U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
PB-255 395
PCBs WATER ELIMINATION/REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND
ASSOCIATED COSTS, MANUFACTURERS OF ELECTRICAL
CAPACITORS AND TRANSFORMERS
VERSAR, INCORPORATED
PAREPARED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JULY 2, 1976
-------
-------
PCBS WATER ELIMINATION/REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY
AND ASSOCIATED COSTS,
MANUFACTURERS OF ELECTRICAL CAPACITORS AND TRANSFORMERS
Addendum to Final Report, Task II
Contract No. 68-01-3259
Submitted to:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Submitted by:
VERSAR INC.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Va. 22151
(703) 354-3350
July 2, 1976
-------
PORTIONS OF THIS REPORT ARE NOT LEGIBLE.
HOWEVER, IT IS THE BEST REPRODUCTION AVAILABLE
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inunctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 440/9-76-020
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
PCBs Water Elimination/Reduction
Technology and Associated Costs, Manufacturers of
Electrical Capacitors and Transformers (Addendum
to Final Report, Task II)
5. REPORT DATE
.Tiilv 9. 1Q7K
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
DC. Robert Purfee and Staff
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Versar/ Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Task II
22151
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-3259
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Water Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washinoton. DC 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This addendum report summarizes the quantities and sources of wastewaters in the
manufacture of electrical transformers and capacitors; describes the alternate
available technologies for reducing or eliminating the discharges on a source-
by-source basis; and tabulates the estimated costs for achieving such reduction
or elimination.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Fietd,
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Task II Final Report, "Assessment of Wastewater Management, Treatment
Technology, and Associated Costs for Abatement of PCBs Concentrations in In-
dustrial Effluents," discussed the diverse sources of PCB-cpntaminated
wastewaters within the askarel capacitor and transformer manufacturing indus-
try. These contaminated waters, in addition to contact process waters, also
included "non-contact" cooling waters, stormwater runoff from the manufacturing
plants, and sanitary wastewaters.
The general potential for reduction of water use in this industry is
favorable, since water has to be carefully excluded from the internals of
both transformers and capacitors in order for the units to meet product and
performance specifications. Newer plants in these categories, particularly
those of smaller size, use much less water per unit of PCB usage than the older
plants. However, the existing plants in the industry would require a combina-
tion of process and plant modifications and wastewater treatment and recycle to
achieve a goal of no discharge of PCB-contaminated waters. This addendum to
the Task II report summarizes the quantities and sources of the wastewaters;
describes the alternate available technologies for reducing or eliminating the
discharges on a source-by-source basis; and tabulates the estimated costs for
achieving such reduction or elimination.
>
Section 2.0 of this addendum addresses the point sources from the capacitor
and transformer manufacturing industry with the absolute goal (with a single
exception from one plant) of no point-source discharges of any waters. Exten-
sive applications of process changes (from wet to dry unit processes or unit
operations), of water segregation practices, of water treatment and recycle
practices, and of water-quantity reduction practices were investigated. The
residual contaminated wastewaters not eliminated by these practices were then
hypothesized to be "incinerated," e.g., heated to a sufficiently high
-------
temperature for a sufficiently long time to ensure destruction of PCB con-
taminants.
Section 3.0 presents the technologies and costs for eliminating PCB con-
tamination of rainwater runoff from manufacturing plants in this industry.
Section 4.0 presents the technical basis and estimated costs for three
alternative approaches to PCBs reduction in the direct discharges from this
industry to waterways. The technology and costs presented are based on those
of Reference 1 and Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this Addendum. The approaches
were selected to offer a range of PCBs control at various levels of costs.
The estimated costs contained herein are as accurate as was possible
within the scope of work. Based on previous experience in this area, we
feel that the least reliable costs tabulated are those for waste stream segre-
gation. Costs for segregation are highly variable from plant to plant, and
accurate estimation is only possible as a result of detailed study of plant
layout, piping, etc., which was beyond the scope of this study.
-2-
-------
2.0 TECHNOLOGY AND COST TO ACHIEVE ZERO DISCHARGE FROM POINT SOURCES
IN THE ASKAREL CAPACITOR AND TRANSFORMER MfiNUFACTURING INDUSTRY
2.1 Present Sources of Point-Source Discharges
The wastewater discharges from the askarel capacitor and transformer
nanufacturing industry, which have been shown to contain measurable quantities
of PCBs, are from the following sources:
2.1.1 Non-contact cooling water. The major uses include
cooling of impregnation tanks, of vacuum pumps, and
of vapor degreasing units. Minor uses include cool-
ing of compressors and welders.
2.1.2 Water-sealed vacuum pumps and steam-jet ejectors, used
in some of the plants to evacuate impregnation tanks
or individual product assemblies for moisture removal
prior to filling with askarel.
2.1.3 Detergent washing of components and of assemblies. De-
tergent washing occurs in two general areas. One area
is cleaning and degreasing components such as cans, tops,
terminals, etc., prior to assembly. These components
may be produced at the plant from metal stock or brought
in already fabricated. The second area of use is in re-
moval of excess oil from the filled units after the seal-
ing operation.
2.1.4 Boiler blowdowns, air conditioning condensates, and
contact cooling water (from welding and soldering opera-
tions) .
2.1.5 Contaminated process wastewaters, including vacuum pump
condensates, laboratory wastewaters, and wastewaters from
surface treatment operations such as plating, phosphatizing,
painting, fluoride treatment, and caustic baths. Surface
-3-
-------
treatments prior to painting typically involve phos-
phatizing of steel and fluoride treatment of aluminum,
both of which involve the use of water baths. Plants
which fabricate capacitor components on site (several
of the larger plants do so) perform tin plating of the
covers and studs as a corrosion protection at joints.
Water visage includes the plating bath and rinse water.
The water usage is small.
2.1.6 Sanitary and personal hygiene wastewaters. Sanitary
and personal hygiene water usage in this industry, al-
though small in comparison to cooling water usage, typi-
cally becomes highly contaminated with PCBs. Water uses
in this category include handwashing, showers, safety
purposes including eye washing, drinking fountains,
laundry, and toilet flush.
2.1.7 The wet scrubber for the waste incinerator flue gas at
one plant (Plant 103). This plant operates its own in-
cinerator to destroy liquid PCB wastes. The scrubber
water used to cleanse the stack gases must be regarded
4|v as process water, and, based on the PCBs concentration
>;: in the scrubber effluent of Monsanto's incinerator (150 ppb),
this water is very likely to be contaminated with PCBs.
The quantities and disposition of these existing point-source dis-
charges have been tabulated in the Task II report for the eight plants sur-
veyed.(lb)
2.2 Technologies for Eliminating Point-Source Discharges
The technologies for eliminating the discharges are:
2.2.1 Segregation of non-contact cooling water supply and dis-
charge lines from all other plant waters (e.g., process
-------
waters, sanitary waters, etc.); replacement of open
sewers and channels with closed discharge piping to a
canton location; cooling of these discharge waters in
a closed non-evaporative heat exchanger (e.g., a tower
with forced circulation of water through finned tubes,
cooled by a forced-air draft); and recycle of the cooled
waters. Blccxl from this closed circulation system would
be added to boiler blow.towns for trcabrt?.r.t and return.
One of the .eight, plants survnytxl in the'Task II effort
(Plant 101) already has :r.rg reacted non-contact: r.xjoliruj
water; however, thij* pl.mt lias an evajjorntivo-tyjjp cool-
ing tower. Closed heat fjxdiange-rs arc, however, the
recomronded technology to prevent losses of PCBs to the
atmosphere.
2.2.2 Replacement of water-scaled vacuum pumps- and stcnm-jet
systems with mechanical, o.ij-sealed vacuum pumps. Non-
contact cooling water for these pumps would be added to
the circuit discussed above. Gondensate, after separation
from the oil phase, would be disposed of as contaminated
process water.
Mechanical oil-sealed vacuum pumps are presently in wide
use in the industry.
/
2.2.3 Replacement of all aqueous detergent washing operations
with organic-vapor degrensing; for both the cleaning of
components prior to assembly and the cleaning of assemblies
containing askarel. Solvent recovery would be accomplished
by distillation; the still bottoms (sludges highly contami-
nated with PCBs) would te incinerated.
Detergent cleaning was the original method used, and was
largely replaced by vapor degreasing with trichloroethylene.
-5-
-------
However, several plants, including the newest plant, now
use detergent washing.
A possible alternative (not considered in the cost esti-
mation because it is highly site-dependent) is the complete
segregation of detergent-washing of components from the
plant areas where PCBs are used, so that the detergent wash
wastewaters would not be contaminated by PCBs. 'This com-
• V'J"
plete segregation would include controlled employee^ access
and other techniques used in the pharmaceutical manufactur-
ing and other industries. ... v^'
• V-' !'••*
2.2.4 Collect the boiler blowdown water, the bleed from the . i:^'
closed non-contact cooling water circuit, air conditibnirtg>.-: ;,
condensates, and contact cooling waters, in an appropriate
equalization basin; filter these waters, demineralize, and _,.,;,,
return to the non-contact cooling water circuit. ..;?-'
2.2.5 Incinerate the contaminated process wastewaters in a .' ,
specially-designed incinerator to achieve the temperature/•-
residence time conditions for complete PCBs destruction (as
(Ic)
described previously). It is assumed that the incinera-
tion of water with only very small quantities of contami-
nants requires no flue gas wet scrubbing system, but that
exhaust gas dehumidification would be included as necessary
(to prevent steam clouds).
A possible alternative (not included in the cost estima-
tions) is the complete segregation of component plating
from the plant areas where PCBs are used, similar to the
alternative discussed above for detergent washing of;;
components.
