .
Using a linear relationship to scale up the resin and isopropyl alcohol
required for the two process flow rates gives:
300 ga~/min process:
$63,000 (~~~) = - $189,000

$63,000 (~~~) - '- $378,000

($46, 700/year) (~~~) = - $140,lOO/year
Resin:
600 gal/min process:
-
300 gal/min process:
Isopropyl
Alcohol:
600 gal/min process:
($46,700/year)
(600 ) =
100
- $280,200/year
44

-------
Blecker and Nichols (1973) reported that the annual maintenance cost
for each process is about 5% of the installed equipment cost, or $10,600
and $16,100, respectively.
The operating labor time is estimated at 9 man-hours/day on a 24 hr/day
operating basis for the 100 gal/min system based upon the estimates given
for ion exchangers (Blecker and Nichols, 1973).
This gives a requirement
of 3,150 man-hours annually (based on 350 operating days per year).
To
scale this labor time up to the 300 and 600 gal/min process flow rates,
the "one-fourth factor" (Modern Cost-Engineering Techniques, 1970) is used
(see Appendix A).
This method gives the estimated operating labor t~e
for each process as follows:
    ( Yo25 
300 gal/min  operating labor: (3,150 hr) 300 = 4, 150 h r
process 100 .
    ( t25 
600 gal/min  operating labor: (3,150 hr) 600 = 4,900 hr
process 100
Rohm and Haas Company (Kennedy, 1973) estimates that the expected life
of the XAD-4 resin process is 10 years, and that the life of the XAD-4 resin
charge is 5 years for the purpose of depreciation of the installed costs of
the capital equipment and resin.
Reductive Degradation System
Envirogenics Systems Company (1973) designed a pilot plant demonstra-
tion system and estimated the cost of a reductive degradation process to
remove the endrin from wastewater flowing at 100 gal/min.
The sys tem is
fully described in the Envirogenic. Report (1973) and the associated costs
(1973 dollars) are given in detail.
45

-------
I
In this document the installed capital equipment costs were estimated
by Envirogenics Systems Company to be $58,900.
These costs were itemized
as follow:
Purchased Parts
2 Reagent mix tanks, 200 gal. with mixers, low-level
a1a~ and proportional feed pump
1 Transfer pump with low-level alarm
1 pH adjustment tank, approximately 2,000 gal.
1 Mixer and impeller, 2 hp
1 Low and high level alarm for above
1 5 hp feed pump
1 pH ,sensing and control unit
5 Rotameters
Valves and piping
5 Reac.tor columns with distributors
Reagents
Contingency on purchased parts
$ 3,000
1,000
2,000
3,000
500
700
2,000
900
1,810
10,000
.190
5,000
$30, 100
$30,100
Subcontracts
Mechanical and electrical construction
Slab and related civil works
Contingency on subcontracts
$20,000
4,000
4,800
$28,800
$28,800
Total cost
$58,900
The 1973 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index was 144.1 (Chemical
Engineering, 1975a) so that the April 1975' cost of the reductive degrada-
tion process 1s:
($58,900)
(180.~
\14401)
= $73,800
46

-------
I -~
This cost is for a 100 gal/min process and must be scaled up to 300
and 600 gal/min,. respectively.
Since the process involves tanks, pumps,
reactor columns, and miscellaneous equipment, the best available ~ethod
for scaleup is the logarithmic relationship known as the "six-tenths fac-
tor," previously described.
Using this method, the installed cost for the
reduction degr?dation process is:
300 gal/min process:
. (300)0,6
$73,800 100

(600)0,6
$73,800 100
= $142,000
600 gal/min process:
= $216,000
The material costs for the system are the replacement of the iron re-
ductant, the copper catalyst, and the sodium carbonate consumed in the pro-
cess operation.
Envirogenics Systems Company (1973) determined that the
losses of iron reductant for processing existing endrin wastewater were
. 5.0 mg/1iter of effluent, and losses of copper catalyst were O~l mg/1iter
of effluent.
The amount of sodium carbonate required to adjust the pH of
the wastewater to 7.0 was determined to be 126 1b/day for the 100 gal/min
plant.
(Note:
Sodium carbonate was used by Envirogenics and is used in
this estimate, though its cost is higher than, say, lime.
Since it is not
known whether or not lime can be used as a neutralizing agent in this pro-
cess, the savings realized from using the cheaper lime cannot be determined.
The difference in price of the two neutralizing agents would not greatly
affect the overall process cost.)
47

-------
iron (5.0 mg F~\(100 ga1\ (3.85 ...1- \ ~,440 min\ (2.2 x 10-6 lb) (350 day\ =
reductant: t) \. mi;;) " gal./ \. day) \ mg \. yea;)
2,130 -1.E.....
year
copper
catalyst:
(0.1 mg .C~ (100 ga1\ (3.85 -1-) 6,440 min\ (282 x 10-6 lb)(350 da;\ =
\: t -; min -; \ gal. \ day) mg \ yea;)
45 Ib
.-
year
sodium
carbonate:
(126 lb \ (350 days\ = 44,100 lb
day) year) year
The costs of replacing the iron reductant and copper catalyst are neg-
ligible since iron powder cos~s $0.20/lb and copper sulfate costs $0.70/lb
(Chemical Marketing Reporter, 1975) and the quantities are quite small.
The
sodium carbonate cost, however, is substantial since its current price is
about $lOO/ton (Chemical Marketing Reporter, 1975) and a large.quantity is
required.
The sodium carbonate needed for the 300 and 600 gal/min processes
is proportional to the flow rate so that the annual cost of sodium carbonate
for the two plants is:
(44,-100 .J:L)(30Q\($0.05\
300 gal/min plant: year 100) lb J
= $6,600/year
600.gal/min plant: (44,100 lb:\ (600)(.$0.05:\
year) \100 \ lb ~
= $13,200/year
Blecker and Nichols (1973) reported that the annual maintenance costs
are 5% of the installed capital equipment costs or $7,100 and $10,800 for the
300 and 600 gal/min processes, respectively.
The operating labor time is estimated at 9 man-hours/day on a 24 hr/day
operating basis.
This gives a requirement of 3,150 man-hou~_annually (based)
48

-------
on 350 operating days per year).
Scaling this labor time up to the 300 and
600 gal/min processes is accomplished with the "one-fourth factor," pre-
viously mentioned, and the annual operating labor time for each process be-
comes:
300 gal/min process operating labor:
(3,150 hr)
( ~ 0.25
300
100
= 4,150 hr
600 gal/min process operating labor:
(3,150 hr). (600) 0.25
100
= 4,900 hr
The expected life of the reductive degradation process equipment is taken
to be 10 years for the purpose of depreciation of the installed equipment
. costs (s~e Appendix A).
The Resin Adsorption System and Reductive Degradation System in Series
The cost of a system which puts the XAD-4 resin system and reductive
degradation system in series is the same as the sum of the costs for each
separate system with only one exception:
only one sedimentation and one
filtration process is necessary for the two systems in series; that is, each
system does not have a separate sedimentation and filtration process.
There-
fore, the cost of the two systems in series is the sum of the cost of the
two separate systems less the cost of one sedimentation process and one fil-
tration process.
(A small additional cost is involved when adding valves,
piping, etc., to put the systems in series, but it is negligible.)
The fact that. the endrin content of the wastewater treated by the reduc-
tive degradation system is lower (since the wastewater has already been
treated by the XAD-4 resin system) does not reduce the cost of the reductive
degradation system in series to any extent for two reasons:
(a) the amount
49

-------
of wastewater treated is the same for the reductive degradation system
whether alone or in series with the XAD-4 resin system, a~d the reductive
degradation system must be of approximately the same size in both. cases;
and (b) the loss of iron reductant and copper catalyst will be lower for
the reductive degradation system in series, but the cost of operating the
system in seri~s is unaffected since the cost of rep1aci~ these materials
is negligible.
Total Capital Investment Costs for The Resin Adsorption System and The
Reductive.De~radation System
The cost of purchasing and installing the capital equipment for each
system has been presented in the previous discussions.
In addition to the
previous cost estimates, a contingency of 30% is added to these costs to
allow for unanticipated expenses.
Table 3 sUmmarizes and totals the capi-
tal investment for the three systems.
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR THE RESIN ADSORPTION SYSTEM AND THE REDUCTIVE
DEGRADATION SYSTEM
The total annual costs to operate each system at both the 300 and 600
gal/min flow rates are estimated below.
MOst of these costs are a percen-
tage of either the installed capital equipment cost or the labor costs pre-
viously described.
The following list shows all of the cost items considered
in this estimate.
Direct costs
Materials.
Labor
Supervision
Payroll charges
Maintenance
50

