SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research EPA-600 2 79-102
Laboratory Ju|y
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Group Treatment of
Multicompany
Plating Wastes
The Taunton Silver
Project
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-102
July 1979
GROUP TREATMENT OF MULTICOMPANY PLATING WASTES:
THE TAUNTON SILVER PROJECT
by
Henry C. Gill
Reed & Barton Silversmiths
Taunton, Massachusetts 02780
J. H. Shockcor
Woodstock, Vermont 05091
Marsha Gorden
Development Sciences Inc.
Sagamore, Massachusetts 02561
Grant No. S-805181
Project Officer
Mary K. Stinson
Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Edison, New Jersey 08817
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory - Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even
on our health often require that new and increasingly more efficient
pollution control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory - Cincinnati (IERL-CI) assists in developing and demonstrating
new and improved methodologies that will meet these needs both effi-
ciently and economically.
This report is a product of the above efforts. This study was undertaken
to establish feasibility of a joint waste treatment plant owned and oper-
ated by three companies that generate compatible wastes. The study pre-
sents problems and costs of a joint treatment versus individual treatments.
Participants of this study decided against coownership of a joint treat-
ment plant. However, other groupings of companies may decide on the joint
treatment route.
Information contained in this report will be of particular value to EPA's
Regional Offices and to operators of small plants in urban areas for whom
it is difficult to install an individual treatment system. Within EPA's
R&D program the information will be used as part of the continuing program
to seek and evaluate nonconventional approaches to minimize industrial
waste discharges.
For further information concerning this subject the Industrial Pollution
Control Division should be contacted.
David G. Stephan
Di rector
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
m
-------
ABSTRACT
The requirements for industrial pretreatment will limit the entrance
of metals into municipal treatment facilities in many communities. Within
a city or region, opportunities for grouping waste streams from several
similar companies for combined treatment may exist. This project was de-
signed to consider three companies from the metal-related field in the
City of Taunton, Massachusetts, as possible candidates. The intent was to
explore the treatment technology applicable to this segment of the elec-
troplating industry in order to determine the potential for cost savings
with group treatment and also to develop the legal and institutional
arrangements necessary for successful implementation and operation.
Technical and economic data are presented on individual control al-
ternatives for each of the three companies as well as on group treatment,
with several variations for concentrated wastes and sludges. In addition,
the potential for material recovery and water reuse within the various
control alternatives is developed. Finally, the appropriate institutional
and financial factors for ownership and operation of an industrial group
treatment facility are described.
The project is an outgrowth of a Section 208 (PL 92-500) areawide
wastewater management plan under development by the Southeastern Regional
Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) of Massachusetts as an
alternative approach to meeting pretreatment requirements.
The materials in the report are designed to assist the companies in
determining whether they should treat particular elements of their waste
separately or jointly. They are also designed to assist EPA in deciding to
encourage group treatment facilities as a matter for research and policy
direction.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. S-805181 by
Reed & Barton Silversmiths under the partial sponsorship of the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
This report covers the period of January 1, 1977 to September 1, 1977,
and the work was completed as of April 1, 1977.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Metric Conversion Table viii
Acknowledgment ix
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 7
III. Recommendations 9
IV. Technical Assessment 10
V. Economic Assessment 20
VI. Institutional/Financial Alternatives for Management 30
VII. Summary 38
Appendices
A. Reed & Barton Silversmiths 42
B. Poole Silver Company 84
C. F. B. Rogers Silver Company Ill
D. Joint Treatment 136
E. Excerpts from the City of Tauntori Sewer Ordinance 146
F. Regulations for River Discharge 151
G. Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulations 153
-------
FIGURES
Number Pacje
1 Classification Map of Taunton River Basin 5
2 Reed & Barton Silversmiths - Facility Layout 44
3 Wastewater Discharge Points, West Side of River 48
4 Wastewater Discharge Points, East Side of River 49
5 Process Rinse Water, West Side of River 56
6 Process Rinse Water, East Side of River 57
7 Waste Treatment Schematic - River Discharge 64
8 Batch Waste Treatment Schematic 65
9 Waste Treatment Schematic - Sanitary Sewer Discharge .... 66
10 Final Filtration 80
11 Poole Silver Company - Plant Layout 85
12 Wastewater Discharge 86
13 Process Rinse Water 89
14 Waste Treatment Schematic - River Discharge 94
15 Waste Treatment Schematic - Sanitary Sewer Discharge .... 95
16 Final Filtration 102
17 Evaporative Recovery 105
18 Evaporative Recovery 110
19 F. B. Rogers Silver Co., - Plant Layout 112
20 Wastewater Discharge Points 114
21 Process Rinse Water 120
22 Waste Treatment Schematic - River Discharge 126
23 Waste Treatment Schematic - Sanitary Sewer Discharge .... 127
24 City of Taunton 139
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Reed & Barton Silversmiths - Summary of Alternatives 21
2 Poole Silver Company - Summary of Alternatives 23
3 F. B. Rogers Silver Company - Summary of Alternatives .... 24
4 Drain System 45
5 Summary of Industrial Water Flow by Manhole 50
6 Results of Analyses of Wastewater 51
7 Analysis of Wastewater - West Side of River 53
8 Analysis of Wastewater - East Side of River 53
9 Batch Discharges by Manhole 54
10 Summary of Batch Discharges by Type 54
11 Theoretical Combined Process Water Quality 58
12 Drain System - Building 1, 2, to Sanitary Sewer 86
13 Analyses of Wastewater to Sanitary Sewer 87
14 Analysis of Wastewater 88
15 Summary of Batch Discharges by Type 88
16 Theoretical Combined Process Water Quality 90
17 Industrial Discharges 113
18 Summary of Industrial Water Flow by Outlet 116
19 Results of Previous Analyses of Wastewater at SSO #1 116
20 Results of Previous Analyses of Wastewater at RO #1 117
21 Analysis of Wastewater 118
22 Batch Discharge by Outlet 119
23 Summary of Batch Discharge by Type 119
24 Theoretical Combined Process Water Quality 121
25 Untreated Cyanide Rinse Water 122
-------
METRIC CONVERSION TABLE
1 foot
1 gallon
1 inch
1 mile
1 pound
1 square mile
1 troy ounce
30.48 centimeters
3.78 liters
2.54 centimeters
1.61 kilometers
0.45 kilograms
2.59 square kilometers
31.1 grams
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Sincere thanks are given to George S. Thompson, Chief, Metals and
Inorganic Chemicals Branch and Mary K. Stinson, Project Officer, also Metals
and Inorganic Chemicals Branch, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.. Both have given their valuable
administrative and technical assistance as well as their moral support and
cooperation.
J. H. Shockcor, P. E., has served as principal investigator in this
project, providing the technical and economic analyses of the individual and
group treatment alternatives. Janet M. Levy of Environmental Engineers Inc.
of Concord, New Hampshire, assisted in the development of costs relative to
the various alternatives.
Development Sciences Inc. (DSI) of East Sandwich, Massachusetts, provided
the discussion of institutional and financial factors associated with owner-
ship and operation of the group treatment alternatives and prepared the final
report. Marsha Gorden of DSI served in a coordinating capacity among the
participating groups.
The cooperation of the City of Taunton's Sewer Department and their con-
sulting engineers, CE Maguire Inc. of Providence, Rhode Island, in providing
appropriate data is greatly appreciated. Special thanks are due the Taunton
Area Chamber of Commerce for their assistance in the preliminary industrial
survey.
The three companies provided technical and engineering assistance as re-
quired to meet the time schedule for the project's work elements. With the
direction of Andrew A. Kurowski, General Manager of F. B. Rogers Company,
Kenneth L. Bundy, Plant Engineer of Reed & Barton Silversmiths, and Richard
Kaplan, Vice President of Poole Silver Company, the following plant personnel's
services are acknowledged: Robert E. Waits of F. B. Rogers Company, Donald H.
MacDonald, Jr., of Poole Silver Company, and Francis Souza and Joseph F. Coelho
of Reed & Barton Silversmiths. The cooperation of all is appreciated.
IX
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVE
This project has been designed to test the feasibility of bringing to-
gether and treating common wastewater streams from three manufacturers of sil-
ver and silverplated holloware. In particular, the study has been planned to
explore alternative group industrial wastewater treatment technologies appli-
cable to this segment of the electroplating industry for three basic purposes:
© To determine the potential for cost savings with joint treatment,
® To develop the legal and institutional arrangements necessary for
joint treatment implementation, and
@ To encourage opportunities for material recovery and industrial
water reuse.
A project of this nature can demonstrate the opportunities for aggregating ma-
terials within a region to accomplish environmental goals at reduced costs.
The issue of economy of scale for this industry made up of many small
companies has never been demonstrated in a group project of this nature.
Accordingly, this study has been designed to develop the technical/institu-
tional/financial factors necessary to evaluate joint and individual treatment
alternatives. If the problems were viewed only from the treatment perspective,
it$ utility as an example would be limited. However, by incorporating the
legal, institutional and reuse components, a holistic view of the industry
problem is presented. By including these components, the solution is of value
to Taunton as well as to others looking for answers to similar problems.
It should be recognized, however, that any example is a unique combination
in terms of size, product, associated waste streams, and nearby disposal oppor-
tunities. Consequently, this project should be viewed not as strictly typical
of this industry or the region but rather as an example presenting a group of
variables and circumstances which are useful as a model. In this way, the re-
port can be read as a demonstration of an evaluative approach and thus can be
more useful to a larger audience.
PROJECT HISTORY
This project was an outgrowth of a Section 208 (PL92-500) areawide waste-
water management plan under development by the Southeastern Regional Planning
and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) of Massachusetts. In the course of
investigating the impact of industrial wastewater discharges, it became
1
-------
apparent that opportunities existed for joint treatment of similar industrial
waste streams in the study area. Analysis of industrial effluents in the
several river basins under SRPEDD's planning jurisdiction indicated similar
waste streams in proximity to each other, particularly in the City of Taunton.
This city has a long history of metal crafting beginning with America's
first ironworks in 1656. From that start the city has favored industry rather
than agriculture, building a tradition of metalworking which, today, takes the
form of silverware, bronze and copper ware, stainless steel, pewterware, and
other metallic items. Many of the present-day companies employ electroplating
processes that, as a group, release a variety of metals to the Taunton River,
either through direct discharge or through the municipal treatment plant.
In mid-summer of 1976, a series of meetings with the major silver companies
in the greater Taunton area on the subject of joint industrial wastewater treat-
ment was held under the auspices of SRPEDD, as part of its Areawide Wastewater
Management Plan program activity with task responsibility assigned to Develop-
ment Sciences Inc. (DSI), East Sandwich, Massachusetts. As a result of these
meetings, a committee was formed by three of the silver companies to deal with
the concept of joint waste stream treatment and DSI was requested by the com-
mittee to seek assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency to demon-
strate feasibility.
During the fall of 1976, a project team was assembled by the silver company
committee under the chairmanship of Andrew Kurowski, General Manager of F. B.
Rogers Silver Company. This team included the committee members from Reed &
Barton; F. B. Rogers; Poole Silver Company; a consultant on wastewater treat-
ment, J. H. Shockcor, P.E.; and DSI. Continuity of purpose was maintained
and in early November of 1976, a formal grant application for funding assis-
tance was submitted to EPA with Henry C. Gill, Vice President of Manufacturing
at Reed & Barton, serving as Project Manager and J. H. Shockcor as Principal
Investigator.
Upon approval of the grant application in May of 1977, the project team
initiated the program elements in the work plan. This cooperative effort re-
ceived the full support of each of the participating firms in completing the
following scope of work:
Program Element Objective($) Output
1. Plant Evaluations Investigate plant processes Schematic flow diagrams
to determine waste stream for each participating
types, present treatment plant showing location
systems and which streams of waste generators and
go to sewers and/or local discharge points.
receiving waters.
2. Data Acquisition Identify and catalogue each Statistical data will be
waste stream by quantity, added to the schematics
location and chemical developed in Element I.
analysis. Tabular and schematic
displays will be used to
facilitate evaluation.
-------
Project Element
3. Data Evaluation
4. Develop Alternate
Concepts
5. Develop Cost
Comparisons
6. Report
Objective(s)
Data accumulated during
Element II will be evalua-
ted for adequacy and
accuracy. Expansion of ex-
isting data base will be
accomplished where needed.
Output
The displays in Element
II will be modified and
expanded to show common
characteristics and po-
tential for joint treat-
ment.
Alternative treatment, re- Narrative and schematic
covery and disposal systems descriptions of each
will be developed. Emphasis feasible alternative
will be on technical feasi-
bility compatible with in-
dustrial processes to
achieve compliance with
future regulatory standards.
In addition, where tech-
nically and economically
promising, the considera-
tion of nearby plants with
similar processing units
and waste streams will be
investigated. In particular,
attention will be paid to
Sheffield Silver Company of
Norton and Poole Silver
Company in Fall River.
treatment, recovery dis-
posal system.
A tabular display showing
various system components
by major alternative will
Detail costs for alternative
system components including
in-plant process changes
where needed will be obtained, be shown including esti-
An optimum treatment scheme mated O&M costs.
will be emphasized as a con-
cluding phase of this
element.
A report providing all data
showing the development of
a feasible joint or indi-
vidual treatment program
will be written for poten-
tial publication by EPA.
Emphasis will be on uni-
versal application of meth-
odology, but with specific
applicability for imple-
mentation by the partici-
pating industries.
A report with narrative
and schematic illustrative
drawings.
-------
TAUNTON AND MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT
The City of Taunton, which translated from the Gaelic means "town by the
river," is one of three urban centers located in the Taunton River Basin.
Brockton and Fall River share the same watershed, at the northern and southern
extremities respectively. Urban activity is concentrated in about 30 percent
of the 530 square miles*included in the basin with apparel, leather products,
textiles, electrical machinery and fabricated metal products as major industries,
In 1967, the Division of Water Pollution Control, Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts, classified the waters of the basin to recognize proposed uses. An SB
classification (swimming and agricultural uses) was assigned to the Taunton
River as a tidal estuary flowing through the municipal environs of the City of
Taunton and a B classification to the Mill River, an immediate tributary.
Figure 1-1, a "Classification Map of Taunton River Basin," shows the locations
of the municipal Taunton Treatment Plant as well as the project silver companies.
The Taunton River Basin Plan, in order to achieve the assigned levels of
water quality, developed objectives for effective water pollution control based
upon seven major municipal wastewater treatment plants. All of the basin treat-
ment plants except two, Somerset and Fall River at the southern extremity of the
watershed, will be required to provide advanced wastewater treatment. On essen-
tially this basis, then, the City of Taunton is presently completing an expanded
"secondary" level treatment facility plus ammonia removal to replace an older
"primary" plant, constructed in 1950, with marginal hydraulic capacity. This
new plant will have a 1995 design year capacity of 8.4 million gallons per day
(mgd) average daily flow to serve a population of 40,900 persons living within
approximately a 50-square-mile urban and suburban area.
Wastewater received at the Taunton treatment facility contains waste ma-
terial generated from the use of water for domestic, commercial and industrial
purposes. The original industrial survey of 1971 estimated a total of 2.0
million gallons per day from the wet processing industries including textiles,
rubber and plastics, leather and metal fabrication. At the present time the in-
dustrial pattern has changed with new companies coming into the area and older
companies beginning to consider water conservation techniques. Accordingly, the
design year capacity of 8.4 mgd is projected to contain approximately 1.0 mgd
of industrial wastewater with higher than normal BOD and SS such as from tex-
tiles and food processing, and 0.5 mgd of industrial wastewater with lower than
normal BOD and SS such as from the metalworking industries.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the
City of Taunton's treated effluent requires a 93 percent Biochemical Oxygen De-
mand (BOD) removal under average design flow, discharging to the Taunton River.
An activated sludge type of treatment process utilizing pure oxygen followed by
chlorination has been selected to meet the requirements of the NPDES permit.
Sludge is to be thickened, heat treated, dewatered and landfilled. The treat-
ment facility has been designed to provide advanced biological treatment to city
wastes and will require maximum operation efficiency to comply with discharge
permit standards.
*See Metric Conversion Table, page v.
-------
Boston, MA.
SHUHAWSCACANT a.
SEGBfGANSET
Reed & Barton
F. B. Rogers
Taunton Treat-
nont Plant
Miles
FIGURE 1.
CLASSIFICATION MAP OF TAUNTON RIVER BASIN. Source: The Taunton
River Basin, Part A Hater Quality Data, Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of
Water Pollution Control, Westborough, MA. December 1975.
-------
This strict reduction of BOD»along with the selection of a biological
treatment process,has necessitated the development of a sewer ordinance
tightly regulating the entrance of toxic materials. As described in Appen-
dix E, "City of Taunton Sewer Ordinance," the metals limits in particular have
been set at low levels. Accordingly, companies in the city have begun to con-
sider pretreatment steps and this project represents one set of alternatives
for three companies manufacturing similar products.
THE COMPANIES
The three companies participating in this project represent an extension
of Colonial America's early tradition of metal craft, which included silver-
smithing. Reed & Barton, founded in 1824, is one of the country's oldest and
largest silverware manufacturers, presently producing a varied product line of
tableware and holloware. Poole Silver Company, a Division of Towle Manufactur-
ing Company of Newburyport, Massachusetts, has been in Taunton since 1893 and
produces silverplated and pewter holloware. These two companies are located
on the Mill River, a tributary of the Taunton, as shown in Figure 1, "Classi-
fication Map of Taunton River Basin." F. B. Rogers Silver Company, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of National Silver Industries, Inc., is located directly on
the Taunton River where it has a long history of producing silverplated and
pewter holloware. Detailed descriptions of the plants appear in the first
three appendices.
SUMMARY
During the period of this project, the City of Taunton.with its Conserva-
tion Commission*has begun a Riverbank Beautification Program. With the assis-
tance of Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) employees, initial steps
to clear sites for walking and cross-country running have been taken. The pre-
liminary plans call for additional land acquisition and future work to provide
foot-bridges over the river, a bicycle path and a boat landing.* Since most of
the Taunton River has already been identified and now is charted as a Wampanoag
Indian Canoe Passage** across southeastern Massachusetts, there is additional
interest in the river's past uses for transportation and fishing.
The completion of an industrial pretreatment program such as this report
describes along with the upgrading of the municipal sewage treatment plant will
encourage these additional activities along the river in accordance with the
water quality goals previously established.
* Further information available from the Taunton Conservation Commission,
P.O. Box 247, Taunton, MA 02780.
** "Wampanoag Commemorative Canoe Passage," prepared by Plymouth County Develop-
ment Council in cooperation with the Bristol County Development Council.
-------
CHAPTER II
CONCLUSIONS
TECHNICAL VIEWPOINT
1. Group treatment of process wastewater is feasible for batch discharges.
2. Group treatment of rinses is practical only when companies are close
enough to render collection costs insignificant.
3. Selection of wastes suitable for group treatment must be specialized by
type.
ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT
1. Significant cost reductions can be realized by greater utilization of
batch treatment equipment through multicompany use than by individual
company us6.
2. Reduction in operating expenses for group treatment facilities can result
from salvage of metal values. For this particular study silver is the
predominant metal to be reclaimed. If there are increased amounts of raw
waste, copper and nickel recovery will become attractive.
3. Group treatment at another location will prove most interesting to the
company that is limited in space or personnel and/or is small in size. The
prospects for other companies to join, therefore, are enhanced.
4. Group treatment at its site will prove most attractive to the company
that has available space and personnel.
ENVIRONMENTAL VIEWPOINT
1. Group treatment will provide a higher quality of discharge by use of more
appropriate technologies, higher qualified personnel and better methods
of operation.
2. Optimization of individual plants to evaluate wastes for group treatment can
suggest the most appropriate disposal site to match the particular charac-
teristics of waste.
3. Group approaches encourage maximum water conservation techniques and
material recovery options.
-------
4. Group approaches can present a single solution/site for residual material
disposal rather than a multiplicity.
5. Group approaches can decrease the number of monitoring points for regula-
tory agencies.
INSTITUTIONAL VIEWPOINT
1. Group arrangements for waste handling and disposal are feasible for compa-
nies willing to accept responsibility and work together.
2. Financing alternatives will require at least one company with ability to
borrow necessary funds.
3. Role of pollution control bonding for group treatment may depend upon IRS
acceptance of material recovery for tax exemption within project.
PROJECT OUTCOME
1. At the conclusion of the final report, the companies believed that group
treatment was a technical and institutional arrangement of merit.
2. The three conpanies, however, were not able to join a group project. One
company had completed planning for its batch waste treatment facilities
as it was on an earlier compliance schedule. A second company elected
to merge its metal finishing operations with another firm within the parent
company. The third company, however, has provided its own batch treatment
facility using design concepts that would permit it to expand capacity on
a contract basis if desirable.
8
-------
CHAPTER III
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
1. Encourage use of group solutions where conditions are similar to those
of this study. The methodology of this report can be formalized to
identify such opportunities.
2. Consider use of group approach for other R&D projects in regions and
industries made up of small companies.
3. Develop technologies applicable to joint treatment.
TO REGIONAL PLANNING AND REGULATORY AGENCIES:
1. Foster development of group solutions where applicable.
2. Enlist assistance of Chambers of Commerce and other trade organizations
to provide information on group treatment alternatives.
3. Establish compliance schedules on a geoqraphic basis to facilitate
group solutions.
-------
CHAPTER IV
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
The technical assessment required to meet the objectives of the study
includes:
t Analysis of the pollution control problems facing the three firms,
including the mutual problems caused by manufacturing operations, the
unique problems presented by their location, and the physical statistics
relative to each firm;
• The treatability of the process wastewater;
• The various concepts employed in development of a multicompany treat-
ment facility.
The technical assessment provides the basis for the various economic con-
siderations presented later in this report. Detailed information relative to
each firm and potential group treatment is provided in Appendices A through D.
POLLUTION CONTROL PROBLEMS
All three firms are large producers of silverplated holloware. As one
would suspect, the basic steps required to produce silverplated holloware from
brass sheet stock result in many common wet process operations that produce
similar wastewater. Obviously their location in Taunton, Massachusetts, pre-
sents each firm with common problems relative to meeting regulatory require-
ments. Many of the pollution control problems are unique to this location.
This is important to understand when using the information in this report. In
order to consider the concept of multicompany treatment of plating wastes for
other areas, a description of each participating firm and its particular pollu-
tion problem is provided. These problems are subdivided into discrete problems,
such as wastewater streams that are common to all three firms as well as unique
to each one.
Common Features
Manufacturing Operations—
In the production of holloware, brass sheet stock is mechanically pressed
into shapes which are then soldered to each other. The various decorative
edgings, legs, handles, etc. are next soldered to items to produce the final
10
-------
shape of the finished part. Assembled parts are polished and buffed to obtain
a highly reflective surface for finishing operations. The assembled parts
are silverplated using cyanide solutions. In some cases an underplate of cop-
per and/or nickel is employed. After plating, a final finishing operation is
used to mechanically produce a product that is uniform in appearance.
Wet Processing--
The most common wet processing of parts is cleaning. Depending upon the
particular production item, a given piece of metal may be cleaned as many as
seven times from start to finish. Cleaning is employed in stamping and drawing
steps, before and after annealing, before and after solder assembly, after
polishing and buffing, prior to plating, and in some cases during final finish-
ing. The alkaline cleaners used in these steps have been selected to result in
a minimum attack on the base metal.
Strong acids are employed to remove annealing scales. However, the ma-
jority of acids used are only mildly corrosive to the base metal in order to
maintain the appropriate surface finish. All firms employ either fluoboric
acid or proprietary mild acid salts for surface activation prior to plating to
minimize attack on the polished base metal and to satisfy the demands of the
tin-lead alloys used for decorative and assembly objectives.
Cyanide copper plating is used to cover the parts with an initial plate,
enhancing the adhesion of subsequent electrodeposits. Conventional acid
nickel is plated onto some parts, either as a final finish or as a preplate
prior to silver. Silverplating is done in conventional cyanide solutions using
proprietary brighteners. Attempts to replace cyanide solutions with plating
baths free of cyanide have not been successful.
As is CGiiimori to other plating operations, a modest percentage of waste-
water results from chemical stripping of plating fixtures, or racks, and the
stripping of items for rework and salvage.
Combined Wastewater—
Another common feature for these three firms, which is not unique for
older plants that were built and were expanded when concern for pollution con-
trol was minimal, is presented by the multiplicity of drain systems that com-
bined process water with cooling water and sanitary wastewater. When these
plants were built, the only concern appeared to be to remove all water from the
plant. Wet processing is scattered throughout the plants and located to opti-
mize material flow and is not located to centralize the wet processes—or their
wastewater.
Water Waste—
Another common feature for these three firms which is also exhibited
throughout the metal finishing and plating industry is the excessive use of
water. When the cost of water was the only concern, and as it was initially a
cheap commodity, production lines and plating practices were established wherein
large quantities of water were employed in rinsing and cooling water applica-
tions. Excluding water used for sanitary purposes, the three firms used a
total of 425,000 gallons per day. With the concern for water conservation,
11
-------
changes in the past several years have reduced this water consumption somewhat.
Now, with the objective of minimizing water pollution control costs, further
conservation effort became mandatory. A conservative reduction of 280,000 gal-
lons per day can be realized for these three firms as they act upon recommenda-
tions.
Silver Reclamation—
As the value of silver has risen over the years, various efforts have been
implemented by the three companies to minimize their losses to the sewer. The
attention directed to these silver reclamation efforts naturally depended upon
the quantity being discharged. For many years, spent process solutions that
were high in silver content were shipped out for reclamation of silver values.
In one case, where efforts to control pollution were initiated in 1972, silver
reclamation was extended to include the sludges resulting from cyanide oxida-
tion. At another firm, treatment of some rinses with metallic zinc to displace
dissolved silver by cementation allowed for partial recovery of silver draining
to the sewer. All firms have recently adopted electrolysis as a means of
lowering the silver content in dragout recovery tanks—and thus reducing the
amount of silver entering the rinse waters.
The total amount of silver reclaimed during the past 30 months amounts to
84,600 troy ounces (tr oz). This amount of silver reclaimed can not be readily
related to dollars. The practice of all three companies is to ship the silver
to one or more refineries. Credits for silver shipped are accrued at the
refinery. Then, when the need for silver or silver salts exists, they draw
upon their accrued account. For example, wastewater or sludges containing 1000
tr oz are shipped to the refinery. A credit for 1000 tr oz, less shipping,
handling and refining costs, is credited to the firm. Then when a need for
metal exists, it is requested from the refinery as so many tr oz of metal and/or
so many tr oz of potassium silver cyanide. This approach is desired for account-
ing purposes and has proven beneficial during the climb in the value of silver
as a commodity. In essence, the silver is still owned by the company even
though it is in the hands of the refiner.
While attention has been paid to silver reclamation, which is on the in-
crease, it is estimated that during the past 30 months they have lost 80,000
tr oz. With the installation of pollution control and with additional emphasis
on reclamation, it is believed that 90 percent of this can be recovered. Ef-
forts within the last six months have already salvaged 20 percent of the annual
loss. When the pollution problems are resolved, recovery of 29,000 tr oz per
year can be realized.
Wastewater Characterization—
The final common feature of the pollution control problem relates to the
process water itself. All firms have water that can be segregated into:
• Waters resulting from alkaline cleaning which are mildly alkaline and
low in heavy metals;
• Waters that are acidic and/or alkaline in nature which contain minor
amounts of the heavy metals—copper, zinc, tin, lead and nickel (only
two of the three companies for nickel);
12
-------
• Waters that are strongly acidic and contain high concentrations of heavy
metals;
• Cyanide-bearing water that invariably contains copper and silver.
Additionally, in two of the firms there are waters that essentially contain
only suspended solids. Also, wastewater contamination levels increase signifi-
cantly when spent or contaminated process solutions are dumped into the sewer.
Unique Problems in Taunton
All of the firms have ready access to sanitary sewers and to streams for
discharge of their treated wastewater. Two of the firms might use the Mill
River (see Figure 24, Appendix D). One uses the Taunton River. The Mill
River, a tributary to the Taunton River, has no sanitary treatment facilities
discharging into it. As a result, concern has been raised as to obtaining
permission for discharge to the Mill River under the "antidegradation clause"
of state law (see Appendix F, "Regulations for River Discharge"). Historically,
both firms have used the Mill River and permission may be granted—if this be-
comes the preferred point of discharge for some wastewater. If the Mill River
cannot be used, the discharges will be to the sanitary sewer.
Normally, pretreatment regulations for discharge to a sanitary sewer al-
low a firm to install treatment facilities that are less sophisticated than
those required for discharging to a stream. However, a unique condition in
Taunton results in more stringent requirements for sanitary sewer discharge
than for stream discharge. The sanitary treatment facility presently being
built (as described earlier in this report) has a relatively short retention
time in the aeration chamber (less than two hours) where most of the BOD is
removed. In addition there is a nitrification unit for advanced treatment.
These processes are considered to be more sensitive to heavy metal contamina-
tion than other municipal treatment processes. Consequently, the maximum lim-
its established by the local ordinance (refer to Appendix E, "City of Taunton
Sewer Ordinance") for the metals from metal finishing and plating are very low.
The sludges resulting from the treatment of plating and other metal fin-
ishing wastewater are classified as "Hazardous Waste" (refer to Appendix G,
"Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulations"). At the present time there are no
approved disposal sites in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Those firms
which have installed treatment facilities either are accumulating their sludges
or are having them trucked to neighboring states. Recently one state has
closed its borders to waste from out of state—just as Massachusetts prohibits
wastes from other states from being shipped to within its borders. As a re-
sult, significant costs are resulting as the trucking distance becomes greater.
The problem is expected to become more severe and disposal costs will increase
before approved sites become available within practical shipping distances.
The final unique problem in this location is the water supply itself In
the past raw water supply by the municipality has been quite acidic. Values as
13
-------
low as pH 2.5 have been measured and 4 was quite common. In addition, the con-
centration of dissolved copper is high (2 mg/1 is common and values as high as
7 mg/1 have been recorded). At times heavy doses of chlorine have been required.
At the low pH and in the presence of high concentrations of oxidizing agents,
the corrosive nature of the water attacks the companies' water distribution
system, the wet process equipment and cooling surfaces. As expected, this re-
sults in heavy metal contamination of the water before it receives an introduc-
tion of process chemicals. Fortunately, the City of Taunton is addressing its
water supply problems and continual improvement is anticipated. As the water
quality is improved, it is expected that the limits given in the sewer ordi-
nance will become more strict than they are today.
Reed & Barton Silversmiths
A detailed description of the pollution control problems facing Reed &
Barton Silversmiths is provided in Appendix A. To summarize the problems:
The company has been discharging during a single shift operation in ex-
cess of 220,000 6PD of industrial-use water, through seven sanitary sewer out-
lets, with all but one being combined with sanitary wastewater. Water is used
in thirty departments located in twelve buildings. A significant problem is
presented in the isolation and collection for treatment from these sources.
The problem is compounded by the need to segregate the wastes for treatability
purposes and magnified by the Mill River dividing the plant in half.
The process wastewater contains objectionable amounts of cyanide (includ-
ing complexes of copper and silver) and the heavy metals copper, zinc, silver,
nickel and iron. Lesser amounts of chromium, tin and lead are present, which
will become of concern as water conservation efforts eliminate the dilution
effect. Historically, the wastewater has been acidic. With the preponderance
of alkaline cleaning and a minimum of acid processing, it would be expected
that the wastewater would be near neutral or slightly alkaline. It is believed
the acidic condition is as much a result of the quality of the raw water as it
is of the metal finishing and plating processes employed.
Poole Silver Company
A detailed description of the pollution control problems facing Poole
Silver Company is provided in Appendix B. To summarize the problems:
The company has been discharging during a single shift operation in ex-
cess of 33,000 GPD of industrial-use water combined with additional sanitary
wastewater. The collection, isolation and segregation problems are not as
complex as at Reed & Barton. However, unlike Reed & Barton, Poole has no land
available for expansion to install treatment facilities. Poole Silver Com-
pany will have to use a storm sewer if discharging to the Mill River.