Another possible alternative (not included in the cost
estimation) is the conversion of conventional painting
-------
operations (which require a water spray) to dry electro-
static painting and labeling processes. Such conversion
has already been made in the industry, but it is not known
whether it can be generally applied.
Final painting and labeling of capacitors is only done en
units which have passed performance tests. Painting and
labeling prior to filling, as performed with transformers,
does not appear to be an acceptable alternative for
capacitors.
2.2.6 Install sanitary and personal hygiene facilities which use
a minimum of water. These include waterless cleaners,
closed sinks, and airplane-type or chemical toilets as
appropriate. Coincinerate the reduced sanitary discharges
with the contaminated process wastewaters.
'•A closed sink system is already used by one company in the
industry, in which sink water is collected, drummed, and
incinerated. Use of dry cleaners prior to handwashing is
also practiced at that plant. This material, as well as
paper towels, etc., is collected and disposed of with the
other solid wastes from the plant.
2.2.7 For the one plant with a waste incinerator using a wet
scrubber, collect the scrubber liquor in an equalization
basin, filter, and treat by carbon adsorption (to one ppb
or less PCBs). This treated water would be discharged to
receiving waters. There does not appear to be an alternative
dry process to replace wet scrubbing. This discharge would
be the sole exception to the elimination of all point-source
discharges from the industry. It should be noted that this
single existing incinerator at one plant is for disposing
of waste oils contaminated with PCBs. It should not be
-7-
-------
confused with the hypothesized "incinerators" for dis-
posing of contaminated waters — these latter units should
not require wet scrubbers.
2.3 General Method for Estimating Costs
The Task II effort included a detailed characterization of six askarel
capacitor manufacturing plants (100, 101 / 102, 104, 105, and 106) and of two
askarel transformer manufacturing plants (103 and 114). The six capacitor plants
are approximately 50 per cent of that industrial sector, and the two transformer
plants are approximately 20 per cent of that sector.* ' Since on the basis of
POBs usage the capacitors are 65 per cent of the total industry and the trans-
formers are 35 per cent, ' the eight characterized plants represent 40 per
cent of the total PCB-consuming industry.
Based upon the data for the individual eight plants as published in the
Task II final report, * ' and upon more process-specific data contained in trip
reports for each of the eight plants, estimated costs were developed for each of
the eight plants for implementing each of the seven discharge-elimination
technologies outlined in the previous section. Table 2-1 lists the pertinent
technical data used for developing these costs, the cost elements, and the total
estimated costs for each of the eight plants.
Under the assumption that the eight plants were representative of the
entire industry (with respect to wastewater sources and quantities and the dis-
tribution of plant sizes), the eight-plant-sum for each cost element was divided
by 0.40 to estimate the corresponding value for the entire askarel capacitor and
transformer manufacturing industry.
Throughout the analysis represented by Table 2-1, annual capital re-
covery costs were calculated based upon a ten-year lifetime and an 8 per cent
-------
TAOU 1-1 - lai'lHMHI CDB15 1O AQIUVE UTO OlSQIARZ
..
Twrrology
togro? Ota Non-Contact
Coating Water, dacorf-
|e*te» Cooling, tocycla
(•plan tutor Reel Vac.
tuip* t stoat Jets
vith Mchanieal pups
Ikoplaos DDttnent
tending vittl Vapor
Oaonaslng
Filter t tntlneralue
UoMtons. Add to
Coaling KMex Circuit
.
MoUnt » Carton Adsorp.
lentbarMtaz fro
rt>r*i"'ti
*
Ihcinrrete Process
NaatMtn and
Sanitary KastAater;
After Kater-Sav*.Tg
(e.g., Omieal Toilets)
Installation for Sanitary
now
Coat Elencnt
MMF-ctxitact coolim wtcr. (CD
Son-Contact Cooling Witcr. ?p»
Cap* IRv. for SOTTOqation
Cap. Xnv. for Dry Cooling Tawer
total Cat .al Inves went
Annual Cap. tecov. Costa
Annual Haint. Costs
Annual Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
No. Vacuun turps Nocdod
Cap. Invest, for pu-ps
Annual Cap. Jtecov. CDSta
Annual fifct) Kaint. Cost*
Total Annual Costa
Capital tmvst. for veps*? Dag.
Annual Car>. Jfecov. Costa
Annual Xajnt. Costs
Annual Fuel Costs
Total Annual Costa
Boiler Blo-xsxn.'GT?
Coolin) water Slowdown, CTO
Contact Cooling vteter. CSV
Total GrD to Treaeicnt
Total can to Treatment
Cap. Inv.-Cqualis. . Filt.
Cap. Inv.-DauneraUze
Total Cap. Investncnt
Ann. Cap. fcxov.-Ojal I rilt.
Ann. Oper. Costs-fc-jl t put.
Total Ann. Costs-tVr.al i ret.
Ann. Cap. Recov.-ar-.in.
Ann. Oper. Costs-Cnrun.
Total Ann. Costs-Dcnin.
Total Annual Costa
GPD Scrubber Witer
enm (16 hrs/day)
Cap. LTV. -Equal 6 Flit.
.Cap. Inv.-Carbon X!soxp.
Total T'*-' Investnont
Ann. Cap. Teoov-fcrjil 6 rilt.
Ann. Op. Coets-Gcvial » Filt.
Total Arm. Costs-trial t Filt.
Ann. Cap. Recov.-Cadm Adnrp.
Am* Op. Costs-Carbon Adsorp.
total Ann. Costs-Cuixn Acxoip.
Total Annual Costs
GPD Prooe&a Hater
GPD Ser-itary Hater (Prenent)
Est. Ko. Mtion £*rslo)*aes
Cap. Xnv. For Water Saving.
Annual dp. Beoyv. Cost
Ann. Oper. Cost
Total Ann. Cost, Kat. Saving
CPD Sanitary Hater (Future]
GPD Total to Incinerate
gD9 Total to Incircrata
Inein. Cap. Investrent
Mm. Cap. Tteeov. Creta
Ann. t*abor • Haint. Costs;
GPT Incinerated
Ann. IMel Costs
Total Arvmul Costs-mc.
Zne. Cap. Inv, -Sanitary .
toe. Ann. Costs-S.viitary
total Cap. Inv. frr Sanitaz-/
Total Ann. Costs (or S.tnitjr/
total Cap. Inv.' for Process K.
Total Ann. Costs (or Process w.
Total Capital tnvrsoncnt
Total Annual costs
total Capital Invm brent
total Annual Costs
Plant
100
".655
(81
74,000
115,000
189,000
28,100
21,000
29.100
80.400
0
20,000
6,500
0
26,500
J7.6
160,000
22,003
182,009
23,800
5,300
29,100
1.100
(,(00
9,900
39,000
3
200
44,940
350
17,500
2,603
2,800
5,400
3,500
3,700
1.9
93,009
13.909
18.600
962,000
19,000
51,590
fG.COC
48,700
105,500
54.100
5,010
2.000
110.50C
56,900
4|1,500
176,100
Plant
101
0.25
1(0
0
41,000
43,000
6,400
8,600
11.200
20,200
0
0
0
0
e
55,000
8,200
1,100
1.400
12,900
2,500
1,500
0
5,000
5.2
(1.000
(.000
67.000
9,100
2,000
11,100
900
1,200
2,100
13.200
0
0
0
• o
0
1.500
140
7.000
1,000
1.100
2,100
1,400
1.400
1.5
90.000
13,400
18,000
364,000
7,300
33,700
90,000'
38,700
97,000
40,800
0
0
97,000
40.800
262,000
91,100
Plant
102
0.388
404
41,000
65,000
108.000
16,100
13,000
17,300
46,400
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
3,900
0
8,900
9.3
87,000
9,003
96.0CO
13,000
2,900
15,900
1,300
2,200
1,500
19,400
0
0
0
e
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52,000
200
10.000
1,500
1,600
3,100
2.000
2,000
2.1
91 ,000
13,600
18,290
620,000 S
10,300
42,109
91,000
42.100
101,000
45,209
0
0
101,000
45,200
305, COO 2
111.030
Plant
101
1.646
1,714
194,000
270,000
464,000
69,103
54.000
73,500
196,600
0
0
0
. 0
0
176, COO
26.200
10.600
4,400
41,200
25,000
16,530
165,000
206.500
215
(00,000
111.003
713,010
89,400
19,800
109,200
16, EDO
51,500
63,300
177.500
122,000
127
430,000
71.000
508,000
(4,000
14,200
78.200
11,600
35,100
46,700
124.900-
18,000
50,000
450
22,500
3.4CO
3,600
7,000
4,500
22,500
23.4
300. COO
44,700
60,300
850,030
11C. 000
2:0,700
60,000
44.100
82,500
51,100
240,000
176,600
322.500.
