EPA-600/2-76-093a
May 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SAMPLING AND
ANALYTICAL STRATEGY PROGRAM
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned io she ENVIRONMENTAL PRCTECTICN
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required 1or the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-093a
Mav 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL STRATEGY
PROGRAM
by
J. Vlahakis and H. Abe Is on
The Mitre Corporation
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia 22101
Contract No. 68-02-1859, Task 6
ROAP No. 21ADD-BG
Program Element No. 1AB013
EPA Project Officer: Robert M. Statnick
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The extensive contributions to this project of Mr. James Dorsey,
Process Measurements Branch Head, and Dr. Robert Statnick, Project
Officer, are gratefully acknowledged.
MITRE personnel, Mr. George Erskine, Associate Department Head, also
assisted in various phases of this program. His efforts are appreciated.
This study was performed under Contract Number 68-02-1859 for the
Process Measurements Branch, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
11
-------
Acknowledgments
CONTENTS
Page
11
List of Figures 1V
List of Tables v
Sections
I Summary and Conclusions 1
II The Role of Environmental Assessment 2
III Objectives of Environmental Assessment Program 6
IV Definition of Sampling and Analysis Levels 7
V Rationale for Phased Approach 8
VI General Properties of Level 1 10
VII General Properties of Level 2 13
VIII Costing Assumptions 18
IX Stream and Component Prioritization 28
X Environmental Assessment Strategies 32
XI Lurgi Gasification Process Example 34
XII Effect of Process Type on Assessment Costs 47
iii
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 The Relationship Between Environmental Assessment
and Other Environmental Programs 3
2 Basic Analytical Scheme for Level 1
(Particulates and Gases) 11
3 Basic Analytical Scheme for Level 1 (Liquid and
Solid) 12
4 Basic Analytical Scheme for Level 2 (Particulates) 14
5 Basic Analytical Scheme for Level 2 (Gases) 15
6 Basic Analytical Scheme for Level 2 (Liquid) 16
7 Basic Analytical Scheme for Level 2 (Solids) 17
8 Process Flow Diagram— Lurgi Gasification Research
Phase 35
9 Process Flow Diagram— Lurgi Gasification Development
Phase 36
10 Process Flow Diagram— Lurgi Gasification Demonstration
and Commercial-Scale Phases 37
11 Environmental Assessment Cost vs. Phase of Process
Evolution for Lurgi Gasification 45
12 Cumulative Assessment Cost vs. Assessment Entry-Level
Phase for Lurgi Gasification 46
13 Environmental Assessment Cost for Selected Processes
vs. Number of Measured Streams 49
14 Effect of Stream Mix on Environmental Assessment Cost 53
iv
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Phases of Process Evolution and Their Characteristics 4
2 Matrix of Level 2 Charges 26
3 Level 2 Analysis Costs 30
4 Environmental Assessment Sampling and Analysis Strategies 33
as a Function of Process Phase
5 Environmental Assessment Costs—Lurgi Gasification 38
Phase: Development
6 Environmental Assessment Costs—Lurgi Gasification 39
Phase: Demonstration
7 Environmental Assessment Costs—Lurgi Gasification 40
Phase: Commercial-Scale
8 Level 2 Analysis Costs-Lurgi Gasification 42
9 Fugitive Emission Sampling and Analysis Costs 44
10 Representative Stream Mix For Selected Processes 48
11 Environmental Assessment Costs for Selected Processes 51
-------
SECTION I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
An environmental assessment costing methodology has been developed
for industrial processes at various phases of development. Sampling
and analytical strategies were developed as an integral part of this
methodology.
The environmental assessment strategies developed in this study provide
a mechanism for determining industry, process, and stream priorities
on the basis of a staged sampling and analysis technique. This tech-
nique employs a screening phase (Level 1) to characterize influent and
effluent streams of a process, and enables one to plan additional inves-
tigations. Level 2 then provides for a quantitative representation of
potentially hazardous substances in those streams prioritized by Level
1.
This procedure provides the mechanism for estimating assessment program
implementation costs and provides a format for estimating costs for
budgetary planning purposes.
Assessment costs for a process at a specific phase of development were
shown to depend heavily on stream mix and complexity of the sampling
and analysis employed.
The output from an assessment program is required for control tech-
nology development as well as for health effects studies and monitoring
studies. The environmental assessment output will be of interest to
many industry and government organizations.
Some future efforts might be directed toward refining sampling and
analysis costing assumptions.
1
-------
SECTION II
THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment program encompasses a complete characteri-
zation (physical, chemical, biological) of a system's influent and
waste streams as well as an analysis of incremental loading of
pollutants to the environment. This analysis includes determining the
potential impact of effluents on human health and ecological systems.
The overall goal of an assessment program is to evaluate both the en-
vironmental acceptability of a system or process and also the need for
further control of waste streams.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between environmental assessment and
other environmental R&D programs of interest to EPA such as control
technology development.
The level of environmental assessment is dependent upon the phase of
evolutionary development of a process. It is recognized that a com-
plete characterization of a system is most-desirable while the process
configuration is still developing. This allows for relative ease in
process changes and development lead time for control technology should
environmental factors warrant such actions. However, the expenditure of
a relatively large fraction of the environmental assessment resources
in early process development stages is unjustified due to low probabil-
ity of eventual commercial success. Table 1 shows the characteristics
of each process phase as a function of process evolution.
The purpose of this report is to develop an "information-effective"
environmental assessment methodology applicable to processes at any
phase of development and a sampling and analytical strategy which
supports this methodology.
-------
FACILITY OR PROCESS
TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY
ASSESSED
CENTRALIZED
DATA BANK
t
I
I
I
|
IS SUFFICIENT
LEVEL 1
INFORMATION
AVAILABLE?
LEVEL 1
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
(SCREENING
ANALYSIS)
PRIORITIZE
STREAMS
LEVEL 2
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
(COMPREHENSIVE
SEMI-QUANTITATIVE
ANALYSIS)
1
REPORT: EMISSION RATES OF SPECIFIC COMPOUNDS
1
HEALTH EFFECTS
PROGRAMS
1
MONITORING
PROGRAMS
1
CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
1
ENVIRONMENTAL,
IMPACT STATEMENT
FIGURE 1
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
-------
TABLE 1. PHASES OF PROCESS EVOLUTION AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS
Process Phase
Research
Development
Process Characteristics
Use of pure (idealized) feeds.
Exploratory operation solely of key
components of process configuration.
Extremely low probability of success-
ful commercialization.
Nominal instrumentation to provide
key process and product characteris-
tics.
Intermittent operational mode.
Larger scale, more complete process
configuration than in research phase.
More representative feedstocks.
Fair probability of eventual success.
Instrumentation of feed, product,
and by-product streams.
Semi-continuous operational mode
dependent on requisite process
changes.
Demonstration
Complete process configuration.
Representative feedstocks.
Excellent probability of technical
success.
Complete waste stream measurements.
Process measurements for quality
control and process stability.
Operational mode consistent with
obtaining economic quantities of
products.
