PROJECTED WASTEWATER
                  in  the
     ORGANIC CHEMICALS
              INDUSTRY
               A study conducted by:
    Cyrus Wm. Rice and Company
       Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                In cooperation with
     W. Wesley Eckenfelder, Jr. and Associates
                Austin, Texas

              Roy F. Western, Inc.
           West Chester, Pennsylvania

       Resource Engineering Associates, Inc.
             Stamford, Connecticut

-------
        PROJECTED WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS
         IN  THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
              A Study Conducted By:
             CYRUS WM.  RICE AND COMPANY
              PITTSBURGH,  PENNSYLVANIA
                In Cooperation With
      W. WESLEY ECKENFELDER, JR. AND ASSOCIATES
                  AUSTIN,  TEXAS
               ROY F. WESTON, INC.
             WEST CHESTER,  PENNSYLVANIA
        RESOURCE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC
               STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT
        Prepared under contract with the
federal Water Pollution Control Administration
             U.S. Dept. of the Inferior

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                              Page
                                                              -•M W

   I.  Summary	   3

  II.  Introduction	  10

 III.  The Organic Chemicals Industry	  11

  IV.  Projected Industry Growth	  19

   V.  Wastewater Characteristics	  21

  VI.  Wastewater Treatment Methods	  27

 VII.  Industrial Waste Treatment Practices Data Form	  33

VIII.  Plant Survey Data	  34

  IX.  Costs of Unit Wastewater Treatment Methods	  49

   X.  Costs Versus Effluent Quality Relationships	  60

  XI.  Projected Industry Costs	  88

 XII.  Methodology for Wastewater Treatment Costs
       Determination	103

XIII.  Appendicies:

       A.  Industrial Waste Treatment Practices Data Form....107
       B.  Organic Chemicals Industry Survey Data	117
       C.  Petrochemical Industry Product Profiles	122
       D.  Costs of Unit Wastewater Treatment Practices	168

 XIV.  Bibliography	184

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

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


                       INDUSTRY PROJECTIONS


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

  Production in Large Plants (109#)

  Total Industry Production (109#)

  Waste Water Volumes:

     Large Plants (109 gpy)                    287        323
     Large Plants (gpd/ton/yr")                  12.2        9.23
     Municipal Discharges  (109 gpy)              94.9      141

-------
The data indicate that the average large plant can be  expected to
treat 3.2 mgd of wastewater during the five-year period 1969-1973.
The capital costs for such an average plant are given  below versus
the level of treatment attained, in 1968 dollars.
Level
Removal Critical Pollutants    $/1000 gpd   Cost  (5.2  mgd)

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

147
176
250
700
751
1648

$ 470,400
563,200
800,000
2,240,000
2,403,200
5,273,600
On the basis of the above costs in the average large plant,  the esti-
mated numbers of large plants, the total estimated discharges  to
municipal sewers, and the assumption that the capital costs
associated with the latter disposal means are those entailed in
Level 1 treatment, capital costs are estimated as  follow for the
entire industry in terms of current dollars,  using the ENR Construc-
tion Cost Index to adjust 1968 prices.
Treatment Level

       1

       2

       3

       4

       5

       6
                        Industry Capital Costs (Millions  of Dollars)
1969
158.9
182.5
242.6
608.1
649.6
1378.1
1970
172.6
197.8
261.8
561.2
695.3
1471.4
1971
188.3
215.1
283.6
699.9
747.1
1576.9
1972
204.8
233.4
306.5
751.1
801.6
1687.7
1973
222.6
253.2
331.2
805.3
859.1
1804.2

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


Level     Removal Critical Pollutants     $/yr/100 gpd  $/yr (5.2  mgd)

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

7
8.5
13
105
120
350

22,400
27,200
41,600
336,000
384,000
1,120,000
Assuming that the operating costs  associated with the discharge of
industrial wastes to municipal sewers  are  10 cents per 1000 gpd, the
total operating costs for the industry are given below in current
dollars, using the ENR Construction Cost Index to adjust 1968
prices.

                       Industry Operating  Costs (Millions of Dollars)

Treatment Level

       1

       2

       3

       4

       5

       6
1969
15.5
16.8
20.4
95.1
107.3
294.1
1970
17.3
18.7
22.5
102.1
115.1
314.1
1971
19.5
20.9
25.0
110.2
124.0
356.8
1972
21.9
23.4
27.8
119.4
134.3
363.2
1973
24.4
25.9
30.7
128.3
144.2
388.2

-------
                  THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY


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

Total sales in the organic chemicals industry are estimated to  be
11.9 billion dollars in 1969 and 15.6 billion dollars in 1973.
Production is estimated at 135.6 billion pounds  in 1969, increasing
to 201.6 billion pounds in 1973.  Growth in the  industry is not
expected to be uniform either among the various  segments of the
industry or among the various geographical areas in which the
industry operates.

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

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

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

The chemical industry has  generally found that in-plant, separate
treatment has economic advantages, particularly when significant
quantities of contaminated wastewater are involved.  No significant
percentage increase is expected in the amount of  organic chemical
wastewaters that will be treated in joint systems in the near
future.   On the basis of an annual production of  about 71 billion
pounds by the organic chemicals industry in 1963, municipal
discharges might be expected to be about 1400 gallons per ton of
production for the industry as  a whole.


                 DATA ACQUISITION AND METHODOLOGY


Data from 53 organic chemicals  plants were obtained and formatted
according to the Industrial Waste Treatment Practices Data Form,
which was developed in the course of this study and is described in
the report.  This form may be used for the acquisition of data upon
which the cost-effectiveness of industrial waste  treatment practices
can be determined in general.  Although  the form  has utility in
tabulating data for a single plant or firm, the prime purpose is to
format data for analysis in terms of general industry practices.
Data formatted in this system can be retrieved according to selected
parameters, and can be readily  sorted and printed out according  to
selected parameters, and can be readily  analyzed  and correlated  by
machine computation.

The data obtained are given in  some detail in the report in terms  of
bar graphs and various calculated parameters relating wastewater
volumes, plant production, and  costs.  It is of particular signifi-
cance that the distributions of wastewater volume and annual produc-
tion are markedly skewed in opposite directions and, although most
of the plants surveyed were judged to be medium or large in terms  of
production, employment was relatively low in most cases.  The level
of technology in the surveyed plants was generally judged to be
average or advanced, although the median age of the plants was 18
years.  The explanation of such an apparent anomaly lies in the
relatively short lives of chemical processes and equipment; replace-
ment equipment and new processes installed in even the older plants
tend to be of modern design.

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

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

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


     METHODOLOGY FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS DETERMINATION


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

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

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

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

-------
                      II.   INTRODUCTION


This study was performed pursuant to Contract No.  14-12-435, with
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,  Department
of the Interior, and is a part of the National Requirements  and
Cost Estimate Study required by the Federal Water  Pollution  Control
Act as amended.

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

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

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

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

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

The comments and suggestions received from members of  the Water Re-
sources Committee of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association are
gratefully acknowledged.
                             10

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


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

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

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

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

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

                             TABLE I

      FINANCIAL RATIOS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS INDUSTRY

	Ratio	  1965  1964  1965  1966  1967(1)
Profits after taxes/sales (%)      7.5   7.9   7.9   7.8
Profits after taxes/net worth (%) 12.9  14.3  14.7  14.7
Capital Expenditures/gross
  plant (%)                        6.7   7.3   8.6   8.7
Depreciation/gross plant (!)       6.1   5.8   5.8   5.8
Depreciation/sales (%)             4.5   4.4   4.4   4.4
Sales/total assets                 1.1   1.1   1.1   1.1
           7.0
SOURCE:  U. S. Industrial Outlook 1968, U. S. Dept. of Commerce
(1) First half

By comparison, profits after taxes as percentages of sales for
all manufacturing industries were 5.6 in 1966 and 5.0 in 1967.
Estimated values of shipments in the Industrial Chemicals Industry
for 1968 are shown in Table II.

                             TABLE II

  VALUES OF.SHIPMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS INDUSTRY - 1968

	Industry Group	    SIC     Value of Shipments ($106)
Alkalies and Chlorine           2812
Industrial Gases                2813
Intermediates, Dyes, Crudes     2815
Inorganic Pigments              2816
Organic Chemicals, n.e.c.       2818
Inorganic Chemicals, n.e.c.     2819

      Total                      281
   880
   620
 1,770
   630
 7,700
 4,300

15,900
SOURCE:  U. S. Industrial Outlook 1968, U. S.  Dept.  ofCommerce

Organic chemicals thus constitute about 601 of the entire Indus-
trial Chemicals Group in terms of value of shipments.  The
Industrial Chemicals Industry in 1966 had a total value added of
$7,700 million dollars and shipments valued at $13,857 million
dollars.  The price index for the industry in 1966 was 95.7 on
the basis of 1957-59 = 100.
                              12

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

(a)  The industry is characterized by a rapid growth pattern.
     It is anticipated that the petrochemical industry will
     expand (on a volume basis) at the annual rate of 8-121.
     Pollution control problems will, of course, be increased
     in some relation to increased production capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
                                      ETHYLENE
                                      GLYCOL
                                                                      POLYESTER
ACRYLO
NITRILE
               VINYL
             ACETATE
                                                VINYL
                                              CHLORIDE
             ETHYLEN
              OXIDE
  POLY-
ETHYLENE
  POLY-
STYRENE
                                                    ETHYL
                                                   BENZENE
         POLY-
       PROPYLENE
              BASIC
            FEEDSTOCKS
GLYCERINE h-
                  DIRECT
                t OXIDATION
          ISO-
       PROPANOL
                                      ACETAL
                                      DEHYDE
                    PROPYLENE
                      OXIDE
                       AND
                     GLYCOL
              ACIDS
            ALCOHOLS
            ALDEHYDES
ACRYLATES
                                       ACETIC
                                        ACID
                                                 CELLULOSE
                                                   ACETATE
                    POLYESTER
                                 Figure 1 - OLEFINS AND ACETYLENE

-------
  PARA-
IXYLENE,
                ,TNT
                         NYLON
                       TOLUENE
             MIXED
           .XYLENES
ORTHO-
,XYLENE
 POLYESTERS
                     CYCLO-
                    iHEXANE;
                                    0V
                         REFINERY
                         REFORMATS
                         AND OTHER
                        .FEEDSTOCKS
             PHTHALIC
             ANHYDRIDE
                         RESINS
                                                 ETHYL
                                                BENZENE,
                                                              -MSTYRENE
                                                     DETERGENT]
                                                     ALKLYLATEJ
                                                  DDT
                                                              -HCUMENE
      ANILINE,
ACETONE
                                                [C6H5OH
                            Figure 2 - AROMATICS
BISPHENOL1
   A
                                                               URETHANES

-------
                                AMMONIUM
                                 NITRATE
                 PETROLEUM
                  SOURCES
                                                PENTA-
                                              ERYTHRITILE
  MISCELLANEOUS
ORGANIC CHEMICALS

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

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

-------
                       LOCATION  OF   MAJOR  ORGANIC   CHEMICAL  PLANTS   MAP A
00
      • over IOOO employees
      • 500-999 employees
      • 250-499 employees
                                                                                                    SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                                  0	100  200   300

-------
               IV.   PROJECTED INDUSTRY GROWTH
Projected growth in the organic chemicals  industry,  for the
purpose of the present study,  is best expressed in terms of
production based upon the tonnage of chemicals produced.
Growth estimates have been obtained from Chemical and Engi-
ne ering^ News^  a publication of the American Chemical Society.
The dataware obtained from a sophisticated analysis  which in-
corporates estimates of overall employment, rate of growth of
the economy, etc. as well as specific characteristics of the
industry and marketability prospects for its products.  These
data are considered to be the  most reliable available.
                           TABLE III

       PROJECTED PRODUCTION AND SALES OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS
Year

1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
   Sales
109 Dollars

    8.46
    9.0
    9.9
   10.5
   11.2
   11.9
   12.7
   13.7
   14.6
   15.6
Production
1Q9 Pounds

   78.7
   88.9
  100.6
  111.7
  122.4
  135.6
  150.4
  166.9
  183.5
  201.6
   Sales
109 Pounds

   42.8
   46.8
   52.7
   56.6
   61.6
   67.1
   73.2
   79.9
   86.9
   94.3
SOURCE:INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS,  private communication


The above data are applicable to the total organic chemicals
industry.  Rates of growth in various segments of the industry
vary considerably, as do the rates of growth by geographical
regions.  Expected rates of growth over the next decade accor-
ding to industry segments and geographical distribution are
given  in tables IV and V.
                               19

-------
                            TABLE IV

PROJECTED GROWTH RATES IN VARIOUS INDUSTRY SEGMENTS THRU 1975

          Industry Segment          Growth Rate (% per year)

      Urea and Ammonia                         9
      Petrochemicals                           9
      Industrial Gases                         5
      Cyclic Intermediates, etc.               6
      Misc. Organic Chemicals                 10


SOURCE:REA Projections


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


                            TABLE V

    INDUSTRY GROWTH RATES BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS THRU 1975

	Area	         Growth Rate (% per year)

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


SOURCE:REA Projections!

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

-------
                V.   WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS


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

Contaminated Wastewaters

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

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

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

-------
                                                TABLE VI

                         TYPICAL PROCESS GENERATION OF CONTAMINATED  WASTEWATERS
       Operation
                Sources
    Typical Pollutants
Process units
Specific Syntheses
Specific treating
  operations
Overhead water from distillation,
cracking, coking, etc.
                        Alkylation and polymerization
                        processes
                        Hydrodesulfurization and reforming
                        processes
Specific process for specific compound
Sweetening, stripping, filtering
Low molecular weight hydrocarbons,
coke, gums, organic acid,  soaps,
salts, phenols and phenolates,
cyanides ammonia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acetylene



Methane

Higher Paraffins

Ethylene



Propylene


C^ Hydrocarbons


Higher Olefins

Aromatics


Carbon Monoxide

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

Natural gas

Refinery gas streams or natural gas

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

Refinery gas streams or by thermal
cracking of liquid hydrocarbons

Refinery gas streams or by thermal
cracking of liquid hydrocarbons

Waxcracking

Liquid petroleum fraction recovery,
dehydrogenation, hydrogenation

Partial oxidation of hydrocarbons

Partial oxidation of hydrocarbons
                               23

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

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

Clean Wastewaters

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

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

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

-------
                                        TABLE  VII

              WASTEWATER  CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED  WITH  SOME  CHEMICAL PRODUCTS
Primary Petrochemicals

   Ethylene
   Propylene

Primary Intermediates

   Toluene
   Xylene
   Ammonia
   Methanol
   Ethanol
   Buthanol
   Ethyl Benzene
   Chlorinate Hydrocarbons

Secondary Intermediates

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

Primary Polymers

   Polyethylene
   Polypropylene
   Polystyrene
   Polyvinyl Chloride
   Cellulose Acetate
   Butyl  Rubber

Dyes  and  Pigments
 Miscellaneous Organics

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











1
1



1





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

1
3
4
3

10
5
3

5
3
5


3
2
COD


mg/L
,000
,000
,500
,000
100
,000
,000
,000
,000
150
,000
,000
,500
300
,000
,000
,000
700
200
,000
,000


1
1


1
1
1

2
2
1


2
2


1

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

2
4
8
7

15
10
7

8
4
15
1

6
5
,000
,000
,000
,000
250
,000
,000
,000
,000
500
,000
,000
,000
500
,000
,000
,000
,500
400
,000
,000

Other Characteristics
phenol, pH, oil
phenol, pH


oil, nitrogen
oil
oil, solids
heavy metals
heavy metals
pH, oil, solids
phenol, solids



pH
heavy metals
solids, color, cyanide
color, cyanide, pH
oil, solids




50-
500-
800-



2
2


500
,000
,000

1
1
1
2
200-
200-
,000-
,000-
,000-
,500-
4
4
3
2
5
5
,000 solids
,000
,000 solids
,000
,000
,000
  200-   400      500- 2,000  heavy metals, color,
                                  solids, pH
1,000- 2,500    4,000- 8,000  nitrogen
1,000- 2,500    4,000- 8,000  phenol
1,500- 3,500    3,000- 6,000  solids, pH
  500- 2,000    1,000- 3,000  phosphorus
 SOURCE:  Roy F.  Western  and  REA
                                           25

-------
                       TABLE VIII COMPOSITION OF TYPICAL CLEAN WATER EFFLUENT
                % of Total                          POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS	
Water Sources   Waste Water  Flow Range (GPM)   Sources
                                                                           Type
Cooling Water
(excluding sea
    water)
                  40-80
 100-10,000
 (500-200,000
 gal.  water ton
 product)
Process leaks:
Bearings, exchangers,
    etc.
                                               Water treatment
Steam
  Equipment
                   10
50-1,000
                                               Scrubbed from air
                                                 through tower
                                               Make-up Water
Boiler Blowdown
                                               Waste Condensate
Concentration
Range (ppm)

  1-  1000
Extractables
Mercaptans
sulfides
Phenols
Cyanide
Mies. N. compounds
Acids
Chrornate
Phosphate
Heavy metals
Fluoride
Sulfate
Biocides, algacides
Misc. organics
Hydrogen sulfide
Sulfur dioxide
Oxides of nitrogen
Ammonia
Particulates
Total dissolved solids 100-5000
Particulates             0-100
Phosphates               0-5
Fluoride                 0-2
Total dissolved solids 500-10,000
Particulates             5-300
Extractables             0-10
Phosphate                1-50
Sulfite                  0-50
Sulfide                  0-5
Misc. organic compounds  0-200
Misc. N compounds        1-100
Heavy metals             0-10
Alkalinity               50-400
Extractables             0-100
Ammonia                  0-10
                                                                                           0-1000, but
                                                                                           usually less
                                                                                           than 1 ppm

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

                                                                                               0-  1000
                                                                                               0-300
SOURCE:  Freedman. A. J - .  et~ al. .  Natl .  Petroleum Refiners Assoc.. Tech. GC-67-19 . 1967

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

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

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

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

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

-------
                                                                                Figure  4

                                                                               Chemical  Industry
                                                           Wastewater Treatment  Sequence/Processes Substitution Diagram
Pretreatment
Dilute Wastewater
1 L
^

Screening &
Grit Removal
•
Equal Izatlon
& Storage
•
Oil Separation^

Primary Treatment
Chemical


' 4 Neutralization ^
4
i »
4 Chemical Addition
& Coagulation
5
Physical


']Gas Flotation^
1
, 6
*(SedlmentatlonH

7
Secondary Treatment
Dissolved To
Suspended Transfer


1 Activated Sludge |*
9
£ on tact Stabilization!*

'•\ Trickling Filter \*

*\ Aerated Lagoon [*»

Suspended Solids
Removal

1 T
*-)Sedlment«tlonlJ ,
10
11
12

13
1
Tertiary
Treatment



_ Coagulation
& Sedimentation
i

•L Filtration

-(Carbon Adsorption
,
,
*-| Ion Exchange


•«
«
*
J

.Sludge
Treatment

14
15
16
17
Digestion or
Wet Combustion
'Sludge
Disposal

18
Liquid
Disposal


^ Control led <
Transported Disc

•I Ocean Olspos<

Surface Appl Icat
Ground Water Set

«| Peep Wet 1 Injei

1 Evaporation 4
                                                                                                                                                                     Waters]
ts)
00
                                                                                                                                                           Incineration
                                                        [26

                                                         27


                                                       ]28

                                                         29
                                                                                                                                                                            31
                                              ,      Sludges
                                                                                                             19
Cent rlf Cation
Land  Fill  | 24
                                                                                                             20 '4   Thickening


                                                                                                             21 ''-(vacuum Flltratlonj*
                   cean Disposal| 25
                                                                                                             22*-
 Lagoon Ing or
r
2
Equal Izatlon
& Storage
4
"] 4-) Neutralization |-| ,
• 1 ' "1
(Sedimentation t
4

lj Filtration ^

8
Drying Beds \ p

~ni


                                                                                                                                                        Deep Well  Injection [  3Q
                                                                                                                                                           Incineration
                                                      J31
 Concentrated Organic
     Wastewater

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

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

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

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


              JOINT INDUSTRIAL-MUNICIPAL TREATMENT


According to the Census of Manufactures (1963)  45 billion gallons
per year of water from the chemicals  industry is discharged to
municipal sewers out of a total of 1.8 trillion gallons taken
in or about 2.41.  These data are supported by other studies by
chemical industry groups, but apply to plants reporting water
use of at least 20 million gallons per year or having more than
100 employees.  The employment distributions in 641 organic
chemical plants in 1963 is shown in Table IX.
                              29

-------
                                             Figure 5

                                        FLOW  DIAGRAM  OF
                              WASTEWATER  TREATMENT  FACILITIES
IN-PLANT SEPARATION
REMAINING
PROCESS
WASTEWATERS
          v
                          HIGH BTU VALUE CONCENTRATED  PROCESS  WASTEWATERS
                        LOW  BTU VALUE CONCENTRATED PROCESS WASTEWATERS
                     ALTERNATIVE
                                                                    STORAGE  TANK
                                  TO DEEP WELL
TO RIVER
                                                          STORAGE  TANK
             EQUALIZATION BASIN
                                               INCINERATOR

-------
                            TABLE IX

             SIZE OF CHEMICAL PLANTS BY EMPLOYMENT

        No. of Plants                      Employment

             162                               1-4
              58                               5-9
              79                              10-19
             104                              20-49
              68                              50-99
              79                             100-200
              38                             250-499
              29                             500-999
              17                            1000-2499
               7                            2500+


SOURCE:Census of Manufactures,

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

                          TABLE X

            WATER INTAKES OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS PLANTS

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

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

SOURCE:Census of Manufactures,

From these data it can be seen that many chemical plants are
not included in the calculation of the 2.4% discharge to
municipal sewers, but that these  small plants individually
use relatively little water.  If  it were assumed that all of the
organic chemicals plants taking in less than 20 million gallons
of water per year discharge all of their intake water to
sewers, a total of about 49.8 billion gallons per year of
wastewater might be expected to have been discharged to munic-
ipal sewers by the organic chemical industry in 1963.  This
figure is based upon the assumption that municipal sewer
discharges by the large plants consist mainly of contaminated
wastewaters and that discharges from the smaller plants are
                              31

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

On the basis of an annual production of about 71 billion pounds
by the organic chemicals industry in 1963, municipal  discharges
might be expected to be about 1400 gallons per ton of production
for the industry as a whole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
      VII.   INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT PRACTICES DATA FORM


An important objective of this  study has  been to develop  a
generalized methodology for the determination of the cost-
effectiveness of industrial waste treatment practices.  The
first requirement of any such generally applicable method is
to format the input data in a uniform and consistent manner
and to insure the adequacy of these data  at an early stage,
preferably at the actual time of acquisition.  The data form
presented here satisfies these  primary requirements and was
used in acquiring data from 53  organic chemicals plants;
these data constitute one basis for this  report.

