WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES • 12020 GND 07/71
  Projected Wastewater Treatment
        Costs in the  Organic
         Chemical Industry
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • RESEARCH AND MONITORING

-------
         WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research. Series describes
the results and progress in the control and abatement
of pollution in our Nation's waters.  They provide a
central source of information on the research, develop-
ment, and demonstration activities in the Environmental
Protection Agency, through inhouse research and grants
and contracts with Federal, State, and local agencies,
research institutions, and industrial organizations.

Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Head, Project Reports
System, Office of Research and Monitoring,  Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 801, Washington, B.C. 20*4-60.

-------
            PROJECTED WASTEWATER
           TREATMENT COSTS IN THE
   ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY (UPDATED)
                          by
                Datagraphics, Incorporated
                Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                 of an original study by
                Cyrus Wm. Rice & Company
                Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania
                          for
             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   Program #12020 GND
                      July,  1971
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C. 20402 - Price $1.60

-------
            EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the
Office of Research and Monitoring of
the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication.  Appro-
val does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
                     ii

-------
                                 ABSTRACT


     This report presents a description of the organic chemical industry
and the costs the industry would incur in attaining various levels of
pollution abatement over the five-year period through 1974.  For the study
purposes, the organic chemical industry has been defined as SIC 2815
(cyclic intermediates, dyes, organic pigments [lakes and toners], and
cyclic [coal tar] crudes); SIC 2818 (organic chemicals, not elsewhere
classified); portions of SIC 2813 (industrial gases); portions of SIC 2879
(agricultural chemicals, not elsewhere classified); and portions of SIC
2871 (fertilizers).  Organic gases only were included from SIC 2813 and
ammonia and urea only from the fertilizer industry.  The report presents
in considerable detail the description of the various production processes,
the waste treatment methods practiced, and the possible impact that
changes in processes might have on the volume and character of the wastes
produced.

     Projections have been based upon the chemical industry data in the
1963 and 1967 Census of Manufacturers and upon data obtained from 53 or-
ganic chemical plants.  Costs of treatment are estimated by year for 6
levels of treatment from removal of gross pollutants to 100% removal of
contaminants.
Key Words:  Chemical wastes, treatment costs, economics, industrial
            effluents, survey, organic chemicals.
                                     iii

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                              Page

   I.  Summary	     1

  II.  Introduction 	     9

 III.  The Organic Chemicals Industry 	    11

  IV.  Projected Industry Growth	    19

   V.  Wastewater Characteristics 	    21

  VI.  Wastewater Treatment Methods 	    27

 VII.  Plant Survey Data	    33

VIII.  Costs of Unit Wastewater Treatment Methods 	    45

  IX.  Costs Versus Effluent Quality Relationships	    53

   X.  Projected Industry Costs 	    69

  XI.  Methodology for Wastewater Treatment
       Costs Determination	    84

 XII.  Appendices:

       A.  Organic Chemicals Industry Survey Data 	    88

       B.  Petrochemical Industry Product Profiles	    93

       C.  Costs of Unit Wastewater Treatment Practices .  .   139

XIII.  Bibliography	   155

-------
                           I.   SUMMARY
This report presents an estimate of the costs that would be incurred
by the organic chemicals industry in attaining various levels  of
pollution abatement over a five-year period and gives a generalized
methodology by which similar continuing estimates can be made  for
other water-using industries.  Cost estimates have been based  upon
published data, general data derived from information in the files
of the Contractors on industrial waste treatment methods and costs,
and specific data from 53 organic chemicals plants; the latter
specific data were used to verify the applicability and accuracy of
the former and al'so to develop and test the generalized methodology.

It should be emphasized that the total costs given in this  report are
for the construction and operation of waste treatment facilities for
the industry as a whole and cannot be used to determine costs  for
individual plants.  Organic chemicals plants vary greatly in size,
level of technology, product mix, etc., and a "typical" or  "average"
plant exists only in a statistical sense.  The costs given  are,  in
general, for waste treatment facilities only, i.e., for "battery
limit" industrial waste treatment plants.  The costs entailed  in
process changes, disruption of plant operations, sewer segregation,
monitoring and reporting waste treatment efficiency, etc.,  particu-
larly in older plants, are not included.  Such costs are practi-
cally impossible to estimate in the aggregate and may add 40 percent
or more to the installed costs of facilities.  Total costs  for
particular plants can only be estimated by detailed engineering
studies; the unit costs in this report should be of value to
engineers in making such estimates.


                       INDUSTRY PROJECTIONS


The following data are estimated for the organic chemicals  industry
for the years 1969 and 1973, based upon the methods and assumptions
detailed in the report.
  Number of Large Plants

  Production in Large Plants (109#)

  Total Industry Production (109#)

  Waste Water Volumes:

     Large Plants (109 gpy)                    278        273
     Large Plants (gpd/ton/yr')                   13.3       10.1
     Municipal Discharges  (109  gpyj              48.7       48.7

-------
The data indicate that the average large  plant  can  be  expected to
treat 2.8 mgd of wastewater during the five-year period 1969-1973.
The capital costs for such an average  plant are given  below versus
the level of treatment attained,  in 1968  dollars.


Level     Removal Critical Pollutants     $/1000_gpd   Cost  (2.8 mgd)
BOD
1 Removal
2 10%
3 83%
4 98%
5 99%
6 100%
COD
of Gross
10%
13%
30%
33%
100%
SS
Pollutants
65%
71%
89%
99%
100%

147
176
250
700
751
1648

$ 411,600
492,800
700,000
1,960,000
2,102,800
4,614,400
On the basis of the above costs  in the  average  large plant,  the  esti
mated numbers of large plants,  the total  estimated  discharges  to
municipal sewers,  and the assumption that the capital  costs
associated with the latter disposal means are those entailed in
Level 1 treatment, capital costs are estimated  as follow  for the
entire industry in terms of current dollars, using  the ENR Construc-
tion Cost Index to adjust 1968  prices.

                        Industry Capital  Costs  (Millions  of  Dollars}

Treatment Level

       1

       2

       3

       4

       5

       6
1969
124.7
145.4
198.0
514.8
554.1
1191.5
1970
127 . 7
149.0
203.1
532.0
569.3
1225.0
1971
131.2
153.0
208.9
548.3
583.6
1263.2
1972
134.6
157.2
214.7
564.5
604.2
1301.5
1973
138.0
161.2
220.5
580.7
621.6
1339.8

-------
Estimated operating costs in the average large plant are  given  below
versus level of treatment in 1968 dollars.   These costs  are  based
upon data obtained from the sample plants and from published
operating cost data.


Level     Removal Critical Pollutants     $/yr/100 gpd  $/yr  (2.8  mgd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
BOD
Removal
10%
83%
98%
99%
100%
COD
of Gross
10%
13%
30%
33%
100%
SS
Pollutants
65%
71%
89%
99%
100%r

7
8.5
13
105
120
350

19,600
23,800
36,400
294,000
336,000
980,000
Assuming that the operating costs associated with the  discharge  of
industrial wastes to municipal sewers  are  10 cents per 1000  gpd,  the
total operating costs for the industry are given below in  current
dollars, using the ENR Construction Cost Index to adjust 1968
prices.

                       Industry Operating  Costs  (Millions  of Dollars)

Treatment Level

       1

       2

       3

       4

       5

       6
1969
10.1
11.1
14.3
79.7
90.3
253.7
1970
10.2
11.3
14.5
81.8
92.7
261.0
1971
10.3
11.5
14.8
84.2
95.5
269.0
1972
10.5
11.7
15.1
86.7
98.3
276.7
1973
10.7
11.8
15.4
89.1
100.4
285.3

-------
                  THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY


The important products of the organic chemicals  industry are  miscel-
laneous cyclic and acyclic organic chemicals  and chemical products,
flavor and perfume materials, rubber-processing  chemicals,  plasti-
cizers, pesticides, and other synthetic organic  chemicals.  Of total
shipments in 1967, 75 percent were miscellaneous acyclic chemicals,
a large number of which are generally designated as  petrochemicals.
The expansion of the petroleum industry into  chemical  production is
of particular significance insofar as the  growth and complexity of
the organic chemicals industry is  concerned.

Total sales in the organic chemicals  industry are estimated to be
11.0 billion dollars in 1969 and 14.3 billion dollars  in 1973.
Production is estimated at 120.7 billion pounds  in 1969, increasing
to 156.0 billion pounds in 1973.  Growth in the  industry is not
expected to be uniform either among the various  segments of the
industry or among the various geographical areas in  which the
industry operates.

Organic chemicals industry pollutants originate  from the incomplete
removal of principal products or raw  materials from  reactions, in
the production of non-recoverable  or  useless  by-products, from
equipment cleaning operations, and from such  water uses  as  cooling
and steam production.  Wastewater  generation  in  the  industry  per
unit of product varies so widely that an average value has  little
meaning except in a statistical sense;  wastewater generation  varies
from less than 100 gallons per ton of product to more  than  100,000
gallons per ton of product.  The principal contaminants  in  the
industry's wastewaters are BOD, COD,  oil,  suspended  solids, acidity,
heavy metals, color, taste-and-odor-producing compounds, and
residual organic products and by-products.

The production of organic chemicals results in many  types of  con-
taminated wastewaters, and the treatment methods employed cover
the range of known practical techniques.  In-plant control  is the
first step in instituting treatment practices.   Such controls
include the salvage of unreacted chemicals, recovery of  by-products,
multiple reuse of water,  good housekeeping techniques  to reduce
leaks and spills, and changes in processing methods.  These controls
can result in reducing the concentrations  of  almost  all  potential
pollutants and can, most  importantly, reduce  the volumes of waste-
waters requiring treatment.  Physical treatment  methods  such  as
sedimentation or flotation are used primarily to remove  coarse
suspended matter and floating oils and scums. Filtration is  used
as a form of tertiary treatment for reuse  or  as  a pretreatment
for deep-well injection.   Chemical treatment  is  used primarily as
a pretreatment prior to sedimentation,  filtration, or  biological
treatment.  Biological treatment is most widely  used in  the
industry due to the nature of the  wastes,  that is, their general
susceptibility to biodegradation as evidenced by relatively high
BOD values.

-------
Joint industrial-municipal treatment has proved to be very effective
in treating organic chemical wastewaters, particularly for smaller
chemical plants located near large municipal treatment systems.
Treatment costs play an important role in governing the expansion of
joint treatment participation.  Rates established by municipalities
vary extremely.  Where the municipal system is small and additional
contributors would overload the treatment plant,  the high rates  are
imposed to discourage industrial contributors.

The chemical industry has generally found that in-plant, separate
treatment has economic advantages, particularly when significant
quantities of contaminated wastewater are involved.  No significant
percentage increase is expected in the amount of  organic chemical
wastewaters that will be treated in joint systems in the near
future.  On the basis of an annual production of  about 117.2 billion
pounds by the organic chemicals industry in 1968, municipal
discharges might be expected to be about 830 gallons per ton of
production for the industry as a whole.
                 DATA ACQUISITION AND METHODOLOGY


Data from 53 organic chemicals plants were obtained and formatted
according to an Industrial Waste Treatment Practices Data Form.
Although the form has utility in tabulating data for a single plant
or firm, the prime purpose was to format data for analysis in
terms of general industry practices.  Data formatted in this system
can be retrieved according to selected parameters, and can be
readily analyzed and correlated by machine computation.
The data obtained are given in some detail in the report in terms of
bar graphs and various calculated parameters relating wastewater
volumes, plant production, and costs.  It is of particular signifi-
cance that the distributions of wastewater volume and annual produc-
tion are markedly skewed in opposite directions and, although most
of the plants surveyed were judged to be medium or large in terms of
production, employment was relatively low in most cases.  The level
of technology in the surveyed plants was generally judged to be
average or advanced, although the median age of the plants was 18
years.  The explanation of such an apparent anomaly lies in the
relatively short lives of chemical processes and equipment; replace-
ment equipment and new processes installed in even the older plants
tend to be of modern design.

-------
The most frequently reported basis for action decisions  by plants
was that the legal requirement existed,  although  legal  actions  and
public opinion cases were both mentioned.   The particular  treatment
decision was based upon least total cost most often;  least total
cost generally means the least capital and operating  costs over an
arbitrary time period and is not evaluated in any sophisticated
sense such as would be involved in considering savings  in  water use,
etc.

The costs of unit wastewater treatment methods were developed and
are presented in the report as a series  of mathematical  models  and
cost function graphs.   These data were then used  to calculate capital
costs of waste treatment facilities versus degree of  pollutant
removals attainable for 20 typical plants.  Both  the  unit  cost  data
and the design criteria for the example  plants were checked for
reliability and likelihood on the basis  of the 53-plant  data.

Analysis of the available data indicated that estimates  of industry-
wide costs in the organic chemicals industry would best  be made on
the basis of estimated costs per plant and estimated  numbers of
plants.  Alternative calculations could  have been made  on  the basis
of estimated costs per unit volume of wastewater  and  estimated
wastewater volumes.  Cost estimates are  based, additionally, upon
the assumption that wastewater generation  per unit of production
will decrease as wastewater treatment facilities  are  installed  and
that the costs involved in discharging to  municipal sewers are
those of in-plant removal of gross pollutants plus a  surcharge  of
10 cents per 1000 gpd.


     METHODOLOGY FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT  COSTS DETERMINATION


The methods which have been developed and  used in this  study of the
organic chemicals industry can be utilized to determine  wastewater
treatment costs for other industries.  The methodology  is  intended to
be used in establishing and projecting costs for  an industry or for
groups of industries,  rather than for individual  plants.   Costs
estimates for individual plants are readily calculable  by  conven-
tional engineering techniques to almost  any degree of precision
desired, depending upon the effort to be expended and the  intended
uses of the information.  Costs for an industry could,  of  course,
be determined precisely by calculating the costs  of treatment
facilities for each individual plant in  an industry and totaling
these costs.  Alternatives to this obviously impractical method are
to estimate the number of plants involved  and multiply  by  the
"average" cost per plant or to estimate  the volume of wastewater
involved and multiply  by the "average" cost per unit  volume of
wastewater; such alternative methods are practical and  offer a
degree of accuracy sufficient for purposes of industry-wide plan-
ning and economic impact studies.  The suggested  methods for

-------
determining the total costs to an industry of attaining specified
degrees of wastewater effluent quality over a time period are
outlined in the report, as a series of steps as  follows:

    1.  Characterization of the Industry
    2.  Projection of Industry Growth
    3.  Characterization of Wastewaters
    4.  Wastewater Treatment Methods Determinations
    5.  Sample Plant Data Acquisition
    6.  Sample Data Analysis
    7.  Unit Wastewater Treatment Methods Costing
    8.  Determination of Cost vs. Effluent Quality Relationships
    9.  Projection of Industry Wastewater Generation
   10.  Project of Industry Costs

Guidelines have been established for the use of  this methodology
and its use has been demonstrated in the organic chemicals
industry.  Each industry has its own peculiar characteristics
and care must be taken that these are recognized in applying any
general schemes; for example, in the present study production-
related parameters were shown to be of prime importance,  a
reliable estimate of numbers of plants was available, and the
"average" plant costs were closely estimated by  two alternative
techniques.  In another industry the most likely set of data
might well be different.

-------
                       II.  INTRODUCTION


This study was performed pursuant to Contract No. 14-12-435, with
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Department
of the Interior.

The objectives of this study have been to develop estimates  of the
costs to the organic chemicals industry of attaining,  in a five-
year period, (a) State water quality standards and (b)  specific
levels of removal of significant pollutants;  and further to  develop
a generalized methodology by which similar continuing  estimates can
be made for other water-using industries.

These objectives have been accomplished by using data  from 53
organic chemicals plants to estimate and predict present and future
treatment methods and costs in the industry and to develop and test
the generalized methodology.

The chemical industry has already expended much money  and effort  in
wastewater treatment facilities and in seeking new solutions in
pollution control.  These efforts, however, have not been uniformly
distributed among either the individual plants or among the  various
geographical areas in which chemical plants are operated.

The effectiveness of installed wastewater treatment facilities has
also not been uniform; some plants have wholly adequate facilities
to meet present and projected effluent quality requirements, but
many other plants have only marginal or inadequate facilities.

The information given in this report is not intended to reflect
the cost or wasteload situation for any particular plant. However,
a generalized framework has been provided for analyzing waste
treatment practices and it is hoped that the  data given will be
useful in industry's efforts to find and implement the  most
efficient ways to reduce wastewaters and resulting stream pollu-
tion.

The comments and suggestions received from members of  the Water Re-
sources Committee of the Manufacturing Chemists'  Association are
gratefully acknowledged.

-------
             III.  THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY


The organic chemicals industry is not readily definable in terms
of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)  numbers.   Present
classifications, based upon 1967 revisions,  include SIC 2815
 [Cyclic Intermediates, Dyes, Organic Pigments (lakes and toners),
and Cyclic (coal tar) crudes^j; SIC 2818 (Organic Chemicals,  not
elsewhere classified); portions of SIC 2813  (industrial gases);
portions of SIC 2879  (agricultural chemicals not elsewhere
classified); and portions of SIC 2871 (fertilizers).  On the basis
of_the older SIC numbers the industry included portions of SIC
2811  (fertilizers) and included SIC 2814 [Cyclic (coal tar)
crudesj.  For the purposes of this study, organic gases only were
included from SIC 2813 and ammonia and urea  only from the Ferti-
lizer Industry  (SIC 2879 and 2871, or the revised SIC 2811).

The important products of the organic chemicals  industry are
miscellaneous cyclic and acyclic organic chemicals and chemical
products, flavor and perfume materials, rubber-processing
chemicals, plasticizers, pesticides, and other synthetic organic
chemicals.  The organic chemicals industry ordinarily includes
production of monomers, but does not include production of
polymers or plastics and synthetic fibers.   Of total shipments
in 1967, 75 percent were miscellaneous acyclic chemicals, a
large number of which are generally designated as petrochemicals.
The expansion of the petroleum industry into chemical production
is of particular significance.  Detailed descriptions of the
principal products of the petrochemical industry are contained
in Appendix C.

The overall output of industrial chemicals depends primarily
on total economic activity rather than on any specific segments
of the economy.  Changes in consumer preferences or redistribu-
tions of income and spending such as tax increases with increased
defense spending affect product mixes, but do not significantly
affect the total output of the industry.  There  is some price
competition among industrial chemicals which are possible
substitutes; the demand is primarily derived from the demand for
other goods using industrial chemicals in their manufkcture.
Non-price competition, particularly in the development of new or
improved chemicals, is the dominant form of  competition in the
industry.

Raw materials for industrial chemicals have  been readily available
and at rather stable prices.  Future raw materials shortages may
develop in the organic chemicals industry as petroleum fractions
are diverted to produce higher value products such as fuel oil
and gasoline.  Industrial chemical industries are generally
capital-intensive operations with high productivity ($75,000 annual
output per.production worker), high wages,  a low labor turnover,
and a demand for skilled labor.  Most of the large plants operate
                            11

-------
continuous processes and must operate at a high percentage of
capacity to maintain acceptable efficiency levels and profit-
ability.  Smaller plants generally operate batch processes and
produce low-volume, high-cost, specialized chemicals.  Financial
ratios for the Chemicals and Allied Products Industry are shown in
Table I.

                             TABLE I

 FINANCIAL RATIOS FOR THE CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

            Ratio                 1963  1965  1967  1968  1969(1)
Profits after taxes/sales (%)       7.5
Profits after taxes/net worth  (!)  12.9
Capital Expenditures/gross
  plant (%)
Depreciation/gross plant
Depreciation/sales
Sales/total assets
         7.9
        14.7
 6.9
12.6
 6.8
13.1
 6.8
13.3
6.3
6.1
4.5
1.13
8.2
5.8
4.4
1.13
7.6
5.8
4.5
1.10
-
6.0
4.5
1.14
—
5.9
4.3
1.15
SOURCE:U. S. Industrial Outlook 1970,  U.  S.  Dept.  of Commerce
(1) First half

By comparison, profits after taxes as percentages of sales for
all manufacturing industries were 5.6 in 1965 and 5.1 in 1968
Estimated values of shipments in the Industrial Chemicals Industry
for 1970 are shown in Table II.

                             TABLE II

  VALUES OF SHIPMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL  CHEMICALS INDUSTRY - 1970
      Industry Group
Alkalies and Chlorine
Industrial Gases
Intermediates, Dyes, Crudes
Inorganic Pigments
Organic Chemicals, n.e.c.
Inorganic Chemicals, n.e.c.
SIC     Value of Shipments ($106)
2812
2813
2815
2816
2818
2819
      832
      715
    2,130
      725
    8,870
    4,500
      Total                      281             11,112

SOURCE:U. S.  Industrial Outlook 1970,  U.  S.  Dept. of Commerce
Organic chemicals thus constitute about 62% of the entire Indus-
trial Chemicals Group in terms of value of shipments.  The
Industrial Chemicals Industry in 1967 had a total value added of
$7,706 million dollars and shipments valued at $14,044 million
dollars.  The price index for the industry in 1969 was 97.7 on
the basis of 1957-59 = 100.
                              12

-------
Several factors which characterize the organic chemicals industry,
particularly the petrochemical industry, bear significant re-
lationships to waste management problems in the industry:

(a)  The industry is characterized by a rapid growth pattern.
     It is anticipated that the petrochemical industry will
     expand (on a volume basis) at the annual rate of 8-12%.
     Pollution control problems will, of course, be increased
     in some relation to increased production capacity.

(b)  The industry is characterized by low capital investment
     per dollar of sales together with a low labor rate per
     dollar of sales; additional investments and labor expen-
     ditures for pollution control thus tend to appear rela-
     tively high when expressed in terms of sales dollars and
     compared with expenditures for production facilities.

(c)  Rapid technological obsolesence is a constant factor in the
     industry.  This is in part a reflection of the relative
     immaturity of the industry as well as the large number of
     chemical reaction combinations available in preparative
     organic chemistry.  Wastewater treatment facilities must,
     therefore, be relatively flexible to accommodate frequent
     changes in production methods.

(d)  The overall price index of chemicals, in contrast with the
     general experience of American industry, has fallen 3-6%
     in the recent past.  Expenditures for pollution control are
     of greater significance than in some other industries
     where increasing prices can absorb increased costs.

(e)  The industry has considerable spare production capacity
     because of  the interchangeability of processing units,
     the availability, during periods of materials shortages,
     of obsolete or retired units, and because of the various
     alternative sources of many basic chemicals.  Wastewater
     treatment facilities must accommodate all of the likely
     production methods and be sized on the basis of plant
     capacities.

(f)  The petrochemical industry is characterized by complicated
     interrelationships between processes wherein (see Figure
     1-3)  petrochemicals travel through a variety of stages
     (usually at least 2-3)  before arriving at a point where
     the product has consumer identity.  For example

     (1)  Naphtha is thermally treated to produce ethylene
     (2)  Ethylene  is reacted with chlorine to form ethylene
            dichloride
     (3)  Ethylene  dichloride is cracked to produce vinyl
            chloride
     (4)  Vinyl chloride is  polymerized to produce polyvinyl-
            chloride
                             13

-------
                                                    ETHYLENE
                                                               POLYESTER
              ACRYLO
              NITRILE
                             VINYL
                           ACETATE
                                                VINYL
                                              CHLORIDE
             ETHYLEN
              OXIDE
  POLY-
ETHYLENE
  POLY-
STYRENE
                            .
                     CARBIDEV 2
                                                                         ETHYL
                                                                        BENZENE
  POLY-
PROPYLENE
                            BASIC
                          FEEDSTOCKS
GLYCERINE
           •^ETHANOL
                                DIRECT
                              * OXIDATION
         iso-
       PROPANOL
                                                     ACETAL-
                                                     DEHYDE
                    PROPYLENE
                      OXIDE
                       AND
                     6LYCOL
                            ACIDS
                          ALCOHOLS
                          ALDEHYDES
ACRYLATES
                                                     ACETIC
                                                      ACID
                                                                CELLULOSE
                                                                 ACETATE
                    POLYESTER
                                  Figure  1  -  OLEFINS AND ACETYLENE

-------
                                                                                          POLY-
                                                                                         STYRENE
                                                ETHYL
                                               BENZENE
                                                                MSTYRENE
                                  CYCLO-
                                  HEXANE
                                                     DETERGENT
                                                     ALKLYLATE
                                                                                            BS
                                                                                          RUBBER
 MIXED
XYLENES
                         REFINERY
                        REFORMATS
                        AND OTHER
                        FEEDSTOCKS
                                                                 MCUMENE
 PARA-
XYLENE
   ORTHO-
   XYLENE
                                               C.H..OH
                                                b O
                                                CAPRO-
                                                LACTUM
                                                     BISPHENOL
                                                        A
POLYESTERS
NAPHTHALENE
             PHTHALIC
            ANHYDRIDE
                                                                 URETHANES
                                      AROMATICS
                 Figure 2

-------

[BUTADIENE
                                             AMMONIUM
                                              NITRATE
PETROLEUM
 SOURCES
                                                            PENTA-
                                                          ERYTHRITILE
                 Figure  3
              MISCELLANEOUS
            ORGANIC CHEMICALS

-------
The organic chemicals industry is confusing to one not well versed
in the nature of the industry.  This is due to the number of
products and processes utilized in the industry and at any particu-
lar production site.  However, there exist a limited number of
processes which account for a significant portion of the industry
and an understanding of these processes is important in any
evaluation of the industry.  The processes are described in detail,
by product, in Appendix B.