-------
TABLE 1. PHASES OF PROCESS EVOLUTION AND
THEIR CHARACTERISTICS (Concluded)
Process Phase Process Characteristics
Commercial-Scale As in demonstration phase, but with
potential further process improve-
ments .
Routine waste and process stream
monitoring.
Existing Commercial Full-scale production units with
optimum process configurations
(possibly in various locations).
-------
SECTION III
OBJECTIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SAMPLING
AND ANALYTICAL STRATEGY PROGRAM
The objectives of the environmental assessment sampling and analytical
strategy program emphasize three points. First, sampling and
analytical schemes were developed for assessment programs in general.
Secondly, in order to structure a mechanism for recommending assess-
ment program implementation costs, sampling and analysis costing
procedures were demonstrated as a function of process development
phase. This provides a format for estimating costs for budgetary
planning purposes. Thirdly, a sampling and analysis program should
yield industry, process, and process stream priorities which leads
to an "information-effective" assessment.
Those elements to be stressed in determining the proper allocation of
limited resources for assessment involve the following considerations.
The output from such a program must identify the requirements for con-
trol technology development. This output would provide data such as
volume flow rates and pollutant concentrations. Also, the program
output should provide for both chemical characterization and biological
screening of industrial streams in order to assess pollutant impact on
human health. A comprehensive assessment will include the general
structure for evaluating and ranking the toxic pollutants emanating
from significant industrial sources.
-------
SECTION IV
DEFINITION OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS LEVELS
Staged sampling and analysis techniques are employed according to a
three-level hierarchy. (The rationale for a phased approach as well
as full descriptions of Levels 1 and 2 are presented in the following
sections.)
Level 1 is a survey phase which identifies the pollution potential
of all process streams in a qualitative manner through chemical
and biological testing. No special sampling considerations are
required. Level 1 output provides the data to prioritize components
and streams for further consideration in subsequent studies at
Level 2.
Level 2 is characterized by quantitative representation of potentially
hazardous substances in streams (as determined by Level 1). Level 2
output yields the information necessary to undertake requisite control
technology and health effects studies.
Level 3 extends the elements of Level 2 and adds procedures to identify
the pollutant potential of streams as a function of process variables
leading to representative yearly emission factors of specific compounds.
It is understood that Level 3 is highly process-specific and is excluded
from this study effort.
-------
SECTION V
RATIONALE FOR PHASED APPROACH
The total cost in performing an environmental assessment is highly
dependent on the specific process under study and on the stream and
component prioritization accomplished upon the completion of Level 1.
A phased sampling and analysis approach will yield an overall "informa-
tion-effective" assessment program. A Level 1 characterization of all
inlet and outlet streams is required not only to determine the presence
of unanticipated pollutant classes, but also to subsequently plan a
cost-effective sampling and analysis program for future work at Level 2.
The output of Level 1 is used to prioritize streams and components for
further assessment study. This phased approach allows one to determine
the relative priority to be placed on each stream and class of compo-
nents by screening at Level 1 such that reasonable resource allocation
might be made. A Level 1 assessment program is able to provide infor-
mation which will significantly increase the validity of any future
sampling and analysis work.
By providing toxicity and mutagenicity data, the Level 1 program allows
the creation of stream priorities on a relative potential health effects
basis and may also determine the most probable class of materials caus-
ing the effect. Information is thus provided on potential control tech-
nology requirements. Level 1 information cannot determine specific
compounds in question and thus cannot define secondary pollutants.
Long-term health effects cannot be assessed because only acute data
is furnished from the bioassay tests.
Level 2 defines stream pollutants such that requisite control technology
studies and health effects studies can be initiated. Level 2 also de-
fines effluent streams such that atmospheric transformation and potential
-------
secondary formations of pollutants might be predicted more accurately
than with Level 1 data. Level 2 determines specific compounds and their
concentrations in a more quantitative manner than the previous level,
Bioassay work is expanded to include carcinogenicity testing as well as
dose-response cytotoxicity measurements and more extensive mutagenic work.
-------
SECTION VI
GENERAL PROPERTIES OF LEVEL 1
The results of this survey phase are used to establish industry, proc-
ess, and stream priorities. All pollutants in all input and effluent
streams will have an opportunity for detection at this level.
In general, the properties of Level 1 are given below. The basic
analytical scheme for this level is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.
1.0 A reasonably characteristic sample is obtained.
2.0 There are no planned replications of sampling and analysis.
3.0 The sample is taken from a conveniently available process stream
location consistent with the above considerations.
4.0 There is a general physical characterization of solids.
5.0 Fractions of organics are identified.
6.0 Elements are identified.
7.0 Bioassay analyses include cytotoxicity and mutagenicity tests.
8.0 Steady state measurements at one process operating condition are
taken.
10
-------
SOURCE•
CYTOTOXICITY $200
MUTAGENICITY $600
ELEMENTAL
$300
8 FRACTIONS
INORGANICS
EXTRACTION
PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION
INORGANICS
EXTRACTION
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTIC
CYTOTOXICITY $200
MUTAGENICITY f $600
i-^ ORGANIC S
ON-SITE GC —I
I—» INORGANICS
INORGANICS
_j EXTRACTION
8 FRACTIONS
CYTOTOXICITY
MUTAGENICITY
INORAGNICS $300
ELEMENTAL
$300
8 FRACTIONS
$200
$200
$600
FIGURE 2
BASIC ANALYTICAL SCHEME FOR LEVEL 1 (PARTICULATES AND GASES)
n
-------
LIQUID
(SLURRY)
SOLID
PORTION
LIQUID
PORTION
BIOASSAY
ORGANIC
INORGANIC
ELEMENTAL $300
8 FRACTIONS $200
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERIZATION
INORGANIC
ORGANIC
CYTOTOXICITY
MUTAGENICITY
$120
ELEMENTAL $300
8 FRACTIONS $200
$200
$600
SOLID
INORGANIC
ORGANIC
ELEMENTAL
8 FRACTIONS $200
BIOASSAY
CYTOTOXICITY
MUTAGENICITY
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERIZATION
$300
$200
$600
$120
FIGURE 3
BASIC ANALYTICAL SCHEME FOR LEVEL 1 (LIQUID AND SOLID)
-------
SECTION VII
GENERAL PROPERTIES OF LEVEL 2
The results of this phase are used to yield detailed information in
order to establish control technology requirements (both in terms of
priorities and applicability of various techniques).
The properties of Level 2 are given below. The basic analytical scheme
for this level is shown in Figures 4 through 7.
1.0 A representative sample is obtained (involves use of sequential
samplers, traversing, etc.).
2.0 Sampling procedures are optimized and samples taken at average
operating conditions (use of sampling train for specific compo-
nents) .
3.0 Physical characterization of solids is undertaken.
4.0 Identification of specific compounds is undertaken.
5.0 Bioassay analyses include mutagenicity, cytotoxicity, and carcino-
genicity tests.
6.0 Bioassay work includes auxiliary chemical analysis on solid/super-
natant fractions of biologically active sample.
7.0 Bioassay dose response data are generated.
8.0 Replication in sampling and analysis is done.
13
-------
3 SAMPLES •
COMBINED
BY SIZE CUT
FOR ANALYTICAL
PURPOSES
(MIN. 750 rag.)