-------
Table 3. INSTALLED CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COST FOR THE RESIN ADSORPTION SYSTEM,
THE REDUCTIVE DEGRADATION SYSTEM, AND THE NO SYSTEMS IN SERIES
     Capital investment cost ($)  
     Reductive degradation The two sys tems
   Resin system system 1n series
   300 600 300 600 300 600
 Process ~al/min ~al/min ~al/min ~al/min ~al/min ~al/min
 Sedimentation 33,000 59,000 .. 33,000 59,000 33,000 59,000
 Filtration 158,000 210,000 158,000 210,000 158,000 210,000
\1'1 Resin adsorption process      
... Equipment 212,000 322,000   212,000 322,000
 Resin  189,000 378,000   189,000 378,000
 Reductive degradation   142.000 216.000 142.000 216.000
 process       
 Subtotal 592,000 969,000 333,000 485,000 734,000 .1,185,000
 Contingency, 30% 178.000 291.000 100 .000 146.000 220.000 356.000
 Total (1975 $) 770,000 1,260,000 433,000 631,000 954,000 1,541,000

-------
Operating supplies
Utilities
Laboratory services
Indirect costs
Depree iat ion.
Property taxes
Insurance
Capital cost
Plant ove~head
Materials
The only material cost of any consequence is the sodium carbonate used
to neutralize the wastewater and the isopropyl alcohol used to regenerate
the resin.
(The Amberlite XAD-4 has a 5 year useful life and is depreciated
with the capital equipment.)
These costs have been previously given.
Labor
. .
Labor costs are wages paid to operating labor.
The total annual labor
required for the three systems (based on 350 operating days per year) is:
   Annual man-hours  
 XAD-4 resin   Two sys tems
 system RD sys tem in series
 300 600 300 600 300 600
Process gal/min gal/min gal/min gal/min gal/min gal/min
Sedimentation 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050
Filtration 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050
XAD-4 Resin 4, 150 4,900   4,150 4,900
Process      
RD Process   4,150 4,900 4 ,150 4,900
Total 6,250 7,000 6,250 7,000 10,400 11,900
52

-------
The hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers in the
chemical and allied products industry was $5.18/hr in March 1975 (MOnthly
Labor Review, 1975).
For April 1975, the estimated wage rate is ~5.20/hr.
This gives an annual operating labor cost for each of the systems as
fo Hows :
  Flow rate Annual Hourly Annual operating
 System (ga1/min) man-hours wa~e labor cost
XAD-4 Resin 300 6,250 $5.20 $32,500
  600 7,000 5.20 36,400
Reductive Degradation 300 6,250 5.20 32,500
  600 7,000 5.20 36,400
TWo Systems in Series 300 10,400 5.20 54,100
  600 11,900 5.20 61,900
Supervision.
,
Supervision of labor is normally estimated as a percentage of operating
labor, a typical value being 20% (Jelen, 1970).
Using this typical value
of 20% of operating labor costs for labor supervision costs gives the 01-
lowing estimates:
XAD-4 resin
system
300 600
ga1/min ga1/min
Reductive
degradation
system
300
gal/min
600
gal/min
TWo sys tems
in series
300 600
gal/min ga1/min
Annual Labor
Supervision
Cost

Payroll Char~es
$6,.500
$7,300
$6,500
$7,300
$10,800
$12,400
These costs are the result of the mHny fringe benefits employees receive
in addition to their salaries.
Recent emphasis on these benefits in labor
53

-------
contracts make this cost substantial and it is steadily increasing with
time.
According to Perry and Chilton (1973) the sum. of fringe benefits
may add between 15 and 40% to the wage rate of employees, and this varies
widely from company to company.
In this estimate, payroll charges (fringe
benefits) are taken to be 30% of the wages paid to both labor and super-
vision.
These.payroll charges are thus estimated to be:
    Total operating 
   Flow rate labor and payro 11
 System  (ga1/min) : supervision cost charge
XAD-4 Resin  300 $39,000 $11,700
   600 43,700 13,100
Reductive Degradation 300 39,000 11 , 700
   600 43,700 . 13,100
Two Sys tems in Series 300 . 64,900 19,500
   600 74,300 22,300
Maintenance
Maintenance costs have been determined previously for each process.
They are summarized below to give the total annual maintenance costs for
each system.      
  Annual maintenance cost ($) 
 XAD-4 resin Reductive degra - Two sys tems
 system dation system in series
 300 600 300 600 300 600
Process gal/min ga1/min ga1/min ga1/min gal/min g'al/min
Sedimentation 5,000 8,900 5,000 8,900 5,000 8,900 .
Filtration 7,900 10,500 7,900 10,500 7,900 10,500
XAD-4 Resin 10,600 16,100   10,600 16,100
Process      
RD Process   7 .,100 10.800 7.100 10.800
Total 23,500 35,500 20,000 30,200 30,600 46,300
54

-------
Operatin~ Supplies
Operating supplies are items such as lubricating oil, instrument charts,
etc., that are neither raw nor repair materials.
The cos t of these items
is typically 6% of labor costs (Jelen, 1970).
This amounts to an annua 1
cost for operating supplies of:
XAD-4 resin
system
300
gal/min
600
gal/min
Reductive
degradation
system
300
gal/min
600
gal/min
Two sys tems
in series
300 600
gal/min gal/min
Annual Opera~ing
Supplies Cost
$2,000
$2,200
$2 , 000
$2,200
. $3,200
$3,700
Utilities
The utilities required for the processes are primarily electrical power.
Little water is required if we assume that processed wastewater is' recycled
to the filter backwash and sodium carbonate mixing tanks.
The estimated an-
nual electrical cost for the 100 ga1/min reductive degradation system is
. $1,350; (Envirogenics Systems Company, December 1973) for the XAD-4 resin
system is $650 (Marks, 1974b) and for pumping 100 gal(min of wastewater in
the sedimentation and filtration process is $100.
These costs are scaled up by direct proportion to give an annual elec-
trical cost to each system as follows:
55

-------
  Annual electrical costs ($) 
 XAD-4 resin Reductive degra- Two sys tems
 system dation system in series
 300 600 300 600 300 600
Process gal/min gal/min gal/min gal/min gal/min gal/min
Sedimentation and 300 600 300 600 300 600
Filtration      
XAD-4 Resin 2,000 3,900   2,000 3,900
Process      
RD Process   4.100 8 . 100 4.100 8 .100
Total 2,300 4,500 .4,400 8,700 6,400 12,600
Laboratory Services
Laboratory services furnished to support the treatment processes and
monitoring operations are estimated at 20% of labor costs (Jelen, 1970).
The annual laboratory services cost for the systems, therefore, are:
XAD-4 resin
system
300
ga1/min
600
ga1/min
Reductive degra-
dation system
300 600
gal/min gal/min
Two sys tems
in series
300
gal/min
600
ga l/min
Annual Laboratory
Service Cos t
$~,500
$7,300
$6,500
$7,300
$10,800
$12,400.
Depreciation
Depreciation is a periodic charge that distributes the installed capi-
tal investment cost over its expected service life.
This cost estimate uses
straight line depreciation and assumes all capital assets have a zero sal-
vage value.
The capital investment costs and expected lives of all de-
preciable assets have been previously given and are used below to determine.
the annual depreciation cost for the three systems (rounded to nearest $100).
56

-------
   Annual depreciation cost ($) 
  XAD-4 res in Reductive degra- Two sys tems
  system da t ion sys tem. in series
Capital Life 300 600 300 600 300 600
Asset (year) gal/min gal/min gal/min gal/min gal/min gal/min
Sedimenta tion        
Process 40 1,100 1,900 1,100 1,900 1,100 ' 1,900
Filtration        
Process 15 13,700 18,200 . 13,700 18,200 13,700 18,200
XAD-4 Resin        
Process 10 27,600 41,900   27,600 41,900
XAD-4 Resin        
Charge 5 49,100 98,300   49, 100 98,300
RD Process 10   18,500 28,lOQ 18,500 28,100
Total  91,500 160,300 33,300 48,200 110,000 188,400
Property Taxes. Insurance. and Capital Costs
Property taxes, insurance and capital costs are estimated as ~ per-
centage of the installed capital equipment cost.
These costs are calculated
and reported in this report separately to show the cost breakdown of these
three items.
Jelen (1970) reports that property taxes are taken to be 2% of invest-
ment cost and insurance is generally about 1% of investment cost.
Capital
cost (or interest) is a charge to finance the investment expenditures.
This.
interest may be a real cost when funds are borrowed to finance the invest-
ment, or an assumed cost when internal funds are used (since internal funds
would earn interest if loaned out rather than purchased capital assets).
The annual rate of interest has varied ~idely in the recent past and is taken
to be 10% for 10 years due to current market interest rates and current cost
literature (Chemical Engineerin&, .197Sb).
As shown in the Appendix, this is
eauivalent to an annual interest rate of 6.3% of capital investment.
57