14
-------
The process wastewater contains objectionable amounts of cyanide (includ-
ing complexes of copper and silver) and the heavy metals copper, zinc and sil-
ver. Lesser quantities of iron, tin and lead are present. Again the pH of
the discharge is a reflection of the raw water quality, although a slightly
higher ratio of acid to alkali process water is noticed when comparing with
the other two companies.
F. B. Rogers Silver Company
A detailed description of the pollution control problems facing F. B.
Rogers Company is provided in Appendix C. To summarize the problems:
The company has been discharging during a single shift operation in ex-
cess of 130,000 GPD, with 40,000 GPD entering the Taunton River under an NPDES
permit and the rest via three connections to the sanitary sewer, two of which
are mixed with sanitary wastewater. Unlike the other two firms, this company
has been treating wastewater discharging to the river and pretreating most of
its wastewater discharging to the sanitary sewer. As with Poole Silver Com-
pany, this firm has no adjacent land to use for additional treatment facilities.
The untreated process wastewater contains objectionable amounts of cyanide
(including complexes of copper and silver) and the heavy metals copper, zinc,
silver and nickel. Lesser amounts of tin and lead are present. The most press-
ing problem facing F. B. Rogers is the necessity to upgrade its existing
treatment facilities in facing the more exacting limits established by new
regulations.
TREATABILITY OF UASTEWATER
The need to treat (or pretreat) process wastewater resulting from metal
finishing and electroplating has been well documented in the literature. Like-
wise, the multiplicity of wet processes in use, together with the unique treat-
ment(s) required by some, is well described. It is not our intent to repeat
all of this information as it is readily available to those who wish a detailed
description. However, it is our desire to provide a brief description of the
treatability concepts used as a basis for subsequent design concepts.
Heavy metals found in the process water are predominantly copper, zinc,
silver and nickel. Lesser quantities of tin, lead, iron and chromium are to
be found. Trace quantities of tellurium, mercury and gold are seen on occa-
sion. Most of these metals are as dissolved salts. The treatment concept
employed is to reduce the metal solubilities to a minimum level by precipi-
tation as the hydroxide or oxide, or other insoluble salt (silver chloride for
example). Where possible and practical, isolated treatment for a single metal
will be employed. The greatest volume of wastewater contains many of the
metals in combination. As each metal has its specific pH for minimum solubi-
lity, some of which are outside of the prescribed pH range for acidity and
alkalinity, those most critical metals from a toxic standpoint will dictate the
pH employed for control.
15
-------
Cyanide is found in the process wastewater as potassium and sodium cya-
nide and as complexes with copper, silver and gold. Isolation for treatment
purposes will also keep the cyanide from complexing with iron and nickel found
in other waste streams. Consequently, the amount of cyanide that is not amen-
able to chlorination is held to a minimum. The two step oxidation method is
preferred over the single step to reduce the incidence of hydrolysis of cyanate
to form ammonia. Due to the low levels prescribed for copper, the presence of
ammonia could interfere with efficient copper removal.
Alkaline cleaners used in the silverware industry, by the nature of the
parts being cleaned and the soils involved, are considered to be mild in na-
ture. Where contamination with oil or grease is experienced, invariably vapor
degreasing precedes the alkaline cleaning. The cleaners have been designed to
have a minimum attack on the base metal. Consequently, chelating agents,
selected to solubilize heavy metal surface films are not common. The stronger
alkalines, common to the metal finishing industry where steel is the base
metal, are not employed. With a milder alkali and with a minimum of additives
for solubilized metals, a heavy dependency upon detergents and other wetting
agents results. For example, the rinse waters after these cleaners are notably
low in heavy metal concentration (see Appendix A, Table 8 SSO #9, which is
90 percent cleaner rinse water). Spent alkaline cleaners have the same general
characteristics as their rinse, but at a higher concentration. Neutralization
of excessive alkalinity produces wastewater that is compatible with the
biological treatment offered by sanitary sewerage systems. The wetting agents,
on the other hand, interfere with the removal of heavy metal hydroxides and
oxides when present in excessive amounts. In addition, they are considered to
be toxic to aquatic biota. In general, the wastewater from alkaline cleaning
is comparable to that found from dishwashers, laundry waste or other high
detergent-containing waters. The ideal treatment for these rinses and spent
cleaners is the sanitary sewer. To preclude shock loading, the batch dumps
should be metered into the sanitary waste discharge at a low and controlled
rate.
As the future requirements for treatment quality have yet to be fully de-
veloped, it is felt that the best practical treatment limits as presently in-
terpreted should be used for the purposes of this feasibility study. Where
state and/or local regulations stipulate values that are lower than federal
guidelines, these lower levels are used as treatment objectives. Condensa-
tions of these regulations are to be found in Appendices E, F and G.
CONCEPTS
The concepts considered under this study include each firm treating its
own wastewater; group treatment of combined wastewater, in total or in part;
and extension of group treatment facilities to include other firms having
similar wastewater. In addition, considerations have been given for recovery
values for salvable metals, techniques for enhancing the values as volume ex-
pansion permits, and new technology having potential merit.
16
-------
Detailed descriptions of facilities for each plant are provided in Appen-
dices A, B and C. Those identified as Primary Design consider each plant being
required to treat its own waste separately and form the basis for comparison
of alternatives. In addition, the impact caused by discharge point (sanitary
sewer vs stream) is described. The advantages of reusing treated process water
are brought forth. A description of joint efforts is provided in Appendix D.
In considering expansion of joint treatment effort, some alternatives discussed
for the companies include concentration of rinse waters. The economic assess-
ment of the many alternatives is provided in the next section of this report.
ASSESSMENT
From an overall viewpoint it appears that the best interest of the firms
and the total environment will be served by each plant treating its own flowing
rinse waters and by combining the firm's efforts for treatment of the batch wastes
resulting from the dumping of spent process solutions, from accidental dis-
charges, and waste treatment operation resident for each plant. Additional
benefits can be gained by concentration of selected rinses for subsequent
batch treatment. The values for salvable metals are greatly improved by the
joint venture.
The primary reason for the negative results of joint treatment of flowing
rinses receiving comparable treatment is the distance between plants and the
cost of piping and pumping. If the companies were closer together, the econom-
ics would change. Since the cost of some of the major treatment components is
directly related to their capacity, the savings gained through centralized
treatment are minimal. However, other components (control systems for example)
would not be duplicated if centralized treatment were selected. As a result, a
net reduction in capital cost close to 10 percent would be possible. As it is.
however, the costs of group treatment of rinses for these three firms is not
attractive.
From a technical and economic view, the ideal discharge points appear to
be a combination of stream and sanitary sewer discharge. The unique conditions
in Taunton may not be as applicable to other locations. Normally, the quality
requirements for discharge to the sanitary sewer are less demanding than for
stream discharge. The more restrictive limits of the sewerage system result
in the reverse being true for these firms. For example, the need for final
filtration to upgrade the stream discharge will probably not be required until
1983. However, it is required prior to sewer discharge in Taunton.
The degree of treatment provided to meet the various regulations results
in a water quality that is sufficient to allow reuse of significant quantities
of water. Obviously, reuse of the treated process water for plating baths is
not reasonable due to the possibility of trace metal contaminations. Likewise,
final rinsing should receive the highest quality water to minimize stains
caused by dissolved salts during drying. Yet many, less demanding, applica-
tions for reuse water can be found in cleaning, pickling and stripping, to men-
tion a few. Economic analysis indicates that substantial cost reductions can
be realized through water reuse.
17
-------
Only evaporative recovery has been considered for potential application
in the concept of eliminating certain rinse treatment systems by concentra-
tion. Reverse osmosis is not believed to be at the commercial stage for cya-
nides because of the high pH, or for the pickles employed where lead is present
(both shorten the membrane life). It could have been considered for nickel
plating at F. B. Rogers Silver Company but was not because the firm had in-
stalled ion exchange equipment several years before reverse osmosis was com-
mercially applicable.
One of the firms visited outside of the three principal companies was
Sheffield Silver Company in Norton, Massachusetts. This subsidiary of Reed &
Barton Silversmiths has installed evaporative recovery equipment along the
lines suggested in Alternative B-2 for Poole Silver Company. Primarily, the
rinse water is recovered. Facilities for treatment of cyanide rinses using
flow-through processes have not been installed (although chemical batch treat-
ment has been provided as backup for the evaporator). The concentrate from the
evaporator is held for reclamation of metal values. A recent analysis of the
concentrate showed:
potassium cyanide 80 gm/1
silver 33 gm/1
copper 13 gm/1
The volume and quality of the concentrate from Sheffield is believed to be
close to that which would result from Poole's comparable application. Simi-
larly, the other company considered for secondary evaluation as a potential
group member was the Poole Silver Company plant in Fall River. A pretreatment
program, however, has required installation of equipment to meet another set
of metallic limits. It is assumed, however, that batch discharges from the
Fall River plant could be handled in a group facility in a manner similar to
that at the Taunton plant.
The advantages of group treatment that will influence any decision to
proceed include:
1. Cost reductions will result from bulk purchases of treatment chemicals
that would not otherwise be available for each firm acting independently.
2. More efficient sludge handling facilities can be applied for all firms
with a reduction in disposal costs anticipated.
3. Batch treatment equipment will receive greater utilization by expanded
capacity, resulting in a lower cost per unit treated.
4. Technicians will expend a greater portion of their time on batch wastes
and, in doing so, will become more skilled, thus enhancing environmental
quality.
5. The extramural support (analysis, assay, consultation) for the single
facility will be less than were each treated separately.
18
-------
6. The net salvage values received from refiners for silver, after deducting
processing costs, will be higher.
7. Salvage potentials for copper and nickel become more practical as the
amount involved increases by multiple company efforts.
8. More efficient reclamation methods can be justified by joint action than
for each independently. The potential for separating copper and silver
from mixed cyanides carries with it certain development expenses than can
be amortized over expanded use.
9. Electrolysis of concentrated cyanide solutions as proposed for the joint
treatment is approximately 15-20 percent of the operating cost required
by chlorination. This capital intense process requires a minimum quantity
of batch cyanide wastewater to justify the greater cost to buy and install,
than existing with chlorination techniques.
10. As the problems relating to solid waste disposal become resolved, costs
will escalate. Disposal in bulk will reduce expenses to all firms.
It can be concluded that both the environment and the firms involved them-
selves will benefit from group treatment of batch wastewaters. The informa-
tion on the economics to support this conclusion follows in the next chapter.
19
-------
CHAPTER V
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
The assessment of economic considerations included the capital investment
and operating expenses for: each plant providing its own complete wastewater
treatment facilities with multiple discharge points; various alternatives for
each company; group treatment of the three companies' wastewaters; expansion
of the group treatment concept to include other firms; and recovery values.
The data summarized in this section are explained in detail in Appendices A
through D.
Two economic factors have not been included in this assessment. Depreci-
cation of equipment depends upon judgment factors and upon tax incentives.
The other economic factor applies to the concept of "cost of money," wherein
annual expenses are attributed to having one's capital tied up in nonproduc-
tive facilities. At the present time, the "cost of money" is in the 8 to 10
percent range. The reader is left to apply these two factors to annual op-
erating expenses as desired.
THREE SEPARATE FACILITIES
As a basis for comparison of alternatives and potential joint treatment
of wastewater, the following data are presented for each firm. Included for
Reed & Barton Silversmiths and Poole Silver Company are the economic impacts
of not being able to use the Mill River for discharge of part of their treated
wastewater; then total discharge would be required to the sanitary sewer. The
economic advisability of reusing treated wastewater is shown for each firm.
Reed & Barton Silversmiths
The economic data in Appendix A are summarized in Table 1. As shown
the Primary Design—using complete treatment of some rinse waters prior to
stream discharge and pretreatment of other rinse waters prior to discharge to
the sanitary sewer, together with batch treatment—will require a capital in-
vestment of $640,500 and result in an annual operating expense of $138,595.
A modest reduction in operating expense will result from partial reuse of
treated waters. If stream discharge is prohibited, expenditures increase by
15.8 percent for capital and 27.8 percent for operations. Under the total
discharge to the sanitary sewer concept, the savings by reuse of treated water
are much greater and show a 13-month return for additional invested capital
required for reuse of the treated water.
20
-------
TABLE 1. REED & BARTON SILVERSMITHS - SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
ro
Capital
Equipment
Installation
Value of Space
Engineering
Total Capital
Operating Expense
Labor
Energy
Chemicals
Supplies
Sludge Disposal
Sewer Charges
Extramural Support
Total Annual
Operating Expense
Primary Design
$316,000
158,000
121,500
45,000
$640,500
$ 89,200
3,250
23,000
4,000
8,250
5,895
5,000
$138,595
Alternative 1 Alternative 2a Alternative 2b Alternative ;
$384,300 -
170,000 -
142,900 ...
45,000 ...
$742,200 $650,500 $752,200 $484,500
$102,600 -
4,690 -
27,200 -
6,500 -
9,700 -
22,857 -
5,000 -
$173,547 $136,225 $167,280 $145,995
Primary design:
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2a:
Alternative 2b:
Alternative 3:
Rinses to sanitary sewer and river plus batch treatment.
.Rinses to sanitary sewer plus batch treatment—no river discharge.
Primary design with reuse of treated water.
Alternative 1 with reuse of treated water.
Rinses per primary design, collect batches for contract disposal.
-------
The data shown for the design that considers elimination of batch treat-
ment facilities may be misleading if used out of context and compared with
subsequent information concerning group treatment. Certain discrete components
would be required for rinse water treatment which might be used also for batch
treatment. Since their common use is practical at a common treatment site lo-
cated at Reed & Barton, the capitalization and operating expense should not be
duplicated, but rather prorated as to use by each system. Caution must also
be expressed for the somewhat small increase in operating expense when compar-
ing this alternative with the Primary Design. The costs for contract hauling
and disposal reflect present economics. As the regulations governing this
cost become fully developed, it is believed that the disposal costs will in-
crease drastically as the cost of disposal is passed back to the generating
source. One source questioned anticipates a 1,000 percent increase over cur-
rent rates.
Poole Silver Company
The economic data in Appendix B are summarized in Table 2. As shown in
previous firm, the most attractive alternative considered a dual discharge
(i.e., stream and sanitary sewer). This Primary Design is expected to require
a capital investment of $141,000 and result in an annual operating expense of
$37,977. If stream discharge is prohibited, expenditures will increase by
13.7 percent for capital and 34.0 percent for operating expense. Again, reuse
of treated water is advisable—although the rate of return for additional in-
vested capital is lower than for the previous firm, as the potential for cost
reduction is smaller with only a portion of the available water being used.
As with the previous company, the concept that eliminates batch treatment
contains the same probability for escalated disposal costs for collected batch
wastes. At Reed & Barton some of the equipment used for treating rinses finds
utilization in batch treatment. However, for Poole Silver transfer of batch
treatment operations to another location does not significantly reduce capital
investment (less than 5 percent reduction).
Poole Silver Company is presented with an option to replace a segment of
its rinse water treatment system with evaporative recovery. There is little
difference in capital investment. Operating expenses increase approximately
10 percent—primarily because of higher energy requirements.
F. B. Rogers Silver Company
The economic data in Appendix C are summarized in Table 3. This com-
pany has completed its capital investment for a major portion of the waste
treatment facility during the past three to four years. The capital values
shown are what one would expect to invest at today's market conditions and do
not necessarily reflect actual expenditures in the past. In addition, certain
unique conditions that caused higher than normal expenses have not been included
22
-------
TABLE 2. POOLE SILVER COMPANY - SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
ro
CO
Primary Design
Capital
Equipment
Installation
Value of Space
Engineering
Total Capital
Operating Expense
Labor
Energy
Chemicals
Supplies
Sludge Disposal
Sewer Charges
Extramural Support
Total Annual
Operating Expense
$ 73,200
32,000
25,800
10,000
$141,000
$ 18,780
1,994
8,500
1,000
980
2,223
4,500
$ 37,977
Alternative 1
$ 88,100
34,500
27,800
10,000
$160,400
$ 26,580
2,099
10,600
1,200
2,150
3,838
4,500
$ 50,967
Alternative 2
$ 86,900
25,000
18,600
10,000
$140,500
$ 18,780
14,454
1,850
1,000
980
2,726
4,500
$ 42,290
Alternative 3
$114,200
30,000
18,600
10,000
$172,800
$ 18,780
14,152
8,500
1,000
980
1,727
4,500
$ 49,639
Alternative 4
$ 71,300
30,000
25,400
10,000
$136,700
$ 17,840
1,984
8,000
950
2,680
2,223
4,500
$ 38,177
Alternative 5
-
-
-
-
$146,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
$ 36,397
Primary design:
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4;
Alternative 5:
Rinses to sanitary sewer and river plus batch treatment.
Rinses to sanitary sewer plus batch treatment—no river discharge,
Primary design with evaporative recovery for cyanide rinses.
Primary design with evaporative recovery for pickle rinses.
Rinses per primary design, collect batches for contract disposal.
Primary design with reuse of treated water.
-------
TABLE 3. F. B. ROGERS SILVER COMPANY - SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
ro
Primary Design
Capital
Equipment
Installation
Value of Space
Engineering
Total Capital
Operating Expense
Labor
Energy
Chemicals
Supplies
Sludge Disposal
Sewer Charges
Extramural Support
Total Annual
Operating Expense
$139,500
74,000
63,000
18,000
$294,500
$ 23,500
1,500
14,200
1,500
1,800
7,700
4,500
$ 54,700
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
$136,500
72,500
61 ,800
18,000
$299,500 $288,300 $299,500
$ 23,270
1 ,390
13,700
1,500
16,020
7,700
4,500
$ 49,200 $ 68,080 $ 52,450
Primary design:
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Rinses to sanitary sewer and river plus batch treatment.
Less to sanitary, more to river.
Rinses per primary design, collect batches for contract disposal
Primary design with reuse of treated water.
-------
so that the overall picture will be more representative of the average plant
yet to face its pollution problem entirely. (For example, with normal high
tide in the adjacent Taunton River being 12 to 18 inches below the plating
room floor level, high expenses were realized in installing five-foot deep
sumps used to collect wastewaters.)
The design approach employed for the Primary Design was similar to that
used for the other two firms, except that it was influenced by earlier design
concepts that resulted in the existing facilities. Since the present river
discharge is being influenced by the existing upgrade efforts, it was felt
that initially little attention should be directed toward increasing the fa-
cilities used for river discharge. As a result, the Primary Design is not
considered to be the most attractive alternative. Alternative 1 shows a mod-
est (1.7 percent) increase in capital expenditure which is returned the first
year through reduced operating expense. By being located adjacent to the
Taunton River, F. B. Rogers Silver Company does not have to consider final
filtration at the same time as the other two firms may have to if Mill River
discharge is not permitted. The previously discussed "antidegradation" clause
does not apply to this location.
Under Alternative Design 1 a greater portion of the wastewater containing
heavy metals is diverted to the river discharge. Capital expenditures are
valued at $299,500 and an annual operating expense of $49,888 is expected.
Using this concept, little economic advantage is realized through reuse of
treated process water.
Again, the design that uses contract hauling in place of batch neutrali-
zation is factored for disposal costs that are not expected to remain at the
present price. Much of the batch treatment equipment required for complete
in-plant treatment is already installed. Consequently, cost avoidance is much
lower for this firm. The greatest advantage to this company of using group
treatment facilities will come from reduced operating expenses and improved
silver recovery.
GROUP TREATMENT
The economic assessment for group treatment efforts considers that each
plant will install its own treatment facilities for flowing rinses and that
batch wastes will be treated at Reed & Barton. It is not practical within the
scope of this study to factor all the possible permutations presented by the
various alternatives. Rather, the most practical combinations, and those that
are most likely to occur, are used for the economic assessment of group treat-
ment.
For the purposes of quantifying the various cost factors, that portion of
Reed & Barton's facilities used for batch treatment is identified as though
the group treatment facilities were a fourth identity. Those items that are
used by both rinse water treatment and batch treatment have been prorated to
each system as an aid to quantifying this option.
25
-------
Capital Expenditures
The capital expenditures listed consider that each firm will treat its
own flowing rinse waters at its respective plant; that collection facilities
will be provided for segregated batch wastewater and residual wastes from their
treatment facilities; that stream discharge will be permitted for each firm;
that there will be maximum utilization of treated wastewater; and that batch
wastes will be treated at Reed & Barton.
With the same four capital factors as used previously, the capital expen-
ditures for each company to treat its rinse waters will be:
Reed & Barton Silversmiths $484,500
Poole Silver Company $141,600
F. B. Rogers Silver Company $293,300
with the joint batch treatment facilities being located at Reed & Barton
Joint Treatment Facilities $173,900.
The total capital expenditure amounts to $1,093,300 and should be compared
with the capital required for each company to install its own complete facili-
ties ($1,096,000). Within the accuracy of cost analysis, these two figures
indicate that there is no capital advantage one way or the other.
Operating Costs
Using the same basis as applied for capital expenditures, the annual op-
erating expenses will be:
Reed & Barton Silversmiths $100,900
Poole Silver Company $31,900
F. B. Rogers Silver Company $44,300
Joint Treatment Facilities $41,300
Comparing this with the expenses anticipated at each plant if totally treating
its own waste, a modest saving of $3,000 per year is expected. This does not
include depreciation of equipment and the cost of borrowing, as previously
discussed.
Cost Variations
The various cost reductions listed in Chapter IV which result in group
treatment efforts for batch waste reductions can be quantified.
26
-------
Sodium hydroxide, in bulk shipments, will cost approximately 50 percent
of the price in drum lots. Sludge disposal rates will gain by bulk shipments,
which are priced at $0.13 per gallon versus $0.40 per gallon in drum lots. It
is also expected that the volume of sludge will be reduced by the more sophis-
ticated handling facilities. Sludges with a solids content of 20 to 25 percent
will result, as compared with 5 to 7 percent. This will result in approxi-
mately one fourth the amount requiring disposal.
Greater utilization of equipment used for batch treatment will reduce
cost factors of equipment depreciation as applied, for each gallon treated
will be approximately 50 percent. Extramural support will be reduced by ap-
proximately $4,000 per year. This primarily relates to insuring quality of
sludges. Other cost variations relative to reclamation are discussed later in
this section of the report.
Cost increases will result from transportation from Poole Silver Company
and F. B. Rogers Silver Company to the Reed & Barton site. These costs are
budgeted at $3,000 per year.
EXPANSION
The expansion of group treatment efforts will depend upon normal market
conditons. Major costs are attributed to the treatment of flowing rinse wa-
ters, with far less capital involved in treating batch wastes. Poole Silver
Company is a good illustration when considering expansion of group treatment
to include other companies. Capital avoidance will exist; reduced operating
expenses can result. It is not practical under the scope of this study to
quantify group treatment expansion in more than the broadest sense.
Expansion is possible without any increase in capital investment. The
facilities included in the joint batch waste treatment operations are not used
100 percent of the time. The various subsystems have been sized to maximize
labor use. This results in some of the equipment being underutilized. As the
amount of batch waste to be treated is expanded, only the direct expenses of
labor, energy, chemicals, supplies and sludge disposal will increase. When
the cost factors that consider applied overhead and depreciation of equipment
are prorated across each individual batch being treated, then the cost per
batch will decrease according to the total volume under any expansion concept.
The facilities considered to be a minimum for the three firms as described
earlier have built-in expansion factors of 40 percent for batch acids, 20 per-
cent for batch cyanides, and 80 percent for metal reclamation before any addi-
tional capital investment is required—other than larger storage facilities
for raw waste.
27
-------
RECOVERY VALUES
The previous assessment of economic conditions does not show an overwhelm-
ing advantage of group treatment to produce acceptable water and sludge dis-
charges to the environment. Attention has been focused on pollution control
itself. Cost advantages do exist relative to the discharge of residual sludges
resulting from waste treatment practices. Where recovery of metal values ex-
ists, a decided advantage can result from use of more sophisticated facilities
than can be justified for only the large plants. In the case of the three
firms involved in this project, the primary consideration for metal recovery
is silver. If the volume increases, copper and nickel should be considered.
The subject of silver losses has been discussed in Chapter IV. The eco-
nomic information discussed previously has been limited by the exclusion of
information on silver reclamation and deals solely with nonrecovered wastes or
those with little value. The sludges discussed so far have had insignificant
silver concentrations. The treatment systems themselves, while segregating
silver-bearing wastes, have been essentially directed toward providing accept-
able water quality. Since reclamation has a major role in the economics of
group treatment, it has been retained as a separate item.
Silver reclamation for these companies is extensive. Particulate matter
removed from dust collection systems is shipped out to refiners for reclama-
tion. Some solutions known to be high in silver are returned to vendors for
reclamation. Metal scrap is salvaged for silver content. Additional salvage
values will result from processing waste treatment residuals.
Approximately 995 kilograms (32,000 tr oz) per year have been lost to
these three firms during recent years, having an average value of $145,000.
It is believed that 90 percent of this loss could be recovered through the
waste treatment systems and metal reclamation proposed. Electrowinning from
dragout recovery tanks has recently been put into use, with recovery approxi-
mately 20 percent of this annual loss and with the product resulting being
essentially 100 percent silver. The remaining 800 kilograms (25,600 tr oz)
will discharge to the waste treatment system. Of this amount, 90 percent is
considered to be a minimum that can be recovered via the waste treatment sys-
tems. Most of these recovered values will come from sludge.
In order to fully appreciate the potential for recovery, it is important
to understand the present-day economics of silver reclamation. As one would
suspect, the higher the purity of the waste shipped out for refining, the
lower the refining or salvage charge becomes. Refining charges as low as
$0.012 per gram ($0.38 per tr oz) have resulted from high-purity waste. When
sludges mixed with other solids and water are shipped out for reclamation, the
charge for recovery is normally $1.23 per kilogram ($0.56 per pound) of sludge
processed, based upon a set weight. Depending upon the concentration of sil-
ver in the wet sludge, the recovery costs can exceed the value of the silver--
with a total loss of silver values. Obviously, efforts to enrich the sludge
will be beneficial. Under average conditions during the past eighteen months,
approximately 25 percent of the silver values have been returned to the pro-
ducer, with the remaining 75 percent being lost to reclamation charges. Under
28
-------
the waste treatment systems proposed for the group treatment project, it is
believed that the 75 percent loss will be reduced to 15 percent. Further re-
finement may result if the concept of separating copper from silver proves to
be viable. The net result of the waste treatment efforts that are directed
towards silver recovery for these three firms will return approximately
$130,000 to them collectively on an annual basis. This is in addition to, and
about equal to, the amount presently being recovered.
Two other metals, copper and nickel, have potentials for salvage should
the volume become larger through expanded use at the treatment facility. At
today's prices, nickel will bring $1.76/kg ($0.80/lb) in solution form and
$0.77/kg ($0.35/lb) in sludges. These values will be reduced by the costs of
shipment and should be considered only when concentrations are high enough and
volumes warrant bulk transportation. Copper in solution form can bring $0.88/kg
($0.40/lb), subject to the same conditions.
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
As discussed earlier, when considering waste treatment costs to resolve
environmental pollution problems alone, significant dollars are involved. For
these three companies, there appear to be marginal advantages to group treat-
ment of process wastes. However, when including the recovery values for re-
claimable metals, the annual operating expense is reduced from $218,000 to
$88,000. The full cost reduction can be realized by group treatment. It is
believed that the added expense to each firm to implement individually the re-
covery aspects will consume at least half of these savings.
In the introduction to this section, two economic factors were excluded--
depreciation and "cost of money." To fully appreciate the advantage of in-
creased utilization when applied to the batch treatment system, these factors
should be included. Assuming ten-year useful life for equipment, the depre-
ciation on a straight-line basis for the group treatment facilities is $17,390
per year. At an 8 percent cost of money, an additional $13,912 per year is
realized. The total, $31,300, must be spread across the total volume of waste
processed. If spread evenly, this will amount to approximately $0.16 per gallon
of waste processed. All other operating expenses for the group batch facility
have been listed as $41,300, or $0.21 per gallon processed. The total is $0.37
per gallon. Obviously, some process solutions require a higher share of these
costs than others, but averages can show the advantage of greater utilization.
Depreciation and "cost of money" represent 43 percent of the treatment expense
with maximum utilization by these three firms. With less use, as caused by each
providing its own batch treatment facilities, this 43 percent expense climbs.
By a similar consideration, increased utilization is possible by expanding the
joint facility to include other firms, which will result in a lowering of this
cost per gallon from $0.16 per gallon to less than $0.10 per gallon.
In spite of the variable cost factors evaluated in this chapter, group
treatment does have an advantage when metal recovery economics are considered
and disadvantages related to individual company treatment operation are fully
appreciated.
29
-------
CHAPTER VI
INSTITUTIONAL/FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Industry has traditionally looked upon government-imposed requirements,
whether in the safety, health or antipollution fields, as imposing costs on
the normal operating costs of the business.
Waste treatment is perceived as imposing three kinds of costs on the en-
terprise: first, capital costs for equipment; next,operating costs; and finally,
costs of management's time expended on the waste treatment problem.
While there are public benefits to be derived from a more wholesome en-
vironment, some of the steps which must be taken to conform to the requirements
of the law with respect to waste treatment may directly benefit business opera-
tions as well, with a resultant increase in profits. This fact arises because
the process of installing an effective waste treatment system involves the op-
timization of plant operations, always a goal of industrial managers. The
principal areas of such rationalization are water reuse and recovery of usable
materials.
Balancing these benefits against costs can result in a considerable lower-
ing of net costs to the business. Furthermore, it may be possible to spread
capital and operating costs among several users of a waste treatment process
through sale of services to outside companies who do not have space for pollu-
tion control or who could otherwise benefit. There are other potential bene-
fits in the form of tax-exempt revenues.
While waste treatment may involve some technologies which are different
from those currently employed by the particular business, the processes of
tracking waste flows, analyses of contents, and amounts of recovered materials
are really accounting operations, which will not be unfamiliar. There are,
however, enough unfamiliar issues associated with complying with environmental
regulations by means of group treatment that a review of the basic choices
can be useful.
GROUP WASTE TREATMENT
The expanding of waste treatment into a multibusiness service offers cer-
tain advantages which improve the cost situation for each participant. It is
possible to use sophisticated laboratory equipment for analyses, where an in-
dividual firm might not be able to bear the expense. Treatment equipment can
be used more intensively at a group facility and group laboratory facilities
may also be possible. Capital equipment cost may, in the aggregate, be high
enough to justify tax-exempt industrial revenue bond financing. In Massachusetts
30
-------
such bonds may be issued by local industrial development financing authorities;
they provide companies with the means of financing appropriately certified pol-
lution control equipment at potentially lower cost than would be the case with
other financing methods. Companies which lack required space, or technological
knowhow, to establish their own treatment process can meet EPA requirements by
purchasing services from a group treatment source. Companies not now on sewer
lines would be able to transport wastes to the treatment source for later dis-
posal into the municipal sewer system.
Group waste treatment depends on more than technological and financial
considerations, however. It must rest on cooperation among industries which may
compete with one another. And this cooperation must survive the passing of
initial enthusiasm and.be able to endure. The heavy investment in equipment,
the prospect of ever more stringent rules to protect the environment, and the
lack of alternative methods of waste treatment mean that the participating com-
panies must be prepared to remain associated for many years. This places a
special emphasis on the careful design of the institutional arrangements for
group treatment. Not only must each participant be satisfied, but the arrange-
ments must be durable.
There are several difficulties in creating a structure for group treatment.
Participating tompanies may be very different in size and in market share.