227,700
183,500
7(7,900
Plant
104
1.191
1,245
C2.000
213,000
292.000
43,500
42,090
53,500
137.000
0
0
0
0
0
200.000
29,800
' 12.000
5,000
46,600
15,000
12,000
0
27,000
29,1
160,000
22,030
132,000
21,800
5,300
29, ICO
3,300
6.700
10.000
39,100
0
0
10,000
l.COO
50,000
7,500
8,000
15.500
10,000
10,000
10.4
145,000
21,600
29 ,000
2,c:o,oo3
31,500
102,100
145,000
102.100
195,000
117,600
0
0
195.000
117,600
869.000
142,500
TT
Plant
105
0.387
404
(9,007
65,OC'J
134,00)
20,005
13.00',
17,305
50,103
10
168,100
25,100
14,100
19,400
60,000
8,900
1.600
1.500
14,000
7,500
1.900
• 0
11.400
11.9
101.000
11.030
112,000
15,000
3,300
18,100
1,600
2,900
4,500
22.800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.500
65,000
300
15,000
2,200
2,400
4.600
1.000
15.500
16.1
2CO.OOO
29,800
43,000
4,0:3,000
79,600
149,600
33,700
29,000
53,700
13,600
161,300
120,600
215,000
154,200
689.300
280,700
Plant
106
0.327
141
39,000
54, COO
9J.OOO
13.VOO
lo.eoo
14.600
39.300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,000
1,300
0
(.300
(.6
71,000
7.C30
78, COO
10.630
2,300
12,900
1,000
1.630
2.600
15.500
0
0
0
5.000
5,000
170
,500
,300
,400
.700
.700
.730
7.0
110,000
16,409
22,033
1,320. CCO
36, 013
74.400
28,000
18,900
36,500
21 .600
82,000
55.500
113,530
77,100
289,500
131.900
Plant
114
0.038
39. (
21.000
12.000
35.000
5.200
2,400
1,700
9. WO
0
0
0
0
0
100
400
0
500
0.5
15.000
1,000
16,000
2,200
500
2,700
100
100
200
2,900
0
0
4,500
9,100
40
2,000
100
300
(00
400
4,900
5.1
100,000
14,900
20,000
1,125,000
26,200
61,100
8,200
5,000
10.200
5,600
91,800
56,100
102,000
61,700
UliOOO
11,900
Total of
8 Plvns
Surwyol
4.596
5.090
524,000
1,153,900
202,300
166,800
218.430
587.530
10
168,100
25,100
14,300
19,400
491.000
73.100
29.500
12.300
114.900
78,100
49 ,000
165.000
292,100
305
1,255,030
191,000
1,446,030
IB?. 300
41,430
223,300
23.300
72. SCO
101,130
329,
-------
interest rate, consistent with the Task II report. The capital recovery
factor is then:
(0.08)(1.08)10 =
In each cost category, the annual capital recovery cost is explicitly shown in
Table 2-1 so that different combinations of lifetimes and interest rates may
be used by the reader to generate alternate annual costs.
Consistent with average practices in this industry, the plants were
treated as operating two shifts (16 hours per day) , five days per week; or 260
days or 4,160 hours per year. The primary wastewater data as tabulated in the
Task II report and in the trip reports is in terms of gallons per day. The
necessary abatement units were sized (in terms of instantaneous flow rates)
based upon the daily discharges and the operating hours above; in some cases,
this sizing was not consistent with assumptions in the Task II report of 24
hours per day and 365 days per year.
Two parameters in this analysis were scaled on a plant-by-plant basis
using PCBs consumption rate as the size factor. These two parameters are the
number of vapor degreasing units needed and the number of production employees.
Since the scaling factor (PCBs use) has been treated as proprietary data through-
out the Versar study, the presentation of the corresponding unit costs in
Table 2-1 is necessarily not explicit. For all other cost elements, however, every
effort was made to make the unit costs very explicit.
2.4 Development of Estimated Costs
2.4.1 &>sts for Segregation, Cooling, and Recycling Non-Contact
Cooling Water
The primary data in Table 2-1 is the f lowrate of non-contact
(le)
cooling water. These data were taken directly from the Task II report except
for Plant 101. This plant already has a recirculating cooling water system with
an evaporative-type cooling tower and with a daily makeup water addition of 3,000
gallons; it was estimated that the recirculation rate in this plant is 250,000 gpd.
-10-
-------
No added costs should therefore be incurred by this one plant for cooling water
segregation, but this plant (as all the rest) would require the installation of
an enclosed cooling-water/air heat exchange.
The capital costs for segregation, for the remaining seven plants,
were taken directly from the Task II report. These costs were generated on
the basis of plant acreage (as a scaling factor for the extent of existing piping
and sewers) as well as on the basis of the flowrate of non-contact cooling water.
The capital costs for the dry cooling tower were based upon the
instantaneous flowrate of non-contact cooling water (an gpm) for each plant, using
the correlation shown in Figure 1, which was taken from the Task II report. "
The annual muinteniince costs for the segregc'ited water system
were assumed to be the same as existing maintenance costs for unsegregated systems;
hence, a net cost of zero was used. For the dry cooling tower, annual maintenance
costs were taken as 20 per cent of the dry cooling tower capital investment,
consistent with the Task II report. Electrical energy costs for the water
side of the dry cooling tower, for the air side of the dry cooling tower, and
for added pumping needed for recirculation (as opposed to once-through) of the
water; were calculated on the basis of 0.7 IIP (total) for each gpm of water,
4,160 hours per year of operation, and $0.02 per KWH.
2.4.2 Costs for Mechanical Vacuum Pumps
The characterization of the eight plants in the Task II effort
(final report and trip reports) resulted in the determination that only one of
these plants, Plant 105, made significant use of water-sealed vacuum pumps and/or
steam ejectors with condensers. The other: seven plants utilize mechanical vacuum
pumps for the impregnation chambers. Although vacuum is generally used in PCB
storage tanks and possibly for other unit processes, the major use appears to be
in the impregnation step.
It was estimated that Plant 105 has ten impregnation tanks, each
of approximately 128 cubic feet in volume, and each served by a vacuum pump that
is required to reduce the pressure from one atmosphere to 0.1 torr in 5 minutes.
-11-
-------
-------
Then for each pump,
M
~ 60 P0 P/760 ~ t P
«
where: Q = constant volumetric pumping rate, cubic feet per minute
M = mass air evacuation rate, pounds per hour
P = pressure in tank, torr, at time t, minutes
p = density of air at one atmosphere = 0.0749 lbs/ft3
P. = initial pressure = 1 atm = 760 torr
V = volume of tank, cubic feet
Hence, for VQ = 128 and for P = 0.1 at t = 5,
Q = 170 | = ^— • In 7,600
Q = 230 cubic feet per minute
and Ht = 230/170 = 1.35 pounds/hour/torr
A typically suitable mechanical vacuum pump is the Stokes/Pennwalt
Corporation "Microvac" oil-sealed single-stage piston pump model 412H, with a
displacement of 300 cubic feet per minute at a pump speed of 490 PPM. This pump
has a constant performance of 270 cubic feet per minute from 760 torr to 10 torr,
and a slowly decreasing performance down to 230 cubic feet per minute at 0.1 torr.
It is driven by a 10 HP motor running at 1800 RPM, and uses 2 GPM cooling water.
The vacuum pump has an oil capacity of 10 gallons. The f .o.b. cost, including
motor, V-belt drive, belt guard, oil solenoid valve, initial charge of oil, gas-
(2)
ballast, and visual oil flow indicator, is $4,680. '
An independent cost estimate was made using the size factor
ty/P = 1.35. According to Huff, ' the f.o.b. cost is about $4,800, closely checking
the first cost estimate. Using $4,680, the installed cost is calculated according
to Huff (3) to be:
-13-
-------
Installed Cost = 55.2 x (f.o.b. costs)0'678
= 55.2 x (4,680)°'678
= $16,830.
This nuirber is used as the capital investment per vacuum pump in Table 2-1.
Again according to Huff, the annual maintenance costs are
9 per cent of the capital costs, or $1,515 per pump. However, the system (e.g.,
steam ejectors) which the mechanical vacuum pump replaces has a maintenance cost
which must be subtracted from the $1,515 to derive a net maintenance cost.
According to Huff, ' the f.o.b. cost of a steam-ejector with H/P of 1.35 is
$570; this results in an estimated installed cost of $4,090. At an annual
maintenance cost of 2 per cent of the capital cost for steam ejectors, this
cost would be $82. Hence, the net annual maintenance cost for the mechanical
vacuum pump would be $1,433.
There would be a net energy saving for mechanical vacuum pumps
over either steam ejectors or water-sealed liquid-ring vacuum pumps. For each,
evacuation cycle, the 10 HP mechanical pump uses
(10 HP) (o.745 H) L| Hours) ($0.02/KWH)
= $0.0124 of electric energy
Assuming one cycle per hour and 4,160 operating hours per year, the annual electri-
cal cost would be $52. In comparison, an equivalent steam ejector would require,
for each evacuation cycle, about 22 pounds of steam (which is calculated according
(4)
to the method of Patton and Joyce) . At a steam cost of $2 per thousand pounds,
the steam cost per cycle would be $0.044; or about $175 per year. Hence, the
net saving would be about $123 per year per impregnation tank. For the purposes
of this analysis, these small net energy savings are assumed to be negligible.
2.4.3 Costs for Vapor Degreasing
The capital investment requirement to replace detergent washing
with vapor degreasing at Plant 101 was estimated by that plant to be $55,000.
-------
That plant presently employs detergent washing in two areas: in the initial
cleaning of purchased capacitor components (cans, covers, and other metallic
components) to remove oily protective coatings; and in the cleaning of the outer
surfaces of complete assembled capacitors after soldering and plugging.
Of the other seven plants characterized in the Task II effort,
four presently employ no detergent washing (Plants 100, 102, 106, and 114).
Plants 103, 104, and 105 use detergent washing techniques for only some cleaning
operations: Plant 103 utilizes a kerosene flushing technique on transformer
subassemblies prior to filling with PCBs, but uses some detergent washing as
well; Plant 104 uses trichloroethylene vapor degreasing of sealed capacitor
assemblies but uses either vapor degreasing, ultrasonic cleaning, or detergent
washing of metallic components prior to capacitor assembly; and Plant 105 utilizes
trichloroethylene vapor degreasing of metallic components and detergent washing
of completed capacitor assemblies. The capital investment requirements for re-
placing detergent washing at Plants 103, 104, and 105 were estimated using the
Plant 101 number as a basis, and scaling by both quantity of PCBs consumption
and the estimated present mix (at each plant) of detergent washing vs. vapor
degreasing.