-------
Using the~bove percentages gives the following indirect costs for
the three systems:
Cost Item
XAD-4 resin
system
300 600
ga1/min ga1/min
Annual cost ($)
Reductive degra-
dation system
300 600
gal/min gal/min"
Two sys tems
in series
300 600
gal/min ga1/min
Property Taxes
(2%)
Insurance (1%)
Capital Cost (6.3%)
11 , 800
5,900
59,200
19,400
9,700
96,900
6,700
3,300
33,300
9,700
4,900
48,500
14,700
7,300
73,400
23,700
11,900
118,500
Plant Overhead
Plant overhead is a charge to the costs of the manufacturing facility
which are not chargeable to any particular operation and are normally charged
on an allotted basis.
Overhead includes such cost items as plant supervision,
plant guards, janitors, cafeterias, administrative offices, accounting, pur-
chasing, etc.
Overhead costs will vary from company to company and are
usually calculated as a percentage of direct "labor cost or a percentage of
installed capital investment for the entire facility, and allocated to each
operation based on its labor or investment cost.
Jelen (1970) reports that plant overhead can range from 40 to 60% of
direct labor costs or 15 to 30% of direct costs.
We estimate that plant
overhead is 20% of direct costs in this report.
58

-------
I ,- ~
TOTAL COST ESTIMATES FOR THE RESIN ADSORPTION SYSTEM AND THE REDUCTIVE
DEGRADATION SYSTEM
The total costs of the resin adsorption system, the reductive degra-
dation system and the two systems in series are given in Table 4.
The table
shows that the total installed. capital equipment costs for the three sys-
tems are:
(a) XAD-4 resin system, $770,000 (300 gal/min) and $1,260,000
(600 gal/min); (b) reductive degradation system, $433,000 (300 gal/min) and
$631,000 (600 gal/min); and (c) the two systems in series, $954,000 (300
gal/min) an4 $1,541,000 (600 gal/min).
The estimated total annual operating
costs are:
(a) $433,200 and $741,300; (b) $181,800 and $249,000; and (c)
$537,200 and $889,700, respectively.
The estimated cost (per 1,000 gal. of
effluent) of treating the endrin wastewater effluent is:
(a) $2.87 and
$2.45; (b) $1.20 and $0.82; and (c) $3.55 and $2.94, respectively.
The esti-
mated unit operating costs to treat endrin wastewater per pound of endrin
product (based upon 6 million pounds of annual production) are:
(a) 7.2 and
l2.4~; (b) 3.0 and ~.2~; and (c) 9.0 and l4.8~, respectively.
The current
sale price for endrin is reported to be $3.00/lb (Bell, 1975).
CARBON ADSORPTION PROCESS COSTS
As indicated in Figure 5, the endrin process wastewater will require
(a) sedimentation, (b) filtration, and (c) neutralization prior to adsorp-
tion on carbon.
The costs of sedimentation and filtration have been discussed
earlier in this repor~ and the costs of the neutralization were discussed in
the portion of this report dealing with the costs of the reductive degrada-
tion nrocess.
59

-------
 bbl. 4. TOTAL INVESnmlT COST AND ANNUAL OPEBATING COST FOR 1'H1lEE ENDRm WASTEWATER 
 tlEAtKEHT SYSTEMS TIlEAnNC EImER 300 OR 600 GAL/KIN WASTEWATER EFPWENT 
     Cost (1975 $)   
     Reductive degradation Two systems
   XAD-4 resin system svstelll   in series
   300 600 300 600 300 600
Cost item gal/min l1:al/min l1:al/min l1:at/min l1:al/min l1:al/min
.Total installed capital 770,000 1,260,000 433,000 631,000 954,000 1,541,000
equipment cost        
Annual operating costs      
Direct costs        
Materials   140,100 280 ,200 6,600 13,200 146,700 293,400
Labor   32,500 36,400 . 32,500 36,400 54,100 61,900
Supervision   6,500 7,300 6,500 7,300 10,800 12,400
Payroll charges 11,700 13,100 11 , 700 13,100 19,500 22,300
Maintenance   23,500 35,500 20,000 30,200 30,600 46,300
Operating supplies 2,000 2,200 2,000 2,200 3,200 3,700
Utilities   2,300 4,500 4,400 8,700 6,400 12,600
Laboratory   ---LW. ~ ~ ~ 10.800 12.400
Subtotal   225,100 386,500 90 ,200 118,400 282,100 465,000
Indirect costs        
Depreciation   91,500 160,300 33,300 48,200 110,000 188,400
Property taxes 15,400 25,200 8,700 12,600 19,100 30,800
Insurance   7,700 12,600 4,300 6,300 9,500 15,400
Capita 1 cost   48,500 79,400 27,300 39,800 60 ,100 97,100
Plant overhead 45.000 77 . 300 18.000 23.700 56.400 93.000
Subtotal   208,100 354,800 91,600 130,600 255,100 424,700
Total annual operating costs .433,200 741,300 181,800 249,000 537,200 889,700
Unit o~eratinp: costs      
Cost $/1,000 gal. effluent 2.87 2.45 1.20 0.82 3.55 2.94
Cost $/lb of endrin 0.072 0.124 0.030 0.042 0.090 0.148
produced (6 million      
pound produced in 1975)      
60

-------
The capital equipment costs of- the carbon adsorption unit in the sys-
tem are estimated below at two contact times.
Following this are the cost
summaries for the entire system which includes sedimentation, filtration,
neutralization and carbon adsorption.
The cost of a carbon adsorption process to treat 300 gpm of endrin con-
taminated wastewater at Ve1sicol's Memphis Plant is est~ated from cost in-
formation obtained from two sources.
The first source is Mr. Roy H. Hutchins,
Development Associate, Product Development Department, ICI United States,
Inc., Wilmington, Delaware (Hutchins, 1975a).
The second source is a process
design manual for carbon adsorption (Cornell, 1973).
The treatability of a particular wastewater by activat~d carbon and the
relative capacity of carbon for treatment can be estimated from adsorption
isotherm data, obtained by batch testing.
However, carbon performance and
design criteria are best determined by pilot tests under dynamic flow condi-
tions.
The required contact time for a given carbon adsorber column (i.e.,
the residence time required for the wastewater in a carbon column) is an im-
portant design consideration for carbon adsorption systems.
The contact time
data can only be accurately determined by pilot tests which simulate fu1l-
scale operating conditions.
Unfortunately, contact time data of this type
are not available.
Therefore, two different assumed values of contact time
were used in this study as a means for estimating a range of investment and
operating costs.
The two contact times considered were:
1.
30 min contact time (15 min retention in each of two carbon columns
in series).
This retention time was shown to be effective for endrin by data
reported by Robeck (1965) (Table 13; p. 198).
61

-------
2.
60 min contact time (30 min retention in each of two carbon
columns in series).
Capital Investment Costs for Carbon Adsorption Unit With 30 Min Contact Time
Carbon adsorption isotherm data reported by Robeck (1965) for tests with
endrin contaminated river water were used to estimate the endrin removal which
could be accomplished per unit of granular activated carbon used in the con-
ceptua1 wastewater treatment system.
As recommended by Hutchins (1975a) the
river water isotherm for Figure 6-e of Robeck (1965) was extrapolated to de-
\
termine the endrin removal per unit of carbon corresp~nding to an endrin con-
centration of 200 ppb--the endrin concentration in wastewaters to be treated
by carbon adsorption.
The value obtained by extrapolation is 100 ~g of en-
drin per microgram of carbon; this corresponds to a' 10% loading on'the car-
bon (e.g., 10 lb of carbon adsorbs 1 lb of endrin).
The total quantity of endrin to be removed per day (reduction from
, 200 ppb to 1 ppb of endrin in wastewater) by the conceptual adsorption sys-
tems is calculated as follows:
300 gpm x 3.785 liters/gal x 200 ~g/liter = 227,000 ~g/min of endrin-entering
300 gpm x 3.785 liters/gal x 1 ~g/liter = 1,130 ~g/min of endrin-leaving system
Difference = - 226,000 pg/min of endrin retained
on carbon
The estimated carbon requirement for 10% pickup is 226,000 x 10 or 2,260,000
pg/min or 2.26 g/min or 2.26 x 60 x 24 = 3,254 g/day or 3.254 = 7.2 lb/day.
453.6
62