The ownership may differ; in some cases there may be family ownership or con-
trol, others may involve public ownership, and yet others may be subsidiaries
of holding companies. The ownership pattern may affect attitudes toward coop-
eration with like industries.
There may be proprietary processes in some companies which would be re-
vealed to competitors by group waste treatment. Some companies may already
have invested in waste treatment equipment and may perceive few benefits for
them if they participate. Companies may also differ in their aversion to risk--
that is, in their willingness to put their waste treatment processes in the
hands of outsiders.
Products and processes change with time, perceptions of corporate mis-
sions may also change and a company may leave one business to enter another.
These normal business occurrences can introduce strains into the joint treat-
ment structure. In addition, a group treatment scheme ought to be open to
participation by companies not initially involved, provided that there is suf-
ficient capacity in the system and the participation makes economic sense to
all concerned. Any institution created to carry on group waste treatment must,
therefore, be designed to be both durable and flexible. Once established, it
should not be able to be too easily dissolved; yet it must allow adjustment of
ownership shares and the admission of new members.
Ownership; Single or Group?
A basic question is whether the group aspect should be limited to use of
the waste treatment processes or be extended to ownership of the facilities
themselves.
31
-------
Single Ownership--
There are several consequences of a decision to go ahead with a single-
ownership institution.
Control—Single ownership means that control of processes and policies de-
pends upon one company only, with its relationship to other participants regu-
lated by contract. Some companies may feel that this places them, as nonowners,
too far from control, that they can only react to decisions after they are made
and can have no part in the making of the decisions themselves. Since waste
treatment is a requirement of the law, with the risk of significant costs if
not carried out, it is, possible that participants may wish to exercise the
greatest degree of control possible at all stages. On the other hand, single
ownership may mean speedier decisions, and it could be argued that the likeli-
hood of decisions having an adverse impact on participants is remote. Further-
more, contracts, can be written which anticipate most risks.
Risk—Single ownership places a substantial burden of risk on the owning
company; the risks are that of failure of the system to perform its task ade-
quately, with consequent legal liabilities, and that with respect to the finan-
cing of the equipment. A question arises as to whether the owner would be
willing to assume the risk of costs imposed on the nonowning participants if
the system should be out of order for a period of time. Would the owner be
willing to commit himself to pay costs of storage of wastes? Would it pay
fines on behalf of participants who dump untreated wastes? These matters and
others could be dealt with in contracts if single ownership were preferred.
Sharing of Capital Costs—Costs of process equipment can be heavy; on the
other hand, if one participant's prospective use of the equipment is consider-
able, that company may be willing to assume the entire capital cost involved.
Later attempts to recover some of the capital costs from users become compli-
cated because of the need to establish a firm basis for computing the amount
of payback and the time period over which it is to be accomplished. Contracts
would have to establish a minimum time period for participation of payments to
ensure correct calculation of capital recovery; otherwise, there is no guaran-
tee to the single owner that it will recover a certain part of its equipment
costs from outsiders.
Financing—Financing is easier when a single owner is involved. The pro-
spective borrower may be able to get a commitment from his bank based on past
satisfactory relationships.
Taxes—Single ownership would result in contracts for services so that
the costs of the contracts can be written off against profits as costs of
operation.
Group Ownership--
Financing—Financing presents a problem if individual companies seek
group financing for a project. It is questionable whether tax-exempt bond
financing is a practical alternative in such a case. There would have to be
32
-------
a separate issue for each company, and it is possible that the costs of sepa-
rate issues may be so heavy as to outweigh the benefits of this form of financ-
ing. A bank loan would probably not raise substantial difficulties, however.
If companies combine to form a corporation to own and operate the waste
treatment business, either bond or bank loan financing may be used without
difficulty.
Control--Group ownership allows for each company to have a measure of con-
trol over the policies of the waste treatment business. Participants would
trade off the ease of the user contract for the added control; 1t is likely
that most companies would regard this as an acceptable trade.
Legal Form—There is a variety of possible legal forms for an institution
set up for group ownership; these include the corporation, a trust, and a part-
nership. When the latter two are chosen, it is usually for reasons which have
little relation to the waste treatment situation, and most companies with group
ownership would choose the corporation as the most practical form. A partner-
ship is probably too flexible and does not present adequate means of limiting
members' liability. A trust would insulate the members from control to some
degree, probably an unacceptable condition. A separate corporation does create
difficulties in the management sphere. Since group waste treatment processes
are physically on the premises of one participant (at least), operations and
management must be severed from those strictly concerned with manufacturing.
It is possible that the same personnel may have separate responsibilities both
in the waste treatment and manufacturing areas. This may affect the manage-
ment structure.
Adjusting of Shares—Group ownership raises the question of how the share
of ownership can be adjusted to reflect changes over time in anticipated use
of facilities. For example, an owner may be acquired by another company and
may, as a result, find himself changing processes and products or under orders
to install his own waste treatment equipment. Again, the corporate firm with
shares held by participants appears to offer maximum flexibility; there can be
agreement among shareholders for orderly procedures for withdrawal from, or
change in participation in, the group waste treatment process. The same ap-
plies, of course, to admission of outsiders. They can be required to purchase
shares in such a way as to distribute equitably the remaining capital costs.
Relations with Others—The waste treatment business will be subject to
inspections from town and state officials; materials and services will have to
be purchased, and there may be a public relations aspect as well. Thus the
question arises as to who speaks for the business when there is joint owner-
ship. If facilities are located principally on one owner's premises, and that
company's purchasing department issues purchase orders, suppliers will look to
that company for the fulfillment of the contract. Again, management of the
host company will be closest to the process and will be more subject to contact
with inspectors than the other participants. This may be acceptable to some
companies; others may wish to insulate themselves through the creation of a
separate corporation.
33
-------
Risk—The risks which have been alluded to under the section on single
ownership may be perceived as substantial by companies. Group ownership via a
corporation would permit the apportioning of some of these risks according to
the percent of ownership.
Financing—The possibility of looking at waste treatment as being associ-
ated with the general optimization of plant operations has been mentioned,
with particular reference to the areas of water reuse and recovery of materi-
als. The possibility of sale of services to outside businesses has also been
noted. Each of these activities may affect the financing structure of the
waste treatment business, should the participants desire to use tax-exempt
bond financing. The IRS will not allow tax-exempt treatment for that portion
of bond financing which is devoted to equipment used to create or improve prof-
its. That has been interpreted to include recovery of materials for which a
company receives credit and also reuse of water since that lowers water costs—
on occasion, dramatically. Only the equipment used to meet antipollution re-
quirements is able to benefit from tax exemption.
This gives rise to two problems. First, it is not easy to determine just
where the dividing line is to be drawn—and hence, to determine how much tax-
exempt bond funding to go for (assuming that this is the preferred financing
alternative). The company may draw the line in one place, the IRS in another.
Furthermore, the bond purchaser will wish to be assured that the IRS will not
question the tax-exempt status of the bonds after they are bought. It is
therefore necessary either to be ultra-conservative in drawing the line be-
tween treatment and resource recovery (and water reuse)or to attempt to get an
opinion from the IRS prior to financing. The latter course would involve an
expenditure of time and money, and it is questionable whether IRS would in
fact commit itself firmly in advance.
The IRS has established a considerable capability for making technical
judgments as to where treatment ceases and recovery begins. The risk that an
unfavorable IRS finding may be made subsequent to financing would certainly in-
fluence businessmen to seek straight bank financing. For example, if the sys-
tem design calls for recovery but the anticipated recovery can be proved to be
minimal, tax-exempt financing might be allowed. But a subsequent industrial
process change might be made which would greatly increase use of recoverable
metals; now the process becomes a "profit-enhancing" activity for which tax-
exempt funding is not allowed. In fact, depending on the amount of investment
needed, there may not be much difference between bank and bond financing from
the businessman's viewpoint. Against the cheaper bond money must be balanced
the risks, added costs, and time required. In Massachusetts the company must
prepare a plan of the waste treatment project which is submitted to the Indus-
trial Development Financing Authority of the city or town. The IDFA then rec-
ommends approval to the municipal government; the selectmen or mayor approve(s)
the plan, and application is made to the State Finance Board for a certificate
of convenience and necessity. The prospective issue has been studied, prior
to this point, by bond counsel and a trustee or bank having trust authority.
State approval takes from eight to ten weeks from the time of requesting the
certificate. There are expenses attached to the procedure, and in addition
there is the risk that if there is a profit engendered by the process or equip-
ment the IRS may disallow the tax-exempt status of the bonds. Because of the
34
-------
cost aspect, there is a feeling that below a certain minimum amount (perhaps
$500,000) it is not worth financing by bond.
Leasing of pollution control equipment is a viable alternative; ownership
and depreciation entitlement of the equipment and/or facilities remain in out-
side hands and the company pays a rental fee. One hundred percent financing
is thus available and generally the term is longer than that available from
banks. Ten years is not unusual. Companies are able to acquire significant
leverage in this way. The cost is higher for this type of financing than for
other methods, but since the company can avoid showing long-term debts on its
balance sheet and may not be affecting its normal short-term lines of bank
credit, leasing may be a preferred alternative. Leasing should be compared
with the depreciation and tax credits that the company would have had if it had
purchased the equipment. In the end many ractors influence the decision as to
financing; only in cases where the amount required is very substantial will
bond financing become clearly the more attractive option.
Taxes—Group ownership would not give participants an opportunity to
write off losses against profits earned elsewhere, unless one member owns
80 percent or more of the company. Only that owner could consolidate the
losses of the service company with the parent company's books.
OPERATION OF A GROUP TREATMENT FACILITY: SOME ISSUES
Recovery of Materials
It is important to the three companies that an adequate system of account-
ing for salvable metals be established so that each company will be credited
with the proper amount. At present the metal concerned is silver. In the fu-
ture other metals, particularly copper and possible nickel, may be involved.
Since the price of silver fluctuates over time, the accounting system should
record the amounts credited to each company by date. A question arises as to
whether each participating company should deal directly with the refiner, or
whether the joint treatment facility should do so on their behalf. Companies
could prefer to retain direct control over their silver and therefore could
choose to have only treatment of wastes performed by the joint facility.
Transportation of Wastes
Wastes have to be transported to the group treatment facility and the only
cost-effective way of accomplishing this is by trucking. As with other equip-
ment, the truck or trucks could be owned by the group treatment facility, with
costs proportioned among users; alternatively, each user could provide its own
truck. The decision will depend on the amount of use required and the total
cost picture. Unlike other treatment equipment, a truck would have to be sepa-
35
-------
rately licensed and insured, and its operation presents risks of lawsuits for
damages by anyone injured in an accident. A special permit for transporting
hazardous wastes will have to be obtained.
Charging for Waste Treatment
The total treatment costs for any given time period depend on the volume
and concentration of wastes; these in turn depend on manufacturing volumes and
processes which constantly vary. While a rough estimate may be arrived at for
each participating company (especially after some operating history has built
up), a true apportionment of costs among participating firms will require an
adjustment every so often, based on actual volumes. This adjustment could be
on a quarterly or yearly basis. The initial financing of operating costs will
require advance payments by users; these will have to be estimated.
Group Laboratory Facilities
.Analysis of each batch of wastewater will have to occur before it is com-
mingled with other companies' wastes to ensure proper crediting of silver,
that no materials are present which will adversely affect the operation of the
treatment system, and that concentrations are within design limits for the
system. These analyses could be done prior to delivery of wastes from each
company. A more cost-effective solution might be achieved by having a central,
shared laboratory. Such a laboratory might be established only to serve the
waste treatment function; or the work of an existing laboratory might be ex-
panded to include the group waste treatment work, with the addition of person-
nel and equipment. Adding laboratory capabilities to the group treatment system
provides significant savings over the alternative of having each participant
performing its own analyses.
SUMMARY
Management is not always aware of the environmental aspects of a company.
It may not recognize that the material discharged to the sewer or the chemical-
filled 55-gallon drums brought to the local landfill are potentially toxic or
hazardous. Similarly, management may not be aware of the firm's responsibility
for actions or problems resulting from the disposition of these waste materials.
Then a manager might erroneously consider waste treatment as peripheral to
the firm's business; and when in-plant processes are upgraded, they may not be
optimized for the total plant, including waste generation.
This chapter has stressed that waste treatment is part of the business
plan and indeed could be a separate business. Just as there are risks to be
o
6
-------
assumed in normal business endeavors there are risks to be accounted for in
waste treatment. Therefore, this plan for group treatment has included methods
for minimizing these risks: the companies are not connected by a continuous
system where incidential dumps could hurt the system—batch wastes can be indi-
vidually analyzed to prevent this. Also a structure of joint responsibility
has been discussed to provide for apportionment of risk and perhaps to accom-
modate the addition or deletion of firms as desired.
In this way, costs can be lowered for waste treatment, additional material
can be recovered, and an environmentally acceptable system can,be provided.
THE TAUNTON SILVER COMPANIES
The three Taunton silver companies which are the subject of this report
throughly evaluated the alternatives presented in this report as part of
their overall consideration of joint waste treatment. Their considerations
included most of the issues mentioned above. They have elected to not enter
into a joint venture at this time. There was a general feeling that the
problems of joint ownership, financing and the competitive positions could be
worked out. However, other factors lead to the decision that each should go
its own way. F.B. Rogers had completed planning for its batch waste treatment
facilities as it was on an earlier compliance schedule than the other two
companies. Poole Silver elected to merge its metal finishing operations with
another firm within the Towle Manufacturing Co., and in doing so, eliminated
the need to install treatment facilities. Reed & Barton decided to provide
its own batch treatment facilities using design concepts that would permit it
to'expand capacity should it elect to do batch treatment on a contract basis
some time in the future.
37
-------
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY
The best way to review and evaluate a project of this nature is to con-
sider the steps through which it has progressed. In this way, the total proj-
ect can be understood in terms of its key variables, thus permitting duplica-
tion as desired.
Step One
Identification
of Problem
Step Two
Consideration of
Cost-Effective
Solutions
Step Three
Development
of Approach
The concept began at an industrial meeting under the aus-
pices of the regional Section 208 program at the local
Chamber of Commerce. That discussion focused on potential
aspects of the pretreatment program that the city soon
would be required to implement along with the upgrading of
its municipal sewage treatment facility. There was a
great deal of uncertainty as to what the specific require-
ments for the participating industries would be, but there
was a general sense of a need for strict metallic limits
in order to protect the municipal facility and meet its
discharge permit.
At the conclusion of the meeting, one of the industrial-
ists in particular, who understood the situation, ex-
plained that he and the others would need help. Since
there were a number of companies in the city with similar
product lines and probably similar waste streams, some
means of group treatment seemed an appropriate approach
to the problem. Subsequent discussions with several of
the plant engineers again showed the concern of meeting
pretreatment regulations and an interest in a group proj-
ect. From this start, it was necessary to go to the man-
agement levels of the companies next: first, to explain
the nature of the coming regulations and, second, to de-
scribe a potential group solution.
It was deemed interesting to three companies in particular,
which decided to explore the possibility of EPA R&D fund-
ing, as there was no precedent for establishment of such
a group pretreatment program. Upon selection of an engin-
eering consultant and an institutional subcontractor to
accomplish the work, an application was submitted to EPA.
At that time, the three companies signed a "Letter of In-
tent" indicating their agreement to the overall project
and to the designation of one company as "company of rec-
ord" on the grant application.
The issues of timing and particularly or enforcement
schedules became a concern early in the project. July
1977 deadlines were approaching and one nearby company
38
-------
Step Four
Designation
of Common
Elements
decided not to participate during the initial discussions,
believing his permit schedule would not allow a delay.
One of the primary three companies was in a similar situa-
tion, splitting its effluent between an NPDES permit to
the river and the municipal facility. This company elec-
ted to stay in the project, recognizing however that most
of its waste streams were committed to the scheduled in-
stallation and hence not available to group treatment.
Similarly, one of the interested secondary companies in a
nearby community was also on a permit schedule and hence
not eligible for full consideration. Just before the ac-
tual grant acceptance, the other secondary company in a
neighboring community was placed on a pretreatment sched-
ule, disallowing its consideration except in a marginal
sense. However, the primary three companies continued
their participation in the feasibility study as described
and divided their costs on a three-way basis.
At the start of the study each of these three plants was
analyzed for common characteristics of all batch dis-
charges, including sludges, and of rinse water systems.
A chart was drawn up showing alkali cleaners, acids with
various metals, cyanides, salvable and inert sludges,
hexavalent chromium, and solids. In this way, the three
companies' waste materials were compared to determine can-
didates for group treatment. From this list ten batch
wastes suitable for common treatment and disposal were
described.
Acids
1. Those high in silver-strips, etchants
2. Those high in copper sulfuric pickles, bright dips
3. Those high in nickel-strips, dragout recovery
4. Those that are relatively low in metal content
5. Those containing hexavalent chromium
Cyanides
6. Those high in silver—filter wash water, floor spill,
dragout recovery, strike baths, strips
7. Those high in copper—same sources as for silver
8. Those low in metal content
Sludges
9. Those resulting from waste treatment which have solids
content below 10 percent solids
10. Those that are untreated—solids removed from the
bottom of a process tank, for example
39
-------
Step Five
Designation of
Discharge Points
and Disposal/
Recovery System
Step Six
Evaluation of
Regulatory
Procedures
Step Seven
Economic Analysis
of Alternatives
Step Eight
Evaluation of
Institutional/
Financial Elements
Step Nine
Consideration of
Potential Project
Expansion
Next, the issue of size and location of the companies was
considered. Which ones were limited by space and perhaps
personnel, and which had access to receiving waters as
well as to the municipal sewer? Was there a more central-
ized location at one plant rather than at another? Dis-
charge to the municipal sewer would limit the project to
companies within the city, whereas discharge to a river
would limit the size to reasonable transportation dis-
tances within the state.
Discharges both to receiving waters and to the municipal
sewer would require permits, monitoring and reporting.
Similarly, discharge to a hazardous waste landfill would
necessitate a permit, monitoring and reporting. There
were interactions to be considered and discussed with the
EPA regional office, the State Water Pollution Control
Agency, and the city department of sewers. The city's
sewer ordinance, with its specific metallic limits, was
approved by the EPA and the state but still was under re-
view by the local City Council during the progress of the
study. It was made available, however, to the three com-
panies and their consultants. The issue of antidegradation
on one segment of the river became a concern. All of these
regulations and requirements were evaluated as part of the
study.
The cost-estimating procedure began with individual plant
alternatives considering water conservation techniques and
various known technologies to meet the different discharge
requirements of the river and the municipal sewer. Group
alternatives were then developed on the basis of the indi-
vidual alternatives in order to compare costs. Material
recovery proved to be one of the most important elements
of the group treatment program.
Similarly, institutional arrangements were analyzed: who
would own the treatment plant(s), how it would be financed,
and how it would be operated. The State Department of
Commerce and Development was interested in pollution con-
trol bonding but was unaware of IRS consideration of mate-
rial recovery as part of the project. Similarly, local
banks were interested in various financial alternatives.
There were some new questions to ask, and there were some
new decisions to make, but it was institutionally feasible.
The number of companies likely to participate was evalu-
ated in a preliminary manner. With the assistance of the
local Chamber of Commerce, a brief questionnaire was dis-
tributed to companies having potential waste streams match-
ing the ten batch categories. Interest was expressed on
the part of several, but without the city's proclamation
40
-------
of the sewer ordinance with its metallic limits, companies
were hesitant to release specific information. Many were
not even aware of the upcoming sewer ordinance and their
potential pollutants to the municipal sewer.
Step Ten At the completion of the study, the three companies had
received much data—technical, regulatory, financial and
Final Analysis institutional. They must evaluate this information in
of Alternatives order to make required decisions. With the release of the
and Decisions municipal sewer ordinance including the compliance schedule,
a citywide focus on this project has developed.
-------
APPENDIX A
REED & BARTON SILVERSMITHS
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Established in 1824, Reed & Barton is one of this country's oldest and
largest major silverware manufacturers. With the exception of the 8-year-old
117,000 square foot Holloware plant, most of the buildings were erected in the
late 1800s. All of Reed & Barton's manufacturing facilities are located in
the Taunton industrial complex, which is split by a small river, making the
control of the company's effluents all the more difficult.
The company started making the first American-made Britannia metal, and
from there the company diversified into silver electroplating and sterling
silver. Reed & Barton currently employs over 700 people in both manufacturing
and administrative capacities.
Product Line
Reed & Barton today manufactures one of the most diverse product lines in
the silverware industry. In flatware, Reed & Barton is the only silverware
company which offers all five flatware products: sterling silver, Sterling II,
silverplate, stainless and pewter. The company's holloware products include
sterling silver, silverplate, stainless steel and pewter.
The Reed & Barton organization also includes two wholly owned subsidiaries
--Eureka Manufacturing, a large manufacturer of wooden silverware and jewelry
chests, and Sheffield Silver, manufacturer of silverplate and pewter holloware
--both located in nearby Norton, Massachusetts.
INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
In the production of both holloware and flatware, the most predominant
and repetitive metal finishing process is that of alkaline cleaning for removal
of surface soils. Parts are cleaned after stamping, prior to annealing, after
soldering for flux removal, after grinding and polishing, and prior to electro-
plating. Cleaning operations are also associated with color glaze application,
chasing, repair steps and final finishing.
Acid processing is used to a much lesser extent. Most acid processing
uses the common mineral acids, hydrochloric, sulfuric and nitric for removal
of scales resulting from annealing and oxides resulting from brazing and sol-
dering operations. Weaker acids are used prior to electroplating, with
fluoboric acid required by the tin-lead alloys and for repair steps, and in
the application of oxide films.
42
-------
Cyanide processing is predominant for the electrodeposition of copper and
silver, with a minor amount of cyanide gold salts in use. Cyanide is also as-
sociated with a few of the cleaning operations in repair and final finishing
steps and with a few unique steps prior to electrodeposition.
Process water is also used in mechanical deburring steps that include con-
ventional vibratory and horizontal tumbling techniques in the operation of a
laundry and in the boiler house.
Other plating steps that are used occasionally are acid copper plating,
nickel plating and black nickel deposition. Stripping of plating fixtures and
some plated parts is accomplished in both cyanide and acid media.
Cooling water is used in the operation of vapor degreasers, hydraulic
presses, vacuum pumps, air compressors, annealing furnaces, gas generators,
casting furnaces, air conditioning, ultrasonic generators and some rectifiers.
Contact cooling water results from knife blade grinding.
The above operations that require industrial water use are performed in
some 30 different departments that are scattered throughout 12 buildings, some
of which have two and three floors for various wet processing. Figure 1
layout of the'total facility, shows the relative locations of operations using
cooling and process water. It will be noted that there are six different lo-
cations for connections for process and cooling water to sanitary sewers and
two discharge points for cooling water to the river. The complexity of join-
ing common process streams for treatment purposes is compounded by the Mill
River which divides the facility roughly in half.
Table 4 shows the various sources of flowing process water discharged
to each of the six manholes. Not shown are single discharge points such as
the laundry, which discharqes into Manhole 1, nr the river discharge for cool-
ing water. Figures 2 and 3 are abbreviated flow diagrams showing the va-
rious types of water discharging to each outlet. Not shown are those individ-
ual connections to the sanitary sewer which contain only sanitary wastewater.
Quantity Initially Observed
Before this project some efforts had been directed toward water conserva-
tion. Additional effort is presently underway to further reduce the amount of
industrial water used. At the time of the initial survey to establish a data
base for this study, it was revealed that the following amount of water was
being discharged:
Cooling water - 321,000 I/day (85,000 6PD) at a rate of 550-750 1/min
(147-200 GPM)
Process rinse water - 520,000 I/day (137,000 GPD) at a rate of 1510 1/min
(400 GPM)
A breakdown by discharge point for the quantity and rate of flow is provided in
Table A-2.
43
-------
o
£=>
CE
-------
TABLE 4. DRAIN SYSTEM
Manufacturing Process:
Type of Discharge
Rate
1/min GPM
Daily Discharge
Liters Gallons
BUILDINGS 15, 20C, 39 TO MANHOLE 2
Holloware Plating:
Acid/alkali cleaning
Cyanide - plating
Cyanide - nonplating
Noncyanide plating
Cooling water
Color Glaze:
Cleaning
Holloware Finishing:
Alkali cleaning
Cyanide - nonplating
Gilding and Etching:
Acid/alkali cleaning
Cyanide - plating
Cyanide - nonplating
Noncyanide plating
Acid etch
Solvent cleaning
Cooling water
Chasing:
Cooling water
Repair:
Acid/alkali cleaning
Cyanide - plating
Reclamation:
Metal recovery water*
BUILDING 39 TO MANHOLE 4
Holloware Stamping:
Alkali spray washer
Acid cleaning
Cooling water
Holloware Making:
Acid spray washer
Acid/alkali cleaning
Holloware Polishing:
Alkali spray washer
Cooling water
153
97
5.7
5.7
9
45
51
11
45
45
91
11
57
34
57
9
19
11
11
11
45
53
23
19
11
125
(40.5)
(25.5)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(2.5)
(12)
(13.5)
(3)
(12)
(12)
(24)
(3)
(15)
(9)
(15)
(2.5)
(5)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(12)
(14)
(6)
(5)
(3)
(33)
82,800
46,300
3,070
3,070
5,680
4,770
20,900
2,270
8,860
10,200
15,400
1,140
6,810
4,770
31 ,000
1,140
10,200
8,450
1,360
6,130
2,730
33,200
9,080
10,900
5,450
60,000
(21,900)
(12,200)
(810)
(810)
(1,500)
(1,260)
(5,520)
(600)
(2,340)
(2,700)
(4,080)
(300)
(1,800)
(1,260)
(8,190)
(300)
(2,700)
(1,440)
(360)
(1,620)
(720)
(9,760)
(2,400)
(2,880)
(1,440)
(15,800)
* One day a month.
45
-------
TABLE .4 (continued). DRAIN SYSTEM
Manufacturing Process:
Type of Discharge
BUILDINGS 5, 6, 25 TO MANHOLE 5
Sterling Holloware Making:
Acid/alkali cleaning
Etch
Cooling water
Knife Blade Forging:
Cooling water
Knife Blade Grinding:
Alkali cleaning
Contact cooling
Cutlery Making:
Cooling water
Flatware Buffing:
Acid oxidize
Flatware Finishing:
Di chroma te oxidize
Reclamation:
Metal recovery water
Cooling water*
BUILDINGS 5A, 5B TO MANHOLE 6
Flatware Stamping:
Alkali spray washer
Acid/alkali cleaning
Cooling water
Flatware Polishing:
Cleaning
Acid oxidize
Flatware Plating:
Acid/alkali cleaning
Cyanide - plating
Cyanide - nonplating
Noncyanide plating
Marking/Scratch Brush:
Cyanide - nonplating
Rate
1/min GPM
28
19
19
38
23
34
2
23
28
45
9
7.6
57
4.5
70
9.5
79
68
11
23
39
(7.5)
(5)
(5)
(10)
(6)
(9)
(0.6)
(6)
(7.5)
(12)
(2.5)
(2)
(15)
(1.2)
(18.5)
(2.5)
(21)
(18)
(3)
(6)
(10.5)
Daily Discharge
Liters Gallons
13,600
9,080
9,080
22,700
10,900
13,600
1,640
10,900
5,110
5,450
5,680
3,630
27,300
2,720
33,600
4,540
21,800
15,300
1,360
6,810
10,300
(3,600)
(2,400)
(2,400)
(6,000)
(2,880)
(3,600)
(432)
(2,880)
(1,350)
(1,440)
(1,500)
(960)
(7,200)
(720)
(8,880)
(1,200)
(5,760)
(4,050)
(360)
(1,800)
(2,730)
* One day a week.
46
-------
TABLE 4 (continued). DRAIN SYSTEM
Manufacturing Process: Rate Daily Discharge
Type of Discharge 1/nrin 6PM Liters Gallons
BUILDING 5 TO MANHOLE 8
Cutlery Making:
Acid cleaning 17 (4.5) 8,180 (2,160)
Cooling water 30 (8) 10,900 (2,880)
Sterling Holloware Buff:
Cyanide - nonplating 34 (9) 16,400 (4,320)
BUILDING 5A TO MANHOLE 9
Flatware Buffing:
Alkali spray washer 30 (8) 14,500 (3,840)
Alkali cleaning 23 (6) 10,900 (2,880)
Cyanide - nonplating 21 (5.5) 9,990 (2,640)
47
-------
L-J IUIILSIX i vino i uvvni i_i\ ••••i^—- • • •
SANITARY WA9TFWATFR to..
'rt
PROCESS MATFP •-_
PRf)fF9^ WATFr? »^
r ixuouoo WH 1 tl\ • B" -• • • •
COni TNR UATFP no.
v/uuuiliU Wn 1 tl\ «»•
SANITARY uifl^TruATrr? •»..
o/iiil IMKI WMolLWMlLK • *"
BOTI FR RI nwnnuN **.
PROCESS WATFR **•
rnni TNR WATFP o.
SANITARY WA^TFWATFR te»
BUILDING #24 COOLING WATER — »—
SILVER
RECLAIM
STORM SEWF
i
1
•R
s;
s/
s^
1 SA
...... i^.
RI
SANITARY SEWER
•- OUTLET #1
(SSO #1)
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #2
(SSO #2)
SANITARY SEWER
^-OUTLET #3
(SSO #3)
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #4
(SSO #4)
RIVER OUTLET #1
(RO #1)
FIGURE 3. WASTEWATER DISCHARGE POINTS, WEST SIDE OF RIVER
48
-------
PROCESS WATER
PROCESS WATER
PROCESS WATER
COOLING WATER
SANITARY WASTEWATER
I SILVER
RECLAIM
SOLIDS
SETTLING
SANITARY SEWER
._ OUTLET #5
(SSO #5)
PROCESS WATER
PROCESS WATER
COOLING WATER
SANITARY WASTEWATER
SILVER
RECLAIM
UATFR _,^_-
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #6
(SSO #6)
UUUL i n\3
SANITARY
PROCESS
PROCESS
COOLING
SANITARY
nonrF<;<;
UATFUATFP ^_
UATFP I^B.
UATFP »•
UATFP ».
IUATTFUATrP ta.
WATFR •»
SOLIDS
SETTLING
i
jt
$l
S
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #7
(SSO #7)
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #8
(SSO #8)
BUILDING #5 COOLING WATER
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #9
(SSO #9)
RIVER OUTLET #2
(RO #2)
FIGURE 4. WASTEWATER DISCHARGE POINTS, EAST SIDE OF RIVER
49
-------
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL WATER FLOW BY MANHOLE
Manhole
Rate
1/min
GPM
_ Daily Discharge
Liters "Gallons
Rinse Water:
2
4
5
6
8
9
687
110
200
365
51
74
(182)
(29)
(53)
96)
13.5
19.5
229,000
34,300
68,800
124,500
24,600
35,400
(60,500)
(9,060)
(18,200)
(32,900)
(6,480)
(9,350)
Cooling Water:
2
4
5
6
7
8
75
178
68
4.5
34
30
(20)
(47)
(18)
(1.2)
(9)
(8)
37,800
93,200
39,100
2,720
49,100
10,900
(9,990)
(24,600)
(10,300
(720)
(13,000
(2,880)
Quality of Discharge
During the year preceding this study, various samples were taken from
seven sample points (observation manholes). The results of the analyses of
six of these samples are shown in Table 6. The seventh sample showed the
contamination from laundry operations at Manhole 1. It is believed that the
analysis reflects the quality of city water in use rather than contamination
by processing. The pH was in the range of 2.5 to 5.9 and copper in the range
of 0.9 to 2.0. It is believed that the quality is typical of flowing rinse
water that has been diluted with nonprocess water. All but one discharge
point (Manhole 9) was intermixed with sanitary wastewater and cooling water.
Since these samples were taken, some water conservation steps have been
taken and several chemical process changes have been implemented. For the
purposes of this study, additional average composite samples were taken. The
results are shown in Tables 7 and 8. They are believed to be representa-
tive of present conditions and serve as a data base for this project.
