PB81-1285U
Cost Comparisons of Treatment and Disposal
Alternatives for Hazardous Wastes. Volume I
SCS Engineers, Inc. Region III Library
Redmond, WA Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for
Municipal Environmental Research Lab.
Cincinnati, OH
Dec 80
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
NTTS
-------
EPA-600/2-80-188
December 1980
COST COMPARISONS OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
Volume I
by
Warren G. Hansen and Howard L. Rishel
SCS Engineers
Redmond, Washington, 98052
Contract No. 68-03-2754
Project Officer
Oscar W. Albrecht
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati , Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-188
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI>*Np.
PB31 1285 TV
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Cost Comparisons of Treatment and Disposal Alternative
for Hazardous Wastes ; Volume I
B. REPORT DATE
December 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Warren G.
Howard L.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Hansen
Rishel
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
SCS Engineers
2875 152nd Avenue NE
Redmond, Washington 98052
10, PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1DC618
11. CONTRACT
EPA 68-03- 275^
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research LaboratoryGin., OH.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/1^
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Oscar W. Albrecht SHWRD, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 (513) 684-4216
16. ABSTRACT
Unit costs are estimated for 16 treatment and 5 disposal techniques applicable
to hazardous wastes from the organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals,, and electro-
plating and metal finishing industries. Each technology was evaluated by unit
processes or modules, and computer-linked models developed for calculating
capital and operating costs at the unit process level. Costs were aggregated
at the technology level including applicable indirect costs and maintenance costs.
Data files were designed to indicate economies of scale for 5 levels of throughput.
Life cycle average unit costs are presented in both tabular and graphic form.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
cost-effectiveness
cost estimates
hazardous materials
waste treatment cost
Organic Chemical Waste
Inorganic Chemical Waste
Hazardous Waste Costs
Electroplating Waste
Hazardous Waste
13B
14A
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Public Release
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
_ Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created
because of increasing public and government concern about the
dangers of pollution to the health and welfare of the American
people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic
testimonies to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay of its
components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the
problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in
problem solution; it involves defining the problem, measuring
its impact, and searching for solutions. The Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory develops new and improved technology
and systems to treat and manage wastewater and solid and
hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and commun-
ity sources, to preserve and treat public drinking water
supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health,
and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of
the products of that research and provides a most vital
communications link between the researcher and the user commun-
ity.
The purpose of this study is to enhance the understanding
of hazardous waste treatment and disposal economies. The
multitude of applicable and emerging technologies in this area
must be described and priced to allow waste managers to make
informed decisions. This report provides the user community
with the necessary cost data, analytical and comparative
techniques, and recommendations for cost-effective management
options based on the type of waste and scale of operation.
Francis T. Mayo,
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This project is intended to standardize, update, and
evaluate cost and technological data pertaining to treatment/dis-
posal options for hazardous wastes from the organic chemicals,
inorganic chemicals, and the electroplating and metal finishing
industries. Sixteen treatment and five disposal technologies
were selected for study based on their applicability within the
industrial categories, the availability of cost and performance
data, and their overall effectiveness in reducing or eliminating
the hazardous waste constituents.
Each technology was assessed in terms of its unit processes
or modules, and computer-linked models were developed for
calculating capital and operation/maintenance costs at the unit
process level. Costs were then aggregated at the technology
level together with all applicable indirect capital and opera-
tion/maintenance costs. Cost data were entered in the models at
the unit cost or cost component level (e.g., dollars/ydS of
concrete), and the data files were designed to accommodate
economies of scale.
Technology costs derived from the analyses (provided in
both tabular and graph format) are presented for site prepara-
tion, structures, mechanical equipment, electrical equipment,
land and other capital. Operation/maintenance cost categories
include three classes of labor, energy, maintenance, and
chemicals. Final cost comparisons among treatment/disposal
technologies applicable to similar waste streams are made on a
life cycle average cost basis.
Risks associated with the existence and operation of each
technology are also assessed. Each technology is rated and
compared in terms of susceptibility to catastrophic events,
unexpected downtime, and adverse environmental impacts.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No.
68-03-2754 by SCS Engineers under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It covers the period
September 25, 1978, to August 25, 1979, and work was completed
as of October 25, 1979.
i v
-------
.-CONTENTS-
Foreword .......... . ...... . ..... .. iii
Abstract .......... ........ ....... iv
Figures ................... . ...... vi
Tables .__._.. . . . ... . . .... .............. xii
Metric Conversion Factors .......... ......
'Acknowledgments . __ .__. _. __ ._. ..'
1. Introduction ............. . ..... 1
2. Conclusions ............... .... 13
3. Recommendations ...... , , ...... ... 17
.......... 4 .._ Hazardous Waste. Management Alternatives ... ._ »...,..__.__ .._. 19
5. Procedure for Cost Analysis ........... 31
6. Descriptions and Cost Data for Hazardous Waste
Treatment and Disposal Technologies ....... 44
Precipitation/f locculation/sedimentation. ... 45
Multimedia filtration .............. 51
Evaporation . . . . . ............. 65
Distillation .................. 73
Dissolved air flotation ............ 78
Oil/water separation. .... ......... 92
Reverse osmosis ... ............. 103
Ultrafiltration ................ 105
Chemical oxidation/reduction .......... 116
Hydrolysis. ... ..... . ......... 126
Aerated lagoons ................ 133
Trickling filter ................ 142'
Waste stabilization pond ............ 155
Anaerobic digestion ......... ..... 159;
Carbon adsorption ............... 174
Activated sludge. . ........... ... 179i
Evaporation pond. . . ........ ..... 189
Incineration. ................. 194
Land disposal ............. .... 211
Chemical fixation ....... ........ 219>
Encapsulation ... .......... .... 223
7. Assessment of Risks ....... ........ 234:
Sources. ......................... 249<
References ................. ....... 251
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Steps for acquiring cost data and deriving computer-
assisted cost models. ..... .... 9
2 Steps in risk assessment process.
10
3 Comparison of life cycle costs for biological treatment
facilities 23
4 Comparison of life cycle costs for physical/chemical
treatment facilities for nondegradable organic wastes .... 24
5 Comparison of life cycle costs for physical/chemical
treatment processes for inorganic wastes and certain
pesticides 25
6 Comparison of life cycle costs for solidification and
encapsulation 26
7 Comparison of life cycle costs for selected disposal
technologies 27
8 Derivation of hazardous waste treatment and disposal
technology costs ^. . . 32
9 Life cycle cost calculator 36
10 Process flow diagram for precipitation/flocculation/
sedimentation 46
11 Precipitation/flocculation/sedimentation: changes in
total capital costs with scale 50
12 Precipitation/flocculation/sedimentation: changes in
O&M requirements with scale 52
13 Precipitation/flocculation/sedimentation: life cycle
costs at five scales of operation 54
14 Typical arrangement of vertical filter tanks 55
-------
Number
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Arrangement of multi -media filtration basins
Filtration: changes in total capital costs with scale ....
Filtration: changes in O&M requirements with scale
Filtration: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation. ...
Detail of single evaporator showing associated equipment
included in the evaporator module
Multiple effect evaporator with forward feed
Evaporation: changes in total capital costs with scale. . . .
Evaporation: changes in O&M requirements with scale ....
Evaporation: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation
Continuous fractional distillation column
Distillation: changes in total capital costs with scale . . .
Distillation: changes in O&M requirements with scale
Distillation: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation
Schematic of dissolved air flotation including sludge
dewatering
Dissolved air flotation: changes in total capital
costs with scale . .
Dissolved air flotation: changes in O&M requirements
with scale
Dissolved air flotation: life cycle costs at five
scales of operation ' . . . .
Coalescing oil/water separator design
Oil /water separation: changes in total capital costs
with scale
Oil /water separation: changes in O&M requirements
with scale
Page
56
61
62
64
66
67
71
72
75
76
81
82
84.
86
90
91
94
95
99
100
vii-
-------
Number Page
35 Oil/water separation: life cycle costs at five scales
of operation 102
36 Typical treatment plant employing reverse osmosis 104
37 Reverse osmosis: changes in total capital costs with
scale 108
38 Reverse osmosis: changes in O&M requirements with
scale 109
39 Reverse osmosis: life cycle costs at five scales
of operation Ill
40 Typical ultrafiltration plant 112
41 Ultrafiltration: changes in total capital costs with
scale 117
42 Ultrafnitration: changes in O&M requirements with
scale 118
43 Ultrafiltration: life cycle costs at five scales
of operation 120
44 Flow diagram of PCD 1200 NG cyanide destruction system. . . 121
45 Chrome reduction system flow diagram 123
46 Chemical/oxidation reduction: changes in total
capital costs with scale 127
47 Chemical oxidation/reduction: changes in O&M
requirements with scale 128
48 Chemical oxidation/reduction: life cycle costs at
five scales of operation 130
49 Flow diagram of the hydrolysis reactor and associated
modules 132
50 Hydrolysis: changes in total capital costs with
scale 136
51 Hydrolysis: changes in O&M requirements with scale 137
52 Hydrolysis: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation. 139
53 Aerated lagoon 141
vttf
-------
Number
54 Aerated lagoon: changes in total capital costs with
scale 145
55 Aerated lagoon: changes in O&M requirements with scale . . . 146
56 Aerated lagoon: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation 148
57 High rate trickling filter flow diagram 149
58 View of trickling filter showing internal components 151
59 Trickling filter: changes in total capital costs with
scale 154
60 Trickling filter: changes in O&M requirements with
scale 156
61 Trickling filter: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation 158
62 Waste stabilization pond: changes in total capital
costs with scale 162
63 Waste stabilization pond: changes in O&M requirements
with scale 163
64 Waste stabilization pond: life cycle costs at five
scales of operation 165
65 Typical flow and installation diagram: single
digestor system 166
66 Anaerobic digestion: changes in total capital costs
with scale 170
67 Anaerobic digestion: changes in O&M requirements
with scale 171
68 Anaerobic digestion: life cycle costs at five scales
of operation 173
69 Schematic diagram of a carbon adsorption system
incorporating thermal regeneration of the carbon 175
70 Carbon adsorption: changes in total capital costs
with scale 180
71 Carbon adsorption: changes in O&M requirements with
scale ....'- 181
tx
-------
Number Page
72 Carbon adsorption: life cycle costs at five scales
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
of operation
Activated sludge process: flow diagram
Activated sludge: changes in total capital costs with
scale
Activated sludge: changes in O&M requirements with
scale
Activated sludge: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation
Evaporation pond: flow diagram and levee configuration . . .
Evaporation pond: changes in total capital costs with
scale
Evaporation pond: changes in O&M requirements with
scale
Evaporation pond: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation (assuming waste specific gravity = 1). . . .
React-0-Therm Rotary kiln sludge incinerator
(cutaway view)
React-0-Therm Rotary kiln sludge incinerator
(side and plan view).
Incineration: changes in total capital costs with
scale
Incineration: changes in O&M requirements with scale ....
Incineration: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation
Hazardous waste landfill
Disposal cell construction ,
Volume requirements for a landfill
Land disposal: changes in total capital costs with
scale ....
Land disposal: changes in O&M requirements with scale. . . .
183
184
188
190
192
193
197
198
200
202
203
206
208
210
212
213
215
218
220
-------
Number Pa9e
91 Land disposal: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation 222
92 Chemical fixation: two operating costs at different
scales of operation 224
93 Chemical fixation: life cycle costs at five scales
of operation 225
94 Encapsulation: process flow diagram 227
95 Encapsulation: changes in total capital costs with
scale 230
96 Encapsulation: changes in O&M requirements with scale. . . 231
97 Encapsulation: life cycle costs at two scales of
operation 233
98 Potential earthquake damage levels for various areas
of the United States, 1979 239
99 Flood potential for the mean annual and iQ^year
floods in various United States locations 240
100 Deaths from tornados, 1953 241
101 Tornado incidence by State and area, 1953 . 241
102 Threat rating from tornados, 1953 242
103 Mean annual number of days without thunderstorms,
based on data through 1964 243
104 Maximum expected winds: 50 year mean recurrence
interval , , . 243
105 Process for assessing equipment damage risks 247
xt
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Chemicals Contained In Waste Streams of Three Industries 3
2 Flow Rates of Process Discharges From Plants Within the
Organic Chemicals Industries in Region 10 5
Flow Rates of Process Discharges From Plants Within the
Inorganic Chemicals and Electroplating Industries in
EPA Region 10
4 Applicability of Treatment and Disposal Technologies to
Categories of Hazardous Waste 20
5 Cost Comparisons Among Treatment and Disposal Technologies:
Metric Units 21
6 Cost Comparisons Among Treatment and Disposal Technologies:
Standard Units 22
7 Summary of Risks Associated With Each Treatment and Disposal
Alternative 28
8 Unit Process Modules Comprising the Hazardous Waste Treat-
ment and Disposal Technologies 33
9 Estimation of Installed Capital, Annual O&M, and Life
Cycle Costs 39
10 Summary of Capital Costs for Precipitation/Flocculation/
Sedimentation 48
11 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Precipitation/Flocculation/
Sedimentation 49
12 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Precipitation/Flocculation/Sedimentation 53
13 Summary of Capital Costs for Multimedia Filtration 59
14 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Multimedia Filtration .... 60
15 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Filtration 63
xii
-------
Number Page
16 Summary of Capital Costs for Evaporation 69
17 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Evaporation 70
18 Computation of Life Cycle Average for Implementing Evaporation . 74
19 Summary of Capital Costs for Distillation 79
20 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Distillation 80
21 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Distillation 83
22 Summary of Capital Costs for Dissolved Air Flotation 88
23 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Dissolved Air Flotation. . . 89
24 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Dissolved Air Flotation 93
25 Summary of Capital Costs for Oil/Water Separation 97
26 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Oil/Water Separation .... 98
27 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Oil/Water Separation 101
28 Summary of Capital Costs for Reverse Osmosis 106
29 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Reverse Osmosis 107
30 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Reverse Osmosis 110
31 Summary of Capital Costs for Ultrafiltration 114
32 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Ultrafiltration 115
33 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Ultrafiltration 119
34 Summary of Capital Costs for Chemical Oxidation/Reduction. ... 124
35 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Chemical Oxidation/Re-
duction 125
36 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction 129
37 Summary of Capital Costs for Hydrolysis 134
xttt
-------
Number Page
38 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Hydrolysis 135
39 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Hydrolysis 138
40 Summary of Capital Costs for Aerated Lagoon 143
41 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Aerated Lagoon 144
42 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Aerated Lagoon 147
43 Summary of Capital Costs for Trickling Filter 152
44 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Trickling Filter 153
45 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Trickling Filter 157
46 Summary of Capital Costs for Waste Stabilization Pond 160
47 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Waste Stabilization Pond . . 161
48 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing Waste
Stabilization Pond 164
49 Summary of Capital Costs for Anaerobic Digestion 168
50 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Anaerobic Digestion . .' . . 169
51 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Anaerobic Digestion 172
52 Summary of Capital Costs for Carbon Adsorption 177
53 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Carbon Adsorption 178
54 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Carbon Adsorption 182
55 Summary of Capital Costs for Activated Sludge 186
56 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Activated Sludge 187
57 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Activated Sludge - 191
58 Summary of Capital Costs for Evaporation Pond 195
59 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Evaporation Pond ...... 196
xiv
-------
Number Page
60 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Evaporation Pond 199
61 Summary of Capital Costs for Incineration 204
62 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Incineration 205
63 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Incineration 209
64 Summary of Capital Costs for Land Disposal 216
65 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Land Disposal 217
66 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing Land
Disposal 221
67 Summary of Capital Costs for Encapsulation 228
68 Summary of First Year O&M Costs for Encapsulation 229
69 Computation of Life Cycle Average Cost for Implementing
Encapsulation. . . 232
70 Risk of Damage from Catastrophic Events for Hazardous Waste
Treatment/Disposal Technologies. . . 236
71 Potential Environmental Risks Associated with Hazardous Waste
Treatment/Disposal Alternatives 237
72 Risk of Unexpected Downtime for Hazardous Waste Treatment/Dis-
posal Technologies 245
xv
-------
METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
ABBREVIATION
EA
SF
LF
FT
OIA"
DIA1
HP
IBS
GAL
GPM
GPD
CF
BTU
L3S/HR
TONS/HR
IN
CY
SOFT
KWH
°C
PPM
PSIG
BOD
TSS
DEFINITION
Each
square feet
linear feet
feet
diameter (in inches)
diameter (in feet)
horsepower-hour
pounds
gal Ions
gallons per minute
gallons per day
cubic feet
British Thermal Unit
pounds per hour
tons per hour
inch
cubic yard
board feet
kilowatt-hour
degrees centigrade
parts per mil 1 ion
(miligrams per liter)
pounds per square Inch x 703.1
biological oxygen demand
total suspended solids
METRIC EQUIVALENT
N.A.
3 square meters
= 1inear meters
= meters
* centimeters
= meters
= 0.7457 KWH
3 kilograms
» liters
= 1iters per minute
* liters per day
* cubic meters
310» ergs
» kilograms per hour
- metrlctons per hour
« centimeter
» cubic meter
- board meters
N.A.
9/5+32 degrees fahrenheit
N.A.
kilograms per sq,
meter
N.A.
N.A.
x 0.
x 0.
x 0.
x 2.
x 0.
x
x 0.
x 3.
x 3.
x 3.
x 0.
x 1.
x 0.
x 0.
x 2.
x 0.
x 0.
0929
3048
3048
54
3048
454
785
785
785
028
06x1
454
907
54
765
3048
XVI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Mr. Oscar W. Albrecht, Senior
Economist for the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
(EPA-Cincinnati), Project Officer for this work. The authors
also wish to thank Richard Eilers and Charles Rogers, as well as
Eugene Grumpier of the Office of Solid Waste Management (OSW),
for their review and assistance during the development of the
project approach and final report.
Special thanks are extended to Dr. Michael D. Swayne, who
was instrumental in the development of the computer-assisted
format for conducting the cost analyses, and to Mr. Gibson Oakes,
an associate of SCS Engineers, who provided detailed design and
performance analysis for evaporation, distillation, carbon ad-
sorption and incineration.
Finally, the authors wish to acknowledge the assistance and
cooperation demonstrated by the numerous equipment manufacturers,
retailers, and hazardous waste managers contacted during this
study.
XVll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
The primary purpose of this study is to provide guidance
and tools for hazardous waste managers in selection of cost-
effective treatment and disposal schemes. This information may
be used by engineers in the preliminary design of treatment/dis-
posal processes and by decision makers in determining whether
such systems are appropriate to specific industrial or municipal
waste streams. It is intended that the report serve as a guide-
line for 1) making cost estimates for designated processes, and
2) making cost-effectiveness comparisons among two or more
process options. As described in Section 5 (Procedure for Cost
Analysis), there is sufficient flexibility within the cost and
technical models so the user can accommodate special project or
regional needs.
Specific project objectives were as follows:
Provide a concise assemblage of available
information on costs of current and emerging
technologies for treatment and disposal of
hazardous wastes. The technologies must
represent effective physical, chemical and
biological processes and must take into
account potential process changes and resource
recovery.
t Upgrade existing data by gathering additional
information from literature sources and
equipment manufacturers.
Develop cost functions to reflect the variations
in cost at different levels of control by
specific technologies.
Array the available treatment and disposal
options according to their cost-effectiveness
for environmental protection.
Provide qualitative assessments and comparisons
of the risk of adverse incidents' and complexity of
1
-------
implementation associated with each techno-
logical option.
Comparisons of effectiveness were to be subject to the
criteria developed by the Office of Solid Waste Management (OSW)
for controlling hazardous wastes as promulgated under Subtitle C
of RCRA (PL 94-580). Comparisons of cost were to be made on a
life cycle basis; taking into account technology, capital and
annual operation/maintenance costs and equipment lifetime.
SCOPE
This study is directed to the treatment and disposal of
aqueous waste streams emanating from the organic chemicals, in-
organic chemicals, and electroplating and metal finishing
industries. The disposal of hazardous liquids, as well as slud-
ges and other solids generated by treatment processes, is also
considered. Special attention is given to pesticides contained
in industrial waste streams.
Table 1 lists the types of chemicals contained in waste
streams of the three industries. The organic chemicals industry
demonstrates the greatest variety of organic chemicals used in
manufacturing of polymers, fibers and other complex organic
products (1). Metals appearing in the organic chemicals
industry's process effluents are primarily unrecovered catalytic
materials, corrosion products, inorganic raw material residues
and additives to organic process feedstocks.
The inorganic chemicals industry generates organic and in-
organic waste products from a variety of chemical production
processes. Mercury-bearing compounds are generated by the
mercury-cell process and are generally removed from wastewaters
by precipitating as sulfides (2). The diaphragm cell process
discharges chlorinated hydrocarbons, asbestos and some lead
salts. Chromium is a typical waste constituent emanating from
titanium dioxide manufacture, chrome color and inorganic pigment
production, and chromate synthesis. Other metals in the in-
organic chemical waste streams include lead, copper, nickel,
arsenic compounds and antimony.
Electroplating wastes are typically generated in relatively
small volumes. They are, therefore, treated by small-scale sys-
tems and/or transported for processing at a hazardous waste
disposal facility. Electroplating sludges may be processed for
recovery of certain metals or disposed of directly in a secure
landfill. Significant constituents of electroplating wastes are
acids and metals such as chromium, zinc, copper, nickel, iron and
-------
TABLE 1. CHEMICALS CONTAINED IN WASTE STREAMS OF THREE INDUSTRIES
Hazardous
Waste
Category
Organic
Chemicals
Metals, Metal
Industry
Organic
Chemicals
Phenols and cresols,
ethers, halogenated
aliphatics, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons,
monocyclic aromatics,
nitrosamines, PCBs,
phthalate esters
Misc. (used in catalysts)
Inorganic
Chemicals
Chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Hg, HgCl, HgS, Pb,
Electroplating/
Metal
Finishing
Degreasing
solvents,
chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Pb, Cr, Cu, Ni,
Salts, Complexes, etc
Non-Metal
Inorganics
Acids
Caustics
Pesticides
Various
Misc. acids
Misc. caustics (used in
production reactions)
Certain halogenated
aliphatics
Cr, Cu, Ni, Sb, An, Cd, Pd
chromates, sodium-
calcium, calcium-
fluoride, ferric
ferrocyanide, ferric
arsenate, arsenic
chlorides, nickel
hydroxide, lead salts,
arsenic trisulfide
Asbestos Cyanides
Phosphorus sulfide Fluorides
Phosphorus trichloride
Hydrofluoric acid
Sulfuric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Caustics
Inorganic pesticide
manufacture (mainly
metals; Cu, Pb, Zn)
Sulfuric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Caustics
Chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Source: SCS Engineers,
-------
cyanides in solution, either as simple ions or as cyanide com-
plexes (3,4,5). Precleaning of components to be plated or
finished is often necessary in order to remove any greases or
imperfections which will disrupt the finish. Degreasing sol-
vents and certain chlorinated hydrocarbons are contaminated by
this procedure and must be recovered or disposed. Pickling
baths and alkaline cleaners are also periodically exhausted and
changed out.
Tabl_es 2 and 3 summarize the waste flows included in process
discharges from typical plants within the three industry cat-
egories for one EPA region. The data in Table 2 were used to
determine the "real world" range of flows which can be expected
from specific industries. All technologies included in this
report were analyzed within these ranges. Note that aqueous
electroplating discharges are predominately indirect (e.g., to
municipal treatment systems). Therefore, special consideration
is given to these wastes in terms of possible pretreatment re-
quirements .
REQUIREMENTS UNDER RCRA
On December 18, 1978, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
issued proposed rules under Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act as substantially amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 [PL 94-580
(October 21r1976)]. Of particular relevance to this project was
Section 3004 which addresses standards affecting owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities. As indicated in the overview of Subtitle C (Federal
Register, Vol. 43, No. 243, Monday, December 18, 1978), these
standards define the levels of human health and environmental
protection to be achieved by these facilities. Facilities on a
generator's property, as well as off-site facilities, are
covered. *
The regulatory structure of Section 3004 (40 CFR 250 Sub-
part D) emphasizes design and operating standards. Technologies
or unit processes specifically regulated include incineration,
landfills, surface impoundments and basins. Section 250.45-6
also addresses requirements for chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal treatment facilities. Appendix A provides detail on the
proposed rules for each type of operation.