The annual maintenance costs for vapor degreasing equipment were
estimated as 6 per cent of the capital investment. The annual costs for fuel
in the vapor degreasing boiler and solvent recovery still were estimated at 2.5
per cent of the capital investment; this is equivalent to vaporizing about 600
pounds per hour of trichloroethylene at Plant 101 (heat of vaporization of 103
Btu/lb; 20 per cent overall thermal efficiency, 4,160 hours per year, and $1.083
per thousand cubic feet of natural gas).
2.4.4 Costs for Treatment of Slowdowns and Miscellaneous Non-
Process Waters
The daily quantities of water used > as boiler feed makeup for
Plants 100, 104, 105, and 114 are listed in the Task II Final Report. *le) For
Plant 100, the boiler bleed discharge is half of the boiler feed makeup; hence,
Table 2-1 shows half of the boiler feed makeup for the above four plants as waste-
water to be treated and recycled. The boiler bleed discharge for the remaining
-15-
-------
four plants was estimated from the first four data points based upon PCBs con-
sumption as a scaling factor.
With the installation of a recycle non-contact cooling water
circuit, a blowdown from this system would be required for each plant. The flow-
rates in Table 2-1 were taken as one per cent of the non-contact cooling water
circulation rate.
(le)
Plant 103, as shown in the Task II report, has a discharge
of 183,000 GPD of contact cooling water. The sources of this discharge are contact
cooling in welding and plating operations and in phosphate treatment of steel
surfaces prior to painting (as discussed in the Versar trip report for this plant).
It was estimated that 90 per cent of this water, or 165,000 GPD, is relatively un-
contaminated contact cooling water, subject to treatment and recycle; and that the
remaining 18,000 GPD are relatively contaminated process waters not amenable to
treatment.
The technology to eliminate these discharges (of boiler blow-
down, non-contact cooling water blowdown, contact cooling waters, and minor amounts
of air conditioning condensates, etc.) is to collect these waters in an equaliza-
tion basin, filter them through multimedia beds (e.g., sand and anthracite),
demineralize them with a combination of ion exchange resins, and then recycle these
waters to the non-contact cooling water circuit.
The capital investments required for pretreatment (equalization
and multimedia filtration) shown in Table 2-1 are based upon the pretreatment curve
of Figure 1, which was taken from the Task II Final Report. The capital
investments required for demineralization are based upon the demineralization curve
of Figure 1, which was taken from a prior Versar study for EPA. The annual
operating costs for equalization and multimedia filtration, including operation,
maintenance, and electrical power, were taken as 3.3 per cent of the pretreatment
capital investment, consistent with the estimates of the Task II report.l The
annual operating costs for demineralization (labor, maintenance, resin costs, and
chemical costs) were taken as $1.00 per thousand gallons of water treated,
commensurate with a total dissolved solids content of about 1,000 mg/liter. ^ '
=16-
-------
2.4o5 Costs for Treatment of Scrubber Water from Waste Incinerator
at Plant "103" '
waste incinerator at Plant 103 is the only one in the in-
dustry. This plant has a scrubber liquor discharge of 122,000 GPD. The pretreat-
gnsnt technology for this wastewater is the same as for the blowdown waters des-
cribed in the previous sections equalization and multimedia filtration. Hence,
the capital investment requirement is based upon the pretreatment curve of Figure
1? and the annual operation costs were taken as 3 = 3 per cent of the capital
investment,, • The capital investment for carbon adsorption is based upon the
corresponding curve of Figure 1, which was taken from the Task II Final Report . ^
Jtamual operating costs for carbon adsorption (labor, maintenance, carbon costs,
and pumping costs) were taken as 45 per cent of the capital investment, equivalent
to the operating costs in the Task II report. * 3'
2o4.6 Costs for Reducing Sanitary Wastewater Quantities and for
Incinerating Sanitary Waters and Contaminated Process Waters
Table 2-1 lists the quantities of contaminated process waters
frcsn each of the eight plants surveyed in the Task II effort. These wastewaters
include vacuum pump condensates, laboratory wastewaters, and wastewaters from
the various surface treatment techniques used in the industry (plating, painting,
phosphatizing, and fluoride treatment) . For Plant 103, these process waters in-
clude an estimated 10 per cent of the "contact cooling water" discharged ; it was
previously estimated that the remaining 90 per cent of these waters could be
i
treated and recycled. The technology for eliminating these process waters is to
incinerate them for two seconds residence time at 2200 °F, thereby destroying any
PCBs. NO wet scrubber would be required, as the flue gases should have only very
minor quantities of particulates and HC1.
Sanitary wastewaters (including personal hygiene wastewaters)
amount to rather large quantities, as Table 2-1 shows. These are actual data for
each plant, except for the sanitary wastes from Plant 103, which was estimated
based upon plant size. The technology for eliminating these wastewaters is in-
cineration together with contaminated process wastewaters . However, it was also
assumed that prior to incineration, the quantity of sanitary wastewaters would be
reduced to an absolute minimum. All lavatory sinks would be closed, with the
maximum use of waterless hand cleaners. Toilets would be replaced by airplane-type
=17=
-------
or chemical toilets. It was estimated that such water-saving techniques would
result in a minimum sanitary wastewater flow of 10 gallons per production employee
per day. The number of production employees at each plant was estimated based
upon PCBs consumption as the scaling factor, using the actual number of production
employees at Plant 106 as a baseline. It was also estimated that the capital
investment for installing the closed sinks and toilets would be $1,000 for each
20 employees. The annual costs for maintenance, chemicals, and supplies was estimated
as 16 per cent of the capital costs.
The capital investment for the incinerators is based upon the
total of contaminated process wastewaters and projected sanitary wastewaters. The
(Ik)
incinerator curve of Figure 1, taken from the Task II report, provided the
basis for capital costs. The annual labor and maintenance costs were taken as 20
per cent of the incinerator capital investment. Fuel costs per year were-based
upon the gallons of water incinerated per year, assuming 260 operating days per
year. It was assumed that a total of 2,200 Btu were required per pound of water
to achieve 2200°F, and that the fuel (natural gas) costs $1.083 per thousand
cubic feet (or per million Btu). These unit values are consistent with the Task II
report.(lk)
Since the contaminated process waters and the sanitary wastewaters
would be coincinerated, the capital and annual costs for eliminating each were
calculated from the total costs on the basis of relative quantities for each of
the eight plants.
2.4.8 Quantities of Eliminated Discharges
Table 2-2 lists the current wastewater discharges from each of
(le)
the eight plants surveyed in the Task II report. These quantities were extra-
polated to the entire industry on the same basis as the estimated costs. Based
lupon the technology discussed previously, all of these point-source discharges
would be eliminated with the exception of the waste incinerator scrubber water,
which would be discharged after treatment to reduce the PCBs content to one
part per billon.
-18-
-------
Ttfete 2-2
Sumary of Present Hastewater Quantities, Gallons Per Day
Ken-Contact Cooling Water
Vacuum Punp Seal Water
Detergent Wash Water
Slowdown, Contact Cooling
Incinerator Scrubber
Process Kastewater
Sanitary Wastewater
TOTALS
Plant
100
655,000
0
0
20,000
0
200
44,900
720,100
Plant
101
250,000
0
8,000
2,500
0
0
1,500
262,000
Plant
102
388,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
52,000
445,000
Plant
103
1,646,000
0
2,000
190,000
122,000
18,000
50,000
2,028,000
Plant
104
1,195,000
0
25,000
15,000
0
0
10,000
1,245,000
Plant
105
387,000
44,000
200
7,500
0
12,500
65,000
516,200
Plant
106
327,000
0
0
3,000
0
5,000
5,000
340,000
Plant
114
38,000
0
0
100
0
4,500
9,300
51,900
Total, of
8 Plants
Surveyed
4,886,000
44,000
35,200
243,100
122,000
40,200
237,700
5,608,200
Bctrapolated
Industry
Totals
12,215,000
110,000
88,000
607,750
305,000
100,500
594,250
14,020,500
-------
2.5 Estimated Costs for Hypothetical Plants
Three hypothetical plants were defined on the basis of PCBs con-
sumption: . . . .
Large Plant 2,500,000 pounds per year
Medium Plant 500,000 pounds per year
Small Plant 100,000 pounds per year
Each of these hypothetical plants is assumed to require wastewater-elimination
techniques in all wastewater categories; e.g., these plants each require an
upper-bound set of costs.
Table 2-3 lists the individual wastewater quantities and the individ-
ual capital and annual cost elements for each of the three plants and for each
of the several technologies for discharge elimination. The costs were derived
in the same manner as previously described in Section 2.0, and include the cost
elements of Section 3.0.
Figure 2 graphically shows the total capital investment and the
total annual costs as functions of plant size.
-20-
-------
IOMU tor
PUnt*
******
(•jngrt* ttn-OTitKt
Online Mtar, OOM*-
•jMn OxOini, Mcycl*
IMpUa tberr-Snl
VKUJB Pivps «nd
Sana JetM wlttt
MctunJul Puqp*
-^ Mi«hi*M
«itt> Vtfcr Deqnuing
Filter vd D-ninerilim
ftkMdum. Mid to
OxtlAng KiUr Circuit
Pntnatmnt «p S*al W^tf-r. f.TU
Nr>, Vacuua rurr>5 rfc*«k*j
Cap. Jjr^. for I\VT«
MnuAl Op. P/-.W. (rvtn
Anrual p*>*t.) M^inr. Cto'.rs
Ihtal ft-fTii^l t>*tt-n
.
i"-n>. fn1.*. f-.ir Vnmr 1.^-inMsJnq
.Vj»ial- '>;». fn>i7-r. (Jr»'-i
^-r»»fcl Hvinf-. 'rf»ti«
VrtiAl P.»*»V O>if»
TVjtflV Ain»wl Ovm*j
iV-,tU*T nirvri-v^, f.'.tl
c.*"mli/vj w^'/r |*nt
To*Jll Tt«*itn*nt
C«;>. Jrrv. - prf»t r^.^fw'n^
Ojp. Inv. - !*««it'v-r.*i !>'•
TotJtl Oc.i. i."^'**'>t-nvnt
ArTne^&l Op. H*-i-)v. - **.* •* r" -^*^nnt
Aneual *-V1*r. CJM1"* - *• •fr"»»-i«nt.