50
-------
TABLE 6. RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF WASTEWATER"
Item
MANHOLE 3t
Cyanide
Copper
Silver
Zinc
Lead
Iron
Nickel
Chromium
Solids, suspended
Solids, total
pH, units, mean
MANHOLE 4
Cyanide
Copper
Silver
Zinc
Lead
Iron
Nickel
Chromium
Solids, suspended
Solids, total
pH, units, mean
MANHOLE 5
Cyanide
Copper
Silver
Zinc
Lead
Iron
Nickel
Chromi urn
Solids, suspended
Solids, total
pH, units, mean
Concentration,
Range
1.7 - 3.5
2.6 - 3.0
1.1 - 3.6
0.2 - 0.4
<0.05 - 0.11
2.0 - 3.8
0.03 - 0.23
<0.01 - 0.02
N/A
164 - 614
3.0 - 11.6
N/A
1.1 - 5.9
N/A
0.2 - 2.6
0.12 - 0.50
1.4 - 2.5
0.02 - 0.10
<0.01 - 0.02
N/A
44 - 138
3.1 - 7.3
N/A
0.13 - 0.71
<0.01 - 0.57
0.25 - 0.44
<0.05 - 0.10
22.5 - 34.0
0.08 - 0.15
2.6 - 4.8
N/A
162 - 200
2.8 - 6.4
mg/1
Average
2.3
2.8
2.0
0.3
<0.07
3.0
0.13
0.01
26.0
389.00
8
<0.1
3.0
<0.1
1.2
0.26
2.0
0.06
0.01
10
93
5
<0.1
0.38
0.24
0.32
<0.08
27.2
0.12
3.4
26
181
5
*Source: City of Taunton Sewer Department, May 6, 1976 through
October 19, 1976.
fManhole 3 receives discharge from Manhole 2 and boiler blowdown.
51
-------
TABLE 6 (continued). RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF WASTEWATER
Item
MANHOLE 6
Cyanide
Copper
Silver
Zinc
Lead
Iron
Nickel
Chromium
Solids* suspended
Solids, total
pH, units, mean
MANHOLE 8
Cyanide
Copper
Silver
Zinc
Lead
Iron
Nickel
Chromi urn
Solids, suspended
Solids, total
pH, units, mean
MANHOLE 9
Cyanide
Copper
Silver
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Chromium
Solids, suspended
Solids, total
pH, units
Concentration,
Range
<0.1 - 1.9
1.45 - 4.56
0.22 - 3.6
0.27 - 1.17
<0.05 - 0.13
1.1 - 1.8
2.2 - 3.8
1.3 - 7.0
N/A
162 - 792
6.3 - 11.3
N/A
1.2 - 1.4
0.3 - 2.8
0.4 - 0.7
0.13 - 0.32
1.0 - 1.9
0.13 - 0.20
<0.01 - 0.04
-
112 - 198
3.5 - 3.8
N/A
0.43 - 0.66
0.04 - 0.08
0.05 - 0.16
<0.05 - 0.07
N/A
N/A
-
388 - 406
11.2 - 11.3
mg/1
Average
0.7
2.7
1.4
0.7
0.09
1.4
3.0
3.5
112
421
8
<0.1
1.7
1.1
0.5
0.20
1.3
0.18
<0.03
-
155
3.7
<0.1
0.52
0.06
0.10
<0.06
<0.05
<0.01
-
397
11.2
52
-------
TABLE 7. ANALYSIS OF WASTENATER - WEST SIDE OF RIVER*
Item
SSO #1
Concentration, mg/1
SSO #3
SSO #4
Cyanide, total
Cyanide, amenable
Silver
Copper
Zinc
Tin
Lead
Ni ckel
Iron
Chromiumt
Solids, suspended
Solids, total
pH, units
0
0
0
2
1
<0
0
0
2
0
46
397
3
.0045
.0045
.45
.01
.02
.1
.38
.06
.88
.02
.0
.0
.41
(0
(1
(0
(0
(0
(2
.02)t
.55)
.95)
.32)
.02
.17)
.01)
1
1
0
4
0
<0
0
0
11
0
27
152
7
.15
.05
.54
.92
.65
.1
.12
.30
.6
.02
.9
.0
.32
0
0
(0.44) 0
(4.68) 1
(0.20) 0
(<0 . 01
(0.21
(0.03
(<0.01
<0
0
0
15
) o
35
104
3
.0045
.0045
.04
.26
.29
.1
.07
.07
.5
.03
.3
.0
.35
(0
(1
(0
(<0
(<0
(0
.02)
.17)
.27)
.01)
.01)
.24)
.01)
*Source: New England Chemical Works, Whittenton Industrial Center,
Taunton, Massachusetts, June 9, 1977.
tValues given in parentheses are for dissolved metals.
fNo hexavalent chromium.
TABLE 8. ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER - EAST SIDE OF RIVER*
Item
Concentration, mg/1
SSO #5
SSO #6
SSO #8
SSO #9
Cyanide, total
Cyanide, amenable
Silver
Copper
Zinc
Tin
Lead
Nickel
Iron
Chromiumf
Solids, suspended
Solids, total
pH, units
0
0
0
0
0
<0
0
0
32
3
50
165
6
.0045
.0045
.04
.20
.17
.1
.05 (
.10 <
.4
.94 (
.5
.0
.7
|).02)t
P. 02)
p. 05)
<0.01)
<0.01
'(0.02)
<0.01)
0.117
0.066
0.07
0.80
0.11
<0.1
0.07i
2.83
2.88
,0.52
35.5
133.0
6.29
p. 00)
(0.57)
(0.08)
(<0.01)
J2.65)
(0.16)
,
0
0
0
0
1
<0
0
0
0
0
6
117
7
.048
.040
.035 (0
.64 (0
.30 0
.1
.035(<0
.13 (0
.92 0
.02 0
.5
.0
.58
.035)"
*33j
.77) V
.035)
.08)
.30)
.02)
0
0
0
0
0
<0
<0
0
2
0
33
419
11
.012
.006
.13
.62
.34
.1
.01
.15
.59
.09 i
.0
.0
.27
(0.04)
f).48)
p. 03)
O.io)
JO. 21)
*Source: New England Chemical Works, Whittenton Industrial Center,
Taunton, Massachusetts, June 9, 1977.
tValues given in parentheses are for dissolved metals.
fNo hexavalent chromium.
53
-------
Production practices during both sample periods held^batch dumps of spent
process solutions to a minimum. Table 9 shows the quantity of batch dis-
charges by discharge point. Table TO shows a summary of the batch discharge
by type for the entire plant. Obviously, the concentration of the various
contaminants would be higher during these dump periods.
TABLE 9. BATCH DISCHARGES BY MANHOLE
Manhole
Volume, liters/year (gallons/year)
Alkalies
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
123,000
886,000
497,000
79,100
168,000
98,000
190
13,250
147,000
(32,500)
(234,000)
(131,400)
(20,900)
(44,500)
(25,900)
(50)
(3,500)
(38,800)
Acids
109,000
38,100
3,650
720
38
500
0
(28,900)
0
(10,100)
(964)
(190)
0
(10)
(132)
Cyanides
0
170,500 (45
0
0
485
2,760
0
0
0
,000)
(128)
(730)
-
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF BATCH DISCHARGES BY, TYPE
Vol ume
Type Subtype
Alkali Spray Wash Cleaners
Other Alkali Cleaners
Exhaust Scrub Water
Laundry
Boiler Blowdown
Total Alkali
Acid Low Silver Content
High Silver Content
Total Acid
Cyanide Low Silver Content
High Silver Content
Total Cyanide
liters/year
270,000
526,000
473,000
615,000
496,000
2,380,000
103,000
4,300
107,300
31 ,700
155,200
186,900
(gallons/year)
'• (71,300)
(139,000)
(125,000)
(162,500)
(131,000)
(628,800)
(27,300)
(1,140)
(28,440)
(8,390)
(41,000)
(49,400)
Solvents (not to sewer)
3,860
(1,020)
54
-------
Anticipated Segregation and Conservation
Sanitary wastewater discharge will be segregated from industrial use
wastewater. Cooling water will be partially segregated from wet process waste-
water. That cooling water which is not segregated is reused as process rinse
water. Water conservation techniques will reduce the amount of cooling water
discharged.
Counterflow rinsing will reduce the amount of wet process wastewater.
Other conservation techniques will further reduce the amount of process water
discharged. It is anticipated that all cooling water that is not reused as
process water will be eliminated from direct discharge to the sanitary sewer.
It is anticipated that a minimum of 25 percent reduction in wet process rinse
water will result. A minimum of 500,000 I/day (135,000 GPD) reduction will be
accomplished prior to the installation of pollution control facilities. Sim-
plified flow diagrams of process water only, resulting from this segregation,
is shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Anticipated Quality of Raw Waste Discharge
Due to the magnitude of the segregation of sanitary wastewater, cooling
water and wet process wastewater, it is not possible to accomplish the segre-
gation before the completion of this project. Due to the present intermix of
these three types of wastewater, it is not possible to obtain representative
samples of only wet process wastewater for analysis. Likewise, the impact of
future water conservation efforts cannot be felt in time to be meaningful for
qualification of the raw waste requiring treatment.
However, it is possible to calculate a theoretical discharge from the va-
rious analyses obtained for the data base. It can be considered that the
theoretical discharge excludes the cooling water and that water conservation
efforts will be implemented. Errors will exist in that it is not possible to
do more than estimate the amount of water used for sanitary purposes which has
a dilution effect. Likewise, it is not practical to include in the contami-
nant loading those contributions caused by the raw city water.
It is anticipated that all process wastewater may be brought to a single
location for pretreatment. Weighting the results of analyses shown in
Tables 7 & 8,with the daily discharge in the tables showing the amount drain-
ing through each manhole, and considering the water conservation anticipated,
a value for each major contaminant has been predicted and is shown in Table
11. As an estimate this shows the general order of magnitude for discharge
from the total plant for process wastewater. Not shown on this table is hex-
avalent chromium that appears from time to time when certain part-time opera-
tions are being used. The concentration anticipated when it is present is in
the range of 1-3 mg/1. Other metals that may appear from time to time are
mercury and tellurium.
55
-------
LAUNDRY:
Wash Water-
HOLLOWARE PLATING:
Acid/Alkali Rinses--
Acid, High Metal
Cyanide, High Metal-
Cyanide, Low Metal—
COLOR GLAZE:
Solids Only-
HOLLOWARE FINISHING:
Acid/Alkali Rinses-
Cyanide, Low Metal—
GILDING:
Acid/Alkali Rinses-
Acid, High Metal
Cyanide, High Metal-
Cyanide, Low Metal-
Solids Only
REPAIR:
Acid/Alkali Rinses-
Cyanide, Low Metal-
BOILER SLOWDOWN:-
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #1
(SSO #1)
-*••
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #2
(SSO #2)
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #3
" (SSO #3)
HOLLOWARE STAMPING:
Spray Washer
Acid, Low Metal—
HOLLOWARE MAKING:
Spray Washer-
Acid/Alkali Rinses-
HOLLOWARE POLISHING:
Spray Washer
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #4
(SSO #4)
FIGURE 5. PROCESS RINSE WATER, WEST SIDE OF RIVER
56
-------
STERLING HARDWARE MAKING:
Acid/Alkali Rinses
Acid, High Metal
KNIFE BLADE GRINDING:
Alkali Rinses
FLATWARE BUFFING:
Acid, Low Metal-
FLATWARE FINISHING:
Hexavalent Chromium-
METAL RECLAIMING:
Acid, High Metal-
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #5
(SSO #5)
FLATWARE STAMPING:
Spray Washer-
Acid/Alkali Rinses—
Hexavalent Chromium-
FLATWARE POLISHING:
Acid/Alkali Rinses—
FLATWARE PLATING:
Acid/Alkali Rinses-
Cyanide, High Metal-
Cyanide, Low Metal—
MARKING/SCRATCH BRUSH:
Acid/Alkali Rinses—
SANITARY SEWER
-*- OUTLET #6
CUTLERY MAKING:
Acid/Alkali Rinses-
STERLING HARDWARE BUFF:
Cyanide, Low Metal
SANITARY SEWER
- OUTLET #8
FLATWARE BUFFING:
Spray Washer-
Acid/Alkali Rinses-
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #9
(SSO #9)
FIGURE 6. PROCESS RINSE WATER, EAST SIDE OF RIVER
57
-------
TABLE 11. THEORETICAL COMBINED PROCESS WATER QUALITY
Item Concentration, mg/1
Cyanide, total
Cyanide, amenable
Silver
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Iron
Chromium
0.74
0.62
0.37
3.7
6.7
0.11
1.07
20.0
1.1
The low values shown for cyanide are considered unrealistic, as the ex-
isting drain systems permit formation of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) which would
not show up in the analysis. A more likely concentration is 50-75 times the
amount shown after the proposed drain isolation.
Unique Considerations
At Reed & Barton Silversmiths there are several unique situations that
produce industrial wastewater that requires unique treatment considerations.
In Buildings 3 and 4 there are photographic rooms that use conventional
development techniques. Virtually all the chemical processing results in
wastewater that is amenable to biological treatment along with the sanitary
wastewater. The exception is the spent "hypo" which can contain amounts of
dissolved silver that, when dumped, would be objectionable. The spent "hypo"
will be transferred in containers to the waste treatment facilities for sal-
vage of silver. The volume involved amounts to 190 1/yr (50 gal/yr).
In Building 8 a small laundry is used on a daily basis. The volume of
wash water discharged daily is 2,500 liters (650 gallons). The laundry waste-
water, mixed with sanitary waste, discharges into Manhole 1. The quality of
this discharge is affected more by the poor quality of the raw water used for
washing than by contamination caused by shop soils. The major contamination
is the soaps and detergents used in washing. These are amenable to biological
treatment along with sanitary wastewater. As the raw water quality improves,
the amount of heavy metals in this effluent will be reduced. It is believed
that optimum treatment will result if this wastewater continues to be treated
as sanitary waste.
Steam is used for process and space heating. A major portion of the con-
densate is returned to the boiler house. Where there is little or no chance
58
-------
of contamination by process solutions, the condensate is returned. Otherwise,
it is used as rinse water and reduces the amount of raw water required for
rinsing. Boiler blowdown amounts to 1400 I/day (360 6PD). This is normally
high in suspended solids and slightly alkaline. This wastewater will be
treated along with other inert suspended solids.
In virtually all locations accidental discharges are kept from the sewer
systems by curbs and dikes isolated from process tank drains. Those few re-
maining locations where the potential for accidental loss of solutions remains
high are receiving attention to correct this situation. At the same time,
potential accidental acid losses are being isolated from cyanides under an
OSHA compliance program.
BASIC DESIGN CONCEPTS
With the exclusion of cooling water and sanitary wastewater, more simpli-
fied flow diagrams can be produced for wet process water. Figures 5 and 6
include segregation into process wastewater streams having common character-
istics and/or methods of treatment. Tables 7 and 8 show the results of the
analysis of composite samples taken early in this project for each of the ma-
jor process water discharge points. Table 9 is a calculated value for the
discharge with cooling water excluded. However, those values should be con-
sidered minimum values since dilution with sanitary wastewater remains.
Segregation of process wastewater will include two major factors: concen-
trated batch wastewater will be separated from flowing rinse water and segre-
gation by treatment required will be accomplished. The analysis results shown
in the various tables are in keeping with flowing rinses when batch discharges
are kept to a minimum. The concentration in isolated discharge streams having
common characteristics can only be estimated, as significant alterations to
drain systems are required in order to obtain accurate samples.
Rinses can be segregated into the following seven subcategories:
spray washing machines
acids high in metal (Ag, Cu and/or Zn)
hexavalent chromium
acid/alkali low in metal
cyanides high in metal (Ag and Cu)
cyanides low in metal
suspended solids only
Batch discharges can be segregated into:
alkali cleaners
acids high in metal
acids low in metal
cyanides high in metal-
cyanides low in metal
59
-------
Alkaline cleaners, together with the rinses from spray washing machines, rep-
resent a significant segment of wastewater resulting from metal finishing op-
erations which is unique from other wastewater types. This type of waste is
characterized as being alkaline, being relatively high in suspended solids
and containing low levels of dissolved heavy metals. The wetting agents and
detergents are amenable to biodegradation by sanitary treatment systems.
These same surface-active agents can cause treatment problems for removal of
heavy metals common to other process water. Consequently, the preferred
treatment for the alkaline cleaners and the spray washing machine water is to
lower the pH, remove suspended solids where they are excessive, and then re-
combine with other treated wastewater for common discharge. Batch cleaners
resulting from dumping practices will be collected and metered into the spray
washer wastewater on a controlled basis to preclude shock loading.
Acid and alkali rinses will require pH control to minimize heavy metal
solubility, followed by removal of the metal hydroxide and/or oxide.
Rinses containing hexavalent chromium will require reduction of chromium
to the trivalent state, after which they can be treated as other acid waste-
water.
Acid rinses that are high in metal concentration will have the metals
reduced in concentration prior to treatment with other acid wastewaters.
Cyanide-bearing rinse water will require oxidation for cyanide removal.
In the absence of cyanide, the metals become insoluble. The resulting water
following oxidation will be treated as other acid/alkali-bearing rinse waters
for pH control and removal of heavy metals. Where the isolated cyanide stream
is considered to be high in salvable metal, pretreatment for removal of metal
to a lower level is preferred before combining with other low metal content,
cyanide-bearing water for oxidation.
Those waste streams containing only inert suspended solids will have the
majority of solids removed prior to discharge along with other treated or par-
tially treated water. Segregating these inert solids as sludges that are
known to be free of heavy metal hydroxides (or oxides) presents less of a
problem for ultimate disposals of residual solids.
Considering the previous segregation methods, Reed & Barton will have the
following types and quantities of flowing rinse water:
spray washer rinses 10,300 GPD @ 22 GPM max.
hexavalent chromium rinses 1,700 GPD @ 5 GPM max.
acid rinses high in metal 4,300 GPD @ 18 GPM max.
acid/alkali rinses 57,900 GPD @ 140 GPM max.
cyanide rinses high in metal 8,200 GPD @ 34 GPM max.
cyanide rinses low in metal 11,600 GPD @ 34 GPM max.
solids-only rinse water 3,000 GPD @ 21 GPM max.
Following preliminary treatment of high salyable, metal content rinses, of
hexavalent chromium and of cyanides, a combined waste system will result for
60
-------
final pH adjustment that, together with other acid/alkali rinses, will re-
quire further removal of suspended metal hydroxides and oxides. This com-
bined stream will amount to 84,000 GPD at a maximum flow rate of 230 GPM.
Following this pretreatment for removal of heavy metals, the wastewater
may intermix with other process wastewater (spray washer rinses and solids-
only rinse water) to produce a total process wastewater flow of 98,000 GPD
at a maximum rate of 275 GPM.
Acid batches high in silver content will be isolated from acids with low
recovery values. Metal extraction by pH adjustment or other means will result
in a low metal content acid. This will be mixed with other low metal content
acids for neutralization and metal hydroxide/oxide precipitation. The result-
ing sludge will be held for salvage, disposal or further dewatering.
Batch wastes containing hexavalent chromium will be isolated for reduc-
tion to the trivalent state before being neutralized like other waste acids.
Cyanide batches are normally high in cyanide concentration and dissolved
metal. If the metal has salvage value, the metal will be extracted prior to
cyanide oxidation. After metal extraction these cyanide batches will be mixed
with other cyanide batches that are low in salvable metal. Cyanide oxidation
will result in precipitated metal hydroxides and/or oxides. The sludge result-
ing is held for salvage, disposal or further dewatering.
PRIMARY DESIGN
Waste treatment facilities for Reed & Barton Silversmiths consider pres-
ent effluent limitations, potential limitations by local and federal agencies,
st;ate-of-the-art treatment technology and economics as evident in 1977. The
objective of the primary design is to form a basis for the evaluation of cost
alternatives. This design provides a complete treatment system for Reed &
Barton and does not consider involvement of other industries. The primary de-
sign may, therefore, be used to compare the cost effectiveness of the joint
participation alternative versus the separate treatment alternative.
Design Criteria
The volume of process water currently discharged is 137,000 G.PD which
flows at an average rate of 400 GPM. The wastewater contains cyanide, silver,
copper, nickel, iron, chromium, and zinc. The pH varies from alkaline to
acidic and exceeds the limits recommended for sewer or river discharge.
It is estimated that Reed & Barton can reduce process water consumption
by 25 percent. Assuming that the same quantities of material are discharged,
there would be an increase in the concentration of objectionable material.
The quantity of rinse water would be approximately 100,000 GPD flowing at a
maximum rate of 275 GPM.
61
-------
A significant portion (20 percent) of the wastewater results from clean-
ing operations. This water is far more amenable to biological treatment for
removal of wetting agents than the remaining waters. Aside from occasional
occurrence where the pH is too high, the cleaning water exhibits little, if
any, objectionable qualities for discharge to a sanitary sewer system. At
the same time, the sanitary treatment facilities do provide for removal of
the contaminants to the total environment that are present in the cleaning
wastewater.
The primary design criteria considers the optimum discharge site for
cleaning wastewater to be the sanitary sewer. Other process wastewaters re-
quiring cyanide and metal removal could be treated and discharged to the river
since the quality criteria for discharge to the sanitary sewer in Taunton are
more severe than for discharge to the river. Economics indicate a river dis-
charge for this process water.
The high volumes of process wastewater are concerned with flowing rinse
water. The rinses are characterized as being relatively low in contaminant
concentration. Lesser volumes are associated with the periodic dumping of
spent process solutions. The dumps are characterized as being significantly
high in contamination, even though low in volume. The design criteria con-
siders segregation of rinses and batch dumps of spent process solutions.
Segregation by type and treatability results in the waste streams for:
cyanide rinses, chromium rinses, acid/alkali rinses, rinses containing only
inert solids, and cleaner rinses.
The physical locations of the various waste-generating processes present
severe problems if all wastewater is brought to a common location for treat-
ment. The plumbing expenses become excessive. For the more complex treatment
systems, this expense of combining can be justified. However, for some of the
waste streams it is advisable to have more than one discharge for the sanitary
sewer, as little is to be gained in combining these wastes for treatment pur-
poses. The prime location for combined treatment is in Building 8 located on
the west side of the river. Consequently, the preceding segregations at rinse
are further subdivided by which side of the river they originated from:
cyanide rinses, east side - 18 GPM
cyanide rinses, west side - 52 GPM
chromium rinses, east side - 5 GPM
solids-only rinses, east side - 3 GPM
solids-only rinses, west side - 9 GPM
acid/alkali rinses, east side - 70 GPM
acid/alkali rinses, west side - 54 GPM
cleaner rinses, east side - 30 GPM
cleaner rinses, west side - 24 GPM
62
-------
Batch discharges, requiring disposal techniques that are different from rinses,
can be segregated into:
alkaline cleaners - 28,000 gallons/month
acids, high in silver - 150 gallons/month
acids, high in copper - 500 gallons/month
chromates - 750 galIons/month
acids, low in metals - 2,000 gallons/month
cyanides, high in silver & copper - 4,000 gallons/month
cyanides, low in metals - 750 gallons/month
inert sludges - 600 pounds/month
The quality criteria used as the design basis considers the proposed
local ordinance for discharge to the sanitary sewer to be more restrictive
than the anticipated Federal Guidelines for Pretreatment. Discharges to the
sanitary sewer shall meet the requirements as shown in Appendix E, "City of
Taunton Sewer Ordinance."
The quality criteria used as the design basis for discharge to the river
considers the requirements Of the regulatory agencies in Massachusetts and
Region I of EPA. The requirements are shown in Appendix F, "Water Regulations."
It is assumed for the purposes of this report that the antidegradation clause
does not apply for this discharge.
Treatment Proposed
Schematic presentations of the proposed treatment systems are shown on
Figure 7 for discharge to the river, on Figure 8 for batch treatment, and
on Figure 9 for discharges to the sanitary sewer. A description of the va-
rious subsystems is provided:
Rinse Water, River Discharge—
Cyanide-bearing rinses are isolated from all noncyanide-bearing process
waters. The collection system on the east side of the river includes means to
deliver the wastewater to the west side of the river for treatment. At the
centralized treatment site all cyanide-bearing rinses are initially combined
in a buffer (or equalization) tank. A two-step chlorination process removes
cyanides and cyanates. The resulting water contains copper hydroxide and sil-
ver oxide, both of which are present as suspended solids. Gravity settling of
suspended solids is provided to reduce these solids to an acceptable level.
Solids removal is enhanced by the addition of a polyelectrolyte. The sludges
removed by settling are concentrated and collected for salvage values.
Hexavalent chromium-bearing rinses are isolated from all nonchromium-
bearing process waters. All of this type of water is on the east side of the
river. The collected wastewater receives pretreatment for reduction of the
63
-------
en
m
^j
m
m
CO
a:
o
i
m
CO
o
po
o
m
SUMPSWnOH
r
I
f
c
3
C
>
1
"
|
C
II
3
SMPsanoN
a> fmss
(EASTSIXI
BUFFER
I* STAGE fsmCf
OXIDATION
r
k®
foif
5QL/fl? ovtr g4yr see i
ouecvr
\XO\OO.]CHH.\
]£KH\fK\WSH\
1
1
CB
REDUCTION
-• J
SiCG
KD0LKAU fiHSBl
EAST StC
\
>€r
SIMP STATION.
I fnOMINAW pi
! sernms U,
JEt<» OM^1
tCDMLKIU OHSCS
(Hfsrsxfl
omaaur
\jao\DQ\ms\-
FFI I
mesrsoe)
SETTLE SUMPSTA.
[
SUMPSTATKH
-------
AOO WITH UGH
01
c:
m
oo
D3
33
o
CO
33
CO
SHIPPING DRUMS
SUUP
snaiOH
-------
Cl.fANf'K RINSES
BATCH CLEAMER DUMPS
ICAST 'sixi 1
__WATER_
(EAST SIOEI
SOAP CLEANER RINSE_
('CAST sjcej
L_r
MONITOR
SAHTTARY SEWER ,
(EAST SIDE)
seme SUMP
STATION
~~f*fsf SOE'I ' I
TRACE-QfKiWIC RIHSES ^ I
BATCH CLEANER DUMPS
/WEST StOE)
EXHAUST SCRUBBER
WATER
LAUNORY WATER
SUMP STATION
FIGURE 9. WASTE TREATMENT SCHEMATIC - SANITARY SEWER DISCHARGE
66
-------
chromium to the trivalent state while on the east side of the river. Reduc-
tion is accomplished with sodium bisulfite at a reduced pH. The acidic water
resulting from this pretreatment step joins other acidic wastewater on the
east side of the river for subsequent treatment.
Cementation of flatware on the east side of the river results in a minor
amount of wastewater containing inert suspended solids. A preliminary settling
step allows for removal of any excess solids that might foul piping systems.
The overflow from this settling tank mixes with acid/alkali rinse water for
more extensive solids removal.
An acid etch on the east side of the river contains significantly high
concentrations of dissolved silver. A dragout recovery step lowers the amount
of silver entering the sewer system. Preliminary evaluations indicate that an
inline chemical wash will continuously remove virtually all of the dissolved
silver. The dragout from this wash station will no longer have significant
concentrations of silver. The final water rinse can be considered to be acidic
waste that is low in silver and can drain into the other acid/alkali collection
system on the east side at the river.
The collection system on the east side of the river for all acid/alkali
wastewater (including that discussed in the preceeding three paragraphs) in-
cludes means to deliver the wastewater to the west side of the river for treat-
ment. At the centralized treatment site, all acid/alkali rinse waters from
both sides of the river combine in a buffer (or equalization) tank.
On the west side of the river there are three general types of acid/alkali
rinse water delivered to the aforementioned buffer tank. Wastewater contain-
ing solids-only (pumice) pass through a preliminary settling sump for removal
of excess solids. Process operations having acid solutions containing high
concentrations of dissolved copper and iron will be equipped with dragout re-
covery stations to reduce the amount of these metals entering the rinse waters.
Following the dragout recovery, rinse water can be considered to be similar to
those other rinses that are acidic and low in metal content. The third type
are those rinses normally low in metal concentrations. All three combine with
the acid/alkali water from the east side of the river in the buffer tank lo-
cated in the centralized treatment site.
The total combined rinses that are classified as acid/alkali flow from
the buffer tank into a treatment system for pH adjustment to neutralize ex-
cess acids and alkalies. At the same time the hydroxides and oxides of cop-
per, zinc, chromium, iron and nickel are formed. A minor amount of insoluble
salts (oxides and hydroxides) of tin and lead are also present. With the pH
adjusted to the range of 8.5 to 9.0, these partially treated wastewaters pass
through a settler for gravity precipitation of suspended solids. Solids re-
moval is enhanced by the addition of a polyelectrolyte. The sludges removed by
settling are concentrated and collected for either salvage or disposal. The
clarified overflow from the settler joins with treated waters from cyanide
treatment and after passing through a monitoring station discharges to the
river.
67
-------
Rinse Water, Sanitary Discharge--
Rinse waters from alkaline cleaning operations are isolated from all
other wastewater. As they pass through a neutralization tank, the pH is ad-
justed to the range of 9.0 to 9.5 by the addition of sulfuric acid. The water
at this point meets the quality criteria for discharge to the sanitary sewer.
The water passes through a monitor station prior to final discharge. Due to
the great distance between sources of alkaline cleaning and considering the
simplicity of treatment, it is proposed to have two of these treatment sites-
one on each side of the river, each with its own sanitary sewer connection.
On the east side of the river additional wastewater that is amenable to
biodegradation results from tumbling operations. After passing through a
settling pit for the removal of excess solids (small metallic particles), this
water joins the aforementioned cleaner rinses for discharge via the monitoring
station.
At one remote site on the east side of the river (Building 25) a small
amount of wastewater containing soap results from cleaning steps. No pH ad-
justment is required. It is proposed to discharge this wastewater via this
building sanitary sewer connection.
Laundry operations produce wash water that is akin to the alkaline cleaner
rinses and is discharged via the monitoring station used for cleaners. No pH
adjustment is required unless the city water itself is too acidic. If that is
the case, then it will discharge via the cleaner rinse neutralization step.
Batch Wastewater--
Alkaline cleaners are transfered to batch holding tanks. Manual addition
of sulfuric acid will lower the pH to the range of 9.0 to 9.5. This waste-
water will then be metered Into the cleaner rinse water systems at a low and
controlled rate.
Add batches that contain high concentrations of silver will have the sil-
ver precipitated as the chloride. Filtration will be used to collect the sil-
ver chloride, with the filtrate being neutralized as other acids containing
low metal values.
Add batches that contain high concentrations of copper will receive
pretreatment to lower the copper concentration by cementation with iron. Pre-
liminary pH adjustment may be necessary for the ferric chloride etch. The
displaced copper will be filtered to remove the copper, with the filtrate sub-
sequently being neutralized. Ferric chloride treatment may not be required if
negotiations with the supplier to accept return of the spent solution for rec-
lamation are successful.
Chromate batches will be acidified. The hexavalent chromium will be re-
duced with sodium bisulfite. After reduction the acid is neutralized.
68
-------
Acids that are low in metal content will be slowly metered through a pH
adjustment tank to raise the pH to 8.5 to 9.0. The overflow will be delivered
to gravity sludge concentrators. After standing, the clarified water at the
top is decanted to the rinse water system. Periodically the partially thick-
ened sludges in the bottom of the concentrator are removed and additional
water is removed by use of a centrifuge. The other acids after the pretreat-
ment described in the preceding three paragraphs will be treated in the same
manner as the acids that are low in metal.