Each technology included in this report is designed to meet
the design and operation limitations stipulated by RCRA. The
incinerator is equipped with secondary burners and a scrubber
module. The landfill includes provisions for avoiding ground-
water contamination, monitoring and collecting leachate and
controlling surface runoff onto and away from the landfill area
using diversion structures. All lagoon systems (aerated lagoon
-------
TABLE 2. FLOW RATES OF PROCESS DISCHARGES FROM PLANTS WITHIN THE
ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES IN REGION 10
Discharge*
Direct
Indirect
Direct
SIC codet Flow
2865
2865
2869
Low:
Avg:
High:
Low:
Avg:
High:
Indirect
*
t
2869
Direct discharge =
Indirect
SIC Code
2865
2869
discharge
Industry
discharge
of
= discharges
(Organic)
Cyclic crudes and
Industrial organic
m3/D Flow gpd Flow 1/s Flow gpm No. of plants
1.2xl02 3.4xl04 Low: 5.7 2.4X101 2
2.7x103 7.2xlOf Avg: 1.2x10^ 5.0xl02
5.3x10-* 1.4xl06 High: 2.3x10^ 9.7xl02
None
4.5x10* 1.2xl04 Low: 2.1 9 8.3 0 5
3.8x10;? 1.0x10° Avg: 1.6x10$ 7.0xl02
1.3xHT 3.5x10° High: 5.7x10^ 2.4xl03
1.4xl02 3.7xl04 6.1 2.6X101 1
effluents to a navigable waterway
to a direct discharger
intermediates
chemicals
-------
TABLE 3 FLOW RATES OF PROCESS DISCHARGES FROM PLANTS WITHIN THE INORGANIC
CHEMICALS AND ELECTROPLATING INDUSTRIES IN EPA REGION 10
Discharge*
Di rect
Indirect
Direct
Indirect
Direct and
Indirect
Di rect
Indirect
SIC codet
2812
2812
2813
2813
2816
2819
2819
Flow
Low:
Avg:
High:
_
Low:
Avg:
High:
Low:
Avg:
High:
Low:
Avg:
High:
Low:
Avg:
High:
m3/D
5.7x10?
2.2x107
4.5x10*
_
1.7xlo}
2.2x10}
2.7x10*
2.5xlo!
1.5x10,
2.6x10*
5.3x10?
1.7x107
5.0xKT
1.4x10?
2.6x10,
3.8x10^
Flow gpd
1.5xlOg
5.8x107
1.2x10'
--
4.5x10?
5.9xlOo
7.2X10"3
6.7X103,
3.9x107
6.9x10.
1.4x10^
4.6X10E1
1.3x10'
3.6x10^
6.8x10?
1.0x10°
Flow 1/s
Low: 2.4x10?
Avg: 9.5x10^
High: 1.9X1013
Low: 0.7
Avg: 1.0
High: 1.2
Low: 1.1
Avg: 6.3 ,
High: 1.1x10
Low: 2.3xlol
Avg: 7.6x10-
High: 2.1xlOJ
Low: 5.9 ,
Avg: 1.1x10:
High: 1.6X101
Flow gpm
1.0x10^
4.0x!0f
8.3xlOJ
3.1
4.1
5.0
4.7 ,
2.7x10:
4.8X101
9.7x10^
3.2x10^
9.0xlOJ
2.5x10}
4.7x10:
6.9X101
No. of Plants
7
None
2
4
None
8
2
-------
TABLE 3. (Continued)
ISC
harge*
Direct
Indirect
*
t
SIC code"1" Flow
3471
3479
3471 Low: 4
Avg: 2
High: 2
3479 Low: 4
Avg: 3
High: 9
Direct discharge = discharge of
Indirect discharge = discharges
SIC Code
2816
2819
Industry (Inorganic)
Alkalies and chlorine
Industrial gasses
Inorganic pigment
Industrial inorganic
m3/D
_
-
.Bxio:1
.3x10^
.6xlOJ
.SxlO'1
. lxlO|
.IxlO1
Flow gpd
1.
6.
7.
1.
8.
2.
_ «
2xl02
2xio:
0x10°
2xl02
2xlOj
4x10^
effluents to a navigable
to a direct discharger
SIC Coc
3471
3479
le
Flow 1/s
« H
Low: 2.0xlO~2
Avg:10.7 ,
High:11.4xlOx
Low: 2.0xlO~2
Avg: 1.4
High: 4.0
waterway
Flow qpm
8.
4.
4.
8.
5.
1.
*
sxio:2
4x10^
9x10^
3xlO"2
7X101
Industry (Electroplating)
Plating & polishing
Metal coating and allied
services
No. of plants
None
None
85
chemicals
-------
and evaporation pond) have a liner system, a leachate detection
system, and sufficient freeboard to prevent accidental drainages.
Basins are designed to be of sufficient strength and wall thick-
ness to prevent the discharge of waste to navigable waters or
groundwater. All uncovered reaction vessels are sized to
provide sufficient freeboard to prevent splashing or spillage
of hazardous waste during treatment processes (e.g., neutraliza-
tion, precipitation).
Section 250.43 requires that all facilities with point
source discharges to navigable waters, including discharges from
leachate collection systems and/or surface water runoff col-
lection systems, comply with all applicable regulations promul-
gated under the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). Also, facilities
with discharges to municipal sewer systems are required to meet
applicable Clean Water Act pretreatment standards. These
performance requirements were taken into account during the
exercising of the computer models described herein.
APPROACH
Figures 1 and 2 are diagrams of the steps or "subtasks"
which were executed during the formulation of the cost and risk
models, respectively. Initial work on the cost-effectiveness
models involved the identification of the technologies and waste
streams to be included in the study.
In order to establish a suitable scope for hazardous waste
evaluation, three representative industries were selected:
Organic chemicals
Inorganic chemicals
Electroplating and metal finishing.
The selection of these three industries served as a basis for
defining the spectrum of hazardous constituents to be evaluated
in terms of effectiveness.
To select treatment/disposal technologies for study, a
comprehensive list of all known processes was assembled. Each
candidate treatment process was then rated according to the fol-
lowing criteria:
1. Applicability within industry categories
(according to available references)
2. Presence in typical off-site or municipal
treatment processes
3, Availability of cost and performance data
4. Whether the technique is destructive or involves
indefinite fixation/storage.
8
-------
Define
Technologies
& Wastestreams
Identify
Modules
Engineering
Descriptions
Literature
References
Contacts with
Manufacturers
I
Special
Cost
Components
Raw Cost Data
1
Technology
Schematics
1
General Cost
Components
Published
Cost,
References
{Adjust to Mid 1978
Curve Fit
Module
Interconnections
& Attributes
Derive Cost Equations
Derive Performance
Equations
jCost Constants
Cost Files
"COSTEC"
Cost Models
Figure 1. Steps for acquiring cost data and deriving computer-assisted
cost models, (Source: SCS Engineers)
-------
Assess All
Possible
Causes
1
Nontech-
nology
Related
Causes
Tech-
nology
Related
Causes
'Assess Probabilities
of Occurrence
Technology
Related
Impacts
Assess Probabilities
of Impacts
Days/Incidents
Incidents/Lifetime
Risk
Figure 2. Steps in risk assessment process. (Source; SCS
Engineers)
10
-------
Based on the above-described analysis, the following
treatment technologies were selected:
P_r e c i pi ta ti on/ f 1 occ u 1 a t i on/ s ed i me n ta ti on
Fi1tration
Eyaporati on
Disti1lation
Dissolved air flotation
Oil/water separation
Reverse osmosis
111 trafil tration
Chemical oxidation/reduction
Hydrolysi s
Aerated lagoon
Trickling filter
Waste stabilization pond
Anaerobic digestion
Carbon adsorption
Activated sludge.
Selected disposal technologies included:
Incineration
Land disposal
Chemical fixation
Encapsulation
Evaporation pond.
Once the technologies and waste streams were identified, the
technologies were analyzed to identify significant unit processes
or "modules". For example, an important chemical process for
treatment of electroplating wastes is precipitation/flbccuTa-
tion/sedimentation. The significant modules associated with this
technology were found to be:
Flash mixer
Flocculators
Chemical storage and feed
Sedimentation basin
Sludge dewatering
Piping and valves
Various pumps.
Detailed assessments of each technology yielded engineering
descriptions and process flow schematics. This material is
included in the main body of this report. Once the technologies
were defined in terms of their components, data gathering and
further engineering assessments were conducted in order to
1) assemble comprehensive and accurate cost files for technology
and module components, and 2) derive cost and performance equa-
tions relating the cost of individual components to scaling
factors (e.g., flow, waste loadings, etc.)- and system variables
11
-------
(e.g., basin volume, retention time, etc.). The cost files
(capital and operation/maintenance), the cost and performance
equations and the executive*(control) programs were then coded
and entered in a modified Fortran IV format for exercising and
analysis.
The risk analyses included assessments of potential loss
due to catastrophic events, unexpected downtime and/or equipment
damage, and potential for adverse environmental impacts associat-
ed with the existence and operation of each technology.
The method of analysis varied for each category of risk.
In determining the potential loss due to catastrophic events,
for example, consideration must be given to technology-dependent
factors (susceptibility) and independent factors (natural phe-
nomenon). The probability of occurrence of catastrophic events
is independent of the technology. Catastrophic events can be
related to geographical location. This fact is taken into
account in the risk assessment process.
Downtime risks, on the other hand, can have a variety of
causes with technology-related probabilities of occurrence.
Some causes of problems (such as chemical supply or labor) are
independent of the type of technology, although their impacts
are not. Other causes, such as system reliability, are inherent
in the type of technology. The same is true for the causes,
probabilities and results of unexpected equipment damage.
The causes of adverse environmental impacts associated with
each technology are relatively well defined in terms of the
quantities and qualities of discharges to the surrounding en-
vironment. The probability and nature of the impacts resulting
from such discharges are much more difficult to identify. The
ramifications of discharges are not always directly related to
the technology but rather to secondary environmental factors.
The variety of possible impacts is difficult to predict and
confounds a technology-specific comparison. Therefore, emphasis
is given to the existence or absence of potential causes of
such impacts; the probability, nature and relative importance of
impacts is discussed in terms of criteria under RCRA and possible
site-specific issues facing the user of this report.
*The Executive Program: Controls user interactions with the
models and coordinates the system function and information
exchange and summary.
12
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based-upon the cost data and
analytical methods as presented in this report. Observations
concerning treatment and disposal alternatives are limited to
the configurations and applications described herein. The term
"cost-effective" is used to describe a unit process or technology
which demonstrates the least cost per unit of waste processed or
disposed. Such a determination is made by comparing the life
cycle average costs of alternative processes or technologies.
Conclusions are presented in three subsections: treatment
processes, disposal processes and risks. Although chemical
fixation, encapsulation and evaporation ponds may be viewed as
pre-disposal treatment processes, they are included as disposal
because of their close association with the land disposal pro-
cess.
The costs cited herein are from life cycle cost evaluations
conducted for each technological alternative. Where applicable,
unit and installed equipment costs were based on those given for
the City of Chicago and expressed as mid-1978 values.
TREATMENT PROCESSES
Precipitation/flocculation/sedimentation as a
treatment process is cost effective [$0.45-0.31/m3
($1.72-1.16/1,000 gal) at all scales of opera-
tion] for removal of many organic compounds,
metals and non-metal inorganic compounds to
meet water pollution control standards; on a
life cycle cost basis. This compares with
evaporation($2.24/m3), distillation ($3.44/m3),
reverse osmosis ($1.77/m3), ultrafi1tration
($0.80/m3), carbon adsorption ($5.35/m3), chemical
oxidation/reduction ($1.15/m3) and filtration
($0.61/m3). Hydrolysis is limited in application
to specific organic compounds (e.g., pesticides)
and certain non-metal organics. Oil/water
separation is also limited in its applicability
to only the less soluble, concentrated oils.
13
-------
Evaporation, reverse osmosis or ultrafi1tration
can be applied where precipitation/floccula-
tion/sedimentation or standard filtration are
not cost effective. Of the three, ultrafiltra-
tion has the lowest life cycle cost [$0.74/m3
($2.81/1,000 gal) at a scale of 315.5 1/s
(5,000 GPM)3. Ultrafiltration is a cost
effective alternative to reverse osmosis
[$0.74 vs. $1.92/m3 at a scale of 315.5 1/s].
However, it cannot be applied in cases where
particle size and other waste characteristics
interfere with adequate removal.
Of the solids separation processes, dissolved
air flotation was found to have the lowest
life cycle cost for the Chicago example
[$0.33/m3 ($1.26/1,000 gal) at a scale of 63 1/s
(1,000 GPM)]. However, dissolved air flotation
can only remove certain types of particles and
is not a direct alternative to standard
filtration, Ultrafiltration or reverse osmosis.
Of these, standard filtration demonstrated
the lowest cost [$0.61/m3 ($2.31/1,000 gal) at
a scale of 63 1/s (1,000 6PM)].
Distillation demonstrates a high life cycle
cost [$3.44/m3 ($13.02/1,000 gal) at a scale
of 63 1/s (1,000 GPM)] and cannot be applied
to wastes which can be treated by less costly
technologies such as evaporation [$2.24/m3
($8.48/1,000 gal)].
Although limited to certain pesticides (e.g.,
organophosphates) and inorganic materials
(e.g., titanium sulfate), hydrolysis is a
promising technology for destruction of
problematic wastes. Cost analysis indicates
that the technique is cost effective,
demonstrating a life cycle cost of $0.22/m3
($0.82/1,000 gal) at a scale of 63 1/s (1,000 GPM)
a Oil/water separation is only applicable to
easily separable oils and may require further
effluent treatment if oil is emulsified.
Where the process is capable of meeting dis-
charge limitations, it is a cost effective
treatment technique; demonstrating a life
cycle cost of $0.13/m3 ($0.48/1,000 gal) at
a scale of 63 1/s (1,000 GPM).
14
-------
Five biological treatment processes for aqueous wastes are
analyzed (dissolved air flotation, aerated lagoon, trickling
filter, waste stabilization pond and activated sludge). The
cost models for each process are constrained by the same
waste input characteristics, nutrient additions, performance
requirements and operational conditions. All technologies
are designed to conform with standards promulgated under
Section 3004 of RCRA. For biodegradable organic constituents,
dissolved air flotation has the lowest life cycle average
cost at all levels of throughput. Anaerobic Digestion,
although also considered a biological process, is only
applied to organic sludges containing low levels of toxic
compounds. The life cycle cost for this process is $1.36/m3
($5.14/1,000 gal.) of sludge processed at a scale of operation
of 63 1/s (1,000 GPM).
DISPOSAL PROCESSES
Cost-effective disposal processes are land disposal for solids,
evaporation ponds for liquid wastes (meeting the limitations
set by RCRA for volatility and reactivity) and incineration
for waste streams with sufficient heat value. The life cycle
average costs for incineration and land disposal are $565.70
and $340.26/t ($256.55 and $154.34/1,000 Ibs) at a disposal
rate of 450 kg/hr (1,000 Ibs/hr), respectively. The appre-
ciably higher cost for incineration means that only those
wastes unsuitable for land disposal (e.g., polychlorinated
biphenyls) can be disposed of in a cost-effective manner
using this technology.
t Chemical fixation is more costly than encapsulation ($198.41
vs $102.78/t) when appreciable solids are present. At low
solids concentrations, chemical fixation is cost-effective.
Evaporation pond exhibits a life cycle average cost of
$0.94/m3 ($3.54/1,000 gal) at a scale of 252 and 315 1/s
(4,000 and 5,000 GPM). Given a waste with a specific gravity
of 2.0, evaporation pond technology represents a cost-effec-
tive dewatering technique prior to land disposal (life cycle
cost = $0.47 - 0.53/t assuming specific gravity = 2.0).
Both land disposal and evaporation ponds demonstrate high
environmental risks, although these can be significantly
reduced by pre-disposal waste solidification using chemical
fixation or encapsulation.
15
-------
'RISK
Three categories of risk are assessed for each
treatment/disposal technology: catastrophic events,
downtime and adverse environmental impacts. Cata-
strophic events pose the highest risk of loss where
technologies include high structures (e.g., towers)
and/or flammable components. Distillation, carbon
adsorption and incinceration are most susceptible.
Lagoons and land disposal demonstrate the lowest
risk.
Downtime risks are a function of complexity, sensi-
tivity to input changes and operational demandsr-
are lowest for chemical oxidation/reduction,
hydrolysis and evaporation ponds. Risk is high for
reverse osmosis, ultrafil tration and encapsulation.
The potential for adverse environmental impact
includes potential for impacts on health, surface
waters, subsurface environments, air resources and
secondary waste outputs. With equal weight given
to each of these categories, aerated lagoons and
waste stabilization ponds demonstrate the highest
risk among the treatment processes. Subsequent
effluent treatment by reverse osmosis, ultrafil-
tration or carbon adsorption can significantly
reduce impacts on surface water quality,
ECONOMIES OF SCALE
Significant economies of scale are indicated for the
following treatment/disposal technologies according to compari-
sons of life cycle average costs at various scales of operation.
Precipi tation/flocculation/sedimentation
Filtration
Evaporation
Dissolved air flotation
Trickling filter
Waste stabilization pond
Anaerobic digestion
Carbon adsorption
Incineration
Land disposal .
Other technologies, such as chemical oxidation/reduction,
ultrafiltration, oil/water separation, hydrolysis, incineration,
activated sludge and aerated lagoon, demonstrate least cost
ranges of scale; the life cycle costs per unit throughput
becoming less up to a certain size. Then, at larger scales of
operation, the costs begin to increase. Reverse osmosfs shows
increasing costs with increases in scale.
16
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ultrafiltration is a cost-effective treatment process
for a variety of hazardous waste streams not treatable
by precipitation/flocculation/sedimentation. Cost and
performance constraints associated with commercial-
scale applications of the technology should be further
researched.
The use of industrial evaporators for concentration of
organic and inorganic aqueous wastes is promising and
less costly than distillation. Commercial-scale evap-
orator installations capable of using concentrated
wastes as a heat source (which are not presently uti-
lized) should be studied.
Chemical fixation as a pre-disposal solidification pro-
cess is commonly provided on-site through the use of
portable equipment. Additional investigation is
necessary to quantify the economic and technical con-
straints of a commercial-scale permanent installation.
Encapsulation is presently being studied on a pilot
scale. Additional research is necessary to identify all
capital and operation/maintenance costs associated with
a commercial-scaTe operation.
Research should continue towards developing economical
methods for carbon regeneration in large-scale carbon
adsorption plants. If the capital and operational costs
associated with regeneration are significantly reduced,
carbon adsorption will be competitive with alternative
treatment schemes.
Additional land disposal techniques and incineration
technologies should be modeled and compared on a life
cycle cost basis. Landfarming and molten salt inciner-
ation are two examples.
t The hazardous waste treatment/disposal cost model
(called "COSTEC") developed during this study should
be augmented with additional capabilities. These
include:
17 .
-------
Improvement of the executive program for
automatically linking the individual unit
process models. Complete automation of
the "COSTEC" system would facilitate a
greater variety of technology comparisons.
Development of additional unit process
cost-performance models so additional
treatment and disposal technologies can
be analyzed, (such as in addition to the
secure hazardous waste landfill modeled
herein) landfarming of industrial wastes .
and co-disposal with municipal refuse.
Other promising thermal destruction pro-.
cesses, besides the rotary kiln, include
molten salt, pyrolysis, fluldlzed bed,
multiple hearth, multiple chamber and
liquid waste incinerator. Solidification
processes recommended for Inclusion are
silicate, cement base, Hrne base, thermo-
plastic and organic base processes. Spe-
cific chemical neutralization processes
should also be modeled.
Expansion of existing cost models to
include additional performance details.
This can be accomplished using two
methods: 1) accumulate additional
performance data for specific waste
constituents in a designated computer
file (similar to the cost data files
used in this study), and 2) derive and
include equations which model the
stoichiometry and kinetics of actual
treatment/disposal transformations.
The computerized cost models derived and used in this
study can readily be used to conduct sensitivity anal-
yses,, to study the influence of changes in unit costs,
in system variables and other factors on the total
technology costs. Such investigations should be con-
ducted in order to improve the understanding of tech-
nology cost dynamics.
18
-------
SECTION 4
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Low cost and effective treatment and/or disposal alternatives
can be selected by using the tools and data presented in this
report. As a typical example, unit cost data for capital and
operation/maintenance requirements are assembled for the greater
Chicago area (Appendices B and C). The results of the example
model analyses described in Section 6 (Technologies for Hazardous
Waste Treatment and Disposal) are summarized in this section to
assist engineers and decision makers in selecting cost-effective
alternatives.
TREATMENT/DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES PER WASTE STREAM
Table 3 illustrates the applicability of treatment and
disposal technologies to the waste categories.
Selected Alternatives
Results of the simple average and life cycle average cost
calculations for each treatment and disposal technology are shown
on Tables 4 and 5 in metric and standard units of expression,
respectively. The scales of operation for incineration, land
disposal, chemical fixation and encapsulation are expressed in
terms of kilograms and pounds per hour. All other technology
scales are in terms of liters per second or gallons per minute.
Since each technology is constrained to similar waste inputs
and performance requirements, it is possible to utilize the
results in Tables 4 and 5 to compare alternatives for certain
waste treatment/disposal needs. Figures 3 through 7 facilitate
this comparison based on the alternative treatment/disposal
technologies (for each waste stream) categorized in Table 3.
Results of the risk analysis described in Section 7 are
summarized in Table 6. Initial identification of viable treat-
ment and/or disposal options are based on cost and performance.
Comparisons based on risk should be considered as secondary or
confirmatory to the cost assessment.
Of the biological treatment processes .analyzed, dissolved
air flotation exhibits the lowest life cycle average costs.
19
-------
Treatment
ro
o
TABLE 4 APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES TO
CATEGORIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Hazardous sWai>ste Category
Organic Chemicals
Metals
Biodegradable Non-biodegradable
Non-Metal Acids Pesticides
Inorganics Caustics
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Aerated Lagoon
Trickling Filter
Waste Stab. Pond
Activated Sludge
Anaerobic Digestion
Hydrolysis
Evaporatton
Distillation
Oil/Water Sep.
Reverse Osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Hydrolysis
Carbon Adsorption
Prec1p./Floc./Sed.
Precip/Fl-
oc./Sed.
Reverse I
Osmosis
Ultrafil-
tration
Chem.
Oxid./Red.
Precip./Fl-
oe./Sed.
Filtration
Evaporation
Chem.
Oxid./Red.
Hydrolysis
Chem. Hydrolysis
Oxid./Red.
Solidification
Chemical Fixation
Encapsulation
Disposal
Incineration
Land Disposal
Evaporation Pond
(SOURCE: SCS ENGINEERS)
-------
TABLE 5. COST COMPARISQNS.AMQNG TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
TECHNOLOGIES; METRIC UNITS
ro
Technology
Precipitation/Floe-
cul at Ion/Sedimentation
Filtration
Evaporation
Distillation
Flotation
Oil/Water Separator
Reverse Osmosis
Ultraflltratlon
Chemical Oxidation/Re-
duction
Hydrolysis
Aerated Lagoon
Trickling Filter
Waste Stab. Pond
Anaerobic Digestion
Carbon Adsorption
Activated Sludge
Evaporation Pond
Life Simple Average Cost ($/m3) *
at 1/s
10
10
5
5
10
10
7
7
5
5
15
15
b
10
7
10
20
63.1
0.70
0.97
2.73
4.19
0.52
0.20
2.39
1.07
1.40
0.26
1.40
1.24
1.18
2.08
7.25
1.28
2.37
126.2 189.3
0.57
0.82
2.49
4.32
0.43
0.13
2.48
0.89
1.20
0.22
1.01
1.01
1.04
1.83
4.34
0.94
2.17
0.51
0.73
2.41
4.32
0.38
0.1?
2.54
0.95
1.19
0.20
0.87
0.96
0.98
1.73
3.35
0.82
2.09
252.4
0.49
0.67
2.37
4.32
0.35
0.12
2.54
0.95
1.38
0.20
1.03
0.87
0.96
1.69
2.90
1.06
2.05
315.5
0.47
0.64
2.35
4.33
0.34
0.13
2.59
0.99
1.64
0.20
1.15
0.84
0.94
1.66
2.61
1.28
2.05
Simple Average Cost ($/t)t
Incineration 5
Land Disposal 20
Chemical Fixation
With Solids NA
Chemical Fixation
Without Solids NA
Encapsulation 7
453.6
683.33
859.67
198.41
52.91
136.66
at kg/hr
907.2 1360
657.60 650
518.40 392
198.41 198
52.91 52
125.18
.8
.70
.60
.41
.91
1814.4
646.81
329.37
198.41
52.91
2268.0
647.48
291.80
198.41
52.91
Life Cycle Average Cost ($/m3)*
at 1/s
63.1
0.45
0.61
2.24
3.44
0.33
0.13
1.77
0.80
1.15
0.22
0.69
0.63
0.98
1.36
5.35
0.81
1.06
126.2 189.3
0.37
0.52
2.04
3.53
0.27
0.08
1.84
0.66
0.99
0.18
0.50
0.51
0.87
1.20
3.21
0.60
0.98
Life Cycle Average
453.6
565.70
340.26
198.41
52.91
102.78
at kg/hr
907.2
544.44
201.19
198.41
52.91
94.51
0.33
0 46
1 98
3 54
0 ?4
0 07
1 .88
0 71
0.9B
0 Ifi
0 41
0.49
0 R?
1 11
? 4fl
n 53
0.95
Cost
1360.