The Industrial Waste Treatment  Practices  Data Form may be
used for the acquisition of data upon which the cost-effec-
tiveness of industrial waste treatment practices can be deter-
mined in general.  Although the form has  utility in tabulating
data for a single plant or firm,  the prime  purpose is to  format
data for analysis in terms of general industry practices.  The
form is designed on the basis of the Defense Intelligence
Agency's Formmatted File System,  a punched-card system utilizing
aperture cards for document incorporation.   The system is capable
of accepting subsequent additions of new  data at points within
the file and is readily revised within the  file.  Data formmatted
in this system can be retrieved according to selected parameters,
can be readily sorted and printed out according to selected pa-
rameters, and can be readily analyzed and correlated by machine
computation.

The Industrial Waste Treatment  Practices  Data Form consists of
nine or more data sheets corresponding to nine types of punched-
cards; there is one each of cards 1, 2,  and 5 for each form and
provision for multiple cards 3, 4, 6, 7,  8  and 9 for each form.
Data may be tabulated by a mark (X)  within  a labeled field, in
terms of quantitative measures  in indicated and/or coded  units,
or in terms of coded, qualitative information.

The nine data sheets comprising the Industrial Waste Treatment
Practices Data Form are shown in Appendix A.
                             33

-------
                    VIII.  PLANT SURVEY DATA
The Industrial Waste Treatment Practices Data Form was used
to tabulate data from 53 organic chemicals plants.  Complete
information was not obtainable for each plant, but all infor-
mation obtained was used to the extent possible.   This
information was largely obtained from confidential reports,
private communications, and pertinent literature.

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

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

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

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

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


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

The bar graphs in Figures 6 through 10 show distributions  of
various parameters for the plants surveyed.  It is of particular
significance that the distributions of wastewater volume and an-
nual production are markedly skewed in the opposite directions
and, although most of the plants surveyed were judged to be medium
or large in terms of production, employment was relatively low in
most cases.  The level of technology in the surveyed plants was
generally judged to be average or advanced, although the median
age of the plants was 18 years.  The explanation of such an appa-
rent anomaly lies in the relatively short lives of chemical
processes and equipment; replacement equipment and new processes
installed in even the older plants tend to be of modern design.
                            34

-------
            TABLE XI



CHEMICAL WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Identi-
fication
Number Principal Products
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Phthalic anhydride, maleic anhy-
dride Plasticizers, H2S04
Chemical warfare gas , chromium
plating
Terephthalic acid, isophthelic
acid, dimethyl tenaphthalate
Butadiene, Styrene, Polyethy-
lene, Olefins
Phenol, Ethylene
Acrylonitrile
Fatty acids, esters, glycerol
Regenerated cellulose
Acetylene
Dyes, pigments, inks
Azo § Anthraquinine dyes
Anthraquinine vat dyes
Ethylene, Alcohols, Phenol
Benzene, Ethylene, Butyl Rubber,
Butadiene, Xylene, Isoprene
Acrylonitrile, Acetonitrile,
Hydrogen Cyanide
Terephthalic Acid
Glycerine, Various Glycols
Methyl § Ethyl parathion
Methyl isocyanate, Phosgene
Diphenol Glycine
Urea, Ammonia, Nitric acid,
NH4N03
Q
(mjjd)
0.002
0.001
5.36
1.68
2.0
0.302
0.10
1.41
-
0.452
0.94
5.0
5.9
14.7
3.9
0.335
0.49
0.075
0.543
0.65
BOD5 COD
(mjz/1) (rng/1)
200
200 1100
9800
-
300 1200
1200
10,000 14,000
-
-
227
352 1760
300 1160
1700 3600
91 273
390 830
4160
2810
3100 5000
1146 3420
105 140
ss
(rng/1)
24
.
10,600
.
300
239
-
-
-
93
152
-
610
-
106
-
-
80
-

           35

-------
Identi-
fication
Number
Principal Products
            TABLE XI - Continued


                              Q
          BOD5
          (»g/D
mg/11   Cmg/1)
    22    Butadiene, styrene,  propylene,
            polyolefin,  adipic acid

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

    24    Butadiene, Maleic acid,  Fumeric
            acid, Tetrahydrophthalic
            anhydride

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

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

    27    Phenols

    28    500 Different  products

    30    Organic §  Inorganic  Chemicals

    31    Phenols

    32    Additives  for  lubricating oils

    33    Polyethylene,  ethylene oxide,
            ethand polypropylene

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

    35    Ethylene,  propylene, butadiene,
            crude benzene,  toluene

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

    37    Isocynates,  Polyols, Urethane
            Foam

    38    Acetaldehyde
1.38        5630    1230
2.0         1870
                            3.605        959     1525
                            0.098        650     1380
1.2
0.215
3.2
2.1
0.22
0.20
2.1
1.06
0.228
3.46
0.57
1.15
845
6600
360
100
6600
465
1385
1960
500
530
421
20,000
2040
13,200
500
-
13,200
1050
2842
2660
-
10,131
1201
50,001
                                                          225
                                                           10
                                                          322
                                                          673
                                                          250
                                                          80
                                                         160
                                                          50
                                  36

-------
TABLE XI -  Continued
Identi-
fication
Number
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Principal Products
Acrylanitrile, phenol, Butadiene
Ethylene, Propylene, Toulene,
xylene
Acids, Formaldehyde, Acetone,
methanol, ketones, alcohols,
acetaldehyde
(mRd)
1.817
0.43
1.15
Petrochemicals 15.2
Acrylonitrile, butadiene, styrene
impact polystyrene, crystal
polys trene
Ethylene, Propylene, Butadiene
alpha-olefins, polyethylenes
Organic chemicals
Pharmaceuticals (Dallas WPCF 66)
Organic Chemicals
2,4,5-T
2-4-D
Butadiene
Organic Chemicals
Olefins
Adipic acid
Hexamethylenediamine
Petro Chemicals
Petro Chemicals
»
0.085
0.750
1.4
0.037
0.077
0.005
0.005
0.288
0.288
0.288
0.13
0.13
0.02
0.17
BOD5
(mjz/1)
1300
15,000
177
200
155
2000
14,000
850
15,000
15,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
24,000
COD
(mg/1)
29,100
1500
30,000
-
—
380
4800
-
1700
21,000
23,000
350
750
320
35,000
113,000
40,000
39,000
SS
(mg/1)
-
.
-
60
120
900
500
300
700
348
300
120
400
180
1200
30
-
         37

-------
                                  TABLE  XII
                      REPORTED  UNIT  PROCESS  BREAK-DOWNS
Plant
No.
1



5
6


T A
10
1 O
ll
1 f
13
1 &
14
15
1 £.
lo
17
18
19
20

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
T C
35
T £.
3o
T t
37
7 O
38
39
4 /\
40
• ^
41
Oil
Sep.
X


X
X






X

X

X
X



X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X

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

X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X

X X

X
X X


X X
X X
X


X

X X

X X
X


X

X
X
X
X X
X
Sludge treatment
A.L. A.S. yes no Products
x x Dye chem.
x x Dye chem.
x Dye chem.
x x Petro chem.
x x Petro. chem.
x Org. chem.
Org. chem.
x x Org. chem.
Org. chem.
Org. chem.
x x Org. chem.
x x Org. chem.
Org. §inor. chem.
Petro chem.
x x Org. Sinor. chem.
x x Petro chem.
x monome rs -po lyme r
Petro chem.
Petro chem.
Org. chem.
x chem.
xx x Petro chem.
Petro chem.
x x Phenol

x x Misc. chem.
x x Petro chem.
Petro. chem.
x Petro. chem.
x Petro. chem.
x Misc. chem.
Petro. chem.
x x cyclic chem.
Org. chem.
x x Org. chem.
Cyclic chem.
Petro chem.
x Org. chem.
Org. chem.
Org. chem.
Number industries reporting specified unit processes:
        20      8      18     13     9   15     8
                                 38

-------
9|||||||IH|||M||H|||||j4
:::::: : ::: : : :|:
f Z ::::::: :±:
7IHH
: O :::: ±: : : "::
: UJ :::: T::
o:
6;U. t:Ej :EE: EE: ::::
. »- |:: :±:j::: ::J
Z :
5.< E::: :::: iEE: ::::
D _l t::: i::: i:E! !:S
O. 4
4:-;|t" :| :=|^
3 ::::: i: ::: : j ::j
2 IEEE i! EE ; ! :E|
i ;;;;;
C el 1 :;- 1 *-*
Ojr|^ |IO 3
9Biifp
8 :::||:: :::| ::::: £|
— 1_ .._ — ..... -.--
7 §:"is
: 0 : ::iilV4^i
6 Z :
UJ :
• => ^^St1
: O : ::: ::E —
UJ :
5 ; o= 53
• L. — ::: :::: :::
4!tM;HH
i < E :EH !::::::
Q. : H
3 : T-p ::: ::g g
2::!::: g :::: :::
i -te^^Si
°o loT
1 1 i I 1 i ' I ' ' 1 : j ' ' ' I ! I j ! ! ' ' j 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 II I |~H
f-- OT~T±; r^=:---~=^^ "ttrff 	 5? 	 " ~ "" P
~~ r ' 1 ' ' ' H IT j | i 1 . -U-4-- — i , i | — ( ! 4 4- -] — j- - - - -- -
Ml 1 '} 1 l[|l |il||||| l|| ||||[lii |;:!l hi p!! |i ii M
nOOjEEEEi ^333^ ^ 666Jj^ |lO
PRODUCTION ~ THOUSAND TONS / Y
::: :::: ::-SEl±C:i^r^i:rz^z±±tit^ tp^t: ::i±g
— — 	 1 — "~TP~ ~r^T" in "I j , I!XI - -4-!--
	 	 4 -i j 14, ttt ,,|! ;, 	 	 ,— -j-U-f- -~H^; -t— *-*• '' ' 't -j — 	 -"
::S| ::Sl|ir — h^— ^i ^-^^ :m E=± :: |±::
.10 .50 1.00
FLOW - MOD
- Figure 6 - +-
	 :: t - --- j. -j- ::::: :
pOJ:; :: 12501 I i EEE E
EAR--5 | ; E!
x ::: .- - - -- - -- : -:
>.00 10.00
39

-------
                                           Figure 7
"::::-- - 	 	
- E : :" : " t " if ' - i ! |
7 1 |l 1 1 n -1-i
. 	 i
^ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEpEH-t-E -EEEEEEi iEEEE!
" 5t
£ ill;;iiiiliiiwti;l iJill":
a. 4--
_i ^
Q.
• i ill liiijliiii ill I lil-l
2 :
:::::::::: - f f . : :
Jilllll [IJii 	 i|:
.llllillH::
1 : : i ' I - •-•
III t|-|ffl|] 1 j j ( ! ffl 1 jit j] j-H [j j j i jj j j; E| ^ : E E E i ; ; E i E ; E E i E E E E E E ; ; ; ; E E i ; i ; i ; ; ; i E : ; ; E ; E i ;
;:: :!;:::::::::::::: E i:::::::::::::: IEEE:, j [|| r tf l r : r rj | j j In J 1 4 [1 rttrnTnj ran
it L- :-..-.•- t i ; i i : ; , 	
	 [.I -1-M- - • 1 1 - - 4-I-. 4 • 	 	 M- -1 — 	 	 h - -- ~« — { M ] Mi — ~ I
_ PLANT EMPLOYMENT:
LARGE -AVERAGE
MEDIUM - AVERAG
SMALL AVERAGE
i ;
iffl 11 •
jj : !j!| - L it -I;-:- -.-••"-•:i :'- •"•-:"J-:--::E:":EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE;EE|EEEEE
[tr ijii |ll 'IM:II|!!!^H! 1 1 i Bill 1 ifiilffliil
h
i'lillllB


1157
i 383
150 EEEEEE




0-199    200-399   400~599   600~799   800~999   IOOQ-II99  I20Q-I399  I40Q-I599 I60Q-I799    1800
                                           EMPLOYMENT

-------
i6 --- IE!II!!!M!E;
14 JEE!
12
>
O :::: ::::::::::::::
5io
2>
:::: 	 1 1 i i
Ul
£ 8
i-
leglli
_j
O. :: :::::::5±rjr
4
2 :::: ::::::::::::::
0 -± -±^ —
14 Ef
12 Ste— —
CO
H
3 'o
0.
U.
0 8 HE EEEEEESEEE^
IT
Ul
CD fi ;:| ^
5 6 g|g
O
Z :::: 	 Etf-F—
4 E
2 r_z_.-^____
olllllllllHllllliN
:::::::: ::|::p ^^f^SsI :X::I:::S:: ::::::::::
-^jJ 	 1 — .-] 	 I! 	 	 	 	 	
i • • ' •[ j i | -j-U-U i : : . ^--J-^- i 	 1 	 .4- 	 -i — 	
:: ipzztt±r^^ — J"ffl 	 :: 	 ::::::::::::::::::::::
:: OLD [:::::: AVERAGE | ADVA
1 ' i ' ' ' : ' !
i LEVEL OF TECHNOLOG'
Mr +rrriT— i — "ipmrrnm'!]!!!^']]]''''!'!'!'""^
__ — n-j^ 	 • — '• 	 • 	 • — ~" 	 • — ' 	 • — 	 1
tt-l - 	 -- - ! . . c : ! i ' \ 1 i ! i i ' . ! i i ' i '
::^ZI SMALL p± 5 MEDIUM ± ^ LA
	 1 1 ., i . . . . - — ; — u^-i — i 	 Up. .,_,_, — _- 	 *~"i~ 'i
::::::::: : : Figure 8 \ \
!.:.]- -^TIT ;-U_-U^I!I -- — t ",'•"• '- -1 	 H- ^f~P •t"'
NCED :::: ::: :: :
b:±r±±: :::t ::: : : -± :H ^
»*:•*= ::: ± : : -'3 :-
1T::::| g^E j : | ij
• ' 1 1 - : : ^J4 ----- 	 : : ; ;
	 (-^ 4 U- 	 	 - - - - • -- - -- -j-j-
^5i±' :::: 	 TT 	 1
1 i i i i ' : ! •• i - • f - i • - -- - 	 — 	
::;:::±: :::: |:| :: |- :::: -: :
RGE iU |||| 1 1|
"ixxxi; ;xi mi i - ~.~.~. m^ n ij
SIZE  OF PLANT  IN THE  INDUSTRY
                                          41

-------
      LEAST
      TOTAL
       COST
                                                       Figure 9 [
z«0
uJ
r>
o
uj  8

o
UJ
DC 5

     1911- 1920
-1940  1941-1950  1951-1960  1961-1968
 YEAR OF  CONSTRUCTION
                                  42

-------
  18


  17



  16



  15


  14



  13


  12

                              Figure 10
o
LJ
tr
L. 10
<  9
_i
0.

   8



   7



   6



   5



   4



   3



   2

                               .1	rrj j; 1_
            LAW


                                 111
PUBLIC
OPINION
LEGAL  1
ACTION
                             BASIS  OF ACTION  DECISION
                                                                  43

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

According to the 1963 Census of Manufactures, Water Use in
Manufacturing, 195 plants in SIC categories 2815 and 2818 took
in for process use a total of 323 billion gallons of waste-
water in 1964, an average of 1.66 billion gallons per year per
plant, indicating an average wastewater flow of 4,564,000 gpd
per plant.  These data apply to the generally larger plants  in
these industries.

In 1963 there were a total of 641 plants in the organic chem-
icals industry.  The 1963 production in the industry was about
71 billion pounds.  These data indicate an overall average
production in the industry of 110.76 million pounds or about
55,000 tons per year per plant.   This figure has no meaning  in
any real sense because of the preponderant number of very small
plants, and should be used,  if at all, with caution.

There were 211 organic chemical  plants having water intakes  of
more than 20 million gallons per year according to the 1963
census data.  These are the larger plants which might be expec-
ted to average the above wastewater flow of 4,564,000 gpd.  The
industry survey data appended to the report covers 34 individual
products which accounted for 117.187 billion pounds out of a
total of 122.38 billion pounds (or about 95%) of organic chemi-
cals produced in 1968; 238 plants are indicated to have accounted
for this production, or an average plant production of 257,100
tons per year.  The data of that survey also indicate an average
capacity per product in individual plants of 231 million pounds
per year (i.e., the total production of a product divided by the
number of plants in which it is  produced).

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

The distributions of plants by state and by capacities per
product in individual plants for the entire industry and
for the sample data are shown in Figures 11 and 12; again
the sample is considered to be a fair representation of the
industry.
                           44

-------
o
z

!u

o
UJ
K
65




60




55




50




45




40




35




30




25




20




15




10




 5
                                                   Figure 11
                                          =  f~ 1~ TOTAL ORGANIC

                                            1	'  CHEMICAL  PLANTS
                                                 - ORGANIC  CHEMICAL

                                                  PLANTS SURVEYED
4
•
                                                     STATES

-------
CO

3
 1

f-



DL

tr

Q-



o



o
O

O

§
CL

UJ
O
<
Dt
UJ
II- TOTAL  PLANTS

••- PLANTS SURVEYED

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

Data for 18 plants were analyzed in terms of the calculated
parameters X-^, ^2, Xj, X4 , Xs, X£ defined previously.  Two
statistically significant relationships were found at the
0.900 level of significance.

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

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

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

         X5 = Volume of Wastewater  (gpd/ton of Annual Production)


Of the variation in X4, 80% is explained by Xg alone (R2 =
0.7993) and the variance of X4 is reduced by an order of magnitude
(Sy = 2.3054; SE = 1.0690) .


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

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


where:   Xs = Operating Costs of  Treatment  Facilities
               ($/yr/Ton of Annual  Production)
                                                  *y
Of the variation in X5, 78% is explained by X4  (R^ = 0.7826)
and the variance in Xs is  reduced by an order  of  magnitude
(Sy = 2.2765; SE = 1.0964).


Using all of the data  available  as  appropriate,  no statistically
significant relationships were found between  the  efficiencies of
critical pollutant removal  and the  other parameters.  At  a low
level of significance, however,  the capital costs of treatment
facilities were  indicated to be  the major  determinant  of  removal
efficiencies .
                               47

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

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

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


Of the variation in X2, 92% is explained by Xi (R2 = 0.9241)
and the variance in X2 is reduced by more than 701
(Sy = 1544; SE = 431).
                             48

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


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

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

Figure 13 shows the processes most commonly employed for the
treatment of chemical industry wastes.   The treatment sequence
has been broken down into pretreatment or primary treatment,
secondary or biological treatment, tertiary treatment,  and  sludge
handling and disposal.

For purposes of developing the cost-effluent quality relation-
ships the effluent characteristics for the principal pollutional
parameters have been estimated for each of the unit  processes
and are shown in Figure 13.  No change in effluent characteristic
(BOD, COD, S.S.) is attributed to neutralization or  equalization.
Primary sedimentation has been estimated to yield 65 percent  and
10 percent removal of BOD and suspended solids respectively.
The effluent BOD from the anaerobic lagoon, the aerated lagoon
and the activated sludge process is estimated at 200, 100,  and
25 mg/1, respectively.  (This assumes average operating conditions
at ambient temperature).