PARTICULATE
INORGANIC
• ELEMENTAL1)
• COMPOUNDS
$1,500
EXTRACTION
ORGANIC
• 8 FRACTIONS
.COMPOUNDS $M°°
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERIZATION
$120
BIOASSAY
CYTOTOXICITY
$600
MUTAGENICITY
$800
8 FRACTIONS $200
• ELEMENTAL $300
• ANIONS $100
8 FRACTIONS $200
$400 INORGANIC
_
$200 ORGANIC
CARCINOGENICITY
$2,000
4 SIZE CUTS—SAME
ANALYSIS AS ABOVE
-------
SAMPLING
$300
G.C. OR SPECIFIC PROCEDURE
$300
G. C. ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
FOR SPECIES
BIOASSAY
$500
$600 CYTOTOXICITY
>C
• 8 FRACTIONS
• COMPOUNDS J
$4,000
$2,000 CARCINOGENICITY
$800 MUTAGENICITY
FIGURE 5
BASIC ANALYTICAL SCHEME FOR LEVEL 2
(GASES)
-------
12 MAN-HR. .
SAMPLING "*
LIQUID
(SLURRY)
INORGANIC
ORGANIC
• ELEMENTAL-
• COMPOUNDS
• 8 FRACTIONS
• COMPOUNDS
$1,500
$4,000
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERIZATION
$120
CYTOTOXICITY
$600
SOLIDS
SUPERNATANT
ELEMENTAL--$300
8 FRACTIONS $200
• ELEMENTAL $300
• ANIONS $100
8 FRACTIONS $200
MUTAGENICITY
$800
SOLIDS
SUPERNATANT
$400 INORGANIC
$200 ORGANIC
CARCINOGENICITY
$2,000
INORGANIC
• ELEMENTAL*
• COMPOUNDS/ $1'500
ORGANIC
• 8 FRACTIONS
• COMPOUNDS
t.OOO
CYTOTOKICITY
$600
MUTAGENICITY
CARCINOGENICITY
$800
FIGURE 6
$2,000
BASIC ANALYTICAL SCHEME FOR LEVEL 2
(LIQUID)
-------
SAMPLING
SOLID
ASH
INORGANIC
EXTRACTION
ORGANIC
ELEMENTAL
COMPOUNDS
8 FRACTIONS
COMPOUNDS
) $1,50
} $4,
000
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERIZATION
$120
BIOASSAY
CYTOTOXICITY
$600
SOLIDS
SUPERNATANT
MUTAGENICITY
$800
SOLIDS
SUPERNATANT
FIGURE 7
BASIC ANALYTICAL SCHEME FOR LEVEL 2
(SOLIDS)
INORGANIC
ELEMENTAL $300
ORGANIC
INORGANIC
• ELEMENTAL $300
• ANIONS $100
ORGANIC
$200 ORGANIC
$400 INORGANIC
CARCINOGENICITY
$2,000
-------
SECTION VIII
COSTING ASSUMPTIONS
SITE PREPARATION
Level 1
It is assumed that sampling access is available at a convenient stream
location. No capital costs are included—all required sampling and
analytical equipment is assumed to be available. An overall charge
of $250 per stream is assessed to account for nominal site prepara-
tion.
Level 2
At this level, cost of site preparation is a function of stream type.
The following prices have been assumed:
Particulate 25K
Gas 8K
Liquid 2.5K
Solid 10K
Level 2 site preparation charges are higher than those at Level 1 due
to the added costs of installing generally more sophisticated sampling
equipment in an optimum location. Level 2 costs may involve such items
as cutting ports for optimum traversing, installation of mechanical
samplers for solids, and use of fluid stream samplers, for example.
18
-------
TRAVEL
Level 1
This level assumes a three-man team is sent to collect samples.
1.0 Airfare equals $300 per person.
2.0 Travel time includes 16 hours round-trip per person at $32/man-
hour.
3.0 Total travel expense = $2,436.
4.0 Equipment preparation and shipping charges = $200.
TOTAL = $2,636
Level 2
Assumes a six-man crew with travel charges analogous to those above.
Total travel expense = $4,872
Equipment preparation and freight charges = $1,000
TOTAL = $5,872
19
-------
SAMPLE ACQUISITION
Sample acquisition time per stream has been estimated as a function
of stream type and is given below. The reported figures include
equipment preparation at the site, equipment operation, disassembly,
and cleanup time. Level 2 values include an allowance for sample
replication time.
For example, the total man-hours for Level 2 particulate acquisition
include a two-man team working four days for each process operating
condition. One sample per day is collected for three days and com-
bined by size cut for subsequent analysis. The fourth day is allowed
for disassembly and cleanup of the particulate sampling train.
Liquid, solid, and ducted gas samples are estimated to require one
and one-half man days at Level 2. At Level 1, however, these samples
are taken without replication or compositing and require only one or
two man-hours.
Man-hrs/Stream
Stream Type Level 1 Level 2
Gas (ducted) 2 12
Gas (unducted) 10 10
Liquid 1 12
Solid 1 12
Particulate 12 64
Fugitive Dust 15 15
20
-------
ANALYTICAL CHARGES
All samples or fractions are split into inorganic and organic phases.
Basic analytical work is carried out according to the schemes shown
previously under Level 1 and Level 2 descriptions.
Level 1
At Level 1, the inorganic analysis is done by Spark Source Mass Spec-
trometry scanning of 70 elements. $300
Particulate size fractions are combined into >3y and <3u fractions.
Each resulting fraction is analyzed according to Figure 2.
Organic samples are first physically separated into eight organic
fractions by liquid chromatography and then subjected to infrared an
analysis. $200
Organic fractions are separated by liquid chromatography on the basis
of polarity. These fractions might include, in order of increasing
polarity, aliphatics, 1-2 ring aromatics, 3-7 ring POM's, esters, alde-
hydes, ketones, alcohols, and acids.
In addition, the gas sample is analyzed by on-site gas chromatography.
The inorganic gas (COS, H2S, PH3, AsEj cost is $100, and the organic gas
(fC6) cost is also $100.
Since both inorganic and organic analyses are performed on all streams
at Level 1, the analytical costs, as shown below, are dependent only
on stream type and number of streams.
21
-------
Level 1 Analysis Cost per Stream*
Stream Type (103 Dollars)
Particulate 4.84
Gas 1.9
Liquid 2.72
Solid 1.52
A standard water analysis package totaling $350 is included in the
liquid charges.
Level 2
Inorganic analyses are specific both for elements and for compounds
($1,500). Analyses used to characterize inorganics at this level will
include X-ray diffraction, electron microscopy, differential scanning
calorimetry, and ESCA, for example. The inorganic gas fraction is
analyzed by gas chromatograph ($300).
Organic analyses entail separation into as many as 50 fractions and
determinations of specific compounds within each fraction by suitable
techniques (e.g., $4,000, based on 8 fractions at $500/fraction).
Separation is achieved by high performance liquid chromatography.
For gas samples, the high molecular weight fraction is analyzed for
organics as above ($4,000), and the low molecular weight (fPg) organic
analysis is by gas chromatograph ($300).