The geographical distribution of major organic chemical plants in
the United States is shown in Map A.
                              17

-------
                        LOCATION  OF  MAJOR  ORGANIC  CHEMICAL  PLANTS   MAP A
oo
     Ota

      '  Is
      • over 1000 employees
      • 500-999 employees
      • 250—499 employees
                                                                                                        SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                                      0	100  200  300

-------
              IV.  PROJECTED INDUSTRY GROWTH


Projected growth in the organic chemicals industry, for the
purposes of this report, is best expressed in terms of total
production based upon the tonnages of chemicals produced.  The
projections shown in Table III are based upon prior data ob-
tained from Chemical and Engineering News, a publication of
the American Chemical Society.The output of that econometric
model was adjusted to reflect the 1969-70 business recession
on the basis of the actual and estimated production indexes
of the organic chemicals industry from 1967 through 1970.  The
assumption is made that previously predicted rates of growth
in the industry will be attained during the latter half of
1971 and that the price index of the industry's products will
remain unchanged as they have for many years.
                         TABLE III

    PROJECTED PRODUCTION AND SALES OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS

               Sales,         Production,         Sales,
Year         Billion $         Billion #         Billion ft

1964           8.46              78.7              42.8
1965           9.0               88.9              46.8
1966           9.9              100.6              52.7
1967          10.5              111.7              56.6
1968          10.7              117.2              57.9
1969          11.0              120.7              59.6
1970          10.7              117.7              58.1
1971          11.5              126.0              62.2
1972          12.9              141.0              69.7
1973          14.3              156.0              77.1
The above data are applicable to the total organic chemicals
industry.  Rates of growth in various segments of the industry
vary considerably, as do the rates of growth by geographical
regions.  Expected rates of growth over the next decade accor-
ding to industry segments and geographical distribution are
given in Tables IV and V.
                                19

-------
                            TABLE IV

PROJECTED GROWTH RATES IN VARIOUS INDUSTRY SEGMENTS THRU 1975

          Industry Segment          Growth Rate (% per year)

      Urea and Ammonia                         9
      Petrochemicals                           9
      Industrial Gases                         •>
      Cyclic Intermediates,  etc.                6
      Misc. Organic Chemicals                  10


SOURCE:REA Projections~~~


These growth patterns are on a volume of production basis^and
assume a real growth in the  Gross National Product of 3.5% per
year.  Growth in the petrochemicals industry will be sparked by
increased demands for fibers,  coatings,  plastics, and elastomers.
The growth in cyclic intermediates is expected to be due pri-
marily to increased production of ethylbenzene, styrene, and
phenol;  high growth rates are  not expected in dyes and coal-based
materials.


                            TABLE V

    INDUSTRY GROWTH RATES BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS THRU 1975

	Area	         Growth Rate (% per year)

Northeast and Middle Atlantic                      5
Southeast                                        10
Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands                   10
Gulf Coast                                       15
North Central States                              5
Mid South                                         5
Pacific Coast and Alaska                         25


SOURCE:   REA Projections                               ~~~~~     ~

These growth rates reflect the general tendency for the petro-
chemicals industry to gravitate toward the petroleum production
areas such as the Gulf Coast.   Growth in the Southeast reflects
growth of the fiber industry as does that in Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands.   Growth on the Pacific Coast reflects the large
petroleum discoveries in Alaska.
                             20

-------
                V.  WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS


Wastewaters from organic chemicals processing consist 'of contami-
nated and of relatively clean effluent streams.   In general,  the
contaminated wastewaters are those which are used in direct
contact with products or by-products in reactions, separation
processes, vessel cleanouts, etc.  The cleaner wastewaters are
those used for indirect heat exchange, general washing, etc.

Contaminated Wastewaters

The sources of contaminated wastewaters from petrochemical opera-
tions are three-fold.  First, wastes containing a principal raw
material or product arise during the stripping of the product from
a solution.  Incomplete removal is a fundamental requirement  of
any equilibrium process.  However, use of more expensive or
additional separation equipment may result in reduction of
effluents.  By-products produced during reactions constitute  a
second source of wastewaters.  Many petrochemical reactions take
place under extreme conditions where the vagaries of organic
chemistry result in the production of chemicals  other than those
specifically desired.  Often markets cannot be found for these
chemicals or they cannot be reasonably recovered and are discarded
to the waste stream.  New production methods are directed toward
increases in yields, and reductions in by-products; accordingly
new technology often results in a decrease in this source of
waste.  Spills, slab washdowns, and vessel cleanouts comprise a
third category of effluents and these are generally not controll-
able by means of process modifications; changes  in catalyst
concentrations and increases in yields, however, reduce the
amount of pollutants from this source and result in some changes
in the character of the waste.  Some typical contaminated
wastewaters associated with general processing are shown in
Table VI.

It is difficult to pinpoint wastewater characteristics  and quanti-
ties according to the primary organic chemical industry, but
Table VII presents a partial list of the characteristics associated
with specific chemical wastewaters.  Dividing the industry into
six major product groupings,-examples are given for each group:
flow is given in terms of volume of wastewater generated per  ton
of product produced, while characteristics are given in concentra-
tions, mg/1.  All values are expressed in terms  of approximate
ranges.  The characteristics given are for plants producing the
indicated products and are not necessarily additive in cases
where one product shown is produced from another.

Because of the limited data available, the numerous alternative
processes for producing the same product, and the variabilities
resulting from multi-product facilities, no attempt has been
made to define the production or technology levels of the total
                              21

-------
                                                TABLE VI

                         TYPICAL PROCESS GENERATION OF CONTAMINATED WASTEWATERS
       Operation
                Sources
    Typical Pollutants
Process units
  K)
  tXJ
Specific Syntheses
Specific treating
  operations
Overhead water from distillation,
cracking, coking, etc.
Alkylation and polymerization
processes


Hydrodesulfurization and reforming
processes


Specific process for specific compound
Sweetening, stripping, filtering
Low molecular weight hydrocarbons,
coke, gums, organic acid, soaps,
salts, phenols and phenolates,
cyanides ammonia

Acid sludges, spent acids, caustics,
oil, bauxite and catalyst fines,
corrosion products, hydrogen sulfide

Hydrogen sulfide and miscellaneous
gases (hydrogen) coke, gums,
catalyst fines

Acrylonitrile, polyacrylonitrile,
acrylic acid acrolein, acetaldehyde,
acetonitrile, hydrogen cyanide, etc.

Hydrogen sulfidej  mercaptans, amine,
sulfonates,  acids,  bases, miscella-
neous nitrogen  and sulfur compounds,
ammonia, cyanides,  furfural inor-
ganic salts  and oxides suspended
solids

-------
plant or individual processing equipment.  Other variations in
characteristics and the quantity of the wastewater flow resulting
from recirculation, reuse, and by-product recovery capabilities
can significantly alter these factors, even in plants producing
the same products and having similar capacities.  Where significant
amounts of heavy metals or other substances are associated with  the
wastewaters, these have been indicated.

Generally, the production of primary petrochemicals and polymers
generate the smallest quantities of wastewater with flows  in-
creasing as the degree of processing progresses.  Concentrations
of contaminants follow approximately the same pattern with some
exceptions.  Of those listed, the largest amount of wastewater
results from the production of dyes and pigments because of the
multi-stage, small-batch operations which are very prevalent in
this industry.

It is important to note the staging of the petrochemical industry.
The basic raw materials for the industry are natural gas,  refinery
gases and liquid fractions.  Of key interest in the industry are
the so-called secondary raw materials; these material (and their
sources) are shown below:
Secondary Raw Material

Acetylene



Methane

Higher Paraffins

Ethylene



Propylene


C4 Hydrocarbons


Higher Olefins

Aromatics


Carbon Monoxide

Hydrogen
            Source
Cracking or partial oxidation of
either methane in natural gas or
of higher paraffins

Natural gas

Refinery gas streams or natural gas

Refinery gas streams, pyrolysis of
propane and ethane or by thermal
cracking of liquid hydrocarbons

Refinery gas streams or by thermal
cracking of liquid hydrocarbons

Refinery gas streams or by thermal
cracking of liquid hydrocarbons

Waxcracking

Liquid petroleum fraction recovery,
dehydrogenation, hydrogenation

Partial oxidation of hydrocarbons

Partial oxidation of hydrocarbons
                               23

-------
From these basic raw materials  the  industry has  created the
variety of intermediates that are  finally converted to  plastics,
elastomers, resins, solvents  and other materials.   The  major
chemicals which have been surveyed  in this report  may be
listed as primary, secondary  or tertiary intermediates  or as
primary polymers.  This interrelation between chemicals is a
typical feature of the petrochemical  industry and  this  is
illustrated in the several charts  (Figures 1, 2  and 3)  which
show the intricate relationship between the chemicals.

Appendix B contains an individual  listing of 29  different
petrochemical products together with  associated  descriptions
of raw materials, processing  waste  generation and  elimination
aspects, and anticipated five-year  growth projections for each
product.

Clean Wastewaters

Clean waters, which are basically uncontaminated and can be
discharged untreated, are not included in the total flows
given in Table VII.  Cooling  water  and steam condensates are
the primary sources of such water,  and a typical breakdown
is given in Table VIII.  Also included is an indication of
potential pollutants and associated sources and  concentrations.
Although these clean wastewaters are  relatively  uncontaminated
and exert little pollutional  effect (except thermal)  on the
environment, care must be exercised to prevent contamination
of these streams.

The thermal effects cannot be ignored.   Effluent heat loads  can
adversely affect the surface  receiving waters, causing  decreased
oxygen solubility and greater oxygen  utilization.   Both of these
significantly reduce the ability of the receiving  water to
assimilate waste loads.  Through the  use of cooling towers,  the
quantity of high-temperature  wastewaters discharged has been
greatly reduced, because the  cooled water can be recirculated
in-plant.  For the chemical industry, the thermal  load  exerted
by the effluent from the secondary  treatment facilities is
generally restricted by the maximum temperature  limitations  of
the biological treatment system and is thus of less concern.

The segregation of clean wastewater flows is widely practiced
throughout the organic chemical industry, as a result of overall
wastewater treatment economics  and  regulatory requirements.
Although there is a limited possibility that wastewater flows
can be further reduced by segregating additional clean  waters,
most major clean waters are currently collected  and either re-
circulated or discharged separately in those organic chemical
plants with secondary treatment facilities.
                            24

-------
                                        TABLE VII

              WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH SOME CHEMICAL  PRODUCTS
Primary Petrochemicals

   Ethylene
   Propylene

Primary Intermediates

   Toluene
   Xylene
   Ammonia
   Methanol
   Ethanol
   Buthanol
   Ethyl Benzene
   Chlorinate Hydrocarbons

Secondary Intermediates

   Phenol, Cumene
   Acetone
   Glycerin, Glycols
   Urea
   Acetic Anhydride
   Terephtalic Acid
   Acrylates
   Acrilonitrile
   Butadiene
   Styrene
   Vinyl Chloride

Primary Polymers

   Polyethylene
   Polypropylene
   Polystyrene
   Polyvinyl Chloride
   Cellulose Acetate
   Butyl Rubber

Dyes and Pigments
Miscellaneous Organics

    Isocyanate
    Phenyl Glycine
    Parathion
    Tributyl Phosphate
Flow
gal/ton
50-
100-
300-
200-
300-
300-
300-
200-
300-
50-
500-
500-
1,000-
100-
1,000-
1,000-
1,000-
1,000-
100-
1,000-
10-
400-
400-
500-
1,500-
10-
2,000-
1,500
2,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
4,000
2,000
3,000
1,000
2,500
1,500
5,000
2,000
8,000
3,000
3,000
10,000
2,000
10,000
200
1,600
1,600
1,000
3,000
200
6,000
                                                   BOD
                   COD
                   mg/L
                                                Other Characteristics
50,000-250,000
 5,000- 10,000
 5,000- 10,000
 3,000-  8,000
 1,000-  4,000










1
1



1





100-
100-
300-
500-
25-
300-
300-
500-
500-
50-
,200-
,000-
500-
50-
300-
,000-
500-
200-
25-
300-
200-
1
1
2
4

1
3
4
3

10
5
3

5
3
5


3
2
,000
,000
,500
,000
100
,000
,000
,000
,000
150
,000
,000
,500
300
,000
,000
,000
700
200
,000
,000


1
1


1
1
1

2
2
1


2
2


1

500-
500-
,000-
,000-
50-
500-
,000-
,000-
,000-
100-
,000-
,000-
,000-
100-
500-
,000-
,000-
500-
100-
,000-
500-
3
3
5
8

2
4
8
7

15
10
7

8
4
15
1

6
5
,000
,000
,000
,000
250
,000
,000
,000
,000
500
,000
,000
,000
500
,000
,000
,000
,500
400
,000
,000
                     200-
         400
1,000-  2,500
1,000-  2,500
1,500-  3,500
  500-  2,000
                                                oil, nitrogen
                                                oil
                                                oil, solids
                                                heavy metals
                                                heavy metals
                                                pH, oil, solids
                                                phenol, solids
                                                pH
                                                heavy metals
                                                solids, color, cyanide
                                                color, cyanide, pH
                                                oil, solids


50-
500-
800-



2
2


500
,000
,000

1
1
1
2
200-
200-
,000-
,000-
,000-
,500-
4
4
3
2
5
5
,000 solids
,000
,000 solids
,000
,000
,000
  500-  2,000
4,000- 8,000
4,000- 8,000
3,000- 6,000
1,000- 3,000
heavy metals, color,
    solids, pH
nitrogen
phenol
solids, pH
phosphorus
 SOURCE:  Roy F.  Weston and  REA
                                           25

-------
Water Sources

Cooling Water
(excluding sea
    water)
       TABLE VIII COMPOSITION OF TYPICAL CLEAN WATER EFFLUENT
I of Total                          POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS
Waste Water  Flow Range (GPM)   Sources	
  40-80
 100-10,000
 (500-200,000
 gal. water ton
 product)
Process leaks:
Bearings, exchangers,
    etc.
                                               Water treatment
Steam
  Equipment
   10
50-1,000
                                               Scrubbed from air
                                                 through tower
                                               Make-up Water
Boiler Slowdown
                                               Waste Condensate
                                               Type
Extractables
Mercaptans
sulfides
Phenols
Cyanide
Mies. N. compounds
Acids
Chromate
Phosphate
Heavy metals
Fluoride
Sulfate
Biocides, algacides
Misc. organics
Hydrogen sulfide
Sulfur dioxide
Oxides of nitrogen
Ammonia
Particulates
Concentration
Range (ppm)

  1-  1000
                                                                           0-1000,  but
                                                                           usually less
                                                                           than 1 ppm

                                                                               0-60
                                                                               0-60
                                                                               0-30
                                                                               0-30
                                                                             100-10,000
                                                                               0-50
                                                                               0-100

                                                                               0-  1000
                                                                                               0-300
                                                      Total dissolved solids 100-5000
                                                                      Particulates
                                                                      Phosphates
                                                                      Fluoride
                                                                               0-100
                                                                               0-5
                                                                               0-2
Total dissolved  solids  500-10,0(
Particulates              5-300
Extractables              0-10
Phosphate                 1-50
Sulfite                   0-50
Sulfide                   0-5
Misc. organic  compounds   0-200
Misc. N  compounds         1-100
Heavy metals              0-10
Alkalinity              50-400
Extractables              0-100
Ammonia                   0-10
SOURCE:   Freedman,  A.  J.,  et.  al. ,  Natl.  Petroleum Refiners Assoc., Tech. GC-67-19,  1967

-------
              VI.  WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS


The production of organic chemicals results in many types of
contaminated wastewaters, and the treatment methods employed
cover the range of known practical techniques.  In-plant con-
trol is the first step in instituting treatment practices.
Such controls include the salvage of unreacted chemicals, re-
covery of by-products, multiple reuse of water, good housekeeping
techniques to reduce leaks and spills, and changes in processing
methods.  These controls can result in reducing the concentra-
tions of almost all potential pollutants and can, most impor-
tantly, reduce the volumes of wastewaters requiring treatment.
Physical treatment methods such as sedimentation or flotation
are used primarily to remove coarse suspended matter and floating
oils and scums.  Filtration is used as a form of tertiary treat-
ment for reuse or as a pretreatment for deep-well injection.
Chemical treatment is used primarily as a pretreatment prior to
sedimentation, filtration, or biological treatment.  Biological
treatment is most widely used in the industry due to the nature
of the wastes, that is, their general susceptibility to biode-
gradation as evidenced by relatively high BOD values.

A general treatment process sequence substitution diagram is
given in Figure 4.

This generalized diagram is broken up into two general treatment
trains, one for "dilute" and the other for "concentrated" waste-
water streams.  Although this distinction is very arbitrary and
in many smaller plants all contaminated streams are collected for
joint treatment, the primary application is to larger plants where
treatment economics justify segregation and individual disposal.

The generalized diagram does not include all possible treatment
unit processes; only those widely prevalent or often considered
in the organic chemicals industry are included.  The specific unit
processes employed and the removal efficiencies obtainable in any
given treatment system vary with the nature and flow of the waste-
water stream.

Example of Conventional Activated Sludge System
[Process Sequence:4-7-9-13-18-20-21-24-28}
The use of activated sludge to remove soluble biodegradable or-
ganic matter probably is the predominant treatment process.
Many plants utilize such systems and report performances of 88
percent BODs removal.  When using the activated sludge process,
the wasted sludge is first aerobically digested, then thickened,
dewatered by vacuum filtration, and disposed to landfill.
                            27

-------
                                                                                   Figure  4
                                                                                   Chemical  Industry

                                                              Wastewater  Treatment Sequence/Processes Substitution Diagram
Pretreatment
Dilute Wastewater
' L.
1
*-
'
Screening &
Grit Removal
1
Equalization
& Storage
i
Oil Separation PI
1
1
1
1
i
Primary Treatment
Chemical


'•\ Neutralization ^
4
^ >
, Chemical Addition
& Coagulation '
5
Physical

i >
' JGas Flotation^
•
, 6
*jSedlmentation^

7
Secondary Treatment
Dissolved To
Suspended Transfer

t
'] Activated Sludge [•
9
-(Contact Stabll Izationf*

^ Trickling Filter [•

*| Aerated Lagoon [**

Suspended Sol Ids
Removal

I T
*-)s*dlmentat!onp ,
10
11
12

13
<
Tertiary
Treatment


1
Coagulation
& Sedimentation
<

H Filtration H
,
,
-|Carbon Adsorptlonf*
.

L| Ion Exchange j^l



.Sludge
Treatment

14
15
16
17
Digestion or
Wet Combustion
S 1 udgc
Disposal

18
Liquid
Disposal
^

t Controlled e
Transported Disc

•1 Ocean Dlsposi

Surface Appllcat
Ground Water Sec

•1 Deep Well Injec

(| Evaporation i
00
                                                      Sludges
                                                                                                                                                                            Waters]
                                                                                                                                                                  Incineration
                                      26

                                      27
                                                                                                                                                                                    28
                                                                                                                                                                                    29
                                                                                                                                                                                    31
                                                                                                                  19 J-\ Centrlfygatlon
                                                                                                                 20 J-[   Thickening


                                                                                                                  21 't-lvacuum Flltratlon|«|
ean Dlsposal| 25
f
2
Equal Izatlon
4 Storage
i N
i 4 !
"j^l Neutralization [-) ,
11 1
d Sedimentation A
1

| Filtration f

7 "«- | Drying Beds T r
8
T

Ll
                                                                                                                                                           r-»|oeep Well  Injection~| 3Q
                                                                                                                                                                  Incineration
 Concentrated Organic
      Wastewater

-------
Example of System Employing Contact-Stabilization
(.Process Sequence:  2-3-4-10-13-19-23-27)
Contact-stabilization systems are not widely used, but this
method has promise of greater application in the very near
future, because it offers some economic advantages over con-
ventional activated sludge treatment.  For sludge removal,
this system employs centrifugation and incineration.

Example of Aerated Lagoon System
(Process Sequence:1 2-7-11-24-26)
Where applicable, an aerated lagoon system can prove to be
quite economical.  Many plants employ such a system.  However,
the solids that build up in both the settling pond and the
aerated lagoon have to be manually removed.

Example of Deep-Well Disposal
(Process Sequence:1 2-8-30)
In the areas where suitable geological formations are available
and where regulations permit, deep-well injection is a suitable
means of ultimate disposal of wastes.  Filtration and other
pretreatment are often required to prevent plugging the forma-
tion.  This technique is rather widely used in the industry.

Figure 5 shows a flow diagram for a typical wastewater treat-
ment system presently handling the effluent from a large multi-
product organic chemical plant.


              JOINT INDUSTRIAL-MUNICIPAL TREATMENT


According to the Census of Manufactures  (1968) 44 billion  gallons
per year of water from the chemicals industry is discharged to
municipal sewers out of a total of 413 billion gallons of dis-
charged process wastewaters, or about 11%.  These data are sup-
ported by other studies by chemical industry groups, but apply
to plants reporting water use of at least 20 million gallons
per year or having more than 100 employees.  The employment
distribution in 641 organic chemical plants in 1963 and 665
plants in 1968 is shown in Table IX.
                               29

-------
                                              Figure 5

                                         FLOW  DIAGRAM OF
                                WASTEWATER TREATMENT  FACILITIES
IN-PLANT  SEPARATION
  REMAINING
  PROCESS
WASTEWATERS

           V
                           HIGH BTU VALUE  CONCENTRATED PROCESS  WASTEWATERS
} % If LOW BTU VALUE CONCENTRATED PROCESS WASTEWATER

£,
AL
1
TERNATIVE


S '



                                                                      STORAGE TANK

                    TO DEEP WELL
           \
D-'-D
                              TO RIVER

INCINERATOR

                                                            STORAGE TANK
             EQUALIZATION BASIN

-------
                            TABLE IX

             SIZE OF CHEMICAL PLANTS BY EMPLOYMENT

        No. of Plants                      Employment
        r^T     1968
        162      151                           1-4
         58       69                           5-9
         79       70                          10-19
        104       96                          20-49
         68       66                          50-99
         79      107                         100-249
         38       51                         250-499
         29       28                         500-999
         17       20                        1000-2499
          7        7                        2500+


SOURCE:Census of Manufactures,

The smallest plants tend to be in or near urban centers  and
discharge their wastewaters to municipal sewers;  these same
plants,  however, tend to be users of relatively little water.
Plants in the organic chemicals industry are distributed ac-
cording to total water intake as  shown in Table X, based upon
a total of 561 plants surveyed in 1963, the most current data
of this nature.
                          TABLE X

            WATER INTAKES OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS PLANTS

  No. of Plants        Water Intake, million gals, per year

       260                         less than 1
        63                             1-9
        27                            10-19
        60                            20-99
       151                         more than 100

SOURCE:Census of Manufactures,

From these data it can be seen that many chemical plants are
not included in the calculation of the  11% discharge to
municipal sewers, but that these  small plants individually
use relatively little water.  If  it were assumed that all of  the
organic chemicals plants taking in less than 20 million gallons
of water per year discharge all of their intake water to
sewers,  a total of about 48.7 billion gallons per year of
wastewater might be expected to have been discharged to munic-
ipal sewers by the organic chemical industry in 1968-  This
figure is based upon the assumption that municipal sewer
discharges by the large plants consist mainly of contaminated
wastewaters and that discharges from the smaller plants are
                              31

-------
entirely process water, presumed to be contaminated,  and that
SIC 2515 and 2818 account for 92.5% of the organic chemical
industry.

On the basis of an annual production of about 117.2 billion pounds
by the organic chemicals industry in 1968, municipal  discharges
might be expected to be about 831 gallons  per ton of  production
for the industry as a whole.

Treatment costs play an important role in  governing the expansion
of joint treatment participation.  Rates established  by munici-
palities vary widely.  Where  the municipal system is  small and
additional contributors would overload the treatment  plant, high
rates are imposed to discourage industrial contributors.  Examples
of low, average, and high rates are given  as  follows:

     1.  Low - A major Atlantic coastal city  applies  the
         same rates to any industrial discharge  as they
         do to domestic customers.   This rate is based
         on 51 percent of the water charge, which cur-
         rently amounts to about $0.09/1,000  gallons.
         However, the wastewater characteristics have
         to be ascertained and acceptable  for treatment
         prior to acceptance.  Furthermore, the  city  can
         establish specific pretreatment requirements
         before accepting the wastewater for  treatment
         in the municipal system.

     2.  Average - A small municipality in a  North Atlantic
         State, with a 30 mgd treatment plant, charges the
         organic chemicals industry $0.40/1,000  gallons for
         a 0.75 mgd discharge.

     3.  High - In another North Atlantic  State, the  cur-
         rent industrial charge rate specified by the  munic-
         ipal regulations is  $0.70/1,000 gallons for  flows
         less than 0.03 mgd decreasing to  $0.44/1,000  gal-
         lons for flows exceeding 0.57 mgd.  In  addition,
         there is a surcharge of $0.20/lb  BODs over 250 mg/1,
         $0.15/lb suspended solids  over 300 mg/1, and
         $0.15/lb of chlorine demand above 5  mg/1.

     4.  In a major Midwestern city there  is  no  charge for
         industrial wastes discharged to the  municipal
         sewers; however, the wastewaters  must have a degree
         of pretreatment as defined in the city  ordnances.

The chemical industry has generally found  that in-plant, sepa-
rate treatment has economic advantages, particularly  when sig-
nificant quantities of contaminated wastewater are involved.
No significant percentage increase  is expected in the amount of
organic chemical wastewaters  that will be  treated in  joint sys-
tems in the near future.
                           32

-------
                     VII.   PLANT SURVEY DATA


A data acquisition form was devised and was used to tabulate
data from 53 organic chemicals plants.  Complete information
was not obtained for each plant, but all information obtained
was used to the extent possible.  This information was largely
obtained from confidential reports, private communications,
and pertinent literature.

Data on 37 plants for which adequate information was obtained
are given in Appendix B in terms of the following parameters:
      Capital Costs of Treatment Facilities ($/1000 gpd)

(X2)  Operating Costs of Treatment Facilities ($/yr/1000 gpd)

      Efficiency of Critical Pollutant Removal (%)
(X4)  Capital Costs of Treatment Facilities ($/ton of Annual
      Production)

(Xs)  Operating Costs of Treatment Facilities ($/yr/ton of
      Annual Production)

(X6)  Volume of Wastewater (gpd/ton of Annual Production)


In Table XI the characteristics of the wastewaters from the 53
plants surveyed are shown in terms of the effluent volume and
the concentrations of BOD, COD, and suspended solids; the iden
tification numbers generally correspond with the plant numbers
used throughout this report.  In Table XII the frequencies of
certain wastewater treatment methods and of sludge treatment
are shown for 41 of the plants surveyed.