For each stage of the process, the effluent COD has  been estimated
from the relationship CODEFF = CODINF - BOD5 removed/0.75

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

The effluent characteristics for the tertiary treatment pro-
cesses have been estimated from laboratory and field results
on both municipal sewage and industrial wastewaters.
                           49

-------
                                                                                        Figure 13
                                                                  WASTEWATER  TREATMENT   PROCESSES  8   MODELS
                                   PRE OR PRIMARY TREATMENT
en
O
                                     »EUt«LIZ«riON
                                                                              OIL
                                                                              ICNMTKM
                                                                                               All
                                                                                               st«i»rm«
                                                                                          • IK
                                                                                          FLOT»TIO«
                                                                                                       co»«UL»Tion
                                                                                                       t
                                   BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
                                            INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS • SUSPENDED SOLIDS < 125 PPM, ALKALINITY <0.5I Ib/ Ib BOO, SULFIOES <250 PPM.  OIL tt GREASE < 50 PPM.
                                                                                600  VARIATIONS !*  3-1 (Ib/dfl). 4-hr COMPOSITE 1
                                       4CIIVJTED JLUOiE
                                     ^1 .    I
                                     •*•   !•!•,»
                                     »«t •  tlVSSI «•$,•«,
                                     It O,/ OKI n'S, «»'»,

                                         "•(•I
                      EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS'
                      SOLUAILE  BOD lul/ll      10 -JO
                      TOUl BOO <»t/V)        15-!)
                      SUSPENDED SOLIDS l*|/l|   < 10
                      COD I HI/I)               (*_
                                            10 - (0
                                            tO- 40
                                            < 70
                                                                   (-1
                      mmocEii lit)
                      fHOJfHOHUJ Ilk)
                                   TERTIARY TREATMENT
                            (OEPEHD5 OK DE5I6II HETEKriOH)
                            I PERIODS I TEHPCMTURE    ]
                           SO-tOOIFUHCTIOH Of N«E« LEVEL!
                                      -COO,.- (lOOgm
                                                                                         (-1
                                                                                                              »«M«0«lt U«00«S
                                                                                     3    T7F,
                                                                                     FOR POK05 III StUltJ
                                                                    > 100
                                                                    100
< 100
                                                                                                                                            l-l
                                                   CARIO*
                                                   tOSORPTIOH
                                            CO>CVL
-------
Where available and applicable, mathematical models have  been
developed for specific processes.  These are shown in Figure
13.  The average coefficients for these models are summarized
in Table XIII and the ranges of values obtained from 14 differ-
ent chemical wastes receiving biological treatment are given.
A definition of the symbols used in Figure 13 is detailed in
Table XIV.

The mathematical models shown in Figure 13 and the average
coefficients shown in Table XIII have been used to develop the
treatment plant sizes for the cost vs effluent quality study
discussed later in this report.


                        COST FUNCTIONS

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

The total capital cost functions for activated sludge treatment
plants are graphically related to wastewater  flow in Figures  14
and 15 and to incoming BOD  in Figures 16 and  17.

The systems which were considered included pretreatment or pri-
mary treatment, the activated sludge aeration basin(s) and
equipment, and final clarifier(s).  However,  in one system
sludge treatment was included and the other system included la-
gooning of the sludge.  The data in Figures 14 and 16 are for
eight activated sludge plants with sludge treatment and the data
for fourteen activated sludge plants without  sludge treatment
are presented in Figures 15 and  17.  There is a better relation-
ship between total capital  cost  and flow than between cost and
BOD for both systems.

A mathematical expression of the relationship between total capi-
tal cost  and the flow and BOD is presented in Table XV.  The
constants and exponents which are also  reported in Table XV were
evaluated by means of a regression analysis of the data presented
in Figures 14-17 inclusive.  The results of the regression analyses
indicate  that for  the system without sludge treatment the waste -
water flow and incoming BOD concentration seem to have an equal
effect on the total capital cost.  However, in the system with
sludge treatment the wastewater  flow seems to have a more marked
effect on the total capital cost than does the incoming BOD
concentration.

The total capital  cost function  presented in  Table XV is  appli-
cable only over the range of data used  in the regression  anal-
                              51

-------
                                 TABLE XIII
                COEFFICIENTS AND CONSTANTS FOR BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
                       OF WASTES FROM THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Activated Sludge
   Range of Values
(1 standard deviation)
k (1/mg-hr)
a
a1
b (day'1)
b1 (day'1)
8
F (Ib BOD/lbMLVSS/day)
Aerated Lagoon
K (day"1)
X (mg/1)
9V
Anaerobic Lagoons
K (day'1)
K_ (day'1)
9e
TricKling Filter
K1 - kxAm
n v
e
Gravity Thickeners
B
n
M.L. (Ib/sq ft/day)
C (percent solids)
0.00012
0.31
0.31
0.02
0.10
1.0
0.4

0.5
50.
1.085 -

0.030
0.07
1.08

0.24
0.4
1.035

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

K reaction rate constant


So
for equation


- 0.00076
- 0.72
- 0.76
- 0.18
- 0.24
- 1.04
- 0.0

1.0
ISO.
1.1

- 0.055
- 0.13
- 1.09

- 1.25
- 0.5
- 1.08

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

0.5
0.5
0.72
72.

3.

10.

0.3

5.


500


- 0.71
- 0.70
- 0.88
- 79.

7.

- 24.

- 0.6

- 10.


1000.

                     - K
                       e
                               Average
                                                          0.00024
                                                          0.52
                                                          0.53
                                                          0.07
                                                          0.17
                                                          1.03
                                                          0.5
                                                          0.75
                                                        100.
                                                          0.042
                                                          0.10
                                                          1.085
                                                      (applicable to single ponds)
                                                      (applicable to series of ponds)
                                                          5.
                                                         15.
                                                          0.5
Overflow rate
   (gal/day/ft2)
500.
          700.
                                                        750.
600.

-------
               TABLE XIV  - LIST  OF  SYMBOLS
  X ,  X ,  X       Average,  degradable  fraction, and volatile  fraction
   a   d  v     of the  mass  of  the biological cells  (Ibs)
  x ,  x ,  x       Average,  degradable,  and volatile biological  solids
       "         concentration in  aeration  basin  (mg/1)
AXy             Cell or sludge  yield  (Ibs/day)
  S ,  S          Substrate (expressed  as BOD  or COD)  applied or  removed
   a   r         (Ibs/day)
  SQ,  s          Influent  and effluent substrate  concentration (mg/1)
  K, K , K,       Substrate removal rate coefficients  and biological
                 sludge  oxidation  rate (day'  )
  K*             Substrate removal rate for trickling filter
  k              Substrate removal rate coefficient  (liter/mg-hr)
  9              Temperature  coefficient for  the  rate constant k or  K
  T              Temperature  (°C)
  a              Fraction  of  substrate removed, used  for cell  synthesis
  a*             Oxygen  utilization coefficient for cell synthesis
  b              Cell auto-oxidation  rate coefficient (day"1)
  b'             Oxygen  utilization rate for  endogenous respiration  (day  ~  )
  t              Time, retention time  or cycle time  (minutes,  hours  or days)
  A              Specific  surface  area of volatile media for trickling filters
  F              Food to micro-organism ratio (Ib BOD/lb MLVSS/day)
  V              Volatile  fraction of  biological  sludge
  f              Degradable fraction  of volatile  solids
  SS             Suspended Solids  (mg/1)
  BOD            Biochemical  Oxygen Demand, S days at 20°C  (mg/1)
  BODU           Biochemical  Oxygen Demand, ultimate  at 20°C (mg/1)
  COD            Chemical  Oxygen Demand (mg/1)
  TDS            Total Dissolved Solids, inorganic  (mg/1)
  mg/1           Milligrams per  liter
  SRT            Solids  Retention  Time
  PQ             Amount  of phosphorous in influent  (Ib)
  N              Amount  of nitrogen in influent  (Ib)
  L              Vacuum  Filter Loading (Ib  per sq ft  per hour)
  Cu             Underflow concentration of solids  from thickener  (t solids)
  C              Overflow  concentration from  sludge  thickener  (I solids)
  ML             Mass Loading for  sludge thickener  (Ibs per  sq ft  per hr)
  B              Constant  for sludge  thickener
  D              Depth (ft)
  P              Vacuum  pressure for  vacuum filtration (inches Hg)
  s              Coefficient  of  compressibility  of  filter  cake
  c              Weight  of solids  per unit  volume of filtrate  (gm/ml)
  u              Kinematic viscosity  of the liquid  (centipoise)
  RO             Specific resistance  of the filter  media  (secz/gm)-
  m,n            Exponents, constant  for  specific type of  sludge
  F0             Overflow concentration for flotation process  (t solids)
  F              Underflow concentration for  the  flotation process  (t)
  Q              Flow rate (MGD, gpm, etc.)
                                              53

-------
                 Figure 14

     TOTAL CAPITAL COST  RELATIONSHIP OF
ACTIVATED SLUDGE  PLANTS WITH SLUDGE TREATMENT
                      FLOW- MGD
                  54

-------
                    Figure 15
             TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS WITHOUT SLUDGE TREATMENT
                                          10.0
                FLOW-MGD
                    55

-------
               Figure 16
        TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH  SLUDGE TREATMENT
                      BOD - mg / I
                   56

-------
                    Figure 17
            TOTAL  CAPITAL  COST  OF
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS  WITHOUT SLUDGE TREATMENT
          fO
10
                 BOD - mg/I
                       57

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

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

                            TABLE XV

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


            C = K Qm Sn
                     o

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

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

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

The costs of deep well disposal present particularly unique prob-
lems.  The cost function for deep well disposal is affected
markedly by a number of variables, therefore, a simple two-
dimensional graphical presentation will not provide a relationship
which can be generally applied to all disposal well systems.
The variables which are significant include:
                            58

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

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

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

            SUMMARY OF BASES FOR UNIT COST FUNCTIONS
Pre or Primary Treatment

      Equalization
      Neutralization
      Oil Separation
      Sedimentation

Biological Treatment

      Lagoons
      Aerated Lagoons
      Activated Sludge
      Aeration basin
      Final Clarifier

Tertiary Treatment

      Filtration
      Ion Exchange
      Adsorption (carbon)

Sludge jlandling and Disposal

      Total sludge disposal
      Thickening
      Flotation thickening
      Vacuum Filtration

Ultimate Disposal

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

Cost vs. volume (MG)
Cost vs. Surface Area (Sq Ft)
Cost vs.
Cost vs.
Cost vs.
flow rate (MGD)
flow rate (MGD)
flow rate (MGD)
Cost vs. flow rate  (MGD)
Cost vs. volume of  thickener (gal)
Cost/MGD vs. flow rate MGD
Cost vs. area of filter  (Sq Ft)
Cost vs. flow rate  (MGD)
                            59

-------
          X.   COST VS EFFLUENT QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS
In order to establish a realistic  basis  for  establishing  treat-
ment plant design criteria,  the data of  the  53 plants  surveyed
were portrayed in terms of statistical probabilities of COD,
BOD, and suspended solids concentrations as  shown  in Figures  18
and 19 and in a graphical illustration of wastewater flow and
BOD concentration as shown in Figure 20.  These  data were used
to construct the twenty likely design combinations given  in
Table XVII.

                           TABLE XVII

   PLANT SIZE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS - BASIS FOR  DESIGN
Combina-
tion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Plant Design
Flow (mgd)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
BOD
(mg/1)
500
500
200
200
2000
2000
500
500
3000
3000
1000
1000
500
500
3000
3000
1000
1000
500
500
COD
Cmg/1)
1200
1200
550
550
5000
5000
1200
1200
8000
8000
3000
3000
1200
1200
8000
8000
3000
3000
1200
1200
ss
Cmg/1)
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
100
500
The cost vs effluent quality relationships have been developed
using BOD, COD, suspended solids and total dissolved inorganic
solids as quality parameters.  Nitrogen and phosphorous have
not been included since in the majority of cases, these are
present in insufficient concentrations and must be added as nu-
trient supplements.  Constituents such as color represent
specific cases and have, therefore, not been included in the
general correlations.  The range of treatment plant sizes and
wastewater composition selected has been discussed and is
based upon current production in the chemical industry.
                            60

-------
.5 2%
                      10    15   20
                                        30
  PERCENTAGE
40    50    60
70      80   85    90
                                              95
                                                        98%
IV
9
e
7
6
S
i
3
I04'
9
8
7
E
5
3
2
I0*i
9
7.
G
5
4
3
i
I02i



=
o
z
o
O
o
: cc
: o
Q
O


=























•





3
















	 1 	









y










I






*





















2












—
















'
/




































*



/


0


\
3.5

Figure l!
CHEMICAL WAS'
CHARACTERIZ
	 — -1— -1 	 j 	 ;4±j 4- -4- 	 	
h-"^- '4^!IIJ II 1 1||
r^~ : • | - -4 :-^"|' ']<••':£$
•— •<• :/l | h: rif-^
	 1 	 /_^r 	

r* f\ ft i j_y

LI' U It
_ 	 Z IT y

" " ' i " "
' ' " i ' 1 ''
( l '




- — jSiy;;|;^^iki
e. X 1 ; ' ' ] • • ' i ! ' • , ;, , ,

2
Jt

£_
1 	 	 	

/



1
4.0 4.5 5.0
PROBITS

•EWATER
ATION
:::::::::::: :::::::;:::::i;;zi ?'- — I
1 III Illlllll Illiiii y
::::::::::::T!::|^:::::i:::|_
i / i
* _' /- = = ! = = = |=:


5: 	
fin

i







Ds=|4ssS^^
!imni!!nl|i;iiiiiimii(
e444-^-H-7T-fH 	 :: 	 =












































.-














— -j













































































1 1 1 1 1
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
                                                                                                        61

-------
10     15   20
                      30
  PERCENTAGE
40     50      60
                                                    7C
                                                            80    85     90
>000
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20




Fig
	 ^tt|= CHEMICAL \
CHARACTE
----- . -- 	 "Tl
S -*• 	 ^"tT~~ "^ *^~'3^* =^ U4~
1 	 c 	 ! — i 	 ' : • | ' • ' ' ; T—T- — ' 	 r- • " j —
p= W 	 rprr-rrr r- — T— -rftrti TT=-T-
i _j; • -j- 	 j+r-j— )- r— ]--qy| 	
— (o 	 :::::: — ^ Hftr-j jjjffi
=




— -


10-*—
p
. . t
z
lu ' '
o- 	 ... . .., :;„ ..^
OT J /
CO . i i . . : =±=g=jj^^j i . ! ! 1 ' i j TT j: _

	 * 	 	 . _ _ . | ^ ~ i 1 I IL Mr ' ^



I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1

are 19 ^,= ^=====1=
VASTEWATER ^d==^===
:RIZATION
4. 4 j U. 4-i--- J 	 '•'•'• -H 	 I 	 --U 	 i j... 	
[—..,. ••) ; i-p . ; • ; . ; • •••• - *., . 	 . \Jf\ 	 1 	 , 	 — : 	 I 	 , 	
= =- V ^^ ^^ ^^ =^f -^=^ \ • ! I
: | i
, . . . . . . . 	 	 	 ... _ 	




USPENDED SOLIDS "

; i^i ;; j ;•'•" "T~T" ~^ — [ — j— -- - - -i 	 ^—- — •- • • — 	 — — -
^ . .. . .... 	 rn4~ ' ' - ' ij~i • i — ~~"~ ••' ' ! i — ! ' - :~" j "~~ r
p~* T7T~ ~TT^ "i Tlt~j 	 i 	 1 — 1 —








i —
V
-1 	




















^^
—







l i III




1

•:

-
'
]
       4.0
                     4.5
      5.0
    PROBITS
                                                 5.5
                                                               6.0
                                                                             65
                                                                                           7.0

-------

EEEEE|7 ;|E|E
	 FEE: [±j±:
HN! '6 !Bi
'lip — i — i • • i —
:± 	 • £-!--
j QiEf4 ^:
o
i 2::EjB JEJEEE!
;3:-sa
---1 	 1 T+V
iliyl
feiJfe
|||
JEEE :Eg| ::| :::::::::::i:::::EEEEEEEEE|EE|EEE|EEEEEEEE|E
	 :::: 	 lulJill IliUul 14 141 IlllJ 1 II [1 1 1 1 1 1 -I+-U 	 1 	
.... 	 Figure 20
:::: ::::::f:E FLOW ~ BOD RELATIONSHIP F<
IE CHEMICAL WASTEWATER TREA'
| A = WASTE STREAMS WHIG
BIOLOGICAL TREATMEN
;j EEEEE •= PLANTS WHICH HAVE N
" -- -------- ----*"- BIOLOGICAL TREATMEN
~Hl~Ttj 	 r | ' i i -i--*-1 	 i 	 1 — — r 	 r 	 	 -r- —
^ 	 	 -i- 	 ii 	 T-~--|-X- T :::
	 -j 	 uj_ . j j j — . — — — j 	 — — - —
EE| pEEEEEE:
*c: ;||EE|Ef^:^^tj:g: || :^||: ^&M\ I ;;
-BOD - mg / 1 X 1C-"3

DR EXISTING
'MENT PLANTS ]
H RECEIVE
T
0
T Mm
: x: ::: :EEx : : : : :::: : t ~:xr:::
:::::::::: : : : :: :::: : C ::::::::
_ 	 	 I T- III-! — '.'.'. III..I- -
;^n:EE: : : E ::: :::::::::::: : :::: :: :
;E38E ; s pot ; jii ;:

-------
The  generalized wastewater treatment processes and alternates
are  shown in Figure 21.  This flow sheet was selected as il-
lustrative of common practice in wastewater treatment plants
in the organic chemical industry today and according to pro-
jections of what might be required in the near future.

Design Eases For The Process Calculations

        1.  Sedimentation

            Sedimentation is provided when the suspended solids
concentration exceeded 125 mg/1.   An overflow rate of 750
gpd/ft^ is used to effect a suspended solids removal of 65%.
The  percent removal of BOD and COD in sedimentation has been
taken as 101 for each.

        2.  Anaerobic Lagoon

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

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

         3.   Aerated Lagoon

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

        4.  Activated Sludge

            This process is preceded by sedimentation.   A
reaction rate (k at 20°C) of 0.00024 1/mgVSS-hr and the
MLVSS concentration of 2500 mg/1 have been taken.  Sludge
synthesis coefficient and the endogenous respiration rate
are taken at 0.52 and 0.07 respectively for the purpose of
excess sludge computations.  80% of the excess sludge is
assumed to be volatile.  Also 80% of the suspended solids
entering the activated sludge process is assumed to form an
excess sludge.  A typical overflow rate of 600 gpd/ft2  is
taken for final  clarification.  The effluent BOD and SS of
this process are expected to be 25 and 20 mg/1 respectively.
                            64

-------
      SLUDGE HANDLING
           Aerobic
          Digestion
en
                                 10% COD  Removal
                                 10% BOD  Removal
                                 65% S.S.  Removal
                                 O.R.= 750  gpd/ft2
 BOD 25 mg/l  BOD  15mg/l  BOD Img/l   TDS influent =
 COD calculate COD  calculate COD 5mg/l      2000 mg/l
tS.S. 20mg/l ,tS.S.
-------
        5.   Adsorption

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

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

   Corrected Flow =  MGD total Dissolved Solids  x 0.75
                     	removed	
                                    350

        7.  Aerobic Digestion

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

        8.  Flotation Thickening

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

        9.  Vacuum Filtration

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

            The capital costs were developed f,rom the  sum of
the unit process costs plus 35 percent to include the  cost of
engineering, miscellaneous piping and other appertances and
are related to effluent quality in Figures 22-41 for the various
size selections.