/irrjal Ou* i*-*'.»j/. - r» "u/wi'dl.
frmial Oi*»r. ri.>n!;j* - [>• •tm"r*l.
Thfcal ^nrtiwii O>S*IB - Df-u,r«trAl .
TOt.il Anrrj»l U>«rj|
:k3T-tlt»-r WJttnr. '.TO
(Vnihh^r fc'irt^r , nrw
CSp. Inv. - Pt««Tr»vi(mr»''-
Cap. I/r/. - Girhnn Aiiv-titM-.
Tbtal Op. l^.»-;t3r»?iit
Annual Cnp. RPTTI*'. - t"i--tr»* .••••"\t
Annual Or* r. ri.t^r.i - P:- '^»'
WUd Anrr.iAl (t^u - IY-'TN-.V
Annual Op. »?w/. - Ci •!«-¥» .-.;.\.
Annual O*r. O.r.fs - d:T?fMi *vl».
Total Ann.wl «*>sr«i - Oii-».»i /.n.
Hatal AnnuAl <-Vjst»
f3T? Pmopf*^ w.i»j»r
CJ*0 Swutary Water (Pr*"vrit)
(>ft.. Mo. fclU/^» Rn(ilo>*»C€»
O»p. Inv. for w*ter s.r-inrj
Annual Op. Retrrv, Cn^t
Annual Opftr- C*mt
Ibtal fnnuAl (t>st. Wait. R-ivtrq
CPD SanitAry Vhtcr (ruturc)
Gn> Ttotal to Dxrinemw*
9P« tbtal to livrinoratjo
Xncin. Op. Inv.
Armunl Op. nnoov. Oasts
Annual r^hor t Kiiirt. UXitJ
CPY Incirwrat'yl
Annual Flcl Cunts
Ibtal Annual Ovits - Tnrtn.
Indfi. Op. Inv. - 5- \nitary
Indn. Annual rtvjts - S.»ntary
ttot«JL Cap. Inv, - s.mir.\rv
tbtal Ann. Oon*^« - s.v\ it-try
Tbtal Osp. Inv, for Pn-v*«w w.iter
Tbtal Ann. Costs fnc rr>c. WiU-r
Ttftal Capital invr^tmnit
Total Annual Coct.i
Cxp. IfW. - Stor7¥?e? niftpi.
Op. Inv. - Htl. Trotvilor BlrV|».
Tl3t»l CipLtAl Invrstmrfir
Annual Op. rtXDv. (iint-i
TbtAl C&pitAl Inx-rstmrnt
T^tal AniKul C
315/30
29.000
C.200
34,290
4,100
8,71)0
U.ano
47,000
250,000
}6l
700,000
XJ2.000
8)2, 000
104,300
21,100
127,400
15.700
M.VJO
79,200
206,600
25.000
62,500
62S
31,200
4,700
5,000
».70O
6,250
31,250
32.6
150,090
52,100
70,000
t,l'jO,000
161,400
233.500
70.000
56.700
101. 2OO
66,400
280, OTO
226,000 -
331,200
293,200
)5,SOO
1S.900
51,400
j 5,200
2,189,100
773.000
Mdlia PUnt
SOO.OOO
lb*Vr
KBUM
200,000
208
17,000
36,500
73,500
10.900
7,300
8,800
27,000
20,000
»
«7,«!»0
10,0011
5,700
15,700
5,000
4o!dOO
S.noo
2.400
1,000
9.4W
5.000
2.000
7,000
7. ra
72.00O
7.600
79.C.OO
10.7TO
2.4OO
U,!00
1,100
1,700
2. BOO
15.900
50,000
52.1
235.000
4B.OOO
283,000
JS.OOO
7,800
42.600
7.200
21.600
28.800
71.600
5.00O
12,500
125
6.300
1.000
1.000
2,000
1.250
6,250
4.51
105.000
15.700
21.000
1,630.000
32.300
69.000
21,000
13.800
27,300
14,800
84,000
55.200
111,300
. 71.000
19,400
6,100
25,500
2.6OO
600,300
213.200
SMll Mint
100.000
lb»/yr
ra UH
40,000
41.7
23,000
12.600
35,600
5,300
2,500
1,800
9.60O
5,000
"I
Ifc.noo
2.VJO
1,400
3,">00
I ,i>00
UM.
i.yjo
000
.100
2.700
l.ilOO
400
1,400
1.4S
21.400
J.200
30,600
4, TOO
900
5.100
.100
<00
700
5,800
10.000
in. 4i
90.000
25.000
115.000
11.400
3.000
16.400
3.700
U.300
LS.OOO
31.400
1,000
2,500
25
1,300
200
200
400
250
1.250
1.30
90,000
13,400
18.000
325.000
6.400
37.8OO
18,000
7.600
13. .TOO
7,800
72,000
30.200
91.JOO .
38.200
11.400 •
6.100
17,500
1,800
316,800
93.400
-21-
-------
sv
to
-------
2.6 References for Section 2.0
1. Assessnent of Wastewater Management, Treatment Technology, and Associated
Costs for Abatement of PCBs Concentrations in Industrial Effluents, Versar
Inc., Final Report, Task II, EPA Contract No. 68-01-3259 (Feb. 3, 1976)
a. Pages 53,54,76,77,78.
b. Pages 43,45,70,71.
c. Page 213.
d. Page 224.
e. Pages 45 and 71.
f. Page 211.
g. Page 215.
h. Page 217.
i. Pages 162,163.
j. Pages 171,172.
k. Pages 214 and 216.
2. Process Plant Construction Estimating and Engineering Standards Manual,
Volume 5, Richardson Engineering Services, Solano Beach, Cal. (1974).
3. Huff, George A., Jr., Selecting a Vacuum Producer, Chemical Engineering,
March 15, 1976, p. 83-6.
4. Patton, P.W., and C.F. Joyce, How to Find the Lowest-Cost Vacuum, Chemical
Engineering, Feb. 2, 1976, p. 84-8.
5. Private Gonnunication, Plant 101, May 28, 1976.
6. Versar Inc., General Technologies Division, Draft Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Performance, Inorganic
Chemicals, Alkali and Chlorine Industries, EPA Contract No. 68-01-1513
(June 1973), pages'VIII-18-22.
-23-
-------
3.0 PCB RUNOFF FRCM STORAGE AND MATERIAL TRANSFER AREAS
3.1 Problem Areas
Stormwater or rneltwater runoff becomes contaminated with PCBs at vari-
ous points on the premises of capacitor and transformer manufacturing facilities:
1) Unloading areas where raw or premixed PCB materials are trans-
ferred from flatbed trucks, tank trucks or rail tank cars to
drum storage areas or tank farm storage areas. Very few
unloading areas are covered or have methods for containing
minor leaks or spills or accidental discharges of large ;
volumes of PCBs; the result is that PCBs are washed from
these areas into the environment by rainwater runoff and
snownelt. Horizontal transport to running streams or ....
vertical percolation to the water table results in permanent
PCB ^contamination. Topographic conditions, soil texture.
and composition, and local precipitation rates all help
determine the rate of PCB transfer and contamination.
2) Areas where various solid wastes are stored including drums
filled with solid or liquid PCB wastes, spent clay.(atta-
pulgite or fuller's earth) filtering material, scrap ,-
capacitors or capacitor interiors, scrap transformers or
transformer interiors, spill absorbent materials such as
floor dry, rags, and newspapers, and sludges from oil
v
separators and other water treataent systems. Storage
is generally in the open and may be on a permanent -to-asis
or until the materials are hauled to a landfill or
incineration. Again, runoff carries PCBs from these solid
waste areas into the environment by the same mechanisms, as
delineated above.
3) PCBs, originating as air emissions from the plant and from
undefined remote sources, reaching the ground, roofs, parking
-24-
-------
lots, and outlying areas. An intermedia transfer is required
prior to the PCBs becoming part of the stormwater runoff. This
category will not be considered as arising directly from plant
operations.
*
3.2 Solutions to Runoff Problems
The obvious solution to the above water contamination and concomitant
transport of PCBs to the environment is to prevent water contact and mixing
with PCS materials. Enclosures around unloading and storage areas, with curbs
and impervious floors, will prevent PCB loss. However, the containment of
PCBs which settle from the air is more difficult. Until air emissions are con-
trolled, diversion of unoontamiiiated runoff waters around facilities by dikes
and curbs can be envisioned, and the subsequent control, storage, and possible
treatment of all contaminated runoff waters may be considered. However, PCB
control techniques applicable to PCB contamination from intermedia transfer
sources are not within the scope of this study.
3.3 Enclosure Requirements
Handling methods of PCBs and PCB wastes, both solid and liquid, are
largely a function of production volume. Very large operations unload raw PCBs
from railroad tank cars to storage tanks; over 20,000 gallons are transferred
from each car to the "tank farm" area. Large volumes of clay filtering wastes
are also generated at very large plants, as PCBs are filtered on site. At
intermediate and small sized operations PCBs are generally delivered in tank
trucks (4,000-5,000 gallon capacity) or 55-gallon drums, and are premixed and
filtered; obviously no filter wastes are generated. In developing costs for
Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3, Versar has made several assumptions regarding material
unloading and waste storage requirements:
1) Operations using more than 1,000,000 pounds of PCBs per year
generate more than 175 55-gallon drums of liquid and solid
wastes per month, and will require a large storage area.