*Revised analytical costing data has been acquired subsequent to the
completion of this document and is shown in Figure 2 and 3. Values
presented in this table reflect earlier costing data.
22
-------
BIOASSAY CHARGES
Level 1
Two cellular in vitro bioassays will be used in the Level 1 protocol
to assess the biological activity of various process or effluent
samples. The advantages of cellular bioassay include its relatively
low cost and short experimentation time; hence, its appeal for rapid
evaluation of numerous, potentially hazardous compounds.
The rabbit alveolar macrophage (RAM) cytotoxicity bioassay and muta-
gencity screening using three bacterial strains (salmonella typhimurium)
can be used to predict the acute toxicity and mutagenic behavior of the
samples. Determination of acute toxicity of a given sample at a
specified concentration using the RAM procedure costs roughly $200
per sample. The mutagenic bioassay, using only one solvent vehicle,
costs about $600 per sample tested. The total cost incurred in
evaluating a given process stream is a function of the number of
pollutant samples selected for study.
Ducted gas, liquid, or solid samples are subjected to the pair of
bioassay procedures. Particulate material is grouped into two categories
based on particle aerodynamic diameter (>3p and <3u), and subjected to
the bioassays.
Fugitive emissions are also screened with the two bioassay procedures.
Samples collected by the three downwind samplers are combined and the
integrated sample subjected to the bioassays. Material collected in
the upwind and portable sampling units are also individually screened.
23
-------
Level 2
The initial screening tests in Level 1 will be used to identify the
potential environmental hazards of pollutant or process streams
through examination of their physical and chemical characteristics as
well as their biological activity. Those streams identified as
hazardous will be subjected to the more intensive testing procedures
of Level 2.
The RAM cytotoxicity bioassay is also used in Level 2 to assess the
acute toxicity of a particular sample. In Level 2, however, several
exposure levels will be tested rather than one, and a dose-response
relationship established between exposure level of the sample to the
macrophage cells and the resultant cytotoxicity. The mutagenic bio-
assay will also be conducted, but using three solvent vehicles instead
of one. In addition, the carcinogenic potential of the priority
streams will be determined. Due to the more intensive effort, unit
costs are as follows: $600 per sample for cytotoxicity evaluation,
and $800 per sample for mutagenic evaluation. The carcinogenicity
tests required classical, whole animal tests, and cost about $2,000
per sample tested.
24
-------
DATA REDUCTION AND RECORDING
Level 1
The sampling and analysis report will require 40 man hours of senior
professional time to prepare, equal to $1,500. Computing time includes
an additional $1,000. The report includes the cost of relating data
and writing. Total cost is estimated at $2,500.
Level 2
The report costs are similar to those of Level 1. The report includes
a listing of the analytical results and a delineation of mass emission
rates. Total cost is estimated at $3000.
25
-------
ASSESSMENT COST AS A FUNCTION OF PROCESS CONDITION
At Level 2, it is assumed that two process operating conditions are
adequate to define the range of waste stream emission rates and com-
positions. The costs for generating data at the second process
condition are estimated to be identical to those for the first process
condition. The only difference is the elimination of site preparation
»nd travel charges for the second process condition, as seen below.
Also, no Level 1 charges and no fugitive charges have been costed into
the second process condition.
TABLE 2. MATRIX OF LEVEL 2 CHARGES
Costing Factor
Site Preparation
Travel
Sample Acquisition
Analytical Charges
Bioassay Charges
Data Reduction and
Recording
First Process
Condition
X
X
X
X
X
X
Second Process
Condition
X
X
X
26
-------
PROCESS DATA ACQUISITION
It is recognized that at each sampling and analysis level, acquisition
of process data is an integral part of the assessment program. This
effort is minimal at Level 1 but consistent with developing an under-
standing of the process operation. Operator log sheets should be
maintained and volumetric flow data as well as production and con-
sumption rates for the process should be monitored at Level 1. Level
2 efforts are more extensive and entail a detailed knowledge of pollu-
tant concentrations and volume flow rates as a function of operating
modes, fuel types, and other process conditions.
These considerations have not been charged into the costing schemes
at either level.
27
-------
SECTION IX
STREAM AND COMPONENT PRIORITIZATION
Prioritization of whole streams or stream components for future con-
sideration in an assessment program is based on the Level 1 tests.
The applicable outputs from Level 1 establish the decision critiera
for stream prioritization and include:
a) Contents of organic fractions
b) Identification of elements
c) Physical characterization
d) Mutagenicity testing - bioassay
e) Cytotoxicity testing - bioassay
f) Concentration (lower limit of detection)
g) Mass emission rate.
In an actual assessment program for a specific process, one can price
those factors determining the overall performance cost by eliminating
entire streams and eliminating chemical classes based on Level 1 tests.
However, for the purpose of this study, one must make some assumptions
about what could be learned from Level 1 and then develop possible com-
ponent prioritization categories which will reduce analytical costs
based on those assumptions. Those general decisions which one might
make concerning sampling and analysis of a process or process stream
include:
a) Assume no inorganics
b) Assume no organics
c) Assume only 50 percent of organic fractions present
d) Assume no inorganics and only 50 percent organic fractions
present.
The application of the above constraints to inlet and outlet streams of
a process yield the ability to estimate variations in assessment costs
due to analytical testing. These classifications represent illustra-
tions of chemical class rejection in lieu of actual data and are not
28
-------
meant to be applied universally. A balance was necessarily drawn be-
tween making realistic assumptions and readily calculable values.
For specific situations many other cases could be costed in a similar
fashion using the general cost flow diagrams (Figures 2 through 7).
For the examples shown later in this report, the following definitions
apply to the component-rejection classifications.
a) Complete Analysis - assumes complete inorganic, organic,
and bioassay work is carried out on a given stream
b) Assume No Inorganics - no inorganic analysis performed;
complete organic and bioassay work is carried out on
given stream (e.g., stream treated as if consisting
entirely of organics)
c) Assume No, Organics - analogous to above statement
d) Assume only 50 Percent of Organic Classes - complete
inorganic and bioassay work is carried out on given
stream; only 50 percent of the organic classes are
analyzed
e) Assume No Inorganics and 50 Percent Organic Classes -
same as d) except no inorganic analysis is performed.
By applying the assumptions given within each component-rejection
classification to the Level 2 analytical schemes shown in Figures 4
through 7, one can easily develop costs associated with stream type.
These costs appear in Table 3.
Also, the unit analytical costs can be combined with site preparation,
sampling, and other charges to yield total unit cost per stream data
which are dependent on stream type and degree of analysis.