For the purpose of these cost determinations, it was assumed
that every selected combination of flow and wastewater charac-
teristics  will receive identical treatment, except where im-
practicable.  For example, all waste will pass  through the oil
separator, neutralization tank, equalization tank (except when
followed by lagoons), primary sedimentation (except when sus-
pended solid concentrations are less than 175 mg/1), activated
                              66

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

All costs are cumulative  as  the  degree of treatment  increases,
except that the cost determination  of aerated and  anaerobic
lagoons terminate as shown on the graphs.   These unit processes
will not be used when tertiary  treatment is  desired.
                              67

-------

:: •::: 	 * •••*.-! 	 •₯>•£
m CAPITAL
5 j ill vs
_| tg^i^j:::!
§'2| FLOW
u. SS 1
0 i: •:::::::::::
CO
zio §ags=: ;; I 11
o |; i;;i ;;i :Mi;;;i;!;;;i;±;;;|;|
_i
-I ||r^_K:i=::::±::::::::|ES=:
5 [p
1 8
1-
co
o if ilii ;;!; [iiiiiiiii^ifipl
O '•'•••[[•
< 6 £ ACTIVA1
^^ ^ 1
Q- jtrt-rrr rrrr r— T!! ... «U
t) n;|":: ::::j-:::: : ,rrt:±trtb —
|s — ^ ANAEROBIC
• PRIMARY E;E«^^|
)D 1200 100
3D 500
5 100
!.-.;.. .: ^ i.. i .. i . .-: ....__
- 	 ^...|..,..J 	 	 	 	 : 	 t 	 I::::::::::::::::::
Figure 22
COST OF TREATMENT PLANT \
. SUBSTRATE REMOVED
10 MGD BOD 500 MG/L
00 MG/L COD 1200 MG/L
j I i • ! ! ' - ! j • I ! I - : t i ' 1 ' ' '
| SAND FILTER |
'ED SLUDGE INCLUDING =
JDGE TREATMENT p^gr^|s^g^g|
ERATED LAGOON g : ^ r^~ pa || |1 ^ =t=p= ~- -- ^-:ii::ggi:titt:g:l
LAGOON_pJS5aspS^355=E— gll— =Fft^^=f 535f^^^£gg;^
0 800 \ 600 400
700 100 25 15
50 100 20 1
1 ION EXCHANGE
iRBON ADSORPTION:
:::::::::::::::^:::t^.-_ _;:t:::^_:r:r:|^ir^l|^:|:_:- _
200 0
<\
<-\

-------
16

14 |
: : : :
to
«r 12 II
< : 	 ::: ::::::::: : : ffiffi
O
O 	 fflttff
LLlO :3
O ::::::::: ::::::::: :::
0
_l Q
_j ° 	 ;
as
i
i-
(06
i_
4htTTr;:- -ii-f" 44.
O
;:::::::;•:::::;:::!:„ tfcfetii**
olllllllHIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
3D 1200
3D 500 450
B 500 175

ICAPITAL cc
-
vs.
FLOW 10
SS 500
::.: :: :i:r "T- ;:••;! "-r,;~. :::!—; "TIITTTT
Figure 23
)ST OF TREATMENT PL
SUBSTRATE REMOVAL
MGD BOD 500 MG/L
MG/L COD 1200 MG/L
§|||;g
rSAND
HH'f;ap
^ACTIVATED SLUDGE INCLUDING;
iij! SLUDGE TREATMENT

^AERATED LAGOON^
. - -- j 	 j 	 1 .... 1 .....
rAEROBIC LAGOONgpP^K
1000 800
200
50
FILTER »p


-:.^; ;;-' :'
•
t
100
100
	




600
2!
2C
|


>
)

^:i^:;
Hrr~H
;:;:!;;;;
5
1



U
ANT±
II
- :
^CARBOf
i::::::::: ::::i:!:

"§i|
4
00

! :
jj

IONJ FY^^
1 A Kl ft C1 "'

-t-- - —f- f''" 	 ' — • * • ' --• 	 ---1 	
J ADSORPTION"! 1
"~f~ 	 !--"-"*'-$r--t----l-"-:; 	 ---

::.::;. ::::::::
::::::::::::§
:rg::::: :H
•

tSI r
III
i ; :;:! :
i 'iiin!
• ::::.:::::::;:::::




200 o
1
i
1C

-------
SJ
c
                                Figure 24

                    CAPITAL COST OF TREATMENT PLANT

                          VS.  SUBSTRATE REMOVAL
                                                                             ION EXCHANGE
                      FLOW  10 MGD

                      SS   100 MG/L
BOD 200 MG/L

COD 550 MG/L
                                                             CARBON ADSORPTION
                                       SAND FILTER
                ACTIVATED SLUDGE  INCLUDING
                    SLUDGE TREATMENT

           AERAT ID LAGOON
    COD 550
    BOD 200
    ss  too

-------
                                          Figure 25
                             CAPITAL COST  OF  TREATMENT  PLANT

                                    VS. SUBSTRATE  REMOVAL
                                                                             ION EXCHANGE
BOD  200 MG/L

COD  550 MG/L
                                FLOW   10 MGD

                                SS   500 MG/L
           I ! ' \ '. , ', '. ', '.', .'!'^J.lit"J"!'I!""'l--!ll-I ! '. i '. .Ttf
                                   SAND  FILTER
                 ACTIVATED SLUDGE INCLUDING
                      SLUDGE  TREATMENT
               AERATED  LAGOON
COD 550     500
BOD 200     190
SS  500     175

-------
NJ
16 :::::::
its11
I4«c

c!l2 I
0
o pjmf
o !;; ;!j!
i
i 8 ;;;;;!;
0
CAPITAL
O)
4 :-m
- - •rr-fr
^ - - ^-f H
::HH
8
oHPR
DD 5000
OD 2000
s i no


O
-AP1TAL COST OF TREATMENT PLANT ;
VS. SUBSTRATE REMOVAL 'j*:'1*0* *£
FLOW 5 MGD BOD 2000 MG/L
SS 100 MG/L
itiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirnrnin
::::::ti^Timmf minimi mil 1'Hllt
[j ACTIVATED SLU
SLUDGE TF
: AERATED

;;;; •:;.;; -n -:;
ANAEROBIC
•JKiTttj. |i -^-Lit-Lt-lir
IMARYHUPmHIIIIIIIIIIIIItt
4000
COD 8000 MG/L
IB™
4 liiilLilir-TtTtTTrn-iuiii::: Ttrr -rrrr rrrr Trrr rrrr 77 r rrrr rrrr rrrr rrrr rrrr rrrr rrrr ^~
.: :::p *•:: ;::: ::::!:::: :r.: :::: ::::!:::•. ::::!:: : ::::}:::: "•-'• "•'• ::f: t:.,*r jfi{ L
:|,:::|; ;j]j 4jjj j ;; :;;; :;:; jj: j:; :; ; :j y;; j ::::{:::: ;:;: ;,:: :rfi j| } JT ;
.j [iiiju i 11;: i;i; iiii ;; .] ;t .| ij-;| ;: lift tttt nil n F nuj:::; ::i: :r:i :;.": ft ::::::
- • • • — 	 J 	 	 	 — •••• -t-rtt m i
SAND FILTER ]
wjtiitiijj ::; ::lt :- :
HfflroUM^ntiltfftTm^::: '••• • - :• • •; ::::j:::: ::::::::::::[:::: ;::::::
DGE INCLUDING [
'EATMENT ^ | p
LAGOON-
:::::::::: * iii|ii iiiiii ii iiit iii: iii: ill: iiii : ii i iiiijiH
I ': r T jp ijj; ;:::::::!::::::: T:::::;::::::;;;:::;:::::::::;:.:::
^^^_^T^fl^^j-4i^4t--Hi-Jr4rif f- |ri ^llll ii': "'! i!': iil'p'l rHTTrf
LAGOON
3000 | \ /2000 10
200 100 25 15
5O 5O 2O 1
filtlllliilllMI^
Witt:--H- + mH:::MliimtH.tjt rff:::::::: :::: ::::::::
ir>M cvruA MAP E
!!K::K!!:H|!!:::;^^
i ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
i •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
: ::::::::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:i:i:i::i:::::::i::::i
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••!••!•••••*•••••"!!•••!
ssiiiSKssi:::::::::::::;:;::::::::;::: ::::::::::::::::::::::!::::::::;
• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••I IB ••••••••••••••••.••*• ••»*••••••
i iiiii ii M pi ii H
!!•!!:•»!!:•!• •!!!;!•!!":!!••!••!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!:!!!!!!!!:!!!
•- 	 I"'.'. -•-••(--'•"

.... ,.:- ..,; .--, ; j t^t; |-|,, -,-jj-f j, ]r|. ,.,» 4,., ,.,, |,t(
::::;:::: ;:*,;t:;;: ;::;;;;:; :;;: ;t ^ :tt:j:::i :::;;::;: +"|t| 'HIT
;;.;! ;;;; ;;;; ;;;; r::: :::: t;i: ii : j HJUJ; fjf| I;} I I4 :
1 1 iij1iinii!piH^i^^;!;^p:i^;;:: 	
• •--f--- .».,»., 	 p.., 	 	 	 	 	 	 — „-.-__.._.
00 0
-Cl

-------
S
55
 n
 E
 <
 -J
 -i
 O
 0

 111
 O

 M
 z
 o

 -1
 _J

 2

  I

 -
 co
 O
 U

 _,
 <

 ol
 <
 o
ro
o
.::
|
'

Figure 27
CAPITAL COST OF TREATMENT PLANT
VS. SUBSTRATE REMOVAL
FLOW 5 MGD BOD 2000 MG/L
SS 500 MG/L COD 5000 MG/L
:~itr::: :::ii:i:: ::: :::; :::r::: ::r: :— ~:pm


?.;!•;;;•:

n::j::::
lii!:!-i;
™.j:-.::
•— -| —
—:::•::
-••••••••
ii-:i::::

~

•'




-

HH?;;;:

	
:
Pr
• — -



V
. .


:;;:i;:;;





::::j:::!
:;;;!:;i!
::;;•;;;:
::;;!;:;:

Ill
::::;::::
:.\:::i:':'::
. 	
i


::;rjr::i
yj:

IARY
~3£~


:;;;;;;
;;;!i:i;
;ii!i::i
•:;i:i::

\j\.









i;iji:i;
;;!!;;;?
;;;j;;!!


r?:t!t«




4+-:***+j
^-rrrtr

::: .:::
|||
ii;j;;;;
:;i !!;:
;H; ii-i
iiiiii;;;
::::;::::
i:;;|;i;;
Ipjj




— , —


::::



::::*::::




;:;; ::::
l;;;ji;ii


::::!::::
25




|
•'
1
::::


i;;; ;;;;
::::!:::!


;::: ;;;;










Etrp^







i!!;];;!;
•::•[::!!









1::::
1
pn^nrq










::::fi:::

iiiiii
:.:.)..!. 1




















:;..);.. ^
::::


::::

I!!!!!;!!





iiiiiii!;

: ..
-



1



•



















iinirrr
IIP




liiilM
iifliHi:



iliiliiii









.







ISAND FILTER;;
is
::::}::::
ACTIVATED SLUDGE INCLUDING
SLUDGE TREATMENT
....i 	 j....i....i 	 i....i 	 ; — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i

;~i;;;;
IMMMM

.
-




1
!!!!|!!!!ii"T"!
i ft
HM


::::
Efi
— i


ANA


ATE




EROB



D L
iwnw

:
;
--.
1C L


^GOQNL

lp

AGO(
*nttM:*
ril

•r*»ii *u
:
.


>N:H





(i*uwM




**^'f+<: ::
iiii liiJJ


T::
'::
1
I
i








:•-

iilpii







1









!..:
:...-






i;;; :;;;
•:;i:i;ii







;;!)!:!!



.::t










;;;

iiiiliil;
;;;; ;;;;
:n:



.









rrHt^*













Bj
;;;;;;;;

:;::;:.::
iilltllii
lilljiOi

;;;;!;;;;
;;;;•;;;;

: : : : i : : : :


fe|d
"i 10
— j..::
!!;; ;;!;






V E)



:



:
i
1
:ci
*tt
;-^r=j


: :u:^
: ::^3
-:ans
~HH^
•;~3
;~-~"^li
i«S
"~S
^ ^^
f!HHS
igg
H~H^
n ;*:; ***j
i^B
1^8
H~S
	 HS
= — S
t: rut tth
==£
i^
S3-J

COD 5000
BOD 2000
SS   5OO
        4OOO
1800
 175
3000    f \    /2000
      200 100  25   15
        50 50  20   I
                                                         1000

-------


: t::rt T^:^1^ f 1 	 TJ TTTT tirr : 3
10 MiiMiii H iiiiiJiiiiiiM
<
_i
Q
0
I6 mil
^
;.«^444$P
2 2 m li£
a. ^
< i^irlANAEROBIC
OD 1200 100

Figure 28
CAPITAL COST OF TREATMENT PLANT
VS SUBSTRATE RFMnVAl
FLOW 5 MGD BOD
SS 100 MG/L COD
~^SAND FILTER
TIVATED SLUDGE INCLUDING ~
SLUDGE TREATMENT ii
,—,—,.- 	 , 	 1— ---••»• 	 — — — 	 	 . • • j • i . • ' ' ' ' | ; • • • 	 •• -|---- — — -— — — — — — — —
HI 	 _+_ 	 r ~ — -j- ' .v '.,.:!." ,, ,|, . ,;, :. •! • • r—
RATED LAGOON =
Kl!;:il:::!l::^li 	 U — , : 	 j£t —4—^ - ]-": m^J-^: ^_|__ :;• +— ffi
LAGOONfe^^-rt- -^ =^r -::..+:nlr. — •
0 800 600
500 MG/L
200 MG/L
B |iii|jii ^CCARBON ADSORI
-7— — ^[— -r- — ^"' -t'^ ^^ — = — ^— -»— - —
B ^KffiffiBBffliiiii — ^^H
iJt -s1-— -
y — --?^ =|=| j \ ^f^r
— ..:...!.-.. . • " : j • '•-,-••;'! ' R •~^-
5 H rrrrr, B "!:::-- — | . -^^ -.— - — M- — ^ ~— — 	
IT - . '.T" . ' 	 : 	 -~r— 7^;— T — — t±rrrrt
400 20


ION EXCHANGES!
3TION^~~
	 Sill;; ';';";;!;; :"~ ' ! ' *
HI
0 0
BOD  500
SS   100
200
 50
100
100
25 15
20  I

-------
::•... : : : . : :
Btr
12 i
— — .- 	 . . ^T'J^TTT[ . i — -+ . * - i | . . - --t - - - - 1 - - - -4--—— - . .
CO tct±=±= = :
Q^ T ' r ' •* J-J"*- ' ' j ' -™* "T*
< 10 nrr:::t:::::::::::::-::' .:. . ..: — :.:::i:-:":::::..::
o
o
u.
0 o :-::: ::.::::;;:!:::
CO
z
O r— -:T— --ttpFfer-jTT-r -:.-: 	 '....'i
-J
- 6^— JL^-rJr- -fr~|r~f:::::::::::::::
1
0 ~~: ACTIVATE
° 4 i SLUD
_j ^^~T— rr~=a-~7 	 ' ;..TT!i:!|!!i!|"iipi'iP
< I AERATED
* S ***-~-'i~^~-'t*':T1 fl" it" '!"
1 I ~ ' 111 ill i 1 '••-|'"''J''-'|'-'-j'll'jilitJ T'i[
^PRIMARY; 3 ANAEROBIC LAG
5D 1200 i 1000
3D 500 450
^_ _ „_ 	 ___ _ — _ __|__ ^___^ „__„ _— |- — __^ — _ 	
Figure 29
CAPITAL COST OF TREATME
VS. SUBSTRATE REMC
FLOW 5 MGD BOD 5OC
SS 500 MG/L COD 1200
I: i:::::::::::::;::::::;::::::. ;:::::::•::;:::::: j:: . : :::
	 I 	 ; - 	 \~~
iiimliiiii] :::ciii |
rTTnna:;;::;;;:;;;;;;;:;;]:. ;;;;!;;;:;;;;;;;:;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;
i T *TT*t7TTTT, I *f -"--- -• -j 	 j 	 I 	 - — .----
^i:\^ ft LrSAND FILTERS^;
D SLUDGE INCLUDING^ fft
GE TREATMENT ::- i*^}"
LAGOON III
-t~+r~ — 1-~ r-FtFf — 1j— ~rrr Trtf f- :?ff f ^ ": |:':i
DON ^i^HifeHHr-jj^^::^ — ^r^i 1
'lllli Hi 1 Hi II IJlmilllllllllllilllMllnl'lll li III III IliililllillllWg
800 600 I (
200 100 25 15
NT PLANT
VAL
MG/L
MG/ L
:
.::.:::.: ::
::::::
	
ffffcAF
p:::i::: ; l:i:l":.
~J7^f-
40C
)







I BON
-i 	 . - - - -
:r:ii:;:^
- .. .i)...-.
^ '''II'''
::::: .
Jjj


!-•••;:••-
'....u...


ADS
^H^i
	 , 	
jjj
••'•'] —
,.; . . - 1 ; i . r
• • •
— t-p-

{:::::::::
	 l^-r

::'::

DRP7
-••-7——-
IS
2C
':.[;.:;
~:r[t-TT
— H —
^-' ' ' ~

S
ION
ION
-;-:.!' '•;
:~" TTJ
!!i;|:::T
)0
	

~

:::::



•»--'- -
4-"-. —
jr. 7. _
ggj


;..J.--
EXCHANGE x
1
— -q
rt±5
m
'~*~r

4i -^
~~
•"' ' • i
iiifl
S
S^±
||
+^^
^1-U: ^
^3
tt
14 i. j. --n I-
' ;|IH
M~ TT]
0

-------
  to
  cr
  o
  o
  8  3
  Q.
  <  2
  o
                                Figure 30

                   CAPITAL COST OF TREATMENT PLANT

                         VS.  SUBSTRATE REMOVAL
                    FLOW  I  MGD

                    SS   100  MG/L
                          BOD 3000  MG/L

                          COD 8000  MG/L
                                                   JON EXCHANGE
                                            CARBON ADSORPTION
                           SAND FILTER
         ACTIVATED SLUDGE  INCLUDING

             SLUDGE TREATMENT
iANAEROBIC LAGOON
            AERATED LAGOON
       PRIMARY
                       I
                                  -m-H-fw+t

COD 8000
BOD 3000
SS   100
        6000
  /4000 \ \

200 100 25 15

 50 100 20 I
2000
                                                     
                             76

-------
              Figure 31
CAPITAL COST OF TREATMENT PLANT
      VS.  SUBSTRATE REMOVAL

   FLOW  I MGD    BOD 3000 MG/L
   SS  500MG/L   COD 8000 MG/L

8
7
ft;
<
:i e
o
o
b.
0
CO 5|
2
O
_l
_l
X 4
1
1-
o
o 3
<
»-
0.
< o :;;::;
0
i
!!!!!
COD 8000
BOD 3000
SS 500
IB
- 'f- t- ----- - - ;;;;[[
; " ^ 1 ii v I-: ::: i iiMiiiiiiii! il iiiiiii
l:|i:lllfl ] 1 1 1 N|I
•i ANAEROBIC LAGOON
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
^INCLUDING SLUDGE
iiiiiii! : i AERATED LAGOON I ::
i^ • i ^ i iiiiMi Mii}
^ilipRiMARYBB lililB^
f 6000 4000 V
2700 200 100
175 50 100

r ION EXCHANGE ; 3
ffltil lllllllllliillttmtmliMMltifltiHIIIII 1
MmCARBON ADSORPTION ESOT
-: i lllliiiiiiHii " H liiN: :r:
: : i ii;i iii ifiiiiiiiii; liiii iHMiiiiiiiiiii iii i
SAND FILTER ;
^•|K!!I!!!ii!!!!!iji
[III [III 111; [
k\ 2000 0
25 15 *
20 1 
-------
                             Figure 32

               CAPITAL COST OF  TREATMENT PLANT

                      VS,  SUBSTRATE  REMOVAL
                  FLOW   I  MGD

                  SS   100  MG/L
                                     BOD 3000 MG/L

                                     COD 1000 MG/L
                                     [}!!}!

    :
to
cc
o
Q

IL
O

CO
z
o
d  3
O
O
  Q.

  <
  a
                              ::::

                        i:
                               i
                                               '|!i! !::::::: :ii: :!i:i:;:: ::;
                                               iiilililiili
                                               ION EXCHANGE
                                                             1
                                       CARBON ADSORPTION
      ACTIVATED SLUDGE  INCLUDING[

          SLUDGE  TREATMENT
                  ...
                      :
       AERATED  LAGOON
      ANAEROBIC LAGOON
      f PRIMARY
               '• ^^n ^ 4 r * * f
               	
                       II
                        iliiiiili
                                 SAND  FILTER
COD

BOD

SS
3000

1000

 100
2000 f     f  t
 200 100  25  15

  50 100  20  I
                                         1000
                             78

-------
                            Figure 33

               CAPITAL COST  OF TREATMENT  PLANT
                      VS. SUBSTRATE REMOVAL
                  FLOW   I MGD

                  SS   500 MG/L
                              BOD  1000  MG/L
                              COD 3000  MG/L
  O)
  o:
  O
  Q
  o
  o
  0.
  <
  CJ
COD
BOD
SS
                                               ION EXCHANGE
                                     CARBON ADSORPTION
  ACTIVATED SLUDGE  INCLUDING
            SAND  FILTER
          SLUDGE  TREATMENT
        AERATED  LAGOON
          ANAEROBIcTt
    PRIMARY
          -LAGOON
3000
IOOO  900
 500  175
2000
 200 100 25 15
  50 100 20  I
                            79

-------
                        Figure 34

           CAPITAL COST OF TREATMENT  PLANT

                 VS.  SUBSTRATE  REMOVAL


             FLOW   I  MGD     BOD   500 MG / L

             SS  500 MG/L    COD  1200 MG/L
 O
 Q
 to
 z
 O
    3.0
   2.5
   2.0
    1.5
 O
 o
 a

 o  .5



                                    i!



                                                   ::



                                      ION EXCHANGED:
                                 CARBON  ADSORPTION
       tin
       ACTIVATED SLUDGE INCLUDING
           SLUDGE TREATMENT
         m

      i
              -HHIH*
                        TTTtTTtT
 ^AERATED LAGOON —
.. IH"*^;*tttH1tr!utiW!"i Hff! Sf t?{-! ft f i If! M:! 1:4 •
ANAEROBIC LAGOON
         ft
       PRMARY+
             -t-H-H

                           SAND  FILTER
                                  •i
m

                                                   1 i
COD 1200

BOD  500

SS   100
            800    f     f 4 400

            200   100   25 15

              50   100   20  I
 <\
 <\
                       80

-------
            Figure 35
CAPITAL COST OF  TREATMENT PLANT
      VS. SUBSTRATE  REMOVAL
  FLOW   I MGD     BOD  500 MG / L
  SS  500 MG/L    COD 1200 MG/L

4.0
3.5
a:
2 3.0
o
0
u.
o 2.5
0
- 2.0
1
l-
w
0 . K
O '•«'
1-
0.
< 1.0
P

Ot







>\









I ' :
rr ; ; ; :
: : :
: : : .
' : :
::.
p
-i mi





,
liii,

1
rrrf
t-
i ' ; -

'•M
Ii


! ' ] | , . ,!...!

i - , - -
i i ' '
Ii
:::
tjii
ffl
1 1 1 1
! ii J

p
m
~-
i • i

n
:|| j
; i i;
55
ffi
. : : .

t

1 1
tfjt
M. M
)
H t
II

: •'.'•
1
TrT



j

1
ffl

*CARBOKT
^
1 1 1 1 1 it ! r
• i : : :
H i i • ! mrrmrrrrrrtTrrm : : !ii!!!i!i:i n 1 1 u 1 1 n.i 1 1
ACTIVATED SLUDGE INCLUDI
SLUDGE TREATMENT
m
R
+i

r
'. : .
.
•::
.
fv

I
ttr

COD 1200
BOD 500
SS 500

Ti4
VR
-H-K





FH
;';
i+4
1
45
; i
A

AE
A
A
L
r 1 i
lljl
|
o
>>
1
; ; ;; ;
:RA
MAE
!! i
iiiii
1 ;

1 1 1
Ml



TED LA(
^ROBICift
aGOON

1
II

: :



800
200
50
m




500N
1
itTTfrTTT
: . 1 1 , , , .
:;1:
i


;: t

I
100
100
|!T;
mil
NG
•TTi
; i '^



i rrr"
:


55



J
....