538.
150.
198.
5?
252.4
0.32
0.43
1.95
3.54
0.22
0.07
1 88
0.71
1.13
0.16
0.51
0.44
0.80
1.11
2.14
0.68
0.94
($/t)t
8 1814.4
77 535.55
73 125.35
41 198.41
91 52.91
3T5T5"
0.31
0 41
1.93
3.55
0 21
0 08
1 92
0 74
1.35
0.17
0 57
0.43
0.78
1 .09
1 93
0 82
0.94
2268.0
536.15
110.25
198.41
52.91
* $/m3 = $/l,000 flal. x 0.2642.
t $/t = $/l,000 Ibs. x 2.205.
(Source: SCS Engineers)
-------
TABLE 6. COST COMPARISONS AMONG TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
TECHNOLOGIES: STANDARD UNITS
Technology
Life
Simple
Average
Cost ($
per 1,000 gal.)*
Life Cycle Average Cost
at GPM
Preclpltatlon/Floc-
culatlon/Sed (mentation
Filtration
Evaporation
Distillation
Flotation
01 I/Mater Separator
Reverse Osmosis
UHraflltratlon
Chemical Oxidation/Re-
duction
Hydrolysis
Aerated Lagoon
Trickling Filter
Waste Slab. Pond
Anaerobic Digestion
Carbon Adsorption
ro Activated Sludge
Evaporation Pond
Incineration
Land Disposal
Chemical Fixation
HI th Solids
Chemical Fixation
Without Solids
Encapsulation
*$/l,000 gal. = $/m3 x
t$/l,000 Ibs. = $/t x
10
10
5
5
10
10
7
7
5
5
15
15
5
10
7
10
20
5
20
NA
NA
7
3.785.
0.453-
1.000
2.65
3.66
10.33
15. 8C
1.98
0.76
9.05
4.04
5.31
0.99
5.30
4.70
4.45
7.88
27.43
4.84
8.99
Simple
1,000
309.90
389.94
90.00
24.00
61.99
2,000
2.16
3.12
9.43
16.36
1.62
0.51
9.40
3.36
4.56
0.83
3.81
3.82
3.94
6.91
16.43
3.54
8.20
Average
3,000
1.94
2.75
9.12
1C. 37
1.43
0.44
9.61
3.61
4.52
0.75
3.31
3.63
3.71
6.53
12.69
3.11
7.90
Cost ($
1,000
1.85
2.54
5.000
1.79
2.43
8.98 8.89
16.36 16.40
1.33
0.44
9.62
3.61
5.23
0.74
3.89
3.30
3.63
6.41
10.96
4.02
7.75
1.27
0.48
9.79
3.76
6.22
0.76
4.35
3.19
3.54
6.28
9.89
4.84
7.75
per 1,000 Ibs.) t
1.000
1.72
2.31
8.48
13.02
1.26
0.48
6.71
3.02
4.36
0.82
2.62
2.37
3.70
5.14
20.26
3.08
4.01
Life
at Ibs/hr
2,000
298.23
235.14
90.00
24.00
56.90
3,000
295.10
178.08
90.00
24.00
4,000
293.34
149.40
90.00
24.00
5,000
293.64
132.36
90.00
24.00
1,000
256.55
154.34
90.00
24.00
46.62
ai
2fOOO
1.40
1.97
7.74
13.39
1.04
0.32
6.97
2.51
3.74
0.69
1.89
1.93
3.28
4.53
12.14
2.28
3.71
i ,V?m , ,
3.000
1.26
1.74
7.49
13.41
0.92
0.28
7.12
2.70
3.71
0.62
1.64
1.84
3.09
4.29
9.38
2.00
3.60
Cycle Average Cost
at "
2,000
246.91
91.26
90.00
24.00
42.87
Ibs/hr
3,000
244.34
68.37
90.00
24.00
($ per 1
4,000
1.20
1.61
,000 gal.)*
fa.OUU
1.16
1C A
.54
7.37 /.w
13.43 13.43
0.85
0.28
7.13
2.70
4.29
0.62
1.93
1.68
3.02
4.21
8.10
2.57
3.54
O.U1
0.30
7.25
2.81
5.10
0.63
2.15
1.63
2.95
4.13
7.31
3.10
3.54
($ per 1,000 lbs.)t
4,000
242.88
56.86
90.00
24.00
(Source: SCS
5,000
243.15
50.01
90.00
24.00
Engineers)
-------
O
O
O
lANAEROBIC DIGESTION
WASTE STABILIZATION PCNO
GPM
1/s
1.000
63.1
2.000
126.2
-2.00
- 1.90
- 1.30
- 1.70
1.60
- 1.50
- 1.40
- 1.30
- 1.20
- 1.10 ,
- 1.00
0.90
- 0.30
0.70
- 0.60
- 0.50
- 0.40
;- 0.30
- 0.20
- 0.10
3,000
204.2
4,000
252.3
T
5,000
340.*
Figure 3. Comparison of life cycle costs for biological treatment
facilities.
23
-------
2
-------
, EVAPORATION
o
§ 4-
GPM
1/3
REVERSE
OSMOSI:
CHEMICAL OXIDATION/REDUCTION
ny.TRAFILTRATICN
2.000
126.2
3,000
204.2
2.10
2.00
- 1.90
- 1.30
- 1.70
- 1.60
- l.SO
1.40
1.30
ILTRATION
PRECIP/FLOC/SET;
- 0.90
- 0.30
0.70
0.60
- 0.50
O.*0
- 0.30
_ 0.20
0.10
I
4,000
?52.3
5,000
340.4
Figure 5. Comparison of life cycle costs for physical /chemical
treatment processes for inorganic 'wastes and certain
pesticides.
25
-------
en
ED
0
0
o
\
540"!
520-
500
480
46^
120"
100
80
60~
40~
20~
t
CHEMICAL FIXATION - WITH SOLIDS
ENCAPSULATION
CHEMICAL FIXATION - WITHOUT SOLIDS
1 1 I 1 1
LBS/HR 1,000 2,000 3.00O 4^000 S'.OOO
1,200
1,150
1,100
1,050
r 1,000
>
"~250
"*200
~150
~"ioo
~50
KG/HR 453.6 907.2 1360.8 1814.4 2268.0
w
Figure 6. Comparison of life cycle costs for solidification and
encapsulation.
26
-------
280-
260"
240"
220"
200"
130"
160"
140
120~
O
§ 100
so
60'
40
20"
INCINERATION
LAND DISPOSAL
EVAPORATION (ASSUMING WASTE SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 1)
POND * «
LBS/HR
KG/HR
I
1.000
453.6
I
2.000
907.2
i
3.000
1360.3
4,000
1314.4
I
5.000
2263.0
600
550
500
450
400'
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Figure 7. Comparison of life cycle costs for selected disposal
technologies,
27
-------
TABLE 7. _SUMMARY OF RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE
Risk
(+ = low, - = high)
Technology Catastrophic Downtime Environmental
Event Impact
Precipitation/flocculation/Sed- + +
imentation
Filtration + + +
Evaporation +
Distillation +
Dissolved air flotation + + +
Oil/water separator + + +
Reverse osmosis +
Ultrafiltration +
Chemical oxidation/reduction + +
Hydrolysis + +
Aerated lagoon + +
Trickling filter + +
Waste stabilization pond + +
Anaerobic digestion + + +
Carbon adsorption - - +
Activated sludge +
Evaporation pond + +
Incineration +
Land disposal + +
Chemical fixation +
Encapsulation +
28
-------
However, dissolved air flotation will only meet discharge limi-
tations for dilute and readily biodegradable waste constituents.
For marginally degradable materials, the least cost option is
aerated lagoon systems.
Non-biodegradable organic compounds may be treated by a
number of technologies depending on their physical/chemical
properties and concentration in the waste stream. Hydrolysis
or oil/water separation is the best alternative for relatively
concentrated oils and hydrolyzable compounds. Ultrafiltration
is a cost-effective treatment technique for concentrating dis-
solved organics not treatable by precipitation/flocculation/
sedimentation.
Precipitation/flocculation/sedimentation as a treatment
process is also cost-effective for removal of many metals and
non-metal inorganic compounds. Where additional treatment is
deemed necessary, ultrafiltration has the lowest life cycle cost
for metal or inorganics removal.
Hydrolysis is the best option for elimination of certain
waste acids. However, for acids not amenable to the hydrolytic
process and for caustics, elimination through neutralization
and chemical oxidation/reduction reactions is the best alterna-
tive. Hydrolysis is the only technology included in this study
which shows significant potential for destruction of certain
pesticide compounds.
Two solidification processes, chemical fixation and encap-
sulation, are included in J:his study. Encapsulation, an eniergjiji
technology, has a comparative life cycle average cost. Actual
economies Vf^ehca^sulation will" be pro vein""once i t is imp! erne n ted"
°JLa 9.°fnJ11_e_rcJal scale.
Of the disposal technologies, incineration is more expen-
sive than land disposal and should be reserved for those wastes
unsuitable for other disposal options. Evaporation pond is
viewed as a cost-effective method of dewatering aqueous wastes
prior to ultimate disposal.
It is often useful to compare the costs of certain technol-
ogies applied to liquid wastes or sludges with those capable of
handling solids. The simple average and life cycle costs in
Tables 6 and 7 may be divided by the specific gravity of liquid
wastes to obtain corresponding estimates for a solids loading
($/t = $/m3 T s.g.)
The following technologies are not capable of processing
high density wastes:
t Reverse osmosis
Ultrafiltration
t Carbon adsorption
29
-------
The biological treatment processes (except anaerobic digestion)
include primary settling for removal of high-density waste
constituents. Solids from hazardous waste treatment facilities
are often compatible with land disposal at a secure landfill or
incineration at controlled facilities.
30
-------
SECTION 5
PROCEDURE FOR COST ANALYSIS
It is the purpose of this report to provide guidelines and
tools enabling the user to 1) obtain cost estimates for a pre-
designated hazardous waste management technology, and 2) compare
management alternatives to identify cost-effective configurations
for treatment/disposal requirements under RCRA. In order to meet
these objectives, this report has been designed to provide cost
data without excessive volume or complicated presentations. The
report is also designed to provide interactive support for
making calculations and to enable the user to derive his/her own
comparisons to meet specific needs or interests.
BACKGROUND: DERIVATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY COST DATA
The methods applied by the user in deriving tailored com-
parisons parallel the methods used for deriving the costs
presented in the technology estimates in Section 6. It is, there-
fore, imperative that the user understand how the cost data is
compiled, how it is used to determine unit process (module)
costs, and how it is summed to yield cost estimates on a tech-
nology (aggregates of modules) basis.
Figure 8 illustrates how the unit capital and operation/
maintenance cost data (Appendices B and C, respectively) are
utilized in association with the appropriate equation form
(Appendix D) and derived component quantity (e.g., square feet of
land, cubic yards of concrete, etc.) to generate a cost at a
given scale of operation. These component costs are then summed
within the cost categories (e.g., land, labor, etc.) to yield
costs on a modular or unit process level. Assuming that the in-
dividual modules can be assembled using piping, duct work, elec-
trical hookup, etc., to formulate complete treatment technologies,
the values for each cost category are summed at the technology
level. The total process cost is estimated from the sum of the
individual installed equipment module costs making up the process.
Appendix E includes brief descriptions of the thirty-five modules
used in this report. Table 8 is a matrix of modules included
in each of the technologies considered. Pumps and piping are
also included in the cost analyses, though not considered as
unit processes.
31
-------
User Definable
System Variables
1
Scaling Factors
(flow, waste loading, etc)
Global Factors
Temp, Rainfall , etc.
1
Calculate System
Variables (System Equations)
(Basin volume, Pipe length, etc.)
(Appendix D)
1
Calculate Cost Components
(Cost Equations)
(Cubic yards excavated, linear ft of pipe, etc)
(Appendix F)
1
Capital
Cost File
(Appendix B)
(Unit Costs)
I
O&M Cost
File
(Appendix c)
(Unit Costs )
Costs per
Cost Category
(Module A)
1
Costs per
Cost Category
(Modules B, C, etc)
Total
Capital
Total
O&M
Figure 8. Derivation of hazardous waste treatment and disposal technology
costs. (Source: SCS Engineers)
32
-------
TABLE 8. UNIT PROCESS MODULES COMPRISING THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
MODULES
TECHNOLOGIES
= a ^
f* « *
» §
553
4J a
s t § -
^ 2 a
B t
c ^
S. IT
3 ^j t/» i
c £ S
O U OJ tl 4J
-r- Dl Ol Dt « -O
*- t-
3 S
SOwC 5 5 5 ^ j B
g « o S 3 ii « .;: c
r-- -fi.Mt-IA W1ulW13vf^ OBJUI
at5aSi|ssi:'^5l.r-r.^5s^fes|a
£Ct>5S?^2SCcS333.535ff'S^
O 'r- I- it. 3 '> '" O U M) O C ) -r* « Ot CLtOBD)
'S«n.iz«'^.«Siii^« irfitSS^tiyssw3
CO
CO
CunguUllon/f loc-
cuUtlon/SedlmenUtton
filtration
Evaporitor
OlstllUtlon
Flotation
OII/Hiter Se()ir4titr
Reverse Osnosls
Ultr*filtration
Chemical 0«ldatlon/HtductIon
Hydrolysis
Aerated Lagoon
Trickling Filter
Wane Slilj, rand
Anaerobic Digestion .
Carbon Adsorption
Activated Sludge
Evaporation Pond
Incineration
Land Disposal
Chemical Fixation
Encapsulation
X X
X X
X X
X X
X Jl
X
X
X
XXX
X XXX
X X
X
XXX
X
X X
X
X
(SOURCE: SCS ENGINEERS)
-------
The cost estimating portion of the system depends ultimately
on the information contained in the capital and operation and
maintenance cost files. Sources for unit construction costs are
"Means Engineering Cost Data - 1978", various material and
labor cost indices and costs associated with the general
literature. Specialty hardware costs were obtained directly from
manufacturers. Cost data sources are listed in appendices B & C.
Costs for each component were obtained, where possible, for
at least five different scales or levels to consider economies
of scale. A curve fit methodology was used involving a series
of regressions to fit data points to candidate functional forms,
each form being a special case of the general form:
COST = A + B x (Units)0 1/C
where natural logarithms for "cost" and "units" can be used.
A is the y-intercept for the cost curve, B is the slope,
and C and A are the exponents of COST and Units, respectively.
As shown in Appendices B and C, the cost component data are assign-
ed in the capital and o&M cost files according to the calcu-
lated value of each coefficient in the general equation form.
The units of measurement and brief descriptions are also included.
The advantage of isolating cost data into distinct files is easy
inspection and modification or update of the file contents with-
out affecting other system elements.
The equations required for deriving the component
quantities (called "system variable equations") and the perfor-
mance equations are included in Appendix F. These equations are
designed for use in a computer-assisted format and provide more
detail than is necessary for conceptual and rapid estimating.
Thus, it is assumed that adjustments in the example cost esti-
mates presented herein will be made primarily at the module
level and above. Exceptions to this include the following cost
components:
Land costs
Labor costs
Energy costs
Maintenance costs
Chemical costs.
FORMAT FOR PRESENTATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY COST DATA
The cost information for each technology is presented in
Section 6 of this report. The costs are based on mid-1978 infor-
mation for capital and operation requirements in the greater
Chicago, Illinois, area. The first table, which presents detailed
capital cost information for a technology at a particular scale
of operation,is presented in tabular format. Included are
34
-------
capital costs for each module according to specific cost
categories (site preparation, structures, mechanical equipment,'
etc.). Supplemental capital costs (ancillary to implementing
the technology) and the quantity of land required for each
module are also specified.
Two sets of curves are then presented. The first group
indicates total capital costs for each technology (exclusive
of land costs) according to the predominant scaling variable
(usually flow). The second group plots the relationship of land
quantity to the same scaling variable for the technology.
A similar analysis is presented for the technology
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. The costs per category
are listed together with quantitative data on labor requirements.
power consumption, chemical demands and other related components,
Cost information on administrative overhead, debt service and
amortization, and real estate taxes and insurance are also
included for the technology at a fixed scale of operation.
In order to provide information on how O&M related
quantities and costs fluctuate with scale, a group of curves
follow the above tabular summary and show:
Annual labor costs by labor category
t Annual kilowatt hours of electricity consumed
t Annual maintenance costs
Annual chemical costs.
To facilitate comparisons among treatment/disposal
alternatives, each technology is assessed in terms of its life
cycle average cost. All technology costs are based on indivi-
dual costs for critical modules (unit processes).
Figure 9 shows how first year operating costs for a
technology are used to estimate simple average and life cycle
average costs over the life of a project (n). In order to per-
mit comparisons among technologies on a life cycle cost^basis, a
curve is presented showing the computed life cycle average costs
at various scales of operation. Life cycle costing is advanta-
geous because it permits all costs (over the life span of the
technology) to be included in comparative evaluations.
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATING OF INSTALLED CAPITAL AND ANNUAL O&M COSTS
In Section 6 of this report, installed hazardous waste
treatment and disposal technologies are defined in terms of
typical unit processes or "modules", and cost data are provided.
Sufficient detail is included so that the user can make modifi-
cations in the assumed equipment configurations or scale of
operations'and derive a specific conceptual estimate. Such
35
-------
-| SUBTOTAL CAPITAL
SUBTOTAL DIRECT O&M [
X 0.05 = AFDC
X 0.0833 = WORKING CAPITAL
X 0.2 = ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD
Z = TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS «
r
X CAPITAL RECOVERY*=DEBT SERVICE
FACTOR
£ AMORTIZATION
X 0.02 = REAL ESTATE TAXES
& INSURANCE
X INFLATION FACTORt = DIRECT
OPERATING
COSTS
ADMIN. X INFLATION FACTORt + DEBT SERVICE
OVERHEAD AMORTIZATION + REAL ESTATE TAXES-**
& INSURANCE = INDIRECT OPERATING
COSTS
E = SUM OPERATING COSTS
X PRESENT VALUE FACTOR* = PRESENT
VALUE OPERATING COSTS
DIVIDED BY ANNUAL THROUGHPUT
jSIMPLE AVERAGED | LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
1(1+1)"
(l+i)" - 1
(1+1)"
1 = INTEREST OR INFLATION RATE
PER YEAR.
n = NUMBER OF YEARS.
Figure 9. Life cycle cost calculator.
36
-------
estimates represent a reasonable estimate of the costs for a
facility and include:
For Capital Costs
Cost of purchased equipment required for the
modules including contingencies and contractor's
profit
Cost of equipment delivery (for Chicago), field
erection, installation, piping, concrete, steel,
instrumentation, electrical, insulation, and all
appurtenances required for proper operation of
the modules
Prime contractor engineering for the technology
Licenses and fees
Construction overhead (included in AFDC)
Costs of buildings, only where inherently required
for proper module function or protection from
weather
Land costs (greater Chicago area)
t Working capital
Allowance for funds during construction.
For O&M Costs
0 Utility costs
Labor
Chemical costs (transported to site and prepared
for use)
Maintenance
Product or residuals (salable commodities as well
as further disposal costs)
Administrative overhead
t Debt service and amortization
Real estate taxes and insurance.
37
-------
Costs which are ancillary to the analysis and not directly
relevant to a specified module or technology-level functions are:
The cost of specialized equipment modules not
listed in Section 6 for each technology.
t The cost of structures, equipment, or other items
or specialized services, supplies, etc., which are
over and above those incorporated in typical
applications.
Salvage values - it is assumed that most structures
and equipment usually deemed salvageable are
rendered unsalvageable by the destructive and
contaminating effects of hazardous waste
constituents.
Table 9 is a form which can be used to list the user's
particular technology configuration and tabulate the necessary
cost information.
LIFE CYCLE COST COMPARISONS
The results of the life cycle cost and technology
performance comparisons are the subject of Section 4 (Hazardous
Waste Management Alternatives) of this report. Alternative
treatment/disposal schemes for select waste streams are compared
according to their annual life cycle cost averages according to
scale; their performance meeting the hazardous waste treatment
and disposal criteria as promulgated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (PL-580).
There may, however, be instances where the user wishes to
generate a life cycle cost estimate for purposes of comparing
a newly configured technology with others or with those defined
in Section 6. Such calculations are possible using the modular-
specific cost data available therein. Where unit costs other
than those for the Chicago example are desired, appropriate
changes may be made in the Data in Appendices B and C. Module
costs are then generated using the formulas in Appendix F.
A life cycle computation similar to that shown in Figure 9
may be compiled. Direct operation costs are calculated from the
annual O&M costs. Indirect operating costs include administra-
tive overhead, debt service and amortization, and real estate
taxes and insurance.
The above calculation may be repeated for several scales
of operation in order to obtain a plot of life cycle average
costs versus major scaling factors.
38
-------
TABLE 9. ESTIMATION OF INSTALLED CAPITAL,
ANNUAL O&M, AND LIFE CYCLE COSTS
Technology
Date
Waste Description
Special Conditions
Capital Costs
MODULES INSTALLED COST (mid-1978 $'s) NOTES
$
$
1} TOTAL MODULES $
Supplemental Capital Costs
DESCRIPTIONS INSTALLED COST NOTES
$
$
$
2) TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL $
3) SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (1+2) _$_
39
-------
TABLE 9 (Continued)
O&M Costs Input Flow Rate
Modules Labor (hrs/yr) Annual Energy Reqd. (specify)
Name Class I/Class 2/Class 3 Energy 1 / Energy 2 / Energy 3
Total
x $/um't
equals
(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
10) Total Labor (4+5+6)$
11) Total Energy Required (7+8+9)$
O&M Costs
Modules
Name
Annual Maint.
Costs
$
Annual Chemical
Costs
$
Other
(specify)
$
40
-------
TABLE 9 (continued)
O&M Costs (continued)
Modules
Names
Annual Maint.
Costs
$
Annual Chemical
Costs
$
Other
(specify)
$
Total
(12)
(13)
(14)
15) Subtotal(10+11+12+13+14) $
Supplemental O&M Costs
Items
Annual Costs
16) Total $
17) Subtotal Direct O&M Costs (15+16) $
COMPUTATION OF"
Subtotal Capital Costs = (3)
$
18) Allowance for Funds During Construction
Subtotal Capital Costs (3) $ _
= $
41
(0.05)
-------
TABLE 9 (continued)
19) Working Capital = (17) Subtotal Direct O&M Costs $ x 0.0833
= $
20) TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS = (3)+(18)+(19) = $
TOTAL FIRST YEAR OPERATING COSTS
Subtotal Direct O&M Costs = (17) $
21) Administrative Overhead =
Subtotal Direct O&M Costs (17) $ x (0.02)
= $
22) Debt Service and Amortization =
Total Capital Costs (2) $
x Capital Recovery Factor*( ) = $
23) Real Estate Taxes & Insurance =
Total Capital Costs (2) $ x (0.02)
= $
24) TOTAL FIRST YEAR OPERATING COSTS = (17)+(21)+(22)+(23) = $
LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE COSTS
25) Direct Operating Costs =
Subtotal Direct O&M Costs (17) $
x Inflation Factor\ ) = $
26) Indirect Operating Costs =
Administrative Overhead (21) $
x Inflation Factort( ) = $
Debt Service & Amortization (22) $
Real Estate Taxes & Insurance (23) $
= $
27) Sum Annualized Costs = $
42
-------
TABLE 9 (continued)
28) Present Value Operating Costs =
Sum Annualized Costs (27) $
x Present Value Factor*( ) =
LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE COSTS = Present Value Operating Costs (28) $ _
-r Annual Throughput = $ /_
(l+i)n -i i = interest or inflation
t (1 + i)n rate per year
n = number of years
# 1
43
-------
SECTION 6
DESCRIPTIONS AND COST DATA FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
This section includes technical descriptions and cost data
for the 21 hazardous waste treatment/disposal technologies eval-
uated in this study. Each description includes the following
engineering/design information:
Technology description
- modules
- flow diagram
- design details
Any changes in technology
configuration with scale
Hazardous waste streams treated
and/or disposed of according
to industry and waste type.