-25-
-------
Table 3-1
Building Costs - Waste Storage Areas
1) Large Building (50' x 100')
Footings $ 1,203.00
Slab (6n thick) • 2,250,00
Curb (6" high) 549.00
Metal Siding (10' high) 4,050.00
Metal Poof (12:3 pitch) '' 7,020.00
Structural Steel 17,850.00
Misc. 2,530.00
$35,452.00
2) Medium BuUding (50' x 50')
Footings $ 802.00
Slab (6" thick) 1,215.00
Curb (6" high) 366.00
Metal Siding (10' high) 2,700.00
Mstal Poof (12:3 pitch) 3,510;00
Structural Steel 8,925.00
Misc. 1,850.00
$19,368.00
3) Small Building (25' x 50')
Footings $ 601.00
Slab (6" thick) 725.00
Curb (6" high) 274.00
Metal Siding (10' high) 2,025.00
Metal Poof (12:3 pitch) 1,755.00
Structural Steel 4,462.00
Misc. 1,605.00
$11,447.00
-26-
-------
Table 3-2
Building Costs - PCS Unloading Areas
1) Railroad Tank Car (201 x 70')
Footings $ 721.00
Slab (12" thick) 1,400.00
Walls (41 high, 8" thick, concrete) 1,872.00
Metal Siding (10' nigh) 2,430.00
Metal Poof (12:3 pitch) 2,079.00
Structural Steel 4,998.00
Misc. 2,735.00
$15,875.00
2) Tank Truck or Flatbed Truck (151 x 30')
Footings $ 361.00
Slab (6" thick) 279.00
WaUs (21 high, 8" thick, concrete) 471.00
Metal Siding (10' high) 1,215.00
Metal Roof (12:3 pitch) 648.00
Structural Steel 1,606.00
Misc. 1,518.00
$ 6,098.00
-27-
-------
Tabla 3-3
Industry Costa
Oripivitor Industry
Storage Buildings
large Users (8)
(>1,000,000 lbs/yr>
Medium Users (6)
(100,000-1,000,000 Ibs/yr)
Snail Users (5)
(<100.000 Ibs/yr)
TOERLS (19)
Material Transfer Buildings
Large Users (8)
(>1 million Ibs/yr)
Median t Small Users (11)
(<1 million Ibs/yr)
TOOLS (19)
Transformer Industry
Storage Buildings
Large Users (4)
(>1.000,000 Ibs/yr)
MsUun Users (7)
(100,000-1,000.000 Ibs/yr)
fii»i i users (7)
(<100,000 Ibs/yr) (7)
TODttS (18)
Material Transfer Buildings
Large Users (4)
(>1 mil lion Ibs/yr)
Median t Snail Users (14)
(<1 mi 11 inn Ibs/yr).
TOTALS (18)
TOTAL KB USER INDUSTRY (37)
Capital Costs
Per User
.
$35,452
19,368
11,447
15,875
6,098
$35,452
19,368
11,447
15,875
6,098
$
Total Industry
$ 283.616
116,208
57,235
$ 457,059
127,000
67,078
$ 194,078
$ 141,808
135,576
80,129
$ 358.513
63,500
85,372
$ 148,872
$1,158,522
Annual Costs
(8% 9 20 yr.)
Per User
$3,616
1,975
1,167
1,619
621
$3,616
1,975
1,167
1,619
621
Total Industry^
$ 28,928
11,850
5,835
$ 46,613
12,952
6,831
$ 19,783
$ 14,464
13,825
8,169
$ 36,458
6,476
8,694
$ 15,170
$118,024
20 Year Costs
Total Industry
$ 578.560
237,000
116,700
$ 932,260
259,042
136,620
$ 395.662
$ 289,280
276,500
163,380
$ 729,160
129,520
173,880
$ 303,400
$2,360,482
-28-
-------
Liquid KB transfer areas will require a structure large
enough for a railroad tank car.
2) Intermediate sized operations using from 100,000 to
1,000,000 pounds of PCBs per year will require less
waste storage area as they generate approximately 75
55-gallon drums of liquid and solid waste per month.
Liquid KB transfer areas will require a structure
large enough for a tank truck or flatbed truck to
unload premixed and filtered liquid or drurtrned PCBs.
3) Small operations, using less than 100,000 pounds per
year will require minimal waste storage area, as avail-
| able enclosed space in the manufacturing facility can
i often be utilized. Unloading facilities will require
! a structure large enough for a flatbed truck to unload
drums of premixed PCBs.
4) All facilities will remove liquid and solid wastes to
| incineration or landfill on a monthly basis.
; 5) All building structures will include slab floors, curbs,
footings, either part concrete and part metal walls or
; all metal walls, metal roofs, steel superstructure, two
| normal access doors, one roll type steel door for
! vehicular access, rudimentary lighting, no ventilation,
: no insulation and no windows.
i
• 3.4 References for Section 3.0
1. Richardson Engineering Services Inc., Process Plant Construction
Estimating and Engineering Standards, Solana Beach, California,
-
2. Versar Inc. , Final Report, Assessment of Wastewater Management,
Treatment Technology, and Associated Costs for Abatement of
PCBs Concentrations in Industrial Effluents, 1976.
-29-
-------
3. Personal Conversation with Dick Rollends, Vice President of
Engineering, Jard Corp., Bennington, Vermont.
4. Personal Conversation with Bill Montgomery, Plant Engineer,
General Electric, Hudson Falls, New York.
-30-
-------
4.0 SUMMARY AND TABULATION OF TECHNOLOGY AND ESTIMATED COSTS FOR THREE
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO REDUCTION OF PCBs IN EFFLUENTS FROM THE
CAPACITOR AND TRANSFORMER MANUFACTURING CATEGORIES
4.1 Description of Alternatives
The technology and estimated costs developed under Task II of Contract
No. 68-01-3259, as contained in Reference 1 and Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this
document/ were reviewed and utilized to develop three alternative approaches to
PCBs reduction in effluents from the industry. These alternatives cover a range
of both costs and PCBs reduction, and also reflect consideration of technology
availability.
The eight individual plants included in the analysis were those plants
in the category for which sufficient data were available (from plant visits, tele-
J phone contacts, etc.) to justify the cost estimations. Six of these eight plants
i
i discharge wastewater directly to waterways. Five other plants in the category are
I
| known to discharge directly to waterways, but sufficient data on these facilities
as required for the analysis were not available to us.
I
i
1 To our knowledge there are presently no cases of sanitary water (personal
i hygiene, toilets, etc.) discharge to waterways in this industry category; all such
waters are believed discharged to municipal sewage collection and treatment systems.
I Therefore, although costs were developed for sanitary water under the zero dis-
i
| charge case of Section 2.0 herein, treatment of sanitary water was not included
I
i. in any of the three alternatives of this section; treatment costs for sanitary
I
| wastewaters are thus zero for all three alternatives.
i .
i The three alternatives may be summarized, in terms of process change,
' technology and treatment of the several types of wastewaters by use, as follows:
-31-
-------
Wastewater Type
Type of Technology Applied
Alternative A
Alternative B
Atlernative C
Non-Contact Cooling
Water
Steam Jet Condensate
Detergent Washing
Water
Boiler Slowdowns
Incinerator Scrubber
Water
Process Associated
Wastes*
Sanitarv Wastewaters
Rainfall Runoff -
Cool in Closed
System and Recycle
Replace Steam Jets
with Mechanical
Pumps
Replace with
Solvent Vapor
Degreasing
Filter, Demineral-
ize and Recycle
Pretreatment and
Carbon Adsorption
Pretreatmsnt and
Carbon Adsorption
No Treatment
Enclose Areas
Pretreatment and
Carbon Adsorp-
tion
Pretreatment and
Carbon Adsorp-
tion
Pretreatment and
Carbon Adsorp-
tion
Pretreatment and
Carbon Adsorption
Pretreatment and
Carbon Adsorption
Pretreatmant and
Carbon Adsorption
No Treatment
Enclose Areas
Segregate and
Discharge
Untreated
Pretreatment and
Carbon Adsorp-
tion
Replace with
Solvent Vapor
Degreasing
Discharge Un-
treated
Pretreatment and
Carbon Adsorption
Pretreatmant and
Carbon Adsorption
No Treatment
Enclose Areas
4.2 Presentation of Estimated Cost Tabulations
Estimated costs for the three alternatives are tabulated as follows:
Alternative A - Table 4-1
Alternative B - Table 4-2
Alternative C - Table 4-2
4.3 Discussion
In general, the relative costs and effective reduction in PCB discharges
for the three alternatives can be summarized by:
Relative Cost
Relative PCB Reduction
Alternative A
"(Process Changes,
Maximum Recycle)
Mid-Level
Highest
Alternative B
Use of
Carbon Treatment)
Highest
Mid-Level
A3. ternative C
(Minimum Treat-
ment)
Lowest
Lowest
* Process associated wastes include:
o less than 1000 gal/day rinse water from hot solder dip (1 plant)
» more than 1000 gal/day phosphatizing bath wastewater (2 plants)
o more than 1000 .gal/day tin plating wastewater (1 plant)
o less than 1000 gal/day fluoride bath wastewater (1 plant)
o less th^n 1000 gal/day paint stripping wastewater (1 plant)
« more than 1000 gal/day unspecified contact cooling water (1 plant)
-32-
-------
OJ
Metrology
•egregsta ton-Contact
ODoUngnter, Cloeed-
(yauv Cooling, tocycle
replace Katar seal we.
lUtpa 4 Steam Jets
vitli Mechanical ruqp*
•teplaos fctergent
Hashing with Vapor
Decreasing
Tiltir 4'OanlnenUs*
•Blov&vna, Add to
Cooling tfcur Circuit
rntnat 1 Carbon Mop.