!l , .
in:
:;;!
; • it
| ' | ' ' | ' ; ' 1
4j-
; '

I
' 'i
I
1 i I ! i . . : . : : . : } . : . :
I j ' l\ • • • '• \- '• • •""

m
Ml:
ijii
mt
1
i! i i
H!!
Hi|fF:t:
ION EXCHANGED

]ji]

i : '.'. I : : : :
' M : j ; ; : :









• ' •
:i i:

ll i
44-U-
: I
Frn

B
i
ADSORPTION
:: : !i;:

i SAND
itTT
Ii!!
s
i
(1
25 15
ZO 1

::;i
|
i
j i
600
! ' Mi
: . ; .



; i
1 ! !
t ! i j
II
'..',': ', ', 1


M }: 1 :
:; ; ; ;
11
M; 1M
FILTER i
1
!!.!!
ijii
ii

H
.
N:

1
"H^
B


! ; . l '. i ' '. M ;

....... .
:'.'.'. i ;

0

-------
                            Figure 36

               CAPITAL COST OF  TREATMENT  PLANT

                     VS. SUBSTRATE  REMOVAL


                 FLOW  0.5 MGD     BOD  3000 MG/L

                 SS    100 MG/L   COD  8000 MG/L
 en
 or
 o
 0

 U-
 o

 CO
 z
 o
 E 3
 in
 O
 o
 CL
 <
 O
                        •:.:.:.: :..:
                        mmm
                          SAND  FILTER
ACTIVATED  SLUDGE  INCLUDING
    SLUDGE  TREATMENT
   ANAEROBIC  LAGOON
      PRIMARY
                 B
                                                   ION  EXCHANGE
                                                              ffl
                                           tffl
                              II
                                    CARBON  ADSORPTION
                                                               0
           AERATED  LAGOON
                                                           D

                                                                 :
COD 8000
BOD 3000
SS   100
           6000
  f4000 \ \
200  100 25 15
 50  100 20  I
2000
                            82

-------
                           Figure 37

              CAPITAL COST  OF TREATMENT PLANT

                     VS.  SUBSTRATE  REMOVAL


                 FLOW  0.5  MGD     BOD  3000 MG/L

                 SS    500  MG/L    COD  8000 MG/L
en
o
0
o  3
in
O
O
Q.
<
O
                                                 ION EXCHANGE
                                                 mm
                                         CARBON  ADSORPTION
         ACTIVATED SLUDGE  INCLUDING
            SLUDGE  TREATMENT
SAND FILTER
              AERATED LAGOON
             ANAEROBIC  LAGOON
COD 8000
BOD 3000 2700
SS   500  175
                              /4000 \ \
                            200  100  25  15
                             50  100  20   I
                           83

-------
a
                               CAPITAL COST OF TREATMENT  PLANT
                                     VS. SUBSTRATE REMOVAL
                                            Figure 38

                               FLOW  0.5 MGD    BOD 1000 mg / I
                               SS 100 mg/l     COD 3000 mg / I
                                                                            ION  EXCHANGE
                                                   CARBON ADSORPTION
                         ACTIVATED SLUDGE
                         INCLUDING  SLUDGE
                             TREATMENT
SAND
                     AERATED  LAGOON^
                        1 y*"H fft >**t L** t - i i i 111 « H-i t+t* fm$t£t^
                     _AjJAEROBjC  LAGOON
                     ^PRIMARY
                                          I00125S S

-------
                                Figure 39

                 CAPITAL COST  OF  TREATMENT  PLANT

                         VS.  SUBSTRATE REMOVAL


                    FLOW 0.5  MGD      BOD  1000 MG/L

                    SS    500  MG/L     COD 3000 MG/L
    3.0
    2.5
    "
    1.5
u

                   : :,::::

                            m
                                 _j_p|_^4_ H"4-pJ ---
                                                     ION EXCHANGED
                                             CARBON  ADSORPTION

        ACTIVATED SLUDGE  INCLUDING
            SLUDGE TREATMENT
              AERATED  LAGOON
                   liiruini^iiniiinmr
                   CDAQ IP 'Hi FFFH
                ANAEROBIC
                 LAGOON
I mint
              PRIMARY

                            I

COD 3000
BOD 1000  900
SS   500  175
                         2000 T
                          200 100
                           50 100
                             FILTER
                   25  5
                   20
                           1000

                                            ffl
                                                                  .
                                                                 Ha
                                                                  :

                            85

-------
                    Figure 41


     CAPITAL  COST OF  TREATMENT  PLANT

            VS. SUBSTRATE  REMOVAL



        FLOW 0.5 MGD     BOD  500 MG/L

        SS    500 MG/L    COD 1200 MG/L
                                        ION EXCHANGE*.
                                        ' * • I ' ' ' I I i • 1 I'll 1(1' M If
                                CARBON  ADSORPTION
                 SAND  FILTER
         M !  il'iiiiliiiihilliiiiliiii
ACTIVATED  SLUDGE  INCLUDING

    SLUDGE  TREATMENT
     AERATED  LAGOON
     ANAEROBIC
                   100      25  15

                   100      20   I
COD 1200

BOD 5OO

SS  500
               86

-------
             Figure 40
CAPITAL  COST OF  TREATMENT PLANT
      VS. SUBSTRATE REMOVAL

  FLOW 0.5 MGD    BOD 500 MG / L
  SS   100 MG/L   COD 1200 MG/L
: Ti
::
-i i



1 , j.
i' :
E:::::I:::
9 n -
2.0 ;
: _L4______

I.O
to
Q-
Jr
^ ;
_j
1 .O
-J
0
S : 1
SJ if
i lily
_j
J |.0 ::

! '
I- .8 - -ACTI
0 r
_i .6 r
1 4 jjjjipijj
0 U4&
.2 | i: ANAER(
| p D 1 M A R
COD 1200 !
BOD 500
SS 100


I

Fffl i±3
; : ; : ;,!::::
1 . ' : . : : : : . :
iijijijig 1
II III
i II
' -• 1 8
lII-Lui-uii 1

. 1 1


11
: : :

il ji^S


i • [
1 ;
4--
HI

li
jl
TT^


"| * ] ;
1 I '. .' ! .
•:

!
I
• • •
1
m
SA
1 : , M
VATED SLUDGE IN
SLUDGE TREATMEI
; 1
11 1
i LL
I
:RATED LAGO<
mrnnTTrnri PT:.
5BIC LAGOON
./
000 8C
2C
t
Effl
i ::
DN
T?;
I;
i- ::
11
riiil!!ii
)0
>o
.0
::: : i:::
1

rtTTJTtrj

; ; H
i ' ! ' , ' i ' '
B
'.':','. \ '.'.','.

m
Fffl

• '• M
:: : i
!;;
i '• '•
I


K ! !
ffl
R-H
cnn
: ; : !
En
Effl
- HTffffFCffffH
ND FILTER
CLUDIN6
JT
.it.
-f-u:
np
i
T 6C
100
100


"nr


''"j-
lil
!ii
1 1; |
i i !
f i i
; j !
3H :
)0
25
20
	 t - -
:::i]0"liilii:JiH::[
., . . , , . . . , .1 | 	



rtrrttrp ... m \ 	
I. !
....!,.. , . . i | , t , , t


: :: :
T i 1 1 I H I 1 1 1 rTTT I T TI" Mil 1 | |
r j TTTI ITT
, i_^ i ; j i [ , i i i
ION

-tilt " TT " ~H~ " "

: l- +H"^:LI:"
^CARBON ADS
; E::::::::::::::::::i: ::::

ifMwmmltllllffl
; -;iffiffljiii
: JEJ!EE!;;!!!;|!!!
: : : : : : : : j :::::::::::::: : : :







^_ '_ _









Lf : - :
i.i. - j - 	
; :::::::::::
+- — — ' 	
: EEEE:::::::::::::::::: ::::
j|:_ ::::::::::::::::::: ::::
400 2
15
!















i . . . , ._. ._ 	 .
;:;: ;;: ;!:^ ;
EXCHANGED
44 (_M 1 i M 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 -1


•
9^ :i

ORPTION
— . . i , p r

	 -





:: j- i. .
. L _ - . . .. _ I 1 . . 1

_t 	 ij


	 — i - —













00 0
          87

-------
                 XI.   PROJECTED INDUSTRY COSTS


The available data indicate that in 1964 the average large plant
in the organic chemicals industries had a wastewater flow of
4,564,000 gpd and that about 211 plants produced 951 of the total
production of 71 billion pounds in that year.  Approximately 238
plants will produce 117.2 billion pounds in 1968; 1968 data on
wastewater flows are not available for the industry as a whole.
The data indicate a growth rate in number of plants of about 3$
per year.

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

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

The plant survey data indicate an average wastewater flow of 7.56
gpd per ton of annual production vs. an indicated average use
within the industry of 18.42 gpd per annual ton of production in
1968.  The difference may be explained largely by the fact that
the plants surveyed had installed waste treatment facilities that
average 84.2% removal of the critical pollutant, usually referring
to BOD.  The proper first step in implementing waste treatment in
a plant is to reduce wastewater volumes by conservation, segrega-
tion, or reuse; the data indicate that this has indeed been the
practice in plants that have installed waste treatment facilities.
In the absence of any other data,  it may be assumed that the
average wastewater production would be the average of these two
figures if treatment facilities had been installed throughout the
industry, i.e., 13 gpd/annual ton in 1968.

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

                           TABLE XIX

      WASTEWATER PRODUCTION FOR THE INDUSTRY THROUGH 1974

      Year       Wastewater, gpd/ton     Wastewater 10  gpy

      1968             13.0                    278
      1969             12.2                    287
      1970             11.3                    295
      1971             10.5                    304
      1972              9.85                   313
      1973              9.23                   323
      1974              8.65                   333
                                                                   88

-------
                                             TABLE  XVIII

                 ORGANIC CHEMICALS  INDUSTRY  -  PROJECTIONS  BASED  ON  CURRENT  PRACTICE
   Number of Large Plants
   Wastewater  (109 gpy)
   Production  Total  (109 Ib)
                                         1963
71.0
   Production Large Plants  (10y Ib)
   Sales, Total  (109 Ib)
   Sales, Total  (109 $)
   Municipal Sewer Discharges  (10  gpy) 49.8
   Wastewater (gpd/annual ton)
          1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
211
350
78.7
74.8
42.8
8.5
55.1
25.64
217
361
88.9
84.5
46.8
9.0
62.2
23.41
224
372
100.6
95.5
52.7
9.9
70.4
21.32
231
383
111.7
106.1
56.6
10.5
78.2
19.78
238
394
122.4
117.2
61.6
11.2
85.7
18.4
00
                                        1_96£

   Number of Large Plants              245
   Wastewater (109 gpy)                406
   Production Total (109 Ib)           135.6
   Production Large Plants  (109 Ib)    128.8
   Sales, Total (109 Ib)                67.1
   Sales, Total (109 $)                 11.9
   Municipal Sewer Discharges (109 gpy) 94.9
   Wastewater (gpd/annual ton)          17.27
          1970
1971
1972
1973
252
418
150.4
142.9
73.2
12.7
105.3
16.03
260
431
166.9
158.5
79.9
13.7
116.8
14.89
268
444
183.5
174.3
86.9
14.6
128.5
13.96
276
457
201.6
191.5
94.3
15.6
141.1
13.08
1974

284
471
221.8
210.7
                                                  155.2
                                                   12.25

-------
The capital costs for a typical plant discharging 4.56  mgd were
calculated using the unit cost method described in Sections  X  and
XI of this report, relating costs to various levels of  removal of
BOD, COD, and suspended solids.  The unit treatments and resulting
concentrations were as shown in Table XX.

These costs are plotted in Figure 42 versus percentage  removals  of
the various pollutants.

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

     Average production = 306,670 tons per year

     Average wastewater flow = 2,318,692 gpd

     Average capital cost = $1,036,522

     Average operating cost =  $193,125

     Average removal of critical pollutants = 84.21

The following data were calculated from the above:

     Average capital cost = $447/1000 gpd

     Average operating cost = $83.2/1000 gpd

     Average wastewater flow = 7.56 gpd/annual ton

     Average capital cost = $3.38/annual ton

     Average operating cost = $0.63/yr/annual ton

At 84.2% overall  treatment efficiency, the average capital  cost
per plant was $1,036,522.  The industry cost at this level would
be $246,692,000 on the basis of 238 plants.

The figures in Table XIX indicate that wastewater disposed  of  by
the industry would be 762,000 x 103 gpd if treatment facilities
were installed throughout the industry.  The capital costs  in  a
4.56 mgd plant would be $300 per 1000 gpd for 85% removal of BOD
according to Figure 69 and the industry total thus $228,600,000.

At $447/1000 gpd the total cost would be $340,614,000.   Using  the
calculated values for a 4.5 mgd plant, the capital cost at  831
removal of BOD would be $1,142,100 per plant or $271,819,000 for
the industry in 1968 on the basis of 238 plants.

Four methods of estimating 1968 industry costs in large plants to
achieve approximately 851 BOD reduction have thus yielded estimates
from $228,600,000 to $340,614,000 averaging $271,931,450; these
data are summarized in Table XXI.
                              90

-------
                         TABLE XX

CAPITAL COSTS FOR LEVELS OF TREATMENT IN A 4.56 mgd PLANT
L    Treatment Processes Employed

(0)  None

(1)  Oil Separator, Equalization,
     Neutralization

(2)  (1) + Sedimentation

(3)  (1) + Lagooning

(4)  (2) + Activated Sludge and Final
     Clarifier

(5)  (4) + Filtration

(6)  (1) + Filtration and Deep-Well
     Disposal
BOD
1150
1150
1035
200
25
15
COD
3000
3000
2700
2600
2100
2000
SS
175
175
61
50
20
1
Installed Cost
0
669,600
804,600
1,142,100
3,194,100
3,423,600
                                           7,514,100
Capital Costs/1000 gpd

            0


          147

          176

          250


          700

          751


         1648

-------
1C
I >
                                                             Figure 42


                                                        CAPITAL  COSTS IN

                                                          4.56 MOD PLANT
                                 H; H Hit UH nit i:ti jiii ii
                                                       40        50

                                                            % REMOVAL

-------
                           TABLE XXI

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

$246,692,000
$271,819,800
$228,600,000
Vol. of Wastewater   $340,614,000
The facts that the estimates based upon costs  per unit of wastewater
show the greatest dispersion, that those based upon costs per  plant
are both intermediate and that the estimate  based upon calculated
costs per plant and number of plants equals  the average,  and that
the correlation analyses presented previously  indicate that  pro-
duction-related variables rather than wastewater-related  variables
are of most importance, lead to the conclusion that industry esti-
mates are most reliably made on the basis of estimated costs per
plant and estimated number of plants.

In Table XXII production and wastewater figures are given for  the
organic chemical industry through 1974 on the  basis of widespread
installations of treatment facilities.

The data in Table XXII indicate that the average large plant would
be expected to treat 3.2 mgd of wastewater during the period
considered.  The capital costs in such an average plant are  given
in Table XXIII versus the level of treatment attained. Such costs
are projected for the industry in Table XXIV on the basis of the
projected numbers of plants.

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

In terms of current dollars, using an average  of 3.61 annual
increase in the price level as has been reflected in the  Engineer-
ing News Record Construction Cost Index, total industry capital
costs are projected in Table XXVI.
                              93

-------
                                           TABLE XXII

                      INDUSTRY PROJECTIONS BASED UPON  WIDESPREAD TREATMENT



                                    1968     1969     1970     1971     1972      1973      1974

Number of Large Plants              238      245      252      260      268      276      284

Production-Large Plants (1Q9 #)     117.2    128.8    142.9    158.6    174.3    191.5    210.7

Production-Total (109 #)            122.4    135.6    150.4    166.9    183.5    201.6    221.8

Wastewater-Large Plants (109 gpy)   278      287      295      304      313      323      333

Wastewater-Large Plants (gpd/T/yr)   13.0     12.2     11.3     10.5      9.85     9.23     8.65

Municipal Sewer Discharges  (109 gpy) 85.7     94.9    105.3    116.8    128.5    141.1    155.2

Municipal Sewer Discharges                                                                .„_ 0
(106 gpd)                           234.8    260.0    288.5    320.0    352.0    386.3    425.2

-------
tn
                                             TABLE XXIII



                        CAPITAL COSTS VS TREATMENT LEVELS  IN AVERAGE  LARGE  PLANT



     Level         % Removal Critical Pollutants            $/1000  gpd            Cost  (3.2  mgd)
BOD COD
1 Removal of Gross
2 10% 10%
3 83% 13%
4 98% 30%
5 99% 33%
6 100% 100%
SS
Pollutants
65%
71%
89%
99%
100%






147
176
250
700
751
1648
$


2,
2,
5,
470
563
800
240
403
273
,400
,200
,000
,000
,200
,600






TABLE XXIV
INDUSTRY CAPITAL COSTS OF IN-PLANT

Treatment Level 1968
1 112.0
2 134.0
3 190.4
4 533.1
5 572.0
6 1255.1
Cos
1969
115.2
138.0
196.0
548.8
588.8
1292.0
TREATMENT
ts in Mill
1970
118.5
141.9
201.6
564.5
605.6
1328.9
FACILITIES IN LARGE
ions of 1968 Dollars
1971 1972
122.3 126.1
146.4 150.9
208.0 214.4
582.4 600.3
624.8 644.1
1371.1 1413.3
PLANTS

1973
129.
155.
220.
618.
663.
1455.


8
4
8
2
3
5


1974
133.
160.
227 .
636.
682.
1497.


6
0
2
2
5
7

-------
Treatment Level



      1



      2



      3



      4



      5



      6
                                           TABLE  XXV



                     TOTAL INDUSTRY CAPITAL COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
1968
146.5
168.5
224.9
567.6
606.5
1289.5
1969
153.
176.
234.
587.
627.
1330.
iQ7fl 1971
4
2
2
0
0
2
160
184
244
606
648
1371
.9
.3
.0
.9
.0
.3
169.
193.
255.
629.
671.
1418.
3
4
0
4
8
1
19 7 Z
177.
202.
266.
652.
695.
1465.

8
6
1
0
8
0
T9T3
186.
212.
277 .
675.
720.
1512.

6
2
6
0
1
0
	 137T
196.1
222.5
289.7
698.7
745.0
1560.2

-------
                      TABLE XXVI



TOTAL INDUSTRY CAPITAL COSTS FOR  WASTEWATER TREATMENT



                Costs in Millions of Current Dollars
Treatment Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
' 1968
146.5
168.5
224.9
567.6
606.5
1289.5
1969
158.9
182.5
242.6
608.1
649.6
1378.1
1970
172.6
197.8
261.8
651.2
695.3
1471.4
1971
188.3
215.1
283.6
699.9
747.1
1576.9
1972
204.8
233.4
306.5
751.1
801.6
1687.7
1973
222.6
253.2
331.2
805.3
859.1
1804.2
1974
242.4
275.0
358.1
863.6
920.8
1928.4

-------
In Figure 43, capital and operating costs are given for various
levels of treatment efficiency based upon BOD and COD removals;
these curves are based upon data in the technical literature.
According to Equation (3) given previously, which was based upon
analysis of the industry survey data, operating costs of unit  waste
treatment facilities are related to unit capital costs as shown by
the solid line in Figure 44.  The indicated points in Figure 44 are
taken from the data of Figure 43 and show the extent of variation
between these data.

The survey data indicate that operating costs are essentially  zero
for treatment facilities costing less than about $3000 per 1000 gpd,
while the plotted data based upon literature data assume that  zero
capital costs = zero operating costs.  Although a rational case can
be made for the fact that operating costs in primary facilities are
actually nil, the curves in Figure 45 combine estimates made from
the two data sources and assume that any facility will, in fact,
have an associated operating cost.

Based upon the data in Figure 45, operating costs in a 3.2 mgd
treatment plant would be those shown in Table XXVII for the various
levels of treatment.  Operating costs for the industry would then
be those shown in Table XXVIII.