Also included is the following cost information:
Summary of capital costs
Changes in capital costs with scale
0 Summary of first year operating costs
t Changes in operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs with scale
t Life cycle average costs
Life cycle average costs according to scale.
Costs were computed at fixed scales of operation typical of
waste discharge rates from the three industries studied (Table2)
Costs given are for mid-1978 and are based on unit costs as
they apply in Chicago, Illinois,
44
-------
PRECIPITATION/FLOCCULATION/SEDIMENTATION
Descripti on
Precipitation, flocculation and sedimentation are consecu-
tive unit processes used for reacting, solidifying, and settling
out various waste constitutents in the same stream (Figure 10).
Precipitation transforms a substance in solution into an insol-
uble form resulting in a second phase, often in the form of
small solid particles or colloids. Flocculation then transforms
these solids into larger suspended particles so that they can be
removed by gravity settling in a sedimentation basin.
Precipitation is a physicochemical process whereby waste
constituents (often inorganic ions) are changed into a solid
phase and thereby removed from solution. Precipitation involves
an alteration of the chemical equilibrium relationships affect-
ing the solubility of the component(s). This is most often
accomplished through changes in pH, or by reacting the species
with added chemical(s) and forming an insoluble product. Precip-
itation is achieved by adding and rapidly mixing the appropriate
amount of chemicals with the incoming waste stream. Mixing is
accomplished by a stirring device mounted on the mixing tank.
Sufficient retention time (usually less than one minute) is
required to assure complete chemical contact. Flocculating
agents may also be added in the rapid-mix tank.
Flocculation defines the process by which the suspended
particles generated by precipitation agglomerate into larger
particles. Typically, this is achieved in a basin with gentle
agitation provided by paddles or other stirring devices. Suffi-
cient retention time is required to allow floe formation.
Once suspended particles have been flocculated into larger
particles, they are removed from the liquid stream by sedimen-
tation. This is done by retaining the waste flow in a quiescent
basin. The particles suspended in a liquid (if they are suffi-
ciently dense) settle by means of gravitational forces acting
on the particles. Scraping devices (sludge collectors) in the
basin travel along the bottom and deposit the settled solids
into the sludge hopper. The solids are pumped to a sludge de-
watering system and are prepared for recovery and/or disposal.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Typically, additional units are added in parallel to treat
larger flows. The models used for this analysis (Appendix F)
assume that the maximum volume for the flash mixer is 1,000 ft3.
The flocculator module is expanded to accommodate additional
paddle cells as necessary. Each paddle cell has a maximum
volume of 3,600 ft3. The maximum sedimentation basin depth is
10 ft.
45
-------
Precipitation
Precipitating
Chunicali
Flocculating
Agtntt
Flocculalion
Rapid Mi* Tank
Module 02
n
c;
o
0-4 o^
Flocculalion Chamber
Module 01
Sedimentation
Sedimentation Basin
Module II
OulUI Liquid
Stream
Sludge Dewatering
Module 13
Figure 10. Process T"|OW diagram for prec1pltat1on/f1occulat1on/sed1mentation.
-------
Applications
Precipitation/flocculation/sedimentation is commonly
applied in the treatment of wastewater streams containing soluble
heavy metals and colloidal hazardous substances. A summary of
general wastewater treatment applications in the three industries
is presented below:
Inorganic Chemicals Industry--
Many manufacturing processes within the inorganic chemicals
industry produce wastewaters that contain suspended solids and
soluble heavy metals. Examples are found in the manufacture of
titanium dioxide and chromium pigments. Precipitation, floccu-
lation and sedimentation are used to treat many of these
wastewaters.
Metal Finishing Industry--
Soluble salts of copper, nickel, cadmium and chromium are
removed from wastewater streams by precipitation as hydrated
oxides, using lime followed by flocculation and sedimentation.
Any chromium usually present as chromate or dichromate must
first be reduced to the trivalent state so that the precipita-
tion process will be effective.
Pesticides--
In the manufacture of certain pesticides (i.e., DDT and
Toxaphene), sedimentation with flocculation is under consider-
ation as a preliminary treatment step within a contemplated
wastewater treatment scheme involving other steps.
Costs
Capital and first year operating costs are calculated for
precipitation/flocculation/sedimentation (Tables 10 and 11).
The most costly unit processes for the 1,000 gpm facility are
the sedimentation basin and sludge dewatering. The sludge rate
is assumed to be 100 gpm and precipitating chemical is added at
a rate of 0.1 gpm. The concentration of total suspended solids
in the raw waste is 100 ppm. The total capital cost for the
Chicago-based example is $779,403, Major operating costs are
labor, maintenance and chemical costs. The total first year
operating costs are $260,685.
Figure 11 shows the total capital costs (excluding land
costs) at five scales of operation for the technology. The
accompanying graph shows the land area requirements at the same
scales of operation. The slope of the capital cost curve in
Figure 11 indicates that there are significant economies of
scale in terms of initial costs for the range studies. For
example, at 1,000 gpm, the estimated total capital cost (less
land) is $5.82/1,000 gal; at 5,000 gpm, it-is $3.71/1,000 gal
47
-------
.
CD
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR PRECIPITATIQN/FLQCCULATION/SEDIMENTATION*
Capital Cost
Category Module
Flash mixer
Flocculator
Sedimentation basin
Sludge dewaterlng
Chemical storage
Chemical storage
Waste pump
Sludge pump
Yard piping
Chemical pump
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFOCf
Grand total of
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$ 29
66
6.980
36
389
1
__.
225
7.726
...
---
Structures
$ 6,420
7,150
67,400
8.520
2.130
20
...
...
...
91,640
97,324*
...
---
_._
Costs*
Mechanical
Equipment
$ 2,810
5,040
308,000
184,000
2,840
19,432
2,950
798
60
1,130
527.060
...
...
...
---
'
Quantities
Electrical
Equipment
$ 281
0
562
1,840
___
»
w <*r*
-_
2.683
-.-
...
Land
$ 286
654
5.950
823
321
1
_ _ _
"
*"-
8,035
...
""" "
...
Land
Total (ft2)
384
880
8,000
1,110
432
10
__ _ >
___
... ...
10,816
-..
734,468
8,212
36,723
779,403
Other
Volume
(gal)
1,440
1,440
._.
---
100 ppm; sludge wasting rate = 100 gpm; liquid chemical Input = 0.1 gpm.
* Scale * 1,000 gpm; TSS
I Mid-1978 dollars.
H Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR PRECIPITATION/FLOCCULATION/SEDIMENTATION*
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
Flash mixer $ 63
Flocculator 79
Sedimentation
basin 1,471
Chemical storage 12
Chemical storage 6
Waste pump
Sludge pump
Yard piping
Chemical pump
Sludge dewaterlngl ,471
Total 3,102
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs ---
Administrative
overhead*
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and irisurancef
Total first year
operating costs
* TSS = 100 ppm; liquid
t Mid-1978 dollars.
Labor
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
$ 11
46
104
14
12
451
668
-_-
__.
...
chemical Input
Type 3
Laborer
($6.76/hr)
$ 2.552
1,440
15,361
184
180
103
15,361
35,181
---
---
...
._.
=0.1 gpm;
Costst
Energy
Electrical
($0.035/KWH)
$ 598
1,300
102
- -
1.730
173
17
14.100
18,020
---
-
---
1,000 gpm.
Quantities
Maintenance
Costs
$ 225
252
30 ,800
398
400
6
1,850
33,931
1,348
-
Chemical Total KWH
Costs (yr)
17,086
37,143
2,914
$ 5,940
400
49,429
4,943
... ---
- 486
404 402.857
6,294 514,858
- ~
- 98,544
--- 19,709
--- 126,844
15,588
260,685
Other
Chemicals
(gal/yr)
12 ,480
-- -
12,480
_ _ _
...
# At 202 of direct operating costs.
** At 10% interest over 10 years.
t At 2% of total capital.
-------
Ifl
o
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
14-
12-
10"
8-
6-
TOTAU CAPITAL
1,000
2.000
3,000
4,000
5,000
gpm
o
«-f
X
52
48
44
40
36
32
23
2*
2O
IS
12<
a-
4-
O
LAND (PT2)
1
1.000
4-
2,000 3.00O
gpm
4,000
5,000
Figure 11. Precipi4ation/flocculation/sedfmentatit)n: changes in
total capital costs with scale.
50
-------
treated. This is due, in part, to the ability to expand capaci-
ty and use common basins, pumps, storage facilities and drive
motors.
Figure 12 shows the changes in O&M requirements with scale
for the needed facilities (operating 8 hr/day and 260 day/yr).
Labor costs are largely attributable to the cost of skilled
laborers required to oversee the process and perform certain
duties (chemical addition, flow monitoring, etc.). The cost for
supervisory personnel (Operator 1 and Operator 2) are fairly
constant over the range of scales of operation. Maintenance
costs increase with scale in a manner similar to total capital
costs. At larger facilities, greater economies of scale are
partially offset by the higher service demands placed on mechan-
ical equipment, particularly the sludge collection system in the
sedimentation basins. Electricity requirements per unit volume
of waste decrease slightly at larger scales of operation (4.13
KWH/1,000 gal at 1,000 gpm and 3.87 KWH/1,000 gal at 5,000 gpm).
Chemical costs demonstrate a negative economy of scale ($0.05
and-$0.10 per 1,000 gal treated at 1,000 and 5,000 gpm,
respectively). Increases in chemical demand are due to less
efficient chemical contact in large scale facilities.
The average cost of the Chicago-based model facility over
a life cycle of 10 years is calculated in Table 12 . The life
cycle average cost is $1.72/1,000 gal ($0.45/m3) for the 1,000
gpm facility. Figure 13 shows the variation in the average
cost per unit volume with scale. The decrease in cost per unit
volume with increased capacity reflects the economies of scale
observed for total capital, maintenance and power costs.
MULTIMEDIA FILTRATION
Description
Multimedia filtration is commonly applied to aqueous
hazardous wastes in order to remove solids prior to further
treatment, to upgrade existing conventional plants, and is a
common technology included in new advanced treatment facilities
for polishing of effluents. It is also used in implementing
technologies (e.g. carbon absorption, reverse osmosis or ultra-
filtration). Next to gravity sedimentation it is the most
widely used process for separation of wastewater solids (6).
The filter bed is typically contained within a basin or
tank (Figures 14 and 15) and is supported by an underdrain
system which allows the filtered liquid to be drawn off while
retaining the filter media in place. The underdrain system
typically consists of metal or plastic strainers located at
intervals on the bottom of the filter. As suspended particle-
laden wastes pass through the bed, particles are trapped on top
of and within the media, thus reducing its porous nature and
51
-------
o
X
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2'
I
LABOR
LABORER
o
X
OPERATOR 1
OPERATOR 2
10
9
a
?
6
5
4
3'
2
1
1.000 2,000 3,000 4.000 5.000
gpm
MAINTENANCE
1,000 2.000 3,000 4.000 5.000
gpm
24 .
22
20 .
18
16
14
I 12
x
2 a
6
4
2
ENERGY
60.
50-
40.
n 30-
O
w 20.
10
1.000 2.000 3.000 4.300 S.OOO
gpm
OEMICALS
1.000 2,000 3.000 4.000 S.OOO
gpm
Figure 12. Precipitation/flocculati on/sedimentation:
O&M requirements with scale.
52
changes in
-------
TABLE 12. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
PRECIPITATION/FLOCCULATION/SEDIMENTATION
(LIFETIME - 10 YEARS)
Item
YEAR li
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
Direct
Operati ng
Costs*
98,544
108,398
119,238
131,162
144,278
158,706
174,577
192,034
211,238
232,362
Indirect
Operating
Costst
162,141
164,112
166,280
168,665
171,288
174,174
177,348
180,839
184,680
188,905
Sum
Operating
Costs
260,685
272,510
285,518
299,827
315,566
332,880
351,924
372,874
395,918
421,266
Present
Value
Annual i zed
Costs#
260,685
247,737
235,966
225,264
215,536
206,692
198,652
191,343
184,699
178,658
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
TOTALS
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
3,308,968 2,145,232
2.65
0.70
1.72
0.45
1,248,000
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 1,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
I First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
53
-------
9
GPM l.OOO 2.000 3.0OO 4.000 S.OOO
2.10
2.00
- 1.90
1.80
- 1.70
1.60
- 1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20*.
Z
- 1.10
v.oo
- 0.90
o.ao
- 0.70
0.60
o.so
0.40
0.30 _
- 0.20
0.10
1XS 63.1 126.2 204.2 ?S2.3 34O.4
Figure 13. PrecipitationAflocculation/sedimentation: life
cycle costs at five scales of operation.
54
-------
Plan View
Elevated View
Figure 14. Typical arrangements of vertical filter tanks
55
-------
1 1
h
y
v"
Wo Ml Wottr
Trough (R«or
Wall End)
FillM- Canlrel
Con**
Wa*h Wattr
Trough (Gullet
Wall End)
Plan View
Filrw Control
COMOJ. ''V 1
riff!
Op«H«, \ |g|
i2f^._.\ UJ* .
£
RuDtar SwM Jl^^~
Bttttvfn ^V
" EM:
Prp»Goll>fyFUMr%
-f
: i
o i n o i
i - . ]Si ixi i ri\i i i
11^ \ >
^
-------
either reducing the filtration rate at constant pressure or
increasing the amount of pressure needed to force the water
through the filter. If left to continue in this manner, the
filter eventually plugs up with solids. The solids, therefore,
must be removed. To do this, a washwater stream is forced
through the bed of granular particles in the reverse direction
of the original fluid flow. The washwater is sent through the
bed at a velocity sufficiently high so that the filter bed be-
comes fluidized and turbulent. In this turbulent condition,
the solids are dislodged from the granular particles and are
discharged in the spent wash water. This whole process is
referred to as "backwashing". When the backwashing cycle is
completed, the filter is returned to service. The spent back-
wash water contains the suspended solids removed from the
liquid and is pumped to a dewatering process in order to pro-
duce a manageable sludge.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Filter surface areas (cross sectional] up to 1,000 ft2
are provided by one or more vertical filter tanks, as shown in
Figure 14. For larger surface area, concrete basins
(Figure 15 ) are used. The total surface area of the filter
bed(s) is calculated as influent flow rate (gpm) divided by
5.0.
Applications
Multimedia filtration is applied in mumerous municipal
and industrial cases where hazardous wastes are generated.
Applicability to specific hazardous waste constituents is
difficult to ascertain since the purpose of filtration is
solids removal rather than treatment of specific compounds.
The following general applications are observed:
Removal of residual biological floe in settled
effluents from secondary treatment by trickling
filters or activated sludge processes used for
treating organic hazardous wastes
t Removal of solids remaining after the chemical
coagulation of wastewaters in physical/chemical
waste treatment
(Primarily metals and non-metal inorganics)
Removal of solids prior to ultrafiltration,
reverse osmosis, distillation or other treat-
ment technologies which can be hampered by
appreciable solids in the influent waste.
57
-------
Costs
Summaries of capital and first year operating costs for
multimedia filtration are shown in Tables 13 and 14. These esti-
mates are based on mid-1978 costs for components, unit processes,
labor, utilities, etc., as applicable in Chicago, Illinois. The
estimates are based on the cost files in Appendices B and C, and
the cost equations described in Appendix F.
As shown in Table 13, the most costly unit processes are
the filters and the sludge dewatering. At the scale of opera-
tion (5,000 gpm) shown in the example calculations, concrete
basins instead of metal tanks are used to contain the filter
bed. This is reflected in the structures cost for the filter.
The total capital cost for a 5,000 gpm facility (included work-
ing capital and allowance for funds during construction) is
$1,086,222. The highest operating cost for multimedia filtra-
tion is sludge dewatering power requirements (almost 80 percent
of the direct O&M). Total labor costs for the large facility are
$83,355/yr for the crew of laborers and operators. Sludge de-
watering represents a large portion of both the capital and
annual operating costs. Substantial savings can, therefore, be
achieved by using alternative backwash/dewatering methods, such
as settling or evaporation ponds for large scale operations.
Figure 16 shows the capital costs (exclusive of land costs)
for five scales of operation and the accompanying land area re-
quirements. The total capital cost (less land costs) for a
1,000 gpm facility is $270,088 which is equivalent to a cost of
$2.16/1,000 gallons. This compares to $1.57 at a scale of
5,000 gpm and indicates economies of scale exist for the capital
investment. This is due, in part, to higher costs for tank
installations versus the basins which are used above 1,000 gpm.
The JJ&M requirements for multimedia filtration as a
function of scale are shown in Figure 17. Energy requirements
(primarily for sludge dewatering) decrease significantly below
5,000 gpm. Maintenance costs (per 1,000 gal of waste treated)
are $0.05 at 1,000 gpm; increase to $0.12 at 2,000 gpm, and
then decrease to $0.09 at 5,000 gpm. Chemical costs for filtra-
tion are minimal ($701 at 5,000 gpm) and are for water and
sludge conditioning chemicals.
The average cost of the example facility over a life
cycle of 10 years is calculated in detail in Table 15. The
average cost for the 5,000 gpm facility is $1.54/1,000 gal
($0.41/m3). Figure 18 shows the variation in the average cost
(per unit volume) with scale. All O&M and life cycle estimates
are based on an operating time of 8 hr/day and 260 day/yr.
Capital and O&M costs are for the Chicago-based example in mid-
1978 dollars.
58
-------
TABLE 13. SUMMARY.OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR MULTIMEDIA FILTRATION*
en
10
Capital Cost
Category Module
Multimedia Filter
Water Storage
Sludge Oewatering
Waste Pump
Backwash Pump
Sludge Pump
Yard Piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDC-f
Grand total of
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$3,085
389
33
1,125
4,632
---
---
-
Structures
$104,500
2,130
7,970
114,600
141,303/K
---
*~ ""
Costst
Mechanical
Equipment
$425,542
2,840
178,000
10,800
2,950
798
72,500
693,430
-
---
---
"" "* ""
Quantities
Electrical Other Other
Equipment Land Media Total Land (ft2)
$1,530 $21,430 '$2,050
321 --- 432
$1,780 770 --- 1,030 -
1,780 2,621 21,430 --- 3.512
---
$979,796
57,436
48,990
1,086,222
* Scale = 5,000 gpm.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
I Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
t Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
en
O
TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR MULTIMEDIA FILTRATION*
Costs'!" Quantities
Labor
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
MM filter $ 1,178
Water storage
Sludge dewaterlng 2,282
Waste pump
Dewaterlng pump
Sludge pump
Yard piping
Total 3,460
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead*
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and Insurance^
Total first year
operating costs
Type 2 Type 3 Energy Maintenance Chemical Total Other
Operator 2 Laborer Electrical Costs Costs KWHs/yr
($9.19/hr) ($6.76/hr) ($0.035/KWH)
$ 5,278 $ 49,872 $ $ 54,261 $ $
398 324 7
701 23,840 536,000 1,850 377 1.53 x 10'
8,630 --- --- 246,571
1.730 49,429
173 4,943
204 363
5,979 73,916 546.533 56,872 701 --- 1.56 x 107
1,770
689,231
137,846
176,778
21,724
1,025,579
* Scale = 5,000 gpm.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
1 At 20% of direct operating
costs .
** At 10% Interest over 10 years.
. At 2% of total capital.
-------
15-1
10-
o
X
5_
o
X
CM
f-
IL
TOTAL. CAPITAL.
1,000
LAND (F=T2)
2>00° gpm 3'000
4.000 5,000
1,000 2,000 3.000 4,000 5,000
gpm
Figure 16. Filtration: changes in total capital costs
with scale.
61
-------
11-
10-
9.
3-
7.
6.
S.
4.
3.
2
1.
LABOR
LABORER
CPERATCR 1
OPERATOR 2
1,000 2,
000 3.000 4,000 5,000
gpm
6.
5.
4
3
2.
1
MAI^fTENANCE
i.o'oo 2,000 3,o'oo 4,060 s.obo
gpm
24-
22"
20"
18"
16'
10]
8"
6"
V
Z
EhSJGY
6-
5-
-------
TABLE 15. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
FILTRATION
(LIFETIME - 10 YEARS)
Item
YEAR if
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
Direct
Operating
Costs*
689,231
758,154
833,970
917,366
1,009,103
1,110,013
1,221,015
1,343,116
1,477,428
1,625,171
Indirect
Operating
Costst
336,348
350,133
365,296
381,975
400,323
420,505
442,705
467,125
493,988
532,536
Sum
Operating
Costs
1,025,579
1,108,287
1,199,265
1,299,342
1,409,426
1,530,518
1,663,720
1,810,241
1,971,415
2,148,707
Present
Value
Annualized
Costs*
1,025,579
1,007,534
991,128
976,215
962,657
950,331
939,126
928,940
919,680
911,261
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
TOTALS
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
15,166,500 9,612,451 6,240,000
2.43
0.64
1.54
0.41
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 5,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
T First year costs in mid-1978 dollars for Chicago example.
63
-------
i
o
o
o
f
7
r
5~
4~
3~
2~
1
(
*
.
3PM 1,000 2,000 3.000 4,000 5.0OO
1/S «3.1 126.2 204.2 2S2.3 340.4
2.10
2.00
- 1.90
1.30
- 1.70
1.60
- 1.50
- 1.40
1.30
1.20 w
3
u
1.10
v.oo
0.90
- 0.80
- 0.70
O.fiO
- 0.50
0.40
r 0-3° -
- 0.20
0.10
Figure 18. Filtration: life cycle costs at five scales
of operation.
64
-------
EVAPORATION
Descripti on
Evaporation is the vaporization of a liquid (often water)
from a solution or a slurry for removal of the volatile liquid
and concentration of non-volatile dissolved or suspended solids
or liquids. The process and the equipment are similar to that
of the stills or reboilers of distillation, except that in evap-
oration, no attempt is made to separate components of the vapor.
As shown in Figure 19, the evaporation technology includes the
evaporator unit, external separator and a condenser. The waste
is introduced at the product inlet, vaporized and passed into
the separator. The volatile component is captured in the con-
densor and the concentrated non-volatile component is removed
at the product discharge. Evaporation pond, a separate technol-
ogy is discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
Most present day evaporators are heated by steam contacting
on metal tubes containing the material to be evaporated.
Usually, the steam is at low pressure (i.e., below 40 Ib force/
in2 absolute). Often the boiling liquid is under a moderate
vacuum (down to 28 in. Hg). Reducing the boiling temperature of
a liquid (by reducing pressure) increases the temperature dif-
ference between the steam and the boiling liquid and thereby
increases the heat transfer rate in the evaporator.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
The principal purpose of multiple-effect evaporation
(Figure 20 ) is to minimize energy consumption. Most such evap-
orators operate on a continuous basis, although for a few
difficult feeds, a continuous batch cycle may be employed. In
a multiple-effect evaporator, steam from an outside source is
condensed in the heating element of the first effect. If the
feed to the first effect is at a temperature near the boiling
point of the liquid in the first effect, 1 Ib of steam will evap-
orate almost 1 Ib of water. If the vapor produced in the first
effect is the heating medium of the second effect (which is
operating at a lower pressure than the first effect), almost
another pound of water can be evaporated in the second effect.
The resulting vapor could go to a condenser if the evaporator is
a double-effect system, but if the evaporator is a triple-effect
system the vapor may be used as the heating medium of the third
effect. This process may be repeated for a number of effects.
Each consecutive effect operates at a lower pressure than the
preceding effect.
Large evaporators with up to 10 effects are common. The
steam economy of a multiple-effect evaporator will increase in
proportion to the number of effects, but it is usually somewhat
smaller, numerically, than the number of effects, depending on
65
-------
Plan View
Product Inlet.
Vaporization Section
Motor Drive
Condenser
Tail Pipe
to Hotwell
Floor Line-''
Product Discharge
Figure 19.
Elevated View
Detail of single evaporator showing associated
equipment included in the evaporator module.
66
-------
First Effect Vapor Second Effect Vapor Third Effect Vapor
Condenser
Feed
Steam
4
, A A
'VN
i
A
/ V
f
r\ fc
4
A A
V
V A
vv~
r
^ ^
j
A A
k
A__
/ v^
*
^
^
k.
Concentrated
Liquor
ft Fresh
Water
Figure 20. Multiple effect evaporator with forward feed
67
-------
the boiling point elevation with concentration.
Applications
Inorganic wastes treated by evaporation include heavy metals,
fluorides, chlorides, chlor-alkali production wastes, sulfur
sludges and hydrochloric acids.
Organic wastes so treated include:
Aliphatic hydrocarbons
Amines
Oxygenated hydrocarbons
Phosphorus-containing organics
Lead containing organics
Metal organics
Waste solvents
Trinitrotoluene wastes (for disposal by incineration)
"Black liquids" in paper production receivery
systems.