Snclnentec
JkdJoKp. Qantavineted
riiieeHertar
lanltaiy veutaNMar
skin ftnoff »teri
biclosuna Araund Unload-
ing and Storage Areas, with
Curbs 4 Inpervlous Floon
TOTALS
coatnorant
Non-Contact Cooling Mater, K9
ten-Contact Cooling Hater, ops
dp. Inv. (or Sojnxjatlan
Oip. tnv. (or Dry Owl Ing Tower
Total Capital Invi:»uait
Annual Cap. Kecov. Costs
Annual mint. Costs
Annual IVJwer Costs
Total Annual Coats
No. Vacuum Pwvs Needed
Cap. Invest, for Pvrfje
Annual Cap. Recov. Costa
Annual (Net) mint. Costa
Total Annual Costs
Capital Invest, (or Vapor Oaf.
Annual Cap. P-xcv. cost*
Annual Mal.it. Costs
Annual Fuel Costs
Total Annual Costs
Bollcr-aloui±cun,-Gro
Coolim Kiter Dlouduun, (90
Contact Coullng Katcr, GH>
Total CFD to Treatment
Total gr*> to Ttoatncnt
Cap. Inv.-tqoal. t Flit.
Cap. Inr/.-Dcnincrallxe
Total Cap. Invesuwnt
Am. Cap. Rccov.-Bqual. 4 FUt.
Ann. Oper. Costs-Q|ual. 4 FUt.
Total Am. Costs-Equal. 4 Flit.
Ann. Cap. Peccv.-Donln.
Ann. Cpcr. Costs-Gamin.
TOt.il Ann. Ccsts-Oomln.
Total Arnu.il Costs
era ScrutLer Voter
Cop. Inv.-Uiual. 4 Flit.
Cop. Inv. -Carbon Ailu>rp.
Total Capital Investment
Ann. Cap. Recov. -Equal. 4 Flit.
Am. Ojcr. CostJ-tiiual. 4 FUt.
Tbt.il Ann. Onsts-niual. 1 Flit.
Am. Ca>i. Kccuv. -Carbon Ailsorp.
Ann. Gp. Costs-Carbon AJaorp.
Tout Ann. Costs-Carbon Adsocp.
Total Anrsjal Costa
gp. (16 hrs/ilay)
Cap. Inv. Equal. 6 Flit.
Cap. Inv. Cartun Mnorp.
Total Capital Investment
Am. dp. nccoverv-liiuol. 4 Flit,
Am. CK-r. Cont-rvjiui. 4 Flit.
I&U1 Am. Ousts - Bjual. 4 FUt.
Am. Cap. Recovery - Carbon Adsarj
Am. Oper. Cost - Carbon Msorp*
Total Am. Costs - carbon Aoaorp.
Ttxal Am. Costa
QD smlt.iry Hitrr
TUlal Cap. Invunurant
Ibul Am. Costs
Cap. Inv. storage Building
Annual Ccst Storage Bulltllng
Op. Inv. tutorial ITans. Mdg.
Amual Cost Hiterlal Trans. Bldg.
Total Upiul InwcDiuit
Kotal Annual Costs
riant
100
0.699
6(2
74.000
119.000
189,000
M.10D
11.000
29.100
(0,400
M.OOO
(.909
0
27.4
160.000
11,000
1(1,000
11,109
9,300
29.100
1.103
(.(09
•(,901
19,000
200~
0.1
(.000
5,900
14.500
1,141
270
1,611
>. (20
2,475
1,2*5 >
4,906
44.740
0
0
19,452
1,616
15.179
1,619
436,627
129.541
Flant
101
0.19
24C
1
41,001
41,001
«,40C
(,4oe
11,201
M,2M
<
«
c
(
I
59.00C
(,20t
1,3«
1.401
11,901
1,501
1,90(
I
1,001
9.9
41.00X
(,00(
(7,001
*,10(
2,00!
11,10(
*0(
. 1,201
. 1.101
11.201
1.90
11,361
1,»7!
6,091
(21
1*0,4(4
14,8*4
riant
101
a.3W
404
«1,OM
45.001
108,001
14, IOC
1 ll.OOC
17, 10t
.(C.40C
1
1
•
'
1,001
I 1,90(
» • ' 1
) 8,>.0(K
I >(,00(
I ' 11,00!
) 1,901
) . 19,901
> 1,3«
) 1,10!
) . 1,50!
) 1»,40(
.
tt.OOl
19.45!
1.411
15,171
1.61!
255.121
71,019
riant
10)
1.644
1,714
1 1*4.000
170.000
464.000
0,100
1 54,000
71, 500
1*6,600
0
0
0
•
«
176,000
24,200
10,600
4,400
41,200
..25,000
16,500'
I 165,000
I 206,500
211
600,000
> 111,000
711,000
(9,400
. 19,800
) 109.200
16.800
I 51,500
I 66,300
177,500
122,000
127
410.000
76,000
908,000
(4,000
14. MO
78,200
11,600
15,100
46,700
124,900
18.79
140.000
10,000
170,000
20,8(0
4.200
25,060
4.470
11.500
17,970
41,030
50,000
0
0
19.452
1,416
15,679
1,619
1,082, «7
988.4(5
riant
104
1.1*9
1,149
(1,000
110,000
292.000
41,500
41,000
51.900
119.000
100,000
29.BOC
12,000
5,000
4«,10C
-19,000
11.000
0
' 27.00C
2(.l
160,000
22.000
182.00C
21,800
5,300
29, IOC
1.30C
6,700
10,001
39, 10(
10.00
19.451
1,61<
19,871
1,615
725.121
230.1J1
riant
1M
C.K7
404
49.000
(5,000
114,000
20,000
11,000
17,300
50.100
10
1(8.300
25.100
14,100
14,400
. 40,000
6,900
1,600
1,900
14,000
. 7,500
1,900
0
11,400
11.*
101,000
11,000
U2.000
15,000
1,100
16.100
1,600
2,900
4,500
22,800
11,900
11.0
100,000
28,000
118,000
14,900
1,000
17,900
4,171
12,600
16.772
14,672
65.000
0
0
15,451
1.416
15,875
1.61*
651.627
1(6,407
Want
1M
0.177
141
M.OOO
54,000
(1.000
13,900
10.800
14,600
19,100
1.000
1.300
0
(.100
71,000
7,000
71,000
10,600
1,100
12,900
1,000
1,600
2,600
15,900
9.000
1.1
M.OOO
10,000
78,000
(.642
1,740
10,182
2.980
9.000
11,980
22,1(2
5,000
0
0
19,36(
1,975
6.098
(21
174,4(6
79.751
riant
114
O.OK)
21.000
12,000
15,000
l.MO
1.400
1,700
»,300
0
100
400
0
500
0.5
11.000
1,000
. 16,000
2,200
500
1,700
100
100
200
l.»00
"" 4.900
4.7
55.000
U.500
74,900
(.199
1,450
1,649
2,*05
(.775
11,6(0
11,525
• ,300
0
0
15.451
1.614
15.875
1,619
174. f.7
38,960
TMslef c
(flaata
•mveyeJ
4.(K
1.0*0
524,000
(14,000
1,15(,000
102,100
1(4,800
218,400
587,500
10
16».300
25,100
14,100
39,400
491.000.
71.100
29,500
11,100
114.900
71,100
49.000
165.000
* 1*2,100
105
1.195, COO
1*1. COO
1,446,000
1(6,900
41,400
128,300
28,300
72,800
101,100
129,400
122.000
137
410,000
78,000
508.000
64,000
14.200
78.200
11,600
15,100
46,700
124,900
40.200
41.89
162.000
101,000
465,000
91.938
10,860
(4,798
19,147
44,190
(1,4*7
126,499
237.740
0
0
191,488
25,646
107,446
10,954
• 4,7*5. U4
1,159,197
(tnnolatai
fu5my.y
fKalt
12.211
12.72*
1.110.000
2.085.009
1.1*5.000
505.800
417.001
944,000
1.468.800
29
. 420,800
(2,700
15.100
91,500
1,127,500
1(2.700
71,809
10.809
187,300
195.300
122.100
412.500
710,100
Ml
1,137.500
477,500
1,615.000
• 467.100
107.500
570,800
70, COO
1(2, COO
252,800
(23.500
109,000
118
1,075.000
195.000
1,270.000
160. COO
15,590
195.900
19. COO
(7,800
116,800
111,100
100,500
104. (
905.000
257,530
1,162,500
134.845 .
27,150
161,994
16,1(8
115,179
134,244
116.2..S
-------
tutmOoa
JKWifeint 4'cWton Mjorp.
at til Flaws to ant ppb KB*
l*vel (or DUcharga to
Surf «o* Katen
ftnlttzy tkutewfav
Sain Rroff to tar i
Dclosvxre Around Unload-
ing i Stcraj« Areas, with
Orhi 4 Irpervioui floor*
TTOLS
Q*te*
<3O, All Finn ex. Sanitary .
7jn. AU Flow ex. Sanitary (16 to-day)
'dp. Inv.-Etjual. ( Flit.
Ann. Cap. Recovery-Equal. 4 Flit.
Am. Op. Cost-Equal 6 Flit.
dp. Inv. -Carbon Msorp. •
Ann. Cap. Recovery-Carton Adaorp.
Am. Qp. Costs-Orbon Jklsorp.
tot. Op. Costs-Equal. 4 FUt.
tot. Cp. Costs-Carbon Adcorp.
total Cap. Inv.
total Ann. Cost
CFD, Sanitary Uitori
total Cap. Inv.