                          TABLE XXVII

             OPERATING COSTS IN AVERAGE LARGE PLANT

Level  % Removal Critical Pollutants  $/yr/1000gpd  $/yr (3.2  mgd)

        BOD        COD         S.S.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Removal
10%
83%
98%
99%
100%
of Gross
10%
13%
30%
33%
100%
Pollutants
65%
71%
89%
99%
100%
7
8.5
13
105
120
350
22,400
27,200
41,600
336,000
384,000
1,120,000
                          TABLE XXVIII
     INDUSTRY OPERATING COSTS OF FACILITIES IN LARGE PLANTS

Treatment            Costs in Millions of 1968 Dollars
  Level
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
1968
5.33
6.47
9.90
80.0
91.4
266.6
1969
5.49
6.66
10.2
82.3
94.1
274.4
1970
5.64
6.85
10.5
84.7
96.8
282.2
1971
5.82
7.07
10.8
87.4
99.8
291.2
1972
6.00
7.29
11.1
90.0
102.9
300.2
1973
6.18
7.51
11.5
92.7
106.0
309.1
1974
6.36
7.72
11.8
95.4
109.1
318.1
                              98

-------
100
                                    Figure 43
                         ORGANIC REMOVAL VS.  COST
                 ;•:•  ::• j;H HH ffl: IHI ill! till ?»i nil  iiilutLUi iUIl±u nil rtS HJt
                        0.4        0.6        0.6        1.0
                       CAPITAL COST - MILLION  DOLLARS / MQ
                                   99

-------
o
o
(O
o
o

o
01
Ul
Q-
O

440
4OO 4 — -: ---
360
•XOft -
""ill"
280
240
200
160
. . . i ......
120
80
	 	 .. „ in
40
:':-|!!!j lill M;i ;::'':
rJ
	 	 - |T IT r r 	 ra
t^i rt'ii -t*& •4-4
OPERATING COST AS A
4 : FUNCTION OF CAPITAL COST
- i •_ • : - - :':":': 	 	 	 	 -:::
. , ill
i 1 < i ! H ' ' ' ' i i ' ' ' i " 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 t 1 1 III 1 Mil! Mill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i^t[i4-44!4i 1 1|
:.::;:::.,:|.,.:;- 	 /
Hill
± iff 111
Jn
---•-.,?*•• '§ : 	

-


S ::::;:I U::::::::::::::::::::::
::y;!;;;:;;;;;;;;;;:^=^- ::
Htd i";:
i!::
• , ; r :::::::::::::
_ . _ . 	 	 (-J 	 N-l 	
	 - - ' .1
1 - ' • • ' ; ] 	
	 , , :
i-||||||||||||||||||||||||i^
               200
400
600       800       1000       1200

         CAPITAL  COST - $ / 1000  gpd
1400
1600

-------
560



520




480




440




400
               40
80
        CAPITAL COSTS-! / 1000  gpd

120        160        2OO        240
                                                                                    280
                                                                                              320
                                                                                                   360

                                                                        1
                                                     1
                                                                                           400
                                                      I
                               iii
             I;

                               II
                               8$3»
                                      i
                                                      •
                                                 i:i:
                                                 ti±t
                      1
                                         1
i;
1
                                                                                   m
                                                                       a
                                                                                  • i
                   £
                  44-
                                                                  il-J-t
                                                                                  \\
                                                                                                  I-.
                                                                                                        H

                                                                                                        "'
                                                                                                                48




                                                                                                                44




                                                                                                                40
                                 Figure 45
                                                                 f Hi
                 OPERATING COSTS VS CAPITAL COSTS £
                                    SSI
                             i
                                                    11
                                                 I
                                                                                        .
                                                                                        i- -t—


                                                                                                     tTl
                                                                                                     1 j i j
                                                                            4fl
                                                                                                                      .rttt
                                                                                                                       -
                                                                                                                      "'t
                                                                                 ;:
                                                                               :;;
                                                                                ta
                       t
ss
       Jin
        t
                                                     :
                                                                                                   :  ::

                                                                                           t.'tt
            I
               a
                                                    4 « « 4
                                                                                                                   E S
o
§
                                                                                                o

                                                                                                o
    ttit

    ffi
1

                                                                                                                  5K?
                                                                                                                        24
W
                                                                                                                           h

                                                                                                                          , o
g200

                                                         X
<
oe
   80




   40

                          ::Hl-r fiH Hq rL ^i :H.r Hi igr HH. H  ii ft:  t trH HH i;H Si' tnr *H
                               t^r;^U-r-.^"q'T^ti^tr^r4"t-tTqH..:-HT4!<,.;it'rrtFmFrrrrR^trrTnfrtt-

                                                        MlH^ir"uniiln"riii'li!"ittt.t,Httt;^--^-.ti^:t:"-:ip
               200        400        600        800        1000       1200

                                               CAPITAL  COSTS -  %  1 1000  gpd
                                                        1400
                                                                                              1600
                                                                                                  1800
                                                                               2000

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

    TOTAL INDUSTRY OPERATING COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Treatment
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6

1968
13.9
15.0
18.5
88.6
100.0
275.2
Costs
1969
15.0
16.2
19.7
91.8
103.6
283.9
in Millions of 1968 Dollars
1970
16.1
17.4
21.0
95.2
107.3
292.7
1971
17.5
18.8
22.5
99.1
111.5
302.9
1972
18.9
-20.2
24.0
102.9
115.8
313.1
1973
20.3
21.6
25.6
106.8
120.1
323.2
1974
21.9
23.2
27.3
110.9
124.6
333.6
                            TABLE  XXX

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

    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6        275.2   294.1   314.1    356.8    363.2    388.2    415.3
1968
13.9
15.0
15.5
88.6
100.0
1969
15.5
16.8
20.4
95.1
107.3
1970
17.3
18.7
22.5
102.1
115.1
1971
19.5
20.9
25.0
110.2
124.0
1972
21.9
23.4
27.8
119.4
134.3
1973
24.4
25.9
30.7
128.3
144.2
1974
27.3
28.9
34.0
138.1
155.1
                             102

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


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

STEP 1:  Characterization of the Industry

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

STEP 2:  Projection of Industry Growth

The growth of the industry should be projected over the time
period set for purposes of the study.  Projections should be
made in terms of physical production units for the industry
                              103

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

STEP 3;  Characterization of Wastewaters

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

STEP 4:  Wastewater Treatment Methods

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

STEP 5:  Plant Survey Data Acquisition

Data on specific plants in the industry operating wastewater
treatment facilities should be obtained in order to verify
the applicability of generalized data to the specific industry
studied and to determine the parameters of the industry oper-
                           104

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

STEP 6:  Survey Data Analysis

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

STEP 7:  Costs of Unit Wastewater Treatment Methods

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

STEP 8:  Costs Related to Effluent Quality

The unit cost data must be related to effluent quality in  a
manner similar to that outlined in Section  XI  of this  report
for plants of typical size and effluent characteristics.  The
                             105

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

STEP 9:  Wastewater Projections for the Industry

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

STEP 10:  Industry Cost Projections

Projection of the industry costs become a mechanical matter at
this stage; all of the necessary data have been accumulated.
Depending upon the relative reliabilities of the various data
and the indicated nature of the cost determining industry
parameters, the projections for the industry are made using
the most likely data set.   In the present study production-
related parameters were shown to be of prime importance, a
reliable estimate of numbers of plants was available, and
the "average" plant costs  were closely estimated by two
alternative techniques.  In another industry the most likely
set of data might well be  different; the only general guid-
ance that can be provided is to show the considerations
involved as outlined in Section XII of this report.
                             106

-------
                  APPENDIX A






INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT PRACTICES DATA FORM
                      107

-------
DOCUMENT TO DATA CENTER.
REVISION TO DATA CENTER
       DATE
                     by.
                                NAME
      sh. _

      Rev.
                               DATE
                                                         NAME
                    INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT PRACTICES DATA  FORM
|   CARPI  |   GENERAL INFORMATION
PLANT NO.  I   I   I  I  I   I
           12345
         INITIAL FORM NO. II   I   I   I   I  I
                                                  •  7   8  •  10  11
         INITIAL ?  I   II   I
                  YES NO
INDUSTRY
                                              S.I.C. NO.   I  T I  I   1
                                                                                 12  II  14  IB
FIRM
                                         PLANT
YEAR PLANT CONSTRUCTED  I   I  I  I  I      STATE.


CITY AND/OR COUNTY
                                                       CODE
16  17  18  19
                   CD
                    2O 21
                                                CODE   I  I  I  I  I
                                                                                 22  23  24  25
STATISTICAL AREA
                                                   CODE   i  I  I   I
                                                                                    26 27 28
ECONOMIC AREA
WATER RESOURCE REGION
                                                   CODE  I  I  I   I
                                                           2* 30 31
                                                             m
            CODE
                                                                                      32 33
                                                                              MAJOR     MINOR
RECEIVING STREAM
                                              CODE
                           MO.
                                    YR.
                                                                              34 35    36 37
DATE OF DATA ACQUISITION  |  |  |  |   |   |
                         38 3»    40 41

SINGLE PLANTFIRM  |	|
                   46

SIZE OF FIRM: GROSS SALES  ( S 1000 PER YEAR )


SUBSIDIARY OF
                           MULTIPLANT FIRM
BASE YEAR    j  1  |   |   |
  n
                                                        42 43 44 49
                                             47
                                               I   I   I  I  I  I   M
                                                               I  54
                                                                n
     48 4* SO SI  SZ S3  54
                                                                                         SB
SIZE OF FIRM IN THE INDUSTRY ( PERCENT OF THE MARKET )


SIZE OF FIRM IN THE INDUSTRY: LARGE    |	|           MEDIUM
                                                            60
OWNERSHIP OF FIRM: PUBLICILY TRADED STOCK


PUBLICLY REGULATED FIRM  | _ |
                          64
                n
    CLOSELY HELD
rm
       88
      n
   n
                                                           S6  S7  88

                                                       SMALL
                                                                                         61
                                                              63
                                    DEFENSE - ORIENTED
REVISION DATE
                                                                  ,.  m
             n
              6S
                                       REV. i   I   I END OF CARD  JJJ
                                             7* 79                80
                                          108

-------
               INDUSTRIAL  WASTE  TREATMENT  PRACTICES  DATA  FORM
I  CARD  2  |   BASES  FOR  TREATMENT DECISIONS
               SAME  AS  CABD.l     |             Data  Form  No.     iTl  I   I   I   I
                                                                    12  13  14 IS 16  17
                                                                           MO.       YR.
m                                                       SOURCE              MO.       YR.
                                                       m  DATE      rn   m
Data By	         	  	            	   	
                   NAME                         18 19   20  21              22 23     24 28


Basis Of  Treatment  Standards:
    Common Law '   '  Statute  Law  '  '           Public Opinion l_l     Within Firm     '  I
                  26                27                           28                      29


    Courts:  Federal I  I    State I   I          Local I	|         Order I   I      Precedent I  I
                    30          31                 32               33                 34


    Agencies:   Federal I   |          State I   I         Interstate  I  I              Local I  1
                       35                 36                   37                     38


                          I   I         Order  I   I          Conference  I   I
             Regulations  I   I         Order I  I          Conference I  I     Hearsay
                          39                40                      41


Action  Initiation Within  The Firm:
    Cnrpornta                                                               CODE   I  I  I  I
                                                                                   43  44  4B
     Plant	CODE   |  I  I  |
                                                                                   46  47 48


 Basis  Of Action Decision*
                  |	I          Law I	I          Legal  Action |	1
    Public  Opinion I   I          Law I   I          Legal Action |  I  Economic Incentive
                  49                 SO                         SI                      82
     Other	. CODE   I   I  I  |
                                                                                    S3  54  SS


 Basis  Of Treatment Decision



     Least  Cost:   Total I   '     Operating I   1       Capital I	I         Economic  Return  |__J
                        56              57               58                            59


     Water  Conservation '  '            Minimum Compliance I	1      Ultimate  Treatment     l__l
                       6O                                61                            62
     Other	CODE   LJ	1	1
                                                                                    63  64  68


 Responsibility For  Action Decision >



     Corporate		-CODE   M   I   |
                                                                                    66  67  68
     Plant	.	CODE   LLLJ



 Responsibility For  Treatment Decision:


                                                                                   I   I   I   1
     Corporate.	—	CODE
                                                                                    72  73  74
     «--	—	C°DE   y^y
                      |    SAME  AS  CARD 1   |      END OF CARD    I 2
                                            79


                                               109

-------
INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT PRACTICES DATA FORM

| CARDS 3 1 PT ANT PRnnnr-TinN INFORMATION T

| SAME AS CARD 2
i
Product
CODE
1 1 1 II
16 19 20 21
CODE
1 1 1 II
26 27 28 29
CODE
1 1 1 II
34 35 36 37
CODE
1 1 1 II
42 43 44 45
CODE
1 1 1 1 1
80 SCOD? »
1 1 1 II
58 59 60 61
CODE
1 1 1 1 1
66 67 68 69
Production Schedule ___
Remarks :

m
17
Production Capacity
AMOUNT
MM
22 23 24
AMOUNT
1 1 II
30 31 32
AMOUNT
II II
38 39 40
AMOUNT
Mil
46 47 48
AMOUNT
MM

II II
AMOUNT
MM
70 71 72
Mrs. P*r. Uo. [.. ]
	 14

UNTT
a
25
UNIT
0
UNIT
a
41
UNIT
a
UNIT
a
5
UNIT
D
73
1 1
75 76












NO. OF CARDS 3 | J 1 SAME AS CARD
77 78

2 J END OF TABn |3,J
79 80

                         110

-------
                INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT  PRACTICES  DATA  FORM
 CARDS 4  j  PLANT  PRODUCTION INFORMATION II
                           L
                     SAME AS CARD  3
                                                      17
PRINCIPAL WASTE-PRODUCING PRODUCTION  PROCESSES:
                                                                               COPE
Mill
18 19 20 21
eopg
Mill
26 27 28 29
i i Ti i
MI i
22 23 24 28
CODE
Mill
30 31 32 33
cooe
III 1
                                    34 35 36 37
SIZE OF PLANT:
Employment ( 10 )
Plant Area (.Acres )
Size In Industry :
MM
42 43 44
MM
49 80 51
Small

|
S2
D
Value Added
Production
Medium
D
(S104/YR.)
Large
MM
49 46 47
AMOUNT
MM
U 84 83
a
i
48
UNIT
a
M
                                         57
AGE  OF PLANT:
             Age In Years
           m
            6O 61
                        Years Since Major Modification    I  I  J
                                                  •2 63
 LEVEL OF  TECHNOLOGY:
         Old
a
Averagi
•a
  6B
Advanced |  i
        66
                                                            Typical
a
 67
                                                   Unique
 RAW MATERIALS USED:
                                                                             6* 70
                                                                             71  72
                                                                             71 74
                                                                             78 76
           NO. OF CARDS 4   D     I SAME  AS  CARD T[
                            77      78                7»
                                                 END Or CARD LU
                                                             80
                                         111

-------
           INDUSTRIAL WASTE  TREATMENT PRACTICES  DATA  FORM
I  CARD 5  1  WATER USES
                             SAME AS CARD 4
                                            17
 WATER USE IN PLANT:
   Primary
   Purpose
 Major
 Source
Cost (t 11 000 gal. used)
Total       Treatment
         Principal
         Treatment
     Total
     Total Process
     Total Other
      Use (104 qalj
rfh  mn    mn    rfTi      rm
                                                               30 31 32
 It 19 2O    21 22  23     24 25 26     27 28
rTh  mn   mn    rfti      rrn
 33 34 15    36 37  38     39 40 41     424144        45 4* 47
rTh  mn   mn    rTTl      rn~l
                                                              60 «1 62
                 48 4» 50   S152S3     S4SS56     57585*

     Total Water Intake	___ (104 gal-) I   M  M

     Total Water Use.
                                                    tlO
                                                      «aaU Mill
                                                            •7 68 6» TO
 PROCESS WATER  QUALITY:
     Completely Satisfactory
    n
     71
       Marginal
n
Unsatisfactory
a
 73
 PROCESS WATER  QUALITY REQUIREMENTS:
                                                    . COPES
                                          DDDD
                                           74  7S  76  77
                |      SAME AS CARD 4     |    END  0F CARD
                 78
                                   112

-------
              INDUSTRIAL  WASTE  TREATMENT PRACTICES  DATA  FORM
j  CARD 6  I   CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTE STREAMS.
                               SAME  AS CARD 5
                                                    17
                         '  '   '  Of  I  I  I
           WoBte Stream No.      '   '  Of       I   Waste Streams In Plant
                             IS 19       20 21
Total Plant Effluent Calculated As Weighted Average

                                                                               t nX
                                                                             |  I

i. nil













-, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
23 24 tS 2« 27
-,,11111
21 2* 30 31
-.,,11111
32 33 34 35
_,, 1 1 1 1 1
3* 37 3« 39
-,,11111
4O 41 42 43
-,,11111
44 4S 46 47
Vl 1 1 1

-„ LL 11 1
SI S2 S3 S4
-„ LI 1 1 1
S3 M 87 U
-„ Mill

OK,/, Mill

_,,, 1 1 1 1 1
•7 ea 69 TO
* IOX
U cooeD
71 72 73 74 78 7«



      NO
           .OFCARDS6   D     I SAME AS CARD 5^      ENDOFCARD  fe
                           *rt      TA              79                     ^^
                                            113

-------
                 INDUSTRIAL  WASTE  TREATMENT  PRACTICES DATA FORM
j  CARDS 7  I   WASTE TREATMENT AND /OR REDUCTION PRACTICES
                           I     SAME  AS CARD  6      |
          Practice No.
m of  m
                                                    17
Practices In Use In Plant
                       18 19
                                 20 21
    Practice Instituted In Connection With Abatement Of Pollution From Waste Stream NosI
                                                      m  m  an  en
                                                       22  23    24 25    26 27    28 29
1. Unit Treatment
2. Unit Treatment
3. Unit Treatment
4'. Unit Treatment
5. Unit Treatment
Installation Dates : Initial, 19 1 1 1
Size And / Or loadings :





Efficiency. % 1 1 1 On Basis Of
74 75
*n np r^n* ,11 1 SAME AS CARD 6 |
77 78 7»
SO
1 1 1 1
31 32 33
Mil
34 3S 3*
1 1 1 1
37 38 3*
MM
40 41 42
MM
43 44 43
Last Modified. 19 1 1 1
48 49
UNIT
1 II 1 M
BO 81 SZ S3

84 SS M 57
UNIT
I I M I I
58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65

66 67 68 6*

70 71 72 73
CODE l_l
76
END OF CARD LU
BO
                                        114

-------
                INDUSTRIAL WASTE  TREATMENT PRACTICES  DATA  FORM
I  CAROS 8 I   CHARACTERISTICS  OF SLUDGES
                              SAME  AS CARD 7
                                                  17
                                nn  of  nn
Sludge  Source No.  I  I   I  Of  <   I  I   Sludge Sources  In Plant
                 18 19       20 21
                                       a
Total Of Sludges  In  Plant   >  I  Calculated As An Average
                        22
     Quantity



     Description Of Sludge :
                                     Lbs. Per Day
                                                   23 24 25 26    27
     Treatment Of  Sludge:
     Disposal Of Sludge:
                                                                          I  I  I   I  I
                                                                          28 29 30  31
                                                                     CODE
                                                                           32 U M 35
          Capital Cost.



          Land Value —
          Operating Costs.
                       	  CODE LJ	I	I—I
                                                           36  37 38 3t

                       	.   sim   a
                                                         40 41  42    43

                       	   ,rm   a
                       	44 45  46    47

                       	 S/yrLXD   D
                       ——^^———^^—^^^—-      48 4*  50    81

                       Satisfactory   I	I   Marginal    |	| Unsatisfactory I   I
     Ultimate Disposal   LJ
                       52                            S3               a*


                NO.  OF CARDS 8  CH   I  SAME AS  CARD  7    |     END  0F CARD L?
                                 77   78
                                                        79
                                                                              80
                                           115

-------
            INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT PRACTICES  DATA  FORM
I  CARDS 9 I APERTURE CARDS
                           SAME AS CARD  8
                                            17
   jFIRST CARD 9 |




|T|R|E|A|T|M|E|NlT1  | P JR | A | C | T j 11 C \tfZ\  |D|AJT|A|   |F|O|R|M|

18                                                                4*


                  APERTURE CODE   LI  1   J    NO.  OF CARDS 9 LJ
                                  SO SI SZ                    77
  I ADD. CARDS  8|
n  I  M  M  M  M  M  M  M  I  I  M  M  I  M    Ml
18                                                                 48


                  APERTURE CODE   I  I  I  J    NO.  OF CARDS 9 1	I
                                 SO 51 SZ                    77
i	i  11  rm  i  i  i  11  i   rTi  11  TI  m
18                                                                 48

                  APERTURE CODE   i  I  I  I    NO. OF CARDS 9 LJ
                                  SO SI 82
M  I  I  I   I  M  I  I  I  I  »  I   I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I


                  APERTURE CODE   I  I  I  I    NO.  OF CARDS 9\	I
                                  SO SI 82
rm i T  rii  r m  i  i  M  M  i  M  i  M  i  i  i  i   i
                                                                  4*

                  APERTURE CODE   ill!    NO. OF CARDS 9 LJ
18
                                  SO SI SZ                   77
»   I  »» I  I  M  I  I  »  I  I  I  I  I  i  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I   I  I  M
                                                                  48


                  APERTURE CODE   I  I  I  I    NO. OF CARDS 9 [j
18
                                  SO SI 52                    77
ULL  CARDS 9 I
                 I SAME AS CARD 8   I        END OF CARD  \9\

                 78                79                      80
                                  116

-------
              APPENDIX B






ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY SURVEY DATA
                    117

-------
Plant   Critical
Number  Pollutant
Efficiency
1
1
1
1
1
1
* 2
2
2
3
3
* 4
4
4
* 5
* 6
7
* 8
8
8
8
9
*10
*11
11
11
11
11
*12
12
12
12
Oil
All
All
BOP
BOP
All
All
All
All
CN
CN
COP
COP
Oil
All
BOP
Oil
Oil
Acidity
Oil
Oil
Suspended
Solids
Suspended
Solids
BOP
Oil
Oil
Suspended
Solids
BOP
BOP
Oil
Color
Oil
.
100
100
85
85
100
98
100
100
95
95
95
95
95
100
91
-
75
99
75
-
90
98
85
98
-
75
85
90
-
50
-
Capital Cost  Operating Cost  Capital Cost  Operating Cost  Wastewater
Per 1000 GPP   Per 1000 GPP   Per Ton/Year    Per Ton/Yr.    GPP/Ton/Yr.
   193.51
   187.50
   156.25
 3,666.67
25,000.00
   357.56
   600.00
    11.90
   119.05
   225.00

    75.00
   330.00
    18.52
     7.81
    16.98

25,353.80

   697.39
   190.00
    50.00
   163.16

   205.26
 1,595.74
   185.11
   379.79
   329.79
                                                  229.75
                                                  729.17
                                                  365.39
    11.24
     6.25
     6.25
      -
 6,000.00
    46.51
    80.00
     0.00
   625.00
    18.00
      -
   (42.97)
  (275.00)
    27.78
  (109.38)
(1,048.22)

    78.95
   377.06
    12.77
   311.70
    47.87
                                                                  4.08
                                                                  4.39
                                                                  0.69
                                                                  0.63

                                                                  0.27
                                                                397.33

                                                                401.52
                                                                750.00
                                                              0.50
                                                              0.24
                                                               .57

                                                              0.00
                                                              3.62
                                                              0.05

                                                             (0.15)
                                                            (16.43)

                                                             45.45
                                                            177.50
                                                                2.18
                                                               21.08
                                                               12.28
                                                                5.79
                                                                2.81

                                                                3.55
                                                               15.67

                                                              575.76
                                                              470.00

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

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

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

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

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

-
-
-
32.31
-
-
-
15.17
399.30
8,000.00
250.00
421.62
-
-
-
200.00
101.29
20.00
1,046.51
13.85
                Capital  Cost
                Per Ton/Year
                   644.44
Operating Cost
  Per Ton/Yr.
     26.67
                     3.93
                     2.67
                     1.42
                     8.40
                    33.85
                    39.75
                     1.66
      0.34
      0.26
      0.45
      1.52
      3.85
      2.75
      0.18
Wastewater
GPD/Ton/Yr.
  555.56
    5.20
    8.19
   29.47
    3.81
   19.23
   27.15
   13.00

-------
                                               (Continued)

  Plant   Critical               Capital Cost  Operating Cost  Capital Cost  Operating Cost   Wastewater
  Number  Pollutant  Efficiency  Per 1000 GPP   Per 1000 GPP   Per Ton/Year    Per Ton/Yr.    GPP/Ton/Yr.