Costs
Capital costs for evaporation are itemized in Table 16.
The most costly elements, by an order of magnitude, are the evap-
orator (including the external separator) and the steam generator.
At the operating scale of 1,000 gpm, it is estimated that 40,000
Ib/hr of steam are required. The total capital cost for the
facility is $602,397.
Table 17 summarizes the first year operating costs. Ninety
percent of these costs are attributable to the energy, water and
chemical requirements for the steam source. The total first
year operating cost, including administrative overhead ($152,676),
debt service and amortization ($158,911), and real estate taxes
and insurance ($12,048) is $1,087,015.
Figure 21 shows the capital costs (excluding land costs)
for five scales of operation and the corresponding land require-
ments for evaporation. The capital cost for the 1,000 gpm facil-
ity is equal to $4.10/1,000 gal treated (assuming 8 hr/day, 260
day/yr operation). This compares with a cost of $3.23/1,000 gal
at the 5,000 gpm scale of operation. The capital cost data in-
dicate significant economics of scale for the initial capital
investment in evaporation.
The O&M requirements for evaporation as a function of scale
are shown in Figure 22. Total labor costs are $65,709/yr at
1,000 gpm and $130,996/yr at 5,000 gpm. Maintenance costs also
demonstrate significant economies of scale. Although energy
requirements appear to increase exponentially with increased
scale, economies of scale are retained by .the efficiency of
68
-------
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR EVAPORATION*
UD
Capital Cost
Category Module
Evaporator
Steam generator
Waste pump
Sludge pump
Yard piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDCf
Grand total of
capital costs
Costs!
Site Mechanical
Preparation Structures Equipment
$ 410 $ 31,100 $ 216,250
38 1,865 148,500
2,950
798
225 --- 1,130
673 32,965 369,628
97,3240
...
...
...
_-_
Quantities
Electrical Land Other
Equipment Land Total (ft?) Volume
(gal)
$ 10,813 $ 1,370 1,840
353 475 40,000
--- --- --- --- ---
10,813 1,723 2,315 40,000
- - - -- - -
$ 513,126
63,615
25,656
602,397
* Scale = 1,000 gpm.
I Mid-1978 dollars.
i Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
± Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
-vl
o
Labor
O&M Cost Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Category Operator 1 Operator 2 Laborer
Module ($7.77/hr) (S9.19/hr) ($6.76/h
Evaporator $ 17,703 $ 10,476 $ 20,513
Steam generator 1,179 209 15,586
Waste pump
Sludge pump -- ---
Yard piping -- . 103
Total 18,882 10,685 36,202
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead* -- ---
Debt service and
amortization** --
Real estate taxes
and Insurance f -- ---
Total first year
operating costs -- - ..
Cost si-
Energy Maintenance
Electrical Costs
r) ($0.035/KUH)
$ $ 1,125 $
319,000 1,807
1,730
173
320,903 2,938
--- 1 ,7/0
.--
...
...
Quantities
Chemical Total KWH Other
Costs (yr) Natural gas
(ft-Vvr)
372,000 -- 44,120
- 49,429
4,943
372,000 -- 54,372 44,120
$ 763,380
152,676
158,911 --
12 048 --
] 087 015 --
. ____ ____ "- -
* Scale = 1,000 gpm.
I Mid-1978 dollars.
t At 201 of direct operating costs.
**At 10£ Interest over years.
f At 2% of total capital.
-------
20-
1CT
TOTAL CAPITAL
1,000 2,000 3,000
gpm
4,000 5,000
10
9
\-
LAND (FT2)
1,000 2,000 3.000
gpm
4,000 5,000
Figure 21. Evaporation: changes in total capital costs with
scale.
71
-------
o
r+
*
LABOR
LABORER
12
10
m 3'
o
i.ooo z.oogjjj.ooo 4,000 5,000
I. OPERATOR: LEVEL 1
2. CPERATOR: LEVEL Z
3. LABORER
MAINTENANCE
1.000 2,000 2,000 4.000 5,000
f
o
38.
36-
32-
28-
24-
20-
12
8-1
ENERGY
1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5,000
gpm
Figure 22. Evaporation: changes in O&M requirements with
scale.
72
-------
multiple effect systems.At all five scales of operation, 0.44
KWH are expended per 1 ,000 gal treated.
The average cost of the example facility over a life cycle
of 5 years is calculated in Table 18. The life cycle average
cost for the 1,000 gpm facility is $8.48/1,000 gal ($2.24/m3).
Figure 23 shows the variation in the average cost (per 1,000 gal)
with scale. Significant economies of scale as observed for the
capital and O&M costs are reflected in the life cycle average
costs ($8.48/1,000 gal at 1,000 gpm vs. $7.30/1,000 gal at
5,000 gpm).
DISTILLATION
Description
Distillation is the boiling of a liquid solution and con-
densation of vapor for the purpose of separating the components.
In the distillation process there are two phases the
liquid and the vapor phase. The components to be separated by
distillation are present in both phases, but in different con-
centrations. If there are only two components in the liquid,
one concentrates in the condensed vapor (condensate) , and the
other in the residual liquid. If there are more than two com-
ponents, the less volatile components concentrate in the residual
liquid and the more volatile in the vapor or vapor condensate.
The waste is continuously fed into the distillation column
(Figure 24 ) where it is cycled through the reboiler and heated
by steam flowing through coiled tubes. Vaporized components
return to the distillation columns for separation and the less
volatile residual liquids or tars (bottoms product) are removed
from the system for reuse or disposal. In fractional distilla-
tion, the vapors pass up through the column and are partitioned,
according to their relative volatilities, throughout the sieve
and valve tray packings. The vapors are drawn off, condensed,
and stored in the accumulator. From the accumulator, a portion
of the isolated fraction is returned to the column for refluxing,
and the remainder is collected (overhead product) for reuse or
disposal.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Distillation column capacity requirements depend on the
waste input rate and the volatilities of the constituents to be
separated. The column must be large enough in diameter to (1)
handle vapor flow without excessive pressure drop or entrainment;
(2) handle liquid flow without excessive backup or hydraulic
gradient (or crossflow); and (3) provide the contact time for
the needed exchange of components between the liquid and vapor
phases. For plate columns, the contacting- height is based on
73
-------
TABLE 18. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
EVAPORATION-
Item
YEAR ll
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
TOTALS
Direct
Operating
Costs*
$ 763,380
839,718
923,690
1,016,059
1,117,665
Simple Average (Per 1,000
Simple Average (Per Cubic
Life Cycle
Life Cycle
Average (Per 1
(Lit-tiiMb -
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$323,635
338,902
355,697
374,171
394,492
Gal.)
Meter)
,000 Gal.)
5 YEARS)
Sum
Operating
Costs
$1,087,015
1,178,620
1,279,387
1,390,229
1,512,156
6,447,407
$ 10.33
$ 2.73
Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Present
Value
Annuali zed
Costs#
$1,087,015
1,071,473
1,057,344
1,044,500
1,032,823
5,293,155
$ 8.48
$ 2.24
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
624,000
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the
first year of operation.
** 1,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
f First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
74
-------
20-
IS"
15-
14-
i «-
0
8
w 10-
8-
6-
4
2-
*
- 5.00
4.00
3.00
W
N
Z
w
2.00
- l-.OO
mu ' ' 1 1 1
SrM 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
1/S 63.1 126.2 204.2 2S2.3 350.4
Figure 23,
Evaporation:
operation.
life cycle costs at five scales of
75
-------
Feed
Pump
Accumulator
Overhead Product
Steam
Condensate
Bottoms
Product
Figure 24. Continuous fractional distillation column.
76
-------
the number of plates and the specified spacing between plates.
Packed column height is estimated from the HTU (height of a
transfer unit) that the packing type is rated for. Descriptions
of the method for calculating column diameter and height is avail-
able in the literature (7--11). If the maximum diameter and height
cannot accommodate the liquid flow, two or more equal sized
columns are used to treat the waste.
In actual systems, there are many possible combinations of
reflex ratio, column pressure, column height, column diameter
and contacting internals. Useful data for economic evaluation
of specific facilities is available (7-11). The general case
presented here assumes single support processes (condensor, re-
boiler, accumulator, etc.) sized to accommodate the total flow
rate (see cost/performance equations, Appendix F).
Appli cations
Distillation is an important treatment/recovery process for
certain organic liquids, the products are contaminated with un-
desirable components or combinations of organic chemicals and
byproducts. To separate the desirable products or fractionate
the chemical from its secondary or waste byproducts, distillation
is employed. This can either be a single operation or part of a
treatment sequence.
Some additional typical applications include:
t Rerefining of contaminated fuel and waste
oils
0 Removal of unreacted cresols in the manufacture
of TCP
Chlorobenzene separation
t Recovery of acetone from an acetone/water
waste stream
Other solvent recoveries.
Materials that cannot generally be treated by distillation
are organic peroxides or pyrophoric organics and inorganic
wastes because of their explosive or non-volatile characteris-
tics. There are no known treatment applications of distillation
to waste pesticides. If waste streams that contain tars, etc.,
must be treated by distillation, the streams should receive pre-
liminary treatment, if possible, to remove these materials, as
they may tend to severely foul the equipment. If this is not
possible, then special equipment may be required. Evaporators
may be used before distillation to concentrate organic frac-
tions (6).
77
-------
Costs
The capital and O&M unit cost files (Appendices B and C)
are used together with the cost equations in Appendix F to
derive capital and first year operating costs for distillation
(Tables 19 and 20 ). All costs are adjusted for inflation to
mid-1978 values and are based on charges as they exist in the
City of Chicago, Illinois.
The breakdown of costs for distillation is similar to that
for evaporation; the most costly elements are the steam genera-
tor and distillation column. The major O&M costs are assorted
with the steam generator in terms of power, fuel, water and
chemicals. The total capital and first year operating costs are
$1,037,415 and $1,674,328 respectively for the 1,000 gpm facil-
ity (this compares to $602,397 and $1,087,015 for an evaporation
facility of the same capacity).
The change in the total capital costs (exclusive of land
cost) according to the scale of operation is shown in Figure 25.
Within the range of 2,000 to 5,000 gpm, distillation did
not demonstrate any appreciable economies of scale. There is a
marked increase in costs from 1,000 to 2,000 gpm though ($6.54/
1,000 gal. vs. $7.00/1,000 gal. at 8,000 gpm). The reason for
this is the increased capital costs for steam generation equip-
ment and distribution to multiple columns at larger scales of
operation.
Distillation O&M requirements are shown in Figure 26.
Labor costs demonstrate significant economies of scale while
maintenance, energy and chemical costs are constant throughout
the range.
The direct and indirect operating costs (including debt
service and amortization) are used to calculate the average
cost over the 5-year life cycle of the example 1,000 gpm dis-
tillation facility. The life cycle average cost is $13.02/
1,000 gal ($3.44/m3). This compares to $8.48/1,000 gal.
($2.24/m3) for evaporation. Figure 27 shows how the life
cycle average costs (expressed as $/l,000 gal.) decrease with
increased scales of operation up to 3,000 gpm. This decrease
is attributed to the scales of economy observed for labor and
chemical costs. However, at larger scales of operation
(> 3,000 gpm), the increased capital and energy costs reduce
these savings.
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
Description
Dissolved air flotation is commonly used to concentrate
and remove biological floes from aerobic treatment systems. In
78
-------
TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR DISTILLATION*
Costst Quantities
Capital Cost
Category Module
Steam generator
Distillation column
Accumulator
Uaste pump
Piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDCt
Grand total of
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$ 70
120
389
675
1,254
_..
Mechanical Electrical Land
Structures Equipment Equipment Land Total (ft')
$ 6,490 $ 414,400 $ $ 697 $ 937
4,540 232,730 11,637 768 1,032
2,130 2,840 321 432
2,950
39,300
13,160 692,220 11,637 1,786 2,401
97,323*
817.380
179.166
40,869
779,403
Other
Steam
Ibs/hr
120,000
120,000
---
:;;
...
* Scale = 1,000 gpm; liquid density = 62 Ibs/ft ; vapor density = 50 lbs/ft3.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
# Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
t Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR DISTILLATION*
" ~~ Quantities
Costst
Labor
OSM Cost
Category
Module
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Energy
Operator I Operator 2 Laborer Electrical
($7.77/hr) ($9.19/hr) ($6.76/hr) ($0.035/KWII)
Maintenance
Costs
Chemical
Costs
Total
KWH Natl. Gas
(yr) ft3/yr
Steam
generator
Distillation
col umn
Accumulator
Waste pump
Piping
Total
$ 1.179
17,703
18,882
$ 209
10,406
:::
10,615
$ 15,586
20,513
""""
179
36,278
$ 956,000
1,730
---
957,730
$ 2,798
1,602
398
276
5,074
$ 120,000 $ ---
::: :::
--- ---
120.000
...
49,429
_...
49,429
2.48 x 109
-
_~
a.48 x 109
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead'
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and Insurance^
Total first year
operating costs
1,348
* Scale = 1,000 gpm.
1 Mid-1978 dollars.
# At 20% of direct operating costs.
** At 10'X Interest over 5 years.
± At "if, of total capital.
1,149,927
229,985
273,668
20,748
1,674,328
-------
55-
50-
45-
n
o
- 35-
X
« 301
25
20
15
10
5
TOTAL CAPITAL
1.000
2,000 3,000
gpm
4.000
5,000
15-
10-
o
X
CVJ
t
(FT2)
1.600
2'000 gpm 3'600
*,OOO 5,000
Figure 25.. Distillation: changes in total capital costs with
scale.
81
-------
o
«
X
LABOR
1,000 2,000 3,000 4.000 5.000
gpm
1. OPERATOR] LEVEL 1
2. OPERATORj LEVEL 2
3. LABORER
MAINTENANCE
1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 S.OOO
gpm
M 2-
0«ICALS
1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 5,000
1.000 2.000 3,000 4.000 S.OOO
gpm
Figure- 26. Disti 1 U-tion:. changes i n O&M requirements with
scale.
82
-------
TABLE 21. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
DISTILLATION
(LIFETIME - 5 YEARS)
Item
YEAR 1?
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
Direct
Operating
Costs*
$1,149,927
1,264,920
1,391,412
1,530,553
1,683,608
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$524,401
547,399
572,698
600,526
631,137
Sum
Operating
Costs
$1,674,328
1,812,319
1,964,110
2,131,079
2,314,745
Present
Value
Annual ized
Costs*
$1,674,328
1,647,579
1,623,140
1,601,080
1,580,971
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
TOTALS
9,896,581 8,127,098 624,000
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
$15.86
$ 4.19
$13.02
$ 3.44
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 1,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
T First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
83
-------
20-
f 5.00
- 4.00
O
o
o
12-
10-
3.00
*
2
- 2.00
- l-.OO
GPM
1/s
1.000
63.1
2.000
126.2
3,000
204.2
4.000
252.3
5.000
3S0.4
Figure 27. Distillation: " T1fe cycle costs at five scales
of operation.
84
-------
this analysis, dissolved air flotation therefore includes an
aerated basin for biodegradation of organic hazardous wastes.
The biological solids and effluents are passed into the flota-
tion units which are comprised of rectangular tanks with separate
chain-and-f1ight scum and sludge collectors (Figure 28). In
order to achieve flotation of the suspended floes, a stream of
recycled effluent from the flotation unit is pressurized and
blended with the inflow to be treated. Other methods include
pressurizing all or part of the influent stream. As the pres-
surized stream is released into the flotation unit, tiny bubbles
are formed which adhere to the solid matter; reducing the density
of the aerated floe and allowing it to rise to the surface.
Design of units involves selection of values for a number
of parameters, including the percent of recycle flow, operating
pressure, pressurization retention time, air flow, and surface
hydraulic loading, solids loading (area basis) and detention
period.
Sludge concentrations depend more on detention time than
solids loading. Solids capture in flotation is related to a
parameter equal to the air-to-solids ratio divided by the pro-
duct of surface hydraulic loading and dynamic viscosity.
Values of specific parameters used in actual applications
vary widely. Typical ranges cited are as follows: (12).
Parameter Range
Pressure, psig 25 to 70
Air-to-solids ratio, Ib/lb 0.01 to 0.1
Sludge detention, min 20 to 60
Surface hydraulic loading, gpd/ft2 500 to 4,000
Effluent recycled, percent 5 to 20
Changes in Configuration with Scale
There are no significant changes in configuration with
scale for the range of operations studied (1,000 to 5,000 gpm).
The aerated basin is assumed to be 10 ft. deep. Surface areas
(SURFAR) in square feet are calculated as:
SURFAR = 0.042 x QINF x (CINF - CEFL)/(1 x 10 x KRATE)
where:
QINF = influent flow rate (gpm)
CINF = influent BOD (ppm)
CEFL = effluent BOD (ppm)
KRATE = reaction rate = 0.1 days ~'
The air flotation process is a simple package unit and is scaled
up to provide sufficient volume and hence .retention time for
85
-------
Sludge Removal Mechanism
Drive Motor
Effluent
Cj"pRecirculation Pump
Air Feed
Sludge
Discharge
Recycle Flow -i
, L.
Retention Tank
Air Dissolution
Compressor
Sludge
Dewatering
Figure 28. Schematic of dissolved air flotation including sludge dewatering
-------
flotation to occur. The chamber depth is 10 ft, and the surface
area is calculated as QINF X TSS X 2.22 X 10'4, where QINF is
influent flow rate (gpm) and TSS is total suspended solids in
parts per million. Additional dimensional calculations are in-
cluded in the cost equations in Appendix F.
Appli cations
Dissolved air flotation (including the aerated basin) has
been successfully applied to effluents in the organic chemicals
industry (13). It is most commonly applied as a solids
separation process after biodegradation of organic compounds.
Other applications include concentration of inorganic floes
following chemical precipitation/flocculation reactions. The
air flotation module replaces typical solids settling operations,
such as sedimentation basins or clarifiers. (See "precipitation/
flocculati on/sedimentation").
Costs
Summaries of capital and first year operating costs for
dissolved air flotation are shown in Tables 22 and 23. These
estimates are based on mid-1978 costs for components, unit pro-
cesses, labor, utilities, etc., as applicable in Chicago,
Illinois. The estimates are based on the cost files in Appendi-
ces B and C, and the cost equations included in Appendix F.
As shown in Table 22, the most costly unit processes are
the aerated basin and sludge dewatering system. The dissolved
air flotation unit is relatively inexpensive; $5,480 for the
structures (tank, foundation, etc.) and $1,434 for the mechani-
cal equipment (compressor, sludge collectors, etc.) at the
1,000 gpm scale. The total capital cost for the 1,000 gpm
example facility is $306,502.
Figure 29 shows the capital cost curve (exclusive of land
costs) for five scales of operation and an accompanying curve
showing the corresponding land area requirements. The capital
costs per 1,000 gallons of waste treated fluctuates between
$4 42 at 1,000 gpm to $1.83 at 2,000 gpm. The costs at 3,000
4,000 and 5,000 gpm are $2.01, $1.97 and $1.93, respectively.
There is no overall pattern of major economy of scale.
The O&M requirements for dissolved air flotation as a func-
tion of scale are shown in Figure 30 . Labor and maintenance
show significant scales of economy:
Scale (gpm) 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Labor $/l,000 gal 0.57 0.36 0.29 0.25 0.23
Maintenance 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.07
$/l ,000 gal
87
-------
TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION*
00
00
Capital Cost
Category Module
Air flotation
Aerated basin
Sludge dewaterlng
Waste pump
Sludge pump
Piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDCt
Grand total of
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$ 22
2,170
66
225
2,483
...
...
...
-
---
Costs*
Mechanical
Structures Equipment
$ 5,480 $ 1.434
31,800 65,200
1,120 166.000
2.950
613
1.130
38,400 237.327
...
-_ ...
...
Quantities
Electrical ot'?ero%
Equipment Land Total Land (ft<=)
$ 283 $ 381
3,170 4,260
$1,660 659 885
1.660 4,112 5,526
_-_ --- -.- ---
$283,982
8,321
14,199
306,502
* Scale » 1.000 gpm; sludge wasting rate * .08 x 1,000 - 80 gpm.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
t Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 23, SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION*
CO
__ -- __ _ . T_ _ ._ . T_ . _ _ . . _ ...
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
Air flotation $1,492
Aerated basin 1,765
Sludge dewater Ing 1,963
Waste pump
Sludge pump
Piping
Total 5,220
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead*
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and insurancet
Total first year
operating costs
Labor
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
$ 326
417
603
1,346
...
...
Costs1
Type 3
Laborer
($6.76/hr)
$27,216
16,890
20,509
103
64.718
...
...
Energy Maintenance Chemical Total
Electrical Costs Costs
($0.035/KWH)
$ 1,740 $ 345
728 13,000
9,170 1,710
1,730
138
6
13,506 15,061
___ _ __ _
$ 99,851
19,970
49,882
6,130
175,883
Quantities
Other
KWHs/yr
$ 49,728
20,800
262,080
332,608
...
.-_
* Scale = 1,000 gpm.
1 Mid-1978 dollars.
H At 203! of direct operating costs.
** At \0% interest over 10 years.
:|. At 2% of total capital.
-------
o
X
13'
12'
11'
10'
9'
8'
T
6'
5
TOTAL CAPITAL
1,000 2,000 3,000
gpm
4,000
s.ooo
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
3-
6-
4-
2-
Figure 29.
LAND (PT )
1.000 2.000 3,000
gpm
4,000
5,000
Dissolved atr flotation: changes in total capital
costs with scale,
90
-------
13.
12.
il-
ia
9-
3.
7.
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
I-
LABOR
LABORER
OPERATOR 1
o
X
OPERATOR 2
45
40.
35.
30
25
20
15
10
5
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
gpm
MAINTENANCE
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
gpm
26-
24-
22-
20-
18-
16'
14-
12-
10-
8-
6
4 '
2-
POWER
1.000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
gpm
Figure 30. Dissolved air flotation:
with scale.
changes in O&M requirements
91
-------
Energy also demonstrates a slight decrease from 2.67 to
2.62 KWH per 1,000 gallons treated, with increasing facility
capacity. The largest energy demands stem from sludge dewatering.
The average cost of the example 1,000 gpm facility, over
a 10-year life cycle, is $1.26/1,000 gal ($0.33/m3) (Table 24).
This competes favorably with other biological treatment technol-
ogy costs. The change in the life cycle cost (per 1,000 gal
treated) over the range of facility capacities studied is shown
in Figure 31.
OIL/WATER SEPARATION
Description
The oil/water separator included in this assessment is
similar to the General Electric Cl4) coalescing separator which
can accommodate flows up to 350 gpm depending on the model and
plate configuration selected (Figure 32 ). Larger flows are
accommodated by site-constructed basins.
Oil/water mixtures are fed in at the head of the system.
Gravimetric separation is accomplished and is a function of:
Oil droplet size
Retention time
Density differences between the two phases
Temperature.
Gravity feed is best, as pumping can cause emulsification. De-
mulsifying agents can be added to break emulsions and enhance
separation. An accumulator tank is required to collect the
separated oil.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
The model oil/water separator is a package unit and can
accommodate input flow rates up to 150 gpm. For larger flows,
a concrete basin is constructed on site and the coalescing
plates are installed along with other plumbing and hardware.
Under flow rates of 150 gpm, the entire package separator is
costed as mechanical equipment. Larger scales of operation
include the structural costs for the basin.
Applications
The use of oil/water separation is limited to liquid
organic products that are immiscible and less dense in the water
phase. The following are applications of oil/water separation
to the example industry wastes:
92
-------
TABLE 24. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
DISSOLVED AIR'FLOTATION
(LIFETIME - 10 YEARS)
Item
YEAR ll
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
Direct
Operati ng
Costs*
$ 99,851
109,836
120,820
132,902
146,192
160,811
176,892
194,581
214,039
235,443
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$ 75,982
77,979
80,176
82,592
85,250
88,174
91,390
94,928
98,820
103,101
Sum
Operating
Costs
$175,833
187,815
200,995
215,494
231,442
248,985
268,282
289,509
312,859
338,544
Present
Value
Annuali zed
Costs*
$175,833
170,741
166,112
161,904
158,078
154,600
151,438
148,564
145,951
143,576
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
TOTALS
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
2,469,758 1,576,797 1,248,000
$1.98
$0.52
$1.26
$0.33
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
I Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 1,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
93
-------
8~
7
6
S
o
N
M*
3
2~
1~
*
1 1 1 1 1
GPM 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 S.OOO
r-2.00
- 1.90
-:.ao
-1.70
-1.60
1.50
-1.40
- 1.30
- 1.20
-0-10*
III
- 1.00
0.90
0.30
- 0.70
0.60
-0.50
-0.40
r-0.30
-0.20 "
- 0.10
1/S 63.1 126.2 204.2 2S2.3 340.4
Figure 31. Dissolved air flotation: life cycle costs at five
scales of operation.