Total Ann. Cost!
Cap. Inv. Stora-je Building
Ann. Cost Stora^o Building
Cap, Inv. .Material Trans. Bldg.
Ann, Cost Hiterlal Trans. Bldg.
total Cap. Investment
total Annual Oast*
Want
100
475,200
701.3
1,650,000
245,850
49,500
260,000
38,740
117,000
295, ISO
1SS.740
1.910,000
451,090
44,940
0
0
15,452
3,616
15,875
1,619
1,961,327
456,325
runt
101
10,500*
10.9
90,000
11,410
2.700
28,000
4.172
12,600
16.110
16,772
118.000
32,882
1,500
0
0
19,368
1,975 .
6 098 i
'ill
143,466
35,478
runt
101
393,000
409.4
1,050,000
156,450
11.500
165,000
24.585
74,250
147,950
98,835
1,215,000
284,795
52, COO
0
0
35.452
3,616
15,875
1.619
1.266,327
292,020
runt
10)
1,978.000
2060.4
4,500,000
670,500
135,000
1,000,000
149,000
450,000
805,500
599.000
5,500.000
1,404,500
50,000
0
0
35,452
3,616
15,875
1,619
5.551,327
1,409,715
runt
104
1,235,000
1286.4
2,850,000
424,650
15,500
500,000
74.500
225,000
510,150
299.500
1,350,000
109,650
10,000
0
0
35,452
1,616
15,875
1,619
1,401,121
114,885
*Unt
1M
451,200
410.0
1,150,000
171,350
34,500
195.000
29.055
17,750
205,850
116,805
1,345,000
122,655
65,000
0
0
35,452
1,616
15,875
1,619
1,196,327
127,890
run*
10*
115,000
149.0
900,000
114,100
27,000
150,000
22,150
67.500
161,100
•• 89,850
1,050,000
250,950
5,000
0
0
19,3(8
1,975
6,098
621
1.075,466
251,546
ffbnt
. U*
41,600
44.4
210,000
11,290
4.300
45,000
4,705
20,250
17.590
26,955
155,000
14,545
9,300
0
0
35.452
1,616
15,175
1.619
106,117
69.710
• runt*
5,120,500
5133.1
12,400,000
1,847.600
172,000
2,343,000
349,107
1,054,350
3,219,600
1,403,457
14,743,000
1,621,057
217,740
0
0
251,448
25.646
107,446
10,956
15,101,894
1.659,659
•Oil* plant hu pnwntly • doted gyatcn on ncn-ctntact cooling tatu.
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
tew Oat cptien • MMMtto C
U)
T
,*.«*«
*v*9*t» Non-Contact Cool-
Inj Kitor t Dlscharo*
Untreated
teplaca Determent
Huhlng with Vapor
Blowbbuna, Dlachar^o
Uitrutcd
Pretreat t Carbon Abaorp.
Scrubber Hater from
PlVllUKt 4 OlttOl MjflOLU*
Sanitary Wutouatar
lain Kraft ttoteri
txcloaun Around Unload-
ing t Stcrsgo Areas, vlth
Curb* t Inpezvloua noon
TOOLS
Oaat »3«nant
Nan-Contact Cooling tutor. MGD
Cap. Inv. for Segregation
Annual Cop. Acorn. Coota
Capital Invest, for Vapor Bag.
Annual Cap. Rocov. Costa
Annual Mint. Costa
Annual Fuel O&sta
Total Annual Costa
Boiler Bloutkvn, GTD
Total Op. Ir.vcsenent
Total Annual Coati
cro Scruttjcr ^tkir
«m (16 hrs/V-iy)
Cap. Inv.-lifal. t Flit.
Cap. Inv.-Carlxn \lsorp.
Total -CJ{>i til -InvEst.
Ann. Op. Rocov. -Ct|ual. 4 Flit*
Ann. Ofir. Costs-Equal, t Flit.
Total Am. Costs-rq>iil. 4 Flit.
Aim. Cap. tteoov.-Oubon Adaorp.
Ann. 0|>. Costs-Orbon Adaorp.
Total Ann. Costs-Carbon Adaorp.
Total Annual Costs
Contact Coollr.9 (later, CTO
Vac. Ptrp s«al Uatcr ( Condenaatl, OD
Other Process Hitet-g, CTXJ
Toud process tuters, GTO
Total gtn (16 his/day)
top. Inv. -Dju.il. t Flit.
Cap. Inv. -Carl rji AJsorp.
Total &p. In^sorunt
Ann. C-i. i«xvA-.-Fi|ual. t Flit.
Arm. Oucr. r',sLs-i>rial. ( Flit.
TOul Irn. Ccclu-U.-al. t Flit.
Am. Op. F^^ov.-iJarbon AJsorp.
Ann. Over. CC!.ts-Cii(.«:n Nlaorp.
Total Ann. Costa-Carbon Adaorp.
Total Ann. ccsta
GTD Sanitary vtitera
Total Cap. Inv.
Total Ann. Costs
dp. Inv. Storage Dulldlng
Ann. Cost Storage oullding
Cap. Inv. Material Trana. Bid}.
Ann. Cost Material Trana. Bid).
Total Cepiul Investment
Total. Annual Costa
Pint Plant Plant Want
100 . 101 101 101
0.6SS 0.2S 0.381 1.
74,000 0 41,000 194,
11,026 0 4,407 28,
10,00
55,000
1,200
1,300
1,400
12,900
2,500 $,0(X
0
0
-
200
200
0.2
9,000
5,500
14,500
1,141
270
1,611
820
2.47S
1,299
4,906
44,940 1,501
0
0
91,00
176,
26,
10,
4,
41.
29,
646
000
906
000
200
600
400
200
000
0
0
riant riant
104 • 10}
1.195 0.3(7
82,000 69,000
12,21* 10,201
200,000 60,000
29,800 8,900
12,000 1,600
5,000 1,500
46,800 14,000
15, (KX
112,000
127
410,000
78.000
908.000
- 64,000
-14,200
78,200
11,600
35.100
46,700
124,900
16,500
0
18,000
14,500
35.9
190,000
41,000
231,000
28,310
5,700
34,010
6,109
18.450
24,559
58,569
SO,
35,451 If, 368 39,452 35,
1,616 1,979 1,616 1.
19,879 6,098 15,875 IS,
1.619 621 1,619 1
139,827 80,466 94,327 1,160,
11,167 15,496 11,642 258
000
0
0
452
616
879
619
327
810
) 7,500
0
0
Plant PUT* 1 Planti
10« 114 4ton«>«l
0.117 O.OJ8 4.886,
19,006 11,000 524,000
9,811 1,427 78,076
l.OOt
•
0
44,000
12,500
56,500
98.1
199,000
91,000
106.000
17.999
7,650
49,645
7,599
22,990
30,549
> 76,194
10,000 65,000
0 0
0 0
35,452 35,452
3,616 1,616
1S.87S 1S.87S
1.619 1,619
333,327 486,327
44.2S3 105,710
101
491.000
71,100
29,500
12.300
114.900
78,100
0
0
122.000
127
430, COO
78,000
908.000
64,000
"14". 200
78,200
11,600
35,100
46,700
124,900
16,500
44.000
5,000 4,900 40,:00
9,000 4,500 100, 7CO
S.I 4.7 104.9
91,000 55,000 567.000
20,000 19,500 137,000
78,000 74,500 704,000
8,642 ,195 84.433
1,740 .650 17,010
10,382 .645 101.491
2,980 .909 20,413
9.000 ,779 61,653
11,980 11,680 82.C63
22,362 21,525 183,556
9,000 93,003 237,740
000
000
19.368 15,451 291,448
1.97S 1,616 25,646
4,098 15,875 107,446
421 1,619 10,956
142,464 148,627 2,585,894
10,76* 10,187 S38.014
-------
• t
•iV
The reason why Alternative A is believed able to achieve a greater
reduction in PCBs discharged than the higher-cost Alternative B is that Alternative
A ttLnifldtes the total water discharged through maximum use of cooling water and
process water recycle. For the eight plants, Alternative A shows 0.2 k3> versus
5.1 MGD for Alternative B. On the cost side, carbon treatment (plus pretreat-
tnent) is more expensive than recycling. It should be noted here that incineration
of contaminated waters as utilized in the zero discharge analysis (Section 2.0)
»
lite not considered practicable for Alternative A because of the time requirements
fa* development, 'design, and installation of wastewater incineration equipment.
•:--; - AL&rftafcive A appears equally applicable to both existing and new sources,
in new sources it seems likely that the rate of wastewater discharge
no incinerator for liquid PCBs) could be reduced to even less than the
ffit eight-plant average of about 5,000 dPD (40,000 GPD of treated process "''
(omitting incinerator) from eight plants on Table 4-1).
According to the Task II Final Report (Reference 1), a properly designed
prattfeatment and cartoon adsorption system should reduce PCBs levels in the effluent
to one ppb (one tig/lit) or below, which is also a typical limit of detection for .,
PQfarin routine laboratory analysis of industrial wastewater s. In addition, again ;^
based on Reference 1 data, a total average PCBs level of 15 ppb in the untreated
cooling water and blowdowns from Alternative C appears practicable as a result of
relatively minor changes (such as cleanout of existing piping, housekeeping
improvements, etc.) • . • - '
On the above basis, the total projected discharge rates (to waterways)
in pounds per 365 day year of PCBs from the eight plants for each alternative
are (vising one ppb as the PCBs level in carbon-treated water).:
Alternative Projected PC^ Discharge, Ib/year
A 0.5
B ,. , iS.5 ' ' •. ..
C 227.4
Estimated Present Discharges *>78.0 ' .
from Eight Plants I
-36-
------- |