In Figure 6 and Tables Xlla and Xllb distributions of various
parameters for the plants surveyed are shown.  It is of
particular significance that the distributions of wastewater
volume and annual production are markedly skewed in the oppo-
site directions and, although most of the plants surveyed
were judged to be medium or large in terms of production,
employment was relatively low in most cases.  The level of
technology in the surveyed plants was generally judged to be
average or advanced, although the median age of the plants
was 18 years.  The explanation of such an apparent anomaly
lies in the relatively short lives of chemical processes and
equipment; replacement equipment and new processes installed
in even the older plants tend to be of modern design.
                             33

-------
            TABLE XI



CHEMICAL WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Identi-
fication
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Principal Products
Phthalic anhydride, maleic anhy-
dride Plasticizers , H2S04
Chemical warfare gas, chromium
plating
Terephthalic acid, isophthelic
acid, dimethyl tenaphthalate
Butadiene, Styrene, Polyethy-
lene, Olefins
Phenol, Ethylene
Acrylonitrile
Fatty acids, esters, glycerol
Regenerated cellulose
Acetylene
Dyes, pigments, inks
Azo § Anthraquinine dyes
Anthraquinine vat dyes
Ethylene, Alcohols, Phenol
Benzene, Ethylene, Butyl Rubber,
Butadiene, Xylene, Isoprene
Acrylonitrile, Acetonitrile,
Hydrogen Cyanide
Terephthalic Acid
Glycerine, Various Glycols
Methyl § Ethyl parathion
Methyl isocyanate, Phosgene
Diphenol Glycine
Urea, Ammonia, Nitric acid,
NH4N03
Q
(m«d)
0.002
0.001
5.36
1.68
2.0
0.302
0.10
1.41
-
0.452
0.94
5.0
5.9
14.7
3.9
0.335
0.49
0.075
0.543
0.65
BOD5
fma/1)

200
-
-
300
-
10,000
-
-
227
352
300
1700
91
390
-
2810
3100
1146
105
COD SS
frna/ll fme/1)
200 24
1100
9800 10,600
-
1200 300
1200 239
14,000
-
-
93
1760 152
1160
3600 610
273
830 106
4160
-
5000 80
3420
140
         34

-------
                           TABLE XI - Continued
Identi-
fication
Number
Principal Products
  Q
(mgd)
BOD5     COD      SS
(mg/r)    mg/1)    (me/11
    22    Butadiene, styrene, propylene,
            polyolefin, adipic acid

    23    Butadiene, alkylate, methylethyl
            ketone, styrene, maleic anhy-
            dride

    24    Butadiene, Maleic acid, Fumeric
            acid, Tetrahydrophthalic
            anhydride

    25    Diphenol carbonate, D-nitro-
            phenol, benzene, Quinolin,
            H2S04, Tear gas, Ditnitro
            benzoic acid

    26    Organo-phosphates, Esters, Re-
            sins Phosphorous chlorides

    27    Phenols

    28    500 Different products

    30    Organic § Inorganic Chemicals

    31    Phenols

    32    Additives for lubricating oils

    33    Polyethylene, ethylene oxide,
            ethand polypropylene

    34    -Acrylates, Insecticides, en-
            zymes, Formaldehydes, Amines

    35    Ethylene, propylene, butadiene,
            crude benzene,  toluene

    36    Acids, Formaldehyde, acetone,
            methanol, ketones, nitric acid,
            nylon salt, vinyl acetate
            acetaldehyde

    37    Isocynates, Polyols , Urethane
            Fsoam

    38    Acetaldehyde
                            1.38
                            2.0
                            3.605
                            0.098
            5630     1230
            1870
             959     1525
             650
          1380
1.2
0.215
3.2
2.1
0.22
0.20
2.1
1.06
0.228
3.46
0.57
1.15
845
6600
360
100
6600
465
1385
1960
500
530
421
20,000
2040
13,200
500
-
13,200
1050
2842
2660
-
10,13
120
50,00
                    225
                     10
                                                          322
                                                          673
                                                          250
                                                           80
                                                          160
                                                           50
                                  35

-------
TABLE XI - Continued
Identi-
fication
Number
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Principal Products
Acrylanitrile, phenol, Butadiene
Ethylene, Propylene, Toulene,
xylene
Acids, Formaldehyde, Acetone,
methanol, ke tones, alcohols,
ace t aldehyde
Q
(mgd)
1.817
0.43
1.15
Petrochemicals 15.2
Acrylonitrile, butadiene, styrene
impact polystyrene, crystal
polys trene
Ethylene, Propylene, Butadiene
alpha-olefins, polyethylenes
Organic chemicals
Pharmaceuticals (Dallas WPCF 66)
Organic Chemicals
2,4, 5-T
2-4-D
Butadiene
Organic Chemicals
Olefins
Adipic acid
Hexamethylenediamine
Petro Chemicals
Petro Chemicals
0.085
0.750
1.4
0.037
0.077
0.005
0.005
0.288
0.288
0.288
0.13
0.13
0.02
0.17
BODs
(mg/1)
1300
15,000
177
200
155
2000
14,000
850
15,000
15,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
24,000
COD
29,100
1500
30,000
-
-
380
4800
-
1700
21,000
23,000
350
750
320
35,000
113,000
40,000
39,000
SS
-
-
-
60
120
900
500
300
700
348
300
120
400
180
1200
30
-
         36

-------
                                 TABLE XII
                     REPORTED UNIT PROCESS  BREAK-DOWNS
Plant
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Oil
Sep.
X


X
X






X

X

X

X



X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X

Coag. -
Eq. Sed. Neut.
X
X X
X X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X

X X

X
X X


X X
X X
X


X

X X

X X
X


X

X
X
X
X X
X
Sludge treatment
A.L. A.S. yes no Products
x x Dye chem.
x x Dye chem.
x Dye chem.
x x Petro chem.
x x Petro. chem.
x Org. chem.
Org. chem.
x x Org. chem.
Org. chem.
Org. chem.
x x Org. chem.
x x Org. chem.
Org.5inor.chem.
Petro chem.
x x Org. §inor. chem.
x x Petro chem.
x monomers -polymer
Petro chem.
Petro chem.
Org. chem.
x chem.
xx x Petro chem.
Petro chem.
x x Phenol

x x Misc. chem.
x x Petro chem.
Petro. chem.
x Petro. chem.
x Petro. chem.
x Misc. chem.
Petro. chem.
x x cyclic chem.
Org. chem.
x x Org. chem.
Cyclic chem.
Petro chem.
x Org. chem.
Org. chem.
Org. chem.
Number industries reporting specified unit processes:
        20      8      18     13     9   15     8
                                37

-------
                               Figure 6
        PRODUCTION AND WASTEWATER VOLUMES IN SURVEYED PLANTS
                                  PERCENTAGE
                                40   50   60
                                                                         100
10
                                                                     7.0
                                   38

-------
                  TABLE XIla
   BASES OF PLANT TREATMENT METHOD DECISION

      Basis of Decision         % of Plants
     Least Total Cost              46.2
     Least Capital Cost            11.5
     Minimum Compliance            23.1
     Ultimate Treatment            15.4
     Economic Return                3.8
                  TABLE XIIb
BASES OF PLANT DECISION TO IMPLEMENT TREATMENT

      Basis of Decision         % of Plants
     Public Opinion                15.4
     Legal Requirement             69.2
     Legal Action                  15.4
                       39

-------
The most frequently reported basis for an action decision by
the plant was that the legal requirement existed, although
legal actions and public opinion cases were both mentioned.
The particular treatment decision was based upon least total
cost most often; least total cost generally means the least
capital and operating costs over an arbitrary time period and
is not evaluated in any sophisticated sense such as would be
involved in considering savings in water use, etc.

According to the 1968 Census of Manufactures, Water Use in
Manufacturing, 239 plants in SIC categories 2815 and 2818 took
in for process use a total of 413.3 billion gallons of water
in 1968, an average of 1.73 billion gallons per year per
plant, indicating an average wastewater flow of 4,739,726 gpd
per plant.  These data apply to the generally larger plants in
these industries.

In 1967 there were a total of 665 plants in the organic chem-
icals industry.  The 1968 production in the industry was about
117.2 billion pounds.  These data indicate an overall average
production in the industry of 176.24 million pounds or about
88,120 tons per year per plant.  This figure has no meaning in
any real sense because of the preponderant number of very small
plants, and should be used, if at all, with caution.

There were 239 organic chemical plants having water intakes of
more than 20 million gallons per year according to the 1968
census data.  These are the larger plants which might be expec-
ted to average the above wastewater flow of 4,739,726 gpd.  The
industry survey data appended to the report covers 34 individual
products which accounted for 117.187 billion pounds out of an esti-
mated total of 122.38 billion pounds  (or about 95%) of organic
chemicals produced in 1968; 238 plants are indicated to have
accounted for this production, or an average plant production of
257,100 tons per year.  The data of that survey also indicate an
average capacity per product in individual plants of 231 million
pounds per year  (i.e., the total production of a product divided
by the number of plants in which it is produced).

The data of this study, based upon 24 plants for which production
and wastewater flows  were determined, indicate an average flow of
2,318,692 gpd per plant,  an average capacity of 306,097 tons/year,
and an average capacity per product in individual plants of  267
million pounds per year.   Considering that these parameters  varied
by several orders of  magnitude within the sample, the sample can
be considered to be a fair representation of the industry.

The distributions of  plants by state and by capacities per
product in individual plants for the entire industry and
for the sample data are shown in Figures 7 and 8; again
the sample is considered to be a fair representation of the
industry.
                           40

-------
                        Figure 7
                                             |   | Total Organic Chemical Plants
                                                 Organic Chemical Plants Surveyed
o
c
Q)
3
O1
0)
                                         States

-------
    1400
    1300
                                  Figure  8
II Total Plants
                                                                    Plants Surveyed
n
n?
0)
in
X)
C
O
•H
•H
s

I

.p
C
(0
rH
CM
0)
CM
-P
-H
O
tf
o.
(0
CJ

c
O
•H
4J
O
O
)-i
CM


-------
The survey data were examined for significant relationships
between the various parameters of plant operation and/or
waste treatment practices by means of multiple regression
analyses made using both the absolute values of the variables
and the logarithm of each variable.  The results of the re-
gression analyses are discussed below with the intent of in-
dicating which relationships are of significance.

Data for 18 plants were analyzed in terms of the calculated
parameters X]^, X2, X3, X4, Xs, X6 defined previously.  Two
statistically significant relationships were found at the
0.900 level of significance.

The capital costs of waste treatment facilities in a plant
were found to be a logarithmic function of the wastewater
volume; the regression equation is:

          log(X4) = 1.1145 + 1.1559 log (X6)           (1)

where:   X4 = Capital Costs of Treatment Facilities
              ($/ton of Annual Production)

         Xg = Volume of Wastewater (gpd/ton of Annual Production)


Of the variation in X4 , 80% is explained by Xg alone (R^ =
0.7993) and the variance of X4 is reduced by an order of magnitude
(Sy = 2.3054; SE = 1.0690) .


Operating costs of treatment facilities in a plant were found to
be a logarithmic function of capital costs of treatment facili-
ties; the regression equation is:

         log(X5) = 1.8977 + 0.9293 log (X4)            (2)


where:   Xs = Operating Costs of Treatment Facilities
              ($/yr/Ton of Annual Production)

Of the variation in X5, 78% is explained by X4 (R2 = 0.7826)
and the variance in Xs is reduced by an order of magnitude
(Sy = 2.2765; SE = 1.0964).


Using all of the data available as appropriate, no statistically
significant relationships were found between the efficiencies of
critical pollutant removal and the other parameters.  At a low
level of significance, however, the capital costs of treatment
facilities were indicated to be the major determinant of removal
efficiencies.
                               43

-------
With the data of 40 unit treatment operations no significant re-
lationships were found between efficiencies  of critical pollutant
removals and costs per unit volume of wastewater.

Unit operating costs were found to be related to unit capital
costs for individual systems at the 0.900 level of significance
according to the following regression equation:
        X2 = -76.7181 + 0.2611
(3)
where:  X1 = Capital Costs of Treatment Facilities  ($/1000 gpd)

        X2 = Operating Costs  of Treatment Facilities
             ($/yr/1000 gpd)


Of the variation in X2, 92% is explained by  Xi  (R2  =  0.9241)
and the variance in X2 is  reduced by more than  70%
(Sy = 1544; SE = 431).
                             44

-------
      VIII. COSTS OF UNIT WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS


There are several processes which have been and are being
applied to the treatment of wastewaters from the chemical in-
dustry.  One of several biological treatment processes or a
combination of processes will effect removal of the degradable
organic compounds present in the waste.  Anaerobic lagoons
have been used where large land areas are available and will
provide removals to BOD levels in the order of 100 mg/1.
Aerated lagoons will reduce the BOD to levels in the order of
50 mg/1 (depending on the temperature, the effluent BOD usually
increasing during low temperature operation).  The activated
sludge process will provide high degree efficiency, with efflu-
ent BOD values of less than 25 mg/1.

In order to insure optimal and consistent secondary treatment
performance, several pretreatment steps are frequently required.
These include oil separation, neutralization and,  in the case of
high load variations, equalization.  In cases where high concen-
trations of suspended solids are present in the waste, primary
sedimentation is provided.

Figure  9  shows the processes most commonly employed for the
treatment of chemical industry wastes.  The treatment sequence
has been broken down into pretreatment or primary  treatment,
secondary or biological treatment, tertiary treatment, and sludge
handling and disposal.

For purposes of developing the cost-effluent quality relation-
ships the effluent characteristics for the principal pollutional
parameters have been estimated for each of the unit processes
and are shown in Figure 9.   No change in effluent characteristic
(BOD, COD, S.S.) is attributed to neutralization or equalization.
Primary sedimentation has been estimated to yield  65 percent and
10 percent removal of BOD and suspended solids respectively.
The effluent BOD from the anaerobic lagoon, the aerated lagoon
and the activated sludge process is estimated at 200, 100,  and
25 mg/1, respectively.  (This assumes average operating conditions
at ambient temperature).

For each stage of the process, the effluent COD has been estimated
from the relationship CODEFF = CODINF - BODg removed/0.75

(It should be noted that the accumulation of non-biodegrad-
able COD during the biological oxidation process has not been
included).

The effluent characteristics for the tertiary treatment pro-
cesses have been estimated from laboratory and field results
on both municipal sewage and industrial wastewaters.
                           45

-------
                                                          Figure  9
                                      WASTEWATER TREATMENT  PROCESSES  8  MODELS
           PRE OR PRIMARY TREATMENT
                                                                SEDIMENTATION
                                                                                         AIR
                                                                                         FLOTATION
COAGULATION
t SEOIMEHTATIOM
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

        INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS SUSPENDED SOLIDS < 125 PPM, ALKALINITY <0.5llb/lb BOD, SULFIDES <250 PPM, OIL 8 GREASE
                                       BOD VARIATIONS €  J'l (Ib/doy, 4 -hr COMPOSITE )
                                                                                                                 < 50 PPM,







ACTIVATED SLUDGE
(COMPLETELY MIXED)


•AO l + kl,t
11, • IIVSSI 0 - o
EXTENDED
AERATION

"•• -Hi-
ib OS/OAT = i 2Sr




10 - 20
20- 40
< 70
C-B
12 IX, 	 *J
AERATED LAGOOH ANAEROBIC LAGOONS
{AEROBIC -FACULTATIVE I A. .


° "" FOR PONDS IN SERIES
lbO,/DAY • IZ S, A> ,
-«o M , TEMPERATURE J > 100
SO -100 (FUNCTION Of POWER LEVEL) < SO
G-B 	

TRICKLING ANAEROBIC
FILTER CONTACT

£ . ,-«•«/«• HT - -S.UI
K'> KA *
'•)
0. • MCAO


! DEPENDS ON PURPOSE )
FOR WHICH FILTER IS } > 100
USED ) < 100
•"-•

PHOSPHORUS lib) f> 	 P0-0023«XV 	 •<
TERTIARY TREATMENT

ION CARBON
EXCHANGE AOSORP


EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS: ( BASED ON
TOTAL BOO ("1/U 	 <'
SS(««/l) <1 
10 — ZO 10 — 20
O 0
)0— GO <50

	
	
TOS Ill/I)      
-------
Where available and applicable, mathematical models have been
developed for specific processes.  These are shown in Figure
9.   The average coefficients for these models are summarized
in Table XIII and the ranges of values obtained from 14 differ-
ent chemical wastes receiving biological treatment are given.
A definition of the symbols used in Figure  9  is detailed in
Table XIV.

The mathematical models shown in Figure  9  and the average
coefficients shown in Table XIII have been used to develop the
treatment plant sizes for the cost vs effluent quality study
discussed later in this report.


                        COST FUNCTIONS

The total cost functions and the unit cost functions which were
developed are based on data reported for actual organic chemical
plants which treat wastewater.  The cost data were derived from
information reported in the "Industrial Waste Profiles - The Cost
of Clean Water," in published and private reports, and from
private communications.  All the cost data have been adjusted to
1968 costs using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction
Cost Index.

The total capital cost functions for activated sludge treatment
plants are graphically related to wastewater flow in Figure 10.

The systems which were considered included pretreatment or pri-
mary treatment, the activated sludge aeration basin(s)  and
equipment, and final clarifier(s).  However, in one system
sludge treatment was included and the other system included la-
gooning of the sludge.  The data in Figure 10 are for eight
activated sludge plants with sludge treatment and for fourteen
activated sludge plants without sludge treatment.  There is a
relationship between total capital cost and flow.

A mathematical expression of the relationship between total capi-
tal cost and the flow and BOD is presented in Table XV.  The
constants and exponents which are also reported in Table XV were
evaluated by means of a regression analysis.  The results of
the regression analyses indicate that for the system without
sludge treatment the wastewater flow and incoming BOD concen-
tration seem to have an equal effect on the total capital cost.
However, in the system with sludge treatment the wastewater
flow seems to have a more marked effect on the total capital
cost than does the incoming BOD concentration.

The total capital cost function presented in Table XV is appli-
cable only over the range of data used in the regression anal-
                             47

-------
                                 TABLE XIII
                COEFFICIENTS AND CONSTANTS FOR BIOLOblCAL TREATMENT
                       OF WASTES FROM THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Activated Sludge
     Range  of Values            Average
  (1  standard deviation)
k (1/mg-hr)
a
a1
b (day'1)
b' (day'1)
e
F (Ib BOD/lbMLVSS/day)
Aerated Lagoon
K (day'1)
ov mg
Anaerobic Lagoons
K (day'1)
Ke (day'1)
TricKling Filter
K1 = kxAm
n v
e
Gravity Thickeners
B
n
M.L. (Ib/sq ft/day)
C (percent solids)
0.00012
0.31
0.31
0.02
0.10
1.0
0.4

0.5
50.
1.085 -

0.030
0.07
1.08

0.24
0.4
1.035

4.
0.25
4.
3.
*K reaction rate for equation se =

Kg reaction rate constant


so
for equation


- 0.00076 0.00024
0.72 0.52
- 0.76 0.53
- 0.18 0.07
- 0.24 0.17
- 1.04 1-03
0.0 0.5

1.0 0.75
150. 100.
1.1

- 0.055 0.042
0.13 0.10
- 1.09 1.085

- 1.25
0.5
- 1.08

16.
1.8
12
- 5.
1 (applicable to single ponds)
1+Kt
se = e e ^ '(applicable to series of ponds)
S
0
K1 based on loading in MGAD
Vacuum Filtration
m
n
s
Cake Moisture (* by wt)
Loading Ranges
(Ib solids/sq ft/hr)
Aerobic Digestion
Retention time (days)
Carbon Adsorption
Ibs COD/lb Carbon
Filtration
gpm/ft2
Primary Sedimentation
Overflow rate
(gal/day/ft2)
Secondary Sedimentation

0.5
0.5
0.72
72.

3.

10.

0.3

5.


500


- 0.71
- 0.70
0.88
- 79.

7. 5.

24. 15.

0.6 0.5

- 10.


1000. 750.

Overflow rate
    (gal/day/ft2)
500.
700.
                             600.
                                          48

-------
                TABLE XIV -  LIST OF SYMBOLS
      X ,  X      Average, degradable fraction, and volatile fraction
      V
                 of the mass of the biological cells (Ibs)
  xa, x , x      Average, degradable, and volatile biological solids
                 concentration in aeration basin (mg/1)
AXy             Cell or sludge yield (Ibs/day)
  S  , S          Substrate (expressed as BOD or COD) applied or removed
   a   r         (Ibs/day)
  SQ, s          Influent and effluent substrate concentration (mg/1)
  K, KC> K,      Substrate removal rate coefficients and biological
                 sludge oxidation rate (day  )
  K'             Substrate removal rate for trickling filter
  k              Substrate removal rate coefficient (liter/ng-hr)
  8              Temperature coefficient for the rate constant k or K
  T              Temperature (°C)
  a              Fraction of substrate removed, used for cell synthesis
  a'             Oxygen utilization coefficient for cell synthesis
  b              Cell auto-oxidation rate coefficient  (day*1)
  b'             Oxygen utilization rate for endogenous respiration (day   )
  t              Time, retention time or cycle time (minutes, hours or days)
  A              Specific surface area of volatile media for trickling filters
  F              Food to micro-organism ratio  (Ib BOD/lb MLVSS/day)
  V              Volatile fraction of biological sludge
  f              Degradable fraction of volatile solids
  SS            Suspended Solids (mg/1)
  BOD            Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 days at 20°C (mg/1)
  BOD            Biochemical Oxygen Demand, ultimate at 20°C (mg/1)
  COD            Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1)
  TDS            Total Dissolved Solids, inorganic (mg/1)
  mg/1           Milligrams per liter
  SRT            Solids Retention Time
  P              Amount of phosphorous in influent (Ib)
  N              Amount of nitrogen in influent (Ib)
   o
  L              Vacuum Filter Loading (Ib per sq ft per hour)
  C              Underflow concentration of solids from thickener (I solids)
  C              Overflow concentration from sludge thickener (t solids)
   o
  ML             Mass Loading for sludge thickener (Ibs per sq ft per hr)
  B              Constant for sludge thickener
  D              Depth (ft)
  P              Vacuum pressure for vacuum filtration (inches Hg)
  s              Coefficient of compressibility of filter cake
  c              Weight of solids per unit volume of filtrate (gm/ml)
  u              Kinematic viscosity of the liquid (centipoise)
  R              Specific resistance of the filter media (sec /gm)-
  m(n            Exponents, constant for specific type of sludge
  F              Overflow concentration for flotation  process (t  solids)
  F              Underflow concentration for the  flotation process  (t)
  Q              Flow rate (MGD, gpm,  etc.)


                                             49

-------
                                     Figure 10


                        TOTAL CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP OF

                              ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS
  10'
  10
o
Q
o
u

g
  10'

 10'
     0.1
                  3   4  6  6 7 8 9
1.0
                                           3  456
7 8 910.0
                                                                     3   4
                                     FLOW,  MGD
                                     50

-------
yses.  The flow range over which the relationship can be applied
is 30,000 gallons per day to 15 million gallons per day and the
BOD range is 150 mg/1 to 6000 mg/1.

The unit cost functions for the various unit processes are graph-
ically presented in Appendix c.  The treatment processes and cost
function relationship, for which data are available are summarized
in Table XVI.  The range of applicability of the unit cost function
for each of the processes presented are illustrated by the extent
of the curve(s) in Appendix C.  One should be careful not to attempt
to apply these unit cost functions beyond the range of the data
presented.

                            TABLE XV

     MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF WASTE TREATMENT COSTS, USING THE
                  COST OF EXISTING FACILITIES


           C = K Qm Sn
                     o

           where C  - Capital cost in $1,000 (1968 replacement value)
                 K  = Constant
                 Q  = Flow in MGD
                 S0 = BOD of waste in mg/1

Activated sludge without sludge treatment
90% confidence limits
Activated sludge with sludge treatment
90% confidence limits
K
62.0
14.1-270
433
85-2200
m
0.44
±0.14
0.71
±0.20
n
0.41
±0.23
0.17
±0.23
The total capital cost for a particular treatment system may
be calculated by adding the unit cost of each process included
in the system and to this total add 35 percent to cover the
costs of piping, pumping, engineering and other contingencies.
The percentage was derived by comparing the total reported
capital cost of an existing plant with the total capital cost
which was calculated by adding the unit costs of each unit
process.

The difference between these total costs was considered to in-
clude the miscellaneous cost mentioned above and was expressed
in terms of a percentage of the total capital cost.

The costs of deep well disposal present particularly unique prob-
lems.  The cost function for deep well disposal is affected
markedly by a number of variables, therefore, a simple two-
dimensional graphical presentation will not provide a relationship
which can be generally applied to all disposal well systems.
The variables which are significant include:
                             51

-------
       a.  Flow rate
       b.  Required surface pretreatment
       c.  Diameter and number of the well and
       d.  Operating casing head pressure

Geological characteristics including type of formation, permeability
and porosity are other factors which can affect the total capital
cost.

The operating costs for disposal wells are primarily a function of
the operating well head pressure which in turn is affected by the
formation properties.  The flow rate is related to some extent to
the operating pressure especially in the case where the friction
loss is high.  The friction loss can be significant in a multiple
well system in which a distribution system is employed.  The cost
of surface pretreatment will also add to the operating costs.
                           TABLE XVI

            SUMMARY OF BASES FOR UNIT COST FUNCTIONS
Pre or Primary Treatment

      Equalization
      Neutralization
      Oil Separation
      Sedimentation

Biological Treatment

      Lagoons
      Aerated Lagoons
      Activated Sludge
      Aeration basin
      Final Clarifier

Tertiary Treatment

      Filtration
      Ion Exchange
      Adsorption (carbon)

Sludge Handling and Disposal

      Total sludge disposal
      Thickening
      Flotation thickening
      Vacuum Filtration

Ultimate Disposal

      Deep Well Injection
Cost vs. volume (Gal)
Cost vs. flow rate (MGD)
Cost/MGD vs. flow Rate  (MGD)
Cost vs. Surface Area (Sq Ft)
Cost vs. Surface Area (Acre)
Cost vs. volume (MG)

Cost vs. volume (MG)
Cost vs. Surface Area (Sq Ft)
Cost vs.
Cost vs.
Cost vs.
flow rate (MGD)
flow rate (MGD)
flow rate (MGD)
Cost vs. flow rate (MGD)
Cost vs. volume of thickener (gal)
Cost/MGD vs. flow rate MGD
Cost vs. area of filter (Sq Ft)
Cost vs. flow rate (MGD)
                            52

-------
         IX.  COST VS EFFLUENT QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS
In order to establish a realistic basis for establishing treat-
ment plant design criteria, the data of the 53 plants surveyed
were portrayed in terms of statistical probabilities of COD,
BOD, and suspended solids concentrations as shown in Figure 11.
These data were used to construct the twenty likely design
combinations given in Table XVII.
                           TABLE XVII

   PLANT SIZE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS - BASIS FOR DESIGN
Combina-
tion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Plant Design
Flow (mgd)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
BOD
(mg/1)
500
500
200
200
2000
2000
500
500
3000
3000
1000
1000
500
500
3000
3000
1000
1000
500
500
COD
(mg/1)
1200
1200
550
550
5000
5000
1200
1200
8000
8000
3000
3000
1200
1200
8000
8000
3000
3000
1200
1200
ss
(mg/1)
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
The cost vs effluent quality relationships have been developed
using BOD, COD, suspended solids and total dissolved inorganic
solids as quality parameters.  Nitrogen and phosphorous have
not been included since in the majority of cases, these are
present in insufficient concentrations and must be added as nu-
trient supplements.  Constituents such as color represent
specific cases and have, therefore, not been included in the
general correlations.  The range of treatment plant sizes and
wastewater composition selected has been discussed and is
based upon current production in the chemical industry.
                           53

-------
                                 Figure 11
                   CHEMICAL WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
                                   PERCENTAGE
10
                                                                         10
                                                                      7.0
                                      54

-------
The generalized wastewater treatment processes and alternates
are shown in Figure 12.  This flow sheet was selected as il-
lustrative of common practice in wastewater treatment plants
in the organic chemical industry today and according to pro-
jections of what might be required in the near future.