94
-------
OPTIONAL WATER REMOVAL PUMP
(FLOAT ACTUATED)
COALESCING PLATE STACKS
TANK COVER
O1
INLET
OIL DAM
OIL REMOVAL MECHANISM
(UPSTREAM OF OIL DAM)
WATER OUTLET
(FLOW THROUGH
OPERATION)
OUTLET WEIR
OIL OUTLET
'CAPPED DRAIN PIPES
FIBERGLASS CHANNELS
HOLD PLATE STACKS
SUMP FOR SETTLING SOLIDS
Figure 32, Coalescing oil/water separator design.
-------
0 Primary treatment of oil-bearing wastewaters
from the organic industry
0 Removal of degreasing solvents and other oils
from metal plating and finishing baths.
Costs
Capital and first year operating costs are calculated for
oil/water separation (Tables 25 and 26 ). The most costly
element is the separation unit ($20,650 at 5,000 gpm). In using
the cost model (Appendix F) for this technology, it was assumed
that the oil/water mixture is emulsified, the oil has a specific
gravity of 0.9, and the smallest oil droplet size is 10 \im after
demulsification. The total capital costs for the Chicago-based
example is $66,367. Major operating costs are labor and
chemicals. The total first year operating costs are $193,809.
Figure 33 shows the capital costs (excluding land costs)
at five scales of operation for the technology. The accompany-
ing plot shows the land area requirements at the same scales of
operation. The slope of the capital cost curve in Figure
indicates that there is some economy of scale within the range
studied. The capital expenditure (less land costs) per 1,000
gallons of waste treated is $0.13 at 1,000 gpm, decreases to
$0.09 at 2,000 and 3,000 gpm, and is $0.08 at 4,000 and 5,000
gpm. The larger difference between the 1,000 gpm and larger
scales of operation is due to the shift from package to site-
installed facilities.
Figure 34 shows the fluctuation in O&M requirements with
scale for the model facility (operating 8 hr/day and 260 day/yr),
Total labor costs are low ($10,737 at 1,000 gpm) compared to
other technologies and reflect the minimal supervision and
servicing necessary to operate oil/water separation. Mainte-
nance costs demonstrate marked economies of scale; and this is
due to the simplicity of mechanical equipment and servicing at
all scales of operation. Power requirements are constant for
all scales studied (0.40 kwh/1,000 gal). Chemical demand in-
creases with scale. This is attributable to the need for
additional demulsifying chemicals for larger installations where
high volume pumping and short circuiting of the basin flow can
be a problem.
The average cost of the Chicago-based model facility over
a life cycle of 10 years is calculated in Table 27 . The life
cycle average cost is $0.30/1,000 gallons ($0.08/m3) for the
5,000 gpm facility. Figure 35 shows the variation in the
average cost with scale. The reduction in capital costs from
1,000 to 2,000 gpm is evidenced in the life cycle calculations.
Oil/water separation demonstrates low capital and operational
costs and should be applied wherever oil bearing wastes can be
96
-------
TABLE 25. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR OIL/WATER SEPARATION*
VO
4
Capita] Cost
Category Module
Oil /water separator
Accumulator
Waste pump
Chem. feed
Cliem. pump
Piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDCf
Grand total of
capital costs
Costs'1'
Site
Preparation Structures
$ 28 $1 ,083
586 4,270
389 2,130
225
1,228 7,483
_-_ ._-
---
Mechanical
Equipment
$20,650
4,520
10,800
2,840
1,470
1,130
41,410
---
Quantities
Electrical Other
Equipment Land Total Land (ft')
$ 275 --- $ 370
473 --- 636
321 --- 432
1.069 --- 1,438
$51,190
12,617
2,560
66,367
* Scale = 5,000 gpm; oil/water mixture-emulsified oil specific gravity = 0.9, smallest oil droplet size 10 urn
after demulslHcatlon.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
t Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 26. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR OIL/WATER SEPARATION^
vo
oo
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
Oil/water separator $892
Accumulator
Waste pump
Chan, feed 12
Chem. pump
Piping
Total 904
Supplemental
OSM costs
Subtotal of ,
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead!
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and Insurance? -
Total first year
operating costs
Labor
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
$195
14
209
.
.-.
...
...
...
Costs*
Type 3
Laborer
($6.76/hr)
$20,000
184
103
20,287
- ..
...
...
Quantities
Energy Maintenance Chemical Total Other
Electrical Costs Costs KWHs/yr
($0.035/KWH)
$ 581
300
$8,630 $246,571
398 $120,000
86 --- --- 2,466
6
8,716 1.285 120,000 249,037
$151,401
30,280
10,801
1,327
193,809
* Scale " 5,000 gpm.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
* At 20X of direct operating costs.
** At 10U Interest over 10 years.
+ At 2% of total capital.
-------
65'
60"
55'
50'
AS'
40-
35"
*0 30'
X 25'
«
20
15'
10
5
TOTAL CAPITAL
1,000
gpm
, 000
5,
-------
o
*«
X
20'
18'
16
1*
12'
10'
8
6
4
2
12'
10
LABOR
LABORER
o
4'
OPERATOR 1
OPERATOR 2
MAINTENANCE
1.000 2.000 3.000 4,000 5,000
gpra
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
gpm
o
x
26-
24-
22-
20-
18-
16
14
12-
10-
8-
6-
4
2
ENEPGY
12'
11
10-
9
3'
7
6
S
4
3
2
1
1.000 2.000 3,000 4.000 5.000
gpm
CHEMICALS
1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5,000
gpm
Figure 34. Oil/water separation: changes in O&M requirements with
scale.
100
-------
TABLE 27. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
OIL/WATER SEPARATION
(LIFETIME - 10 YEARS)
Item
YEAR ll
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
Direct
Operating
Costs*
$151,401
166,541
183,196
201,515
221,666
243,833
268,216
295,038
324,541
356,996
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$42,408
45,436
48,767
52,431
56,461
60,895
65,771
71,136
77,036
83,527
Sum
Operating
Costs
$193,809
211,977
231,962
253,946
278,128
304,728
333,987
366,173
401,578
440,523
Present
Value
Annuali zed
Costs#
$193,809
192,707
191,704
190,793
189,965
189,212
188,527
187,905
187,339
186,825
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
TOTALS
3,016,811 1,898,786 6,240,000
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
$0.48
$0.13
$0.30
$0.08
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 5,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
I First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
101
-------
2 2.00
l-.OO
Figure 35, Oil/water separation: life cycle costs at five scales
of operation.
102
-------
demulsified and treated through gravimetric means.
REVERSE OSMOSIS
Descri pti on
The heart of an industrial waste reverse osmosis plant is
the reverse osmosis modules (Figure 36 ). These devices are
assembled into racks to accommodate the desired flow rate in a
given treatment plant. Since 1970 the tubular module has been
improved to yield the spiral-wound cell (Gulf-General) and the
hollow tube cell (DuPont and Dow); all working on the same
general principal. Theoretically, reverse osmosis is induced
by applying a high pressure to a suitable thin membrane, which
at the same time rejects the salt molecules and thereby sepa-
rates a relatively salt-free water stream. The remaining salt
solution is concentrated and flows out of the system.
Rinse waters from a specific process can be treated using
reverse osmosis; the water product is returned for rinsing, and
the concentrates, possibly after further concentration by
evaporation are extracted for disposal.
Suitable membrane materials for cyanide- and chromium-type
rinse-water reconcentration are not yet commercially available.
Care must be exercised with reverse osmosis systems so
that the waste does not contain certain collodial substances or
heterogeneous matter; otherwise, these may in time reduce the
permeability of the membrane.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Additional banks of reverse osmosis modules are utilized
to treat increased flow rates. For small-scale organic waste
concentration, 5 modules are required for every gpm of capacity,
Applications
*
The following applications are documented for reverse
osmosis :
Separation of plating salts
t Reclamation of rinse waters for reuse
Reclamation of metals from plating
Removal of residual total dissolved solids
« Removal of certain trace organic compounds
(e.g. , pesticides)
103
-------
Chemical Treatment
High Prwure
Pump
^
Manifold I
Reverse Osmosis
Bank
-I I
ooppj
20 Modules
(Each 5.5" diameter x
47" long)
^\
Manifold 2
Figure 36. Typical treatment plant employing reverse osmosis.
-------
Costs
Capital costs for reverse osmosis are itemized in Table 28.
Over 85 percent of the total mechanical equipment costs are
attributable to the reverse osmosis modules and manifold system.
The total capital cost for a 1,000 gpm Chicago-based facility is
$633,699 (mid-1978 dollars).
Table 29 summarizes the first year operating costs. Almost
75 percent of the direct O&M costs are attributable to the re-
quirements for antifouling chemical feeds. The total first year
operating costs, including administrative overhead ($121,363),
debt service and amortization ($130,165) and real estate taxes
and insurance ($12,674) are $871,016.
Figure 37 shows the capital costs (excluding land costs)
for five scales of operation and the corresponding land require-
ments for reverse osmosis. The capital cost for the 1,000 gpm
facility is equal to $4.41/1,000 gallons of waste treated. This
unit cost decreases to $4.27 at 2,000 gpm and then increases to
$4.86 at 5,000 gpm. The increased cost at the larger scales of
operation is attributed to the need for larger and more complex
module arrangements and support facilities.
The O&M requirements for reverse osmosis as a function of
scale are shown in Figure 38 . Total labor costs are $86,906/yr
at 1 ,000 gpm and $173,335/yr at 5,000 gpm. A significant por-
tion of these costs are attributable to the requirement for
skilled operators to constantly oversee the treatment operations.
Maintenance and energy demands are fairly constant over the
range studied and chemical costs increase with increased capacity.
The average cost of the example facility over a life cycle
of 7 years, is calculated in Table 30 . The life cycle average
cost for the 1,000 gpm facility is $6.71/1,000 gal ($1.77/m3).
Figure 39 shows the average cost (per 1,000 gal) at five scales
of operation. No economy of scale is observed and, in fact, the
average cost increases from $6.71 to $7.25/1,000 gal over the
range studied. This is attributed to the corresponding increase
in capital and chemical costs per unit volume of waste treated.
ULTRAFILTRATION
Description
UltrafiItration installations closely resemble those
described for reverse osmosis (Figure 40). The range of pore
size in the ultrafiItration module (0.002 to 0.004 micron)
limits the applications to that of removal of finely emulsified
oils, or other chemicals and suspended solids, from the feed
stream. This is distinct from reverse osmosis, which is also
capable of concentrating dissolved salts, .through use of
105
-------
TABLE 28, SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS*
O
tf\
Capita) Cost
Category Module
Reverse osmosis
Liquid feed
Accumulator
Cham, pump
Waste pump
Piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDtf
Grand total of
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$ 326
1,127
586
675
2,714
...
_..
...
...
_
Costs*
Structures
$ 6,350
10,700
4,270
21,320
97,324*
...
...
---
Mechanical Electrical
Equipment Equipment
$355,000 $17,800
8,320
4,520
1,530
2,950
39,300
411,620 17,800
._. ...
... ...
...
Quantities
Other
Land Total Land (ft2)
$3,230 $4,340
882 1,186
473 636
4,585 6,162
$555,363
50.568
27,768
633,699
* Scale - 1,000 gpm.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
I Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs .
$ Allowance for funds during construction at 5* of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 29. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS*
o
-vl
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
Reverse osmosis $35,357
Liquid feed
Accumulator
Chew, pump
Waste pump
Piping
Total 35,357
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overheadl/
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and insurance}
Total first year
operating costs
Costs1'
Labor
Type 2 Type 3 Energy Maintenance Chemical Total
Operator 2 Laborer Electrical Costs Costs
($9.19/hr) ($6.76/hr) ($0.035/KWH)
$10,425 $40,970 $15,700 $50,300 $367,000
398 82,600
600
35
1,730
154 197
10,425 41,124 17,465 51,495 449,600
1,348
$606,814
121,363
130,165
12,674
871,016
Quantities
KWII
(yr)
$877,200
1.000
49,429
927,629
-- «
_-_
...
Other
COACL
gal/yr
$24,960
24,960
_ __
___
_-_
...
_._
* Scale = 1,000 gpm .
I- Mid-1978 dollars.
$ At 20% of direct operating costs.
** At }Q% interest over 7 years.
f At 2% of total capital.
-------
3«r
32T
30T
2ff
26'
24'
22"
"o 20'
X IS
* 16"
14'
1?
10'
a
6
4
2
TOTAL CAPITAL
1.000 2.000 3.000
gpm
4.000
5,000
lo-
g-
s'
7.
X
«_ 4-
u.
2
LAND (FT-)
1.000 2.000 3.000
gpm
4,000
S.OOO
Figure 37. Reverse osmosis: changes in total capital costs with
'scale.
108
-------
o
X
9-
3-
7
6
5
4
3-
2-
1
LABOR
LABORER
25
2S
22
2
-------
TABLE 30. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
REVERSE OSMOSIS
(LIFETIME - 7 YEARSJ
Item
YEAR ll
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
Di rect
Operating
Costs*
$ 606,814
667,495
734,245
807,669
888,436
977,280
1,075,008
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$264,202 !
276,338
289,688
304,373
320,527
338,295
357,841
Sum
Operating
Costs
£ 871,016
943,834
1,023,933
1,112,043
1,208,963
1,315,575
1,432,849
Present
Value
Annual i zed
Coststf
$871,016
858,031
846,226
835,494
825,738
816,869
808,806
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal . )**
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
TOTALS
7,908,212 5,862,180
873,600
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
$9.05
$2.39
$6.71
$1.77
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 1,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
I First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
110
-------
18"
14~
r- s.oo
4.00
§
o
10-
3.00
N
- 2.00
4
- l-.OO
GPM
1/S
I
l.OOO
63.1
\
2.000
126.2
I
3.000
204.2
I
4,000
252.3
5.000
350.4
Figure 39. Reverse osmosis:
operation.
life cycle costs at five scales of
111
-------
Inltt
" Outltt
Manifold's 1 /Manifold
f "X
^^m^Q 1
V _O>
y* L 1 " "^ty^"
J
Ron
Control
Valve
-r T-
l Ultra- t
Filtration r
< Pockaqo l1
Unit K-
-L J-
' QO *
^
FI>M
I Efftmt Control
1 l-u.
tnM Val«
^^J ^ (Ml
Effluwt HjO .-
(1 to 18 ppm)
Influmt Wn*
i
1 1
11;
«i
|
. i
hi
I
^^
^
^v
F
1
_ _. r
1
»»
J(
1 '
1
i '
i i
1
;l
1,
S
I
11
i~~
I^B^^H
1
i
'
i *
_
1
i
i
1
-
i ""/
i i
i
,
"
(
1 /
:r6666
-------
extremely 'fine1 membrane elements (hyper filtration).
Streams in the flux range of 5 to 50 gpd/ft2 of membrane
enter the module flowing past the membrane elements oriented
parallel to the flow vector. Fouling by microorganisms or
organic deposits is minimized by the scouring action of the feed
stream. Operating pressure is in the range 10 to 100 psig,
compared with the 500 to 1,500 psig that characterizes reverse
osmosis modules. Backflushing is conducted regularly to maintain
adequate flow rate.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Increases in flow demand require little more than the addi-
tion of a greater number of ultrafi1tration modules oriented in
parallel. This requires enlargement of header piping and in-
creased pumping capacity. Each square foot of membrane area can
accommodate up to .035 gpm.
Appli cations
Present commercial applications include processing of the
following acquatic industrial waste streams:
Electrocoat paint rejuvenation and
rinse water recovery
t Protein recovery from cheese whey
Metal machinery-oil emulsion treatment
Textile sizing (polyvinyl alcohol) wastes.
Ultrafiltration is best applied to on-site, single waste streams.
Applications to large volumes of varying waste types are still
in the developmental stages.
Costs
The capital and O&M unit cost files (Appendices B and C)
are used together with the cost equations in Appendix F to de-
rive capital and first year operating costs for ultrafi1tration
(Tables Bland 32). All costs are adjusted for inflation to mid-
1978 values and are based on charges as they exist for the City
of Chicago, Illinois.
The breakdown of costs for ultrafiItration is similar to
that for reverse osmosis; the most costly elements are the
ultrafiItration modules and associated equipment. The major O&M
costs are associated with the chemicals necessary for module
defouling. The total capital and first year operating costs are
$768,187 and $417,038, respectively for the 1,000 gpm facility
113
-------
TABLE 31. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR ULTRAFILTRATION*
Capital Cost
Category Module
Ultra filtration
Liquid feed
Accumulator
Chem. pump
Waste pump
Piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDCt
Grand total of
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$1 ,680
1,127
586
675
4,068
. .
.-.
..*...
.
Costs*
Structures
$62,300
10,700
4.270
77.270
97,324*
__
._-
Mechanical Electrical
Equipment Equipment
$456,000 $22.800
8,320
4.520
1,530
2,950
39,300
512,620 22,800
--. *.
_K_ .. «
-_-
Land Total
$ 41
882
473
1,396
~~ «..«
$715,478
16,935
35,774
768.187
Quantities
Other
Land (ft2)
$ 55
1,186
636
1,877
.»
-_
::;
__.
* Scale = 1.000 gpm.
1 Mid-1978 dollars.
* Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
\ Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 32. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR ULTRAFILTRATION*
'
Labor
O&M Cost Type 1 Type 2
Category Operator 1 Operator 2
Module ($7.77/hr) ($9.19/hr)
Ultraflltration $35,357 $10,425
Liquid feed
Accumulator
Chem. pump
Waste pump
Piping
Total 35,357 10,425
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead^
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and insurance!
Total first year
operating costs
Costs'-
Type 3
Laborer
($6.76/hr)
$40,970
154
41,124
---
Energy
Electrical
($0.035/KWII)
$26,200
35
1,730
27,965
---
Maintenance Chemical Total
Costs Costs
$3.220
398 $82.600
600
197
4,415 82,600
1,348
$203,234
40,647
157,793
15,364
417,038
Quantities
KWHs/yr
$748,571
1,000
49,429
799,000
- --
_».-
-__
* Scale = 1,000 gpm.
1 Mid-1978 dollars.
t At 20/t of direct operating costs.
** At lost interest over 7 years.
1; At 2% of total capital.
-------
(this compares to $633,699 and $871,016 for a reverse osmosis
facility of the same capacity).
The change in total capital costs (exclusive of land costs)
according to the scale of operation is shown in Figure 41.
Within the range of 2,000 to 5,000 gpm, ultrafi1tration demon-
strates negative economies of scale ($4.27 to $4.86/1,000 gal).
The capital cost at 1,000 gpm is equal to $4.41/1,000 gal. The
reason for this is the increasing costs associated with large
scale implementation.
Ultrafiltration O&M requirements are shown in Figure 42.
Labor costs demonstrate significant economies of scale, while
maintenance and energy requirements are constant throughout the
range.
The direct and indirect operating costs (including debt
service and amortization) are used to calculate the average cost
over the 7-year life cycle of the 1,000 gpm ultrafi1tration
facility. The life cycle average cost is $3,02/1,000 gal
($0.80/m3). This compares to $6.71 ($1.77/m3) for reverse
osmosis. Figure 43 shows how the life cycle average costs fluc-
tuate at five different scales of operation.
CHEMICAL OXIDATION/REDUCTION
Description
Oxidation/reduction, or "redox" reactions are those in
which the operation state of at least one reactant is raised
while that of another is lowered. In reaction (1) in alkaline
solution:
(1) 2MnO^ + CM" + 20H" 2Mn04~ + CNO" + H20
the oxidation state of the cyanide ion is raised from -1 to +1
(the cyanide is oxidized as it combines with an atom of oxygen
to form cyanate); the oxidation state of the permanganate
decreases from -1 to -2 (permanganate is reduced to manganate).
This change in oxidation state implies that an electron was
transferred from the cyanide ion to the permanganate. The in-
crease in the positive valence (or decrease in the negative
valence) with oxidation takes place simultaneously with reduc-
tion in chemically equivalent ratios. Figure 44 is a diagram of
a cyanide destruction system.
Chemical reduction is of interest because metals can often
be reduced to their elemental form for potential recycle or can
be converted to less toxic oxidation states. One such metal is
chromium, which, when present as chromium (VI), is a very toxic
material. In the reduced state, chromium (III), the hazards
are lessened and the chromium can be precipitated for removal.
116
-------
38-
34-
CAPITAL
30-
26-
22-
18-
14-
10-
6-
2-
1,000 2,000 3.000
gpm
4,000
5,000
20.
ia
16.
14.
12-
10.
a
6.
LAND (FT~)
1,000 2,000 3,000
gpm
4,000
5,000
Figure 41. Ultraffltration: changes in total capital costs with
scale.
117
-------
o
*<
X
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4
3
2
1
LABOR
1,000 2.000 3.000 4,000 5,000
gpra
22
20
IS
ie
i*
I?
Iff
y
ft
-------
TABLE 33. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
ULTRAFILTRATION
(LIFETIME - 7 YEARS)
Item
YEAR ll
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
Di rect
Operating
Costs*
$203,234
223,557
245,913
270,504
297,555
327,310
360,041
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$213,804
217,865
222,336
227,255
232,655
238,616
245,162
Sum
Operating
Costs
$417,038
441,423
468,250
497,759
530,220
565,926
605,204
Present
Value
Annual! zed
Costs*
$417,035
401,293
386,983
373,974
362,147
351,396
341,622
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
TOTALS
3,525,817 2,634,450
873,600
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
$4.04
$1.07
$3.02
$0.80
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a IQ% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 1,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
T First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
119
-------
r
7
6~
s~
i
o
8 *
X
3~
2~
* ,
* *
GPM 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.0OO
2.10
2.00
1.90
l.SO
1.70
1.60
l.SO
1.40
1.30
1.20w
N
u
- 1.10
1.00
0.90
- O.SO
- 0.70
0.60
- 0.50
0.40
0.30
_ 0.20
- 0.10
1/S 63.1 126.2 204.2 752.3 340.4
Figure 43. UUrafiltration:
operation.
life cycle costs at five scales of
120
-------
I r
«I
CAUSTIC TANK
C«J--{0 1
-CAUSTIC
PUMP
L.
A
MANUAL
SELECTOR
SWITCH
y MIXER
CONTROL V
VALVE S\
[j 1 EFFLUENT
t M/l
MIIER '
CX-PH-1
c
=.
1
>
1 1 i
- ORP-1 :
D-»-PH.2
c
if
i
L>
XV-i
PCD TANK 66 I 66 <6 HC
RECIRCULATlON PUMP
e
P*MCl MOVNYED MSTKUMCMT
IMAMStMTTCIt
6
Figure 44. Flow diagram of PCD 1200 N6 cyanide destruction
system.
. 121
-------
At the present time, chemical reduction is applied primarily to
the control of hexavalent chromium in the plating and tanning
industries and to the removal of mercury from caustic/chlorine
electrolysis cell effluents. Figure 45 is a diagram of a chrome
reduction system.
Fluorine is a powerful oxidizing agent. The other halogens,
including chlorine, are also good oxidizing agents. The positive
ions of noble metals are good oxidizing agents. Many of the
oxygenated ions, such as Br3~ and NO?" are strong oxidizing
agents in acid solution. Certain sulfur compounds and base
metals such as iron, aluminum, zinc and sodium are good reducing
agents.
As shown in Figures 44 and 45, oxidation or reduction
treatment systems are configured with mixing tanks, chemical
storage and feed equipment (for gas, liquid or solid chemicals),
pumps and piping.
The process modeled here is based on chemical oxidation as
differentiated from thermal, electrolytic and biological oxida-
tion. The oxidation reactions should be distinguished from the
higher temperature and typically pressurized, wet oxidation pro-
cesses, such as the Zimpro process, which are not included in
this study.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Additional reaction tanks are provided in order to treat
increased flows. The maximum volume for a reactor in this
model is 535 ft3. Where flow rate and/or retention time neces-
sitate larger reactor volume; multiple, equal-sized vessels are
used.
Applications
Chemical oxidation/reduction is most commonly applied in
the electroplating and metal finishing industry; as a treatment
process for cyanide oxidation and chromium VI reduction.
Chlorine dioxide and potassium permanganate have both been
demonstrated in successful oxidation of a variety of pesticide
compounds, including quat, paraquat and rotenone (6).
Sodium borohydrate is a useful reducing agent for mercury, lead
and silver-bearing wastes (14, 15).