    22    All           100           132.14      1,232.14           -              -              -
    22    TOC            20           676.92           -             -              -              '
   *23    BOP            11           159.50           -            1.18            -             7.41
    23    Oil            -             48.21           -
    23    Oil            -             49.17           -
    23    Oil            -             40.00           -                            '
    23    Oil            -             50.00           -
    23    BOP            11            56.00           -             -              -              -
   *24    BOP            50           290.27           -            4.19            -            14.43
    24    BOP            98           440.00         26.67
    24    Oil            -            280.44           -                            "
    25    BOP            95         3,672.43        335.71
    25    Oil            -             63.07           -
    25    Oil            -            178.03           -                            '
    25    SS             95           289.93           -                            '
M   25    Oil            -            467.96           -                            '
o   25    SS             98           335.71           -                            '
    26    BOP            80           146.36         16.00
    26    Oil            -             60.00           -                            •
    26    Oil            -             20.00           -
    26    Oil            -            212.50           -
    26    Oil            -             60.00           -              -              -              -
   *27    BOP            90           115.88           -            3.13            -           26.97
    27    BOP            91         1,395.35           -                            '
    27    Oil            95            -
    28    BOP            87           296.56         56.25
    28    BOP            20           151.56           -                            '
    28    BOP            87           145.00           -                            "
    29    BOP            85            84.03           -                            "
    29    Oil            -             31.02           4.63            -
    29    BOP            85            26.16
    29    Oil            -             26.85            -                            '
    30    BOP            80           250.00         26.19

-------
                                             (Continued)

Plant   Critical               Capital Cost  Operating Cost  Capital Cost  Operating Cost  Wastewater
Number  Pollutant  Efficiency  Per 1000 GPP   Per 1000 GPP   Per Ton/Year    Per Ton/Yr.   GPP/Ton/Yr.

  30    Oil            -                             -
  30    Oil            -             -             19.04                          -
  30    BOP            80           226.19          7.14
  31    Oil            90            84.22           -                            -
  31    All           100         1,186.05           ....
  31    Oil            -
 *32    BOP            91           850.00        265.00          3.40           1.06          4.00
 *33    BOD            66           335.71         47.62          1.93           0.27          5.75
  34    BOP            98           801.89        216.04
 *35    BOP            98         1,207.48           -            2.09            -            1.73
  35    All           100        30,000.00           -                            -
  35    BOD            98           607.64           -                            -             "
  37    BOD            85            -



NOTES:

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

All cost figures in parentheses indicate profit.

The following abbreviations are used.

   BOP  Biochemical Oxygen Pemand
   COP  Chemical Oxygen Demand
   TOG  Total Organic Carbon
   SS   Suspended Solids

-------
                         APPENDIX  C


          PETROCHEMICAL  INDUSTRY PRODUCT  PROFILES
Source of Data:

        Chemical Profiles,  Oil,  Paint  and Drug Reporter

        Future Chemical  Growth Patterns, R. N. Rickles

        Chemical Growth,  Vol. I, Aromatics, R. Strobaugh,
        Gulf Publishing  Company
                            122

-------
ACETALDEHYDE


Present Producers                        Capacity*

Celanese, Bay City, Texas                  210
Celanese, Bishop, Texas                    200
Celanese, Clear Lake, Texas                195
Celanese, Pampa, Texas                      10
Eastman, Kingsport, Tennessee              200
Hercules, Parlin, New Jersey               250
Publicker, Philadelphia, Pa.                80
Union Carbide, various locations           650
Others                                    	2_2

Total                                     1832

*million pounds


Production

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


Uses

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


Process

Acetaldehyde is produced from the:

1)  Hydration of acetylene

    C2H2 + H20 —»  CH3CHO

2)  Oxidation of Ethyl Alcohol

    C2H5OH + hQ2	* CH3CHO + H20

3)  Oxidation of lower paraffin (propane and butane)

4)  Oxidation of ethylene via the Wacker process

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

    Pd + 2HC1 = %02—* PdCl2 + H20
                              123

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

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


Reduction in Waste Loading by Process Change

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

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


ACETIC ACID AND ANHYDRIDE


Acid Producers                           Capacity*

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

Total                                     1985

*million pounds/year does not include by product and fermentation
 acetic acid which amounts to 100,000,000 pounds.
                              124

-------
Production                                                Property of
	                                               SOUTHEAST
1968:  1,700 million pounds                              WATFR LAft
1973:  2,500 million pounds                                I RRARY

                                                          Athens, Gau
Uses

Cellulose acetate, vinyl acetate, acetic esters, chloroacetric
acid
Process
Acetic acid is produced by:

1)  oxidation of acetaldehyde

2)  from ethanol

3)  LPG oxidation (liquified petroleum gas)

4)  from methanol and carbon monoxide

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


Waste Problems

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

Oxidation of acetaldehyde also produces higher acids and other
oxidized species in quantities somewhat less than produced by
LPG oxidation.  Water flows are of the same magnitude, but
organic load is about 50% of the load generated by the oxidation
of LPG.
                            125

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

Reduction in Waste Loading by Process Change

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

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

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

Total                                     1475

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:  1.3 billion pounds
1973:  1.8 billion pounds
                               126

-------
Uses

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


Processes

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

These are:

a)  Dehydration of isopropanol

    (CH3)2 CHOH- - » (CH3)2 CO + H2

b)  By product from the production of phenol from cumene

    (C6H5) (C3H7) + 02 - * C6H5OH +  C3H60

c)  Direct oxidation of propylene

          = CH2 + %02 - ^ CH3COCH3
It is expected that a major portion of the acetone will continue
to be produced from cumene as a phenol by product.  It seems
likely that direct oxidation of propylene will gain acendency
relative to the production from isopropanol.


Waste Problems
The processes based on isopropanol dehydration produce about
200-250 pounds of organics per ton of product.  These consist
of still bottoms (0.51 organics)  principally.  The nature of
the organics is somewhat complex but may include acetone, un-
reacted alcohol and higher polymeric species.  The amount of
waste water depends in part upon the amount of cooling water
utilized as well as the frequency of equipment cleaning.  It
is also important to note that the process utilizes either
metallic copper or zinc acetate as a catalyst and catalyst
cleanup could put significant amount of these materials into
the water course or to treatment.

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

Direct oxidation results in a yield of 931 which in turn produces
less than 80 pounds per ton of product as an organic load within
the system.  Water load varies, but exclusive of cooling water
amounts to about 750 gal/ton.  The regeneration of the cupric
chloride catalyst may also cause difficulty.
                             127

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

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

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

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

Total                                      650

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:  610 million pounds
1973:  630 million pounds

Uses

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


Processes

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

CaC2 + 2H20	> C2H2 + Ca(OH)2
                             128

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

CH4 + 02 - > C02 + H20

2CH4 - > C2H2 + H2

Other approaches involve the pyrolysis route as shown below is
typified by the Wulff process,
C4H10 - ^ C2H2 + C2H4 + CO
It is unlikely that many changes will occur with regard to the
production of acetylene in this country unless someone comes
up with a process with greatly reduced production costs which
would have the effect of bringing the cost of acetylene close
to the cost of ethylene.  If this does not occur, it will not
be possible for acetylene to maintain many markets in face of
ethylene.


Waste Problems

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

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

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


Waste Reduction by Process Change

The key factor in waste management in the production of acetylene
from hydrocarbons centers around the control of the cracking
furnaces to maximize the production of valuable products.
Improvements in the dif ficult-to-optimize reaction system are a
key to the success of the process but quite difficult to improve.
Since efficiencies have been known to run as low as 40-50%, it
is not surprising that efficiency improvements is vital to the
process.  This is the key process change which can be implemented
and returns from this operation are tremendous relative to pro-
duction of costs.  Further, recoveries of waste products in
                            129

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


ACRYLATES


Producers                                Capacity*

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

Total                                      543

*million of pounds/year

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


Production

1968:  240 million pounds
1973:  400 million pounds


Uses

Paint latices, textiles, acrylic acid specialties, acrylic fibers


Processes

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


Waste Problems

Waste streams associated with this operation are generally com-
posed of polymerization and degradation.
                             130

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

Considerable efforts are underway to improve yields and this
should result in lower waste water discharges.
AMMONIA

Major Ammonia Producers (600 TPD and up)
Producer                                Capacity*

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

Total                                  29,550

*Tons/Day
                            131

-------
Production

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


Uses

Fertilizers, area, nitric acid


Processes

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


Waste Problems

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

Flow (Gals/Ton of product)      300

NH3 (Lbs/Ton)                     0.1

NH4HC03 (Lbs/Ton)                 0.1

MEA (Monoethanolamine)
        (Lbs/Ton)                 0.2

C02 (Lbs/Ton)                     0.7
                              132

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


Waste Reduction by Process Change

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


BENZENE
Producers                               Capacity51

Allied, Winnie, Texas                       4
Amoco, Texas City, Texas                   15
Ashland, N. Tonawanda, N. Y.               10
Ashland, Catlettsburg, Ky.                 20
Atlantic-Richfield, Wilmington, Calif.     18
Atlas, Shreveport, La.                     10
Chevron, El Segundo, Calif.                25
Chevron, Richmond, Calif.                  10
Continental, Lake Charles, La.              6
Continental, Ponca City, Okla.              6
Cosden, Big Spring, Texas                   9
Crown Central, Houston, Texas              38
Dow, Bay City, Mich.                       20
Dow, Freeport, Texas                       30
Enjay, Baton Rouge, La.                    24
Enjay, Baytown, Texas                      55
Gulf, Philadelphia, Pa.                    27
Gulf, Port Arthur, Texas                   32
Hess, Corpus Christi, Texas                30
Leonard, Mt. Pleasant, Mich.                3
Marathon, Texas City, Texas                 6
Mobil, Beaumont, Texas                     30
Monsanto, Alvin, Texas                     65
Phillips, Sweeny, Texas                    22
Pontiac, Corpus Christi,  Texas              9
Shell, Houston, Texas                      31
Shell, Odessa, Texas                       20
Shell, Wilmington, Calif.                  15
Shell, Wood River, Illinois                30
                              133

-------
Producers
Capacity*
Signal, Houston, Texas                     22
South Hampton, Silsbee, Texas               6
Sun, Marcus Hook, Pa.                      15
Sunray DX, Tulsa, Oklahoma                 22
Suntide, Corpus Christi, Texas             25
Tenneco, Chalmette, La.                    15
Texaco, Port Arthur, Texas                 30
Union Carbide, S. Charleston, W. Va.       10
Union Atlantic, Nederland, Texas           18
Union Oil, Lemont, Illinois                22
Vickers, Potwin, Kansas                     3

Total from Petroleum Feedstocks           809
Total from 18 Cokeoven Producers and
 3 Tar Distillers                         142
Grand Total                               951

Cities Service, Lake Charles, La.          55
Coastal States, Corpus Christi, Texas       6
Gulf, Port Arthur, Texas                   25
Southwestern, Corpus Christi, Texas         6
Texaco, Port Arthur, Texas                 15

Total announced new capacity              107

Grand Total, all U.S. Capacity           1058

*millions of gallons/year


Production

1968:    900 million gallons
1973:   1350 million gallons
Uses

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

About 60% of U.S. benzene is produced by recovery (together
with toluene and xylenes) from refinery reformers while an
additional 201 is produced from the dealkylatron of toluene.
Coal tar, coke oven light oils and ethylene drip oils account
for the remainder.  It is expected that refinery based
benzene will grow more rapidly than other sources.  Naphtha-
lene is similar.

-------
Waste Sources

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

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

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

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

Total                                  1,577,000

*Tons per year
                            135

-------
Production

1968:   1.50 million tons
1973:   1.80 million tons
Uses

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

Butadiene is produced from three major sources:

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

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

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

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

Little information is available regarding possible process
modifications.
                             136

-------
BUTANOL


Producers                               Capacity"

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

Total                                     495

*millions of pounds annually


Production

1968:   500 million pounds
1973:   620 million pounds
Uses

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

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

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


Waste Reduction by Process Change

The waste problems of this process involve the low efficiency
and rather drastic conditions under which the reaction takes
place.  Improvements in yields and improvement in still
efficiencies would improve the situation.  Further provisions
can be made for the collection and direct incinerations of
still bottoms, vessel cleanout wastes, etc., without contam-
ination of the waste waters.
                           137

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

See Ammonia
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE AND OTHER CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS

Carbon Tetrachloride:
Producers

Allied, Moundsville, W. Va.
Diamond, Painesville, Ohio
Dow, Freeport, Texas
Dow, Pittsburg, Calif.
Dow, Plaquemine, La.
FMC-Allied, S. Charleston, W. Va.
Stauffer, Le Moyne, Alabama
Stauffer, Louisville, Ky.
Stauffer, Niagara Falls, N. Y.
Vulcan, Wichita, Kansas

Total

*millions of pounds per year
Capacity*

   8
  35
 130
  30
  20
 200
  85
  70
 125
  25

 728
Chloroform:
Producers

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

Total

*millions of pounds per year
Capacity*

   30
   20
   75
    1
   15
   75
    6
   li

  238
                             138

-------
Methylene Chloride:
Producers

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

Total

*millions of pounds per year
                             Capacity*

                                50
                                30
                                85
                                20
                                60
                                70
                                20
                               355
Methyl Chloride:
Producers

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

Total

^million of pounds per year
                             Capacity'

                                17
                               100
                               100
                                20
                                10
                                20
                                76
                                75
                                24
                               454
Production
 1968:
 1973:
700
900
CHC15

 200
 300
CH2C12

 265
 400
240
370
Use
 Fluorocarbons,  solvent
                             139

-------
Process

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


Waste Problems

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


Waste Reduction by Process Change

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

CH4  +  2HC12	^CC14  +  4HC1

CH4  +  4HC1  +  02	^CC14  +  2H20

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


CELLULOSE ACETATE
Producers                               Capacity*

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

Total                                      750
                             140

-------
Production

1968:   740 million pounds
1973:   850 million pounds
Uses

Fibers, cigarette filters, plastics


Processes

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


Waste Problems

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


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

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

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


CYCLOHEXANE


Producers                               Capacity*

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

*millions of gallons per year

                             141

-------
Producers                               Capacity*

Eastman, Longview, Texas                    3
Enjay, Baytown, Texas                      40
Gulf, Port Arthur, Texas                   33
Phillips, Borger, Texas                    47
Phillips, Sweeny, Texas                    53
Phillips, Puerto Rico                      40
Pontiac, Corpus Christi, Texas             12
Signal, Houston, Texas                     17
South Hampton, Silsberg, Texas              3
Texaco, Port Arthur, Texas                 40
Union Oil, Smith's Bluff, Texas            55

Total                                     514

*millions of gallons per year


Production

1968:   310 million gallons
1973:   570 million gallons


Uses

Nylon 66, Nylon 6


Processes

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


Waste Problems

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

No discussion of cyclohexane recovery from petroleum fractions
is included because this more properly fits in a discussion of
petroleum refineries.
                           142

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

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


Producers                               Capacity*

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

Total                                    2220

*millions of pounds/year


Production

1968:   1.2 billion pounds
1973:   2.2 billion pounds


Uses

Phenol, acetone, a-methylstyrene


Process

The process for the production of cumene involves the reaction
of benzene with propylene in a phosphoric acid catalyzed
alkylation.  No significant change in this technology is
anticipated in near future.
                            143

-------
Waste ^Problems

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


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

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


Producer                                Capacity*

Synthetic (Ethylene)

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

*millions of wine gallons annually, 190 proof alcohol


Producer                                Capacity*

Other Industrial

Ga-Pacific,  Bellingham, Wash.
Hercules, Hopewell, Va.
Publicker, Philadelphia, Pa., other        2Q_

Total                                     383

*millions of wine gallons annually, 190 proof alcohol


Production

1968:   299  million gallons
1973:   330  million gallons
                             144

-------
Uses

Ace t aldehyde, solvent, other chemicals


Process

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

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

Ethyl ether is a byproduct.

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

C2H4  +  H20 - > C2H5OH


Waste Sourges

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

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


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

It is possible to minimize the waste products by careful control
of the use of sulfuric acid in the process and as is often the
case, in the use of acid and alkali, the avoidance of leaks and
spills.  Additional stripping capacity and improved yields would
also reduce waste product loads.
                           145

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

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

*millions of pounds annually
Producers (Styrene)                     Capacity*

Sinclair-Koppers, Port Arthur, Texas       150
Signal, Houston, Texas                      35
Sunray DX, Corpus Christi, Texas            80
Suntide, Corpus Christi, Texas              75
Tenneco, Chalmette, La.                     22
Union Carbide, Institute, W. Va.           130
Union Carbide, Seadrift, Texas             500

Total                                     3991

*millions of pounds annually


Production (Styrene)

1968:   3.5 billion pounds
1973:   5.0 billion pounds


Uses

Polystyrene, Rubber modified polystyrene, Styrene-butadiene
copolymer, ABS, SAN plastics, Styrene-butadrene elastomer
                             146

-------
Processes

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

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


Waste Problems

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

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

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


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

Design of gas washers which improve contact conditions is one
key to the reduction of waste waters coming from this process
(high concentration).  A larger benzene drying column will
reduce benzene losses from this system.  The tars and polymers
produced from the final separator could be incinerated rather
than sent to a waste water system.
                             147

-------
ETHYLENE BICHLORIDE, VINYL CHLORIDE AND POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
Producers (Vinyl chloride)              Capacity"

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

PPG, Lake Charles, La.                     300
Tenneco, Houston, Texas                    200
Union Carbide, S. Charleston, W. Va.       340
Union Carbide, Texas City, Texas
Wyandotte, Geismer, La.                    150

Total                                     5150

*millions of pounds/year


Production

1968:   2.7 billion pounds
1973:   4.0 billion pounds
Uses
PVC
Processes

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

      +  HC1
                           148

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

C2H4  +  Cl — * C2H4Cl2 (ethylene dichloride)

         > C2H3C1 + HC1
A newer approach involves oxychlorination and permits the reuse
of the HC1 generated during dehydro chlorination (copper chloride
 is the catalyst) .
C2H4  +  hQ2  +  2HC1 - >C2H4C12 + H2°

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

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


Waste Problems

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

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


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

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


ETHYLENE
Producers                               Capacity'

Allied-Wyandotte, Geismar, La.             500
American Can-Skelly, Clinton, Iowa         400
Atlantic, Watson, Calif.                   100
Continental Oil, Lake Charles, La.         400
Dow, various locations                    1920
DuPont, Orange, Texas                      800
El Paso-Rexall, Odessa, Texas              290
                          149

-------
Producers                               Capacity*

Enjay, various locations                  1265
Goodrich, Calvert City, Ky.                250
Gulf, various locations                    825
Jefferson, Port Neches, Texas              450
Koppers, Kobuta, Pa.                        35
Mobil, Beaumont, Texas                     450
Monsanto, various locations                600
National Distillers, Tuscola, Illinois     320
Olin Mathieson, Brandenburg, Ky.            90
Petroleum Chemicals, Lake Charles, La.     360
Phillips, Sweeny, Texas                    550
Phillips-Houston Natural Gas,
        Sweeny, Texas                      550
Shell, various locations                   845
Sinclair-Koppers, Houston, Texas           500
Sun Olin, N. Claymont, Del.                125
Texas Eastman, Longview, Texas             450
Union Carbide, various locations          3975

Total                                    16000

*millions of pounds per year
Production

1968:   12,500,000,000 pounds per year
1973:   19,000,000,000 pounds per year
Uses

Polyethylene, ethylene oxide, ethanol, styrene, vinylchloride


Processes

Ethylene is produced from ethane and propane, refinery off gas
and other sources such as naphtha, gas oil, condensate.  The
first step involves cracking, then compression followed by
purification.  Ethylene production is an important source of
propylene butadiene and aromatics.
                              150

-------
Waste Problems

The major waste streams are:

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

Typical Quantities are:

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

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

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

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


ETHYLENE OXIDE


Producers (Ethylene Oxide)              Capacity*

Allied, Orange, Texas                      40
Calcasieu, Lake Charles, La.              150
Dow, various locations                    900
DuPont                                    300
Eastman, Longview, Texas                   60
GAP, Linden, N. J.                         70
Houston Chemical                           80
Jefferson, Port Neches, Texas             750
Olin Mathieson, Brandenburg, Ky.          120
Shell Chemical, Norco, La.                150
                            151

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

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

Total                                    4520

*millions of pounds per year


Production

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

Surfactants, ethanol amines, polyglycols, antifreeze, polyester
fibers
Processes
The chlorohydrin method involves the reaction of chlorine water
with ethylene to produce the chlorohydrin and HC1.  This was
then treated with bicarbonate to produce the glycol:
      +  C12  +  H20— ^ CH2OH  -  CH2C1  +  HC1

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

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

Direct oxidation of ethylene:
is the process which is now widely practiced.  Hydrolysis of
the oxide produces the glycol.  The product of various glycol
ethers and glycols as by-products is quite common.