Design Bases For The Process Calculations

        1.  Sedimentation

            Sedimentation is provided when the suspended solids
concentration exceeded 125 mg/1.  An overflow rate of 750
gpd/ft^ is used to effect a suspended solids removal of 65%.
The percent removal of BOD and COD in sedimentation has been
taken as 10% for each.

        2.  Anaerobic Lagoon

            This process is used when the BOD of the wastes ex-
ceeds 500 mg/1 and it is not preceded by sedimentation.  The
obtainable effluent BOD and SS concentrations are 200 mg/1  and
50 mg/1 respectively.  Reaction rate constant K (200°C) was
taken at 0.42 and the basin volume was computed from the rela-
tionship between the effluent BOD and reaction rate.

                     Se     1
                     So = 1 + Kt
The effluent COD was computed from the relationship CODQUT =
CODIN  -  BODremoved/0.75

         3.  Aerated Lagoon

             Sedimentation is not provided preceding aerated
lagoon process.  A reaction rate constant of 0.75 (K at 20°C)
has been taken and the basin volume is computed from the re-
lationship between effluent BOD and reaction rate constant.
The effluent BOD and SS solids are expected to be 100 mg/1
each.

        4.  Activated Sludge

            This process is preceded by sedimentation.  A
reaction rate  (k at 20°C) of 0.00024 1/mgVSS-hr and the
MLVSS concentration of 2500 mg/1 have been taken.  Sludge
synthesis coefficient and the endogenous respiration rate
are taken at 0.52 and 0.07 respectively for the purpose of
excess sludge computations.  80% of the excess sludge is
assumed to be volatile.  Also 80% of the suspended solids
entering the activated sludge process is assumed to form an
excess sludge.  A typical overflow rate of 600 gpd/ft2 is
taken for final clarification.  The effluent BOD and SS of
this process are expected to be 25 and 20 mg/1 respectively.
                            55

-------
Ul
      SLUDGE HANDLING
           Aerobic
          Digestion
                       From  Activated
                           Sludge
         Thickening and
           Flotation
      f    \     From Primary
      V   Jl     Sedimentation
           Vacuum
          Filtration
           Landfill
                                   10%  COD  Removal
                                   10%  BOD  Removal
                                   65% S.S.  Removal
                                   O.R.= 750  gpd/ft2
 BOD  25 mg/l  BOD  I5mg/l  BOD Img/l   TDS influent =
 COD  calculate COD  calculate COD 5mg/l      2000 mg/l
VS1S.  20mg/lyvS.S.
                                           H
                                           £
                                           H
                                           2
                                           H
                                           TJ
                                           »
                                           O
                                                                                                          en
                                                                                                          H
                                                                                                          en

-------
        5.  Adsorption

            The cost of this process is computed from the
cost curves available for municipal waste.  The flows are cor-
rected for this purpose as follows:

        Corrected flow - MGD X CODIND  x 0 75
                               CODMUN
        6.  Ion Exchange
            The flows are corrected as below to obtain the cost
figures from the cost curve of domestic waste:

   Corrected Flow =  MGD total Dissolved Solids  x 0.75
                     	removed	
                                    350

        7.  Aerobic Digestion

            Only excess activated sludge is treated in this
process.  The feed concentration of the sludge  is taken at 1%.
Also with a 15 day detention period, 50% reduction of  VSS is
expected.

        8.  Flotation Thickening

            The primary sludge and the aerobically digested
excess activated sludge are thickened by flotation. Flota-
tion area is estimated at 4 Ibs/ft^/hr.  The effluent  sus-
pended solids are taken as 30 mg/1.

        9.  Vacuum Filtration

            The thickened sludge is filtered to produce filter
cakes at high solids concentration and the filter area is es-
timated at 8 Ibs/ft2/day.

            The capital costs were developed f,rom the  sum of
the unit process costs plus 35 percent to include the  cost of
engineering, miscellaneous piping and other appertances and
are related to effluent quality in Tables XVIII-XXVII  for the
various size selections.

For the purpose of these cost determinations, it was assumed
that every selected combination of flow and wastewater charac-
teristics will receive identical treatment, except where im-
practicable.  For example, all waste will pass  through the oil
separator, neutralization tank, equalization tank (except when
followed by lagoons), primary sedimentation (except when sus-
pended solid concentrations are less than 175 mg/1), activated
                             57

-------
sludge, sand filtration,  carbon adsorption,  and ion exchange.
The excess activated sludge is  aerobically  digested,  mixed with
the primary sludge when applicable,  and subsequently thickened
and vacuum filtered.  The cost  of sludge treatment,  which  does
not include incineration, barging,  or hauling,  is  included in
the cost of the activated sludge  unit.

All costs are cumulative  as the degree  of treatment increases,
except that the cost determination  of aerated and  anaerobic
lagoons terminate as shown on the graphs.   These unit processes
will not be used when tertiary  treatment is  desired.
                             58

-------
                 TABLE XVIII
CUMULATIVE CAPITAL COSTS OF TREATMENT PLANTS
         10 million gallons per day
INFLUENT

FLOW
mgd
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

BOD
mg/1
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500

COD
mg/1
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200

SS
mg/1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
EFFLUENT

BOD

COD

SS
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
496
200
100
25
15
1
TDS
450
200
100
450
25
15
1
TDS
1190
800
670
515
500
5
Reduction
1075
800
670
1080
515
500
5
Reduction
98
50
100
20
1
1
75%
175
50
100
175
20
1
1
75%
Separation

H
•H
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
lization
ralization
m -P
3 3
CT1 0)
W 2
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
• c -o
Cn O C 3
03 O O H
i-q Cn -H to
03 -P
O iJ (0 -O
•H 4J (U
XI "0 fi -P
O 0) Q) (0
H -P g >
o; 03 -H -H
(0 M 13 4->
C 0) Q) U

-------
                   TABLE XIX
CUMULATIVE CAPITAL COSTS OF TREATMENT PLANTS
         10 million gallons per day
FLOW
mgd
10.0
10.0

10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
   INFLUENT
BOD   COD     SS
mg/1  mg/1   mg/1
200   550    100
200   550    100
200   550    100
200   550    100
200   550    100
200   550    100
200   550    500
200   550    500
200   550    500
200   550    500
200   550    500
200   550    500
200   550    500
    EFFLUENT
 BOD   COD     SS
 mg/1  mg/1  mg/1
 196   545     98
 100   420     50
  25   275     20
  15   263      1
   151
TDS Reduction  75%
 190   500   175
 100   420     50
 190   500   175
  25   275     20
  15   265      1
   151
TDS Reduction  75%
                           c     c   •  c
                           O     O   tr>  O
                           •H  c  -H   m  o
                           •P  o  -P   H)  cji
                           nj  -H  nj     (0
                           n  .p  N   o  *l
                           (Q  a  -H   -H
                           On  N  iH   X>  -O
                           a)  -H  moo)
                           W  i-l  M   k  -P
                              rt  -P   -i
                           •H  O1  0)   C  QJ
                           o  w  s   <  <
                           X
                           X
                           X
                           X
                           X
                           X
      X
      X
                           XXX
X  X
X  X
X
X
X  X
   X  X
   X  X
   X  X
   X  X
X
X
X
X
X
                                        X
                  tJ
               C  3
               O  iH         Q)
               •H  en         tx>
               •P      C  C  C
               nJ  13   O  O  flJ
               +J  0)  -H  -H  £
               C  jJ  .p  -P  o
               o)  (0   itj  a  x
               6  >   M  M  W
               •H  -H  -P  O
               T3  -P  rH  W  C
               Q)  O  -H  TJ  O
               CO  rtj  CM  <  H
   X
   X  X
   XXX
   XXX
                                                       X
X
X  X
XXX
X  X  X   X
X  X  X   X  X
CAPITAL COST
($ Millions)
    950,000
  1,750,000
  3,750,000
  4,050,000
  7,450,000
 11,400,000
  1,200,000
  2,050,000
  1,450,000
  4,550,000
  4,900,000
  8,350,000
 12,250,000

-------
                  TABLE XX
CUMULATIVE CAPITAL COSTS OF TREATMENT PLANTS
          5 million gallons per day
INFLUENT

FLOW
mgd
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

BOD
mg/1
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000

COD
mg/1
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000

SS
mg/1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
EFFLUENT

BOD
mg/1
1960
200
100
25
15
1


COD SS
mg/1 mg/1
4950
2600
2463
2100
2050
50
TDS Reduction
1800
200
100
1800
25
15
1
4500
2600
2450
4500
2125
2000
38
TDS Reduction
98
50
50
20
1
1
75%
175
50
50
175
20
1
1
75%
Separation

•H
•H
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
lization
 (d
3 rt M
0) C 0)
SB < <
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
C 3
O r-l
•H W
•P C C
(d 13 O O
-P Q) -H -H
C -P -P -P
(u id id a
e > n M
•H -H -P O
13 -P H M
0) O -H T>
W < h <



X
X X
XXX
XXX



X
X X
XXX
X X X X
X X X X
Exchange

c
o
H






X







X
                                                         CAPITAL COST
                                                         ($  Millions)
                                                             550,000
                                                             950,000
                                                           4,750,000
                                                           5,350,000
                                                           5,550,000
                                                          12,800,000
                                                          16,400,000
                                                             800,000
                                                           1,150,000
                                                           4,750,000
                                                             900,000
                                                           5,750,000
                                                           5,900,000
                                                          13,950,000
                                                          16,700,000

-------
                  TABLE XXI

CUMULATIVE CAPITAL COSTS OF TREATMENT PLANTS
          5 million gallons per day
FLOW
mgd
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INFLUENT
BOD COD
mg/1
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
mg/1
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
SS
mg/1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
BOD
EFFLUENT
COD
SS
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
492
200
100
25
15
1
TDS
450
200
100
450
25
15
1
TDS
1190
800
670
515
500
10
Reduction
1080
800
670
1080
515
500
8
Reduction
98
50
100
20
1
1
75%
175
50
100
175
20
1
1
75%
il Separation
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
qualization
w



X
X
X
X



X
X
X
X
X
C • C -O
0 tn O C 3
•H nj o O rH Q)
•P *1 &i -H CO tP
nj m -P C C C
N O ,-q nj r0 o o ,0
•H -H -P MV4W
•P -l 13 -P rH W g
(ucojajo-H-a o
S<
-------
                 TABLE XXII

CUMULATIVE CAPITAL COSTS OF TREATMENT PLANTS
          1 million gallons per day
FLOW

mgd
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
INFLUENT
BOD COD

mg/1
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000

rag/1
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
SS

mg/1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
EFFLUENT
BOD COD

mg/1
2920
200
100
25
15
1

SS

mg/1 mg/1
7900
4275
4125
3650
3500
50
TDS Reduction
2700
200
100
2700
25
15
1
7200
4250
4125
7200
3650
3500
25
TDS Reduction
98
50
100
20
1
1
75%
175
50
100
175
20
1
1
75%
.1 Separation
•ri
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
[ualization
ryi
w
W



X
X
X
X



X
X
X
X
X
iutralization
m
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C T3
IT> O C 3
«J O O rH  -H w tr«
id -P c C C
O J (0 13 O O nj
•H -P 0) -H -H X!
x> -o c -P -P -P o
O  M H W
-| itf JJ rH W C
C d) (U O -rH *O O

-------
                                                 TABLE XXIII

                               CUMULATIVE  CAPITAL COSTS OF TREATMENT PLANTS
                                         1 million gallons per day
a\
FLOW
mgd
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
INFLUENT
BOD COD
mg/1
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
mg/1
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
SS
mg/1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
BOD
EFFLUENT
COD
SS
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
970
170
100
25
15
1
TDS
900
170
100
900
25
15
1
TDS
2960
1940
1800
1530
1430
30
Reduction
2700
1940
1800
2700
1530
1460
40
Reduction
98
65
100
20
1
1
75%
175
65
100
175
20
1
1
75%
il Separation
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
qualization
w



X
X
X
X



X
X
X
X
X
eutralization
naerobic Lag.
erated Lagoon
.3 
•P c C C
"3 T3 O O *0
4J (U -H -H A
C +J .p 4J O
Q)  M \-\ W
-H -H -P O
•O -P «H W fi

-------
                 TABLE XXIV

CUMULATIVE CAPITAL COSTS OF TREATMENT PLANTS
          1 million gallons per day
INFLUENT

FLOW
mgd
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

BOD
mg/1
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500

COD
mg/1
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200

SS
mg/1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500

BOD
EFFLUENT

COD
mg/1 mg/1
485
200
100
25
15
1
TDS
450
200
100
450
25
15
1
TDS
1180
800
670
520
470
20
Reduction
1010
800
735
1010
658
642
30


SS
mg/1
98
50
100
20
1
1
75%
175
50
100
175
20
1
1
Reduction 75%
Separation

rH
•eH
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
lization
m
3
W



X
X
X
X



X
X
X
X
X
ralization
robic Lag.
•P  O
0) (U (0 (d Oi X
-P g > M H W
HJ -H -H 4J O
M -O -P rH W C
(1) CJ O -rl 'O O
<; en < fa < H


X
X
X X
XXX
X X X X


X
X
X X
XXX
X X X X
X X X X X


CAPITAL COST
($ Millions)
150,000
312,000
463,000
925,000
975,000
2,113,000
2,738,000
213,000
438,000
588,000
325,000
975,000
1,025,000
2,425,000
3,313,000

-------
                                                  TABLE XXV

                                CUMULATIVE CAPITAL COSTS OF TREATMENT PLANTS
                                         0.5 million gallons per day
CTi
FLOW
mgd
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
INFLUENT
BOD COD SS
mg/1
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
mg/1
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
8000
mg/1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
EFFLUENT
BOD COD
mg/1
2940
200
125
25
15
1
SS
mg/1 mg/1
7925
4300
4125
3650
3400
100
TDS Reduction
2700
200
125
2700
25
15
1
7200
4300
4150
7200
3650
3400
75
TDS Reduction
98
50
87
20
1
1
75%
175
50
87
175
20
1
1
75%
il Separation
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
qualization
eutralization
naerobic Lag.
erated Lagoon
w a < <
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
fi 3
O rH  M n w
•H -H -P O
T3 -P 
-------
                                                TABLE  XXVI

                               CUMULATIVE CAPITAL COSTS  OF  TREATMENT PLANTS
                                        0.5 million  gallons per day
(Ti
INFLUENT

FLOW
mgd
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

BOD
mg/1
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

COD
mg/1
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000

SS
mg/1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500

EFFLUENT



BOD COD SS
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
984
165
100
25
15
1
TDS
900
175
100
900
25
15
1
TDS
2980
1930
1800
1530
1430
50
Reduction
2700
1950
1830
2700
1420
1340
40
Reduction
99
68
100
20
1
1
75%
175
63
100
175
20
1
1
75%
Separation

rH
•H
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
lization
m
cr
W



X
X
X
X



X
X
X
X
X
ralization
robic Lag.
ted Lagoon
•P 0) (0
0) C 0)
53 < <
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
-d
C 3
O rH  M H W
•H -H -P O
•O -P rH (0 C
w o -H "b o
co *H FM < H



X
X X
XXX
X X X X



X
X X
XXX
X X X X
X X X X X


CAPITAL COST
($ Millions)
75,000
263,000
413,000
900,000
950,000
2,438,000
2,775,000
113,000
363,000
513,000
188,000
950,000
1,000,000
2,500,000
2,825,000

-------
                                                TABLE  XXVII
                               CUMULATIVE  CAPITAL  COSTS  OF TREATMENT PLANTS
                                        0.5 million  gallons  per day
00
FLOW
mgd
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
 0.5
INFLUENT

BOD
mg/1
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500

COD
mg/1
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200

SS
mg/1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500

BOD
EFFLUENT

COD


SS
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
485
200
100
25
15
1
TDS
450
200
100
450
25
15
1
TDS
1185
800
670
515
475
20
Reduction
1000
800
675
1000
515
475
15
Reduction
98
50
100
20
1
1
75%
175
50
100
175
20
1
1
75%
Separation

•H
•H
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
lization
rt
3
O1
W



X
X
X
X



X
X
X
X
X
c • c
O tr O C
•H nj o O
•P t-3 &i -H
m m -P
N o HI m
•H -H .p
•H ,Q T3 C
fd O 0) O
Q) C  M W W
•H .p O
•P rH 0) C
O -H T3 O
< pn < H



X
X X
XXX
X X X X




X
X X
XXX
X X X X


CAPITAL COST
($ Millions)
70,000
150,000
270,000
700,000
760,000
1,440,000
1,770,000
70,000
240,000
350,000
140,000
770,000
810,000
1,500,000
1,840,000

-------
                  X.  PROJECTED INDUSTRY COSTS
The available data indicate that in 1968 the average large plant
in the organic chemicals industries had a wastewater flow of
4,739,728 gpd and that about 239 plants produced 95% of the total
production of 117.2 billion pounds in that year.  The data indicate
a growth rate in number of plants of about 3% per year.

Total water discharged by plants in SIC industry categories 2815
(Cyclic Intermediates) and 2818  (Organic Chemicals n.e.c.) was
1509 billion gallons in 1959, 1760 billion gallons in 1964, and 2162
billion gallons in 1968 according to the Census of Manufactures data,
Water discharged thus increased at the rate of about 3 to 5% per
year during the 10-year period, while production has maintained a
growth rate of about 10% per year.

On the basis of these data and the projected production figures
given previously,  Table XXVIII presents actual and projected data
for various parameters of the organic chemicals industry through
1974 on the basis  of current wastewater treatment practices.

The plant survey data indicate an average wastewater flow of 7.56
gpd per ton of annual production vs.  an indicated average use
within the industry of 20.90 gpd per annual ton of production  in
1968.  The difference may be explained largely by the fact that
the plants surveyed had installed waste treatment facilities  that
average 84.2% removal of the critical pollutant, usually referring
to BOD.  The proper first step in implementing waste treatment in
a plant is to reduce wastewater volumes by conservation, segrega
tion, or reuse; the data indicate that this has indeed been the
practice in plants that have installed waste treatment facilities.
In the absence of any other data, it may be assumed that the
average wastewater production would be the average of these two
figures if treatment facilities had been installed throughout  the
industry, i.e., 14.2 gpd/annual ton in 1968.

On the basis of this assumption, the industry's wastewater produc-
tion if wastewater treatment facilities were to be installed would
be expected to be  as shown in Table XXIX.

                           TABLE XXIX

      WASTEWATER PRODUCTION FOR THE INDUSTRY THROUGH 1974

      Year       Wastewater, gpd/ton     Wastewater 109 gpy

      1968             14.2                    291
      1969             13.3                    278
      1970             12.3                    251
      1971             11.5                    235
      1972             10.8                    236
      1973             10.1                    273
      1974             9.45                    284


                                   69

-------
                                             TABLE XXVIII

                  ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY -  PROJECTIONS  BASED  ON  CURRENT  PRACTICE
                                         1963
                                         71.0
Number of Large Plants
Wastewater (109 gpy)
Production Total  (109 Ib)
Production Large Plants  (109 Ib)
Sales, Total  (109 Ib)
Sales, Total  (109 $)
Municipal Sewer Discharges  (10  gpy) 49.8
Wastewater (gpd/annual ton)
                                               1964
         1965
         1966
         1967
         1968
211
350
78.7
74.8
42.8
8.5
49.6
25.64
217
374
88.9
84.5
46.8
9.0
49.4
24.25
224
398
100.6
95.5
52.7
9.9
49.2
22.84
231
422
111.7
106.1
56.6
10.5
49.0
21.79
239
447
117.2
112.2
57.9
10.7
48.7
20.9
-J
o
    Number of Large  Plants
    Wastewater (10   gpy)
    Production Total (109  Ib)
    Production Large Plants  (109  Ib)
    Sales,  Total  (109 Ib)
    Sales,  Total  (109 $)
    Municipal Sewer  Discharges  (109
    Wastewater (gpd/annual ton)
                                         1969
                                gpy)
                                     21.99
                                               1970
         1971
         1972
         1973
22.00
21.97
22.00
22.00
         1974
245
460
120.7
114.6
59.6
11.0
48.7
252
449
117.7
111.8
58.1
10.7
48.7
260
480
126.0
119.7
62.2
11.5
48.7
268
538
141.0
134.0
69.7
12.9
48.7
276
595
156.0
148.2
77.1
14.3
48.7
284
660
173.0
164.4
—
—
48.7
22.00

-------
The capital costs for a typical plant discharging 4.74 mgd were
calculated using the unit cost method described in Sections IX and
X of this report,  relating costs to various levels of removal of
BOD, COD, and suspended solids.  The unit treatments and resulting
concentrations were as shown in Table XXX.

These costs are plotted in Figure 13 versus percentage removals of
the various pollutants.

For the 24 plants in the survey for which sufficient information
was available, the following data were obtained:

     Average production = 306,670 tons per year

     Average wastewater flow = 2,318,692 gpd

     Average capital cost = $1,036,522

     Average operating cost = $193,125

     Average removal of critical pollutants = 84.2%

The following data were calculated from the above:

     Average capital cost = $447/1000 gpd

     Average operating cost = $83.2/1000 gpd

     Average wastewater flow = 7.56 gpd/annual ton

     Average capital cost = $3.38/annual ton

     Average operating cost = $0.63/yr/annual ton

At 84.2% overall treatment efficiency, the average capital cost
per plant was $1,036,522.  The industry cost at this level would
be $247,729,000 on the basis of 239 plants.

The figures in Table XXIX indicate that wastewater 1968 disposed of
by the industry would have been 797,260 x 10^ gpd if treatment
facilities had been installed throughout the industry.   The capital
costs in a 4.74 mgd plant would be $300 per 1000 gpd for 85% removal
of BOD according to Figure 13 and the industry total thus $239,178.000,

At $447/1000 gpd the total cost would be $356,375,000.   Using the
calculated values for a 4.74 mgd plant, the capital cost at 83%
removal of BOD would be $1,187,100 per plant or $283,716,000 for
the industry in 1968 on the basis of 239 plants.

Four methods of estimating 1968 industry costs in large plants to
achieve approximately 85% BOD reduction have thus yielded estimates
from $239,178,000 to $356,375,000 averaging $281,815,000; these
data are summarized in Table XXXI.
                             71

-------
                                           TABLE XXX

                   CAPITAL  COSTS FOR LEVELS OF TREATMENT IN  A  4.74  mgd  PLANT
#
(0)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Treatment Processes Employed BOD COD SS Installed Cost Capital Costs/1000 gpd
None 1150 3000 175 0
Oil Separator, Equalization,
Neutralization 1150 3000 175 696,000
CD
CD
+ Sedimentation 1035 2700 61 836,400
+ Lagooning 200 2600 50 1,187,200
(2) + Activated Sludge and Final
Clarifier 25 2100 20 3,320,200
(4)
+ Filtration 15 2000 1 3,558,300
0
147
176
250
700
751
(6)   (1)  +  Filtration  and  Deep-Well
     Disposal
7,810,700
1648

-------
      Figure 13
  CAPITAL  COSTS IN
j  4.74  MGD PLANT
         50
     % REMOVAL
80
90
100

-------
                           TABLE XXXI

         ESTIMATED 1968 INDUSTRY COSTS IN LARGE PLANTS
      Cost Basis
Cost per plant as per sample
Calculated cost per plant
Calculated cost per 1000 gpd
Cost per 1000 gpd as per
sample
                                   Unit
                              No.  of Plants
                              No.  of Plants
                              Vol.  of Wastewater
  Capital Cost

$247,729,000
$283,716,000
$239,178,000
                              Vol.  of Wastewater   $356,375,000
The facts that the estimates based upon costs per unit of wastewater
show the greatest dispersion, that those based upon costs per plant
are both intermediate and that the estimate based upon calculated
costs per plant and number of plants equals the average, and that
the correlation analyses presented previously indicate that pro-
duction-related variables rather than wastewater-related variables
are of most importance, lead to the conclusion that industry esti-
mates are most reliably made on the basis of estimated costs per
plant and estimated number of plants.

In Table XXXII production and wastewater figures are given for the
                                                 "of widespread
in iauj_t; "•"•"•-•••'• p i UUUC LJ-UH tuiu. wtib uewcttt;     _
organic chemical  industry through  1974  on  the  basis
installations of  treatment facilities.
The data in Table XXXII indicate that the average large plant would
be expected to treat 2.8 mgd of wastewater during the period
considered.  The capital costs in such an average plant are given
in Table XXXIII versus the level of treatment attained.  Such costs
are projected for the industry in Table XXXIV on the basis of the
projected numbers of plants.

Assuming that the capital costs of discharging to a municipal sewer
are those entailed in removing gross pollutants at $147/1000 gpd,
the figures in Table XXXV estimate the total capital costs of
treatment facilities in the organic chemicals  industry.

In terms of current dollars, using an average  of 3.62 annual
increase in the price level as has been reflected in the Engineer-
ing News Record Construction Cost Index, total industry capital
costs are projected in Table XXXVI.
                             74

-------
                                           TABLE XXXII




                      INDUSTRY PROJECTIONS BASED UPON WIDESPREAD TREATMENT






                                    1968     1969     1970     1971     1972     1973     1974



Number of Large Plants              239      245      252      260      268      276      284



Production-Large Plants  (109 #)     112.2    114.6    111.8    119.7    134.0    148.2    164.4



Production-Total (109 #)            117.2    120.7    117.7    126.0    141.0    156.0    173.0



Wastewater-Large Plants  (109 gpy)   291      278      251      235      236      273      284



Wastewater-Large Plants  (gpd/T/yr)   14.2     13.3     12.3     11.5     10.8     10.1      9.45



Municipal Sewer Discharges  (109  gpy) 48.7     48.7     48.7     48.7     48.7     48.7     48.7




                DischarSes          133.4    133.4    133.4    133.4    133.4    133.4    133.4

-------
                                        TABLE  XXXIII




                   CAPITAL COSTS VS TREATMENT LEVELS IN AVERAGE LARGE PLANT
Level
% Removal Critical Pollutants
$/1000 gpd
Cost (2.8 mgd)
BOD COD SS
1 Removal of Gross Pollutants
2 10% 10% 65%
3 83% 13%
4 98% 30%
5 99% 33%
6 100% 100%
71%
89%
99%
100%








147
176
250
700
751
1648





$

1,
2,
4,
411
492
700
960
102
614
,600
,800
,000
,000
,800
,400





TABLE XXXIV
INDUSTRY CAPITAL COSTS OF

Treatment Level 1968
1 98.4
2 117.8
3 167.3
4 468.4
5 502.6
6 1102.8
IN-PLANT

Cos
1969
100
120
171
480
515
1130
.8
.7
.5
.2
.2
.5
TREATMENT
ts in Mill
1970
103.7
124.2
176.4
493.9
529.9
1162.8
FACILITIES
ions of 1968
1971
107.0
128.1
182.0
509.6
546.7
1199.7
IN LARGE
Dollars
1972
110.3
132.1
187.6
525.3
563.6
1236.7
PLANTS



1973
113.
136.
193.
540.
580.
6
0
2
9
,4
1273.6


1974
116.
139.
198.
556.
597.