Costs
Summaries of capital and first year operating costs for
chemical oxidation/reduction are shown in Tables 34 and 35.
These estimates are based on mid-1978 costs for components,
unit processes, labor, utilities, etc., as applicable in
Chicago, Illinois. The estimates are based on the cost files
122
-------
MECHANICAL MIXERS
WITH PVC COATED
SHAFTS I PROPELLI
r INLET
PtATING WASTE
30GPM
J--V--
RECIRCULATH>N PUMP
u
« -T-
TO WASTE 1
STORAGE TANK I
-RECIRCULATION
PUMP
e
P4Mf I 4MXMTCO MSTHUMEMT
PM T*ft*fM«TTC*
PMMCMCATOO
M4 COMTMOLO.R
OBP T*»MSMITTE*
e
Figure 45. Chrome reduction system flow diagram.
123
-------
TABLE 34. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR CHEMICAL OXIDATION/REDUCTION*
ro
4*
Capital Cost
Category Module
Jacketed flash mixer
Gas storage/feed
Liquid storage/feed
Solid storage/ feed
Chem. pump
Chein. pump
Waste pump
Piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDCt
Grand total of
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$ 99
432
390
1
450
1.372
...
...
_._
"*"*"*
Costs*
Mechanical
Structures Equipment
$ 2,420 $ 90,500
39,851 10,810
£.130 2,030
20 19,432
1,600
1,600
2,950
24,600
44,421 153,522
97,324*
...
...
Quantities
Electrical Land
Equipment Land Total (ft2)
$106 $ 978 $1,310
4,290 --- 5,760
321 432
5 10
___ ...
106 5,594 7,512
--- ---
$302.339
32,033
15,117
349,489
ucner
Storage
Capacity
(1bs)
---
$144,000
...
...
.-_
144.000
---
._.
* Scale = 1,000 gpm.
1 Mid-1978 dollars,
* Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
t Allowance for funds during construction at 5* of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 35. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR CHEMICAL OXIDATION/REDUCTION*
ro
in
O&M Cost
Category
Module
Jacketed flash mixer
Gas storage/feed
Liquid feed
Solid feed
Chem. pump
Diem, pump
Waste pump
Piping
Total
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead!!)
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and insurance}
Total first year
operating costs
Type 1
Operator 1
($7.77/hr)
$357
12
88
457
_-.
...
...
_..
Labor
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
$ 277
1,392
100
...-
1,769
...
...
.
...
...
Costs1'
Type 3 Energy
Laborer Electrical
($6.76/hr) ($0.035/KWH)
$10,060 $ 598
93
100
52
52
1.730
128
10,381 2,432
...
...
...
.
---
...
Maintenance Chemical Total
Costs Costs
$4,530
108 $362,000
398 175
500 300
123
5,659 362,475
1,348
$384,521
76,904
92,194
6,990
560,609
Quantities
KWII Other
(yr) Gas
(Ibs/yr)
$17,085
1.25 x 106
...
1,486
1,486
49,429
--.
69,486
...
...
* Scale = 1,000 gpm.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
# At 20% of direct operating costs.
** At 10% interest over 5 years.
I At 2% of total capital.
-------
in Appendices B and C and the cost equations included in
Appendix F.
As shown in Table 34, the most costly unit process is the
jacketed flash mixer. The chemical storage and feed equipment,
together with the facility piping, comprise more than 30 percent
of the subtotal capital costs. Since removal of constituents as
sludges is not an objective of this treatment technology, sludge
handling and dewatering processes are not included. As expected,
the major operating cost is for chemical addition.
Figure 46 shows the capital costs (exclusive of land costs)
for five scales of operation and the corresponding land area
requirements. The capital costs demonstrate significant econom-
ies of scale; particularly within the range between 1,000 and
3,000 gpm. The capital costs at those capacities are equal to
$2.38 and $1.13, respectively. The savings incurred at these
smaller scales of operation are attributed to the ability to use
a single reactor (flashmixer) for increasing flow rates. Above
3,000 gpm, multiple vessels are used; increasing the need for
supplementary structures and equipment, and partially offsetting
the economies of scale at the larger operating capacities.
The O&M requirements for chemical oxidation/reduction as a
function of scale are shown in Figure 47. Labor and main-
tenance show economies of scale, while the electrical demand
(0.56 kwh/1 ,000 gal) is constant at all capacities. The chem-
ical costs increase substantially at the larger scales of oper-
ation ($2.90 versus $11.39 per 1,000 gal treated at 1,000 and
50,000 gpm, respectively). The increase in chemical demand is
due to less efficient chemical contact in the large scale facil-
ities.
HYDROLYSIS
Description
The term hydrolysis applies generally to reactions in which
water brings about a double decomposition, with hydrogen going
to one component and hydroxyl to the other (6). The general
formula is XY + H£0 * HY + XOH; examples from organic and inor-
ganic chemistry are respectively:
C5H11 + H20 * HC1 + C5HT|0H
KCN + H20 + NaOH -» HCN + KOH
In general it is necessary for a bond between two atoms to be
broken in hydrolysis, but the term is sometimes used for reac
tions in which one bond of multiple bond is broken, as in the
nitrile example.
126
-------
65
60
55
50
45
o
- 35
25
20
15
10
5
TOTAL CAPITAL
1,000
2,000 3,000
gpm
4,000
5,000
11
10
9 '
3
71
O
6
X
J
tt. 4 '
3
2
LAND (FT )
1.000
2,000 3.000
gpm
4,000
5,000
Figure 46. Chemical/oxidation reduction: changes in total capital
costs wtth scale.
127
-------
o
M
X
o
X
i
26-
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
14-
12-
la-
s'
6-
4-
2
34-
32-
30-
28
26
24-
22-
20-
18
16-
14
12-
10
a-
6-
4
2-
LABOR
UCORER
CPSRATOR
(JPERATQR
12-
11-
10-
9-
a-
7-
6-
5-
*.
3-
2-
1-
MAINTENANCE
1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000
gpm
BCRGY
1.000 2.000 3,000 4.000 5,000
gpm
OEMICALS
O
X
75-
70-
65-
60-
55-
50-
4S-
40-
35-
30"
25-
20-
15-
10-
s-
1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000
gpm
1.000 2*OCO 3.000 4.000 5.000
gpm
Figure 47. Chemical oxidation/reduction:
with scale.
changes in O&M requirements
128
-------
TABLE 36. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
CHEMICAL OXIDATION/REDUCTION
(LIFETIME - 5 YEARS)
Item
YEAR if
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
Direct
Operating
Costs*
$384,521
422,973
465,270
511,797
562,977
Indirect
Operati ng
Costst
$176,088
183,778
192,238
201,543
211,779
Sum
Operating
Costs
$560,609
606,751
657,508
713,340
774,756
Present
Value
Annualized
Costs#
$560,609
551,597
543,365
535,932
529,158
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal . )**
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
TOTALS
3,312,964 2,720,661
624,000
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
$5.31
$1.40
$4.36
$1.15
* Assumes a 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 1,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
T First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
129
-------
c
7
6*
i
o
o .
0 *
*
x
3~
2~
1-
* ^
GPM l.OOO 2.000 3.000 4.000 5,000
2.10
2.00
1.90
i.ao
1.70
- 1.60
- 1.50
- 1.40
- 1.30
1.20
- 1.10
1.00
- 0.90
- 0.30
- 0.70
0.60
- O.SO
0.40
~ 0.30
_ 0.20
0.10
1/S 63.1 126.2 204.2 ?52.3 340.4
Figure 48. Chemical oxidation/reduction:
scales of operation.
130
life cycle costs at five
-------
Inorganic hydrolytic reactions, in which a salt reacts with
water to form acid and base, are usually the reverse of neutral-
ization. The trivalent metal salts of aluminum and iron undergo
a different mechanism of hydrolysis; during a series of reac-
tions with water, various multivalent hydrous oxides (6)
are formed. These charged species are important in the floe
formation and the treatment of turbid waters by precipitation.
Organic hydrolysis may include reactions in which water is
not a reactant. For example, the addition of an alkali to
solution and the subsequent formation of the alkali salt of an
organic acid is described as hydrolysis. Although water by
itself can bring about hydrolysis, most commercial processes
employ elevated temperatures and pressures to promote reaction.
Acids, alkalies and enzymes are commonly used as catalysts,
although an alkali can also frequently participate as a stoi-
chiometric reactant.
The agents for acid hydrolysis most commonly used are
hydrochloric and sulfuric acids, but many others are of poten-
tial use (formic, oxalic, benzenesulfonic, etc.). Alkaline
hydrolysis utilizes sodium hydroxide most frequently, but the
alkali carbonates as well as appropriate potassium, calcium,
magnesium and ammonium compounds can be applied.
The model cqsted herein is based on the Twitchell process
(16, 17). This is the traditional method for producing fatty
acids in a batch. The basis of the process is to process the
fat in the presence of a hydrolyzing reagent and heat, and then
to separate products. The system consists of a waste deaerator,
chemical feed and storage, flash mixers, a decanter, storage
tanks and a variety of pumps (gravity flow is used wherever
possible). Figure 49 shows the configuration of equipment.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Additional tanks are used as the batch volume increases.
The maximum volume for a tank is 535 ft3. Where flow rate and/
or retention time necessitates additional reactor volume, equal
sized parallel units are employed.
Applications
The following applications of hydrolysis are documented:
The Organic Chemicals Industry--
Sludge from the acid treatment of organic wastes is often
hydrolyzed yielding recoverable byproducts.
The Pesticides Industry--
Many pesticides are subject to deterioration in acid or
most often alkaline media. Carbamates and.organophosphorous
131
-------
CHEMICAL
STORAGE/
FEED
DEAERATOR 1 T m\ JACKETED | ^ DECANTER
FLASH MIXER
M
ACCUMULATOR
Figure 49. Flow diagram of the hydrolysis reactor
and associated modules.
132
-------
compounds can be hydrolyzed under the correct temperature and
pH conditions. One organophosphate plant uses an enclosed
glass-lined reaction vessel to hydrolyze waste. One part of
20 percent caustic solution and 30 parts of waste are hydrolyzed
in a batch at 98° C for 15 hours. Another manufacturer suggests
the use of an aqueous caustic soda and detergent solution to
decontaminate containers and dispose of pesticide residues.
Costs
Capital and first year operating costs are calculated for
hydrolysis (Tables 37 and 38 ). The most costly element is the
deaerator unit and associated structures ($923,910 at 5,000
gpm). The total capital costs for the Chicago-based example are
$1,496,229. Major operating costs are for maintenance of the
deaerator and jacketed flash mixer. The total first year opera-
ting costs are $466,345.
Figure 50 shows the capital costs (excluding land costs)
at five scales of operation for the technology. The accompa-
nying graph shows the land area requirements at the same scales
of operation. The capital cost data indicates that there are
significant economies of scale from 1,000 gpm ($2.54/1,000 gal
treated) to 3,000 gpm ($2.06/1,000 gal). The costs then
increase to $2.11 and $2.20/1,000 gal at 4,000 and 5,000 gpm,
respectively. As in the case of chemical oxidation/reduction,
hydrolysis capital expenses are impacted by the need for mul-
tiple, parallel reactors at larger plant capacities.
Figure 51 shows the fluctuation in O&M requirements with
scale for the model facility (operating 8 hr/day and 260 day/
yr). Total labor costs are low ($10,092 at 5,000 gpm) and re-
flect the minimal supervision and servicing necessary to operate
the technology. Maintenance costs demonstrate marked economy
of scale; and energy demands are fairly constant over the range
studied (0.22 kwh/1,000 gal). Chemical costs are minimal.
Added chemicals serve as catalysts only.
The average costs of the Chicago-based model facility, over
a life cycle of 5 years, are calculated in Table 39. The life
cycle average cost is $0.63/1,000 gal ($0.17/m3) for the 5,000
gpm facility. Figure 52 shows the variation in the average
cost with scale. The reduction in capital unit costs at the
smaller scales of operation (1,000 to 3,000 gpm) is reflected in
the life cycle calculations.
AERATED LAGOON
Description
An aerated lagoon is a basin in which wastewater is treated
on a flow-through basis. Oxygen is usually supplied by means of
133
-------
00
Capital Cost
Category Module
Deaerator
Jacketed flash mixer
Decanter
Accumulator
Liquid chem. feed
Chem. pump
Chem. pump
Waste pump
Piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDC/f
Grand total of
capital costs
LflttLL-
Site
Preparation
$ 4.290
134
66
8.330
586
1.125
14.531
__.
. . .
J/. :»U-»yU
Cos Is*
Structures
$384,000
3.580
2.590
107,000
4,270
501 ,440
141.3031
.__
-
:T ur I.HKIIHI i.n.iin ci
Mechanical Electrical
Equipment Equipment
$539,910
20,400 $518
32,810
38,600
2.590
1,730
1,730
2,950
72,500
713,220 518
---
...
-
im . 44.4-IWVJ4
Land
$42,600
1,330
659
6.220
400
---
*--
-"
___
51 ,209
-
r-l-W * ^ ' '
Quantities
Other
Total Land (ft2)
$52,257
1,790
880
8,362
636
m «
... -
"~"
~~~ --
63,930
. * . -
$1,422,221
2,897
71,111
1.496,229
* Scale - 5,000 g|>m.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
i Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
I Allowance for funds during construction at 5X of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 38. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR HYDROLYSIS*
en
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
Deaerator $ 78
Jacketed flash mixer 235
Decanter 78
Accumulator
Chera. feed
Client, pump
Client, pump ---
Waste pump
; Piping
Total 391
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead*
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and insurance!'
Total first year
operating costs
Labor
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
$ 92
185
92
369
._.
-
_..
-
-" ~
Costs1'
Type 3
Laborer
($6.76/hr)
$1,224
6,679
1,225
204
9,332
---
-
---
---
...
Energy
Electrical
($0.035/KWII)
$2,990
86
86
1,730
...
4,892
._.
...
---
---
-_.
Quantities
Maintenance Chemical Total Other
Costs Costs KWHs/yr
$ 5,399
10,200 $ 85,429
501
800
400 $349
2,457
2,457
49,429
363
17,663 349 139,772
1,770
$ 34,766
6,953
394,701
29,925
466,345
* Scale = 5,000 gpm.
I Mid-1978 dollars.
i At 20%. of direct operating costs.
** At 10X interest over 5 years.
t At 22 of total capital,
-------
15.
10.
o
*
X
TOTAL CAPITAL
13-
12-
11
10-
9-
1,000 2.000 3.00O 4.000
gpm
LAND CFT )
5.000
4.000 5,000
Figure 50.
1,000 2.000 3,000
gpm
Hydrolysis: changes in total capital costs with scale.
136
-------
lo-
g-
s'
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
LA80R
LABORER
OPERATOR 1 & 2
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5.00O
gpm
20
18"
16'
14'
12'
10'
a'
6'
4"
2'
MAINTENANCE
1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 5.00O
gpm
o
X
X
3
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
gpm
CHEMICALS
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
gpm
Figure 51. Hydrolysis; changes in O&M requirements with scale.
137
-------
TABLE 39. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
HYDROLYSIS
(LIFETIME - 5 YEARS)
Item
YEAR rf
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
Direct
Operati ng
Costs*
$34,766
38,243
42,067
46,274
50,901
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$431,579
432,275
433,039
433,881
434,806
Sum
Operating
Costs
$466,345
470,517
475,106
480,154
485,707
Present
Value
Annuali zed
Costs*
$466,345
427,743
392,650
360,747
331,745
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
TOTALS
2,377,829 1,979,230 3,120,000
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
$0.76
$0.20
$0.63
$0.17
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 5,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
t First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
138
-------
o
o
o
«
GPM 1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 5.000
2.10
2.00
1.90
1,60
- 1.70
1.60
- 1.50
1.40
1.30
1 . 2O w
Ui
- 1.10
1.00
0.90
o.so
0.7O
- 0.60
0.50
0.40
- 0.30
_ 0.20
0.10
1/S 63.1 126.2 204.2 252.3 340.4
Figure 52. Hydrolysis..: life cycle costs at five scales of operation.
139
-------
surface aerators or diffused aeraton units. The action of the
aerators is used to keep the contents of the basin in suspen-
sion. Depending on the amount of mixing, lagoons are often
classified as either aerobic or aerobic-anaerobic.
The contents of an aerobic lagoon are completely mixed and
neither the incoming solids nor the biological solids products
from waste conversion are allowed to settle out (Figure 53)
In effect, the essential function of this type of lagoon is
waste conversion to biological solids. Depending on the deten-
tion time, the effluent will contain about a third to half the
value of the incoming biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the form
of cell tissue. Before the effluent can be discharged, however,
the solids must be removed by settling (a settling tank is a
normal component of most lagoon systems).
Factors that must be considered in the process design of
aerated lagoons include: (1) required BOD reduction, (2) efflu-
ent characteristics, (3) oxygen requirements, (4) temperature
effects, and (5) energy requirement for mixing.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
The model calculations included in Appendix F assume that
single lagoon is used for all foreseen volumes. The assumed
lagoon depth is 12 ft. Retention time is based on the anticipa-
ted degradation rate according to the first order removal:
S =
So 1 n
where
1
K(v/Q)
S = effluent BODsmg/4
So = influent BODsmg/Ji
K = removal rate constant, day "1
V = volume (million gallons)
Q = flow, mgd
Applications
The primary objective of the aerated lagoon is the conver-
sion of biodegradable organic compounds into cell mass. Organic
constituents in the organic chemical and pesticide industry
waste streams, that are not biocidal or resistant to degradation,
can be treated with sufficient retention time (Appendix E ).
140
-------
Nutrient Feed
Mechanical
Aerators
h
Influent ^ _
(from equalization'^^^^^^^^^^y^^^sii
basin or primary
clarification)
Effluent
(to secondary
clarifiers)
Figure 53. Aerated lagoon.
141
-------
Costs
Capital costs for aerated lagoon are itemized in Table 40 .
The most costly unit processes are the sedimentation basin
(used for primary clarification) and the sludge dewatering
equipment. The total capital cost for a 5,000 gpm Chicago-based
facility is $4,579,421 (mid-1978 dollars).
Table 41 summarizes the first year operating costs. Al-
most 45 percent of the direct O&M costs are attributable to the
requirements for nutrient addition to supplement nitrogen and
phosphorus-deficient industrial wastewaters. The total first
year operating costs, including administrative overhead
($159,062), debt service and amortization ($602,074) and real
estate taxes and insurance ($91,588) are $1,648,036.
Figure .54 . shows the capital costs (excluding land costs)
for five scales of operation and the corresponding land require-
ments for aerated lagoon. The capital costs per 1,000 gallons
of waste treated decrease from $7.59 at 1,000 gpm to $5.04 at
3,000 gpm. The costs then increase to $6.08 and $6.63 at 4,000
and 5,000 gpm, respectively. The costs for chemical storage and
feed equipment, as well as sludge dewatering facilities, increase
substantially at the larger plant capacities. It is likely that
less expensive, large-volume sludge dewatering techniques would
significantly reduce the capital costs for these installations.
The O&M requirements for aerated lagoon as a function of
scale are shown in Figure 55. . Total labor costs are $118,742
and $236,670 at 1,000 and 5,000 gpm, respectively. A significant
portion of these costs are attributable to the requirement for
laborers to operate and service the numerous unit processes com-
prising the technology. Maintenance and energy demands are
fairly constant over the range studied and chemical costs
increase with increased capacity.
The average cost of the example facility, over a life cycle
of 15 years, is calculated in Table 42 . The life cycle average
cost for the 5,000 gpm facility is $2.15/1,000 gal ($0.57/mJ).
Figure 56~ shows the life cycle average cost at five scales of
operation. The analysis shows the fluctuations in capital costs
and increases in chemical costs at the larger scales of
operation.
TRICKLING FILTER
Description
Trickling filters are another biological treatment option
for degradation of dilute, non-biocidal, organic waste streams
(Figure 57 ). The filter media, comprised of crushed rock,
slag, stone or manufactured plastic elements provides a surface
142
-------
TABLE 40. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR AERATEP LAGOON*
Costs' Quantities
i '
to
to
Capital Cost Site
Category Module Preparation
Aerated lagoon $182,000
Chemical feed 14,710
Chemical feed 8,330
Waste pump
Chem. pump
Chem. pump
Sludge dewaterlng 178
Yard piping 900
Sedimentation basin 29,700
Clarifier 995
Total 236,813
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDC:|:
Grand total of
capital costs
Structures
$ 2,830
213,000
107,000
--_
42,600
.-.
241 ,000
115,000
721,430
141,3030
--.
...
-..
Mechanical Electrical Land Other
Equipment Equipment Land Other Total (ft') Excavation
$ 252,000 --- $122,000 $34,500 $164,000
935,000 6,220 8,362
29,500 1,520 --- 2,039
10,800
1,530
1,470 --- ---
919,000 $ 9,190 4,120 --- 5,530
55,200
766.000 2,020 25,500 --- 34,300
22,300 172 645 867
2,992,800 11,382 160,005 34,500 215,098
.
$4,298,233
66,276
214,912
4,579,421
$23,900
_._
---
23.900
...
---
...
* Scale = 5,000 gpm; 70% efficiency (BOD removal); BOD - 100 ppm; total nitrogen = 4.0 ppm; total phosphorus = 1.0 ppm
K = 5.0 day-1.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
» Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
:l: Allowance for funds during construction at 5$ of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 41. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR AERATED LAGOON*
Costst
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/nr)
Aerated Lagoon 14,094
Chemical feed
Chemical feed
Waste pump
Chemical pump
Chemical pump
Yard piping
Sedimentation
basin 3,911
Clarlfler 14,181
Sludge dewa taring 3,911
Total 36,097
Supplemental
O&M Costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead^
Debt service and
amortization **
Real estate taxes
and Insurance 1
Total first year
operating costs
Labor
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
3.327
...
-_-
277
1.007
1,200
5.811
...
...
Type 3
Laborer
(J6.76/hr)
134,838
...
179
4,085
14.810
40,850
194,762
...
.
...
Energy
Electrical
($0.035/KWH)
24,300
8,630
35
17
102
102
70,500
103,686
---
...
-
Maintenance
Costs
12,600
900
800
...
...
276
76.600
...
9,240
100,416
1,770
.__
__.
Chemical Other
Costs Total KWH
(yr)
694,285
349.000
1,750
246.571
1.000
486
2.914
2,914
2,020 2.014,286
352.770 2.96 x 106
795,312
159,062
602.074
91.588
1,648,036
* Scale * 5,000 gpm; 70* efficiency (DOD removal); 800=100 ppm, total nitrogen=4.0 ppm;total phosphorus=1.0 ppm;K=5.Qday-1,
I Mid-1978 dollars.
t At 20* of direct operating costs.
** At 10* interest over 15 years.
| At n of total capital.
-------
42'
39'
36'
33'
30'
27'
"2 34'
x 21'
IS
15"
12'
9"
6'
3"
TOTAL CAPITAL
1
1.000
I
2.000
1
3,000
4,000
gpm
5,000
24-
22-
20
18'
16
"*rt 14'
X 12
V 10
11.
8-
4-
2
LAND (FT )
1.000
2.000
3,000
gpm
4.000
5.000
Figure 54. Aerated lagoon: changes in total capital costs
with scale.
145
-------
24-
22-
20-
18.
16-
14.
12.
10.
*o 8'
«4
X '
* 4-
2-
LABOR
10-
9.
*
LABORER
OPERATOR 1
6.
5.
4-
3-
2-
1-
I.OO'O 2.000 3.'000 4',000 ^.000
gpm
MAINTENANCE
i .000' 2.006 3,obo 4,600 f.ooo
gpm
24.
22.
20.
IS.
/> 16-
o
** 14.
X
X 12-
* 10.
3-
6-
4-
2-
ENERGY
42
39
36
33
30.
27
24
21
) ,g
C15J
I
12.
6
3
0-011CALS
1.000 2.0OO 3,000 4.000 5,000
gpm
1,000 2,000 3.000 4.000 5,000
gpm
Figure-55. "Aerated lagoon: changes in O&M requirements with
scale.
146
-------
TABLE 42. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
AERATED LAGOON
(LIFETIME - 15 YEARS)
Item
YEAR 1-1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
Direct
Operating
Costs*
f 5 795,312
874,843
962,328
1,058,560
1,164,416
1,280,858
1,408,944
1,549,838
1,704,822
YEAR 10 1,875,304
YEAR 11 2,062,835
YEAR 12 2,269,118
YEAR 13 2,496,030
YEAR 14 2,745,633
YEAR 15 3,020,196
TOTALS
Simple
Simple
Average (Per 1,000
Average (Per Cubic
Life Cycle Average (Per 1
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$ 852,725
868,631
886,128
905,374
926,545
949,834
975,451
1,003,630
1,034,627
1,068,723
1,106,229
1,147,486
1,192,868
1,242,789
1,297,701
Gal.)