The variations in performance cost of an environmental assessment
are dependent on the degree of stream and component elmination as well
as stream type. The sums of each group of solid, liquid, gas, and par-
ticulate streams comprise the "stream mix" of a process. For a specific
29
-------
Table 3. LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS COSTS*
Stream
Characterizationt
Particulate/Organic
Particulate/Inorganic
Gas /Organic
Gas /Inorganic
Liquid/Organic
Liquid /Inorganic
Solid/Organic
Solid/Inorganic
Level 2 Analysis Costs (10 Dollars)
Complete
Analysis
51.2
51.2
8.5
8.5
21.7
21.7
12.8
12.8
Assume no
Inorganics
29.6
7.1
14.2
7.4
Assume no
Organics
21.6
1.4
7.5
5.4
Assume only
50% of
Organic
Classes
43.2
43.2
6.5
6.5
17.7
17.7
10.8
10.8
Assume no
Inorganics and
50% of Organic
Classes
21.6
4.95
11.2
5.4
W
O
*Revised analytical costing data has been acquired subsequent to the completion of this
document and is shown in Figures 4 through 7. Values presented in this table reflect
earlier costing data.
The organic/inorganic designation used here (and in subsequent tables) implies that a
stream is primarily organic or inorganic.
-------
process, one could estimate assessment costs on the basis of stream mix
and an assumed degree of analysis. In this manner, a range of assess-
ment costs can be developed. For the same total number of streams and
degree of analysis, a higher proportion of particulate streams would
result in greater overall cost of assessment. Alternatively, a larger
proportion of gaseous streams leads to a lower assessment cost, other
factors being equal.
31
-------
SECTION X
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES
Table 4 indicates an overall sampling and analysis strategy for en-
vironmental assessment at each phase of process development. In
developing this set of strategies, a balance is drawn between com-
plete characterization of the system at a very early phase, and the ex-
penditure of a large fraction of assessment resources at a phase with
low probability of commercial success.
At the research phase, almost no funds are expended. At the develop-
ment and demonstration phases, Level 1 is used to define the assessment
effort for a more detailed Level 2 analysis. The demonstration phase
includes fugitive emission analysis. A limited Level 2 assessment of
several influent and effluent streams of environmental interest is
carried out at the commercial-scale phase where prior assessment results
can be utilized. The strategy for the existing commercial phase
consists of a Level 1 analysis of all influent and effluent streams,
and a subsequent Level 2 analysis of streams prioritized on the basis
of Level 1 output. Fugitive analysis work is also necessary since
no previous environmental studies have been assumed at this phase.
32
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS STRATEGIES
AS A FUNCTION OF PROCESS PHASE
Process Phase
Process Characteristics
Sampling and Analysis - Level 1
Sampling and Analysis - Level 2
Research
• Use of pure (Idealized) feeds
• Exploratory operation solely of key
components of process configuration
• Extremely low probability of success-
ful commercialization
• Nominal instrumentation to provide
key process and product characteris-
tics
• Intermittent operational mode
General Observation, Low Level Testing
Development
CO
CO
• Larger scale, more complete process
configuration than in research phase
• More representative feedstocks
• Fair probability of eventual success
• Instrumentation of feed, product,
and by-product streams
• Semi-continuous operational mode
dependent on requisite process
changes
• All system influents and effluents
• All pollutant classes screened
Prioritized system influents
and effluents (based on Level 1
pilot output)
Prioritized pollutant classes/
species (based on Level 1 pilot
output)
Demonstration
• Complete process configuration
• Representative feedstocks
• Excellent probability of commercial
success
• Process measurements for quality
control and process stability
• Operational mode consistent with
obtaining economic quantities of
products
• All system Influents and effluents
• All pollutant classes screened
• Prioritized system influents
and effluents (based on Level 1
demo, output)
• Fugitive emission analysis
• Prioritized pollutant classes/
species (based on Level 1
demo, output)
Commercial-
Scale
Existing
Commercial
• Same configuration as in demonstration
phase, but with potential further
process improvements
• Routine waste and process stream
monitoring
No Level 1 S&A
Full-scale production units with
optimum process configurations
(possibly in various locations)
• All system influents and effluents
• All pollutant classes screened
Monitoring of a few streams
of key environmental interest
(selection based on Level 2
demo, output)
Species of key environmental
interest (selection based on
Level '! demo, output)
Prioritized system influents
and effluents (based on Level 1
output)
Fugitive emission analysis
Prioritized pollutant classes/
species (based on Level 1 out-
put)
-------
SECTION XI
LURGI GASIFICATION PROCESS EXAMPLE
To demonstrate the application of the previously developed costing
procedures to an actual process evolutionary cycle, the Lurgi coal
gasification process will be used as an example. In Figures 8
through 10, flow diagrams of the Lurgi process are shown at several
phases of process evolution.
»
Process measurements in the research phase (Figure 8) are limited to
characterization of the coal feed and product gas streams of the gasi-
fier with very nominal attention given to environmental assessment.
The development phase (Figure 9) includes a more complete process con-
figuration with an additional three by-product streams and one residual
stream to be analyzed. For the demonstration phase (Figure 10), in
accordance with the measurement strategy developed earlier, a complete
characterization of all influent and effluent streams of importance
including fugitive emissions is called for. The process flow diagrams
for the commercial-scale phase and the existing commercial unit are
identical to the demonstration phase flow sheet. The degree of stream
characterization required for the existing commercial unit and the
demonstration unit is similar, but is significantly reduced for the
commercial-scale unit, as indicated in Figure 10.
Tables 5 through 7 show an itemization of Level 1 and Level 2 costs as
well as the total environmental assessment cost for each phase of the
Lurgi process evolution. For the research phase, it has been assumed
that the cost of environmental assessment-related process measurements
is insignificant and thus will not be considered further. Streams con-
sidered for each phase correspond to those indicated on the process
flow sheets (Figures 8 through 10) and are characterized both by stream
type (e.g., gas, liquid, etc.) and whether they are primarily organic
or inorganic.
34
-------
STEAM
Ui
IL
\
f \
£.
f
GASIFIER
£!
PRODUCT GAS
FIGURE 8
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM*~LURGI GASIFICATION RESEARCH PHASE
Streams to be analyzed are underlined.
-------
COAL
STEAM 0,
1 1
-£.-
GACTFTER
^
w'
SHIFT
CONVERSION
AND
GAS COOLING
E RECTISOL ^ PRODUCT GAS
1 i 1
ASH QUENCH
GAS
LIQUOR
SEPARATION
NAPTHA
1
TAR/OIL
FIGURE 9
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM*-LURGI GASIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PHASE
*Streams to be analyzed are underlined
-------
00
AIR
1
SULFUR
1
COAL
COAL
PREPARATION
fc
1 4
EANSED REFUSE
INES +
OXYGEN
PLANT
STEAM
1 ,
°2
r
GAS IF I ER
4
ASH QUENCH
ABSORBEB
OXIDIZES
GAS
SHIFT
CONVERSION
AND
GAS
COOLING
1
G
LIQ
SEPAR
1
»
AS
UOR
ATION
p
GAS
LIQUOR
TREATMENT
(PHENOSOLMAN)
SULFUR
PLANT * INCINERATOR ^ INCINERATOR G/
+
' ^ H2S
COMPRESSION
KtUilbUL P MbiHANATION p AND
DEHYDRATION
4 1
NAPTHA DEHYDRATION
WATER
PRODUCT GAS
PHENOLS
ffl.