9
9
8
6
2
1310.5

-------
                      TABLE XXXV



TOTAL INDUSTRY CAPITAL COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT




                 Costs in Millions of 1968 Dollars
Treatment Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
1968
118.0
137.4
186.9
488.0
522.2
1122.4
1969
120.4
140.3
191.1
496.8
534.8
1150.1
1970
123.3
143.8
196.0
513.5
549.5
1182.4
1971
126.6
147.7
201.6
529.2
563.3
1219.3
1972
129.9
151.7
207.2
544.9
583.2
1256.3
1973
133.2
155.6
212.8
560.5
600.0
1293.2
1974
136.5
159.5
218.4
576.2
616.8
1330.1

-------
-J
CO
                                               TABLE XXXVI

                         TOTAL INDUSTRY CAPITAL COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT


                                         Costs  in Millions of Current Dollars
Treatment Level 1968
1 118.0
2 137.4
3 186.9
4 488.0
5 522.2
6 1122.4
1969
124
145
198
514
554
1191
.7
.4
.0
.8
.1
.5
1970
127
149
203
532
569
1225
.7
.0
.1
.0
.3
.0
1971
131
153
208
548
583
1263
.2
.0
.9
.3
.6
.2
1972
134.
157.
214.
564.
604,
1301
1973
6
2
7
,5
.2
.5
138
161
220
580
621
1339
.0
.2
.5
.7
.6
.8
1974
141.4
165.2
226.3
597.0
639.0
1378.0

-------
In Figure 14, capital and operating costs are given for various
levels of treatment efficiency based upon BOD and COD removals;
these curves are based upon data in the technical literature.
According to Equation (3) given previously, which was based upon
analysis of the industry survey data, operating costs of unit waste
treatment facilities are related to unit capital costs as shown by
the solid line in Figure 15.  The indicated points in Figure 15 are
taken from the data of Figure 14 and show the extent of variation
between these data.

The survey data indicate that operating costs are essentially zero
for treatment facilities costing less than about $3000 per 1000 gpd,
while the plotted data based upon literature data assume that zero
capital costs = zero operating costs.  Although a rational case can
be made for the fact that operating costs in primary facilities are
actually nil, the curves in Figure 16 combine estimates made from
the two data sources and assume that any facility will, in fact,
have an associated operating cost.

Based upon the data in Figure 16, operating costs in a 2.8 mgd
treatment plant would be those shown in Table XXXVII for the various
levels of treatment.  Operating costs for the industry would then
be those shown in Table XXXVIII.

                          TABLE XXXVII

             OPERATING COSTS IN AVERAGE LARGE PLANT

Level  % Removal Critical Pollutants  $/yr/1000gpd  $/yr (2.8 mgd)

        BOD        COD         S.S.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Removal
10%
83%
98%
99%
100%
of Gross
10%
13%
30%
33%
100%
Pollutants
65%
71%
89%
99%
100%
7
8.5
13
105
120
350
19,600
23,800
36,400
294,000
336,000
980,000
                         TABLE XXXVIII
     INDUSTRY OPERATING COSTS OF FACILITIES IN LARGE PLANTS

Treatment	 Costs in Millions of 1968 Dollars	
  Level     1968    TUF9    HT70    T57I    1972    1973    1974
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6     234.2   240.1   247.0   254.8   262.6   270.5   278.3
4.68
5.69
8.70
70.27
80.30
4.80
5.83
8.92
72.03
82.32
4.94
6.00
9.17
74.09
84.67
5.10
6.19
9.46
76.44
87.36
5.25
6.38
9.76
78.79
90.05
5.41
5.57
10.05
81.14
92.74
5.57
6.76
10.34
83.50
95.42
                              79

-------
           Figure 14
   ORGANIC REMOVAL VS.  COST
       BASIS:  I MGD PLANT
 0.4       0.6       0.8       1.0
CAPITAL COST - MILLION DOLLARS / MO
           80

-------
00
          440



          400




          360




          320
       0  280
       o
       O


       K  240
       in
          200
          160
       O

       O

       ?  120
           40
                      Figure 15


                OPERATING COST AS A


           FUNCTION OF CAPITAL  COSTS
                     200
400
600      800      1000      1200

        CAPITAL COST - $ / 1000 gpd
1400
1600

-------
00
N)
                                                 CAPITAL COSTS-$ / 1000 gpd
                                          120        160       200      240
                                   Figure  16
                        OPERATING COSTS VS CAPITAL COSTS
                       200
400
600
  800      1000      1200
CAPITAL COSTS - $ / 1000 gptf
1400
                                                                                         1600
1800
                                                                            2000

-------
Assuming that the operating costs associated with the discharge of
industrial wastes to municipal sewers are 10 cents per 1000 gal., the
total operating costs for the industry in 1968 dollars are given in
Table XXXIX in 1968 dollars and in Table XL in current dollars.
                           TABLE XXXIX

    TOTAL INDUSTRY OPERATING COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Treatment
Level 1968
1 9.55
2 10.6
3 13.6
4 75.1
5 85.2
6 239.0
Costs
1969
9
10
13
76
87
244
.67
.7
.8
.9
.2
.9
in Millions
19
9
10
14
79
89
251
70
.81
.9
.0
.0
.5
.9
19
9
11
14
81
92
259
of 1968 Dollars
71
.97
.1
.3
.3
.2
.7
1972
10.12
11.3
14.6
83.7
94.9
267.1
19
10
11
14
86
96
275
7 '6
.3
.4
.9
.0
.9
.4
19
10
11
15
88
100
283
74
.4
.6
.2
.4
.3
.4
                            TABLE XL

    TOTAL INDUSTRY OPERATING COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Treatment           Costs in Millions of Current Dollars
  Level

    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
1968
9.55
10.6
13.6
75.1
85.2
239.0
1969
10.0
11.1
14.3
79.7
90.3
253.7
1970
10.2
11.3
14.5
81.8
92.7
261.0
1971
10.3
11.5
14.8
84.2
95.5
269.0
1972
10.5
11.7
15.1
86.7
98.3
276.7
1973
10.7
11.8
15.4
89.1
100.4
285.3
1974
10.8
12.0
15.6
91.6
103.9
293.6
                            83

-------
            XI.  METHODOLOGY FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
                 	COSTS DETERMINATION	


The methods which have been developed and used in this study
of the organic chemicals industry can be utilized to determine
wastewater treatment costs for other industries.  The method-
ology is intended to be used in establishing and projecting
costs for an industry or for groups of industries, rather than
for individual plants.  Costs estimates for individual plants
are readily calculable by conventional engineering techniques •
to almost any degree of precision desired, depending upon the
effort to be expended and the intended uses of the information.
Costs for an industry could, of course, be determined precisely
by calculating the costs of treatment facilities for each indi-
vidual plant in an industry and totalling these costs.  Alter-
natives to this obviously impractical method are to estimate
the number of plants involved and multiply by the "average"
cost per plant or to estimate the volume of wastewater involved
and multiply by the "average" cost per unit volume of waste-
water; such alternative methods are practical and after a degree
of accuracy sufficient for purposes of industry-wide planning
and economic impact studies.  The suggested methods for deter-
mining the total costs to an industry of attaining specified
degrees of wastewater effluent quality over a time period are
outlined below as a series of steps.

STEP 1:  Characterization of the Industry

The industry to be studied must be defined and its general char-
acteristics understood as a first step.  Although the SIC de-
finitions are not completely satisfactory, most data are given
in terms of these categories; as a practical matter; therefore,
the industry to be studied must be defined in terms of one or
more 4-digit SIC groups.  The general nature of the industry's
production processes and operating philosophy should be under-
stood, since the former, of course, generate the wastewaters
and the latter influence to a large degree the methods by which
pollution control is implemented; such factors as rate of tech-
nological change, average process and/or equipment lives,
degree and types of competition, etc. in the industry should be
understood.  Information on production processes are generally
found in the technical literature of the industry, in engineering
texts, in trade association publications'and in some of the books
on industrial waste treatment.   Information on other aspects of
the industry is to be found in Department of Commerce publications,
trade association publications, and business literature.

STEP 2:   Projection of Industry Growth

The growth of the industry should be projected over the time
period set for purposes of the study.  Projections should be
made in terms of physical production units for the industry
                              84

-------
as defined.  Additional data such as growth in terms of values
of products, by industry segment, by geographical region,  for
closely related or competitive industries, etc.  may prove  to
be of value for analytical purposes, but the primary data  of
interest is that in terms of physical production units. Such
information can be obtained from Dept. of Commerce publica-
tions, trade association publications, technical societies,
trade magazines, and business literature.

STEP 5:  Characterization of Wastewaters

Wastewaters of the industry should be characterized in terms
of typical volumes per unit of product and in terms of typical
concentrations at the most significant pollutants.  The signi-
ficant pollutants will vary from one industry to another;  many
industries produce wastewaters containing dozens or even hun-
dreds of different pollutants, but two or three  specific ma-
terials or classes of materials are usually of controlling
significance.  General parameters of wastewater  contamination
such as biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand,
suspended solids, oil and color are generally more useful  than
are concentrations of specific compounds.  The reason, of
course, lies in the fact that the general parameters relate  to
both effluent quality and to the likely methods  of waste treat-
ment.  Such information is most likely to be found in the  in-
dustrial wastewater technical literature, i.e.,  texts, study
reports, periodicals, and proceedings of technical meetings.

STEP 4:  Wastewater Treatment Methods

The methods of wastewater treatment applicable to the waste-
waters of the particular industry should be determined and
generally classified in relation to the degree of treatment  or
quality of effluent obtainable with the individual processes.
The methods to be considered will vary considerably from one
industry to another and will be primarily determined by the
volumes of wastewaters to be handled, the nature of the pollu-
tants, and the general experience within the industry with
various treatment methods.  For purposes of such a study,  new
or unique methods for which little operating or  cost exper-
ience is available should not be considered.  Two factors
of importance here .are the degree to which wastewaters are
likely to be treated for reuse and the extent to which the
industry discharges to municipal sewers.  Such information
is likely to be found again in the industrial wastewater
technical literature.

STEP 5:  Plant Survey Data Acquisition

Data on specific plants in the industry operating wastewater
treatment facilities should be obtained in order to verify
the applicability of generalized data to the specific industry
studied and to determine the parameters of the industry oper-
                             85

-------
ations which best define wastewater treatment costs.   The In-
dustrial Waste Treatment Practices Data Form provides a cony
venient format for obtaining data from specific plants and its
use is recommended for this purpose.  This form will  insure
that the needed data are obtained and that the data will be in
a readily usable form.  The number of plants surveyed will de-
pend upon the nature and size of the industry and,  of course,
the extent to which data can be obtained.   As much  of the data
indicated on the Form should be obtained as possible  for each
plant; some data will be useful even when  all that  would be
desired cannot be obtained from each plant.  Complete data on
production, wastewater volumes, effluent quality or treatment
efficiency, capital costs of facilities, and operating costs
of facilities on at least 15 to 20 plants  should be obtained
as a minimum if statistical analyses of the data are  to be of
use.  Such data are best obtained through  plant interviews,
but much of such data can be obtained from the industrial
wastewater technical literature.

STEP 6:  Survey Data Analysis

The plant survey data should be analyzed to determine the ex-
tent to which it is representative of the  industry  as a whole
and to determine the nature of the relationships between costs
and such factors as production, wastewater volumes, and treat-
ment efficiencies.  The variables Xi through X6 defined in
Section IX provide a basis for analyzing these relationships,
using multiple correlation techniques.   Comparisons of geo-
graphical distributions, plant sizes, product mixes,  etc. be-
tween the sample data and those for the industry as a whole pro-
vide basis for determining the adequacy of the s'ample; data for
the industry for such comparisons must generally be obtained
from trade sources, since the Department of Commerce  data are
not sufficiently detailed for most industries.

STEP 7:  Costs of Unit Wastewater Treatment Methods

The costs of unit wastewater treatment methods applicable to
the industry should be obtained in terms of daily wastewater
volumes in plants of sizes typical of the  industry, or in
terms which can be translated into such units.  The unit
costs given in Section IX of this report cover many of the
generally applicable treatment methods.  For some industries
such as metal finishing or steel mills  the unit costs of
treating such wastewaters as plating solutions, spent pickle
liquors, etc. can be obtained from the industrial wastewater
literature.

STEP 8:  Costs Related to Effluent Quality

The unit cost data must be related to effluent quality in a
manner similar to that outlined in Section X of this  report
for plants of typical size and effluent characteristics.   The
                               86

-------
pollutants of importance and the extent to which degree of
removal can be defined and related to costs will vary with the
industry selected for study and little of a specific nature can
be said here beyond the fact that the figures of Section X
illustrate the goal of such an effort.

STEP 9:  Wastewater Projections for the Industry

The wastewater generation by the industry should be estimated
for the period of interest, using all available data.  It is
here that opinions and assumptions expect a very strong influ-
ence; wastewater generation will be a function not only of
production, but of the very methods installed to reduce pollu-
tion as well as the nature of the industry's projected growth.
All of the statistical data should be used in such projections,
but due regard should be taken of available expert opinion
within the industry of the nature of projected water utilization
practices.

STEP 10:  Industry Cost Projections

Projection of the industry costs become a mechanical matter at
this stage; all of the necessary data have been accumulated.
Depending upon the relative reliabilities of the various data
and the indicated nature of the cost determining industry
parameters, the projections for the industry are made using
the most likely data set.  In the present study production-
related parameters were shown to be of prime importance, a
reliable estimate of numbers of plants was available, and
the "average" plant costs were closely estimated by two
alternative techniques.  In another industry the most likely
set of data might well be different; the only general guid-
ance that can be provided is to show the considerations
involved as outlined in Section XI of this report.
                               87

-------
              APPENDIX A
ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY SURVEY DATA
                   88

-------
00
vo
Plant
Number
1
1
1
1
1
1
* 2
2
2
3
3
* 4
4
4
* 5
* 6
7
* 8
8
8
8
9
*10
*11
11
11
11
11
*12
12
12
12
Critical
Pollutant
Oil
All
All
BOD
BOD
All
All
All
All
CN
CN
COD
COD
Oil
All
BOD
Oil
Oil
Acidity
Oil
Oil
Suspended
Solids
Suspended
Solids
BOD
Oil
Oil
Suspended
Solids
BOD
BOD
Oil
Color
Oil

Efficiency
„
100
100
85
85
100
98
100
100
95
95
95
95
95
100
91
-
75
99
75
-
90
98
85
98
-
75
85
90
-
50
-
                                  Capital Cost
                                  Per 1000 GPD
Operating Cost
 Per 1000 GPD

     229.75
     729.17
     365.39
193
187
156
3,666
25,000
357
600
11
119
225
75
330
18
7
16
.51
.50
.25
.67
.00
.56
.00
.90
.05
.00
.00
.00
.52
.81
.98
11.
6.
6.
-
6,000.
46.
80.
0.
625.
18.
(42.
(275.
27.
(109.
-
24
25
25

00
51
00
00
00
00
97)
00)
78
38)

                                     25,353.80

                                       697.39
                                       190.00
                                         50.00
                                       163.16

                                       205.26
                                      1,595.74
                                       185.11
                                       379.79
                                       329.79
  (1,048.22)

      78.95
     377.06
      12.77
     311.70
      47.87
Capital Cost
Per Ton/Year
                                                                     4.08
                                                                     4.39
                     0.69
                     0.63

                     0.27
   397.33

   401.52
   750.00
Operating Cost
  Per Ton/Yr.

      0.50
                                    0.24
                     .57

                    0.00
                    3.62
                    0.05

                   (0.15)
    (16.43)

     45.45
    177.50
Wastewater
GPD/Ton/Yr

    2.18
                                 21.08
                                                 12.28
                    5.79
                    2.81

                    3.55
   15.67

  575.76
  470.00

-------
                                                  (Continued)
vo
o
Plant
Number
12
*13
13
13
13
13
13
*14
14
14
14
14

14
14
14
*15
15
15
15
*16
*17
17
17
*18
18
18
18
*19
*20
20
20
*21
Critical
Pollutant
Oil
All
Oil
Oil
BOD
All
Color
BOD
All
BOD
Oil
Suspended
Solids
Oil
BOD
Oil
BOD
Oil
BOD
Oil
BOD
All
All
All
BOD
Oil
Oil
Oil
All
All
All
All
Oil

Efficiency
_
100
-
-
35
100
85
91
100
90
20
85

-
95
-
85
-
85
-
95
100
100
100
95
-
_
-
100
15
5
100
-
Capital Cost
Per 1000 GPD
85.11
1,160.00
65.00
81.00
48.00
860.00
296.00
736.98
7,700.00
677.97
22.88
34. -75

33.90
-
-
326.53
8.23
102.04
36.12
48.07
2,206.66
26,363.60
1,732.14
1,891.89
383.78
675.68
124.32
1,760.00
1,464.09
940.00
7,558.14
127.69
Operating Cost Capital Cost
Per 1000 GPD Per Ton/Year
5.32
48.00 644.44
2.00
34.00
4.00
4.00
94.00
64.87 3.93
520.00
61.02
-
-

-
-
-
32.31 2.67
-
-
-
15.17 1.42
399.30 8.40
8,000.00
250.00
421.62
-
-
-
200.00 33.85
101.29 39.75
20.00
1,046.51
13.85 1.66
Operating Cost Wastewater
Per Ton/Yr. GPD/Ton/Yr
_ _
26.67 555.56
-
-
-
-
-
0.34 5.20
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
0.26 8.19
-
-
-
0.45 29.47
1.52 3.81
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.85 19.23
2.75 27.15
-
-
0.18 13.00

-------
(Continued)
Plant
Number
22
22
*23
23
23
23
23
23
*24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
*27
27
27
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
30
Critical
Pollutant
All
TOC
BOD
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
BOD
BOD
BOD
Oil
BOD
Oil
Oil
SS
Oil
SS
BOD
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
BOD
BOD
Oil
BOD
BOD
BOD
BOD
Oil
BOD
Oil
BOD
Efficiency
100
20
11
-
-
-
-
11
50
98
-
95
-
-
95
-
98
80
-
-
-
-
90
91
95
87
20
87
85
-
85
-
80
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Per 1000 GPD Per 1000 GPD
132.14 1,232.14
676.92
159.50
48.21
49.17
40.00
50.00
56.00
290.27
440.00 26.67
280.44
3,672.43 335.71
63.07
178.03
289.93
467.96
335.71
146.36 16.00
60.00
20.00
212.50
60.00
115.88
1,395.35
-
296.56 56.25
151.56
145.00
84.03
31.02 4.63
26.16
26.85
250.00 26.19
Capital Cost Operating Cost Wastewater
Per Ton/Year Per Ton/Yr. GPD/Ton/Yr
-
-
1.18 - 7.41
_
_
-
-
-
4.19 - 14.43
-
_
_
_
_
_
.
- -
- -
_
-
_
_
3.13 - 26.97
_
_
,
_ _
- -
_
-
_
_
-

-------
                                                (Continued)
10
NJ
Plant
Numb e r
30
30
30
31
31
31
*32
*33
34
*35
35
35
37
Critical
Pollutant
Oil
Oil
BOD
Oil
All
Oil
BOD
BOD
BOD
BOD
All
BOD
BOD
                      Efficiency
                          80
                          90
                         100

                          91
                          66
                          98
                          98
                         100
                          98
                          85
Capital Cost
Per 1000 GPD
     226.19
      84.22
   1,186.05

     850.00
     335.71
     801.89
   1,207.48
  30,000.00
     607.64
Operating Cost
 Per 1000 GPD
      19.04
       7.14
     265.00
      47.62
     216.04
Capital Cost
Per Ton/Year
Operating Cost
  Per Ton/Yr.
Wastewater
GPD/Ton/Yr.
     3.40
     1.93

     2.09
      1.06
      0.27
    4.00
    5.75

    1.73
   NOTES:

   All plant numbers with an asterisk indicates information covering the entire plant

   All cost figures in parentheses indicate profit.

   The following abbreviations are used.

      BOD  Biochemical Oxygen Demand
      COD  Chemical Oxygen Demand
      TOC  Total Organic Carbon
      SS   Suspended Solids

-------
                         APPENDIX B


          PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY PRODUCT  PROFILES
Source of Data:

        Chemical Profiles,  Oil,  Paint  and  Drug Reporter

        Future Chemical Growth Patterns, R. N. Rickles

        Chemical Growth, Vol.  I,  Aromatics, R. Strobaugh,
        Gulf Publishing Company
                             93

-------
ACETALDEHYDE


Present Producers                        Capacity*

Celanese, Bay City, Texas                  210
Celanese, Bishop, Texas                    200
Celanese, Clear Lake, Texas                195
Celanese, Pampa, Texas                      1°
Eastman, Kingsport, Tennessee              200
Hercules, Parlin, New Jersey               250
Publicker, Philadelphia, Pa.                80
Union Carbide, various locations           650
Others                                    	2_2

Total                                     1832

*million pounds


Production

1968:  1,600 million pounds
1973:  1,950 million pounds
Uses

Acetic acid and anhydride, n-butanol, 2-ethylhexanol


Process

Acetaldehyde is produced from the:

1)  Hydration of acetylene

    C2H2 + H20 —>  CH3CHO

2)  Oxidation of Ethyl Alcohol

    C2H5OH + h02	> CH3CHO + H20

3)  Oxidation of lower paraffin (propane and butane)

4)  Oxidation of ethylene via the Wacker process

    CH2CH2 + PdCl2 + H20 	* CH3CHO + Pd + 2HC1

    Pd + 2HC1 = h02—=f PdCl2 + H20
                                94

-------
The Wacker process is the only major process being installed
today and it is anticipated that future expansions will be
based on this route.
Waste Problems

A typical Wacker process discharges about 1200 gallons per
ton of product.  The composition of the waste stream is
primarily chlorinated aldehydes with a COD in the order of
10,000 mg/1.  This is based on a yield of 95%.  The waste is
difficult to treat biologically unless it is diluted with
other waters.  In addition, it is quite acid and runs around
pH2.   It is to be noted that several facilities handle these
wastes by means of a deep well rather than by biological
treatment.


Reduction in Waste Loading by Process Change

It is possible by means of a rather simple still design change
to concentrate the waste stream so as to reduce the discharge
to 150-200 gallons/ton of product.  No reduction in organic
loading is produced and this approach is only practiced in those
cases where deep well disposal or incineration is planned.  The
process change costs about $50,000 in a typical 200,000,000
pounds/year facility.

The only possible means of reducing the organic load center
around recovery and use of the chlorinated aldehydes, de-
chlorination of the aldehydes or improvements in yield.  The
latter is where emphasis is placed.  It is expected that the
average yeild will reach 97% in 5 years thereby reducing organic
loading by about 40%.


ACETIC ACID AND ANHYDRIDE


Acid Producers                           Capacity*

Borden, Geismer, La.
Celanese, Bishop, Texas
Celanese, Pampa, Texas
Eastman, Kingsport, Tennessee
Hercules, Parlin, New Jersey
Publicker, Philadelphia, Pa.
Union Carbide, Brownsville, Texas
Union Carbide, S. Charleston, W. Va.
Union Carbide, Texas City, Texas

Total                                     1985

*million pounds/year does not include by product and fermentation
 acetic acid which amounts to 100,000,000 pounds.
                               95

-------
Production

1968:  1,700 million pounds
1973:  2,500 million pounds


Uses

Cellulose acetate, vinyl acetate,  acetic esters, chloroacetric
acid
Process

Acetic acid is produced by:

1)  oxidation of acetaldehyde

2)  from ethanol

3)  LPG oxidation (liquified petroleum gas)

4)  from methanol and carbon monoxide

The most popular technique in use is the oxidation of acetal-
dehyde while production from ethanol is only of minor importance.
The Reppe method, from methanol and CO, is the newest method
(developed by BASF)  and appears to be gaining favor in this
country-  In the future it is expected that  processes based on
acetaldehyde and methanol will predominate in the production of
acetic acid and anhydride.


Waste Problems

LPG oxidation results in the production of substantial amounts
of other acids such as formic and proponic which must be disposed
of incineration, resale or by biological oxidation.  Unfortunately,
resale of these materials does not appear to be practical because
the markets for these chemicals are quite limited.  Waste flow
for this system is in the order of 1000 gallons/ton of product
and the organic concentrations are in excess of 30,000 mg/1.
In some operations,  the stream is neutralized (it usually runs
at pH4) with caustic and the sodium salts of the acid are re-
covered.  Treatment by any number of means are quite routine.
Biological modes are quite adequate.

Oxidation of acetaldehyde also produces higher acids and other
oxidized species in quantities somewhat less than produced by
LPG oxidation.  Water flows  are of the same magnitude, but
organic load is about 50% of the load generated by the oxidation
of LPG.
                             96

-------
In the Reppe process, about 80 pounds of organics (50% propionic
acid and 501 higher organics) are produced in the liquid waste
stream per ton of product.  The liquid stream amounts to about
50 gallons per ton of product including drains.

Reduction in Waste Loading by Process Change

The changes in process do not appear to change the nature of the
wastes generated by the production of acetic acid or the quantity
of the waste.  Further the amounts and character of the waste
would not appear to create serious waste treatment problems or
expenditures.