Waste Problems

The older chlorohydrin process produces great quantities of waste
HC1 which is usually lime neutralized as well as waste organic
streams.  The major waste stream is a lime slurry (about 2000
gallons/ton) .  It is not expected that any chlorohydrin plants
will be built in the future.
                            152

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


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

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


Waste Reduction by Process Change

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


ISOPROPANOL
Producers                               Capacity11

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

Total                                     1960

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:   1750 million pounds
1973:   2250 million pounds


Uses

Acetone, solvent
                              153

-------
Processes

Isopropanol is manufactured either by catalytic hydration of
propylene:
CH:
CH
CH
H20 — ^ CH3CHOHCH3
or by the reaction or sulfuric acid propylene similar to the
ethanol reaction.
Waste Problems and Process Change

See Ethanol


FORMALDEHYDE
Producers

Allied
Borden
Celanese
Commercial Solvents
DuPont
GAP
Georgia Pacific
Gulf
Hercules
Hooker
Monsanto
Reichhold
Rohm and Haas
Tenneco
Trojan Powder
Union Carbide

Total

*millions of pounds per year
                                Capacity*

                                   310
                                   925
                                   950
                                    60
                                   900
                                   100
                                   120
                                   115
                                   275
                                    90
                                   400
                                   212
                                    50
                                   325
                                    50
                                   150

                                  5042
Production

1968:   4.0 billion pounds
1973:   5.2 billion pounds
Uses
Phenolic resins, urea and melamine resins, ethylene glycol
                             154

-------
Process

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


Waste Problems

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


METHANOL


Producers                               Capacity*

Allied                                     26
Borden                                    160
Celanese                                   75
CSC                                        65
DuPont                                    380
Escambia                                   30
Gulf                                        9
Hercules                                   16
Monsanto-Tenneco                           30
Rohm and Haas                              22
Tenneco                                    76
Union Carbide                              £4_

Total                                     943

*millions of gallons per year


Production

1968:   600 million gallons
1973:   900 million gallons


Uses

Formaldehyde, methyl esters, amines, solvent


Processes

The major process for the production of methanol involves the high
pressure catalytic conversion of synthesis gas (CO + H£) to methanol
Recently ICI has developed a low pressure process.
                            155

-------
Waste Problems

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


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

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

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

Total                                     1950

*million pounds per year


Production

1968:   1500 million pounds
1973:   2200 million pounds
Uses

Phenolic resins, caprolactam, bisphenol-A, adipic acid
                             156

-------
Processes

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

C6H6  +  HC1  +  %02 _ :> C6H5C1  +  H20

C6H5C1  +  H20 — ^.C6H5OH  +  HC1

from benzene by the chlorobenzene route :

C6H6  +  C12 - >C6H5C1  +  HC1

C6H5C1  +  ZNaOH — > C6H5ONa  +  NaCl  +  H20

C6H5ONa  +  HC1 — > C6H5OH  +  NaCl

and by the sulfonation process from benzene:

C6H6  +  H2S04 - >C6H5S03H  +  H20

2C6H5S03H  +  Na2S03 — ^ 2C6H5S03Na  +  S02  +  H20(+Na2S04)

C6H5S03Na  +  2NaOH — > C6H5ONa  +  Na2S03  +  H20

2C6H5ONa  +  S02  +  H20 - > 2C6H5OH  +  Na2S03(+Na2S04)
Recently two new routes have been commercialized. One is Dow
Chemical process which involves direct oxidation of toluene to
benzoic acid and then oxidation of the benzoic acid to phenol
in a single step.

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


Waste Problems

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

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

The waste production from the direct oxidation facility might
be considerably less than the older process.
                           157

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

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

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

Total                                     1230

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:   1200 million pounds
1973:   2000 million pounds


Uses

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


Processes

Polyethylene is produced by the catalyzed polymerization of
ethylene.  High pressure processes use oxygen or peroxides
for a catalyst while the low pressure processes (which
produce high density products) use metal derived catalysts.
                              158

-------
Waste Problems

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

Suspended Solids    100 ppm

COD                 200 mg/1


Waste Reduction by Process Changes

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

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

Total                                    4250

*millions of pounds per year
                            159

-------
Production

1968:   2900 million pounds
1973:   4700 million pounds
Itees

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


Waste Problems

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


Waste Reduction

See Polyethylene-HD


POLYSTYRENE


Producers                                  Capacity*

Amoco, Leominster, Mass; Medina, 0;
       Torrance, Calif; Willow Sp., 111.      120
Badische, Jamesburg, N. J.                     25
Columbian, Hicksville, N. Y.                   10
Cosden, Big Springs, Texas                    120
Dow, Allyns Pt., Conn; Ironton, 0;
     Midland, Mich; Torrance, Calif;
     Riverside, Mo.                           610
Foster Grant, Leominster, Mass; Peru, 111.
Hammond, Worcester, Mass.                      50
Monsanto, Addyston, 0; Long Beach, Calif;
          Springfield, Mass.                  300
Rexall, Holyoke, Mass; Santa Clara, Calif.     70
Richardson, West Haven, Conn.                  30
Shell, Wallingford, Conn.                      25
Sinclair-Koppers, Kobuta, Pa.                 190
                              160

-------
Producers

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

Total

*million pounds per year
                    Capacity*

                        50

                       165

                      1865
Production

1968:   1.7 million tons
1973:   3.0 million tons
Uses
Molding, Blow extrusion
Processes
Polymerization with or without catalysts
Waste Problems

A typical plant produces a 600 gallons/ton of .product with the
following composition:
Styrene
Benzoyl Peroxide
Tricalcium Phosphate

Alkyl Aryl Sulfonate
Suspended Solids
   3 ppm
1400 ppm
 800 ppm Ca
2200 ppm P04
  80 ppm
 500 ppm
Waste Reduction by Process Change

It is possible by cleaning up this stream to recover Benzoyl
Peroxide for reuse.  This scheme would cost less than $0.40/1000
gals, and would provide a completely closed system and eliminate
almost all reuse.
                            161

-------
PROPYLENE
Producers                                    Capacity*

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

Total                                          8920

*millions of pounds per year


Production

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


Uses

Isopropanol, acrylonitrile, polypropylene, propylene oxide,
heptene, cumene, glycerine
                              162

-------
Processes

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


Waste Reduction

See ethylene section


PROPYLENE OXIDE


Producers                                  Capacity*

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

Total                                       1020

*millions of pounds per year


Production

1968:   890 million pounds
1973:  1750 million pounds


Uses

Polypropoxyethers, propylene glycol, polypropylene glycol,
dipropylene glycol


Process

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


Waste

See Ethylene Oxide


                              163

-------
TOLUENE

Producers                                     Capacity*

Amoco, Texas City, Texas                         20
Ashland, North Tonawanda, N. Y.,
         Catlettsburg, Ky.                       20
Atlantic Richland, Wilmington, Calif.            24
Chevron, El Segundo, Calif;
         Richmond, Calif.                        32
Cities Services, Lake Charles, La.               36
Coastal States, Corpus Christi, Texas            10
Cosden, Big Spring, Texas                        15
Crown Central, Houston, Texas                    10
Dow, Bay City, Mich.                             17
Enjay, Baton Rouge, La.; Baytown, Texas          65
Gulf, Philadelphia, Pa; Port Arthur, Texas       20
Hess, Corpus Christi, Texas                      18
Leonard, Mount Pleasant, Mich.                    3
Marathon, Texas City, Texas                      12
Mobil, Beaumont, Texas                           25
Monsanto, Alvin, Texas                           32
Pontiac, Corpus Christi, Texas                   13
Shell, Houston, Texas; Odessa, Texas             65
       Wilmington, Calif; Wood River, 111.
Signal, Houston, Texas                           16
Sinclair, Houston, Texas; Marcus Hook, Pa.       26
South Hampton, Silsbee, Texas                     6
Southwestern, Corpus Christi, Texas              10
Sun, Marcus Hook, Pa.                            25
Sunray DX, Tulsa, Okla.                           4
Suntide, Corpus Christi, Texas                   13
Tenneco, Chalmette, La.                           8
Texaco, Port Arthur, Texas                       31
Union Carbide, S. Charleston, W. Va.             10
Union Oil-Atlantic, Nederland, Texas             20
Union Oil, Lemont, 111.                          10
Vickers, Potwin, Kansas                           5

Total                                           620**

*millions of gallons per year
**also 65 million gallons from coke oven, tar distiller and
  styrene monomer operations

Production

1968:   610 million gallons
1973:   800 million gallons
                            164

-------
Uses

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


Process

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

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

Total                                     1500

*thousands of tons
                              165

-------
Production

1968:   2.3 million tons
1973:   3.7 million tons
Uses

Animal feed, fertilizer, plastics


Processes

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


Waste Problems

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

                                 Ibs/ton

NH,                                 3.6
CC-2                                 0.6
Urea                                0.8
Carbonate                           0.1


Waste Reduction Through Process Change

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


XYLENES

                                Ortho             Para
Producers                     Capacity*         Capacity*

Amoco                            —               200
Chevron                          130               536
Cities Service                   120               	
Coastal                           42                 6
Commonwealth                      70               	
Cosden                           	                 6
                               166

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

Total                            736              1547

*millions of gallons per year
Production

                      Ortho           Para

1968                   500             750
1973                   750            1800


Uses

Phthalic anhydride, polyesters


Process

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


Waste Problems

Sludge from the crystallizer as well as bottoms, drains, etc.,
amount to perhaps 100-500 gallons/ton of product with an
organic content of 3-5,000 mg/1.
                              167

-------
                 APPENDIX D






COSTS OF UNIT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PRACTICES
                     168

-------
1000
                         CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP
                                  EQUALIZATION
                                  Figure 1-D
    10
     10                      10
VOLUME OF EQUALIZATION TANK - GALLONS
                                 169

-------
     ih


     $1



           Figure Z-D


i CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP

         NEUTRALIZATION
  160
  140
o
o
o
  120
,_ 100

O
   40
   20
                                     - MOD
                                   170

-------
                CAPITAL COST  RELATIONSHIP
                        OIL SEPARATION

                           Figure 3-D
 10
Q
(9

H
Q.
<
O

   -
  10
    O.I
           . 5
                    2.5  3
6   7  8  9 10      1.5
        1.0

WASTE  FLOW -  MGD
                                                         2.5  3
                            171

-------
                          CAPITAL  COST RELATIONSHIP
                              PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
                                   Figure 4-D
IOOO
    10
      10"                     10'
SURFACE AREA OF PRIMARY CLARIFIER - FT*
                                      172

-------

        Figure 5-D
CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP
          LAGOONS
          SURFACE AREA - ACRES

-------
                       CAPITAL COST  RELATIONSHIP
                              AERATED LAGOON
                                 Figure 6-D
1C
  0,1
                 VOLUME OF AERATION
           10.0
BASIN-MILLION GALLONS
                                    174

-------
       CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP
             AERATION BASIN
                Figure 7-D
        1.0                    10.0
VOLUME OF AERATION  BASIN-MILLION GALLONS
                  175

-------
                         CAPITAL  COST RELATIONSHIP
                               FINAL CLARIFIERS
                                   Figure 8-D
lOOO-o
                      SURFACE AREA OF  FINAL CLARIFIER- FT*
                                    176

-------
                         CAPITAL  COST  RELATIONSHIP
                                  FILTRATION
                                  Figure 9-D
10.0
0.01
                                                                       100.0
                                   FLOW-MOD
                                    177

-------
                         CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP

                              CARBON  ADSORPTION


                                 Figure 10-D

   I.


  u.
               •iiiiii;
                              mm
OT
o
o
  ffiffiS
  fflffi™
       i
a.
<
o
           ;rjtt i::
                                         : :::

           3TTT
           -*—7- ^, •


           W
§i
                                         r-Hw,
                                         ttEgl
                        ::.

                                                 1 '-Hi
                                           fflffiBffi
                                              11
I

1

    1.0
          u    i   u  J
                   5   i  7  I  I 10

                            10.0


                    DESIGN CAPACITY - MOD
                                             13   t»>   41
                                                                  «  7  I  I l«

                                                                       100.0
                                     178

-------
CAPITAL  COST RELATIONSHIP
        ION EXCHANGE
          Figure 11-D
                         10.0
100.0
       CAPACITY - MOD
            179

-------
•
fiiinimiHiiiiiiHTTfffl
! : ii: :: |:: i j
\ ii: i ii: ii i
iiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiliii
::: it L.ltf : till t
m : iir ii|ffiS
3»i
o lililliilp
O ::::::::: til* };•»:};
Ii.
0 r ftKfirrriffrii
m . : n. :;:i :
JB * p
O EH ::t: r.\ i::: ta :
_, IMtpiyHi;:
"J tilt nil :;: :::: ::: :
=i rftr rrr -rrr rrr -rr :
2
:3pijpi i
r" O 1-11; Ii i 111 1 1
co ;;:: :::::: i
0 &i Ua -U- iU* .££
o Hj: ;: i Hi r :
^ tit; i: : i::- ~ *
< rgi ij : t:::. : :.
<2«H
o HH :J i ;::i i, i
t::: :::::::::::: W\
igg rrirrirrrr:
pi|B|
0 Siaii^iHiM:
0 2

J^f 7 •' pri i H tiii tt^' :"ii
iiiiiiR liiliili
H ii fiii t i i i
it ft riti i t" f *~"

i::i:r::i:: : ^£^
;:: :::: :::: :::: ::: t:: ::::
rrr -rr rrrr rrrr rrr -trr rrr
fr -fH-rrrr rrr rrr -rr rrr

:;: ;:: :::: :::; :::: :™ ::::
l-*-r **tr t**-*- T^-rr t-rtr rrr} *rtr
4 <
fTTTff
•





::n :
:::) t
i

Figure 12-D
CAPITAL COST RELATIONSHIP
TOTAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL
ill


^

TT rrrr

Tf
1
It

]L
=*•*

::::
ti;i
(
!
0. /
b. !
c. ^
<
d. 1
«-*

llll
)
:os
^ER
5LU
/AC
3R
)IS
rrTTri
^

::::
rb:
4ftr
T
OB
DG
UU
CE
PO!
^

::::
iili
1
NC
1C
E
M
NT
SAL



l(
nil
LU
DIC
TH
FIL
RIF

:
','.', ',
-'***
)
>ES
ES
CK
TR
UG


11'.'.
'-•-rrr
1
-
TIC
EN
AT
AT
•rrr

: : ::
am.
P
5
N
NG
ON
ON
r-*

—
1
iiii
tr**"
I
5i
77
*--

i't*
2



>r

....
mJ
ffi
1 ' ; '
i
Si



»TT

::::
iiia
g
•
ii
-f~
*
"t:
itrr

-
::::
M
iiiniiiiji
T4HS-
i ii i
i
-

" *iij- ^
i^rtti:
-

::::-,:::: :
1
|| HI )
: : 1:
t rtit
j
[|
i
*
:4r-*T
•**• *trr
i ;
||
r^r ?;?;.
M
:! ;
:
^
.
-f-


::::
I ' ' '
;
[]!!
1
rrp
it
I
1
:;
1:
:
:•: ;

-tr*-*
ra
g
m
•fH
m
f
1
g
rri
*-i+
:
=
::::
: : '.",
31^1
FT: rrrrft;
—t -r* —



H :::

rii: :::: :::
_1_

H ii
•':
' ' ",

-ii

r :::: :ir
2<
                                                    FLOW - MOD

-------
                         CAPITAL  COST  RELATIONSHIP
                              FLOTATION  THICKENING
                                  Figure 13-D
a
C
     S;

           •
a
u
            M

<   '
A
<
                                          ml
      t.l_i ; i i !
      >i U i i i
           irt
            •

             i



     0.1
           li
                   I         5  *  7
1 10
 1.0
                                                  2   23  3
                                WASTE FLOW - MGD
                                                                         10.0
                                      181

-------
        Figure 14-D
CAPITAL  COST RELATIONSHIP
      VACUUM FILTRATION
                                                 182

-------
CAPITAL  COST RELATIONSHIP
      DEEP  WELL  DISPOSAL
         Figure 15-D
10 ""-T

M"










|
>IO*°"
(
L 7.
', ,






'

u
: : ::*•::-:

-; •::•:::•-•
£$tHi£


^rt :V:i:i
H:-L: :::"::
-gl4_T7.;4"l

M ! i'Mii
:3r:.ri :• ;-rt :


3iJ.-:~: Hi-
•

|::jg:
jri-U.'] Hi

-UJ-; ; :^r: : ;-
^3iH-i4
H

iss^-iif
^W-i-4 if

• : !
:::::g:

i
I!!-!;; ;::;;::;:


illOi: iiiiiiiii





livtili! ;;i;i;;ii

l::::::i !:::":::::

:;nm njj
:: 1 1
I
^i- ;»;;;;;;

— =><; :-i:::iii
fc:H!


-ppcrnn: Hi;!::
ifHi!;! Hi'
mm iiii
^Ui! ;lii
S^_ttrt| ;:;:
4^4-1*;^ ::;.
ill i
11 |
;;;!;{ j
;i
:::::::j |
i

;
::





::-.:::




iHIr





1








•'•""
I













u;
-f£
X





lit-
il*
Fti
n^
rf"
1














1
fj





.
*<*"
^
V
11













;::,







^rt ^^
it:: :::•
I I
iljli
_ .













- 	 I






ii: iij: '^*r.

'::. '.::: :;














,-







if


'













s.





s




r
ji










iinJIHi
JjjJHji
^iMH
r t C L* • i TT
Jniii
•rr.i :-.;•::
;i;;;;X
; \j*\\\
-::::::
V.'.'.'^1
•fUl-irir
i DIAM
-I DEPT
r OPEF
t COST









iiij^
JB



p


j>^!

iMiii








',/.,




:::::::
i!lX
V^










V







...^....
•^










. j
. : '.






iil
:/*



















••'






































(I








, •










i



























(*:;









il*
1
ill:
i"





ETER = 4 INCHES
H = 300O FEET
ATING PRESSURE « 900 PS
INCLUDES MORE THAN ONI
[ WELL AT HIGHER FLOWS AND
\ MINIMAL SURFACE TREATMENT











. i
, -
























•








:
;
'
:, .































-1 , 1 1 1 ii 1 1 1 1 , , .r;nTt---r-rni^ii-:-Vi.|;ii; i'Mlti m n n
. 13 1 M 1 4 J 1 1 1 t 10
10* io4
          FLOW- GPM
          183

-------
XIV.  BIBLIOGRAPHY
     184

-------
                          BIBLIOGRAPHY


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14.  Byrd, J. Floyd, "Combined Treatment - A Coast-to-Coast
     Coverage," Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation,
     pp. 601-607, Vol.  39, No. 4, April, 1967.
                              185

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

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

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

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

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

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

21.   "U.S. Industrial Outlook 1968," U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
     Business and Defence Services Administration, December,
     1967, 257 pages.

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

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

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

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

27.  Norden, Robert B., "Modern Engineering Design Practices,"
     Chemical Engineering,  August  2, 1965, 12 pages.
                               186

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41.  Forbes, M.  C.  §  Witt, P. A., "Estimate Cost of Waste
     Disposal," Hydrocarbon Processing. August,  1965, Vol. 44,
     No. 8, pp.  153-158.
                             187

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54.  Bess, F. D.,  and Conway,  R.  A.,  "Aerated Stabilization of
     Synthetic Organic Chemical Wastes," Journal of the Water
     Pollution Control Federation, Vol.  38, No. 6, pp. 939-956,
     June, 1966.
                              188

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69.   Kline, Charles H.,  and Bry,  Thomas  S., "Demand for Better
     Water Boosts Water Chemical  Market,"  Environmental Science
     and  Technology, Vol. 4, pp.  276-281,  April,  1967.
                                189

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

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

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

73.   Gallagher,  John T., "A  Fresh Look at Engineering Construc-
     tion Contracts," Chemical Engineering, pp. 218-224,
     September 11, 1967.
                         190

-------
191

-------