Batch cyanide wastes that contain high concentrations of silver and/or
copper will receive an initial electrolysis at room temperature for extrac-
tion of these two metals as metals. After batch electrolysis, when the metal
concentration is lowered to approximately 0.5 gm/1, the solution is transferred
to a second electrolysis cell. The second batch electrolysis is conducted at
elevated temperatures (90-95°C). In this step, although the metals continue
to accumulate, the primary function is to oxidize the cyanide to carbon dioxide
and nitrogen. When the level of cyanide is lowered to less than 100 mg/1, the
electrolysis is considered to be complete. The following chemical oxidation
step uses hypochlorite to remove the remaining cyanide. The sludges resulting
from high temperature oxidation and chlorination are placed in a concentrator
for sludge dewatering. As with the sludges from acid treatment, a centrifuge
is used for final dewatering. The sludges are placed in containers and shipped
out for salvage values. Cyanides that are low in metal do not receive the low
temperature electrolysis and are delivered directly to the high temperature
cell.
Sludges result from settling operations in rinse water treatment. The
precipitate removed from the settlers is placed in the appropriate concen-
trator as though they were batch waste. The inert sludges removed from the
solids-only pretreatment receive further dewatering by decanting prior to
shipping out for disposal.
Floor spills that have been isolated from rinses are treated in the same
manner as other batch waste, according to one of the previous seven categories.
Sludges--
Sludges resulting from waste treatment practices are placed in sealed
shipping containers or can be removed in bulk. Licensed contractors will be
used to ship the material to either an approved disposal site pr a refiner.
Unique Wastes—
The "hypo" from photographic rooms will be delivered to the waste treat-
ment area and treated as acids high in silver.
The single operation using mercury is under consideration for elimination.
At the present time, when this process is in use, <0.05 mg/1 of mercury has been
observed in the rinse water at one of the observation manholes. With the con-
69
-------
centration effect anticipated by water conservation and segregation of process
water from cooling and sanitary water, this value will rise. However, when
the process water is combined with that process water presently existing via
other manholes, dilution will result in lowering the concentration. It is
estimated that the concentration will be less than 0.03mg/1, a figure that
may be acceptable to the receiving waters. If its elimination is considered
impractical, the amount entering the rinse water can be reduced by use of
dragout recovery techniques. The batch waste resulting from this production
operation is minimal. The spent solution and dragout recovery water will be
shipped to an approved disposal site.
A minor amount of processing uses tellurium dioxide. The concentration
in waste streams has been below detectable limits for this metal. Historically,
this process bath is not dumped as a batch discharge. Should its dump become
necessary, it will be shipped to an approved disposal site in a manner similar
to mercury compounds.
70
-------
Major Components
Equipment--
The following major equipment items are required to implement the waste
treatment facilities:
A. Cyanide Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer
a. East Side - tank and pump - 200 gallon, duplex pump 18 GPM @ 60'
head, level controls, alarm
b. West Side - tank and pump - 400 gallon, duplex pump 28 GPM @ 30'
head, level controls, alarm
2. Buffer
a. tank - 2500 gallon
b. mixer - 1/2 HP, 316 SS
3. Treatment/Oxidation of CN
a. tank - 4500 gallon
b. mixer - 3 HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/caustic - pH R/C, feed pump, 300 gallon mix tank,
1/3 HP mixer, alarm
d. chemical feed/hypochlorite - ORP R/C, feed pump, 300 gallon supply
tank, alarm
4. Treatment/Oxidation of CNO
a. tank - 4500 gallon
b. mixer - 3 HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/caustic and sulfuric - pH R/C, two feed pumps, two
300 gallon mix tanks, two
1/3 HP mixers, alarm
d. Chemical feed/hypochlorite - pH ORP, feed pump, 300 gallon supply
tank, alarm
5. Flocculation/Sol ids Settling
a. flocculation/flash mix tank - 200 gallon
b. flocculation mixer - paddle mechanism, variable speed
c. flash mixer - 1/3 HP, variable speed
d. settler - 100 GPM
e. chemical feed/polymer - feed pump, two 50 gallon mix tanks.
two 1/4 HP mixers
f. sludge pump - 10 GPM
6. Sludge Concentration
a. tank - 3000 gallon
b. centrifuge - 10 GPM, 2 HP
c. centrifuge feed pump - 8 GPM, 1/2 HP ,
d. centrate tank and pump - 50 gallon, duplex pumps 5 GPM @ 30 neaa,
level controls
71
-------
B. Acid/Alkali Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer
a. West Side - six stations
1) tank and pump - three TOO gallon, duplex pumps 5 GPM @ 50'
head, level controls, alarm
2) tank and pump - two 100 gallon, duplex pumps 10 GPM @ 50' head,
level controls, alarm
3) tank and pump - 150 gallon, duplex pumps, 15 GPM @ 50' head,
level control, alarm
b. East Side - two stations
1) tank and pump - 100 gallon, duplex pumps, 5 GPM @ 30' head,
level control, alarm
2) tank and pump - 1000 gallon, duplex pump, 70 GPM @ 60' head,
level control, alarm
2. Buffer
a. tank - 4000 gallon
b. mixer - 1 HP, 316 SS
3. pH Adjustment
a. tank - 4000 gallon
b. mixer - 3 HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/caustic and sulfuric - pH R/C, two feed pumps,
two 100 gallon mix tanks,
1/3 HP mixer, alarm
4. Flocculation/Solids Settling
a. flocculation/flash mix tank - 300 gallon
b. flocculation mixer - paddle mechanism, variable speed
c. flash mixer - 1/3 HP, variable speed
d. settler - 150 GPM
e. chemical feel/polymer - feed pump, two 100 gallon mix tanks,
two 1/3 HP mixers
f. sludge pump - 10 GPM
5. Sludge Concentration
a. tank - two 3000 gallon
b. centrifuge - 10 GPM, 2 HP
c. centrifuge feed pump - 8 GPM, 1/2 HP
d. centrate tank and pump - 50 gallon, duplex pumps, 5 GPM @ 30' head,
level controls
C. Chromium Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer
a. tank and pump - 50 gallon, duplex pumps 5 GPM @ 30' head, level
controls, alarm
2. Reduction
a. tank - 250 gallon
b. mixer - 1/2 HP, 316 SS
72
-------
c. chemical feed/sodium bisulfite - ORP R/C feed pump, 100 gallon mix
tank, 1/3 HP mixer, alarm
d. chemical feed/sulfuric acid - pH R/C, feed pump, 100 gallon mix
tank, 1/3 HP mixer, alarm
D. Solids Only
1. Collection/Transfer
a. East Side - drums - four 55 gallon
b. West Side - tank and pump - 500 gallon, duplex pump 10 GPM @ 60'
head, level controls, alarm
2. Solids Settling
a. East Side - tank - 270 gallon
E. Cleaner Rinses - East Side
1. Collection/Transfer
a. tank and pump - 150 gallon, duplex pumps 15 GPM @ 30' head, level
controls, alarm
2. pH Adjustment
a. tank - 300 gallon
b. mixer - 3/4 HP
c. chemical feed/sulfuric - pH R/C, feed pump 100 gallon mix tank,
1/3 HP mixer, alarm
F. Cleaner Rinses - West Side
1. Collection/Transfer - two stations
a. tank and pump - two 100 gallon, duplex pump 5 GPM @ 50' head,
level controls, alarm
2. pH Adjustment
a. tank - 300 gallon
b. mixer - 3/4 HP
c. chemical feed/sulfuric - pH R/C, feed pump 100 gallon mix tank,
1/3 HP mixer, alarm
G. Tumbling Water
1. Settle/Transfer
a. tank and pump - 400 gallon, duplex pump 15 GPM @ 60' head, level
controls, alarm
H. Batch Cleaner Dumps - East Side
1. Collection Pump - 30 GPM at 30' head
2. Neutralization tank - 3000 gallon
3. Mixer - 1 HP, 316 SS
4. Pump - metering 1-2 GPM
73
-------
I. Batch Cleaner Dumps - West Side
1. Portable pump - 50 GPM @ 30 head
2. Neutralization tank - 5000 gallon
3. Mixer - 3HP, 316 SS
4. Pump - metering 1-2 GPM
J. Laundry Water
1. pump and tank - 150 gallon, duplex pump 15 GPM @ 30' head, level
controls, alarm
K. Acid Etch
1. East Side - chemical wash system
2. West Side - dragout recovery tank (4)
L. Acid/High Silver
1. Collection/Storage/Transfer
a. drum - two 55 gallon
b. storage - 100 gallon
c. pump - 10-15 GPM
2. Treatment
a. tank - 100 gallon
b. mixer - 1/3 HP, 316 SS
c. filter - bag type 10 ft3
d. sludge - storage - 55 gallon
M. Acids/High Copper
1. Collection/Storage/Transfer
a. drum - three 55 gallon
b. storage - 500 gallon
c. transfer pump - 15 GPM
2. Treatment
a. pH adjustment tank - 300 gallon
b. mixer - 3/4 HP, 316 SS
c. transfer pump - 15 GPM
d. displacement tank with rotating cylinder - 400 gallon
e. filter - 5 GPM
f. sludge storage - three 55 gallon
N. Chromium Wastes
1. Collection/Storage/Reduction
a. drum - three 55 gallon
b. storage - 500 gallon
c. reduction tank - 250 gallon
d. mixer - 1/2 HP, 316 SS
e. transfer pump - 1-2 GPM
74
-------
0. Acids/Low Metals
1. Collection/Storage
a. portable pump - (same as cleaner)
b. storage - 1000 gallon
c. pump - metering 1-2 GPM
2. pH Adjustment
a. tank - 500 gallon
b. mixer - 3/4 HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/caustic - pH R/C, feed pump 100 gallon mix tank,
1/3 HP mixer, alarm
d. pump and tank - 150 gallon, duplex pumps 15 GPM @ 30' head,
level controls, alarm
P. Cyanides/High Silver and Copper
1. Storage/Transfer
a. tank - 2000 gallon
b. pump - 15 GPM 30' head
2. Electrolysis
a. high temperature
b. low'temperature
3. Final Treatment
a. tank - 600 gallon
b. mixer - 1/2 HP, 316 SS
c. pump - metering 1-2 GPM
Q. Cyanides/Low Metal
1. Tank - 600 gallon
2. Pump - 2 GPM metering
R. General Items
1. Bulk Storage Hypochlorite - 3500 gallon
2. Bulk Storage Caustic - 1500 gallon
3. Monitor Tank - East Side Sanitary - 100 gallon
4. Monitor Tank - East Side Cleaners - 150 gallon
5. Monitor Tank - West Side - 150 gallon
6. Monitor Tank with pH Recorder - 750 gallon
7. Drum Pumps - two at 10-15 GPM
8. Laboratory Control
75
-------
Installation--
Factors to be considered as a part of the installation include: segrega-
tion of cooling water, process water and sanitary water; drain isolation and
collection of subtypes; floor construction for isolation and containment of
accidental discharges; relocation of existing facilities to allow for space;
renovation of existing plant space to accommodate treatment facilities; rig-
ging; plumbing; and electrical.
Space Requirements--
East Side:
collection/transfer stations 460 square feet
pretreatment for sanitary discharge 115 " "
pretreatment for river discharge 160 " "
West Side:
collection/transfer stations 700 " "
pretreatment for sanitary discharge 115 " "
treatment for river discharge-rinses 1400 " "
batch treatment - river 2700 " "
Total Space 5650 square feet
Engineering Support--
Technical support for the waste treatment facilities will be provided by
both the firm and outside subcontract work to fully develop plans, specifica-
tions and details relative to collection systems. Assistance will be required
during purchase, installation, operator training, and for general consultation
to the project.
Operations--
Labor required to operate and control the facility will be 7000 hr/yr
with an additional 1000 hr/yr for maintenance.
Energy requirements are expected to be 58,700 kwh/yr.
Chemical consumption anticipated:
sodium hypochlorite 37,000 gallons/year
caustic soda 56,000 pounds/year
sulfuric acid 8,600 pounds/year
sodium bisulfite 1,900 pounds/year
sodium chloride 100 pounds/year
polyelectrolyte 250 pounds/year
Maintenance items or spare parts should be provided for pumps, mixers,
feeders, controls, etc.
76
-------
Sludge disposal will be required for those sludges that do not have re-
covery values. The amount anticipated is 550,000 pounds/year (over half re-
sults from ferric chloride etchant treatment).
Sewer use and capital recovery charges for discharge to the sanitary
sewer should be based upon 7,300,000 gallons/year.
Extramural support may be required for analysis and operation consulta-
tion.
Cost Factors
The cost factors relative to capital values represent current (mid-1977)
values for equipment. These values relate to the major components just listed
for the Primary Design. Volumes of wastewater as given on page 62.
Equipment--
A. Cyanide Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer $ 6,600
2. Buffer 2,600
3. Treatment/Oxidation of CN 15,600
4. Treatment/Oxidation of CNO 17,100
5. Flocculation/Sol ids Settling 25,500
6. Sludge Concentration 14,300
B. Acid/Alkali Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer $27,400
2. Buffer 3,800
3. pH Adjustment 10,800
4. Flocculation/Sol ids Settling 30,800
5. Sludge Concentration 19,800
C. Chromium Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer $ 3,100
2. Reduction 11,300
D. Solids Only $ 4,200
77
-------
E. Cleaner Rinses - East Side
1. Collection/Transfer $ 3,200
2. pH Adjustment 6,800
F. Cleaner Rinses - West Side
1. Collection/Transfer $9,100
2. pH Adjustment 6,800
G. Tumbling Water $3,400
H. Batch Cleaner Dumps - East Side $7,600
I. Batch Cleaner Dumps - West Side $10,000
J. Laundry $3,200
K. Acid Etch $12,000
L. Acid/High Silver
1. Collection/Storage/Transfer $ 600
2. Treatment 1,500
M. Acids/High Copper
1. Collection/Storage/Transfer $1,500
2. Treatment 6,400
N. Chromium Wastes
1. Collection/Storage/Reduction $2,700
0. Acids/Low Metals
1. Collection/Storage $1,500
2. pH Adjustment 9,600
P. Cyanides/High Silver and Copper
1. Storage/Transfer $2,000
2. Electrolysis 20,000
3. Final Treatment 2,100
78
-------
Q. Cyanides/Low Metal 1,300
R. General Items 11,700
TOTAL EQUIPMENT $316,000
Installation— $158,000
Space Required-- (5650 sq. ft.) $121,500
Engineering— $ 45,000
Operations--
Labor $ 89,200
Energy 3,250
Chemicals 23,000
Maintenance 4,000
Sludge Disposal 8,250
Sewer Use Charge 4,985
Sewer Capital Recovery Charge 910
Extramural Support 5,000
Total Operating Expense $138,595
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN A-l
The Primary Design considers two discharge points for treated process
water: the sanitary sewer for those wastes amenable to biological treatment
(see Figure 9 ) and the river for those wastewaters that do not lend them-
selves to biodegradation (see Figure 7). This alternative considers total
discharge to the sanitary sewer. The waters will require treatment as shown
in Figure 7. As shown, these waters combine for monitoring prior to dis-
charge. Additional treatment must be provided in order to meet the Taunton
Sewer Ordinance (see Appendix E). This final treatment will consist of filtra-
tion prior to discharge. A schematic presentation of the filtration system is
provided in Figure 10.
The filters will require a precoat of a filter aid (similar to diatoma-
ceous earth) to insure removal of the remaining 20 mg/1 of suspended solids
leaving the settling tanks. The filtrate is discharged to the monitoring sta-
tion prior to sanitary sewer discharge. The backwash water is collected and
metered through one of the tube settlers during nonproduction hours. A
79
-------
TREATED CN RINSES
TREATED ACID /ALKALI RINSES
SEE FIG. A-6
n f
PRECOAT SYSTEM
(TYPICAL)
SUMP STATION
TO SETTLING
TANK
BACKWASH
COLLECTION
\7
\7
FILTRATION
(3 OF 6 SHOWN)
w DISCHARGE PER FIG.
\ A-8, WEST SIDE
\
BACKWASH
WATER
MONITOR
SANITARY
SEWER
FIGURE 10. FINAL FILTRATION
80
-------
number of smaller filters in parallel use permits one to be out of service for
backwashing at any one time with the remaining units sized to carry the volume.
Major Components
Using the list as provided under Primary Design, the following incremental
items form the basis for cost predictions:
Equipment--
A. Deletions
1. Stream Monitoring Station
B. Additions
1. Sump Station - 9000 gallon capacity, duplex 10 HP 300 GPM pumps,
controls, alarm
2. Filter Precoat System - 1000 gallon mix tank, 2 HP mixer, 1 HP
recirculation pump
3. Filters (6) - each at 60 GPM capacity
4. Backwash Water Reservoir - 1000 gallon capacity
5. Backwash Pump - 200 GPM, 10 HP
6. Backwash Collection - 1000 gallon capacity
7. Backwash Discharge Pump - 5 GPM
C. Alterations
1. Increase capacity of monitoring tank prior to sanitary sewer from
150 gallons to 1000 gallons
2. Increase capacity of sludge concentration (see Figure A-7) from
6000 gallons to 9000 gallons by adding a third concentrator
Installation-
Additional space preparation, rigging, plumbing and electrical installa-
tion factors must be included for the previous equipment.
Space Requirements--
Space required to house the filtration system will increase the demands
for waste treatment equipment by 900 square feet
Operations-
Labor required to operate the filtration system and additional sludge
concentration labor will increase by 1000 hours/year and maintenance labor by
200 hours/year.
81
-------
Energy requirements will increase by 24,000 kwh/year.
Chemical consumption will increase by 5000 pounds/year of filter aid.
Maintenance items will increase with the addition of pumps and filters.
Sludge disposal costs will increase in direct proportion to the amount
of solids in the filter aid and the suspended solids. The increase is ex-
pected to be 100,000 pounds/year.
Sewer use and capital recovery charges will be increased due to an addi-
tional 21,000,000 gallons/year of hydraulic loading.
Cost Factors
The following incremental dollar values should be used to increase (or
decrease) values used in the Primary Design:
Equipment--
Deletions - $ 2,500
Additions + $64,400
Alterations + $ 6,400
Total Equipment Increase is $68,300
Installation-- $12,000
Space Requirements-- $21,400
Operations--
Labor + $13,400
Energy + $ 1,440
Chemical Consumption + $ 4,200
Maintenance Items + $ 2,500
Sludge Disposal + $ 1,450
Sewer Use Charges + $19,32S
Sewer Capital Recovery Charges $ 3,529
Total Operating Expenses Increase is $45,847
82
-------
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN A-Z
The quality of treated wastewater discharging to the river under the
Primary Design is sufficiently high to be reused for many cleaning operations.
Additional quality improvements can result from filtration to further expand
the reuse of treated water. Approximately 40,000 GPD of recycled water is
possible without developing excessive distribution costs.
The cost reductions will result in the lower amount of water purchased
and sewer use and capital recovery expenses. These savings are offset by the
cost of redistributing this quantity of water.
Cost Factors
It is believed that a capital cost of $10,000 will result. Operating
costs will be approximately $1,500 per year. Savings from water and sewer
costs will amount to $10,670 per year when compared with Alternative Design A-l
and $3,330 per year when compared with the Primary Design.
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN A-3
Certain batch wastes have recovery values for spent solutions and waste
treatment sludges. Other batch wastes have negligible recovery values—only
expenses attributed to collection, storage, neutralization, sludge dewatering,
disposal, etc. If only collection and storage facilities are provided, cer-
tain costs can be avoided. However, new costs can be attributed to the sub-
contract hauling and disposal of the batch wastes having little salvage value.
This design considers treating only the rinse waters. Batch wastes will
be collected for disposal via contract haulers and treatment centers.
Refer to Figure 8. Storage facilities will remain for all categories,
although acids high in copper, acids with low metals and chromium wastes could
be combined. All other categories remain segregated. Acids with high silver
content will continue to receive precipitation and filtration. The filtrate
is treated as batch acid with low metal content. All other treatment equip-
ment associated with acid wastewater is deleted. Cyanides with high silver
and copper content will continue to receive the two stage electrolysis for
recovery of metal values. The water discharge from the electrolysis will mix
with other cyanides low in metals for collection prior to disposal. The amount
of resulting batch waste that is collected for contract disposal is: 41,000
gallons/year of acids and 57,000 gallons/year of cyanides.
In order to optimize bulk shipping charges, the storage tanks will re-
quire enlargement. This increase in capital cost is offset by the elimination
of treatment equipment as just described. Operating expenses increase for
disposal but decrease for labor, energy, maintenance and other associated ex-
penses.
Cost Factors
Incremental Capital Costs -$56,000
Incremental Annual Operatin -$26,600
Annual Cost of Contract Disposal +$34,000
Net Increase in Operating Expense + 7,400
83
-------
APPENDIX B
POOLE SILVER COMPANY
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Poole Silver Company, a Division of Towle Manufacturing Company, is lo-
cated at 320 Whittenton Street in the northern section of Taunton, Massa-
chusetts. Production operations are in a four-story brick building, with two
one-floor additions, one two-floor addition, and one three-floor addition.
The plant is bordered on three sides by private property and is serviced by
sanitary sewers and a storm sewer leading to the Mill River. See Figure 11
for the plant layout. Under normal conditions, there are 150 employees.
The major product at this plant is silverplated holloware with brass as a
base metal. The second largest product is pewter holloware.
INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
The most predominant use of industrial process water is in cleaning oper-
ations for the removal of surface soils and oxides. Wastewater associated with
alkaline cleaning results from washing of brass- and pewter-base alloys after
solder assembly operations and prior to buffing and polishing steps, as well
as prior to electroplating. Wastewater associated with acid cleaning, oxide
removal, and surface activation results from pickling in sulfuric acid for
scale removal following annealing, bright dip (sulfuric-nitric-hydrochloric
acid mixture) of some brass parts, and minor oxide removal prior to electro-
plating. A minor amount of acid is used for stripping plated parts.
Cyanide processing is used for the electrodeposition of copper and silver,
with a minor amount of cyanide gold salts in use. Other less seldom used cya-
nide process operations include oxidation of silver and stripping of process
plating fixtures.
Wastewater also results from steam condensate that is not returned to the
boiler, as well as from boiler blowdown.
Cooling water is used in the operation of vapor degreasers and an ultra-
sonic generator is used to assist in alkaline cleaning.
The above operations that require industrial water use are performed on
three floors of Building 1 and the first floors of Buildings 2 and 5. Fig-
ure 11, a layout of the total facility, shows the relative locations of these
operations. This same drawing shows the discharge point to the sanitary sewer
which was used for sampling and analysis. The drain system for the plant
intermixes process water, sanitary wastewater and cooling water.
Table 12 shows the various sources of flowing process and cooling water
discharged to the outlet.
84
-------
00
en
m
o
o
I—
m
co
o
o
o
-------
TABLE 12. DRAIN SYSTEM - BUILDING 1, 2, TO SANITARY SEWER
Manufacturing Process:
Type of Discharge
Soldering Department:
alkali cleaning
Pewter Fabrication:
alkali cleaning
cooling water*
Holloware Plating:
acid/alkali cleaning
cyanide plating
cooling water*
cooling water
Pickle Operation:
1/min
0.8
4
14
115
41
19
40
16
Rate
(6PM)
(0.2)
(1) i
(3.7)
(30)
(ID
(5)
(10.5)
(4)
Dailv
liters
400
1,900
6,650
57,770
22,140
10,110
19,080
7,460
Discharge
(gallons)
(no)
(500)
(1,780)
(15,270)
(5,850)
(2,700)
(5,040)
(1,970)
* Used as alkali rinse water.
Figure 12 is an abbreviated flow diagram showing the various types of
water discharging to the sewer.
PROCESS WATER-
COOLING WATER-
SANITARY WASTEWATER-
-SANITARY SEWER
FIGURE 12. WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
Quantity Initially Observed
At the start of this project, some efforts had been directed toward water
conservation. Additional effort is presently underway to further reduce the
amount of industrial water used. At the time of the initial survey, to estab-
lish a data base for this study, it was revealed that the following amount of
water was being discharged:
Cooling water = 36,000 I/day (9,500 GPD) at a rate of 73 1/min (19.2 GPM)
Process rinse water = 106,000 I/day (28,200 GPD) at a rate of
210 1/min (55 GPM)
86
-------
Quality of Discharge
During the year preceding this study, various samples were taken from
the discharge to the sanitary sewer. The results of the analysis of these
samples are shown in Table 13. Most of the samples were composite samples,
but no attempt was made to preserve the cyanide. It is also believed that
the analysis reflects more the poor quality of city water in use than the
total contamination caused by processing. It is believed that the results
are typical of flowing rinse waters that have been diluted by nonprocess
water. Some batch dumping of process solutions occurred during sampling
periods.
TABLE 13. ANALYSES OF WASTEWATER TO SANITARY SEWER
Item
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide, Amenable
Copper
Silver
Zinc
Tin
Lead
Iron
Nickel
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Solids, Suspended
Solids, Total
pH, Units
Concentration,
Range
0.41 - 7.50
-
1.20 - 6.53
1.18 - 6.50
0.02 - 0.25
0
0 - 0.50
0.51 - 0.73
0
-
-
2.0 -11.0
154.0 -320.0
6.0 - 8.2
mg/1
Average
2.98
_
3.89
3.93
0.09
0
0.28
0.60
0
-
_
5.6
201.4
7.0
Source: City of Taunton, May 6, 1976, to October 14, 1976
Poole Silver Company, March 15, 1976, to April 23J 1976.
Since these samples were collected, some water and chemical conservation
steps have been taken and plumbing changes have resulted. For the purposes
of this study, additional average composite samples were collected. The re-
sults are shown in Table 14. They are believed to be representative of a
typical production day and of present conditions when a minimum of batch
dumping occurred. They will serve as a data base for this project.
87
-------
*
TABLE 14. ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER
Item Concentration mg/1
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide, Amenable
Silver
Copper
Zinc
Tin
Lead
Nickel
Iron .
Chromium
Solids, Suspended
Solids, Total
pH, Units
3.55
3.55
0.73
2.23
0.04
< 0.01
0.015
0.03
0.40
< 0.01
8.0
96.0
6.68
4-
(0.62)'
(2.23)
(0.04)
(<0.01 )
(<0.01 )
(0.15)
(<0.0l )
Source: New England Chemical Works, Whittenton Industrial Center,
Taunton, Massachusetts, July 29, 1977.
Values given in parenthesis are for dissolved metals.
^ No hexavalent chromium.
Production practices during this later sample period held batch dumps of
spent process solutions to a minimum in order to obtain a more accurate picture
of rinse water contamination. Table 15 shows a summary of batch discharge by
type for the plant. Obviously, the concentration of the various contaminants
would be higher during these dump periods.
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF BATCH DISCHARGES BY TYPE
Type
Alkali
Acid
Cyanide
Solvents*
Subtype
Concentrated Cleaners
Other Cleaners
Boiler Slowdown
Total Alkali
Low Silver Content
High Silver Content*
Total Acid
Low Silver
High Silver*
Total Cyanide
Liters/ Year
311,790
269,290
8,740
589,820
28,310
760
29,070
214,130
4,320
218,450
2,810
Vol ume
Gallons/Year
(82,370)
(71,140)
(2,310)
(155,820)
(7,400)
(200)
(7,600)
(56,570)
(1,140)
(57,710)
(740)
* Not to sewer-
88
-------
Anticipated Segregation and Conservation
Sanitary wastewater discharge will be segregated from industrial use
water. The reuse of cooling water as process rinse water will be expanded to
include all cooling water. A simplified flow diagram of process water only,
resulting from this segregation, is shown in Figure 13.
Counterflow rinsing will reduce the amount of wet process water used in
the plating processes. Other conservation techniques will further reduce the
amount of process water discharged.
It is anticipated that an overall reduction of water used for processing
and cooling applications from 250 1/min (66 GPM) to 132 1/min (35 GPM) is
possible.
PEWTER FABRICATION AND FINISHING:
Alkali Clean Rinses ••
SOLDERING DEPARTMENT:
Alkali Clean Rinses •*•
PICKLING AND STRIPPING: a
Acid Rin,p5 .«, ! ^ SANITARY
Acid Rinses •»*~ SEWER
PLATING DEPARTMENT: »
Acid/Alkali Rinses •— ;
Cyanide Rinses *•
FIGURE 13. PROCESS RINSE WATER
Anticipated Quality of Raw Waste Discharge
Due to the magnitude of the segregation of sanitary wastewater from in-
dutrial use water together with the water conservation techniques to be em-
ployed, it is not possible to accomplish the work before the completion of
this project. Also, due to the present intermix of these three types of waste-
water, it is not possible to obtain representative samples of wet process
wastewater only for analysis. However, it is possible to calculate a theo-
retical discharge from the analysis obtained for the data base. This theo-
retical discharge can consider that cooling water is being reused and that
water conservation effort will be implemented. Errors will exist in that it
is not possible to do more than estimate the amount of water used for sani-
tary purposes that has a dilution effect. Likewise, it is not practical to
include in the contaminant loading those contributions caused by the raw city
water.
89
-------
It is anticipated that all wet process wastewater will be brought to a
single location for pretreatment. Weighting the results of analysis in
Table 14 with the daily discharge rates in the table showing discharge
volumes (Table 12), a value for each contaminant has been predicted and is
shown in Table 16. As an estimate, this shows the general order of magni-
tude for discharge of process wastewater from the total plant.
TABLE 16. THEORETICAL COMBINED PROCESS WATER QUALITY
Item Concentration, mg/1
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide, Amenable
Silver
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Iron
Chromium
5.3
5.3
1.0
5.5
1.3
0.03
0.03
0.61
<0.01
BASIC DESIGN CONCEPT
With the exclusion of cooling water and sanitary wastewater, a more sim-
plified flow diagram has been produced for wet process water. Figure 13 in-
cludes segregation by process wastewater streams having common characteristics
and/or methods of treatment. Table 14 shows the results of composite samples
taken early in the project. Table 16 is a calculated value for the discharge
with cooling water excluded. However, these values are considered minimum
values since dilution with sanitary waste remains and cyanide is considered
low because of intermix with acids prior to sampling.
Segregation of process wastewater will consider two major factors—concen-
trated batch wastewater will be separated from flowing rinse water, and segre-
gation by treatment required will be accomplished. The analysis results shown
in the various tables are in keeping with flowing rinses when batch discharges
are kept to a minimum. The concentration in isolated discharge streams having
common characteristics can only be estimated as significant alterations to
drain systems and are required in order to obtain accurate samples.
Rinses can be segregated into the following two subcategories:
• Acid/alkali, low in salvable metal, and
• Cyanides.
90
-------
Batch discharges can be segregated into:
Cleaners, alkaline and detergent type
Acids, high in metal
Acids, low in metal
Cyanides, high in metal
Cyanides, low in metal.
Acid and alkali rinses will require pH control to minimize heavy metal
solubility, followed by removal of the metal hydroxide and/or oxide.
Cyanide-bearing rinses will require oxidation for cyanide removal. In
the absence of cyanide, the formerly complexed metals become insoluble. The
resulting water following oxidation will combine with the acid/alkali rinse
water for pH control and removal of heavy metals.
Considering the segregation methods discussed, Poole Silver Company
will have the following types and quantities of flowing rinse water:
acid/alkali rinses 13,000 GPD @ 24 GPM
cyanide rinses 5,500 GPD @ 11 GPM
The flow of process rinse water leaving the plant will be 18,500 GPD at a
maximum of 35 GPM.
Spent cleaners, alkaline and detergent type, will be collected in a
common holding tank. The pH will be lowered, if required, and metered into
the discharge to the sanitary sewer.
Acid dumps having high silver content will be isolated (to simplify re-
covery) from acids with low recovery values. pH adjustment to neutralize
either acid type and precipitate the dissolved metals will result in a sludge
that is held for salvage, disposal or further dewatering.