There will be improvements in the yield picture which will cer-
tainly assist in reducing the waste management problems, but it
is not anticipated that any changes will radically change the
waste situation.
ACETONE
Producers                                Capacity*

Allied, Frankford, Pa.                     150
Celanese, Bishop, Texas                     35
Chevron, Richmond, Calif.                   35
Clark, Blue Island, Illinois                30
Eastman, Kingsport, Tennessee               60
Enjay, Linden, New Jersey                  110
Hercules, Gibbstown, New Jersey             30
Monsanto, Albin, Texas                      75
Shell, Dominguez, Calif.                   150
Shell, Houston, Texas                      210
Shell, Norco, La.                          100
Skelly, El Dorado, Kansas                   30
Union Carbide Institute, W. Va.            120
Union Carbide, Bound Brook, N. J.           90
Union Carbide, Texas City, Texas           130
Union Carbide, Whiting,  Indiana            120

Total                                     1475

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:  1.3 billion pounds
1973:  1.8 billion pounds
                                97

-------
Uses

Methyl isobutyl ketone and carbinol, Methyl acrylate, bisphenol A,
paint, lacquer and varnish solvent,  cellulose acetate solvent.


Processes

Currently there are three major processes utilized for the
production of acetone.

These are:

a)  Dehydration of isopropanol

    (CH3)2 CHOH-	> (CH3)2 CO + H2

b)  By product from the production of phenol from cumene

    (C6H5) (C3H7) + 02	> C6H5OH +  C3H60

c)  Direct oxidation of propylene

    CH3CH = CH2 + %02	^ CH3COCH3

It is expected that a major portion  of the acetone will continue
to be produced from cumene as a phenol by product.  It seems
likely that direct oxidation of propylene will gain acendency
relative to the production from isopropanol.


Waste Problems

The processes based on isopropanol dehydration produce about
200-250 pounds of organics per ton of product.  These consist
of still bottoms  (0.5% organics) principally.  The nature of
the organics is somewhat complex but may include acetone, un-
reacted alcohol and higher polymeric species.  The amount of
waste water depends in part upon the amount of cooling water
utilized as well as the frequency of equipment cleaning.  It
is also important to note that the process utilizes either
metallic copper or zinc acetate as a catalyst and catalyst
cleanup could put significant amount of these materials into
the water course or to treatment.

The wastes produced during the production of phenol and acetone
from cumene will be discussed in the section on phenol.

Direct oxidation results in a yield of 93% which in turn produces
less than 80 pounds per ton of product as an organic load within
the system.  Water load varies, but  exclusive of cooling water
amounts to about 750 gal/ton.  The regeneration of the cupric
chloride catalyst may also cause difficulty.
                              98

-------
Waste Reduction by Process Change

The utilization of direct oxidation will greatly reduce the amount
of organic discharge both when directly compared with isopropanol
based processes and when considering the additional wastes gen-
erated by the production of isopropanol.  Therein lies another
key factor in the evaluation of trends in the chemical industry.
The desire to reduce the number of processing steps both to reduce
direct operating costs and to increase yield generally results in
greatly reduced waste loads.

It is possible through careful control and operation of the still
to greatly reduce the amount of acetone in the still bottoms.
These costs are generally minor relative to the value of the
recovered acetone but must be the result of a concious manage-
ment effort.
ACETYLENE
Producers                                Capacity*

Diamond, Deep Park, Texas                   40
Dow, Freeport, Texas                        15
Monochem, Geismer, La.                     165
Monsanto, Texas City, Texas                100
Rohm and Haas, Deep Park, Texas             35
Tenneco, Houston, Texas                    100
Union Carbide, various locations           150

Total                                      650

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:  610 million pounds
1973:  630 million pounds

Uses

Vinyl chloride, vinyl acetate, neoprene, acrylates and
acrylonitriles.


Processes

Acetylene is produced from two major sources in the U.S.  About
501 of the acetylene is produced by the reaction of calcium
carbide and water.

CaC2 + 2H20	> C2H2 + Ca(OH)2
                              99

-------
The second process involves the partial oxidation of natural gas.

CH4 + 02	> C02 + H20

2CH4	^ C2H2 + H2

Other approaches involve the pyrolysis route as shown below is
typified by the Wulff process,

C4H10	> C2H2 + C2H4 + co

         C2H2 + H2

         C2H2 + H2

It is unlikely that many changes will occur with regard to the
production of acetylene in this country unless someone comes
up with a process with greatly reduced production costs which
would have the effect of bringing the cost of acetylene close
to the cost of ethylene.  If this does not occur, it will not
be possible for acetylene to maintain many markets in face of
ethylene.


Waste Problems

The major waste associated with the production of acetylene from
calcium carbide is the lime slurry residue.

However, the hydrocarbon processes do generate large amounts of
water borne wastes.  These quantities are quite variable and
depend upon the feedstock, the degree of pyrolysis, the ratio
of acetylene to olefins produced, etc.

The wastes arise from the gas cooler and the scrubbing of the
higher concentrations of tars and oils and are quite difficult
to treat in conventional treatment facilities.


Waste Reduction by Process Change

The key factor in waste management in the production of acetylene
from hydrocarbons centers around the control of the cracking
furnaces to maximize the production of valuable products.
Improvements in the difficult-to-optimize reaction system are a
key to the success of the process but quite difficult to improve.
Since efficiencies have been known to run as low as 40-50%, it
is not surprising that efficiency improvements is vital to the
process.  This is the key process change which can be implemented
and returns from this operation are tremendous relative to pro-
duction of costs.  Further, recoveries of waste products in
                            100

-------
burnable form is also vital to the effective operation of the
unit.  In some operations, a solvent is used to recover the
acetylene.  Solvent losses may be significant and add to the
dimensions of the waste treatment problem.  Careful selection
of the solvent, and improved design of the vacuum stripper should
assist in reducing solvent losses.


ACRYLATES
Producers                                Capacity*

Celanese, Pampa, Texas                      45
Dow, Freeport, Texas                        40
Goodrich, Calvert City, Kentucky             5
Minnesota Mining, St. Paul, Minn.            3
Rohm and Haas, Deer Park, N. J.            200 (a)
Union Carbide, Taft, La.                   200 (b)
Union Carbide, Institute, W. Va.            50 (b)

Total                                      543

*million of pounds/year

(a)  120 million pounds to be added by 1969
(b)  Taft facility completed by October, 1968;
     Institute may be retired


Production

1968:  240 million pounds
1973:  400 million pounds


Uses

Paint latices, textiles, acrylic acid specialties, acrylic fibers


Processes

The major process involved in the production of acrylates is the
oxidation of acetaldehyde.


Waste Problems

Waste streams .associated with this operation are  generally com-
posed of polymerization and degradation.
                             101

-------
The flow rate is about 1500 gallons per ton of product with
organic concentrations of about 10-20,000 mg/1.  Yields in this
process could be improved thereby reducing waste problems.  A
number of water waste streams and gas vents are often incinerated.
Extension of this practice would reduce the amount of waste waters
to be treated.


Waste Reduction by Process Change

Considerable efforts are underway to improve yields and this
should result in lower waste water discharges.
AMMONIA
Major Ammonia Producers (600 TPD and upj
Producer                                Capacity*

Air Products, Michoud, La.                600
Allied, Geismar, La.                     1000
Allied, Hopewell, Va.                    1000
Apple River, E. Dubuque,  Illinois         700
American, Texas City, Texas              2100
American Cyanamid, Avondale, La.         1000
Arkla, Helena, Arkansas                   600
Borden, Geismar, La.                      900
Central Farmers, Donaldsonville, La.     1000
Chevron, Pascagoula, Miss.               1500
Coastal, Yazoo, Miss.                    1000
Collier, Brea, California                 750
Collier, Cook Inlet, Alaska              1500
Commercial Solvents, Sterlington, La.    1000
Consumers, Fort Dodge, Iowa               600
Continental, Blytheville, Arkansas       1000
duPont, Beaumont, Texas                  1000
duPont, Belle, W. Va.                    1000
Farmland, Dodge City, Kansas              600
First Mississippi, Donaldsonville, La.   1000
First Nitrogen, Donaldsonville, La.       1000
Gulf, Borger, Texas                      1000
Mobil, Beaumont, Texas                    750
Olin-Mathieson, Lake Charles, La.        1400
Phillips, Beatrice, Neb.                   600
Sinclair, Ft. Madison, Iowa              1000
Terra, Port Neal, Iowa                    600
U.S. Steel, Clairton, Pa.                1150
Valley Nitrogen, El Centro, Calif.        600
Total
*Tons/Day
29,550
                            102

-------
Production

1968:  14,200,000 tons/year
1973:  20,000,000 tons/year


Uses

Fertilizers, area, nitric acid


Processes

Ammonia is produced from synthesis gas (CO + H2) under conditions
of relatively high temperatures and high pressure.  Synthesis gas
is produced primarily by the steam reformation of natural gas or
other hydrocarbon sources as shown below:
During the reformation, air is added to provide additional energy
for the endothermic reformation reaction.  The air also provides
N2 for ammonia formation.  The CO is converted to C02 and re-
moved.  Conversion to ammonia then takes place:
The major change in processing technology which has taken place
recently has been the development of large single train ammonia
plants of capacities as high as 1500 tons/day.  This trend is
expected to continue.  These plants produce large point source
concentrations of ammonia and carbon dioxide.  However, these
large streams have made the recovery of ammonia practical.


Waste Problems

The major streams arising from an ammonia plant are process
condensate and site drains.  The flow and waste produce loads
are as listed below:

Flow (Gals/Ton of product)      300

NH3 (Lbs/Ton)                     0.1

NH4HC03 (Lbs/Ton)                 0.1

MEA (Monoethanolamine)
        (Lbs/Ton)                 0.2

C02 (Lbs/Ton)                     0.7
                             103

-------
Normal practice in this county is to either strip the ammonia or
to release the discharge untreated although it is anticipated
that this practice cannot be continued in the future.


Waste Reduction by Process Change

It is possible to reduce the ammonia loss by some 60% by adjust-
ing pH and airstripping.  About 0.1 pounds of NaOH is added per
ton of product.  This is normal practice.  It is possible to
remove greater amounts of NH? (90-95%) by increasing the air
flow to perhaps 500-1000 scf/gal.  Following the normal industry
practice a cost of the stripper and condenser is about $60,000
for a 1200 ton/day plant.  The cost of removing additional
quantities of ammonia have not been calculated since no plants
practicing this extreme approach have ever been built.


BENZENE
Producers                               Capacity"

Allied, Winnie, Texas                       4
Amoco, Texas City, Texas                   15
Ashland, N. Tonawanda, N. Y.               10
Ashland, Catlettsburg, Ky.                 20
Atlantic-Richfield, Wilmington, Calif.     18
Atlas, Shreveport, La.                     10
Chevron, El Segundo, Calif.                25
Chevron, Richmond, Calif.                  10
Continental, Lake Charles, La.              6
Continental, Ponca City, Okla.              6
Cosden, Big Spring, Texas                   9
Crown Central, Houston, Texas              38
Dow, Bay City, Mich.                       20
Dow, Freeport, Texas                       30
Enjay, Baton Rouge, La.                    24
Enjay, Baytown, Texas                      55
Gulf, Philadelphia, Pa.                    27
Gulf, Port Arthur, Texas                   32
Hess, Corpus Christi, Texas                30
Leonard, Mt. Pleasant, Mich.                3
Marathon, Texas City, Texas                 6
Mobil, Beaumont, Texas                     30
Monsanto, Alvin, Texas                     65
Phillips, Sweeny, Texas                    22
Pontiac, Corpus Christi, Texas              9
Shell, Houston, Texas                      31
Shell, Odessa, Texas                       20
Shell, Wilmington, Calif.                  15
Shell, Wood River, Illinois                30
                              104

-------
Producers                               Capacity*

Signal, Houston, Texas                     22
South Hampton, Silsbee, Texas               6
Sun, Marcus Hook, Pa.                      15
Sunray DX, Tulsa, Oklahoma                 22
Suntide, Corpus Christi, Texas             25
Tenneco, Chalmette, La.                    15
Texaco, Port Arthur, Texas                 30
Union Carbide, S. Charleston, W. Va.       10
Union Atlantic, Nederland, Texas           18
Union Oil, Lemont, Illinois                22
Vickers, Potwin, Kansas                    _3

Total from Petroleum Feedstocks           809
Total from 18 Cokeoven Producers and
 3 Tar Distillers                         142
Grand Total                               "9TT

Cities Service, Lake Charles, La.          55
Coastal States, Corpus Christi, Texas       6
Gulf, Port Arthur, Texas                   25
Southwestern, Corpus Christi, Texas         6
Texaco, Port Arthur, Texas                 1_5

Total announced new capacity              107

Grand Total, all U.S. Capacity           1058

*millions of gallons/year
Production

1968:    900 million gallons
1973:   1350 million gallons
Uses

Styrene, phenol, cyclohexane, detergent alkylate, aniline,
Maleic acid DDT
Processes

About 60% of U.S. benzene is produced by recovery (together
with toluene and xylenes) from refinery reformers while an
additional 20% is produced from the dealkylatron of toluene.
Coal tar, coke oven light oils and ethylene drip oils account
for the remainder.  It is expected that refinery based
benzene will grow more rapidly than other sources.  Naphtha-
lene is similar.
                             105

-------
Waste Sources

The major sources of waste water in the recovery of benzene,
xylenes and toluene from refinery reformate are two-fold.
First, cooling waters tend to pick up between 50-200 ppm of
COD in the form of aromatics because of heat exchanger leaks.
The quantity and quality of waste water arising from this
source will depend upon the cooling system and will in general
be associated with other cooling waters.

The aromatics are separated from the paraffins by extraction
with aqueous diethylene glycol.  Discarding of this solvent
stream in order to control impurity buildup results in a
waste stream containing aromatics and diethylene glycol. Here
improvements in stripper design and careful control of blow-
down from the solvent cycle will assist in greatly reducing
waste water discharges.  Aside from cooling waters, there are
no significant sources of waste waters in the Hydrodealkyla-
tion of toluene.


Waste Reduction by Process Change

This control is possible primarily by  1) close maintenance
of heat exchangers,  2) yield improvements, and  3) stripper
design.
BUTADIENE
Producers                               Capacity*

Chevron, El Segundo, Calif.               16,000
Copolymer, Baton Rouge, La.               60,000
Dow, Freeport, Texas                      45,000
El Paso, Odessa, Texas                    45,000
Enjay, Baton Rouge, La.                   75,000
Enjay, Baytown, Texas                     33,000
Firestone, Orange, Texas                 110,000
Goodrich-Gulf, Port Neches, Texas        160,000
Mobil, Beaumont, Texas                    25,000
Monsanto, Alvin, Texas                    50,000
PCI (Cities Service), Lake Charles, La.    80,000
Petro-Tex, Houston, Texas                275,000
Phillips, Borger, Texas                  112,000
Shell, Torrance, Calif.                   70,000
Sinclair, Channelview, Texas             121,000
Texas-U.S., Port Neches, Texas           160^000
Tidewater, Delaware City, Del.            10,000
UCC, Seadrift, Texas; Ponce, P.R.        105,000

Total                                  1,577,000

*Tons per year
                            106

-------
Production

1968:   1.50 million tons
1973:   1.80 million tons
Uses

Styrene-butadiene rubber, polybutadiene rubber, adiponitrile,
nitrile rubber, S B and A-B-S plastics


Processes

Butadiene is produced from three major sources:

1.  dehydrogenation of n butylenes
2.  dehydrogenation of n butane
3.  as a by-product of ethylene production

It is anticipated that by-product production will increase
rapidly because of the expected rapid increase in ethylene
production expected.


Waste Problems

Waste flows from butadiene production facilities amount to
some 100 gals/ton of product with waste compositions as
follows (taken from one source only):

pH                8-9
TOG               100-200 mg/1
filtered COD      250-375 mg/1
suspended solids  200-500 mg/1
total solids      3000-4000 mg/1 (sulfates and chlorides
                                  principally)


Waste Reduction Through Process Modification

Little information is available regarding possible process
modifications.
                             107

-------
BUTANOL


Producers                               Capacity*

Celanese, Bishop, Texas                   125
Continental Oil, Westlake, La.               5
Dow-Badische, Freeport, Texas              15
Eastman, Longview, Texas                   60
Shell Chemical, Houston, Texas              50
Union Carbide, various locations          240

Total                                     495

*millions of pounds annually


Production

1968:   500 million pounds
1973:   620 million pounds
Uses

Glycolethers and amine resins, solvent, n butyl acetate,
plasticizers
Process

Butanol is produced by the oxidation of LPG or other petroleum
streams.
Waste Problems

Waste streams arise primarily from the still discharges follow-
ing the separation of various products together with wastes
resulting from catalyst and vessel cleanouts.   Cooling waters
also contain considerable wastes.  Waste waters discharged
amount to several hundred gallons per ton of product while
organic discharges amount to 100-300 pounds/ton of product.


Waste Reduction by Process Change

The waste problems of this process involve the low efficiency
and rather drastic conditions under which the reaction takes
place.  Improvements in yields and improvement in still
efficiencies would improve the situation.  Further provisions
can be made for the collection and direct incinerations of
still bottoms, vessel cleanout wastes, etc., without contam-
ination of the waste waters.
                           108

-------
A number of waste streams may be either sent to additional
strippers or vented to gas burners.  The costs of such
controls amount to some $250,000-$500,000 for an 80 million
pound/year plant and will reduce the waste load by 25-50%.


CARBON MONOXIDE AND HYDROGEN (SYNTHESIS GAS)

See Ammonia


CARBON TETRACHLORIDE AND OTHER CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS

Carbon Tetrachloride:


Producers                               Capacity*

Allied, Moundsville, W. Va.                8
Diamond, Painesville, Ohio                35
Dow, Freeport, Texas                     130
Dow, Pittsburg, Calif.                    30
Dow, Plaquemine, La.                      20
FMC-Allied, S. Charleston, W. Va.        200
Stauffer, Le Moyne, Alabama               85
Stauffer, Louisville, Ky.                 70
Stauffer, Niagara Falls, N. Y.           125
Vulcan, Wichita, Kansas                   25

Total                                    728

*millions of pounds per year


Chloroform:


Producers                               Capacity*

Allied, Moundsville, W. Va.                30
Diamond, Belle, W. Va.                     20
Dow, Freeport, Texas                       75
Dow, Pittsburg, Calif.                      1
DuPont, Niagara Falls, N. Y.               15
Stauffer, Louisville, Ky.                  75
Vulcan, Newark, N. J.                       6
Vulcan, Wichita, Kansas                    16.

Total                                     238

*millions of pounds per year
                             109

-------
Methylene Chloride:
Producers

Allied, Moundsville, W. Va.
Diamond, Belle, W. Va.
Dow, Freeport, Texas
Dow, Pittsburg, Calif.
DuPont, Niagara Falls, N. Y.
Stauffer, Louisville, Ky.
Vulcan, Newark, N. J.
Vulcan, Wichita, Kansas

Total

*millions of pounds per year
                             Capacity*

                                50
                                30
                                85
                                20
                                60
                                70
                                20
                                20_

                               355
Methyl Chloride:
Producers

Allied, Moundsville, W. Va.
Ancon, Lake Charles, La.
Dow, Freeport, Texas
Dow, Pittsburg, Calif.
Dow Corning, Midland, Michigan
Dow Corning, Carrollton, Kentucky
DuPont, Niagara Falls, N. Y.
Ethyl, Baton Rouge, La.
General Electric, Waterford, N. Y.
Vulcan, Newark, N. J.

Total

*million of pounds per year
                             Capacity*

                                17
                               100
                               100
                                20
                                10
                                20
                                76
                                75
                                24
                                _2

                               454
Production
1968:
1973:
          CC1,
700
900
CHC15

 200
 300
CH2C12

 265
 400
                            CH^Cl
240
370
Use
Fluorocarbons, solvent
                            110

-------
Process

These chlorinated methanes are produced by the reaction of
chlorine with methane and then are separated by fractionation.
Carbon tetrachloride is also produced by the reaction of
hydrogen chloride with carbon bisulfide.


Waste Problems

The major waste stream results from the production of hydrogen
chloride as a by-product of the reaction.


Waste Reduction by Process Change

The main need is for routes to the economic recovery of chlorine
from hydrogen chloride or through the reuse of hydrogen chloride
A number of new oxychlorination processes have recently been
developed which enable the user to utilize hydrogen chloride
together with chlorine in a balanced facility.  As an example,
for the production of carbon tetrachloride:

CH4  +  2HC12	^ CC14  +  4HC1

CH4  +  4HC1  +  02	=»CC14  +  2H20

This approach eliminates the problem of hydrogen chloride but
it does produce about 60 gallons of waste water per ton of
product which will contain minor amounts of chlorinated
methanes and HC1.  Further, these reactions often have an
intermediate step involving copper chloride and small amounts
of this catalyst will be released to the waste water.  Insuf-
ficient data is available to predict relative waste loads and
economics.  This is anticipated that process changes will
substantially eliminate the HC1 being generated in these
operations.


CELLULOSE ACETATE


Producers                               Capacity*

Celanese, various locations                450
DuPont, Waynesboro, Va.                     60
Eastman,  Kingsport, Tenn.                  215
FMC, Meadville, Pa.                         25

Total                                      75°
                              111

-------
Production

1968:   740 million pounds
1973:   850 million pounds


Uses

Fibers, cigarette filters, plastics


Processes

Reaction of wood, pulp with acetic acid and anhydride to
produce triacetate, hydrolysis to procude diacetate


Waste Problems

Major waste sources arise from the stills used to recover
acetic acid and acetone and other solvents.  In addition,
considerable amounts of degraded celluloses as well as phos-
phates (used as catalyst) and sulfuric acid (from spills) .
About 3-3.5 gallons of waste waters are generated with a solid
loading of 200 mg/1 and a BOD of 1-3000 mg/1 depending upon
the relationship of flake to fiber production.


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

There are numerous opportunities for waste reduction in
cellulose acetate production.  Among these are the following:

1.  Recovery and reuse of CA fines
2.  Careful pH control in acetone stills
3.  Control of vessel cleanout and acid spills
4.  Improved operation of acetone and acetic acid stills
    Use of additional stills to improve recovery
5.  Higher yields on cellulose (wood pulp)


CYCLOHEXANE


Producers                               Capacity*

Ashland,  Catlettsburg, Ky.                 30
Atlantic Richfield, Wilmington, Calif.     15
Commonwealth-Shell, Puerto Rico            30
Continental, Ponca City, Okla.             80
Continental, Lake Charles, La.
Cosden, Big Springs, Texas                  8
DuPont, Belle, W. Va.                      15
DuPont, Orange, Texas                      15

*millions of gallons per year


                            112

-------
Producers                               Capacity*

Eastman, Longview, Texas                    3
Enjay, Baytown, Texas                      40
Gulf, Port Arthur, Texas                   33
Phillips, Borger, Texas                    47
Phillips, Sweeny, Texas                    53
Phillips, Puerto Rico                      40
Pontiac, Corpus Christi, Texas             12
Signal, Houston, Texas                     17
South Hampton, Silsberg, Texas              3
Texaco, Port Arthur, Texas                 40
Union Oil, Smith's Bluff, Texas            3^5

Total                                     514

*millions of gallons per year


Production

1968:   310 million gallons
1973:   570 million gallons


Uses

Nylon 66, Nylon 6


Processes

About 301 of the cyclohexane produced in this country is
produced from the fractionation of petroleum.  The remainder
is produced by the catalytic hydrogenation of benzene.   This
latter process will account for some 85% of the cyclohexane
produced in the U. S. after 1970.


Waste Problems

Outside of spills the only major source of water is the
cooling water which amounts to 200-2000 gallons/ton of
cyclohexane and which may contain 50-200 mg/1 of COD.  In
aromatics extraction, there are two major sources of waste
water the extract water washing which contains aromatic
hydrocarbons and the wastes from solvent regeneration which
contains appropriate solvents.  Both wastes may be minimized
by the use of stripping columns.

No discussion of cyclohexane recovery from petroleum fractions
is included because this more properly fits in a discussion  of
petroleum refineries.
                           113

-------
Waste Reduction by Process Change

No foreseeable changes in process will have any significant
impact upon waste water discharges except for the replacement
of once-through cooling with cooling towers.  However, once-
through cooling is generally not utilized in cyclohexane
facilities.
CUMENE


Producers                               Capacity*

Amoco, Texas City, Texas                   50
Ashland, Catlettsburg, Ky.                300
Chevron, Richmond, Calif.                  80
Clark, Blue Island, Illinois              100
Coastal States, Corpus Christi, Texas     100
Dow, Midland, Michigan                     10
Gulf, Philadelphia, Pa.                   400
Gulf, Port Arthur, Texas                  300
Hercules, Gibbstown, New Jersey            60
Marathon Oil, Corpus Christi, Texas       125
Monsanto, Alvin, Texas                    130
Shell, Houston, Texas                      80
Skelly, El Dorado, Kansas                  80
Sunray DX, Corpus Christi, Texas          125
Texaco, Westville, N. J.                  140

Total                                    2220

*millions of pounds/year


Production

1968:   1.2 billion pounds
1973:   2.2 billion pounds


Uses

Phenol, acetone, a-methylstyrene


Process

The process for the production of cumene involves the reaction
of benzene with propylene in a phosphoric acid catalyzed
alkylation.  No significant change in this technology is
anticipated in near future.
                            114

-------
Waste Problems

The principal waste streams from the manufacture of cumene
are the process slops and the "cumene" bottoms which are a
result of the recovery of cumene from the general process
stream.  This stream contains some 1-4% of the product stream.
The quantity of water carrying the wastes depends largely
upon the use of propane to control bed temperature.


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

Careful temperature control through propane injection may
reduce the amount of byproducts and reduce the amount of
water required in the tower to control this highly exother-
mic reaction.
ETHANOL


Producer                                Capacity*

Synthetic  (Ethylene)

Enjay, Baton Rouge, La.                    60
Eastman, Longview, Texas                   25
Publicker, Philadelphia, Pa.               25
Shell, Houston, Texas                      40
Union Carbide, S. Charleston, W. Va.       60
Union Carbide, Texas City, Texas          100
USI, Tuscola,  Illinois                     53

*millions  of wine gallons annually, 190 proof alcohol


Producer                                Capacity*

Other Industrial

Ga-Pacific, Bellingham, Wash.
Hercules,  Hopewell, Va.
Publicker, Philadelphia, Pa., other        20

Total                                     383

*millions  of wine gallons annually, 190 proof alcohol


Production

1968:   299 million gallons
1973:   330 million gallons
                            115

-------
Uses

Acetaldehyde :  solvent, other chemicals


Process

Two processes  are in use to produce ethanol from ethylene.
The first, called the ethyl hydrogen sulfate route follows
the following equation:
3C2H4  +  2H2S04

C2H5HS04  +  (C2H5)2S04 - ^3C2H5OH  +  2H2SC>4

Ethyl ether is a byproduct.