-------
Hutchins (l975b) has stated that the efficient use of carbon in the
adsorption system can be maximized by a counter-current type of operation
as depicted in Figure 5.
In this conceptual process, two adsorber columns
are operated in series continuously, while a third adsorber unit is always
held on standby.
All three columns would have the same physical size and
initial fresh ~arbon charge.
When break-through occurs in the first ab-
sorber (i.e., the total charge becomes fully spent) the unit is taken out
.--
of service.
The second column then becomes the lead column (No.1), and
the standby adsorber is then placed in service as the second adsorber.
The
original No.1 adsorber co1u~ is then discharged, the spent carbon disposed
of as solid waste to be incinerated and the drained wastewater is reprocessed
through the system; the column is then recharged with fresh carbon"and held
on standby for a subsequent repetition of the operation described above.
In
this arrangement there is no regeneration of spent carbon.
According to
Hutchins (1975b) it would be more economical to discard the used carbon be-
cause of the low carbon usage rate.
Hutchins (1975a) has estimated that one
carbon unit (- 12,000 lb of carbon) would become spent about every 30 months.
On the basis of data provided by Robeck (1965) and Cornell (1973) and
at the recommendation of Hutchins (1975a) it was considered that the two on-
stream adsorbers would have a total wastewater to carbon contact time of
30 min (i.e., 15 min contact in each of two adsorbers) and that the flow rate
through the carbon bed would be 4 gpm/ft2 of adsorber bed cross-sectional
area.
63

-------
At 300 gpm, a 15 min contact time corresponds to a holding volume per
vessel of 300 x 15 or 4,500 gal. or 602 ft3.
Cornell (1973) recommends 50%
additional adsorber volume to provide for backwash operations. Thus, the
total volume of each vessel would be 1.5 x 4,500 or 6,750 gal. or 903 ft3.
Hutchins (1975) has suggested a flow rate of 4 gpm/ft2 through the carbon
contactors.
o~ this basis, the size of each contactor would be approxi-
mately 10 ft dia (300 = 75 'ft2 cross-sectional area) by about 11 ft high.
4 .
Hutchins (1975) has recommended an initial charge of 12,000 lb carbon* per
vessel.
Considering downflow operation of the contactors, the effective
volume (carbon volume) in each adsorber (contactor) would be 12,000 lb
23 lb/ft3
=
522 ft3 (approximately a 7 ft bed 'depth of carbon).
Cost for Carbon Contactor Units - Cost data reported by Cornell (1973)
(Figure 5-1, p.. 5-4) were used to estimate the installed cost for three
equal-sized carbon adsorber columns (contactors).
Cornell's Figure 5 re-
lates the construction cost to effective contactor volume.
Since the volume
of the contactors considered i~ this study (522 ft) is off-scale on the
low side in this figure, the 0.6 power factor relationship was used to esti-
mate the contactor cost.
A contactor with an effective volume of 1,000 ft3
has a construction cost of $80,000 (Figure 5-1, Cornell, 1973).
By the 0.6
factor relationship (see Appendix A):

$80,000 =(1,000~ 0.6 C
. ~522~'

Then, the cost for three contactors would be 3 x $54,200 or $162,600.
C = $54,200/contacto~
~-
dating this cost for inflationary changes using Marshall and Swift cost
* Hydrodarco 4,000 sold by ICI, United States, Inc.
64

-------
indices for 1975 and 1973 gives:
443.8 x $162,600 = $209,800
344.1
Cost For Influent Pumps Station - As shown in the Cornell (1973) cost data
(Figure 5-5, p. 5-11) the cost for an influent pump station for a 300 gpm
or 0.43 x 103 gpd is about $10,000.
Updating by Marshall and Swift cost in-
dices for 1973 and 1975 gives:
443.8 x $10,000 = $12,900
344.1
Initial Carbon Charge ~ As recommended by Hutchins (1975a) each of three con-
tactors would have an initial charge of 12,000 lb of granular activated carbon
(Hydrodarco 4,000, ICI, United States, Inc.) at a cost of $0.38/lb.
Then,
3 x 12,000 x $0.38 = $13,700
Summary of Capital Investment - Plant investment costs for the carbon adsorp-
tion equipment are:
Estimated
Installed Costs (1975 $)
Influent pump station
Carbon contactors (3)
Initial carbon charge
$ 12,900
209,800
13,700
Subtotal
$236,400
Adjustment to account for
engineering", legal, admini-
strative land and interest
expenses, 20% of subtotal
(Cornell, 1973)
47,000
Total
$283,400
65

-------
[ -
Capital Investment Costs for Carbon Adsorption Unit with 60 Min Contact Time
At 300 gpm, a 30 min contact time in each carbon adsorber corresponds
to a holding volume per vessel of 300 x 30 = 9,000 gal. or 1,204 ft3.
Cornell (1973) recommends 50% additional adsorber volume to provide for
backwash operation.
Thus, the total volume of each vessel would be 1.5 x
9,000 or 13,509 gal.
For a flow rate of 4 gpm/ft2, the cross-sectional
area of
each contactor would be 300 = 75 ft2 and the effective volume would
4
--
be 2 x 522 or 1,044 ft2.
Cos~ data by Cornell (1973) show that the cost for a contactor with
1,044 ft3 of effective volume. is about $80,000.
For three contactors, the
cost is 3 x $80,000 or $240,000.
Updating by Marshall and Swift cost in-
dices for 1975 and 1973 gives:
443.8 x $240,000 = $309,500
344.1
The initial carbon charge would be twice as large as for the 30 min
total contact system or 2 x $13,700 = $27,400.
It is considered that the influent pump station cost would be the same
as for the 30 min contact system or $12,900.
Summary of Capital Investment - Estimated plant investment costs for the
carbon adsorption equipment are:
Item
Estimated
Installed Costs (1975 $)
Influent pump station
Carbon contactors (3)
Initial carbon charge
$ 12,900
309,500
27,400
Subtotal
$349,800
66

-------
1

I
Adjustment to account for
engineering, legal, ad-
ministrative, land and
interest expenses; 20% of
subtotal (Cornell, 1973)
$ 70,000
Total
$419,800
Operatin~ Labor and Maintenance - Operating labor time is taken to be the
same as for the 30 min contact system or 510 man-hours/year.
The annual maintenance cost for the carbon adsorption operation is
est~ated as 5% of capital investment (see Appendix A) as 0.05 x $419,800 =
$21,000.
Other Operatin~ Costs - All other operating costs were calculated by the
same procedure as used in the estimate for a 30 total contact time as de-
scribed in the preceding subsections.
Annual Operatin~ Cost for Carbon Adsorption System (Includin~ Sedimentation,
Filtration, and Neutralization)
The total annual costs to operate the system at the 300 ga1/min flow
rate are estimated below.
Most of these costs are a percentage of either
the installed capital equipment cost or the labor costs previously described.
The following list shows all of the cost items considered in this estimate.
Direct costs
Materials
Labor
Supervision
Payroll charges
Maintenance
Operating supplies
Utilities
Laboratory services
67

-------
Indirect costs
Depreciation
Property taxes
Insurance
Capital cost
Plant overhead
Operating Labor and Maintenance for Carbon Adsorption Plant - Operating labor
time is estima~ed from cost data reported by Cornell (1973) (Figure 5-7,
p. 5-18).
The flow (432,000 gpd) for the conceptual carbon adsorption sys-
tem is off-scale on Figure 5-7.
The one-fourth factor (see Appendix A) is used
to scale down 'labor requirements from one plant size to a smaller plant size.
From Figure 5-7 (Cornell, 1973), the operating labor requirement for a flow
of.2 MGD is 750 annual man-hours.
Scaling down this value by the one-fourth
factor (see Appendix A) gives:
750 = ( 2 )0.25c
0.432
C = 510 man-hours for a flow of 0.432
M gpd (300 gpm)
The annual maintenance cost for the carbon adsorption operations is
estimated to be 5% of the capital investment (see Appendix A) or 0.05 x
$283)400 = $14,200.
Materials - The only material costs of any conse~uence are the sodium
carbonate used to neutralize the wastewater and the activated carbon make-
up. These costs have been previously given.
Labor -Labor costs are wages paid to operating labor. The total annual
operating labor required for the plant is:
68