Cyanide batches are normally high in cyanide concentration and dissolved
metal. If the metal has salvage value it can be extracted prior to cyanide
oxidation. After metal extraction these cyanide batches will be mixed with
other cyanide batches that are low in salvable metal. Cyanide oxidation will
result in precipitated metal hydroxides and/or oxides. The sludge resulting
is held for salvage, disposal or further dewatering.
PRIMARY DESIGN
The design of waste treatment facilities for Poole Silver Company con-
siders current quality criteria, potential regulation by the local and federal
authorities, the state of the art of treatment technology, and economies as
evident in mid-1977. The primary design, described as follows, considers that
the firm might have to resolve its pollution problems totally by itself, and
therefore forms the basis for subsequent cost and effectiveness alternatives
that might arise by joint participation in any multicompany treatment facility.
91
-------
Design Criteria
The total volume of process water is expected to be 18,500 GPD and
flowing at a maximum rate of 35 GPM. The wastewater is recognized as con-
taining objectionable quantities of cyanide and the heavy metals: copper,
zinc and silver. On occasions, the trace metals--tin and lead—are found to
be slightly higher than desired. In addition, the pH varies to extremes that
exceed the prescribed limits.
A significant portion (57 percent) of the wastewater results from cleaning
operations. This water is far more amenable to biological treatment for re-
moval of wetting agents than the remaining waters. Aside from occasional oc-
curances where the pH is too high, the cleaning water exhibits little if any
objectionable qualities for discharge to a sanitary sewer system. At the same
time the sanitary treatment facilities do provide for removal of the contami-
nants to the total environment which are present in the cleaning wastewater.
The primary design criteria consider the optimum discharge site for
cleaning wastewater to be the sanitary sewer. Other process waters, requiring
the removal of cyanide and heavy metals, are considered to have as an optimum
discharge site the river (via an existing storm sewer). The quality criteria
for discharge to the sanitary sewer in Taunton are more severe than for dis-
charge to the river. Economics indicate a river discharge for this process
water.
The high volumes of process wastewater are concerned with flowing rinse
water. The rinses are characterized as being relatively low in contaminant
concentration. Lesser volumes are associated with the periodic dumping of
spent process solutions. The dumps are characterized as being significantly
high in contamination, even though low in volume. Two cleaning solutions, con-
taining sodium borate and biodegradable wetting agents, do not fall into the
general classification of batch dumps. By their nature, these two solutions
used in cleaning steps are considered no more noxious than their rinses and
should be considered as cleaner rinses for treatment purposes.
Segregation by type and treatability results in the following three waste
streams for rinse water:
• cyanide-bearing rinses at 5,500 GPD at a flow rate of 11 GPM,
• pickle rinses at 2,000 GPD at a flow rate of 4 GPM, and
• alkaline cleaner rinses at IT,000 GPD at a flow rate of 20 GPM.
Batch discharges, requiring disposal techniques that are different from
rinses, can be segregated into:
• alkaline cleaners - 6,900 gal/mo.
• acids - 325 gal/mo.
• cyanides - 100 gal/mo.
92
-------
The quality criteria used as the design basis consider the proposed local
ordinance for discharge to the sanitary sewer to be more restrictive than the
anticipated Federal Guidelines for Pretreatment. Discharges to the sanitary
sewer shall meet the requirements as shown in Appendix E, "City of Taimton
Sewer Ordinance."
The quality criteria used as the design basis for discharge to the river
consider the requirements of the regulatory agencies in Massachusetts and
Region I of the EPA. These requirements are shown in Appendix F, "Water Reg-
ulations. It is assumed for the purpose of this report that the antidegra-
dation clause does not apply for this discharge.
Treatment Proposed
Schematic presentations of the proposed treatment systems are shown in
Figure 14 for the river discharge and in Figure 15 for the sanitary sewer
discharge. A description of the various subsystems is provided:
Rinse Waters—
Cyani de-bearing rinses are isolated from all noncyanide bearing process
waters. A two-step chlorination process removes cyanides and cyanates. The
resulting water contains copper hydroxide and silver oxide, both of which are
present as suspended solids. Gravity settling of suspended solids is provided
to reduce these solids to an acceptable level. Solids removal is enhanced by
the addition of a coagulant aid. The sludges removed by settling are concen-
trated and collected for salvage values.
Acid rinse wastewater from pickling, bright dipping and stripping is
isolated from other process wastewaters. pH adjustment for neutralization of
free acid also results in the formation of copper hydroxide and zinc hydroxide.
Trace quantities of oxides and hydroxides of silver, tin and lead are also pres-
ent in the insoluble state. With the pH adjusted to the range of 8.5 to 9.0,
the partially treated wastewater passes through a settler for gravity precipi-
tation of suspended solids. The clarified overflow joins with treated waters
from cyanide oxidation, passes through a monitoring station, and discharges to
a storm sewer leading to the river. The sludqes removed by settlina are
•=• ^veu O.v be^nnq are
.
swatered and stopped to a disposal sfte.
Rinse waters from cleaning operations are isolated from all other waste-
water As they pass through a neutralization tank, the pH is adjusted to the
range of 9.0 to 9.5 by the addition of sulfuric acid. The water at this point
meets the quality criteria for discharge to the sanitary sewer. The water-
passes through a monitoring tank prior to final discharge.
93
-------
CD
m
->
UD
m
CO
o
n:
o
i
PO
I— I
•<
m
a
t— I
co
CD
-------
BATCH OfANPI
-sm
NEUTRALIZE
CLCANCK
RMSCS
r\
pH ADJUST
D D^
MONITOR
FIGURE 15. WASTE TREATMENT SCHEMATIC - SANITARY SEWER DISCHARGE
95
-------
Batch Wastewaters--
Alkaline cleaners are transferred to a batch holding tank. Manual addi-
tions of sulfuric acid will lower the pH to the range of 9.0 to 9.5. This
wastqwater will then be metered into the cleaner rinse water system at a low
and controlled rate.
Acid batches resulting from pickling, bright dipping and surface activa-
tion prior to plating are transferred to the waste treatment area in suitable
containers. Periodically, this waste is neutralized in a treatment tank,
using caustic soda (sodium hydroxide). The pH is adjusted to the range of 8.5
to 9.0. The resulting hydroxides and oxides of copper, zinc, tin, lead and
silver are present as insoluble salts forming a relatively diluted sludge.
Retention in a sludge concentrator allows the solids to settle. The clarified
water at the top is decanted to the rinse water treatment system for acid-
bearing waters. The thickened sludge is removed from the concentrator for
either ultimate disposal on landfill or for salvage values.
Acid batches resulting from stripping operations will be shipped out for
silver salvage values. In a like manner, cyanide batches resulting from
stripping operations will be shipped out for silver salvage values.
Floor spills resulting from accidental discharges will be contained.
Treatment will be provided as per other intentional batch discharges.
Sludge Disposal —
Sludges resulting from cyanide oxidation will be shipped out for salvage
values. Sludges resulting from acid neutralization will either be sold for
salvage values or transported to an approved landfill site.
96
-------
Major Components
Equipment--
The following major equipment items are required to implement the waste
treatment facilities:
A. Cyanide Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer
a. tank and pump - 150 gallon, duplex pumps 15 6PM @ 30' head, level
controls, alarm
2. Treatment/Oxidation of CN
a. tank - 1,000 gallon
b. mixer - 2 HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/caustic - pH R/C, feed pump, 100 gallon mix tank,
1/4 HP mixer, alarm
d. chemical feed/hypochlorite - ORP R/C, feed pump, 150 gallon supply
tank, alarm
3. Treatment/Oxidation of CNO
a. tank - 1,000 gallon
b. mixer - 2 HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/caustic and sulfuric - pH R/C, two feed pumps, two
100 gallon mix tanks, two
1/4 HP mixers, alarm
d. chemical feed/hypochlorite - ORP R/C, feed pump, 150 gallon supply
tank, alarm
4. Flocculation
a. tank - 100 gallon
b. mixer - 1/3 HP, variable speed
c. chemical feed/coagulant - feed pump, two 50 gallon tanks, two
1/4 HP mixers
5. Solids Settling
a. tank clarifier - 2,800 gallon capacity
b. sludge pump - 10 GPM
6. Sludge Concentration/Storage
a. tanks - two 1,000 gallon
b. storage tanks - two 500 gallon
c. sludge pump - 10 GPM
B. Acid Rinses
1. Col1ection/Transfer
a. tank and pump - 150 gallon, duplex pumps 15 GPM @ 30' head, level
controls, alarm
97
-------
2. Treatment/pH Adjust
a. tank - 100 gallon
b. mixer - 1/4 HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/caustic - pH R/C, feed pump, 100 gallon mix tank,
1/4 HP mixer, alarm
3. Solids Settling
a. tank clarifier - 1,000 gallon
b. sludge pump - 10 GPM
4. Sludge Concentration/Storage
a. tank - 1,000 gallon
b. storage tank - 500 gallon
C. Cleaner Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer
a. tank and pump - 350 gallon, duplex pumps, 30 GPM @ 30' head, level
controls, alarm
2. Treatment/pH Adjust
a. tank - 500 gallon
b. mixer - 1/2 HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/sulfuric - pH R/C, feed pump, 100 gallon mix tank,
1/4 HP mixer, alarm
D. Cleaner Dumps
1. Transport Containers - four @ 250 gallon
2. Portable Pump - 15 GPM
3. Neutralization Tank - 2,000 gallon
4. Mixer - 2 HP
5. Pump - metering 1 GPM
E. Acid Dumps
1. Transport Containers - four @ 50 gallon
2. Portable Pump - 15 GPM
3. Neutralization Tank - 500 gallon
4. Mixer - 3/4 HP, 316 SS
5. Pump - transfer - 15 GPM @ 30' head
98
-------
General Items
1. Monitor Tank with pH Recorder
2. Monitor Tank for Sanitary Discharge
3. Flow Meters - five
4. Drum Pumps - two
5. Laboratory Control Facilities
Installation--
Factors to be considered as part of the installation include: segre-
gation of cooling water, process water and sanitary water; plumbing changes
for reuse of cooling water as process water; floor construction for isola-
tion and containment of wastewater in the plating and pickling areas; relo-
cation of existing facilities to allow for space; renovation of existing
plant space to accommodate treatment facilities; rigging; plumbing; and
electrical.
Space Requirements-
Col lection/Transfer Stations 65 sq. ft.
Sanitary Discharge System 120 sq. ft.
River Discharge System 1175 sq. ft.
Total ' 1360 sq. ft.
Engineering Support--
Technical assistance is required to develop full plans and specification,
supplement the technical staff of the firm during purchase and installation,
train operators during start up, and provide general consulting to the project.
Operations--
Labor required to operate and control the facility will be 1600 hr/yr
with an additional 400 hr/yr for maintenance labor.
Energy requirements are expected to be 36,000 kwh/yr.
Chemical consumption anticipated:
sodium hypochlorite 10,000 gal/yr
caustic soda 9,600 lb/yr
sulfuric acid 3,800 lb/yr
coagulant aid 20 lb/yr
Maintenance items, or spare parts, should be provided for pumps, mixers,
feeders, pH and ORP controls, etc.
99
-------
Sludge disposal will be required for those sludges that do not have re-
covery values. The amount anticipated is 25,000 Ib/yr.
Sewer use charges for discharge for sanitary sewer should be based upon
2,750,000 gal/yr.
Extramural support may be required for analysis and operation consul-
tation.
Cost Factors
The following dollar values (mid-1977) are believed to represent average
values for the major components listed in the preceding section.
Equipment—
A. Cyanide Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer $ 3,200
2. Treatment/Oxidation of CN 10,900
3. Treatment/Oxidation of CNO 12,100
4. Flocculation 3,000
5. Solids Settling 3,500
6. Sludge Concentration/Storage 6,300
B. Acid Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer 3,600
2. Treatment/pH Adjust 5,400
3. Solids Settling 2,700
4. Sludge Concentration/Storage 2,800
C. Cleaner Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer 2,600
2. Treatment/pH Adjust 6,100
D. Cleaner Dumps 5,000
E. Acid Dumps 2,500
F. General Items 3.500
TOTAL EQUIPMENT $73,200
100
-------
Installation--
Space Preparation $10,000
Rigging 6,000
Plumbing 8,500
Electrician 7,500
TOTAL INSTALLATION $32,000
Space Requirements--
The capital value of space is $25,800.
Engineering Support-
It is estimated the fees will be $10,000
Operations-- (on annual basis)
Labor $18,780
Energy 1,994
Chemicals 8,500
Maintenance 1,000
Sludge Disposal 980
Sewer Use Charge 1,880
Sewer Capital Recovery Charge 343
Extramural Support 4,500
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSE $37,977
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN B-l
The primary design for Poole Silver Company has two discharge points:
the sanitary sewer for those wastewaters that are amenable to biological
treatment, and the river for wastewaters that do not lend themselves to bio-
degradation. Alternative B-l considered total discharge to the sanitary sewer.
(Refer to Figures 14 and 15). The water designated as discharging to the
sanitary sewer will receive the same treatment. The water shown as discharging
to the river on Figure 14 will require the same initial degree.of treatment
as shown. The stream monitoring station will be replaced with filtration
equipment as shown in Figure 15.
The filter requires a precoat with diatomaceous earth type filter aid
to insure removal of the remaining 20 mg/1 of suspended solids leaving the
settling tanks. The filtrate is discharged to the monitoring station prior to
sanitary sewer discharge. The backwash water, containing filter aid and metal
hydroxides and oxides, will receive batch treatment to concentrate the solids.
101
-------
FROM CN TREATMENT
FROM ACID TREATMENT
r
FILTER
PRECOAT
SYSTEM
i •^-lli-^- ^^^
FILTER
SUMP
TO MONITOR TANK
'PRIOR TO SANITARY
SEWER
WATER
BACKWASH WATER
TO ACID BATCH TREATMENT
FIGURE 16. FINAL FILTRATION
102
-------
Major Components
Using the list as provided under Primary Design,
Equipment--
1. Deletion
a. stream monitoring station
2. Additions
a. sump station - 300 gallon, duplex 1 HP pumps, controls, alarm
b. filter precoat system - 150 gallon mix tank, 1/3 HP mixer, pump
c. filter - 20 GPM capacity
3. Alterations
a. increase capacity at monitor tank prior to sanitary sewer from
90 gallon to 150 gallon
b. increase capacity of sludge concentrator for acid wastewater from
1,000 gallon to 1,500 gallon
Installation--
Additional space preparation, rigging, plumbing and electrical instal
lation factors must be included in cost assessment.
Space Requirements-
Space requirements will be increased by 104 square feet in the waste
treatment area.
Operations-
Labor required to operate the filtration system and additional sludge
concentrating labor will increase by 800 hr/yr and maintenance labor by 30
hr/yr.
Energy requirements will increase by 1,900 kwh/yr.
Chemical consumption will increase by 2,500 Ib/yr of filter aid.
Maintenance items will increase with the addition of pumps and filter.
Sludge disposal costs will increase in direct proportion to the amount
of solids in the filter aid and captured suspended solids. The increase is
expected to be 30,000 Ib/yr.
Sewer use and capital recovery charges will be increased due to an addi-
tional 2,000,000 gal/yr of hydraulic loading.
103
-------
Cost Factors
The following incremental dollar values should be used to increase (or
decrease) values used in the Primary Design:
Equipment—
Deletions -$ 150
Additions + 14,200
Alterations + 850
TOTAL EQUIPMENT INCREASE +$14,900
Installation— +$ 2,500
Space Requirements— +$ 2,000
Operations— (on annual basis)
Labor +$ 7,800
Energy + 105
Chemical Consumption + 2,100
Maintenance Items + 200
Sludge Disposal + 1,170
Sewer Use Charge + 1,366
Sewer Capital Recovery Charge 249
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES INCREASE IS $12,990
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN B-2
Evaporative recovery can be used to recycle the rinse waters after
cyanide processing. Under this concept, the water used for rinsing is re-
covered and reused. The concentrate resulting from evaporation is the accumu-
lation of floor spills and dragout from copper and silver plating and other
cyanide processing. The volume involved is not sufficient to segregate and
install separate evaporators for each source of cyanide. The concentrate is
treated as batch waste for disposal and salvage. Counterflow rinses will be
installed following copper plating and silver plating steps in order to re-
duce the volume of water required for plating quality. It is believed that
a reduction to 2.5 GPM will result.
In referring to Figure 14, note that section of the schematic flow
diagram representing cyanide treatment will be eliminated. The evaporation
equipment used is shown schematically fn Figure 17. The combined cyanide
wastewaters drain into a sump. As the evaporator operates under a vacuum,
no feed pump is required. The filter on the inlet to the evaporator removes
small solids that might foul the heating coils and the concentrate collection
104
-------
COMBINED CYANIDE
RINSE WATERS
COOLING
TOWER
MAKE-UP WATER
,
RESERVOIR
TWO STAGE
EVAPORATOR
CONDENSATE
CONCENTRATE
HOLDING TANK
SUMP STATION
(Courtesy Wastesaver Corporation)
FIGURE 17. EVAPORATIVE RECOVERY
105
-------
pans. A pump recirculates water from a reservoir tank, through an eductor to
produce the vacuum required and back to the reservoir. This same pump will
be used to recirculate the water through a cooling tower. The distillate is
pumped back to the various rinse stations to close the loop for rinse waters.
The concentrate is removed and held in storage tanks for batch treatment/dis-
posal/salvage. It is estimated that 2 to 4 GPD of concentrate will be pro-
duced.
Major Components
Using the list as provided under Primary Design, incremental dollar
values are:
Equipment—
A. Deletions - all items relative to cyanide rinse water treatment (Equip-
ment Items A)
B. Additions
1. Counterflow rinse tanks, one at three stage, one at two stage
2. Collection sumps - two at 750 gallon capacity
3. Evaporator with cooling tower
4. Concentrate collector
Installation--
The costs associated with installing the cyanide oxidation equipment is
replaced by the costs of installing the evaporative recovery equipment and its
auxiliary hardware.
Space Required—
The cyanide oxidation system requires 520 square feet. The evaporative
recovery system requires 140 square feet. A net reduction of 380 square feet
results.
Operations--
Labor reductions caused by elimination of oxidizing systems is replaced
with the equivalent man-hours required by the evaporator system.
Energy Requirements--
The cyanide oxidation system being eliminated would use 26,250 kwh/yr.
The evaporator system would use 36,300 kwh/yr. There is a net increase of
10,050 kwh/yr. Approximately 27,500 gallons of oil (No. 2 grade) per year is
required to operate the evaporator which consumes 15,000,000 Btu per day.
106
-------
Chemical Consumption—
Hypochlorite is eliminated. Caustic soda consumption is reduced by 750
pounds per year. Sulfuric acid consumption is reduced by 200 pounds per year.
Maintenance items are about the same for both systems ($2 - 300/yr).
No direct sludge disposal costs are attributed to either system, as the
volume of sludges resulting from chlorination is equivalent to the volume of
evaporator concentrate. Both are shipped out for salvage values.
Sewer use charges and capital recovery costs will be reduced by the
amount of water not discharging to the sanitary sewer--that which is re-
circulated through the evaporative recovery system. These cost factors are
only applicable when comparing the cost associated with discharge of these
cyanide waters to the sanitary sewer. When compared with the Primary Design,
no saving exists. When compared with Alternative B-l, a saving will result
which can be compared with Alternative B-2 at a reduction of 1,375,000 gallons
per year.
Cost Factors
The following incremental dollars should be used to increase (or decrease)
values used in the Primary Design.
Equipment--
Deletions -$39,000
Additions + 52,700
NET +$13,700
Installation--
Deletions -$10,000
Additions + 3,000
NET -$ 7,000
Space Required--
NET -$ 7,200
Operations-- (on annual basis)
Labor no change
Energy
electric +$ 560
fuel oil +$ 9,900
Chemicals - 6,650
Sewer Use Charges - 940
Sewer Capital Recovery Charge - 172
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSE INCREASE IS $2,698
107
-------
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN B-3
Evaporative recovery can also be considered as an alternative to the flow
through neutralization of acid rinse waters. The resulting waste product is
a concentrate of combined acids that roughly equal the volume of dragout from
pickling operation. The flow through treatment expense is eliminated, although
increased costs result for batch acid waste disposal (see Primary Design and
Alternative Design B-4).
Cost Factors
When compared with the Primary Design the following incremental costs re-
sult:
Reductions (-)/Increases (+)
Equipment + $41,000
Installation - 2,000
Space Required - 7,200
Operations (on annual basis)
Labor 0
Energy - Electric + 2,258
Fuel + 9,900
Chemicals 0
Maintenance Items 0
Sludge Disposal 0
Sewerage Charges - 420
Sewer Capital Recovery - 76
Total Operating Expense +$11,754
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN B-4
Certain discrete costs can be attributed to the treatment of batch acids--
collection, storage, neutralization, sludge dewatering, etc. If only collec-
tion and storage facilities are provided, certain costs can be avoided. How-
ever, new costs can be attributed to the subcontract hauling and disposals of
these batch wastes by others. This alternative summarizes this concept. Refer
to Figure 14. The neutralization equipment is eliminated. The sludge con-
centrator remains the same size as its size is governed more by the sludges
resulting from treatment of acid rinses. Sludge disposal costs are reduced.
Other costs remain about the same.
108
-------
Cost Factors
When compared with the Primary Design:
Reduction (-)/Increase (+)
Equipment - $1,900
Installation - 2,000
Space Required - 400
Operations (on annual basis)
Labor - 940
Energy - 10
Chemicals - 500
Maintenance Items - 50
Sludge Disposal - 800
Hauling & Disposal + 2,500
Total Net Operating Expenses + $ 200
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN B-5
The treatment of certain wastewaters to meet the stream discharge quality
criteria under Primary Design or the filtrate criteria under Alternative De-
sign B-l are of adequate quality to permit reuse as process water for certain
wet process operations. The rinse water volume required for cleaning opera-
tions amounts to approximately 11,000 GPD at 20 GPM flow rate. The amount of
water resulting from cyanide treatment and acid wastewater treatment is 7,500
GPD at 15 GPM. If appropriate collection and distribution systems are in-
stalled, a portion of this treated water can be reused as process water. Under
this alternative concept, the sources of process water become a combination of
cooling water (9,500 GPD @ 19.2 GPM) and water resulting from cyanide and acid
rinse water treatment (7,500 GPD @ 15 GPM). The sum of these to streams ex-
ceeds the quantity required for cleaning operations. With the installation of
proper recycling equipment and distribution lines, a reduction in water use of
about 10,000 GPD will result. Cost reductions in water purchases and sewer
use and capital recovery expenses will result. These costs are offset by the
cost of redistributing a portion of this treated water.
Cost Factors
It is believed that a capital cost of $5,000 will result. Operating
costs will be minimal (less than $250/year).
109
-------
COMBINED CYANIDE
RINSE WATERS
COOLING
TOWER
MAKE-UP WATER
EDUCTOR
,
TWO
STAGE
EVAPORATOR
RESERVOIR
CONDENSATE
CONCENTRATE
HOLDING TANK
SUMP STATION
(Courtesy Wastesaver Corporation^;
FIGURE 18. EVAPORATIVE RECOVERY
no
-------
APPENDIX C
F. B. ROGERS SILVER COMPANY
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
F. B. Rogers Silver Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of National
Silver Industries, Inc., is located at 414 West Water Street in the southern
portion of Taunton, Massachusetts. Production operations are in a four-
story building that was constructed in the early 1900s. The plant, which
is approximately 200,000 square feet in size, is serviced by sanitary sewers
leading to the municipal sewage plant located about three quarters of a mile
downstream on the river. See Figure 19 for plant layout. Under normal
conditions, there are 350 employees. The major product at this plant is
holloware. Silver-plated brass is the principal process resulting in in-
dustrial wastewater. The second largest segment of production using wet
processing is nickel alloy-plated brass, which is marketed under the trade
name Pewterlite(23).
INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
Production parts are processed through alkaline cleaning solutions for
removal of various soils resulting from mechanical steps: parts cleaned
after forming and prior to annealing, after soldering for flux removal, prior
to electroplating, and in final finishing. Acid processing is minimal, with
acid dipping of some parts required after soldering and for surface activa-
tion prior to electroplating. Cyanide solutions are used for copper and
silver plating, with a minor amount of cyanide gold salts in use. Cyanide is
also associated with stripping of plating fixtures. Process water is also
used in mechanical deburring steps that include conventional vibratory and
horizontal tumbling techniques. Other plating steps use a modified nickel
plating solution, both for a final finish and for a preplate prior to the
silverplate.
Steam is purchased from the neighboring power plant for both process
solution heating and space heating. All condensate is discharged as waste-
water.
Cooling water is used in the operation of vapor degreasers, vacuum
pumps, a hydraulic press, an annealing furnace and a gas generator.
Locations
The above operations that require industrial water are performed on four
floors of a single building segment identified as Production and Plating areas
on Figure 19J Waste treatment prior to discharge to the river is performed
at the opposite end of the plant. It will be noted that two of the discharges
of process and cooling water are intermixed with sanitary wastewater prior
111
-------
PO
O
O
m
73
00
CO
ro
JtL£JSI
PRODUCTION AREA \ PLATING I
I ROOM
WATER
STREET
\\
SHIPPING fi STORAGE
Taunlon River
\\
-v
WASTE
TREATH'T.
ROOM
. I
"F
•fnptny
Urn
iSULKHEAD
O
cr
-------
to sewer discharge. Other connections to the sanitary sewer which contain
no industrial wastewater are not shown on Figure 19
Sources
Table 17 shows the various sources of flowing process water discharged
to each of the outlets. Figure 20 is an abbreviated flow diagram showing the
various types of water discharging to each outlet.
TABLE 17. INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Manufacturing Process:
Type of Discharge
Rate
1/min 6PM
Daily Discharge
Liters Gallons
SEWER OUTLET #1 (SSO #1)
Plating:
Acid/Alkali Cleaning
Nickel Plating
Cooling Water
SEWER OUTLET #2 (SSO #2)
Holloware Forming:
Alkali Cleaning
Cooling Water
Buffing:
Cooling Water
Tumbling:
Alkali Cleaning
SEWER OUTLET #3 (SSO #3)
Fabrication:
Acid/Alkali Cleaning
Final Finishing:
Alkali Cleaning
RIVER OUTLET #1 (RO #1)
Plating:
Cyanide Rinses
Final Finishing:
Cyanide Rinses
95
19
19
19
30
76
15
64
26
220
19
(25
(5)
(5)
5)
8)
(20)
(4)
(17)
(7)
(58)
(5)
64,400
18,900
15,100
15,100
34,100
22,700
(17,000)
(5,000)
(4,000)
18,900 (5,000)
45,400 (12,000)
106,000 (28,000)
(4,000)
(9,000)
(6,000)
132,000 (35,000)
18,900
(5,000)
113
-------
PROCESS WATER
PROCESS WATER
COOLING WATER
PROCESS WATER
COOLING WATER
CATION
EXCHANGE
PRETREATMENT
1 ••-T^»- - •• — -
'WATEP i*-
"WATER
SOLIDS
SETTLING
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #1
(SSO ;?1)
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #2
PROCESS WATER
SANITARY WASTEWATER
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #3
(SSO #3)
CYANIDE PROCESS WATER
WASTE
TREATMENT
COOLING WATER
RIVER OUTLET #1
(RO #1)
RIVER OUTLET #2
(RO #2)
FIGURE 20. WASTEWATER DISCHARGE POINTS
Existing Treatment Facilities
Unlike the two other firms included in this study, F. B. Rogers Silver
Company was faced with resolving its wastewater pollution control problem
several years ago (work began in 1972). A treatment system was installed in
1974 under the authorization of the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission.
There were two basic discharge points.
River Outlet #1 (RO #1 - see Figure 19) was concerned with discharges
to meet the then current regulations for discharge to the waters of the Com-
monwealth. Cyanide-bearing rinse waters were segregated from noncyanide
wastewaters and delivered to the east end of the plant. Waste treatment oper-
ations, using a one-step chlorination process followed by gravity settling for
removal of suspended solids, were employed to remove cyanide, copper, silver
and suspended solids prior to discharge to the Taunton River.
114
-------
The second major discharge point for wastewater was the sanitary sewer
and is identified as Sanitary Sewer Outlet #1 (SSO #1).. Most of the non-
cyanide process water was combined for pretreatment. Due to the loose re-
strictions placed on sanitary sewer discharge in 1974, pretreatment was lim-
ited to pH adjustment prior to discharge. Rinses known to be high in dis-
solved nickel were segregated and passed through a cation exchange resin
prior to intermixing with other acid/alkali rinse water for pH adjustment.
Backwash and regeneration water resulting from ion exchanger maintenance
is batch-neutralized. Sludges resulting (primarily nickel hydroxide) are de-
watered, with the clarified water discharging along with treated cyanide
wastewater to the river. Additional pretreatment was provided for tumbling
wastewater to remove suspended solids that might restrict flow in sewer lines.
Those discharges via SSO #2 and #3 were considered innocuous and were believed
to meet the then existing sewer ordinances.
In 1975, with the implementation of PL 92-500, an NPDES permit was issued
to F. B. Rogers Silver Company. The schedule of compliance called for meeting
federal guidelines and revised state regulations by July of 1977 for discharge
to the river.
Changes to the treatment system are being put into service during the
time this project is being conducted. These changes can be broadly described
as:
a. Reduction of metal concentration in the raw waste by conservation
techniques in the plating department;
b. Two-step chlorination for oxidation of both cyanide and cyanate;
c. Improved flocculation to promote better suspended solids removal; and
d. Improved performance of clarifiers.
Quantity Initially Observed
At the start of this project, some effort had been directed toward water
conservation. Additional effort is presently underway to further reduce the
amount of water used. At the time of the initial survey to establish a data
base for this study, it was revealed that the following amount of water was
being discharged:
Cooling water - 185,000 I/day (49,000 GPD) at a rate of 145 l/min(38GPM)
Process rinse water - 325,000 I/day (86,000 GPD) at a rate of 477 1/min
(126 GPM)
Purchased steam results in 14,000 I/day (3,700 GPD) of condensate for
process use during summer periods. Together with space heating during the
winter months, 60,000 I/day (16,000 GPD) is the average discharged during a
production day.
115
-------
A breakdown by discharge point for the quantity and rate of flow is
provided in Table 18.
TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL WATER FLOW BY OUTLET
Outlet
Rate
Daily Discharge
1/min
GPM
Li ters
Gallons
Rinse Water:
SSO #1
SSO #2
SSO #3
RO #1
114
34
91
238
(30)
(9)
(24)
(63)
83,300
34,100
56,800
151,000
(22,000)
(9,000)
(15,000)
(40,000)
Cooling Water:
SSO #1
SSO #2
RO #2
19
106
19
(5)
(28)
(5)
15,100
151,000
18,900
(4,000)
(40,000)
(5,000)
Qua1i ty of Pi scha rge
During the year preceding this study, various samples were taken from
SSO #1. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 19. The quality of
discharge to the river during the six months preceding this study has been
taken from the monthly composite sample analyses as reported under the NPDES
permit requirement and is shown in Table 20. It is believed that the qual-
ity is typical of flowing rinse water that has been diluted with nonprocess
water in the case of the sanitary sewer discharge and of undiluted discharge
from waste treatment to the river.
TABLE 19. RESULTS OF PREVIOUS ANALYSES OF WASTEWATER AT SSO
Item
Concentration, mg/1
Range
Average
Cyanide
Silver
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Iron
Nickel
Chromium
Solids, suspended
pH, units, mean
1.9 - 27
0.4 - 6.0
2.0 - 10.2
0.3 - 0.8
0.2 - 0.9
0.4 - 0.9
0.5 - 8.4
<0.01 - 0.06
N/A
3.1 - 8.3
13
3.9
5.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
3.5
<0.02
17
5
^Source: City of Taunton: Sewer Department, May 6, 1976 - October 14, 1976
116
-------
TABLE 20. RESULTS OF PREVIOUS ANALYSES OF WASTENATER AT RO #T
Item Concentration,
Range Average
Cyanide, total
Cyanide, amenable
Copper
Silver
Nickel
Solids, suspended
pH, units, mean
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.05
5
9.2
- 0.47
- 0.04
- 4.55
- 0.65
- 0.28
- 84
- 12.0
0.11
0.02
1.76
0.16
0.13
39.0
9.5
Source: F. B. Rogers Silver Company, November 1976, April 1977.