The second is the Shell or direct hydration process and
involves the temperature and pressure hydration over a
phosphoric acid catalyst:

C2H4  +  H20 - > C2H5OH


Waste Sources

The ethyl hydrogen sulfate has numerous waste sources.  These
include slops from the recovery and reconcentration of sulfuric
acid (0.05 Ib/lb of product) and the discharge of a waste
caustic stream containing alcohol, ether and waste products
from the alcohol scrubber.  This stream may amount to several
hundred gallons per ton of product and contain 1-3000 mg/1 of
COD at a high (11+) pH.  An additional stream results from
the recycling column which removes the heavy ends, and is an
aqueous stream of perhaps 10-30 gals/ton of product and con-
tains about 5000 mg/1 of COD.

The direct hydration process involves considerably less waste.
The major stream would result from the separation of the product
ethanol from the process bottoms and may amount to 30-60 pounds
of COD/ton of product.


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

It is possible to minimize the waste products by careful control
of the use of sulfuric acid in the process and as is often the
case, in the use of acid and alkali, the avoidance of leaks and
spills.  Additional stripping capacity and improved yields would
also reduce waste product loads.
                           116

-------
ETHYL BENZENE AND STYRENE
Producers (Styrene)                     Capacity'

Amoco, Texas City, Texas                   300
Cosden, Big Spring, Texas                  100
Cos-Mar, Carville, La.                     500
Dow, Freeport, Texas                       550
Dow, Midland, Michigan                     350
El Paso, Odessa, Texas                     120
Enjay, Baytown, Texas                      150
Foster Grant, Baton Rouge, La.             200
Marbon, Baytown, Texas                     125
Monsanto, Alvin, Texas                      40
Monsanto, Texas City, Texas                750
Shell, Torrance, Calif.                    240
Sinclair-Koppers, Houston, Texas            70
Sinclair-Koppers, Kobuta, Pa.              270

*millions of pounds annually
Producers  (Styrene)                     Capacity"

Sinclair-Koppers, Port Arthur, Texas       150
Signal, Houston, Texas                      35
Sunray DX, Corpus Christi, Texas            80
Suntide, Corpus Christi, Texas              75
Tenneco, Chalmette, La.                     22
Union Carbide, Institute, W. Va.           130
Union Carbide, Seadrift, Texas             300

Total                                     3991

*millions  of pounds annually


Production (Styrene)

1968:   3.5 billion pounds
1973:   5.0 billion pounds
Uses

Polystyrene, Rubber modified polystyrene, Styrene-butadiene
copolymer, ABS, SAN plastics, Styrene-butadrene elastomer
                              117

-------
Processes

About 10% of the ethyl benzene is obtained by fractionation of
petroleum streams.  The dominant route is via alkylation of
benzene with ethylene.  This is expected to continue in this
fashion in the future.  There are two alternative routes to
ethyl benzene by alkylation.  One involves the use of high
purity ethylene while the other involves the use of low con-
centration ethylene.  It is expected that the latter will
become more prominent in the future.

Styrene is produced from ethyl benzene by the high temperature
dehydrogenation of the ethyl benzene.


Waste Problems

A number of waste streams arise from the alkylation of benzene
with high concentration ethylene.  Among these are the caustic
and water washing streams used to wash the crude alkylate
which contain 5-10,000 mg/1 of tars and other polymers together
with significant amounts of ethyl benzene and benzene.  The
overheads from the benzene drying column may contain minor
amounts of benzene.  The residue from the PEB (polyethyl
benzenes) column contains tars and polymers formed during
the process.  The total organic burden is in the order of
30-70 pounds/ton of product.

The process utilizing low concentration ethylene produces
primarily a waste stream containing polymers and tars and
amount to 50-100 pounds of organics per ton of product.

The styrene producing process condenses a water-styrene-ethyl
benzene mixture and the water leaving this step containing
oils as well as ethyl benzene and styrene.


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

Design of gas washers which improve contact conditions is one
key to the reduction of waste waters  coming from this process
(high concentration).   A larger benzene drying column will
reduce benzene losses from this system.  The tars and polymers
produced from the final separator could be incinerated rather
than sent to a waste water system.
                             118

-------
ETHYLENE BICHLORIDE. VINYL CHLORIDE AND POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
Producers (Vinyl chloride)              Capacity*

Allied, Moundsville, W. Va.                500
American Chemical, Watson, Calif.          170
Conoco-Stauffer, Lake Charles, La.         600
Cumberland Calvert, Calvert City, Ky.      100
Diamond, Deer Park, Texas                  100
Dow, Freeport, Texas; Plaquemine, La.     1000
Ethyl, Baton Rouge, La.; Houston, Texas    300
General Tire, Ashtabula, Ohio               75
Goodrich, Calvert City, Ky.                800
Goodrich, Niagara Falls, N. Y.              40
Goodyear, Niagara Falls, N. Y.              70
Monochem, Geismer, La.                     250
Monsanto, Texas City, Texas                150
Producers  (Vinyl chloride)

PPG, Lake  Charles, La.
Tenneco, Houston, Texas
Union Carbide, S. Charleston, W. Va.
Union Carbide, Texas City, Texas
Wyandotte, Geismer, La.

Total

*millions  of pounds/year
                                        Capacity*

                                           300
                                           200
                                           340

                                           150

                                          5150
Production

1968:   2.7 billion pounds
1973:   4.0 billion pounds
Uses

PVC
Processes

There are several major routes to vinylchloride.  Acetylene
based processes employ the use of hydrogen chloride in a
direct addition in acetylene
C2H2
         HC1
                           119

-------
Ethylene processes involve direct chlorination plus dehydro-
chlorination

C2H4  +  Cl—^ C2H4C12 (ethylene dichloride)

C2H4C12—^ C2H3C1 + HC1

A newer approach involves oxychlorination and permits the reuse
of the HC1 generated during dehydro chlorination (copper chloride
 is the catalyst).

C2H4  +  %02  +  2HC1	>C2H4C12 + H20

It is expected that all vinyl chloride in the country will be
produced by a balanced chlorination-oxychlorination approach in
the future.

Polyvinyl chloride is polymerized directly from vinyl chloride
by a mode of different approaches.


Waste Problems

The vinyl chloride facility generates a waste stream containing
about 8 gallons/ton of product and containing minor amounts of
organics (0.01 Ibs/ton) with significant amounts of NaCl, FeCl3,
NaOH and NaC103.

The waste stream from the PVC operation is about 2000 gallons/ton
of product and has a COD of 1200-1500 mg/1.


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

The advent of oxychlorination has made a major reduction in waste
problems in the production of vinyl chloride.  Waste problems are
quite minor and little promise of change exists.  Only minor
pressure exists for the reduction in waste loadings from the PVC
operation although changes in polymerization techniques may ef-
fect changes.


ETHYLENE
Producers                               Capacity*

Allied-Wyandotte, Geismar, La.             500
American Can-Skelly, Clinton, Iowa         400
Atlantic, Watson, Calif.                   100
Continental Oil, Lake Charles, La.         400
Dow, various locations                    1920
DuPont, Orange, Texas                      800
El Paso-Rexall, Odessa, Texas              290
                         120

-------
Producers                               Capacity*

Enjay, various locations                  1265
Goodrich, Calvert City, Ky.                250
Gulf, various locations                    825
Jefferson, Port Neches, Texas              450
Koppers, Kobuta, Pa.                        35
Mobil, Beaumont, Texas                     450
Monsanto, various locations                600
National Distillers, Tuscola, Illinois     320
Olin Mathieson, Brandenburg, Ky.            90
Petroleum Chemicals, Lake Charles, La.     360
Phillips, Sweeny, Texas                    550
Phillips-Houston Natural Gas,
        Sweeny, Texas                      550
Shell, various locations                   845
Sinclair-Koppers, Houston, Texas           500
Sun Olin, N. Claymont, Del.                125
Texas Eastman, Longview, Texas             450
Union Carbide, various locations          5975

Total                                    16000

*millions of pounds per year
Production

1968:   12,500,000,000 pounds per year
1973:   19,000,000,000 pounds per year
Uses
Polyethylene, ethylene oxide, ethanol, styrene, vinylchloride


Processes

Ethylene is produced from ethane and propane, refinery off gas
and other sources such as naphtha, gas oil, condensate.  The
first step involves cracking, then compression followed by
purification.  Ethylene production is an important source of
propylene butadiene and aromatics.
                               121

-------
Waste Problems

The major waste streams are:

a.  blowdown from steam generation
b.  coke and tar in the furnace
c.  compressor water (oily)
d.  spent caustic from acid gas scrubbing
e.  water from dryers
f.  green oil produced as a polymerization product during
    acetylene hydrogenation

Typical Quantities are:

Spent caustic  -  15 gallons/ton of product containing 2.5%
NaOH, 1.0% Na2S and 6.6% ppm of phenols and 100-500 mg/1
of COD.


Waste Reduction by Process Change

The process condensate stream may be reprocessed by being sent
to a stripper and stripped by live steam.  This will strip most
of the non phenol contaminants and about 20-25% of phenol.  If
fresh feed is contacted with the process condensate, it is
possible to strip out most of the phenol which is then sent
with the feed to the cracking furnace.  The phenol free waste
water can then be steam stripped to remove residual volatile
hydrocarbons.  The water stream, free of contaminants may be
reused in steam generation in the plant.

Studies are underway to recover the alkali values from the spent
caustic.  For the moment, sulfide oxidation is generally prac-
ticed to reduce the immediate oxygen demand of this stream.

Green oil is piped to plant fuel systems and burnt along with
tar and other heavy polymer by-products.


ETHYLENE OXIDE
Producers (Ethylene Oxide)              Capacity*

Allied, Orange, Texas                      40
Calcasieu, Lake Charles, La.              150
Dow, various locations                    900
DuPont                                    300
Eastman, Longview, Texas                   60
GAP, Linden, N. J.                         70
Houston Chemical                           80
Jefferson, Port Neches, Texas             750
Olin Mathieson, Brandenburg, Ky.          120
Shell Chemical, Norco, La.                150
                           122

-------
Producers  (Ethylene Oxide)              Capacity*

Sun Olin, Marcus Hook, Pa.                100
Union Carbide, various locations         1700
Wyandotte, Geismer, La.                   100

Total                                    4520

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:   3,000,000,000 pounds/year (Ethylene Oxide)
1973:   5,000,000,000 pounds/year


Use

Surfactants, ethanol amines, polyglycols, antifreeze, polyester
fibers
Processes

The chlorohydrin method involves the reaction of chlorine water
with ethylene to produce the chlorohydrin and HC1.  This was
then treated with bicarbonate to produce the glycol:

C2H4  +  C12  +  H20— ^ CH2OH  -  CH2C1  +  HC1

CH2OH  -  CH2C1  +  NaHCl - > CH2OH  -  CH2OH  +  NaCl  +  C02

Ethylene oxide could be produced by adding caustic and rectifying
the vapors

Direct oxidation of ethylene:

C2H4  +  °2 —
is the process which is now widely practiced.  Hydrolysis of
the oxide produces the glycol.  The product of various glycol
ethers and glycols as by-products is quite common.


Waste Problems

The older chlorohydrin process produces great quantities of waste
HC1 which is usually lime neutralized as well as waste organic
streams.  The major waste stream is a lime slurry (about 2000
gallons/ton) .  It is not expected that any chlorohydrin plants
will be built in the future.
                             123

-------
Oxidation-hydration plants produce two major waste streams.  One
is produced at the rate of 1500 gallons/ton of product and is
0.1% organic.  The other is produced at the rate of 150 gallons/
ton of product and is II organic in one process.  In a similar
system, the total water flow was about 1000 gallons/ton of product
with a concentration of 1-20,000 mg/1 COD.  Both contain a mixture
of oxide, glycol, polyglycols, etc.


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

It is possible through the addition of stripping columns and the
addition of certain streams to cooling water systems to reduce
the waste water discharge to 10% of the numbers cited above.
The cost is in the order of $150-210,000 in a 50,000,000 pounds/
year plant.


Waste Reduction by Process Change

Water wastes can be largely eliminated by reusing the dimethyl
ether to produce additional formaldehyde and by reprocessing
the scrubber waters and truck washings to produce additional
formaldehyde.


ISOPROPANOL


Producers                               Capacity*

Enjay, Baton Rouge, La.                    680
Shell, Dominguez, Calif.                   225
Shell, Houston, Texas                      380
Union Carbide, Texas City, Texas           400
Union Carbide, Whiting, Indiana            275

Total                                     1960

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:   1750 million pounds
1973:   2250 million pounds


Uses

Acetone, solvent
                            124

-------
Processes^

Isopropanol is manufactured either by catalytic hydration of
propylene:

CH3  -  CH  -  CH2  +  H20—> CH3CHOHCH3

or by the reaction or sulfuric acid propylene similar to the
ethanol reaction.


Waste Problems and Process Change

See Ethanol


FORMALDEHYDE


Producers                               Capacity*

Allied                                     310
Borden                                     925
Celanese                                   950
Commercial Solvents                         60
DuPont                                     900
GAP                                        100
Georgia Pacific                            120
Gulf                                       115
Hercules                                   275
Hooker                                      90
Monsanto                                   400
Reichhold                                  212
Rohm and Haas                               50
Tenneco                                    325
Trojan Powder                               50
Union Carbide                              150

Total                                     5042

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:   4.0 billion pounds
1973:   5.2 billion pounds


Uses

Phenolic resins, urea and melamine resins, ethylene glycol.
                             125

-------
Process

Straight oxidation of methanol with air or oxygen.   The major
by-products are dimethyl ether and formic acid which amount to
150 pounds/ton of product.


Waste Problems

The major sources of waste are the scrubber waters  and the
dimethyl ether by-product.   The total aqueous stream should
not exceed 100 gallons/ton containing 1-5000 mg/1 COD unless
truck washing is practiced at the site.


METHANOL


Producers                               Capacity*

Allied                                     26
Borden                                    160
Celanese                                   75
CSC                                        65
DuPont                                    380
Escambia                                   30
Gulf                                        9
Hercules                                   16
Monsanto-Tenneco                           30
Rohm and Haas                              22
Tenneco                                    76
Union Carbide                              64

Total                                     943

*millions of gallons per year


Production

1968:   600 million gallons
1973:   900 million gallons


Uses

Formaldehyde, methyl esters, amines, solvent


Processes

The major process for the production of methanol involves the high
pressure catalytic conversion of synthesis gas (CO  + H£)  to methanol
Recently ICI has developed a low pressure process.
                            126

-------
Waste Problems

Although little information is available on the lower pressure
process only minor differences between waste streams would
appear to exist.  Major waste water streams are from slab and
vessel wash downs together with bottoms from the methanol
purification process.  This amounts to 100-500 gallons/ton
of product and contains some oils, methanol and higher boiling
organics to the extent of several hundred mg/1.


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

More effective separations and better housekeeping can produce
greatly reduced water flows.  The dimethyl ether produced from
this waste can be sent to a formaldehyde production facility
for conversion into formaldehyde.
PHENOL


Producers                               Capacity*

Allied                                     350
Chevron                                     50
Clark Oil                                   50
Dow                                        270
Hercules                                    50
Hooker                                     130
Monsanto                                   285
Reichhold                                   90
Shell                                       50
Skelly Oil                                  50
Union Carbide                              575

Total                                     1950

*million pounds per year


Production

1968:   1500 million pounds
1973:   2200 million pounds
Uses

Phenolic  resins,  caprolactam, bisphenol-A, adipic acid
                              127

-------
C6H6
Processes

Phenol is made from cumene,  from benzene by the Raschig process

C6H6  +  HC1  +  h02 _ ^> C6H5C1  +  H20

C6H5C1  +  H20 — >C6H5OH  +   HC1

from benzene by the chlorobenzene route:

         C12 - >C6H5C1  +  HC1

        +  ZNaOH — > C6H5ONa   +  NaCl  +  H20

C6H5ONa  +  HC1 — > C6H5OH  +  NaCl

and by the sulfonation process from benzene:

C6H6  +  H2S04— >C6H5S03H  +  H20

2C6H5S03H  +  Na2S03 — ^ 2C6H5S03Na  +  S02

C6H5S03Na  +  ZNaOH — ^ C6H5ONa  +  Na2S03
                                               H20(+Na2S04)

                                              H20
2C6H5ONa
S02
                     H20 — >
                                        Na2S03(+Na2SC>4)
Recently two new routes have been commercialized.  One is Dow
Chemical process which involves direct oxidation of toluene to
benzoic acid and then oxidation of the benzoic acid to phenol
in a single step.

It is anticipated that cumene based phenol will continue to
hold a major share of the market.  Furthermore, it is expected
that the direct oxidation routes will also gain importance.


Waste Problems

In addition to quantities of wastewaters discharged from the
separation of the phenol the less used processes all produce
major quantities of inorganic containing aqueous wastes which
create considerable difficulties relative to waste treatment.
A typical 100,000,000 pound/year phenol plant based on cumene
produces a stream of 200,000 gpd of waste water containing
13,200 mg/1 of COD and 180 mg/1 of phenol.  Inorganics are
produced at the following rates:

Sodium carbonate (5000 Ibs/day) ; sodium formate (500 Ibs/day) ;
sodium bicarbonate (500 Ibs/day) and sodium sulfate (22,000
Ibs/day)

The waste production from the direct oxidation facility might
be considerably less than the older process.
                           128

-------
Waste Reduction Through Process Control

It is possible to reduce effluents by careful control of the
process involved, recovery of the inorganics by crystalliza-
tion, etc., and by solvent extraction of the phenol.  It is
also likely that as the sulfonation and chlorination ap-
proaches are reduced in importance the amount of waste gen-
erated per pounds of phenol produced will be greatly reduced.


POLYETHYLENE  -  HD
Producers                               Capacity*

Allied, Baton Rouge, La.                   150
Allied, Orange, Texas                       25
Celanese, Pasadena, Texas                  150
Chemplex, Clinton,  la.                      50
Dow, Freeport, Texas                        50
Dow, Plaquemine, La.                        50
DuPont, Orange, Texas                       75
Gulf, Orange, Texas                        100
Hercules, Parlin, N. J.                     80
Monsanto, Texas City, Texas                 50
National Petrochemicals, La Porte, Texas   125
Phillips, Pasadena, Texas                  160
Sinclair-Koppers, Port Reading, N. J.       50
Union Carbide, Seadrift, Texas             125

Total                                     1230

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:   1200 million pounds
1973:   2000 million pounds


Uses

Blow molding, injection molding, film and sheet, wire and cable,
pipe and conduit


Processes

Polyethylene is produced by the catalyzed polymerization of
ethylene.  High pressure processes use oxygen or peroxides
for a catalyst while the low pressure processes  (which
produce high density products) use metal derived catalysts.
                             129

-------
Waste Problems

About 400 gallons/ton of product of waste water is produced
from these units and this flow has the following character-
istics :

Suspended Solids    100 ppm

COD                 200 mg/1


Waste Reduction by Process Changes

It is possible to greatly reduce the discharge of solids by-
improving the utilization of centrifuges and other separation
equipment.


POLYETHYLENE  -  LD


Producers                               Capacity*

Allied,  Orange, Texas                      25
Chemplex, Clinton, Iowa                   100
Columbian Carbon, Lake Charles, La.       100
Dow, Freeport, Texas                      170
Dow, Plaquemine, La.                      130
DuPont,  Orange, Texas                     425
DuPont,  Victoria, Texas                   200
Eastman, Longview, Texas                  175
Enjay, Baton Rouge, La.                   200
Gulf, Cedar Bayou, Texas                  200
Gulf, Orange, Texas                       200
Monsanto, Texas City, Texas               130
National Distillers, Deer Park, Texas     300
National Distillers, Tuscola, Illinois    150
Rexall-El Paso, Odessa, Texas             250
Sinclair-Koppers, Port Arthur, Texas      125
Union Carbide, Seadrift, Texas            200
Union Carbide, S. Charleston, W. Va.      100
Union Carbide, Taft, La.                  500
Union Carbide, Texas City, Texas          290
Union Carbide, Torrance, Calif.            80
Union Carbide, Whiting, Indiana           200

Total                                    4250

*millions of pounds per year
                             130

-------
Production

1968:   2900 million pounds
1973:   4700 million pounds


Uses

Film and sheet, injection molding, extension coating,  wire
and cable
Processes
See Polytheylene-HD


Waste Problems

The waste stream which is primarily drains, amounts to 200
gpd/ton of product and contains 50-100 mg/1 COD and 100
mg/1 of oil.


Waste Reduction

See Polyethylene-HD


POLYSTYRENE


Producers                                  Capacity*

Amoco, Leominster, Mass; Medina, 0;
       Torrance, Calif; Willow Sp., 111.      120
Badische, Jamesburg, N. J.                     25
Columbian, Hicksville, N. Y.                   10
Cosden, Big Springs, Texas                    120
Dow, Allyns Pt., Conn; Ironton, 0;
     Midland, Mich; Torrance, Calif;
     Riverside, Mo.                           610
Foster Grant, Leominster, Mass; Peru, 111.
Hammond, Worcester, Mass.                      50
Monsanto, Addyston, 0; Long Beach, Calif;
          Springfield, Mass.                  300
Rexall, Holyoke, Mass; Santa Clara, Calif.     70
Richardson, West Haven, Conn.                  30
Shell, Wallingford, Conn.                      25
Sinclair-Koppers, Kobuta, Pa.                 190
                              131

-------
Producers                                  Capacity*

Solar, Leominster, Mass.                        50
Union Carbide, Bound Brook, N.  J.;
               Marietta,  0.                   165

Total                                        1865

*million pounds per year


Production

1968:   1.7 million tons
1973:   3.0 million tons


Uses

Molding, Blow extrusion


Processes

Polymerization with or without catalysts


Waste Problems

A typical plant produces a 600 gallons/ton of .product with the
following composition:

Styrene                   3 ppm
Benzoyl Peroxide       1400 ppm
Tricalcium Phosphate    800 ppm Ca
                       2200 ppm P04
Alkyl Aryl Sulfonate     80 ppm
Suspended Solids        500 ppm


Waste Reduction by Process Change

It is possible by cleaning up this stream to recover Benzoyl
Peroxide for reuse.  This scheme would cost less than $0.40/1000
gals, and would provide a completely closed system and eliminate
almost all reuse.
                            132

-------
PROPYLENE
Producers                                    Capacity*

Ashland, Catlettsburg, Ky.                      130
Atlantic-Richfield, Watson, Calif.              230
Amoco, various locations                        510
Chevron, El Segundo, Calif.                     160
Cities Services, Lake Charles, La.              320
Clark, Blue Island, 111.                         70
Dow, various sites                              440
DuPont, Orange, Texas                           200
El Paso, Odessa, Texas                           60
Enjay, various sites                           1440
Goodrich, Calvert City, Ky.                      90
Gulf, various sites                             830
Jefferson, Port Neches, Texas                   150
Marathon, Texas City, Texas                      70
Mobil, Beaumont, Texas                          520
Monsanto, various sites                         360
Petroleum Chemicals, Lake Charles, La.           60
Phillips, Sweeney, Texas                        180
Shell, various sites                            630
Signal, Houston, Texas                           90
Sinclair, Houston, Texas  § Marcus Hook, Pa.     380
Sinclair-Koppers, Houston, Texas                100
Skelly, El Dorado, Kansas                        90
Sohio, Lima, Ohio                               110
Sun, Marcus Hook, Pa.                           300
Suntide, Corpus Christi,  Texas                   70
Texaco, Westville, N. J.                        140
Texas City Ref., Texas City,  Texas              100
Texas Eastman, Longview,  Texas                  100
Tidewater-Air Products, Delaware  City, Del.     250
Union Carbide, various sites                    550
Union Oil, Los Angeles, Calif.                  140

Total                                          8920

*millions of pounds per year
 Production

 1968:    7,000 million pounds per year
 1973:   11,000 million pounds per year
 Uses

 Isopropanol,  acrylonitrile,  polypropylene, propylene oxide,
 heptene,  cumene,  glycerine
                              133

-------
Processes

Propylene is produced together with ethylene and details may be
obtained from the section on ethylene.   However, the major por-
tion of the propylene is produced as a  by-product of gasoline
product (over 85%).   It is expected that the amount of propylene
generated will increase as the demand for high octane low leaded
gasolines increase.


Waste Reduction

See ethylene section


PROPYLENE OXIDE


Producers                                  Capacity*

Celanese, Bishop, Texas                       10
Dow, Freeport, Texas                         225
Dow, Midland, Mich.                            25
Jefferson, Port Neches, Texas                120
Olin, Brandenburg, Ky.                        80
Oxirane, Bayport, Texas                      150
Union Carbide, S. Charleston, W. Va.         200
Wyandotte, Wyandotte, Mich.                  160

Total                                       1020

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:   890 million pounds
1973:  1750 million pounds


Uses

Polypropoxyethers, propylene glycol, polypropylene glycol,
dipropylene glycol


Process

See Ethylene Oxide section.  Oxirane has developed a process
based on the oxidation of acetaldehyde.


Waste

See Ethylene Oxide
                               134

-------
TOLUENE

Producers

Amoco, Texas City, Texas
Ashland, North Tonawanda, N. Y.,
         Catlettsburg, Ky.
Atlantic Richland, Wilmington, Calif.
Chevron, El Segundo, Calif;
         Richmond, Calif.
Cities Services, Lake Charles, La.
Coastal States, Corpus Christi, Texas
Cosden, Big Spring, Texas
Crown Central, Houston, Texas
Dow, Bay City, Mich.
Enjay, Baton Rouge, La.; Baytown, Texas
Gulf, Philadelphia, Pa; Port Arthur, Texas
Hess, Corpus Christi, Texas
Leonard, Mount Pleasant, Mich.
Marathon, Texas City, Texas
Mobil, Beaumont, Texas
Monsanto, Alvin, Texas
Pontiac, Corpus Christi, Texas
Shell, Houston, Texas; Odessa, Texas
       Wilmington, Calif; Wood River, 111.
Signal, Houston, Texas
Sinclair, Houston, Texas; Marcus Hook, Pa.
South Hampton, Silsbee, Texas
Southwestern, Corpus Christi, Texas
Sun, Marcus Hook, Pa.
Sunray DX, Tulsa, Okla.
Suntide, Corpus Christi, Texas
Tenneco, Chalmette, La.
Texaco, Port Arthur, Texas
Union Carbide, S. Charleston, W. Va.
Union Oil-Atlantic, Nederland, Texas
Union Oil, Lemont, 111.
Vickers, Potwin, Kansas

Total
Capacity*

   20

   20
   24

   32
   36
   10
   15
   10
   17
   65
   20
   18
    3
   12
   25
   32
   13
   65

   16
   26
    6
   10
   25
    4
   13
    8
   31
   10
   20
   10
    5
  620**
*millions of gallons per year
**also 65 million gallons from coke oven, tar distiller and
  styrene monomer operations

Production

1968:   610 million gallons
1973:   800 million gallons
                            135

-------
Uses

Benzene, solvents, gasoline, TNT, Toluene diisocyanate, phenol


Process

Toluene is produced by extraction from refinery reformate as is
benzene.  For details see benzene.
UREA
Producers                               Capacity8

Allied                                     320
American Cyanamid                          150
Arkla                                       67
Armour                                      17
Best                                        20
Collier                                     50
Columbia Nitrogen                           25
Cooperative Farmer                          50
DuPont                                     205
Escambia                                    23
Farmers Chemical                            30
Pel Tex                                     20
Grace                                      100
Gulf                                        90
Hawkeye                                     25
Hercules                                    60
Ke tman                                       7
Miss. Chem                                  80
Mobile                                       5
Monsanto                                    80
Nipack                                     260
Nitrin                                      23
Olin                                       150
Phillips                                     8
Phillips Pacific                            20
Premier                                     70
Shell                                      185
Solar                                      140
Southern Nitrogen                           60
Sun Olin                                    75
Valley Nitron                               35
Wycon                                       50

Total                                     1500

*thousands of tons
                              136

-------
Production

1968:   2.3 million tons
1973:   3.7 million tons
Uses

Animal feed, fertilizer, plastics


Processes

All of the major processes involve the high pressure reaction
of C02 and ammonia.  There are about 10 variations of this
scheme.