-------
Process
Annual man-hours
Sedimentation
Filtration
Neutralization
Carbon adsorption
Total
1,050
1,050
1,050
510
3,660
The hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers in the chemical
and allied products industry was' $5. 18/hr in March 1975 (iMOnth1y Labor Rev,
May 1975).
For April 1975, the estimated wage rate is $5.20/hr.
This gives
an annual operating labor cost of $19,000.
Supervision - Supervision of labor is normally estimated as a percentage of
operating labor, a typical value being 20% (Jelen, 1970).
Using this typi-
ca1 value of 20% of operating labor costs for labor supervision costs gives
a cost of $3,800/year.
Payroll Charges  - This cost is the result of the many fringe benefits
employees receive in addition to their salaries. Recent emphasis on these
benefits in labor contracts make this cost substantial and it is steadily
increasing with time. The sum of fringe benefits may add between 15 and
40% to the wage rate of employees (Perry, 1973), and this varies widely from.
company to company.
In this estimate, payroll c~arges (fringe benefits) are
taken to be 30% of the wages paid to both labor and supervision.
This cost
amounts to $6,800.
. Maintenance - Maintenance costs have been determined previously for each
part of the process. They are summarized here to give the total annual
plant maintenance costs.
69

-------
Process
Annual maintenance
Sedimentation
Filtration
Neutralization
Carbon adsorption
Total
$ 5,000
7,900
2,900
14.200
$30,000
Operat1n~ Supplies - Operating supplies are items such as lubricating oil,
instrument charts, etc., that are neither raw or repair materials.
~e
cost of these items is typically 6% of labor costs (Jelen, 1970), and amounts
to an annual cost of $1,100.
Utilities - ~e utilities required for the process are primarily electrical
power.
~e estimated annual electrical cost fo~ this system estimated from
cost data reported by Cornell (1973) (Figure 5-9, p. 5-20).
Figure 5-9
shows an annual power cost (at $0.02/KWH) of 4,600/year.
Adjusting from
1973 to 1975 by Marshall and Swift cost indices for electrical power in-
dustries gives 437.7 x 4,600 = $6,200.
. . 322.2
Laboratory - Laboratory services furnished to support the treatment process
operation are estimated at 20% of labor cost (Jelen, 1970) or $3,800/year.
Depreciation - Depreciation is a periodic charge that distributes the
installed capital investment cost over its expected service life. This
cost estimate uses straight line depreciation and assumes all capital
assets have a zero salvage value. The capital investment costs and ex-
pected lives of all depreciable assets have been previously given and
are summarized and totaled below (rounded to nearest $100):
70

-------
Process
Life
(year)
Annual depreciation cost
($)
Sedimentation
Filtration
Neutralization
Carbon adsorption
Total
40
15
10
10
800
10,500
5,800
28.300
'45,,400
Property Taxes, Insurance, and Capital Costs - Property taxes, insurance
and capital costs are estimated as a percentage of the installed capital
equipment cost. These costs are calculated and reported in this report
separately to $how the cost breakdown of these three items.
Property taxes are taken to be 2% of investment cost, and insurance is
generally about 1% of investment cost (Jelen, 1970).
Capital cost (or in-
terest) is a. charge to finanace the 'investment expenditures.
This interest
may be a real cost when funds are borrowed to finance the investment, or an
a$sumed cost when internal funds are used (since internal funds would earn
. interest if loaned out rather than purchase capital assets).
The annua 1
rate of interest has varied widely in the recent pa~t and is taken to be
"
6.3% per annum for 10 years (see Appendix A).
Using the above percentages gives the following indirect costs for
this system:
Cost item
Annual cost ($)
Property taxes (2%)
Insurance (1%)
Capital cost (6.3%)
13,800
6,,900
43,600
71

-------
Plant Overhead - Plant overhead is a charge to. the costs of the manufac-
turing facility which are not chargeable to any particular operation and
are normally charged on an allotted basis. Overhead includes such cost
items as plant supervision, plant guards, janitors, cafeterias, administra-
tive offices, accounting, purchasing, etc. Overhead costs will vary from
company to company and are usually calculated as a percentage of direct
labor or a percentage of installed capital investment for the entire fa-
cility, and allocated to each operation based on its labor or investment
cost.
Plant overhead can range.from 40 to 60% of direct labor costs or 15 to
30% of direct costs (Jelen, 1970).
We estimate that plant overhead is 20%
of direct costs in this report.
Total Costs for Carbon Adsorption System (Including Costs of Sedimentation.
Filtration. and Neutralization)
The total cost of.the carbon adsorption system is the sum of the total
capital investment costs plus the annual operating cost.
These costs have
been estimated in the preceding three sections of this report.
The total estimated capital investment costs for the carbon adsorption
system are presented in Table 5.
The estimated total investment and annual operating costs for the en~
tire system are presented in Table 6.
. 72

-------
Table 5..
INSTALLED CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COST FOR THE 300 GPM
CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
 Capital investment cost (1975 $)
 Contact time Contact time
Process -30 min 60 min
Sedimenta t ion 33,000 33,000
Filtratio'n 158,000 158,000
Neutralization 58,200 58,200
Carbon adsorption 283,400 419,800
Subtotal 532,600 669,000
Contingeqcy, 30% 159,800 201,000
(see Appendix A)  
Tota 1 692,400 870,000
73

-------
I
Table 6. ESTIMATED TOTAL INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS FOR GRANUlAR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
SYSTEMS (300 gpm Endrin Wastewater Flow"Rate)
Carbon adsorption system total contact time, min
Costs $ (1975)
30 60
Cost item
Tbtal installed "capital equipment cost
692,000
870,000
Annual operating costs,
Direct costs
Materials
Operating labor.
Supervis ion
Payroll charges
Maintenance
Operating supplies
Utilities
Laboratory charges
7,600 7,600
19,000 19,000
3,800 3,800
6,800 6,800
30,000 36,800
1, 100 1,100
6,200 6,200
. 3,800 3,800
78,300 85 , 100
Subtotal (rounded)
Indirect costs.
Depreciation
Property taxes and insurance
Capital cost (interest)
Plant overhead
Subtotal (rounded)
45,400 59,100
20,700 26,100
43,600 54,800
15,700 17 ,000
125,400 157,000
203,700 242,100
Total,
Unit operating costs
Cost ($)/1,000 gal. effluent
$1.35
$1. 60
Cost, cents per pound of endrin produced
(estimated 6 million pounds produced in 1975)
~.4~
4.0~
74

-------
REFERENCES
Blecker, H. G., and T. M. Nichols, "Capital and Operations
lution Control Equipment Modules--Vol. II--Data Manual,"
023b, July 1973.
Costs of Pol-
EPA-RS-73-
Chemical Engineering, "Economic Indicators," July 7, 1975a.
Chemical Engineering, p. 89, July 21, 1975b.
Chemical Marketing Reporter, April 28, 1975.~
Cornell, Howland, Hayes, and Merryfield, Clair A. Hill and Associates,
"Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption," U.S. EPA, October 1973.
Cywin, A., Director, Effluent Guidelines Division, letter to Mr. D. R.
Marks, Technical Superintendent, Ve1sico1 Chemical Corporation,
Memphis, Tennessee, March 12, 1975.
Cywin, A., and E. E. Martin, "Development Document for Proposed Efflu-
ent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for
the Major Inorganic Products Segment of the Inorganic Chemicals Manu-
facturing Point Source Category," September 1973.
Envirogenics Systems Company, "Development and Demonstration of Process
for the Treatment of Chlorinated Cyc10diene Pesticide Manufacturing
and Process Wastes," December 1973.
Envirogenics Systems Company, "Development .of Treatment Process for
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticide Manufacturing and Process Wastes,"
Report No. L-030S-25, EPA Contract No. 68-01-0083, May 1974a.
Envirogenics Systems Company, "Status of Developments of Reductive
Degradation Treatment of Endrin-Heptachlor and Chlordane Manufacturing
Wastes," EPA Contract No. 68-01-0083, September 1974b.
\
Ferguson, T. L., and A. F. Meiners, "Wastewater Management Review No.
2--Endrin," Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-2579, to the Hazard-.
ous and Toxic Substances Regulation Office, May 8, 1974.
Hager, D. G., "Industrial Wastewater Treatment by Granular Activated
Carbon," Industrial Water Engineering, p. 14, January/February 1974.
75