All but suspended solids are based on filtered samples.
i
Since the samples discharged to the sanitary sewer were taken, some drain
changes have been implemented to combine cyanide-bearing water resulting from
final finishing touch-up plating and stripping steps with all other cyanides for
oxidation. For the purpose of this study, additional average composite samples
were taken. These results are shown in Table 21 for sanitary sewer discharge
and for river discharge. They are believed to be representative of present
conditions and thus serve as a data base for this project.
Production practices during both sample periods held batch dumps of spent
solutions to a minimum. Table 22 shows the quantity of batch discharges by
outlet. Table 23 shows a summary of the batch discharge by type for the en-
tire plant. Obviously, the concentration of the various contaminants would
be higher during these dump periods.
117
-------
TABLE 21. ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER'
Item
Cyanide, total
Cyanide, amenable
Si 1 ver
Copper
Zinc
Tin
Lead
Nickel
Iron
§
Chromium
Solids, suspended
Solids, total
pH, units
Concentration, mq/1
SSO #1
t
t
0.03 ^O.Ol)*
0.82 (0.53)
1.10 (0.58)
<0.1
0.25 (<0.01)
0.06 (0.01)
0.68 (0.14)
0.22 (<0.01)
18.0
52.0
9.69
SSO
0.01
0.002
0.22
1.55
2.50
<0.1
<0.1
0.10
4.52
<0.01
157.0
884.0
7.04
#2
(0.04)
(0.05)
(1.40)
(0.04)
(0.26)
SSO
0.2
0.138
0.30
0.69
0.24
<0.1
<0.1
0.08
1.92
0.15
77.0
458.0
8.34
#3
(0.07)
(0.43)
(0.21)
(0.07)
(0.64)
0.03)
RO
0.006
0.006
1.73
15.4
0.31
<0.1
0.03
0.85
0.32
0.01
24.0
1,185.0
9.43
#1
(0.05)
(1.25)
(0.05)
(<0.01)
(0.17)
(0.10)
(<0.01)
* Source: New England Chemical Works, Whittenton Industrial Center, Taunton, MA.
August 5, 1977.
Nondetectable.
* Values given in parentheses are for dissolved metals.
K
No hexavalent chromium.
June 10, 1977 and
-------
TABLE 22. BATCH DISCHARGE BY OUTLET
Outlet
SSO #1*
SSO #2
SSO #3
RO #1
RO #2
Volume, liters /year (gallons/year)
Alkalies
192,000
(50,000)
6,060
(1,600)
1,990
(525)
0
0
Acids
3,820
(1,010)
0
1,140
(300)
90, 800 f
(24,000)
0
Cyanides
0
0
0
0
0
* Alkalies and acid are
pretreated to
pH of 6.5 -
9.5 before discharge to sewe
tion water neutralization.
TABLE 23. SUMMARY OF BATCH DISCHARGE BY TYPE
Type
Alkali
Acid
Cyanide
Sludges
Subtype
cleaner
low metal
strip*
tumbling"*"
cation regeneration
clarifier*
Vol time
liters/year
or kg/year
200,000 1
4,969 1
54,500 1
1,100 kg
26,500 1
11,300 - 15,900 kg
gallons/year
or Ib/year
52,800 gals
1,310 gals
14,400 gals
2,400 Ibs
7,000 gals
24 - 35000 Ibs
* Contract haul to salvage.
t Contract haul to disposal.
119
-------
Anticipated Segregation and Conservation
Sanitary wastewater discharge will be segregated from industrial use
water. Cooling water will be either reused as process water or recycled
through a cooling tower in order to reduce the amount of cooling water dis-
charged. A simplified flow diagram of process water only, resulting from this
segregation, is shown on Figure 21.
Counterflow rinsing may be expanded to reduce the amount of cyanide bear-
ing rinse water requiring treatment. Further expansion of existing counter-flow
rinsing steps for process waters draining to the sanitary sewer is not considered
PLATING:
Acid/Alkali Rinses
Nickel Plate Rinses
HOLLOWARE FORMING:
Alkali Rinses
TUMBLING:
Alkali Rinses
^ni TFK
SETTLING
FABRICATION:
Acid/Alkali Rinses-
FINAL FINISHING:
Alkali Rinses
PLATING:
Cation Exchange Backwash—*-
Cyanide Rinses—*—
NEUTRALIZATION
FINAL FINISHING:
Cyanide Rinses-
CHLORINATION
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET #1
(SSO #1)
SANITARY SEWER
• OUTLET #2
(SSO #2)
SANITARY SEWER
• OUTLET #3
(SSO #3)
RIVER
OUTLET #1
(RO #1)
FIGURE 21. PROCESS RINSE WATER
120
-------
practical. However, other conservation techniques will result in less process
wastewater being used.
All cooling water will be eliminated from direct discharge to the sanitary
sewer. This, together with the reduction in process rinse water, will result
in a minimum savings of 240,000 I/day (64,000 GPD).
Anticipated Quality of Raw Waste Discharge
It is not possible to segregate cooling water, sanitary wastewater and
process water for SSO #2 and #3 in time to obtain quality determinations for
isolated process waters. Likewise, the impact of future water conservation
efforts cannot be felt in time to be meaningful for qualification of the raw
waste requiring treatment.
However, it is possible to calculate a theoretical discharge from the
various analyses obtained for the data base. SSO #1 can readily be factored
for exclusion of cooling water. The quality from the other outlets receiving
cooling water can be factored for the forthcoming exclusion of cooling water.
Errors will exist for discharges where it is not possible to do more than esti-
mate the amount of water used for sanitary purposes which has a dilution.
effect. Likewise, it is not practical to include in the contaminant loading
those contributions caused by the raw city water.
It is anticipated that all process wastewater presently discharged to the
sanitary sewer and requiring treatment will be brought to a single location
for pretreatment. Weighting the results of analysis in Table C-5 with the
daily discharge rates in the tables showing discharge volumes to each outlet,
a value for each contaminant to be discharged to the sanitary sewer has been
predicted and is shown in Table 24. As an estimate this shows the general
order of magnitude for discharge from the total plant to the sanitary sewer for
process wastewater. The analysis of untreated cyanide bearing rinse waters
presently being chlorinated is provided in Table 25. If the full prediction
for water conservation in this waste producing operation is realized, the con-
centration will increase by 50 percent.
TABLE 24. THEORETICAL COMBINED PROCESS WATER QUALITY
Item Concentration, mg/1
Cyanide, total
Cyanide, amenable
Si 1 ver
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Iron
Chromium
0.08
0.05
0.28
1.9
2.6
<0.3
0.1
4.5
<0.06
121
-------
TABLE 25. UNTREATED CYANIDE RINSE WATER
Item Concentration, mg/1
Cyanide,
Cyanide,
Silver
Copper
Zinc
Total
Amenable
94.
93.
13.
35.
0.
0
6
1 (12.
7 (33.
55 (0.
. *
4)
4)
55)
* Values shown in parentheses are for dissolved metals.
Source: New England Chemical Works, Taunton, Massachusetts, June 21-23, 1977
BASIC DESIGN CONCEPTS
With the exclusion of cooling water and sanitary wastewater, a more sim-
plified flow diagram has been produced for process water. Figure 21 includes
segregation by process wastewater streams having common characteristics and/or
methods of treatment. Table 21 showed the results of composite samples taken
early in this project for major discharge points, and Table 24 presents the
calculated values for the discharges without the cooling water. However, the
values are considered minimum values since dilution with sanitary waste remains
at two discharge points.
Existing segregation for rinses isolates those containing cyanide, those
that are high in nickel content, those that result from tumble finishing, and
those that result from cleaning. Additional segregation will isolate all
batch clumps from rinses. Combining all cleaning rinses for sampling requires
extensive alterations to drain systems and is considered impractical at this
time.
Rinses can be segregated into the following subcategories:
• acid rinses high in nickel content
• rinses containing cyanides
• rinses from tumbling
• rinses from acid/alkali cleaning
Batch discharges can be segregated into:
• alkaline cleaners
• acids high in metal content
• acids low in metal content
• cyanides high in salvable metal
Acid rinses high in nickel content presently pass through a cation ex-
changer to produce a low metal content, relatively dilute acid stream. This
122
-------
will be combined with other mildly acidic or alkaline waste streams from
cleaning for pH adjustment and heavy metal hydroxide and/or oxide removal.
Rinses following tumbling presently receive settling for partial removal
of suspended solids. These will be combined with the preceding pretreated
rinses for discharge to the sanitary sewer.
Cyanide-bearing rinses will continue to receive the two-stage chlorina-
tion prior to discharge to the river.
Batch alkaline cleaners will be collected in a common holding tank.
After pH reduction, if required, they will be metered into the sanitary sewer
for discharge.
Acids high in metal content result from ion exchanger backwash and regen-
eration. The present practice of batch neutralization and precipitation of
nickel hydroxide will continue. Acids that are low in metal content will re-
ceive similar treatment. Depending upon salvage values of the nickel hydrox-
ide, these other acids may or may not be neutralized separately from the
nickel batches. After precipitation, the sludges may be dewatered prior to
disposal or salvage.
Cyanides that contain salvable metal are presently shipped out for metal
recovery. Due to the small volume involved, this practice probably will be
continued.
Considering the segregation methods discussed, F. B. Rogers Silver
Company will have the following types and quantities of flowing rinse water:
acid/alkali rinse 33,000 GPD @ 54 GPM
cyanide rinses 26,000 GPD @ 40 GPM
nickel plate rinses 5,000 GPD @ 5 GPM
tumbling rinses 4,000 GPD
PRIMARY DESIGN
F. B. Rogers Silver Company has installed waste treatment facilities for
that portion of its industrial process wastewater that is discharged to the
Taunton River. Existing pretreatment facilities will be expanded to meet po-
tential regulations to be established by local and federal authorities. In
addition, the design of pretreatment facilities takes into consideration the
existing treatment processes, the state-of-the-art of treatment technology and
economies as evident in mid-1977. The primary design, described as follows,
considers that the firm might have to resolve its pollution problems totally
by itself, and therefore forms the basis for subsequent cost and effectiveness
alternatives that might arise by joint participation in any multicompany
treatment facility.
123
-------
Design Criteria
The volume of process water discharged to the Taunton River is presently
40,000 GPD and flows at an average rate of 60 GPM. Conservation techniques
should reduce this amount by 35 percent. The raw waste contains cyanide,
copper, silver and, at times, nickel. The existing waste treatment facility,
at the present loading, is operating to meet the requirements of the firm's
NPDES permit which was issued jointly by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region I.
The volume of process water discharging to the sanitary sewer is expected
to be 42,000 GPD and flowing at a maximum rate of 70 GPM. The wastewater con-
tains objectionable quantities of copper and zinc. On occasions the trace
metals, tin and lead, are found to be slightly higher than desired. A minor
process using hexavalent chromium has been changed to eliminate this heavy
metal. In addition, the pH can vary to extremes that exceed the prescribed
limits.
A portion (19 percent of that discharging to the sanitary sewer) of the
wastewater results from cleaning operations. This water is far more amenable
to biological treatment for removal of wetting agents than the other process
waters. Aside from occasional excursions outside the prescribed pH range, the
cleaning water exhibits little if any objectionable qualities for discharge to
a sanitary sewer system. At the same time, the sanitary treatment facilities
do provide for removal of the contaminants to the total environment that are
present in the cleaning wastewater.
Seventy percent of the discharge to the sanitary sewer may at times con-
tain objectionable quantities of the heavy metals copper, zinc and nickel.
In addition, tumbling wastewater may contain objectionable quantities of
metallic solder (tin and lead) particles.
The primary design criteria considers the optimum discharge site for
cleaning wastewater and tumbling wastewater to be the sanitary sewer. That
portion of the discharge to the sanitary sewer that occasionally contains
objectionable amounts of heavy metals also contains wetting agents from plating
cleaning steps. The existing facilities used for treatment prior to river
discharge does not provide effective removal of these wetters. In addition,
the presence of the wetters may interfere with removal of silver oxide prior
to river discharge. Therefore, the preferred discharge point for this type
of wastewater is the sanitary sewer.
The high volume of process wastewater discharging to the sanitary sewer
is concerned with flowing rinse water. The rinses are characterized as being
relatively low in contaminant concentration. Lesser volumes are associated
with the periodic dumping of spent process solutions. The dumps are character-
ized as being significantly high in contamination, even though low in volume.
124
-------
Segregation by type and treatability result in the following waste
streams for rinse water:
• cyanide-bearing rinses at 26,000 GPD at a flow rate of 40 6PM,
t nickel-bearing rinses at 5,000 GPD at a flow rate of 5 GPM,
§ alkaline cleaning rinses at 25,000 GPD at a flow rate of 37 GPM,
t spray washer (alkaline in nature) wastewater at 8,000 GPD at a
flow rate of 17 GPM, and
• tumbling wastewater at 4,000 GPD.
Batch discharges, requiring disposal techniques that are different from
rinses, can be segregated into:
• alkaline cleaners - 4,400 gal/mo.
• cation exchanger acids - 2,600 gal/mo.
• other acids - 110 gal/mo.
t cyanides - 1,200 gal/mo.
• inert sludges - 200 Ib/mo.
• salyable sludges - 2,500 Ib/mo.
The quality criteria used as the design basis considers proposed local
ordinance for discharge to the sanitary sewer to be more restricitve than the
anticipated Federal Guidelines for Pretreatment. Discharges to the sanitary
sewer shall meet the requirements as shown in Appendix E, "City of Taunton
Sewer Ordinance."
The quality criteria that was used as the design basis for discharge to
the river is that established in the firm's NPDES permit. These requirements
are shown in Appendix F, "Regulations for River Discharge."
Treatment Systems
Schematic presentations of the proposed treatment systems are shown in
Figure 22 for the river discharge and Figure 23 for the sanitary sewer dis-
charge. A description of the various subsystems is provided:
Rinse Waters—
Cyanide-bearing rinses are isolated from all noncyanide-bearing process
water. A two-step chlorination process removes cyanides and cyanates. The re-
sulting water contains copper hydroxide and silver oxide, both of which are
present as suspended solids. Gravity settling of suspended solids is provided
to reduce these solids to an acceptable level. Solids removal is enhanced by
the addition of a coagulant aid. The overflow from solids settling passes
through a monitoring tank prior to discharge to the Taunton River. The sludges
withdrawn from the clarifier are dewatered by decanting and by use of a centri-
125
-------
CD
ro
tn
-H
m
m
oo
o
m
GO
O
e-LJ
SUMP
NEUTRALIZATION
70
C75
-------
ro
m
co
i
in
m
CO
o
m
o
co
-<
CO
m
m
73
o
t—i
co
73
CD
n
T1
SUMP STATION
PUTJM6 CLEANING ItlNStS
omen CLCMINS muses
BATCH CIEANCR PUMPS
WATOt
CATION
EXHANOER
1 *Q
f
H2 SO4 Ho OH
SETTLING TffNCH
FLASH
MIXING
'SETTLER
H ADJUST SUMP D- \ /
li;
c
3
3
T
^ N -[
II > X ro swoae
tmvFicmmvTe COHCENTfumfi
II fVUrELtCTTtOVTf (fKC-4>
pH ADJUST HgSO4
1
77M/
j
L
c
./
] 1
3
24770
"*»<
N
\ .-
\
sewfit
MONITOR
-------
fuge. The water is recycled through the suspended solids removal system.
The final sludge is drummed and shipped out for salvage.
Nickel-plating rinses are isolated from other plating wastewater and pass
through a cationic resin for removal of dissolved metal. The discharge from
this ion exchanger is joined with other acid wastewater for neutralization of
acid.
The rinse waters from cleaning and surface activation prior to plating
are combined with the nickel-plating rinses for pH adjustment to a range of 8.5
to 9.0 to minimize heavy metal solubility. During this neutralization step,
hydroxides of copper and zinc as well as any nickel escaping the ion exchanger
are formed. Trace quantities of oxides and hydroxides of silver, tin and lead
are also present in the insoluble state. The partially treated wastewater
passes through a solids settler for gravity precipitation of suspended solids.
A polyelectrolyte is added to enhance settling. The discharge from this treat-
ment system is mixed with other waters for discharge to the sanitary sewer.
The sludges resulting from settling are dewatered prior to disposal.
Rinse waters from other cleaning operations have insignificant quantities
of dissolved heavy metals. As they pass through a neutralization tank, the pH
is adjusted to the range of 9.0 to 9.5 by the addition of sulfuric acid. The
water at this point meets the quality criteria for discharge to the sanitary
sewer. The water joins with other process water prior to discharge to the
sanitary sewer.
Tumbling operations produce wastewaters that are basically soapy water
which contain small metallic particles suspended in the water. As the water
passes through a baffled trench, the greater portion of these particles fall to
the bottom of the trench. The sludges are periodically removed and placed in
drums for disposal. The soapy water drains to the sanitary sewer.
All process waters draining to the sanitary sewer are combined and pass
through a common monitoring tank prior to leaving the plant.
Batch Wastewaters--
Alkaline cleaners are transferred to a batch holding tank. Manual addi-
tions of sulfuric acid will lower the pH to a range of 9.0 to 9.5. This waste-
water will then be metered into the combined rinse waters discharging to the
sanitary sewer.
Acid batches resulting from surface activation prior to plating and from
ion exchange backwash and resin regeneration are transferred to the waste
treatment area for treatment. The pH is manually adjusted to 8.5 to 9.0. The
resulting sludges of metal hydroxides and oxides are dewatered by decanting
and/or centrifuging. These inert sludges are placed in suitable containers
for disposal.
128
-------
Cyanide batches resulting from stripping operations are shipped out for
silver salvage values.
Floor spills resulting from accidental discharges will be contained.
Treatment will be provided as per other intentional batch discharges.
Sludge Disposal--
Sludges resulting from cyanide oxidation will be shipped out for salvage
values. Sludges resulting from acid neutralization and from the settler used
in pretreatment prior to sanitary sewer discharge will either be sold for sal-
vage values or transported to an approved landfill site.
Major Components
Equipment--
The following major equipment items are required to implement the full
waste treatment facilities. Those items identified with an asterisk (*) are
part of the existing waste treatment facilities.
A. Cyanide Rinses*
1. Collection/Transfer
a. sump and pump - 500 gallon, duplex pumps 50 GPM @ 30' head,
level controls, alarm
2. Treatment/Oxidation of CNO
a. tank - 3,500 gallon
b. mixer - 3 HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/caustic - pH R/C, feed pump, 150 gallon mix tank,
alarm
d. chemical feed/hypochlorite - ORP R/C, feed pump, 150 gallon
supply tank, alarm
3. Treatment/Oxidation of CNO
a. tank - 4,500 gallon
b. mixer - s HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/caustic and sulfuric - pH R/C, two feed pumps, two
100 gallon mix tanks, alarm
d. chemical feed/hypochlorite - ORP R/C, feed pump, 150 gallon
Supply tank, alarm
4. Flocculation
a. tank - 300 gallon
b. mixer - 3/4 HP, variable speed
c. chemical feed/coagulant - feed pump, two 50 gallon tanks,
two 1/4 HP mixers
5. Solids Settling
a. tank clarifiers - two 7,000 gallon each
b. sludge pump - 100 GPM
c. decant pumps - two @ 6 GPM
129
-------
6. Sludge Concentration
a. tank - 2,000 gallon
b. tank - 1,000 gallon
c. centrifuge - 10 GPM, 2 HP
d. centrifuge feed pump - 8 GPM 1/2 HP
e. centrate sump pumps - two 1/2 HP
B. Nickel Rinses*
1. Collection/Transfer
a. sump and .pump - 500 gallon, duplex pumps 10 GPM at 30' head,
level controls, alarm
2. Cation Exchanger - 4 cubic feet capacity
C. Acid/Alkali Rinses
1. Collection Neutralization
a. floor sump* - 500 gallon
b. mixer - 1 HP, 316 SS
c. chemical feed/caustic* and sulfuric - pH R/C, two feed pumps, two
100 gallon mix tanks,
1/4 HP mixer, alarm
d. transfer pump - duplex, 50 GPM at 30' head, with level control,
alarm
2. Solids Settling
a. tube type settler - 50 GPM capacity
b. chemical feed/polyelectrolyte - feed pump, 50 gallon mix/storage
tank, 1/4 HP mixer
c. sludge pump - 10 GPM at 30' head
D. Cleaner Rinses
1. pH Adjust
a. tank - 200 gallon
b. mixer - 1/2 HP
c. chemical feed/sulfuric - pH R/C, feed pump, 100 gallon mix tank,
1/4 HP mixer, alarm
E. Tumbling Wastewater*
1. settling trench - 40 cubic feet
130
-------
F. Cleaner Dumps
1. portable pump - 50 GPM at 30' head
2. neutralization tank - 3000 gallon
3. mixer - 2 HP
4. pump - metering 1-2 GPM
G. Acid Dumps
1. transfer containers - six 50 gallon
2. drum pump - 10 GPM
3. neutralization tank* - 2000 gallon
4. mixer* - 1 HP, 316 SS
5. transfer pump* - 8 GPM, 1/2 HP
H. General Items
1. bulk storage tanks* hypochlorite
2. monitor tank* with pH recorder* - 50 gallon
3. monitor tank for sanitary discharge - 200 gallon
4. drum pumps* - two at 10 GPM
5. flow meters - four
6. laboratory control facilities*
Installation-
Factors to be considered as part of the installation expense include:
segregation of cooling water, process water and sanitary water; plumbing
changes for reuse of cooling water as process water; relocation of existing
plant space to accommodate treatment facilities; rigging; plumbing; and elec-
trical requirements.
131
-------
Space Requirements--
Existing facilities consume 140 square feet for collection and transfer,
35 square feet for ion exchange, plus 1525 square feet for treatment, making a
total of 1700 square feet. This space is primarily dedicated to treatment
prior to river discharge. The space required for pretreatment facilities
will require an additional 400 square feet.
Engineering Support-
Technical assistance is required to develop full plans and specification,
to supplement the technical staff of the firm during purchase and installation,
to train operators during startup, and to provide general consulting to the
project.
Operations—
Labor required to operate and control the complete facility will be 2000
hours/year with an additional 500 hours/year for maintenance labor. Energy
requirements are expected to be 27,100 kwh/year.
Chemical consumption anticipated:
sodium hypochlorite 27,000 gallons/year
caustic soda 4,500 pounds/year
sulfuric acid 2,000 pounds/year
hydrochloric acid 1,500 pounds/year
coagulant aid 100 pounds/year
polyelectrolyte 65 pounds/year
cation resin 1.3 cubic feet/year
Maintenance items, or spare parts, should be provided for pumps, mixers, feed-
ers, controls, etc.
Sludge disposal will be required for those sludges that do not have re-
covery values. The amount anticipated is 44,000 pounds/year. Sewer use
charges for discharge to the sanitary sewer should be based upon 10,500,000
gallons/year.
Extramural support may be required for analysis and operations consulta-
tion.
Cost Factors
The cost factors relative to capital values are believed to represent
current (mid-1977) values for new facilities as well as replacement value of
existing equipment. These values relate to the major components just listed
for the Primary Design.
132
-------
Equipment--
A. Cyanide Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer $ 3,200
2. Treatment/oxidation of CN 14,200
3. Treatment/oxidation of CNO 16,500
4. Flocculation 3,800
5. Solids Settling 16,000
6. Sludge Concentration 14,100
B. Nickel Rinses
1. Collection/Transfer $ 3,600
2. Cation Exchange 13,000
C. Acid/Alkali Rinses
1. Collection/Neutralization 13,600
2. Solids Settling 16,500
D. Cleaner Rinses 5,900
E. Tumbling Wastewater 800
F. ' Cleaner Dumps 7,200
G. Acid Dumps 3,800
H. General Items 7.300
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS $139,500
Installation--
Space Preparation 28,000
Rigging 11,000
Plumbing 21,000
Electrical 14,000
TOTAL INSTALLATION $74,000
133
-------
Space Requirements—
The capital value of space is $63,000.
Engineering Support--
It is estimated the fees for the entire project would be $18,000.
Operations (on Annual Basis)--
Labor $23,500
Energy 1,500
Chemicals 14,200
Maintenance Items 1,500
Sludge Disposal 1,800
Sewer Use Charge 7^170
Sewer Capital Recovery Charge 1,440
Extramural Support 4,500
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES 55,610
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN C-l
Unlike the other firms involved in this study, F. B. Rogers has installed
treatment facilities for discharge to the Taunton River. Consequently, it is
not practical to consider total discharge to the sanitary sewer. No advantages
would result—only increased capital and operating costs. However, an alterna-
tive does exist relative to increasing the quantity discharge to the river.
The water associated with Nickel Rinses (Item B) and Acid/Alkali Rinses (C)
could be rerouted to the waste treatment facility at the east end of the plant.
This would require essentially the same equipment. However, 30,000 GPD of
treated water would be diverted to the river with the result that only 13,000
GPD would be discharged to the sanitary sewer.
Additional cost to implement would be associated with piping only, at an
estimated value of $5,000. Cost avoidance by decreasing sewer user and capi-
tal recovery would be $5,722 per year.
134
-------
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN C-2
Certain discrete costs can be attributed to the treatment of batch acids-
collection, storage, neutralization, sludge dewatering, etc. If only collec-
tion and storage facilities are provided, certain costs can be avoided. New
costs can be attributed to the subcontract hauling and disposal of these batch
wastes by others. This alternative summarizes this concept. Refer to Fig-
ure 22. The neutralization of cation exchanger backwash and regeneration
water plus batch acid dumps is eliminated. The sludge concentrator remains
as its primary function is sludge handling for the clarifiers. Sludge dis-
posal costs are reduced. Other costs remain nearly the same.
Cost Factors Reductions (-)/Increases (+)
Equipment, Net -$ 3,000
Installation, Net - 2,000
Space Required - 1,200
Operations (on annual basis)
Labbr - 230
Energy - 110
Chemicals - 500
Sludge Disposal - 780
Haul ing-Disposal Costs + 15,000
Total Operating Expense +$13,380
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN C-3
The quality of treated water in the grouping of waters in Alternative
Design C-l (i.e. Nickel Rinses and Acid/Alkali Rinses) is believed to be ade-
quate to permit reuse for certain cleaning operations. The amount of water
available for reuse is 30,000 GPD. At least half of this water can be used
in other, less demanding applications for cleaning. A net reduction of water
purchased and discharged to the sanitary sewer of 15,000 GPD will result,
assuming the installation of proper recycling equipment and distribution lines.
This concept is more practical in conjunction with the Primary Design than
with Alternative Design C-l because of piping costs.
Cost Factors
It is believed that a capital cost of $5,000 will result. Operating
costs will be minimal (less than $500/year). Savings from water and sewer
costs will amount to $2,750 per year.
135
-------
APPENDIX D
JOINT TREATMENT
Each company has process solutions that are seldom, if ever, dumped as a
spent solution. These are the plating baths themselves, used for the deposi-
tion of silver, copper and nickel. These solutions have been designed to per-
mit quality control of concentrations and contaminants. A minor amount of
wastewater results from maintaining these solutions. Each company also has
process solutions that are dumped as spent or contaminated solutions. These
solutions represent a much lower capital investment than the plating solutions
and are designed with the expectation of each having a finite life. The life
of an alkaline cleaner or an acid pickle may vary from company to company, yet
each is installed with the concept that they will periodically be discharged
as batch wastewater. The containment of accidental discharge and other floor
spillage may or may not be considered to be salvable. However, this type of
wastewater must also be considered to be batch waste.
The aforementioned batch wastewater resulting from intentional or acci-
dental discharges is characterized as being relatively low in volume and high
in contamination. The second major waste classification is rinse waters. The
rinse waters result from the flushing from the surfaces of production parts
those chemicals that cling to the surfaces as dragout. Their removal is desired
to improve the performance and life of subsequent wet process solutions. In
addition, final rinsing is required to maintain the quality of the final prod-
uct. The rinse water is characterized as being high in volume and relatively
low in contamination—the converse of batch discharges.
Batch Wastewater--
The following types of batch wastewater resulting from the dumping of spent
or contaminated process solutions from two or more firms are included in this
study. (Unique solutions are not included in this section of the report.) The
quantities shown are the total amount for all three companies, and are the
basis for subsequent joint treatment considerations. A brief description of
the solutions is also provided.
a. Alkaline Cleaners - 1,300,000 1/yr (346,000 gal/yr) at an average
concentration of 30 gm/1 (4 oz/gal), these mildly alkaline
solutions contain a minor amount of heavy metal contamination. The
wetting agents are normally amenable to biological degradation.
b. Acids high in copper and zinc - 20,000 1/yr (5,280 gal/yr) —sulfuric
acid pickles, nitric-sulfuric bright dips and ferric chloride etchant--
all strongly acidic with high metal concentrations (15-20 gm/1 of
copper for example).
c. Acids high in silver - 5,090 1/yr (1,350 gal/yr) ~ nitric acids at
20 percent by volume containing silver at concentrations as high as
65 gm/1. 136
-------
d. Acids low in metals - 102,000 1/yr (27,000 gal/yr) —mostly fluoboric
acid containing traces of copper, zinc, tin and lead.
e. Cyanides high in silver and copper - 213,000 1/yr (56,400 gal/yr) —
strips, floor spill, plating solution regeneration.
Rinsing Wastewater—
Rinse waters should be isolated from batch wastewater. Further segre-
gation is required for treatment purposes. The combined volumes for two or
more firms included in this study after the segregation are shown as:
a. Rinses following cleaners - 124,000 I/day at 200 1/min (32,800 GPD at
53 6PM).
b. Rinses following pickles, etc. - 9,500 I/day at 53 1/min (2,500 GPD at
14 GPM).
c. Rinses following acid/alkalines low in metal - 344,000 I/day at 735
1/min (91,000 GPD at 194 GPM).
d. Rinses following cyanides high in metal - 148,000 I/day at 318 1/min
39,200 GPD at 84 GPM).
e. Rinses following cyanides low in metal - 45,800 I/day at 136 1/min
(12,100 GPD at 36 GPM).
f. Rinses with solids only - 26,500 I/day at 151 1/min (7,000 GPD at
40 GPM).
Options Considered
The Primary Design discussed in Appendices A, B and C are based upon each
plant providing its own separate treatment facilities. Three major options
have been considered for joint participation.
Option I is concerned with all process wastewaters being delivered to a
single site for treatment. Option II is concerned with partial treatment
being provided at each plant and the remaining at a single site. The third
option is an expansion of Option II in that some of the on-site treatment
facilities are replaced with equipment designed to concentrate wastes at the
source and expand the amount to be treated at the common facility. This option
also includes additional companies using the joint facility.
Option I—
The concept of bringing all process wastewaters to a single treatment fa-
cility has some obvious advantages. More sophisticated treatment facilities
can be employed than could be economically justified at several single loca-
tions. Equipment that is only used on a part time basis at a single plant
would receive greater utilization with a resulting reduction in applied de-
137
-------
preciation. With a greater demand for quality control caused by an enlarged
treatment facility, a heavier investment in analytical testing and instrumen-
tation repair can be justified. In considering the manpower to operate a
single combined treatment facility, the needs of several companies can be com-
bined relative to operator skills and supervisory expertise. Accountability
for the results of treatment also is simplified for a single facility. How-
ever, it must be recognized that individual contributors to a joint treatment
facility still must be accountable for their individual discharges into the
common facility. Most of all, these advantages can be quantified.