FIGURE 10
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM*-LURGI GASIFICATION DEMONSTRATION
AND COMMERCIAL-SCALE PHASES
*Streams to be analyzed in demonstration phase and on existing
commercial unit are underlined
Plus marks denote streams analyzed in commercial-scale phase
-------
Table 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COSTS--LURGI GASIFICATION
PHASE: DEVELOPMENT
STREAM
DESIGNATION
Product Gas
Coal Feed
Ash Quench
Naptha
H2S
Tar/Oil
CHARACTERIZATION
Gas/Organic
Particulate/
Organic
Solid/Organic
Liquid/Inorganic
Liquid/Organic
Gas /Inorganic
Liquid/Organic
SUMS
(A)
OO
LEVEL 1 COSTS* (103 DOLLARS)
ANALYSIS
1.9
4.84
1.52
2.72
2.72
1.9
2.72
18.32
SITE PREPARATION
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.75
SAMPLING
0.064
0.384
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.064
0.032
0.640
Sum above costs • 20.7
Level 1 fixed costs - 5.0
LEVEL 2 COSTS (10 3 DOLLARS)
ANALYSIS**
8.5
51.2
12.8
21.7
21.7
8.5
21.7
146.1
SITE PREPARATION*
8.0
25.0
10.0
2.5
2.5
8.0
2.5
58.5
SAMPLING1"1"
0.384
2.048
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
4.352
Sum above costs = 209
Level 2 fixed costs (first process point)
« 9.0
Level 2 fixed costs (second process
point) =3.0
Total Level 1 costs -*- $25.7K
Total Level 2 costs (first process point)
-> $209 + 9 = $218K
Total Level 2 costs (second process point)
-> (209 - 58.5) + 3 = $153.5K
*No Level 1 costs incurred for second process point
**Complete analysis cost (includes all inorganic, organic, and
.bioassay work)—same for both process points
Total cost for development phase •* 218.0 + 153.5 + 25.7 = $397.2K
Footnotes applicable to Tables 5,, 6, and 7
tt
No site preparation charges for second process point
Sampling charges same for both process points
-------
PHASE: DEMONSTRATION
.t
Table 6. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COSTS--LURGI GASIFICATION
STREAM
DESIGNATION
Product Gas
Coal Feed
Ash Quench
Naptha
H2S
Tar/Oil
Phenol
NH3
Air
Cleaned
Fines
Refuse
Dehydration
Water
Raw Water?
Sulfur
Absorber —
O'xidizer Gas
Incinerator
Gas
CHARACTERIZATION
Gas/Organic
Solid/Organic
Liquid/ Inorganic
Liquid/Organic
Gas /Inorganic
Liquid/Organic
Liquid/Organic
Liquid/Inorganic
Gas/Inorganic
Solid/Organic
Solid/Organic
Liquid/ Inorganic
Liquid/ Inorganic
Solid/Inorganic
Gas/Organic
Particulate/
Organic
Gas/Inorganic
Particulate/
Inorganic
SUMS
LEVEL 1 COSTS (103 DOLLARS)
ANALYSIS
1.9
1.52
2.72
2.72
1.9
2.72
2.72
2.72
1.9
1.52
1.52
2.72
0.35 '
1.52
1.9
4.84
1.9
4.84
41.93
SITE PREPARATION
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
4.0
SAMPLING
0.064
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.064
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.064
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.064
0.384
0.064
0.384
1.44
Sum above costs = 47.38
Level 1 fixed costs =5.0
LEVEL 2 COSTS (103 DOLLARS)
ANALYSIS*
8.5
12.8
21.7
21.7
8.5
21.7
21.7
21.7
8.5
12.8
12.8
21.7
21.7
12.8
8.5
51.2
8.5
51.2
348.0
SITE PREPARATION
8.0
10.0
2.5
2.5
8.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
8.0
10.0
10.0
2.5
2.5
10.0
8.0
25.0
8.0
25.0
147.5
Sum above costs = 505.7
SAMPLING
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
2.048
0.384
2.048
10.24
Level 2 fixed costs (first process point)
= 9.0
Level 2 fixed costs (second process point)
= 3.0
Total Level 1 costs •> $52.38K Total Level 2 costs (first process point)
-••$505.7 + 9 = $514.7K
Total Level 2 costs (second process
point) •* (505.7 - 147.5) + 3 = $361.2K
Fugitive analysis cost *• $252K
Total Cost for demonstration phase •* 514.7 + 361.2 + 52.38 + 252 = $1,180.28K
Matrix for existing commercial unit is identical except for the
addition of particulate testing for the product gas stream ($83.5K
first process point; $53.25K second process point)
'Complete analysis cost (includes all inorganic, organic, and
bioassay work)—same for both process points
|Raw water used at various points in process
39
-------
Table 7. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COSTS—LURGI GASIFICATION
PHASE: COMMERCIAL-SCALE
STREAM
DESIGNATION
Product Gas
Coal Feed
Ash Quench
Refuse
Absorber —
Oxidizer Gas
Dehydration
Water
Incinerator
Gas
CHARACTERIZATION
Gas /Organic
Solid/Organic
Liquid / Inorganic
Solid/Organic
Gas /Organic
Liquid /Inorganic
Gas /Inorganic
SUMS
o
LEVEL 1* COSTS (103 DOLLARS)
ANALYSIS
SITE PREPARATION
SAMPLING
LEVEL 2 COSTS (103 DOLLARS)
ANALYSISf
8.5 A
12.8 A
7.5 B
10.8 C
4.95 D
17.7 C
1.4 B
63.65
SITE PREPARATION
8.0
10.0
2.5
10.0
8.0
2.5
8.0
49.0
SAMPLING
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
0.384
2.69
Sum above costs - 115.3
Level 2 fixed costs (first process
point) -9.0
Level 2 fixed costs (second process
point) =3.0
Total Level 1 costs -»• 0
*Level 1 analysis is carried out in the demonstration study
Letter following cost designates assumption made regarding simplification
of analysis—costs are same for both process points
A - complete analysis cost
B - assume no organics
C = assume only 50% of organic classes
D = assume no inorganics and 50% of organic classes
Total Level 2 costs (first process
point) •*• $124.3K
Total Level 2 costs (second process
point) -»• (115.3 - 49.0) +3 - $69.3K
Total cost for commercial-scale phase
-+• 124.3 + 69.3 = $193.6K
-------
Level 1 and Level 2 costs are comprised of site preparation, sampling,
analysis, and fixed costs. Fixed costs, totaling approximately $5K
and $9K for the respective levels, are discussed on pages 17 through 25
and include the following: travel, equipment preparation and freight
charges, data reduction and recording. Site preparation costs, dis-
cussed on page 18, are fixed at $250 per stream for Level 1 but become
a function of stream type for Level 2, ranging from $2.5K for a liquid
stream to $25K for a particulate stream. The costs of sample acquisi-
tion, discussed on page 20, vary with stream type and are different for
Levels 1 and 2. By assuming a cost of $32 per man hour, the sampling
costs expressed in man-hours on page 20 have been converted to dollar
values. The Level 1 analysis costs presented on page 21 have been
used for the Lurgi example. In Table 8, Level 2 analysis costs for
each stream in the commercialized Lurgi process are presented for a
series of previously discussed cases reflecting various simplications
in analysis. The cost figures have been extracted from the Level 2
analysis cost matrix (Table 3).