-------
Hager, D. G., and J. L. Rizzo, "Removal of Toxic Organics from Wastewater
by Adsorption with Granular Carbon," paper presented at the Environmental
Protection Agency Technology Transfer Session on Treatment of Toxic
Chemicals, Atlanta, Georgia, April 19, 1974.
Hutchins, R. A., Development Associate, ICI United States, Inc., letter
and telephone communication to Mr. C. E. Mumma, October 1975a.
Hutchins, R. A., "Activated Carbon Regeneration: Thermal Regeneration
Costs," Chemical Engineering Progress, 71 (5) : 80 (197 5b). .
-
Jelen, F. C., Cost and Optimization Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York (1970).
Kennedy, D. C., "Treatment of Effluent From Manufacture of Chlorinated
Pesticides With A Synthetic, Polymeric Adsorbent, Amberlite XAD-4,"
Environmental Science and Technologv, ~(2):138 (1973).
Marks, D. R., "Testimony of Daniel R. Marks Respecting
Remove Endrin From Water," FWPCA (307) Docket No.1,
County of Shelby, March 14, 1974a.
Technology to
State of Tennessee,
Marks, D. R., "Status Report on Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticide Re-
moval From Wastewater," EPA Grant No. S-803l59-01-0, Velsicol Chemical
Corporation, Memphis, Tennessee, September 30, 1974b.
Marks, D. R., "Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticide Removal From Wastewater,"
EPA Grant 803159-01, Ve1sicol Chemical Corporation, February 1975a.
Marks, D. R., "Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticide Removal From Wastewater,"
EPA Grant 803159-01, Ve1sicol Chemical Corporation, May 1975b.
MOdern Cost--Engineering Techniques, p. 252, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York (1970).
Monthly Labor Rev., Vol. 98, No.5, May 1975.
Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter, November 27, 1972.
Perry, R. H., and C. H. Chilton, Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 5th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1973).
Richardson, L. T., and D. M. Miller, "Fungitoxicity of Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Insecticides in Relation to Water Solubility and Vapor.
Pressure," Canadian Journal of Botany, 38:163 (1960).
76

-------
Robeck, G. G. et aI., "Effectiveness of Water Treatment Process in Pesti-
cide Removal," J. Amer. Water Works Assn., 57:181 (1965).
Ryckman, Edger1in, Tomlinson, and Associates, Inc., "Pesticide Poisoning
of Pond Lick Lake, Ohio. Investigation and Solution," Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs, Oil and Hazardous Mate-
rials Program Service, OHM, 71-06-002 (1971).
Sweeny, K. H., and J. R. Fischer, "Investigation of Means for Controlled
Self-Destruction of Pesticides," Aerojet Final Report on FWQA Contract
No. 14-12-596, Water Pollution Control Research Series 16040 ELO 06/70, .
June 1970.
---
Sweeny, K. H., and J. R. Fischer, "Decomposition
Compounds Using Metallic Couples," U.S. Patent
Department of the Interior, June 1973.
of Halogenated Organic
No. 3,737,384, for U.S.
Swank, R. R., Jr., Acting Chief, Industrial Pollution
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia,
A. F. Meiners and C. E. Mumma, September 29, 1975.
Branch, Southeast
Site visit by
Vita1is, J. S., "Velsicol Plant Notes Summary,"
to Walter J. Hunt, Chief, Effluent Guidelines
June 2, 1975.
Record of Communication
Development Branch,
Weston, Roy F., Inc., Draft, "Development Document for Effluent
tions Guidelines and Standards of Performance - Miscellaneous
cals Industry," EPA Contract No. 68-01-2932, February 1975.
Limita-
Chemi - .
"77

-------
APPENDIX A .
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND DISCUSSION OF CONVENTIONAL
ENGINEERING PRACTICES USED IN ESTIMATING COSTS
OF PESTICIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
A-I

-------
. -
Several terms used in the cost estimates require further defini-
tion and have been placed in this appendix to avoid' a lengthy discus-
sion in the text of the report.
The terms which are defined and dis-
cussed in this appendix are (~) limits of error for. cost estimates, (b)
cost indexes, (c) six-tenths factor, (d) one-fourth factor, (e) payroll
charges, (f) pperating supplies, (g) control laboratory costs, (h) main-
tenance and repairs, (i) depreciation, (j) capital cost, (k) plant over-
head, and (1) contingency for capital investment.
LIMITS OF ERROR FOR COST ESTIMATES
The probable limits of. error for the study cost estimates in this
report range from 30% above to 30% below the actual costs.
Study cost
estimates are commonly used to estimate the economic feasibility of a
project before expending significant funds for pilo.ting, market s'tudies,.
land surveys, and requisitions.
They may be off by 30% but they can be
prepared at relatively low costs using minimum data as follows (see' Fig-
ure A-l).
Location of site;
Rough sketches of process flow;
Preliminary sizing and material specifications of equipment;
Approximate sizes of buildings and structures;
Rough quantities of. utilities;
Preliminary piping;
Preliminary motor list; and
Enginee~ing and drafting man-hours.
A-2

-------
t
'-
o
...~
i 0
; 0
"
~ 0
#~

...
o
.
o
",
UOlt probobl. coU
..~
...=:-
~,
~.
0-
~i
... oat ..U8
~;;i ~!
.'Jo- ""4
;a :~.. ;:
~ : A~
It. '0
".o~
~i~~
~:~9.
... . I
"-3'
o;.!.
~,;:
a!"
A-::
. . ~ . ;; . J ~       
~  ..       
  " ~ .       
  !.   .        
         Rtau;18' h,to,",o'tioft  
       location     
       Gen'tal C.""O'IO"    
       SOil blarlnQ    !!!
     . Locatio" 8 dlm,n,.on, R R.. road,.imCto"ne". f,nc., ;:
       WllI-d..IIOOtd "" 010' pion 8 fOP09'OQ'"cot mOet  
       W,U-d,.,lo".4 I,t, fOCthtl"  
       Rouqh ,lIetch.,    - ~
       Prehmlnary    ~:~
       Enoineend    ~.=
       Prthrninor., silin, a ",0''''01 'DICI'.catlon,  
       ["Clint.r'd 'O'(lflco'.on,   '"
         ..
       Venti ,ftf'"    -~
          ;"V
       General 0"0"9''''''''   -~
       (0) Prel1",incry     ~
       I b I EnQlnltttd     
       ApprO.lmct. ,.". a tyPI of con,t'U("fio"  
       t"OundQ"Ol\ ,k,'eh',   ~ CD
       Ar,tI,fec,,,rOI & con,1rUC'tOft ; o~.
       f'I:I~
       PUIlIn,nory It,ucturol d.'19" {"Go;
       GentrOI Ctronqlm'n', & t 1,.,01,onl : ..
       Detailed 41"0.'"q,    
       RO\lqZ'a au~n"T..s 'teom. wa11'. l'ecrrlcI1y. ":" ;: 
       Pttltft"no" 1\'0' bolonCI  .. 
       P'llu...no" 'iOw '''el''   ~S
         ;:.
       t.ftqlft.I,,,t "'0' bolanc,  ).
       l"o,ne,'ed tlow '"''''   .."
       W,!I-d'welcoed CS'O.llIqt   ;
       P,t""'U"OfY flO.., .""t 6 specificaTion,  '0
       ("9.ft,,'ed tlOw ''''''5   ;;
          ;-
       P'OIi"q 10,0\1" & IC"'dule,  .,
       R~wf;h 'PICtf.Cotlon,    ~
       P'th""ftO'y III' of eQulp,.""t a plp,no '0 bl in't,lI~'.O  c
       ,,,,,,IO'lon S~fCI"(o"an, 8 ICl'IlCwll1  ~
        0-
       W.II.~lv.IOp.d d'Ow,n9' 0' ,=,'c"Ic:a~'(\nl  "
       ~r'lImlno'y I",,,,,ml"' IS'  if
       [,,~.nee'ed hi' 8 flOw ,".et
       WllI-dt.,eIO:)ld c'o..nQI 
    .   P,eltmln:.ty ,,"0'0' h,t- OQPfoalMot, 'III'  
       t."9Inee'ed hit Q II"S    
       Sub,to'.o",. I'u""Oet & llze.. ':Jt(.uco'.on,  '"
       Dllf'.butlon IDIClhCOhon,   ;:
         ~
       P,el."'lno" Ilq,..h"1 '~eCtflc~tI3"1  ;..
       Pt'!,,.,,,,o'y IM"iOC".CO""OI.9 1"1"""""' ."1"9 "nci.  ~
       E"~ll'It"':2 .."~:..hn, dloO'o"', "0." 6 I'QI\f.  
       v.t'I;-d'''''~~td 4(ow,no'    
       E"t;.l'\t.,.,,~ a C"Offln9   1;;
       LJ~?' b, '''Of'    CO
          ~'"
.       ~"D.,,,.t.o"    ...
       P,o
-------
COST INDEXES (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1968)
Most cost data which are available for immediate use in a prelimi-
nary or predesign estimate are based on conditions at some time in the
past.
Be~ause prices may ch~nge considerably with time, due to changes
in economic conditions, some method must be used for .converting costs
applicable at a past date to equivalent costs that are essentially cor-
rect at the present time.
This can be done by the .use of cost indexes.
A cost index is merely a number for a given year showing the cost
at that time relative to a certain base year.
If the cost at some time
in the past is known, the equivalent cost at the present time can be
determined by multiplying the original cost by the ratio of the present
index value to the index. value applicable when the original cost was
obtained.
Present cost =
original cost
index value. at present time
index value at time original cost.was obtained
Cost indexes can be used to give a general estimate, but no index
can take into account all factors, such as special technological advance-
ments or local conditions~
The common indexes permit fairly accurate
estimates if t~e time period involved is less than 10 years.
Many different types of cost indexes are published regularly.
A-4