Waste Problems

Typical wastes amount to about 120 gallons/ton of product with
the following composition:

                                 Ibs/ton

NH3                                 3.6
C02                                 0.6
Urea                                0.8
Carbonate                           0.1


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

It is normal practice to remove about 50% of the ammonia by
airstripping after adjusting pH with alkali.  Recently two
new processes have been developed which strip the ammonia
and carbonate by contacting with either NH3 or C02 and
sending the overload directly to the reactor.  This approach
is expected to reduce ammonia losses by 50% or more with a
more drastic effect on carbonate.  These also involve operation
of the reaction at a lower temperature.


XYLENES

                                Ortho             Para
Producers                     Capacity*         Capacity*

Amoco                            	               200
Chevron                          130               536
Cities Service                   120               	
Coastal                           42                 6
Commonwealth                      70               	
Cosden                           	                 6
                               137

-------
Crown Central                     19               	
Enjay                            175               210
Hercor                           ---               100
Hess                              45
Shell                            ---               100
Signal                           	                15
Sinclair                          80               215
Sunray DX                         30               165
Tenneco                           25               100

Total                            736              1547

*millions of gallons per year
Production

                      Ortho           Para

1968                   500             750
1973                   750            1800


Uses

Phthalic anhydride, polyesters


Process

Mixed xylenes are recovered primarily from refinery streams (see
benzene and ethyl benzene).  It is separated out with ethyl
benzene and isomerization is carried out to increase the yield
of para xylene.  A separation scheme involves crystallization
to separate out the various streams.


Waste Problems

Sludge from the crystallizer as well as bottoms, drains, etc.,
amount to perhaps 100-500 gallons/ton of product with an
organic content of 3-5,000 mg/1.
                             138

-------
                 APPENDIX C






COSTS OF UNIT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PRACTICES
                     139

-------
                         CAPITAL  COST  RELATIONSHIP
                                 EQUALIZATION

                                  Figure 1-C
1000
                     VOLUME OF EQUALIZATION TANK - GALLONS
                                140

-------

3       4
FLOW - MOO
  141

-------
                 CAPITAL  COST RELATIONSHIP

                         OIL SEPARATION

                           Figure  3-C
    3_



   2.5-
Q
O
   1.5-
O
    6-
<
O   5.
    3



   2.5
 10
    1 I ' I
    O.I
           1.5
                    2.5  3
6   7  8  9  10      1.5
        1.0

WASTE  FLOW - MGD
                                                           2.5
                            142

-------
IOOO
                         CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP
                             PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
                                 Figure  4-C
                    SURFACE  AREA OF PRIMARY CLARIFIER - FT1
                                     143

-------
                                         Figure 5-C

                                 CAPITAL COST  RELATIONSHIP

                                           LAGOONS
  50°
o
o
o
O 400

H
O
ID
IT
I-

-------
                               CAPITAL  COST RELATIONSHIP
                                        AERATED LAGOON

                                         Figure  6-C
10 '
   O.I
                                     •IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIinillllllllllfllllllMIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIBBBilillllllllllllllllMMIIIMIIIHIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIi
     iiiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiH	inn
          1.0                           10.0

VOLUME  OF  AERATION BASIN - MILLION GALLONS
100.0
                                               145

-------
                    CAPITAL  COST RELATIONSHIP
                           AERATION BASIN
                           Figure  7-C
0.1
              VOLUME OF AERATION BASIN-MILLION GALLONS
                             146

-------
IOOO°
                                         CAPITAL   COST  RELATIONSHIP
                                                   FINAL  CLARIFIERS

                                                      Figure   8-C
                                                ••••lllllllllllllllllllMimilllllll'llllimiimilllllimi
                                                ••IIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIimilllllllllllllllllllllll
                                                ••••IIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllllP
                                                                                           • •Illlllllllllllllllllmmlmllllllllllllmi Hill Illl
                                                                                         • •••iiiiiiiiiiiiiiilMiiiiuiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiliimiiiiiiin
                                                                                      ••••iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHMiiiiimiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiJiiii
                                                                                      • •••IlllllllllllllllllimillllllUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:
                                               ••lllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllimillllllitiir
      •6*
7 • • I i
     10s
• '8
 10
                                    SURFACE AREA  OF  FINAL  CLARIFIER- FT*
                                                           147

-------
                       CAPITAL COST  RELATIONSHIP
                               FILTRATION
                              Figure  9-C
0.01 •
                               FLOW-MOD
                                148

-------
CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP
     CARBON ADSORPTION

      Figure 10-C
                                         7 I  I U
                                            100.0
    DESIGN CAPACITY - MOD
          149

-------
                      CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP
                             ION EXCHANGE
                            Figure 11-C
10
                            CAPACITY - MOD
                                150

-------
                                            Figure  12-C

                                     CAPITAL  COST RELATIONSHIP

                                         TOTAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL
to
O
o

u.
o
                                     -Jit:
  COST INCLUDES:

o. AEROBIC DIGESTION
b. SLUDGE  THICKENING
C. VACUUM  FILTRATION
  OR CENTRIFUGATION
d. DISPOSAL
                    tat
I- 3
01
o
u
                                                  10        12

                                              FLOW - MGD
                            14
16
18
20

-------
                           CAPITAL  COST RELATIONSHIP

                                FLOTATION THICKENING


                                   Figure  13-C
    i.

   25-
            W:.
SiL^
             i :'.::

             -iMili'i
          it
                 r mi
                 •l!'"!
                                              1  It
                                              1,1.
o
o

_l
<
                 HHHii
                       tiH
          i

                                                               X.
  lo'-J
    0,
         JTiHtHMMMMhi

                                            r i  !i I
      U    2   23  3     4    5  (  7  I  >  10      15    2   24   i           I     til

                                    1.0                                   10.0

                             WASTE FLOW - MOD
                                        152

-------
;:::::::: ::::::::! ':':'•'•'• - - - -hfcHf jjf- -frf 1 1 1 1 I" I ' ' ' ' ' "W--+H
t::- -.:::: ::::::::::::::::: Figure 14-
t::;;;;;; \\\\\\\\\\--------- CAPITAL COST RE
::::;;:;;;;;;;;; ::;: VACUUM FILT
t;3oo !;;;;;E;;;::"::::::::::::::::;;:I:;;::;;;;;;;;;:;;EE;;;
t;280 \-\\\\\:- •-•----•- :::::::::::::::::;:;;;;;:;;;;;;;;;;;
:!260 ;;E;;:;;E;;::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;;;;:;;;;;;;;E^;
p:240 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;;;;;;E:;;E;:;;;E;;;EE;;;
U .::::::: 	 	 	 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; I 	 - 	 ~- —
220 ;i::i[[[
;200 ;v^i:;:;;;ii;;::;;;;i;:;;i^;ii;;;::i;;;;i!iii;;;::i:;
[Jlilililljlj x II TTiTlTtTlliTTT^^
;; iso ^i:;;iii:;;:i:!;;:i:;:;;;;;;::;;;:;iii:;;;::;^:;;;
1 I U
;i 160 m::::::::,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:::::
Illllll OTffffl Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltf
:::::::! O :::::::::: :V:": :\\\:\:\^: \^^ \\\:\\\\\\ "~~\
^1 4 Oi ° ,/
;; 120 i:;;:;:;ii;;E;;;;::i::i;;;;::;;;:;ii:ii!;:;;;;::i:i
::::::::: < I:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!?::::::::::::::
:::::::: O :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::^::::::::::::::::
!:<:-!» ::;;;:::iii:;;;;:;;;;;::;:;ii;i::|!!:;;;;;E;;;:ii;::i:;
	 _ 	 2 	 	 — —
;:; so ;;;;i;;;;;;;;;i;;:;;;^;j?^;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
mso M^^^^^^^^^
Pi •
;; 40 \\-- --\\\\±\\\\\\"- ::-;;;;i;;;;i::;;;;::i;;;;;;;;:;;;
. 	 _. 	 ^E_-.____. 	 ._.._ 	 _. .... 	
20 t\:\[\\\~\:\\:\:[\\\\:\\\\:\::\\^:\\::l:~\\\\\\\\\
;:;;: Q jj[[[
:::::: 0 :\\\\[\\\:\\\\\\ \ \\\\^\\\\^^\2 ::\\\:\\\::
------ :::::::::::::;;:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;^;;;;;; FILTER API
4+W4"4f-+4f--4tiiiff 	 : :::::::::::::::::::
C ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
LATIONSHIP :;;::;;;;;;;;:i;:::::;::::::::::::::::
RATION ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
_.. 	 _-._-_-._ 	 	 	 . 	 . _- 1 	 - - -
	 	 ,-. 	 ,--_£,___.. 	 __ ,. — - - _ -
	 	 . 	 . 	 \~ ' 	 "" 	 ~ ' 	 "~ ~
:::: :::::i:z::i::::::::i :::::::::: :::::::: :::i : : : : i
	 _. 	 	 	 	 __ , — _ _ _ _ .
::::i:z_:i::::i:::": — ::::::::: 	 -- :::: - ~ ~ i
	 „ . t 	 	 ._._ 	 	 	 ._ .... _ _ .
;H;;;;;;::;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;::;;;;;;;;;;:;: ;; ; ; E E :

-------
CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP
     DEEP WELL DISPOSAL
       Figure 15-C
        FLOW- GPM
       154

-------
XIII.  BIBLIOGRAPHY
    155

-------
                          BIBLIOGRAPHY


 1.   Lawson,  Barry L.,  "Atlas  of Industrial Water Use," Cornell
     University,  Water  Resources Center,  Publication No.  18,
     47 pp.,  September,  1967.

 2.   "Water Pollution Control  1969-1973  The Federal Costs,"
     F.W.P.C.A.,  U.S. Dept.  of the Interior, 70 pages,  January,
     1968.

 3.   Warner,  Don  L.,  "Deep Wells for Industrial Waste Injection
     in the United States,"  F.W.P.C.A.,  U.S. Dept.  of the In-
     terior,  Water Pollution Control Research Series Publication
     No. WP-20-10, 45 pages, November, 1967.

 4.   "Water in Industry," National Association of Manufacturers,
     81 pages, January,  1965.

 5.   Gurnham, C.  Fred,  "Principles of Industrial Waste  Treatment,"
     John Wiley 5 Sons,  Inc.,  New York,  399 pages,  1955.

 6.   "Summary Report Advanced Waste Treatment, July, 1964 - July,
     1967," F.W.P.C.A.,  U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Water Pollu-
     tion Control Research Series, Publication No.  WP-20-AWTR-19,
     96 pages, 1968.

 7.   "Parameter Code List for the Storet  System," F.W.P.C.A., U.S.
     Dept.  of the Interior,  67 pages, July, 1966.

 8.   Smith, Robert,  "A  Compilation of Cost Information  for Conven-
     tional and Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plants and Processes,1
     F.W.P.C.A.,  U.S. Dept.  of the Interior, December,  1967.

 9.   Parlante, Robert,  "A Guide to Treatment Costs," Industrial
     Water Engineering,  pp.  32-35, April, 1968.

10.   "Water Pollution Control Facts," Water Pollution Control
     Federation.

11.   Partridge, Everett P.,  "The Costs of Control," Industrial
     Water Engineering,  pp.  16-20, February, 1968.

12.   Levin, Paul, "Sludge Handling and Disposal," Industrial
     Water Engineering,  pp.  16-25, April, 1968.

13.   "Standardized Procedure for Estimating Costs of Conventional
     Water Supplies," Office of Saline Water, U.S.  Dept.  of the
     Interior, 87 pages, October, 1963.

14.   Byrd,  J. Floyd,  "Combined Treatment - A Coast-to-Coast
     Coverage," Journal of the Water Pollution Control  Federation.
     pp. 601-607, Vol.  39, No. 4, April,  1967.
                             156

-------
15.   Gurnham, C. Fred, edited by, "Industrial Waste Water Control,"
     Academic Press, 1965, 476 pages.

16.   U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the
     United States," 1968 (89th edition), Washington, B.C., 1968,
     1034 pages.

17.   McKee, Jack Edward § Wolf, Harold W., edited by "Water
     Quality Criteria," California State Water Quality Board,
     1963, 548 pages.

18.   "Chemical Guide to the United States, 1967," Noles Develop-
     ment Corporation, 1967, 139 pages.

19.   U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufacturers, 1963,
     "Water Use in Manufacturing," MC63 (1)-10, U.S. Gov't.
     Printing Office, Washington, B.C., 1966.

20.   Eighth Sanitary Engineering Conference, "Cost Aspects of
     Water Supply," University of Illinois, February, 1966,
     147 pages.

21.   "U.S. Industrial Outlook 1968," U.S. Bept. of Commerce,
     Business and Befence Services Administration, Becember,
     1967, 257 pages.

22.   "Chemical Engineering Cost File," Chemical Engineering Editor.
          Volume 1 - Cost File   1 to  21 June  58 to Bee., 59
          Volume 2 - Cost File  22 to  47 Jan.
          Volume 3 - Cost File  48 to  60 Jan.
          Volume 4 - Cost File  61 to  72 Jan.
          Volume 5 - Cost File  73 to  84 Jan.
          Volume 6 - Cost File  85 to  96 Jan.
          Volume 7 - Cost File  97 to 107 Jan.
          Volume 8 - Cost File 108 to 119 Jan.
          Volume 9 - Cost File 120 to 132 Jan.
60 to Bee.,  60
61 to Bee.,  61
62 to Bee.,  62
63 to Bee.,  64
64 to Bee.,  64
65 to Bee.,  65
66 to Bee.,  66
67 to Bee.,  67
23.  Hackney, John W., "How to Appraise Capital Investments,"
     Chemical Engineering, May 15, 1961, pp. 145-164.

24.  Hackney, John W., "Capital Cost Estimates for Process In-
     dustries," Chemical Engineering, March 7, 1960, pp. 115-130.

25.  Hackney, John W., "Estimating Methods," Chemical Engineering,
     April 4, 1960, pp. 119-134.

26.  Mills, H. E., "Cost of Process Equipment," Chemical Engineering,
     March 16, 1964, pp. 133-156.

27.  Norden, Robert B., "Modern Engineering Besign Practices,"
     Chemical Engineering, August 2, 1965, 12 pages.
                                157

-------
28.   Phillips, R.  Foy, "Petrochemicals," Chemical Engineering^
     May 22, 1967, pp. 153-175.

29.   Arnold, Thomas H.,  "New Index Shows Plant Cost Trends,"
     Chemical Engineering, February 18, 1963, 10 pages.

30.   Rickles, Robert N.,  "Waste  Recovery and Pollution Abatement,"
     Chemical Engineering, September 27, 1965, 20 pages.

31.   "Water in Industry," National Association of Manufacturers,
     December, 1950, 47  pages.

32.   Allen, D. H. , "Two  New Tools for Project Evaluation,"
     Chemical Engineering, July  3, 1967, 4 pages.

33.   Thorngren, J. T., "Probability Technique Improves Invest-
     ment Analysis," Chemical Engineering, August 14, 1967,
     9 pages.

34.   Corrigan, Thomas  E.  $ Dean, Michael J., "Determining
     Optimum Plant Size," Chemical Engineering,  August,  14,
     1967, 5 pages.

35.   Gallagher, John T.,  "Rapid  Estimation of Plant Costs,"
     Chemical Engineering, December 18, 1967, 8  pages.

36.   Bramer, H. C., and  Gurnham, C. Fred, "Integrating Water
     Utilization and Waste Treatment - The Use of Systems
     Analysis in the Steel and Chemical Industries,"  Presented
     at the 41st Annual  Conference - Water Pollution Control
     Federation, September 23,  1968.

37.   Beychok, Milton R.,  "Aqueous Wastes from Petroleum and
     Petrochemical Plants," 1967 John Wiley § Sons, 370  pages.

38.   Eckenfelder,  Jr., W. Wesley, "Industrial Water Pollution
     Control," 1966, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 275 pages.

39.   Merman, R. G. § E.  R. Roth, "Waste and Water Systems Cut
     Cost at Atlantic,"  Power Engineering, October, 1958,
     pp. 80-81.                  ""    ""

40.   Nemerow, Nelson Leonard, "Theories and Practices of In-
     dustrial Waste Treatment,"  1963, Addison-Wesley Publishing,
     Co., 557 pages.

41.   Forbes, M. C. $ Witt, P. A., "Estimate Cost of Waste
     Disposal," Hydrocarbon Processing. August,  1965, Vol. 44,
     No. 8, pp. 153-158.
                             158

-------
42.  Specht, R. C., "Disposal of Wastes  From the  Phosphate  Indus-
     try," Journal of the Water Pollution  Control Federation,
     Vol. 31, No.  3, pp.  274-281,  March, 1959.

43.  Ruggles, W. L., "Basic Petrochemical  Processes  as Waste
     Source," Journal of  the Water Pollution Control Federation,
     Vol. 31, No.  3, pp.  274-281,  March, 1959.

44.  Elkin,  Harold F.,  "Condensates,  Quenches,  and Wash Waters as
     Petrochemical Waste  Sources," Journal of the Water Pollution
     Control Federation,  Vol. 31,  No.  7, pp.  836-840, July, 1959.

45.  Garrett, Jack T.,  "Tars, Spent Catalysts,  and Complexes as
     Petrochemical Waste  Sources," Journal of the Water Pollution
     Control Federation.  Vol. 31,  No.  7, pp.  841-845, July, 1959.

46.  Eberman, J. W., "Disposal of Wastes at Sea," Journal of the
     Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.  28, No. 11, pp.
     1365-1370, November, 1956.

47.  Drydew, F. E., Barrett, P. A., Kissinger,  J. C., and Ecken-
     felder, W. W., Jr.,  "High-Rate Activated Sludge Treatment
     of Fine Chemical Wastes," Sewage  and  Industrial Wastes,
     Vol. 28, No.  2, pp.  183-194,  February, 1956.

48.  Montes, G. E., Allen, D. L.,  and Showell,  Edward B., "Petro-
     chemical Waste Treatment Problems," Sewage § Industrial
     Wastes, Vol.  28, No. 4, pp. 507-512,  April,  1956.

49.  Steen,  J. H., Majewski, F. M., and  lezzi,  T., "Waste Treat-
     ment at a Large Chemical Manufacturing Plant,"  Sewage  §
     Industrial Wastes, Vol. 28, No.  11, pp.  1247-1265, October,
     1956.

50.  Watson, K. S., and Coakley, C. C.,  "Some Factors in the
     Location of a New Chemical Plant -  A  Panel Discussion,"
     Sewage  § Industrial  Wastes, Vol.  28,  No.  11, pp. 1247-1265,
     October, 1956.

51.  Jenkins, George F.,  "Process Wastes from Chemicals
     Manufacture," Sewage § Industrial Wastes,  Vol.  27, No. 6,
     pp. 715-727,  June, 1955.

52.  Weyermullen,  Gordon, and Morris,  H. C., "Monsanto Controls
     Chemical Waste Disposal," Chemical  Processing,  Vol. 18,
     No. 10, pp. 14-19, October, 1955.

53.  Sadow,  Ronald D.,  "Waste Treatment  at a Large Petrochemical
     Plant," Journal of the Water Pollution Control  Federation,
     Vol. 38, No.  3, pp.  428-441,  March, 1966.

54.  Bess, F. D.,  and Conway, R. A.,  "Aerated Stabilization of
     Synthetic Organic Chemical Wastes," Journal  of  the Water
     Pollution Control Federation, Vol.  38, No. 6, pp. 939-956,
     June, 1966.
                              159

-------
55.  Worries Over Deep-Welled Wastes,"  Chemical Week, May 3, 1968,
     107 p.

56.  Koenig, Louis,  "The  Cost of Water  Treatment by Coagulation,
     Sedimentation,  and Rapid Sand  Filtration," Journal of American
     Water Works Association,  March,  1967, pp. 290-336.

57.  Bosworth,  D.  A.,  "Installed Costs  of Outside Piping," Chemical
     Engineering,  March 25,  1968, pp. 132-133.

58.  Henkel, H. 0-,  "Deep Well Disposal of Chemical Waste Water,"
     Power,  March, 1968,  pp.  82-85.

59.  "A Review  of the  Literature of 1966 on Wastewater and Water
     Pollution  Control,"  Journal of the Water Pollution Control
     Federation, Volume 39,  Nos.  6  and  7, June and July, 1967.

60.  Haselbarth, John  E., "Updated  Investment Costs for 60 Types
     of Chemical Plants," Chemical  Engineering, pp. 214-215,
     December 4, 1967.

61.  Lynn, W. R.,  Logan,  J.  A.,  and Charnes, A., "Systems Analysis
     for Planning Wastewater Treatment  Plants," Journal Water
     Pollution  Control  Federation,  Vol. 34, pp. 565-581, June,
     1962.

62.  Eckenfelder,  W. W.,  Jr.,  "Treating Organic Wastes," Industrial
     Water Engineering, pp.  24-27,  June, 1968.

63.  Laffey, E. T.,  "The  Incineration of Chemical Wastes,"
     Industrial Water  Engineering,  pp.  28-31, June, 1968.

64.  Secondary  Treatment  of  Industrial Wastes, Industrial Water
     21 p.,  February,  1968.

65.  Winar,  R.  M., "The Disposal of Wastewater Underground,"
     pp. 21-24, Industrial Water Engineering, March, 1967.

66.  Montgomery, D.  R., "Integrated System for Plant Wastes Combats
     Stream Pollution," Chemical Engineering, pp. 108-110,
     February 27,  1967.

67.  Mencher, S. K., "Minimizing Waste  in the Petrochemical
     Industry," Chemical  Engineering Progress, Vol. 63, No. 10,
     pp. 80-88, October,  1967.

68.  Partridge, R. P.,  and Paulson, E.  G., "Water: Its Economic
     Reuse Via  The Closed Cycle," Chemical Engineering, pp. 244-
     248,  October  9, 1967.

69.  Kline,  Charles  H., and  Bry,  Thomas S., "Demand for Better
     Water Boosts  Water Chemical Market," Environmental Science
     and Technology. Vol. 4,  pp.  276-281, April, 1967.
                              160

-------
70.   Kollar, K. L., and Volonte,  A.  F.,  "Distribution of  Water
     and Wastewater Utilities Capital Expenditures  in 1964,"
     Water and Sewage Works,  pp.  29-34,  January,  1967.

71.   Geurge, Apfel, "Estimating Costs of High-Rate  Clarifiers
     and Softeners," Petrochemical Industry,  pp.  23-26, January,
     1959.

72.   Mellhenny, W. F., "Recovery of Additional Water from
     Industry," Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol.  63, No. 6,
     pp. 76-81, June, 1967.

73.   Gallagher, John T.f "A Fresh Look at Engineering Construc-
     tion Contracts," Chemical Engineering, pp. 218-224,
     September 11, 1967.

74.   U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufacturers,  1967,
     "Water Use in Manufacturing," MC 67(1)-7, U.S.  Government
     Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,  1971, 361 pages.

75.   "Projected Wastewater Treatment Costs in the Organic Chemical
     Industry," Volume IV of the Cost of Clean Water and  Its
     Economic Impact, Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
     tration, U.S. Department of the Interior, January 1969,
     190 pages.
                           161

-------
1 1 Accession Number
J
w
ry Subject Field & Group
05D
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
c Organization
               Datagraphics, Incorporated
               Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
     Title
               Projected Wastewater Treatment Costs in the Organic
               Chemicals Industry	Updated
 1Q  Authors)
                                16
                                    Project Designation
                                              EPA Project  12020 GND
                                     21
                                         Note
 22
     Citation
 23
Descriptors (Starred First)
        ^Chemical Wastes,  ^Economics, ^Industrial Wastes
 25
Identifiers (Starred First)

  ^Organic Chemicals, ^Treatment Costs, Survey
 27
Abstract
This  report presents a description of the organic chemical industry and the costs
the industry would incur in attaining various levels of pollution abatement over the five-
year period through 1974«  For the study purposes, the organic chemical industry has
been defined as  SIC 2815 (cyclic intermediates, dyes, organic pigments [lakes  and toners],
and cyclic [coal tar]  crudes); SIC 2818 (organic chemicals, not elsewhere  classified);
portions of SIC  2813 (industrial gases); portions of SIC 2879 (agricultural chemicals,
not elsewhere  classified);  and portions of SIC 28?1 (fertilizers).  Organic gases only
were included  from SIC 2813 and ammonia and urea only from the fertilizer  industry.   The
report presents  in considerable detail the description of the various production processes,
the waste treatment methods practiced, and the possible impact that changes in processes
might have on  the volume and character of the wastes produced.

Projections have been  based upon the chemical industry data in the 1963 and 196? Census
of Manufacturers and upon data obtained from 53 organic chemical plants.   Costs of
treatment are  estimated by  year for 6 levels of treatment from removal of  gross pollutants
to 100$ removal  of contaminants.
Abstractor
       Dr. Henry C. Bramer
                          Institution
                             Datagraphics, Incorporated
  WR:'02 (REV. JULY 1969)
  WRSIC
                        SEND. WITH COPY OF DOCUMENT. TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
                                                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                  WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240
                                                                                * GPO: 1970-389-930

-------