The basic disadvantage to this concept, when applied to this particular
study, is the bringing of the process wastewaters to a single facility.
Figure 24 is a scaled map of Taunton, showing the relative locations of each
of the three firms. Reed & Barton Silversmiths has space available which is
sorely lacking at the other two firms. Poole Silver Company is nearest to
Reed & Barton. The distance between these two companies is 0.45 miles. The
shortest route to convey Poole1s waste is west on Whittenten Street, south on
Cottage Street, west on Britannia Street and into Reed & Barton's property.
The waste would have to be transported across Mill River. A conservative
estimate to lay drain lines between the two firms is $120,000 for the sewer
and $160,000 for a pumping station. Segregation by treatability of the vari-
ous waste streams could apply at least a three-fold multiplier to this cost.
F. B. Rogers Silver Company is approximately three miles from Reed & Barton.
The difference in elevation and the rather tortuous path required by the
streets in this city would result in many pumping stations. The costs associ-
ated with bringing all these wastes together for common treatment is prohib-
itive. Obviously, where the relative locations for various firms do not pre-
sent significant investment for collection, then the advantages are not over-
whelmed by collection costs.
Option II—
The overwhelming cost disadvantage in common treatment under Option I is
caused by the large volumes of rinse waters. Under Option II, the rinse waters
would be treated at each individual plant. With the exception of spent alka-
line cleaners, all other batch wastewater would be trucked to the common treat-
ment facility. Each plant would have its own internal batch isolation and
collection method that would be comparable to that discussed in Appendices A,
B and C under Primary Design. However, no batch treatment would be provided-
only collection and storage tanks. The batch treatment itself would be done
at a common site.
The same advantages as mentioned under Option I can be repeated. Option II
has the additional advantage over Option I in that the costs associated with
bringing the wastewater to the common facility are reduced. Costs are still
associated with the transport of collected batch wastes. This cost factor can
be quantified with relative ease. The reduction in costs by eliminating in-
dividual company's batch treatment can be estimated. By working with smaller
quantities that do not appear continuously, accountability is simplified. When
dealing with salvable metals, a well-monitored accounting system is mandatory
so that appropriate credits will accrue to the proper source.
138
-------
LEGEND
(2) - Hem & BARTON S*y£ftSMITHS
®-mOL£ sckfs courwtr
©- fS /JOGEWS SlUfK COURtNY
foot •" MOT «.-•
FIGURE 24. CITY OF TAUNTON
139
-------
Option III--
One of the firms has installed concentrating equipment as a part of its
waste treatment facility. The cation exchanger at F. B. Rogers removes the
dissolved nickel from rinses. Five thousand (5,000) gallons per day is proc-
essed through the exchanger. Two thousand five hundred (2,500) gallons per
month of concentrated waste is produced. This amounts to a concentrating
effect that is 40:1. Rinse waters that previously would be considered to be
impractical for transport to a common treatment facility can be considered to
be converted into a manageable batch discharge. In a similar manner rinse
waters following copper and silver cyanide plating at Sheffield Silver (a
subsidiary of Reed & Barton) are concentrated by the use of evaporative re-
covery techniques.
The initial considerations for this option are directed toward the three
companies involved. Expansion of the concept to allow for utilization by
neighboring industry having similar waste is desirable.
Quality Objectives
The quality objectives of joint treatment of selected batch wastewater
are based upon: the point(s) of discharge of the treated water (i.e. the river
or the sanitary sewer), the salvage values of the resulting sludges, and the
ultimate disposal site for sludges with little salvage value.
If the wastewater from batch treatment is to be discharged to the river,
then the quality must meet the requirements as identified in Appendix F. The
discharge should pass through the treatment facilities of flowing rinses at
the treatment site as additional insurance of complete treatment. This con-
cept is shown in the Primary Design discussed in Appendix A. The present laws
in Massachusetts limit the expansion of these treatment facilities to firms
generating waste within the state. Wastes from out of state are prohibited.
If the wastewater from batch treatment is to be discharged to the Taunton
sanitary sewer, then the quality must meet the requirements as identified in
Appendix E. Again, the discharge should pass through the treatment facilities
for rinse waters. The local ordinance prohibits the discharge of waste from
towns outside of Taunton (with one or two exceptions).
The design concepts employed result in salvable sludges that, at times,
will be mixtures of silver with other metals. These sludges have a lower
value to the refiner than those that are essentially only silver. Technologies
could be developed which would permit separation of the silver and the copper--
the most common combination of mixed metals. It is believed that this will
become a viable concept if the quantity is adequate to justify the additional
capital costs. Future considerations of this refinement will be dictated by
economies. Those sludges that are devoid of silver, or have insignificant
amounts of silver, wil'i contain hydroxides and oxides of copper, zinc, nickel,
iron, tin, lead and trivalent chromium. Considering the amounts of these
metals for these three companies, the volume does not dictate attempts at
140
-------
salvage. There is one possible exception with chromium. If the other chem-
icals present with the concentrated chromate are not objectionable, this
isolated waste could be sold to the tanning industry.
Those sludges resulting from waste treatment practices which do not have
salvage values will be in the metal hydroxide or oxide state. With adequate
protection at a disposal site to preclude mixing with solubilizing agents,
these sludges are considered suitable for land disposal. The regulations
relative to their disposal are provided in Appendix G.
Design Basis
The design basis for joint treatment of multicompany plating wastes in-
itially considers only the combined wastes for the three firms under study.
Expansion to include other companies'waste is a reasonable tenet.
Initial Basis--
The listing of batch wastes earlier in this appendix indicates the volumes
and types of common waste for two or more plants. Where a unique waste exists
at one plant (for examples—acid high in nickel at F. B. Rogers Silver Co.),
waste treatment itself results in a sludge that is common to the other firm's
waste. Consequently, the list can be expanded to include:
• acids high in nickel - 118,000 1/yr (31,000 gal/yr) resulting from ion
exchange back wash and regeneration
• chromates - 910 kg/yr on a dry basis (2,000 Ibs/yr)
• cyanides, low in metals - 32,000 1/yr (8,400 gal/yr).
From a treatability standpoint, the disposal techniques advocated for
batch alkali cleaners require negligible expenses for disposal at the plant of
origin. As all plants have sanitary sewer connections, and since this is the
preferred disposal site, nothing is gained by shipping these relatively large
volumes to a single common disposal site. Therefore, this type of batch waste
is excluded from joint treatment considerations.
With the alkaline cleaners excluded, the total batch waste having as its
sources the dumping of spent process solutions for the three companies is
130,000 gal/yr. This volume will be increased by floor spill containment and
collection of accidental discharges. While these latter items are more dif-
ficult to quantify, it is reasonable to expect the volume will increase by 50
percent. Therefore, the initial design is based upon 200,000 gal/yr.
Additional wastewater results from each plant's treatment of flowing
rinse waters for removal of cyanides and heavy metals. The sludges resulting
from suspended solids settling become batch waste. F. B. Rogers has existing
facilities for concentrating and dewatering the sludges. However, the volume
of sludges originating at Poole Silver Company does not warrant extensive de-
141
-------
watering equipment. It is believed that it is practical to transport the
somewhat concentrated sludge (approximately 5 percent solids) to Reed & Barton
where further dewatering can be done to reduce ultimate disposal costs.
Approximately 5,000 pounds a year are involved for nonsalvable sludges.
Of the total waste, over sixty percent originates at Reed & Barton Silver-
smiths. Considering costs to transport, it appears more practical to bring
the waste to Reed & Barton than anywhere else. The other two firms have
severe shortages of space for installing treatment facilities, while Reed &
Barton does have room available. Based upon these two considerations, the de-
sign considers locating the joint treatment facility at Reed & Barton.
The initial design basis also considers that filtration of settler efflu-
ent (See Appendix A, Alternative Design A-l and Appendix B, Alternative Design
B-l) will not be required. If stream discharge is prohibited and filtration
is required for these two firms, the amount of inert sludge having little sal-
vage value will increase by 130,000 pounds a year, of which 30,000 pounds a
year at five percent solids will be transported from Poole Silver Company to
Reed & Barton.
Expansion Basis-
Two avenues for expansion of the joint treatment facility should be con-
sidered. In the first case, flow through treatment systems could be replaced
with alternative equipment that would concentrate the waste into a quantity
that would then be considered as a batch discharge. This could then be trans-
ported to the common treatment site and eliminate on-premise treatment of that
particular waste. The other case considers including other firm's batch waste
for disposal via the three-company joint treatment.
For expansion within the three-company project, the most likely candidate
is Poole Silver Company. Evaporative recovery of cyanide rinse water is dis-
cussed in Appendix B, Alternative Design B-2. The concentrated batch wastes
containing mixtures of copper and silver cyanides will amount to 540 gallons
a year at concentrations comparable to that seen in dragout recovery tanks.
This is considered a relatively small amount for transport to the Reed & Barton
site. Another potential for expansion is concerned with nickel plating.
F. B. Rogers by itself does not have enough isolated nickel waste to attract
purchase by recovery firms. However, if Reed & Barton installs concentrating
techniques (evaporative recovery or reverse osmosis), then the combined volume
is close to that considered attractive to recovery firms.
Far greater potential for expansion exists beyond the three companies'
participation, liithin Taunton there are over fifteen companies producing metal
related wastewaters. Expanding the area to be serviced to include the entire South-
eastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District of Massachusetts,
an area of over 900 square miles, then the number of firms increases to many
hundreds. Obviously, not all of these firms have batch wastewaters which are
amenable to the treatment systems originally conceived for this project. Con-
sequently, a significant decision has been reached that forms a design basis
for expansion of treatment facilities. This decision is that treatment facil-
ities should be limited to those types of wastewaters which are comparable in
14
o
-------
quality. Expansion should include wastes that are like the eight involved
in this project and which are listed earlier.
Those wastes that would present unique treatment considerations and which
are dissimilar to these eight should not be considered in any expansion of this
project. These incompatible wastes from the plating and metal finishing
industry can produce an exhaustive list. To list a few examples: pickles used
for ferrous alloys; ferrocyanides from descaling, heat treating, and plating
bath purifications; highly chelated or ammoniated compounds common to the
printed circuit industry; zinc and cadmium plating solutions, their dragout
recovery and purification wastewater; and cyanide strips for nickel.
The decision to expand beyond Taunton requires acceptance for discharge of
treated waters to the Mill River.
It is difficult to quantify the amount of batch waste that would be com-
patible with this present common treatment facility. These volumes will only
be identified and known when pretreatment requirements prompt the individual
firms to address their pollution problems. The concept used in the development
of cost factors' for the joint treatment facility under the initial design basis
can be factored for increased utilization of basic equipment and, following
that, expansion by multiples of that initially designed.
Treatment Proposed
In order to keep from being repetitive, a condensed discussion of the
treatment proposed and a summary of cost factors are provided. For more details
refer to Batch Wastewater Treatment as described in Appendix A, using Figure
8 as a schematic presentation.
Basically, the common treatment facility will have storage facilities for
the eight types of batch wastes to be treated.
Those wastes that are acidic and high in salvable metal values will receive
pretreatment to reduce the amount of metals in the acids. Then, combined with
other less valuable acids, they will be neutralized for precipitation of heavy
metals. The sludges resulting will be concentrated and dewatered prior to dis-
posal on a suitable landfill site. The salvable metals will be either refined
in-house (to be discussed later) or shipped out for recovery values.
Those wastes that contain cyanides receive treatment first to extract sal-
vable values of silver (copper is a possibility); second, to destroy the
cyanide by electrolysis (followed by chlorination); and third, to concentrate
as a sludge for shipment to refiners with appropriate values recovered.
143
-------
Major Components
Cost Factors—
The equipment will consist of storage facilities for receiving the batch
waste; treatment equipment to salvage metal values; treatment equipment to
produce insoluble heavy metal oxides and hydroxides; sludge concentrating and
dewatering facilities; and disposal of residual water and accumulated inert
sludges. Costs can be attributed to installation, space requirements, engi-
neering support and operation expense.
Equipment--
Storage Tanks/Transfer Pumps $ 22,700
Treatment Equipment 51,200
Sludge Concentration 27,700
Miscellaneous Support 6,000
TOTAL $107i600
Installation— $ 24,000
Space Required-- @ 1,500 square feet $ 32,260
Engineering Support-- $ 10,000
Operation-- (on annual basis)
Labor $ 22,300
Energy 500
Chemicals 4,000
Maintenance Supplies 500
Sludge Disposal 9,000
Extramural 2,000
Transportation 3,000
TOTAL $ 41,300
Expanded Basis
The facilities described above will be suitable for the three firms com-
bined for joint treatment. Some of the subsystems have been sized for opti-
mizing labor used to support these systems. As a result, capacity exists for
treating additional wastewater that can result from use of the various alter-
natives (except those dealing with filtration prior to sanitary sewer dis-
charge). Additional excess capacity can be obtained by operating on a 24-hour
day basis. As additional waste receives treatment, the first operation to
reach maximum utilization is the high temperature electrolysis of cyanide; the
second is sludge concentration.
144
-------
Without adequate data to establish the quantities to be treated, it is
impractical to establish cost factors for an expanded concept.
Salvage or recovery values in the joint facility have been limited pri-
marily to silver and, to a minor extent, copper. The volumes of other metals
are not adequate to be attractive to refiners. Should the amount of any spec-
ific heavy metal (for example, nickel) increase to the point it is a salable
commodity, expansion and segregation should be considered. Under similar cir-
cumstances, it may become attractive to provide more sophisticated processing
to separate silver and copper from cyanides high in these combined metals.
Cost assessments at this point would be strictly speculative.
145
-------
APPENDIX E
EXCERPTS FROM THE CITY OF TAUNTON SEWER ORDINANCE
REGULATION OF SEWER USE: ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF PUBLIC SEWERS AND DRAINS, THE INSTALLATION
AND CONNECTION OF BUILDING SEWERS, AND THE DISCHARGE OF WATERS AND WASTES INTO
THE PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEMS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, IN
THE CITY OF TAUNTON, COUNTY OF BRISTOL, STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.
BE it ordained and enacted by the Municipal Council of the City of Taunton,
State of Massachusetts as follows:
ARTICLE I - Purpose
The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the use of the publicly
owned Sewerage Facilities by Industries served by the City of Taunton without
damage to the physical facilities, without impairment of their normal function
of collecting, treating and discharging domestic wastewaters from the area
served by the City, and without the discharge by the publicly owned treatment
works of pollutants which would be in violation of its permitted discharge
under the applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal regulatory
agencies.
ARTICLE II - Definitions
ARTICLE III - Building Sewers and Connections
ARTICLE IV - Prohibitions and Limitations on Wastewater Discharges
Section 1. Prohibitions on Wastewater Discharges
No person shall discharge or cause or allow to be discharged into the
Taunton Sewerage Facilities or any connected Treatment Facilities any waste
which contains any of the following:
(a) Oils and Grease
Any water or waste containing fats, wax, grease or oils whether emulsified
or not, in excess of one hundred (100) mg/1 or containing substances which may
solidify or become viscous at temperatures between thirty-two (32) and one
hundred fifty (150°F) (0 and 65°C); at the point of discharge into the system.
(b) Explosive Mixtures
Liquids, solids, or gases which by reason of their nature or quantity are,
or may be, sufficient to cause fire or explosion or be injurious in any other
way to the sewerage facilities or to the operation of the system. Prohibited
146
-------
materials include but are not limited to: gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, benzene,
toluene, xylene, ethers, alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, peroxides, chlorates,
perchlorates, bromates, carbides, hydrides, and sulfides.
(c) Noxious Materials
Any waters or wastes containing phenols or other taste or odor producing
substance, in such concentrations exceeding limits which may be established by
the Superintendent as necessary after treatment of the composite sewage to meet
the requirements of the State, Federal, or other public agencies or jurisdiction
for such discharge to the receiving waters.
(d) Improperly Shredded Garbage
Any garbage that has not been properly shredded, with no particle greater
than one-half (1/2) inch in any dimension. The installation and operation of
any garbage grinder equipped with a motor of three-fourths (3/4) horsepower
(0.76 hp metric) or greater shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Superintendent.
(e) Radioactive Wastes
Any radioactive wastes or isotopes of such half-life or concentration
that they are in compliance with regulations issued by the appropriate author-
ity having control over their use and which will or may cause damage or hazards
to the sewage facilities or personnel operating the system.
(f) Solid of Viscous Wastes
Solid or viscous wastes in quantities or of such size capable of causing
obstruction to the flow in sewers, or other interference with the proper oper-
ation of the sewage works. Prohibited materials include, but are not limited
to: grease, underground garbage, animal intestines or tissues, paunch manure,
bones, hair, hides or fleshings, entrails, whole blood, feathers, ashes, cinders,
sand, spent lime, stone or marble dust, metal, glass, straw, shavings, grass
clippings, rags, spent grains, spent hops, waste paper, wood, plastic, tar,
asphalt residues, residues from refining or processing of fuel or lubricating
oil, and similar substances.
(g) Excessive Discharge Rate
Wastewaters at a flow rate which is excessive relative to the capacity of
the treatment works and which would cause a treatment process and subsequent
loss of treatment efficiency; or wastewaters containing such concentrations or
quantities of pollutants that their introduction into the treatment works over
a relatively short time period (referred to as a slug discharge) would cause a
treatment process upset and subsequent loss of treatment efficiency.
147
-------
(h) Toxic Substances
Any water or wastes containing toxic or poisonous solids, liquids, or
gases in sufficient quantity, either singly or by interaction with other
wastes, to injure or interfere with any sewage treatment process, constitute
a hazard to humans or animals, create a public nuisance, or create any hazard
in the receiving waters of the sewage treatment plant.
(i) Unpolluted Waters
No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged stormwater, surface
water, groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, uncontaminated cooling
water, or unpolluted industrial process water to any sanitary sewer. Storm-
water and all other unpolluted drainage shall be discharged to such sewers as
are specifically designated as combined sewers or storm sewers. Industrial
cooling water or unpolluted process waters may be discharged, on approval of
the Superintendent, to a storm sewer or combined sewer.
(j) Discolored Material
Any wastes with objectionable color (such as, but not limited to, dye
wastes and vegetable tanning solutions) not removable by the treatment process.
(k) Corrosive Wastes
1. Any wastes which will cause corrosion or deterioration of the sewage
facilities. All wastes discharged to the public sewer system must have a pH
in the range of 5.5 to 9.5. Prohibited materials include, but are not limited
to, acids, sulfides, concentrated chloride and fluoride compounds and sub-
stances which will react with water to form corrosive products.
2. Any organic solvents which may interfere with the operation of the
wastewater collection system or the sewage treatment plant; or which may re-
sult in a violation of the City's NPDES permit.
(1) Miscellaneous Materials
1. Unusual concentrations of inert suspended solids (such as, but not
limited to, Fuller's earth, lime slurries, and lime residues or of dissolved
solids (such as, but not limited to, sodium chloride and sodium sulfate.)
2. Any liquid or vapor having a temperature higher than one hundred fifty
degrees (150°F or 65°C).
3. Any waters or wastes exerting an excessive chlorine requirement.
4. Unusual volume of flow or concentration of wastes constituting "slugs"
as defined herein.
148
-------
(m) Untreatable Wastes
"Waters or wastes containing substances which are not amenable to treat-
ment or reduction by the sewage treatment process employed, or are amenable to
treatment only to such degree that the sewage treatment plant effluent cannot
meet the requirements of other agencies having jurisdiction over discharge to
the receiving waters."
Section 2. Specific Limitation of the Discharge of Pollutants
The following is a partial list of the maxium concentrations of pollutants
allowable in wastewater discharges to the Public Sewer (dilution of any waste-
water discharge for the purpose of satisfying these requirements shall be con-
sidered a violation of the ordinance):
Maximum Concentration Allowable
Substance in Milligrams per Liter
Arsenic 0.1
Cadmium 0.2
Chromium (Total) 1.0
Copper 2.0
Cyanides 1.0
Lead 1.0
Mercury 0.01
Nickel 1.0
Silver 1.0
Zinc 3.0
Any industry discharging wastes which exceed the following concentrations
must obtain additional written approval from the Sewer Commissioners:
Total Solids 5,000
Suspended Solids 1,000
BOD 1,000
COD 2,000
ARTICLE V - Control of Prohibited Wastes
ARTICLE VI - Industrial Wastewater Sampling and Analysis
ARTICLE VII - Industrial Discharge Permit System
ARTICLE VIII - Protection from Damage
149
-------
ARTICLE IX - Penalties
ARTICLE X - Industrial Self-Monitoring Requirements
ARTICLE XI - Validity
ARTICLE XII - Ordinance in Force
150
-------
APPENDIX F
REGULATIONS FOR RIVER DISCHARGE ANTI DEGRADATION
REQUIREMENTS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS*
(Water Resources Commission Rules and Regulations for the Establishment of Mini-
mum Water Quality Standards and for the Protection of the Quality and Value of
Water Resources; Adopted April 11, 1974; Effective May 2, 1974)*
REGULATION III - General Provisions
1. It is recognized that certain waters of the Commonwealth possess an exist-
ing quality which is better than the standards assigned thereto.
A. Except as otherwise provided herein, no new discharge of wastewater
will be permitted into any stream, river or tributary upstream of the
most upstream discharge of wastewater from a municipal waste treatment
facility or municipal sewer discharging wastes requiring appropriate
treatment as determined by the Division. Any person having an existing
wastewater discharge shall be required to cease said discharge and con-
nect to a municipal sewer unless it is shown by said person that such
connection is not available or feasible. Existing discharges not con-
nected to a municipal sewer will be provided with the highest and best
practical means of waste treatment to maintain high water quality. New
discharges from a municipal waste treatment facility into such waters
will be permitted provided that such discharge is in accordance with a
plan developed under the provisions of Section 27(10) of Chapter 21 of
the General Laws (Massachusetts Clean Waters Act) which has been the
subject of a Public Hearing and approved by the Division. The discharge
of industrial liquid coolant wastes in conjunction with the public and
private supply of heat or electrical power may be allowed provided that
a permit has been issued by the Division and that such discharge is in
conformance with the terms and conditions of the permit and in conform-
ance with the water quality standards of the receiving waters.
B. Except as otherwise provided herein no new discharge of wastewater will
be permitted in Class SA or SB waters. Any person having an existing
discharge of wastewater into Class SA or SB waters will be required to
cease said discharge and to connect to a municipal sewer unless it is
shown by said person that such connection is not available or feasible.
Existing discharges not connected to a municipal sewer will be provided
with the highest and best practical means of waste treatment to main-
tain high water quality. New discharges from a waste treatment facil-
ity into such waters will be permitted provided that such discharge is
in accordance with a plan developed under the provisions of Section 27
(10) of Chapter 21 of the General Laws (Massachusetts Clean Waters Act)
which has been the subject of a Public Hearing and approved by the Di-
vision. The discharge of industrial liquid coolant wastes in conjunc-
tion with the public and private supply of heat or electrical power
may be allowed provided that such discharge is in conformance with the
Water Quality Standards of the receiving waters.
* These provisions were in effect at the time of the project. They have since
been expanded to include protection of existing uses and specific resources.
151
-------
DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS ON METAL FINISHING EFFLUENTS*
Pollutant Concentrations for Operational Treatment Facilitiests *
TSS
Cyanide (Dest. by C12)
Cyanide (Total)
Fluoride
Aluminum
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (+6)
Chromium (Total)
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Tin
PH
Daily Average'
(mg/1)
20
0.05
0.5
18
0.5
2.0
0.2
0.05
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.1
2.0
2.0
0.05
0.5
1.0
6.0-9.5 range
Daily Maximum
(mg/1)
30
0.01
1.0
36
1.0
4.0
0.2
0.1
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.2
4.0
2.0
0.1
1.0
2.0
§
*Letter to Region I EPA: Metal Finishing Permits Revised Format, Table I; The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Division of Water
Pollution Control, July 3, 1974.
t Metal concentrations are based on analysis of filtered sample using a 0.4
micron membrane filter. The maximum permissible concentration for a par-
ticular metal in the total suspended solids shall be 1 mg/1.
2
t These limitations shall apply to small metal finishers (less than 33 m/hr)
for the initial five-year permit and to large metal finishers (greater than
33 m2/hr) until June 30, 1977.
§ Daily Average value referes to an eight grab composite collected over a
normal operating day. Daily Maximum value refers to an individual grab
sample. Both values are explicitly defined in the permit.
152
-------
APPENDIX G
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
"Special Wastes - Materials such as sewage solids, radio-active wastes, patho-
logic wastes, explosive materials, chemicals, certain liquid wastes, or other
materials of hazardous nature or materials requiring handling or procedures for
disposal."
Regulation 16. Special Wastes*
16.1 The operator may make special provisions for the limited disposal
of certain special wastes; provided that such disposal may be conducted in
a separate area specially designated for this purpose and with the permission
of the assigning agency. A copy of the permit for the disposal of such
special wastes shall be filed with the Department of Public Health and the
Divisionof Water Pollution Control.
16.2 The handling and disposal of certain chemical and other hazardous
wastes shall be in accordance with Section 57 and 58 of Chapter 21 of the
General Laws. (Generally these wastes must be licensed by the Division of
Water Pollution Control.)
Hazardous Wastes
The following classes of materials are identified as hazardous wastes
within the scope of these regulations. Materials may be added to or removed
from each category or additional categories established by action of the
Hazardous Wastes Board.**
Waste Oils - Materials which are classified as waste oils include those oils
having flash points at or about 100° F which are no longer usable for the serv-
ices for which they were manufactured due to the presence of impurities or loss
of certain compounds. These include but are not limited to crude oil, fuel
oils, lubricating oils, kerosene, diesel fuels, cutting oil emulsions, hydrau-
lic oils and other nonchlorinated industrial oils that are discarded as waste
or are recovered from oil separators, oil spills, tank bottoms or other sources.
Solvent and Chlorinated Oils - Materials classified under this heading include
insoluble or partially soluble organic chemicals and petroleum derivatives which
require special disposal precautions because of flammability (i.e. flash points
below 100°F), toxicity or composition (i.e.contain elements such as chlorine or
* Massachusetts Regulations for the Disposal of Solid Wastes by Sanitary
Landfill (Massachusetts Division of Environmental Health; Effective
April 21, 1977)
** Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations (Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control Hazardous Waste Regulations; Effective January 11, 1973).
153
-------
sulfur in concentrations which prohibit conventional incineration). These in-
clude but are not limited to chlorinated solvents and oils, gasoline, aromatics,
organic pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and low-boiling insoluble ke-
tones, alcohols and ethers.
Toxic Metals Etchants, Pickling and Plating Wastes - Materials which are clas-
sified under this heading are aqueous solutions and sludges containing cyanides
or toxic metals which include but are not limited to mercury, beryllium, cad-
mium, chromium, nickel, copper, lead, zinc, arsenic, thallium and antimony.
Explosives, Reactive Metals and Compounds - Materials which are classified
under this heading are explosives and materials which are highly reactive
either by themselves or on contact with water to form ions or compounds norm-
ally present in sea water. These include but are not limited to lithium, sodium,
magnesium, aluminum, potassium and titanium metals and their highly reactive
inorganic compounds.
Hazardous, Chemical, Biological and Radioactive Wastes - Materials included
under this heading include military (nerve) gases, other biological and chemi-
cal warfare agents, radioactive wastes and compounds assigned a moderate or
serious hazard category (No. 2 or greater) in the National Fire Protection
Association identification system and not otherwise classified above, or equip-
ment containing or contaminated by such hazardous materials.
Handling of Hazardous Wastes
3.1 Except as provided in Regulation 1.0, no person shall engage in the
collection, conveyance or disposal of hazardous wastes classified within the
scope of these regulations from any site to a disposal site off the premises
without having obtained a license from the Division of Water Pollution Control,
issued in accordance with these regulations, for the appropriate class(es) of
hazardous wastes as determined by the Board.
3.2 Except as provided in Regulation 1.0, no person shall operate a waste
disposal facility, landfill site, or storage facility for hazardous wastes clas-
sified within the scope of these regulations without having obtained a license
from the Division of Water Pollution Control, issued in accordance with these
regulations, for the appropriate class(es) of hazardous wastes as determined by
the Board.
3.3 No person shall dispose of hazardous wastes at a land site in the
Commonwealth unless the site has been approved by the Division of Water Pollution
Control for disposal of that class of wastes. Any land disposal site will also
be subject to current Regulations for the Disposal of Solid Wastes by Sanitary
Landfill, as adopted by the Division of Environmental Health, Massachusetts
Department of Public Health.
3.4 No person shall transport hazardous wastes through waters of the Com-
monwealth for the purpose of off-shore disposal nor dispose of hazardous wastes
154
-------
in waters of the Commonwealth unless off-shore disposal of that class of waste
has been approved by the Division of Water Pollution Control and disposal is
accomplished in a dumping ground designated by the Division. In no case shall
the following be dumped in any of the waters of the Commonwealth:
1. Mercury and mercury compounds.
2. Beryllium and beryllium compounds.
3. Cadmium and cadmium compounds.
4. Arsenic, lead and thallium, and compounds thereof.
5. Organohalogen compounds and compounds which may form such matters in
the marine environment, including but not limited to Aldrin, Lindane,
Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzene,
Polyhalogenated Biphenyls, (PCB), and Toxaphene.
6. Waste oils taken on board for the purpose of dumping.
7. Radioactive wastes.
8. Military (nerve) gases and other biological and chemical warfare
agents.
9. Materials in the highest health hazard category (#4) in the National
Fire Protection Association identification system.
3.5 Wastes shall be strictly segregated by classes by the originators and
the persons involved in collection, conveyance and disposal of the wastes. All
hazardous wastes shall be stored and maintained in such a manner that the con-
tents of a ruptured container or other source of spillage, whether accidental or
otherwise, will not cause or contribute to a condition in contravention of the
Water Quality Standards.
155
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-102
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION* NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
GROUP TREATMENT OF MULTICOMPANY PLATING WASTES:
THE TAUNTON SILVER PROJECT
5. REPORT DATE
July 1979 (issuing date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Henry C.
Gill, J. H. Shockcor*, and Marsha Gorden**
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Reed & Barton Silversmiths
Taunton, Massachusetts 02780
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. eWTTffWOT/GRANT NO.
S-805181
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
*Woodstock, Vermont 05091
**Development Sciences Inc., Sagamore, Massachusetts 02561
16.ABSTRACTj^g requiregents for industrial pretreatment will limit the entrance of metals
into municipal treatment facilities in many communities. Within a city or region, op-
portunities for grouping waste streams from several similar companies for combined treat
mentmay exist. This project was designed to consider three companies from the metal-
related field in the City of Taunton, Massachusetts, as possible candidates. The intent
to explore the treatment technology applicable to this segment of the electroplating
ndustry in order to determine the potential for cost savings with group treatment and
Iso to develop the legal and institutional arrangements necessary for successful im-
plementation and operation. Technical and economic data are presented on individual
:ontrol alternatives for each of the three companies as well as on group treatment, with
several variations for concentrated wastes and sludges. In addition, the potential for
naterial recovery and water reuse within the various control alternatives is developed.
Finally, the appropriate institutional and financial factors for ownership and operation
f an industrial group treatment facility are described. The project is an outgrowth
f a Section 208 (PL 92-500) areawide wastewater management plan under development by
the Southern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) of Massachu-
etts as an alternative approach to meeting pretreatment requirements. The materials
n the report are designed to assist the companies in determining whether they should
treat particular elements of their waste separately or jointly.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Electroplating
Waste treatment
Silver
Cyanide
Nickel
Copper
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI field/Group
Batch treatment
Spent bath
Rinsewater
Group treatment
Individual treatment
Treatment cost
68 D
B. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
166
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
156
U. 5. GOVERNMENT PRINT ING OFFICE: 1919 — 657-060/5358
------- |