-------
.
Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index
-Relative construction .costs at various dates c~n be estimated by
use of the Engineering News-Record construction index.
This index
shows the variation in labor rates and materials costs for industrial
construction.
It employs a composite cost for 2,500 lb of structural
steel, l,088.fbm of lumber, 6 bbl of cement, and 200 hr of common labor.
'!he index is usually reported on one of three bases:
an index value of
100 in 1913, 100 in 1926, or 100 in 1949.
Marshall and Swift (Formerly Marshall and Stevens) Equipment-Cost Indexes
'!he Marshall and Stevens equipment indexes are divided into two cate-
gories.
Theall-industry equipment index is simply the arithmetic average
of the individual indexes for 47 different types of industrial, commercial,
and housing equipment.
The. process-industry equipment index is a weighted
average of eight of these, with the weighting based on the total product
value of the various process industries.
The percentages used. for the
weighting in a typical year are as follows:
cement, 2; chemicals, 48;
clay products, 2; glass, 3; paint, 5; paper, 10; petroleum, 22; and rub-
ber, 8.
The Marshall and Stevens indexes are based on an index value of 100
for the year 1926.
These indexes take into consideration the cost of
machinery and major equipment plus costs for ins~al1ation, fixtures, tools,
office furniture and other minor equipment.
A-5

-------
Chemical Engineering Plant Construction Cost Index
Construction costs for chemical plants form the basis of the Chemi-
ca1 Engineering plant construction cost index.
The four major components
of this index are weighted in. the following manner:
equipment, machinery,
and supports, 61; erection and installation labor, 22; buildings, mate-
rials, and labor 7; and engineering and supervision manpower, 10.
The
major component, equipment, 'is further subdivided and 'weighted as follows:
--
fabricated equipment, 37; process machinery, 14; pipe, valves, 'and fit-
tings, 20; process instruments and controls, 7; pumps and compressors, 7;
eletrical equipment and materials, 5; and structural supports, insulation,
and paint, 10.
All index components are based on 1957 to 1959 = 100.
SIX-TENTHS FACTOR (Perry and Chilton, 1973)
Cost estimates in this report are given for processes that require
scaling up from a given capacity to a larger capacity (e.g., 100 gpm to
300 gpm and 600 gpm).' Equipment size and costs were shown to correlate
fairly well by the logarithmic relationship known as the "six-tenths
factor."
The simple form of this method is:
C = rO.6 C
n
where
Cn
is the new plant cost,
C
is the previous plant cost, and
r
is the ratio of the new capacity to the old capacity.
This method is the best available for estimating the cost of the sys-
tems in this report since each system involves multiple pieces of equip-
ment, piping, instrumentation, etc.
The exponent actually ranges from
A-6

-------
I
0.45 to 1.15 for different pieces of equipme~t, but in complex systems,
such as the ones described in this report, estimating the new capacity
cost for each.piece of equipment is beyond the scope of this study.
Therefore, when scaling ,the costs up, for example, from a 100 gpm
plant size to other plant sizes, the exponent 0.6 is used as an approxi-
mation of the scale-up factor for the entire system.
In each case, some'
error may be involved using this method, but no otner method is available
.---
. for this study.
ONE-FOURTH FACTOR (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1968)
'!he "one-fourth factor" uses the same principle as the "six-tenths
factor" with the exception that the exponent 0.25 is used instead 6f 0.6.
This factor is used to scale up labor requirements from one plant size
,.
to a larger.p1ant size, and takes into account the fact that larger plant
sizes require less than proportional labor forces due to economies of
BC'ale.
PAYROLL CHARGES
These costs are the result of the many fringe benefits employees
receive in addition to their salaries.
Recent emphasis on these bene-
fits in labor contracts make this cost substantial and it is steadily
increasing with time.
'!he sum of fringe benefits may add between 15 and
40% to the wage rate of employees (Perry and Chilton, 1973), and the per-
centage varies widely from company to company.
In this report, payroll
charges (fringe' benefits) are estimated to be 30% of the wages paid to
both labo~ and supervision.
A-7

-------
OPERATING SUPPLIES
Operating supplies are items such as lubricating oil, instrument
charts, etc., that are neither raw nor repair materials.
The cos t of
these items is typically abo~t 6% of operating labor (Jelen, 1970).
CONTROL LABORATORY COSTS
Depending on company practice and the type of project, operating
costs may include several charges by other units of the company,
e.g.,
. charges by a control laboratory.
Laboratory costs may be estimated as a percentage of.operating
labor cost, in the range of 3 to 10%, but the complex situations as
high as 20% (Jelen, 1970).
Since treatment systems require more labora-
. . .
tory support than typical production processes, in this report the' cost
of these services is estimated to be 20% of operating labor costs.
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1968)
A considerable amount of expense is necessary for maintenance and
repairs if a plant is to be kept in efficient operating condition.
These
expenses include the cost for labor, materials, and supervision.
Annual costs for equipment maintenance and repairs may range from
as low as 2% of the equipment cost if service demands are light to 20%
for cases in which there are severe operating demands.
The annual main-
tenance costs are giv~n separately for each process in this report, and
rang~ from 5 to 15% of the capital equipment cost of the various processes.
A-8

-------
DEPRECIATION
Depreciation is a periodic charge that distributes the installed
capital investment cost over its expected service life.
Instead of
charging the cost of the equipment as an expense in the year of pur-
chase, a portion of its cost is charged against revenues each year
throughout its estimated ,useful life.
In this report the estimated useful life is determined by using the
arithmetic average of the high and low lifetimes of equipment when a
range is given, or 10 years if the useful life is unknown.
In some
cases, the useful life may be too high by U.S. Treasury Department Stan-
dard Guidelines (such as the 40-year life for the sedimentation process)
which allows an 11 year depreciation for chemical plant equipment '(Perry
and Chilton, 1973).
However, using 11 years for all equipment would either
understate or overstate the re~l cost in most circumstances.
When the use-
fu1 life is unknown, 10 years is used to conform to the guidelines of the
federal government.
A zero salvage value is assumed in all depreciation estimates and
straight-line depreciation is used.
CAPI~ COST
Regardless of whether the capital investment is to be obtained from
company funds or made available by bankers, it is logical that the in-
vested capital earn a fair interest.
If the company funds are not used
~9

-------
for the new unit, then they could be invested to bear a reasonable in-
terest.
If the capital is raised by issuing bonds 'or by borrowing from
another corporation, interest would be paid the investor.
It should be
pointed out that in order to ,offer a company the incentive to invest its
money in a new plant, it should be able to realize as. large an interest
rate as it could earn by making other investments.
Since the risk is
somewhat higher than certain conservative investments, the interest rate
should be higher than that offered by these securities.
Excessive in-
terest rates are not realistic in view of today's regulatory laws.
Nor-
mally, an interest rate of from 6 to 8% on the unpaid principal is con-
sidered satisfactory.
In computing interest, it is necessary to remember that the amount
of interest will decrease each year since the unpaid balance is reduced
by the depreciation allowed the previous year.
An interest rate of 10%
would average approximately 6.3% of the total principal each year if the
principal is repaid in 10 annual ~nsta11ments.
It is customary to ex-
press the interest as a uniform fixed cost item each year.
An interest rate of 10% is used in these estimates based on the
cost literature (Chemical Engineering, 1975).
In reality, the interest will decline each year and, therefore, the
payment on the principal'wi11 increase if uniform principal plus inter-
est payments are made.
Uniform payments for ~ periods required to pay
the original sum X can' be computed from the following equation (Petroleum
Refiner, 1957.).
A-lq