The costs associated with the second process point of Level 2 have
also been indicated in Tables 5 through 7 and were determined from the
chart given on Table 2. Note that all Level 1 costs and Level 2 site
preparation and travel costs are not incurred for the second process
point.
In an actual environmental assessment program, the type of Level 2
analysis to be performed on a given stream would be influenced by the
results of a prior Level 1 analysis. However, since the Lurgi process
is being used here to illustrate the application of costing procedures
developed earlier, and because no Level 1 measurement data is actually
available, certain assumptions were necessarily made regarding the type
of Level 2 analysis to be performed in each phase. These assumptions
with their associated analysis costs correspond to the items presented
41
-------
Table 8. LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS COSTS--LURGI GASIFICATION*
Stream
Designation
Product Gas
Coal Feed
Ash Quench
Naptha
V
Tar/Oil
Phenol
NH3
Air
Cleaned Fines
Refuse
Dehydration Water
Raw Water
Sulfur
Absorber- Oxidizer
Gas
Incinerator Gas
Characterization
Gas /Organic
Particulate/Organic
Solid/Organic
Liquid/ Inorganic
Liquid/Organic
Gas /Inorganic
Liquid/Organic
Liquid/Organic
Liquid / Inorgani c
Gas /Inorganic
Solid /Organic
Solid/Organic
Liquid/Inorganic
Liquid / Inorganic
Solid/Inorganic
Gas /Organic
Particulate/Organic
Gas /Inorganic
Particulate/Inorganic
Level 2 Analysis Costs (103 Dollars)
Complete
Analysis
8.5
51.2
12.8
21.7
21.7
8.5
21.7 •
21.7
21.7
8.5
12.8
12.8
21.7
12.8
12.8
8.5
51.2
8.5
51.2
Assume no
Inorganics
7.1
29.6
7.4
14.2
14.2
14.2
7.4
7.4
7.1
29.6
:::
Assume no
Organlcs
—
—
7.5
—
1.4
—
7.5
1.4
—
—
7.5
7.5
5.4
1.4
21.6
Assume only
50% of
Organic
Classes
6.5
43.2
10.8
17.7
17.7
6.5
17.7
17.7
17.7
6.5
10.8
10.8
17.7
17.7
10.8
6.5
43.2
6.5
43.2
Assume no
Inorganics and
50% of Organic
Classes
4.95
21.6
5.4
10.2
10.2
10.2
5.4
5.4
4.95
21.6
All measured streams in existing commercial unit have been listed.
-------
in Table 8 and have been appropriately indicated by footnotes in the
Level 2 analysis cost columns of Tables 5 through 7. It is evident
that the total Level 2 costs for the development and demonstration
phases exceed the corresponding Level 1 costs by an order of magnitude.
It should also be noted that for purposes of example, an arbitrary
but reasonable selection was made of streams to be considered in the
development and commercial-scale phases. The fugitive analysis cost,
incurred only at the demonstration phase, is based on up-wind/downwind
monitoring for the coal handling operation (see Table 9).
The cost of process measurements as a function of the phase of Lurgi
process evolution is summarized graphically in Figure 11. Of a cumula-
tive assessment cost of $1,771K, the percentages attributable to the
research, development, demonstration, and commercial-scale phases are
respectively, 0, 22.4, 66.6, and 11.
It has been assumed so far, that environmental assessment has been
initiated at the research phase and has progressed in parallel with
process evolution through the commercial-scale phase. It is entirely
conceivable that environmental assessment may be initiated at some
later phase. Figure 12 depicts how this situation would affect cumula-
tive assessment cost for the Lurgi process. Also shown is the resulting
cost for initiating environmental assessment on an existing commercial
unit. Performance of an environmental assessment during the research
and development phases (cost $397K) results in a 29 percent increase
over the cumulative assessment cost incurred when EA is initiated at
the demonstration phase. By allowing environmental assessment to pro-
gress in parallel with process development, a minimum-risk, information-
effective assessment program is obtained. Lead time is also provided
for control technology development, if warranted.
43
-------
Table 9. FUGITIVE EMISSION SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS COSTS
No. of Samples
(+ factor of 2)
Cost/Sample
Sampling Costs
SAMPLING STRATEGY
Quasi-Stack
4
Roof Monitor
Up-Wind/
Downwind
15
6K
24K
8K
56K
12K
180K
Analyses Done at Level 1
No. of Inorganic Tests
Costs
No. of Organic Tests
Costs
No. of Bioassay Tests
Costs
16
4.8K
16
3.2K
8
11. 2K
28
8.4K
28
5.6K
14
19. 6K
60
18K
60
12K
30
42K
TOTAL COST
43.2K
89.6K
252K
44
-------
CO
1
H
H
CO
o
u
1200
1000 -
800
600
400
200
These costs are valid only for an
environmental assessment initiated at
the research phase.
CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT
COST = $1,771K
RESEARCH
DEVELOPMENT
DEMONSTRATION
COMMERCIAL-SCALE
FIGURE 11
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COST VS. PHASE OF PROCESS EVOLUTION
FOR LURGI GASIFICATION
-------
2000
1600
1200
8 800
400
$1,771K
$1,771K
$1,374K
COST TO PERFORM EA IN
RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-
MENT PHASES
$1,317K
RESEARCH
DEVELOPMENT
DEMONSTRATION
EXISTING COMMERCIAL
Environmental assessment initiated at the
research phase allows for appropriate control
technology development lead time.
Environmental assessment commencing at the
existing commercial phase would result in an
environmentally unsound facility with no control
technology available for years.