-------
.
o n
Rap 1(1 + 1)
(1 + i)n -1
where
P c original sum
R c uniform periodic payment
n CO number of payments
i = interest rate as fraction per period
The expression (1 - i)n is the compound interest expression found in
table form in many handbooks (Lange, Handbook of Chemistry).
Value of
---       
1(1 + i)n/(l + i)n - 1 for various values of n and i are listed
below (Petroleum Refiner, 1957).     
   Values of 1(1 + i)n    
    (1 + On - 1   
    ,    
 n 2% 4% 6%  8%  10%
 1 1.020 1.040 1.060 1. 080 .  1.100 0
 5 0.212 0.225 0.237 0.250  0.264
 10 0.111 0.123 0.136 0.149  0.163
If the original investment was $1,000,000 and the loan was at 10%
interest for 10 years, the uniform payment would be
R = (1 000 000) 0~1(1 + 0.1)10
, , (1 + 0.1)10 - 1
R = 163,000
In 10 years the total payment would be $1,630,000.
Thus, the total
interest is $6~0,000 and the average interest rate would be
630.000 = 6.3%/year
10(1,000,000)
A-ll

-------
PLANT OVERHEAD
Plant overhead is a charge to the costs of the "manufacturing facil-
ity which are not chargeable to any particular operation and are normally
charged on an allotted basis.. Overhead includes such cost items as plant
supervision, plant guards, janitors, cafeterias, administrative offices,
accounting, purchasing, etc.
Overhead costs will vary from company to
company and are usually calculated as a percentage. of direct labor cost
or a percentage of installed capital investment for the entire facility,
and allocated to each operation based on its labor or investment cost.
Plant overhead can range from 40 to 60% of direct labor costs or 15
to 30% of direct costs (Jelen, 1970).
We estimate that plant overhead
is 20% of direct costs in this report.
CONTINGENCY.FOR CAPIIAL INVESTMENT (Fowler, 1975)
The selection of a conting~ncy figure for an estimate .is a matter
of. the judgment of the estimator. "This judgment must consider several
factors, such as: .
(1)
Data basis--laboratory, pilot or plant
(2)
Allowance for inflationary trends
(3)
Knowledge of construction costs at plant location
. .
Under ~avora~le conditions, the contingency factor may be as low as
10%.
However, lacking actual plant cost and considering present infla-
"
tionary trends, a contingency figure of 30% would be justified.
A-12

-------
In the past, cost indexes have been a.re1iable method of esti-
mating cost based upon plant costs in earlier years.
~e plant indexes
are more reliable when used on plant cost rather than pilot pla~t costs.
It is much more difficult to use them successfully when equipment is
pilot plant size or when a small amount of equ~pment is used.
The use
of the indexes in the last 2 years has not been as accurate as in the
past and can result in too low a plant estimate.
Uncertainty increases'
if cost indexes are used to update plant estimates rather than actual
costs.
Unless the estimator has made the original estimate or knows what
tbe plant costs include, a large amount of uncertainty exists when pro-
jecting plant costs to other plant capacities and times.
It is necessary
to know whether a plant investment includes the cost of utilities, such
as a steam boiler or cooling tower, or whether steam and utilities are
available at the battery limits of the unit in any amount required.
It
is also important to know whether the plant investment includes the cost
of the land and site preparation.
Only if these factors are known can
the " contingency factor be kept to a reasonable figure of 30% or lower.
A-13

-------
-
~-
1-
REFERENCES
1.
Chemical Engineering, p. 89, July 21, 1975.
2.
Fowler, F. C., Chemical Engineering Consultant to Midwest Research
Institute and President of Research Associates, Kansas City,
Missouri, Personal Communication to C. E. Mumma, October 15, 1975.
3.
Jelen, F. C., Cost and Optimization Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York (1970).
4.
Perry, R. H., and C. H. Chilton, Chemical Engineers Handbook, 5th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1973).
5.
Peters, M. S., and K. D. Timmerhaus, Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2nd Ed. (1968).
6.
Petroleum Refiner, Process Design Primer, September 1957.
A-14

-------
r
~:-
-
::
"
. ,
.,
'.1
--A
j
~
i
,~
, 1
"i


4

!
'.-i
.
.' ~
}~
ij

.
"j
;
i
I
]
.~
J
'J
'.,
I
)
":.1


~

j
:1
:1
J
J
:1
:1
J
'1
.1
I
:1
(
.
J
.1
j
j
i
j
i
'elL
'-
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
4. Title and Subtitle
T'. Report No.
EPA-440/9-76-0ll
3. Recipient's Accession No.
T2.
Wastewater Treatment Teclmology Documentation, ~fanufacture
of Endrm
s. Report Dare
Pub. Jlme 1976
6.
7. AUtbor(s)
A F - ~fe. ,. 1: Mt1lTl!n.a T T. -
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Midwest ResearCh Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, ~fissouri 64110
- .......:1 r. T Y... 1~"
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No. 4127 -C
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contracr/Grant No.
68-01-3524
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Office of Water Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.\1.
Washin~ton. D. C. 20460
15. Supplementary Notes
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Interim Renort. Edited
u.
"
Some OOitmg was performed by EPA.
16. Abstracrs
This report was prepared to provide teclmologicsupporting infomation for toxic
pollutant effluent standards proposed by EPA under 8307 (a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The report identifi.es potential
technologies, assesses implementation feasibility, estimates final effluent
Characteristics and estimates installation and operation costs for Endrin.
Manufacturers. .
-
17. Key Words and Document Analysis.
170. Descriptors
Wastewater
Waste Treatment
Cost Analysis
Cost Comparison
Pesticides
~fanufacturers
,
17~ .Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards
Federal 1Vater Pollution Control Act
17c. COSATI Fielc1!Group
18. Availabiliry Statement
21. 'No. of Pages
l~
19., Security Class (This
Re~~),

20. Security Class (This
Page,
UNCLASSIFIED
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
usC:O"''''"OC: 82811-P74
Re lease unlimited
22. Price
11;'$'0 -
..
~ORM NTIs-n (R~V. 10-731
ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.

-------
-,
.,. 
~ 
c 
.. 
..j
.;
;1
:1
~1
~
.i
.,
.,
 I
 ;
'-j
j
..
~
..j

1
.-'
. .'
!
I



"",,-----
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTI5-35 (Bibliographic Data Sheet based 00 COSATI
Guid~lioes to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government,
PB-lBO 600).
"'
, . .' .
1. Report Humber. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organization or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase lerters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
FASEB-NS-73-87 and FAA.-RD-73~~.
2. Leave blank.
. .
3. Recipient's Accession Humber. . Reserved for use by eacb report recipient.
. ..
.. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to the
main title. When a report is prepared.in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and.include
subtide for the specific volume. . "
.. .
50 Report Date. Each report sball carry a date indicating at least month and year. lndic'ac~ 'die basis on which it was S1:1ected
(e.g., date of issue, date of approval, dace of preparation, date published).
6- Performing Or9CW1ization Cod.. Leave blank.
. .
7. Author(s). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., Jobn R~ Doc, or J.Robert Doc). List aUthor's affiliation if it differs
from t~ performing organization.

. :1. "eriorming O,gCWIizotlon "Report Humber: . Insert if performing Organization wishes to assign 'this number'..
. .. .
9. Performing Organization Home and Mailing Address. Give name; screet,. city,state, and zip code. List .no more than cwo'
levels of an organizational hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government.1n-
dexes such as: ~ovemment Repons.Index.(GRI). . . . ,..-..
. -
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, cask and work unit numbers under which the report .was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract o~ grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Nome and Mailing Address. Include zip code. Cite main sponsors.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, inclusive dates.
1~ Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
. 15. Supplementary Hotes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperatiQn with. . .
Translation of . .. Presel)ted at conference of . . ~ To be published in . .. Sllpersedes... Supplements. . '.
Cite availability of related parts, volumes, phases, etc. with report number. .. .
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information conuiined in the re.port.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scienci"fic. Terms the
proper aUthorized terms tbat identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise'to be used
as index entries for cataloging.
(b). IdentHiers and Open- Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form for those sub jectS for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1964 COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the specific
. discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physic;al object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced .with secondary
Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s). .
18. Distribution Statement. Denote public releasability, for example "Release unlimited", or limitation for reasons other
than security. Cite any availability to the public, other than NTIS, with address,. order number and price, if known.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical.Information Service.
21. Humber of Pages. Insert the total number of pages, including introductory pages, but excluding distribution list,.if any.
~ NTIS Price. Leave blank..
FORM NTIS-IS tREV. 10-781
. uSC:O"'....oc 820S-P74

-------