FIGURE 12
CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT COST VS. ASSESSMENT ENTRY-LEVEL PHASE FOR LURGI GASIFICATION
-------
SECTION XII
EFFECT OF PROCESS TYPE ON ASSESSMENT COSTS
In addition to the Lurgi gasification process, eleven other processes
representing four major areas of current interest to EPA have been
investigated in an effort to determine the variation of environmental
•
assessment costs with process type. The major areas and processes
considered are as follows:
A. Synthetic Fuels
1. Koppers-Totzek
2. Lurgi
3. Synthoil
4. Toscoal
B. Primary Metals
1. Aluminum
2. Copper
3. Steel
C. Stationary Combustion
1.. Power Plant
2. Municipal Incinerator
D. Flue Gas Desulfurization
1. Magnesium Slurry Scrubbing
2. Wellman-Lord
3. Lime-Limestone Scrubbing
The costs of environmental assessment were determined for each process
by employing the previously developed costing strategies. The results
are summarized in tabular form in Table 10 and displayed in Figure 13
as a function of the number of streams measured. To examine the vari-
ability of assessment cost with the degree of Level 2 analysis, two sets
of costs are shown, each corresponding to the type of Level 2 analysis
indicated. The processes belonging to the primary metals and station-
ary combustion groups, as well as the Lurgi process, presently exist
47
-------
Table 10. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COSTS FOR SELECTED PROCESSES
Class/Process
Synthetic Fuels
Koppers-Totzek
Lurgi
Synthoil
Toscoal
Primary Metals
Aluminum
Copper
Steel
Stationary Combus-
tion
Power Plant
Municipal
Incinerator
Flue Gas Desul-
furization
Magnesium Slurry
Scrubbing
Wellman-Lord
Lime-Limes tone
Scrubbing
Level 1
»Cost
[10 Dollars)
43.0
49.2
53.0
36.8
90.2
59.0
130.7
33.9
37.0
47.9
32.7
41.6
Total Cost* (10J Dollars)
Excluding Fugitives /Including Fugitives
Including Complete
Analysis at
Level 2
337/632
1093/1345
734/986
410/662
1356/1446
933/1185
788/2522
352/604
401/653
565/565
483/483
531/783
Sampling and Analysis
Cost as per Assumed
Stream Composition
237/532
627/879
528/780
298/550
840/930
505/752
526/2260
284/536
387/639
423/423
289/289
371/623
Fugitive
Analysis Cost
(103 Dollars)
295.2
252
252
252
89.6
252
1734.4
252
252
252
00
Includes Level 1 costs
-------
1600
1400
D COMPLETE ANALYSIS AT LEVEL 2
O SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS AS PER
ASSUMED STREAM COMPOSITION
AT LEVEL 2
*EXCLUDING FUGITIVE ANALYSIS
fINCOMPLETE PROCESS FLOW SHEET
1200
H
o
o
a
1000
<*i
H
in
O
O
CO
to
800
600
400
W
I
£
H £ g
200
10 1'
NUMBER OF MEASURED STREAMS
16
18
20
22
FIGURE 13
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COST* FOR SELECTED PROCESSES VS. NUMBER OF MEASURED STREAMS
-------
at the commercial stage and were costed accordingly. To date, none of
the remaining processes in the flue gas desulfurization and synthetic
fuels groups have progressed beyond the demonstration phase. Assess-
ment costs for these processes were based on flow diagrams reflecting
the most current phase of process evolution. Since the flow diagrams
available for a given process were found to vary, an attempt was made
to select a representative case for each process under consideration.
As anticipated, costs of environmental assessment are observed in Figure
13 to generally increase with the number of measured streams. The
dashed lines shown in Figure 13 represent least square fits for the
upper and lower sets of points. Another factor expected to influence
assessment cost is stream mix, due to the variation of site prepara-
tion, sampling, and analysis cost with stream type. Table 11 shows
the total number of measured streams and the stream mix for each of
the processes being considered.
50
-------
Table 11. REPRESENTATIVE STREAM MIX FOR SELECTED PROCESSES
Class/Process
Synthetic Fuels
Koppers-Totzek
Lurgi
Synthoil
Toscoal
Primary Metals
Aluminum
Copper
Steel
Stationary Combustion
Power Plant
Municipal
Incinerator
Flue Gas Desulfuriza-
tion
Magnesium Slurry
Scrubbing
Wellman-Lord
Lime-Limes tone
Scrubbing
Total Number
of Measured
Streams
5
19
11
7
22
18
10
6
7
11
9
8
Number of
Particulate
Streams Measured/
Percentage of Total
1 (20)
3 (16)
3 (27)
1 (14)
5 (23)
2 (11)
3 (30)
1 (17)
1 (14)
3 (27)
2 (22)
2 (25)
Number
of Liquid
Streams Measured/
Percentage of Total
2 (40)
7 (37)
3 (27)
3 (43)
6 (27)
7 (39)
3 (30)
1 (17)
2 (29)
3 (27)
1 (ID
3 (38)
Number
of Solid
Streams Measured/
Percentage of Total
1 (20)
4 (21)
2 (18)
2 (29)
6 (27)
6 (33)
2 (20)
3 (50)
3 (43)
2 (18)
3 (33)
1 (13)
Number
of Gas
Streams Measured/
Percentage of Total
1 (20)
5 (26)
3 (27)
1 (14)
5 (23)
3 (17)
2 (20)
1 (17)
1 (14)
3 (27)
3 (33)
2 (25)
Avg. % • 20.5
Avg. % = 30.5
Avg. % = 27
Avg. % - 22
-------
Figure 14 shows the variation of assessment costs with stream mix
and number of streams measured. Costs include site preparation,
sampling, analysis, and fixed costs for Levels 1 and 2 but exclude
fugitive analysis costs. Complete analysis at Level 2 has been assumed.
The costs on a per stream basis (not including fixed costs) vary with
stream type as follows:
Particulate - 83.55K
Liquid - 27.48K
includes complete analysis of
Solid - 24.88K
Gas - 18.81K -
Level 2
The lines marked "particulate streams only" and "gas streams only" in
Figure 14 represent the upper and lower bounds, respectively, of assess-
ment costs for the particular degree of Level 2 analysis assumed.
(Similar curves may, of course, be generated for other degrees of Level
2 analysis.) The assessment cost for any process, regardless of stream
mix, must lie in the region bounded by these lines. To illustrate this,
assessment costs for six commercial processes reflecting different stream
mixes have been plotted on the diagram. These costs have been taken
from Table 10 for the case of complete analysis at Level 2. The dashed
line in Figure 14 represents assessment costs for an average stream mix,
synthesized from average values of stream mix percentages given in
Table 10 for the twelve processes under consideration. This stream
mix consists of:
Particulates - 20.5%
Liquid - 30.5%
Solid - 27.0%
Gas - 22.0%
52
-------
2400
2200 -
10 15
NUMBER OF MEASURED STREAMS
FIGURE 14
EFFECT OF STREAM MIX ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COSTS*
*EXCLUDES FUGITIVE ANALYSIS AND SECOND PROCESS
POINT AT LEVEL 2
-------
It is evident from Figure 14 that the upper and lower bounds represented
by the "particulate only" and "gases only" lines encompass a cost range
too broad to be used even for gross predictions of assessment costs.
The "average stream mix" line could, however, provide a first estimate
of assessment costs, provided it was established that this stream mix
was representative of many other process classes. Future efforts should
be directed to this area of generalized cost prediction.
54
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Juslsuctions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-093a
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSI Of* NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Assessment Sampling and Analytical
Strategy Program
5. REPORT DATE
Mav 1976
5. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
J.. Vlahakis and H. Abe Is on
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The Mitre Corporation
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia 22101
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013; ROAP 21ADD-BG
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1859, Task 6
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final: 11/75-1/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES prOject officer for this report is Robert M. Statnick, Mail Drop
62, Ext 2557.
is. ABSTRACT
repOr£ describes a costing methodology for environmental assessment
that has been generated for industrial processes at various phases of development.
The demonstrated environmental assessment strategies provide a framework for
determining industry, process , and stream priorities on the basis of a staged sam-
pling and analysis technique. A Level-1 screening phase characterizes the pollutant
potential of influent and effluent streams of a process. Level-2 sampling and analysis
provides for a quantitative representation of potentially hazardous substances in those
streams identified for further investigation by Level 1. The procedure provides a
mechanism for recommending assessment program implementation costs as well as
for estimating costs for budgetary planning purposes.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Cost Estimates
Industrial Processes
Sampling
Analyzing
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Environmental Assess-
ment
Analytical Strategy
13B
05A,14A
13H
14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS {ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
60
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
55
------- |