Meter)
,000 Gal.)
Sum
Operating
Costs
$1,648,037
1,743,474
1,848,455
1,963,934
2,090,962
2,230,692
2,384,395
2,553,468
2,739,448
2,944,027
3,169,064
3,416,604
3,688,898
3,988,421
4,317,897
40,727,776
$4.35
$1.15
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Present
Value
Annualized
Costs#
$1,648,037
1,584,976
1,527,649
1,475,533
1,428,155
1,385,084
1,345,929
1,310,333
1,277,973
1,248,555
1,221,811
1,197,499
1,175,397
1,155,304
1,137,037
20,119,272
$2.15
$0.57
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
9,360,000
Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 5,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
I First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
147"
-------
s~
7
6
S
o
8 *~
o
V
<*
3~
2-
«
0 «
*
1 1 1 1 1
GPM 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 S.OOO
-2.00
- 1.90
-1.80
1.70
1.60
- 1.50
-1.40
- 1.30
- 1.20
-0-10
- 1.00
~ 0.90
-o.so
- 0.70
- 0.60
O.SO
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.1O
1/S 63.1 126.2 204.2 252.3 340.4
Figure 56. Aerated lagoon: life cycle costs at five scales of operation.
148
-------
Nutrient Feed
Primary
Clarifiers
Excess Sludge
Liquid
Recycle
Trickling Filter
Secondary Clarifiers
Liquid Effluent
Figure 57, High rate trickling filter flow diagram,
-------
for biological growth and voids for passage of liquid and air.
As primary-treated waste flows over the microbial film, the
soluble organics are rapidly metabolized and the colloidal
organics adsorbed onto the media surface. The bilogical slime
layer consists of bacteria, protozoa and fungi. The lower por-
tion of a deep filter frequently supports populations of
nitrifying bacteria (18,19).
A cutaway view of modern trickling filter is shown in
Figure 58 . The rotary distributor provides a uniform hydraulic
load on the filter surface. The underdrain system carries away
the effluent and excess biological solids which are removed in
the secondary clarifiers. Sludge from the primary and secondary
settling operations are dewatered for further management/dispos-
al. Some of the secondary biological solids are returned to the
head of the plant and mixed with the raw waste water and settled
in the primary clarifiers.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Each filter is 10 ft deep with a maximum diameter of 100 ft.
The cost equations in Appendix F show how the filter and clari-
fiers are sized according to the influent flow rate and solids
loading.
Applications
The primary objective of the trickling filter is the con-
version of biodegradable organic compounds into cell mass. All
organic constituents in the organic chemicals manufacturing
industry waste streams, which are not faiocidal and are bio-
degradable, can be treated (Appendix E ).
Costs
The capital and O&M unit cost files (Appendices B and C)
are used together with the cost equations in Appendix F to de-
rive capital and first year operating costs for trickling filter
(Tables 43 and 44 ). All costs are adjusted for inflation to
mid-1978 values and are based on charges as they exist in the
City of Chicago, Illinois.
The breakdown of capital costs for trickling filter shows
that the filter, sedimentation basin, sludge dewatering and
chemical feed processes all contribute substantially to the
overall cost of structures and mechanical equipment. The major
O&M costs are for labor ($222,944) and chemicals ($352,360) for
the 5,000 gpm facility. The total capital and first year
operation costs are $7,191,540 and 1,959,492, respectively.
The change in total capital costs (exclusive of land costs)
according to the scale of operation is shown in Figure 59.
150
-------
Filter
Walls
Under
Drains
Figure 58. View of trickling filter showing internal components
151
-------
TABLE 43. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR TRICKLING FILTER*
Capital Cost
Category Module
Trickling filter
Sedimentation basin
Clarifier
Sludge dewatering
Chemical feed
Chemical feed
Chemical pump
Chemical pump
Sludge pump
Yard piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDC}
Grand total of
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$ 69,400
29,700
995
143
14,710
8,330
1,125
124.403
Structures
$723.000
241 ,000
115,000
34,100
213,000
107,000
1,433,100
141,303*
Costst
Mechanical
Equipment
$ 85.020
766,000
22.300
735,000
935.000
29,500
1.530
1,470
4,490
72,500
2.652.810
Quantities
Electrical
Equipment
$ ...
2,020
172
7,350
9,542
Land
Land Total (ft*)
$ 93,300
25,500 34,300
645 867
3,290 4,430
6,220 8,362
1,520 2,039
130,476 49.998
« A 701 f.-1-i
fin TOE ___
.. .. V 1Q1 Rflf) ...
----- /,I3I,OHU ---
Other
Volume
(gal)
2,300,000
2,300,000
* Scale *' 5,000 gpm; TSS = 500 ppra; percent solids (wt/wt) = 20.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
I Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
I Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 44. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR TRICKLING FILTER*
01
Co
O&M Cost
Category
Module
Trickling filter
Sedimentation
basin
ClaHfier
Sludge
dewatering
Chemical feed
Chemical feed
Chemical pump
Chemical pump
Sludge pump
Yard piping
Total
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
Type 1
Operator 1
($7.77/hr)
$1,172
3,911
10,636
2,933
18,652
Labor
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
$ 208
276
755
900
2,139
Type 3
Laborer
($6.76/hr)
$ 19,384
40,850
111,078
30,637
204
202,153
---
Costsl
Energy
Electrical
($0.035yKWH)
$
102
3,102
56,400
35
17
863
_..
60,519
.__
Maintenance
Costs
$ 9,029
68,600
2,230
7,390
900
800
363
89,312
1,770
direct O&M costss ---
Administrative
overheads
Debt service and
amortization **
_.-
...
._.
---
---
._-
...
___
Chemical Other
Costs Total KWH
(yr)
$ :
2,914
2,914
1,610 1,611,428
349,000
1,750
1,000
486
24,657
_--
352,360 1,643,399
-..
$ 725,136
145,027
945,499
Real estate taxes
and insurance :t
Total first year
operating costs
"
---
.
--*
--.
_*.-
_..
143,831
1,959,492
* Scale 5,000 gpm.
I Mid-1978 dollars.
0 At 20% of direct operating costs
** At 10% Interest over 15 years.
(. At 2% of total capital.
-------
6
5
2-
TOTAL CAPITAL
1.000 2.000 3.000
gpm
4.000
5,000
20
18 '
16
1*
x jo
-------
The capital cost at 1,000 gpm is equal to $11.76/1,000 gal
treated. This decreases to $10.27 at 2,000 gpm and fluctuates
between that value and $10.68 as the facility increases in
capacity.
Trickling filter O&M requirements are shown in Figure 60.
Labor and maintenance costs demonstrate significant economies of
scale; while power requirements are constant throughout the range
The direct and indirect operating costs (including debt
service and amortization) are used to calculate the average cost
over the 15 year life cycle of the 5,000 gpm trickling filter
facility. The life cycle average cost is $2.37/1,000 gal
($0.63/m3). Figure 61 shows the life cycle average costs at
five different scales of operation.
WASTE STABILIZATION POND
Description
Waste stabilization ponds are earth-diked ponds with steep
sidewalls. Raw wastewater enters near the bottom at one end of
the lagoon and mixes with the active microbial mass of suspended
solids in the sludge blanket, which is about 6 ft deep. A
discharge pipe is located on the opposite end of the lagoon
submerged below the liquid surface. Excess undigested grease
floats on the liquid surface of the lagoon forming a natural
cover for the retention of heat and strict anaerobic conditions.
In an anaerobic lagoon system, the wastewater is neither
equalized nor heated. Excess sludge is washed out in the waste-
water effluent and removed in a sedimentation basin. Recircula-
tion is not necessary. Major advantages of anaerobic lagoons
are: low first year operating costs, ability to accept shock
and intermittent loading and simplicity of operation. Anaerobic
lagoons operating at loadings of 15 to 20 Ib BOD/1,000 ft-5 per
day, at a detention time of 4 or more days, and at a temperature
above 75<>F, remove 75 to 85 percent of the influent BOD (20, 21).
Changes in Configuration with Scale
The model used to cost the example facility assumes a
maximum surface area for a single pond is 15 acres. Equal sized
multiple ponds are used for larger areas. Maximum waste depth
is 10 ft.
Applications
As with other biological treatment processes for hazardous
organic wastes, waste stabilization ponds are applied to bio-
degradable organic compounds in the organic chemical industry s
more dilute waste streams (Appendix E).
155~
-------
26-
24-
22-
20-
16-
la-
ic-
s'
6-
LABOR
MAINTENANCE
10
9.
8.
LA6CRER
CPERATCR 1
CPERATOR^
1,000 2.000 3.000 4.000 S.OOO
gpm
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,OOO 5,000
gpm
24-
22-
20-
18-
in 16-
o
x
X 12-
52 10-
2-
ENERGY
7
6-
tf>
O -
1-
OHEMICALS
1.006 2,000 3,6004.0005.00O 1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 5.000
gpm gpm
Figure 60. Trickling filter: changes in O&M requirements with scale.
156
-------
TABLE 45. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
TRICKLING FILTER
(LIFETIME - 15 YEARS)
Item
YEAR l!
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
YEAR 11
YEAR 12
YEAR 13
YEAR 14
YEAR 15
TOTALS
Di rect
Operating
Costs*
$ 725,135
797,648
877,413
965,155
1,061,670
1,167,837
1,284,621
1,413,083
1,554,391
1,709,830
1,880,813
2,068,895
2,275,784
2,503,363
2,753,699
Simple Average (Per 1,000
Simple Average (Per Cubic
Life Cycle
Life Cycle
Average (Per 1
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$1,234,357
1,248,860
1,264,813
1,282,361
1,301,664
1,322,897
1,346,254
1,371,947
1,400,208
1,431,296
1,465,493
1,503,109
1,544,487
1,590,003
1,640,070
Gal.)
Meter)
,000 Gal.)
Sum
Operating
Costs
$1,959,492
2,046,508
2,142,226
2,247,516
2,363,334
2,490,734
2,630,875
2,785,030
2,954,599
3,141,126
3,346,306
3,572,004
3,820,271
4,093,366
4,393,769
43,987,156
$4.70
$1.24
Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Present
Value
Annual i zed
Costs*
$1,959,492
1,860,480
1,770,336
1,688,559
1,614,157
1,546,497
1,485,129
1,429,277
1,378,320
1,332,152
1,290,001
1,251,987
1,217,138
1,185,848
1,156,879
22,166,252
$2.37
$0.63
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
9,360,000
* Assumes 10" annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 5,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
I First year costs in mid-1978 dollars,- for Chicago example.
157
-------
8~
7
6
S
i
s *"
o
X
3~
2"
_
*
1 I . 1 1 I
SPM 1,000 2,000 3.000 4.000 5.000
-2.00
- 1.90
-1.30
- 1.70
1.60
- 1.50
-1.40
- 1.30
- 1.20
-0.10
bl
-1.00
~0.90
-o:so
- 0.70
- 0.60
0.50
.0.40
0.30
0.20 "
0.10
1/S 63.1 126.2 204.2 252.3 340.4
Figure 61. Trickling filter: life cycle costs at ffve scales of operation.
158
-------
Costs
Summaries of capital and first year operating costs for
waste stabilization pond are shown in Tables 46 and 47. These
estimates are based on mid-1978 costs for components, unit pro-
cesses, labor, utilities, etc., as applicable in Chicago,
Illinois. The estimates are based on the cost files in Appen-
dices B and C, and the cost equations included in Appendix F.
As shown in Table 46 , the two most costly unit processes
are the waste stabilization pond and the sedimentation basin.
Most of the costs for the pond are included in site preparation
(excavation). Sludge dewatering costs are not included in this
assessment. The operating costs are those for labor.
Figure 62 shows the capital costs (exclusive of land costs)
for five scales of operation and the corresponding land area
requirements. The capital costs demonstrate significant econo-
mies of scale throughout the range. The costs at 1,000 and
5,000 gpm are $7.50 and $5.91/1,000 gal of waste treated. These
savings are attributable to the use of common sidewalls, pumps,
distribution piping and solids removal processes for multiple
pond systems.
The O&M requirements for waste stabilization pond, as a
function of scale are shown in Figure 63. Labor and maintenance
show economies of scale, while power requirements (for wast pump-
ing) fluctuates between 0.18 and 0.40 kwh/1 ,000 gal of waste
treated. There are no chemical requirements associated with the
example technology.
»-
The average cost of the 5,000 gpm facility, over a five-
year life cycle, is $2.95/1,000 gal ($0.76/m3) (Table 48).
The life cycle average cost at five scales of operation is shown
in Figure 64, - The data reflect the significant economy of
scale for the capital expenditure.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
Descripti on
Anaerobic digestion of sludges is a treatment process used
for further degradation of organic materials and solids volume
reduction. Typically, raw sludge from a biological treatment
process (e.g. activated sludge, aerated lagoon, trickling filter
etc.) is retained and circulated in a digester. The solids are
degraded by the anaerobic biological culture maintained in the
digester environment.
Figure 65 is a typical flow and installation diagram for
a single highrate digester system.
159
-------
TABLE 46. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR WASTE STABILIZATION POND*
Capital Cost Site
Category Module Preparation Structures
Waste stabill- $ 539,000 $ 1,734
zation pond
Waste pump ---
Yard piping 900
Sedimentation
basin 29,700 241,000
Total 569,600 242,734
Supplemental
capital costs --- 141,303/K
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
.AFDC t
Grand total
of capital costs
Costst
Mechanical
Equipment
) 720
10,800
55,200
766,000
832,720
_..
...
...
Electrical Land
Equipment Land Other Total (ft') Other
$ 3.22x10^ 1.9xl06 4.33x10^ 117,
2,020 25,500 --- 34,300
2,020 3.25xl06 1.9xl06 4.36x106 117,
__. ...... _._ ___
$6,938,377
7,766
346,919
7,293,062
709
709
_
_
-
-
-
* Scale = 5,000 gpm.
I Mid-1978 dollars.
« Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
Jf Allowance for funds during construction at b* of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 47. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR WASTE STABILIZATION POND*
Costs I
Labor
O&M Cost
Category
Module
Type 1
Operator 1
($7.77/hr)
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
Type 3
Laborer
($6.76/hr)
Energy
Electrical
($0.035/KWtl)
Maintenance Total
Costs
Other
KWH
(yr)
taste stabi-
lization pond $7,333
Waste pump
Yard piping
Sedimentation
basin
2 Total
3,911
11,244
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead*
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and insurance t
Total first year
operating costs ---
$ 4,501
277
4,778
$ 17,460
179
40,850
58,409
8,630
102
8,732
245
276
7,660
8,181
1,770
$ 93,194
18,639
1,923,910
145,861
2,181,604
*Scale = 5,000 gpm.
V Mid-1978 dollars.
I At 20% of direct operating costs.
** At ]Q% interest over 5 years.
:|; At 2% of total capital.
246,571
2,914
249,485
-------
3d
to
a
ZQ
ia
TOTAL CfflTM.
1.000 2,000 3,000 4,000 3,000
gpm
40-
36'
32'
"o 28~
- 2*.
x
N 20-
t 16.
12,
a.
4.
LAND CFT2)
1.000 2.000 3,000
gpm
4,000 5,000
Figure 62. Waste stabilization pond: changes in total capital costs
with scale.
162
-------
s-
4-
O
X
1-
LA8CR
MAINTENANCE
LABORER
CPERATOR I
_ OPERATOR 3,
X
« 6.
4-
2-
ENERGY
1 i I I i i i r ~ ~ ~r
1.000 2.000 3,000 4,000 5,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 3,000
gpm gpm
26 _,
24 .
22 .
20 -
18 .
16 -
-T
2 14 4
* 12
2 10.
8-
6-
Z-
i.oo'o 2.000 sjooo
gpm
4,000 5,000
Figure 63. Waste stabilization pond: changes in O&M requirements
with scale.
163
-------
TABLE 48. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
WASTE STABILIZATION POND
(LIFETIME - 5 YEARS)
Item
YEAR ll
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
Direct
Operating
Costs*
$ 93,194
102,513
112,765
124,041
136,445
Indirect
Operating
Costst
$2,088,410
2,090,274
2,092,324
2,094,580
2,097,058
Sum
Operating
Costs
$2,181,604
2,192,787
2,205,089
2,218,621
2,233,503
Present
Value
Annuali zed
Costs#
$2,181,604
1,993,243
1,821,845
1,666,850
1,525,483
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
TOTALS
11,031,604 9,189,025 3,120,000
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.) $3.54
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter) $0.94
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
$2.94
$0.78
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 5,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
T First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
164
-------
3
7
6
5
i
§ *
0
X
M
3~
2*~
_
*
*
1 1 1 i 1
3PM 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000
2.00
1.90
i.ao
- 1.70
1.60
- l".50
-1.40
- 1.30
- 1.20
-a- 10
I
-1.00
- 0.90
0.30
- 0.70
0.60
0,50
0.40
0.30
0.20 "
0.10
1/S 63.1 126.2 204.2 252.3 340.4
Figure 64. Waste stabilization pond: life cycle costs at five scales
of operation.
165
-------
Gcs Compression
Flore
!nflu«nt Sludge
Effluent
Sludge
Sludge Holding Josia
Supernatant
_^ (to Slot. TRTMT)
Digester
(May be feed
or floating
roof type!
Pressure HUitl a
Vacuum BrsolMr Valve
«ritn Flame Arrester
Sampling
Hatch from
Co mm trial
Supply
Plant UHHHee
Service Gas
Dial Cover
Indicator J
Sedimnta^
Drip Trap Meter ^s/
Assembly a,.,* volw
Drip Tropx
3 Unit Manometer
Pressure Relief a
Flame Trap Assembly
Explosion Relief Valve
(Install outside building)
Figure 65. Typical flow and Installation diagram: single dtgestor system.
166
-------
Sludge is pumped to the digester continuously or by time
clock on a 30 mm to 2 hr cycle from the equalization basin
The incoming sludge displaces digested sludge to a holding tank
Because there is no supernatant separation in the high-rate di-
gester, and because the total solids are reduced by 45 to 50
percent and given off as gas, the digested sludge is about half
as concentrated as the raw sludge feed (22 ).
Changes in Configuration with Scale
!*« 1 mm .. ___
Additional equalization and digestion tanks are provided as
necessary to provide the required retention time. The cost
equations in Appendix F shows how the digester capacity is
matched to the sludge loading rate.
Appltcations
Anaerobic digestion is applied to all biological sludges
from aerated lagoon systems, trickling filters, and activated
sludge treatment processes. It is used to reduce sludge de-
watering and land disposal requirements and is not a biological
treatment alternative for most raw aqueous waste streams.
Costs
Capital and first year operating costs are calculated for
anaerobic digestion (Tables 49and 501, The most costly unit
processes are the sludge equalization digester vessels and de-
watering facilities for the digested sludge. The total capital
costs for the Chicago-based example are $2,896,454. Major
operating costs include labor and energy for sludge circulation.
The total first year operating costs are $814,025.
Figure 66 shows the capital costs (excluding land costs) at
five scales of operation for the technology. The accompanying
graph shows the land area requirements at the same scales of
operation, The capital cost data indicates some economy of
scale throughout the range studied (costs decrease from $20.36/
1,000 gal at 1,000 gpm to $18,84/1,000 gal at 5,000 gpm}.
Figure 67 shows the fluctuation in O&M requirements with
scale for the model facility (operating 8 hr/day and 260 day/yr),
Labor and maintenance costs demonstrate economies of scale
(labor costs decrease from $0.70 to $0.28/1,000 gal over the
range studied). Power requirements (22,29 kwh/1 ,000 gal) and
chemical requirements ($0.02/1,000 gal)_ remain fairly constant
at the five scales of operation.
The average cost of the Chicago-based model facility, over
a life cycle of 10 years, is calculated in Table 51, The life
cycle average cost is $5,13/1,000 gal ($1.36/m3) for the 1,000
gpm facility. Figure 68 shows the variation in the average
167
-------
TABLE 49. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION*
Capital Cost
Category Module
Sludge equalization
Sludge dlgestor
Chemical feed
Oewaterlng
Chemical pump
Sludge pump
Sludge pump
Yard piping
en Total
CO
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDtf
Grand total of
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$ 144 $
139,757
390
107
225
140.623
---
...
Structures
11,650
1,335,640
2,130
25 ,600
1,375,020
...
---
.._
___
Costst
Mechanical
Equipment
$ 266,000 $
171,000
2,030
551,000
1,470
9,110
9,110
1,130
1,010,850
---
...
...
Quantities
Electrical
Equipment Land
$ 1,360
8,550 195,000
321
5,510 2,470
14,060 199,151
--- -
$
...
--*
Land
Total (ft2)
1,824
262,632
432
3,320
268,208
---
2,739,704
19,765
136,985
2,896,454
Other
No. of
Units
19
19
--
38
--
-.
* Scale » 1,000 gpm.
I Mid-1978 dollars.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
t Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 50. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION*
Costs!
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
Labor
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
Type 3 Energy Maintenance
Laborer Electrical Costs
($6.76/hr) ($0.035/KWH)
Chemical Other
Costs Total KWH
(yr)
Sludge
equalization $4,909
Sludge digester 3,742
Chemical feed
Sludge dewaterlng 1,963
Chemical pump
Sludge pump
5J Sludge pump
ua Yard piping
Total 10,614
Supplemental
O&M Cost
Subtotal of
. direct O&M cost
Administrative
overhead!?
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and Insurance f
Total first year
operating cost
$ 326 $
1,162
603
2,171
_._
---
30,861 $ 51,600 $ 27,416
23,061 17,916
300
20,509 42.300 5,540
17
1,730
1,730
103 6
74,534 97,377 51,178
...
_..
...
-
$ --- --- 1,473,700
175
1,210 1,208,571
486
49,429
49,429
1,385 2,781,615
...
$ 237,259
47,452
471,385
57,929
814,025
* Scale = 1,000 gpm.
i Mid-1978 dollars.
# At 20% of direct operating costs.
** At 10X interest over 10 years.
\ At 2% of total capital .
-------
O
X
il-
ia
9-
&
7-
&
S
4.
3.
2.
1-
TOTAL CAPITAL
1.000
2,000
gpm
3.000
4.000
5.000
13-
12-
11.
10-
9-
a.
7-
6-
5-
4-
3.
Z-
1-
LANO C
FT2)
.000
2'000 gpm 3'000
4,000
5,000
Figure 66. Anaerobic digestion: changes in total capital costs with
scale.
170
-------
14
13
12
11
10
9
3
7.
6
5
it,
3.
2
v
LABOR
LABORER.
MAINTENANCE
O
x
CPERATCR 2
i.ooo a,ooo 3.000 4.000 5,000
gpm
20-j
ia
16-
14.
12-
10-
2-
I.OOO 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
gpm
VO
0
X
-r
3
*
13
12
11-
1O
9-
a
?
6-
5
*
3-
2-
1-
ENERGY /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
CHEMICALS
o
X
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
3-
6-
1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 5.000
gpm
i i i i i
1.000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
gpm
Figure 67. Anaerobic digestion: changes in O&M requirements with scale,
171
-------
TABLE 51. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
(LIFETIME - 10 YEARS)
Item
YEAR rf
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
TOTALS
Direct Indirect
Operating Operating
Costs* Costst
$237,259 $576,766 $
260,985 581,511
287,083 586,731
315,792 592,473
347,370 598,788
382,108 605,736
420,319 613,378 1
462,351 621,785 1
508,586 631,032 1
559,444 641,203 1
9
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle
Life Cycle
Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Sum
Operating
Costs
814,025
842,496
873,814
908,265
946,158
987,844
,033,697
,084,136
,139,618
,200,647
,830,700 6
$7.88
$2.08
Present
Value
Annuali zed
Costs*
$814,025
765,913
722,120
682,379
646,226
613,352
583,522
556,379
513,632
509,194
,406,742
$5.13
$1.36
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
124,800
1,248,000
* Assumes
10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 1,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
T First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example
172
-------
a"
7
6
5
§ 4~
o
i
_
2~
m
*
*
111 It
GPM 1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 S.OOO
2.00
- 1.90
- 1.80
- 1.70
1.60
- 1.50
1.40
- 1.30
- 1.20
- i- 10
u
T 1.00
~ 0.90
O.SO
- 0.70
0.6O
- O.SO
0.40
0.30
0.20 "
0.10
1XS 63.1 126.2 204.2 252.3 34O.4
Figure 68. Anaerobic digestion: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation.
173
-------
cost with scale. The reduction in capital costs, labor and
maintenance requirements per unit of waste treated is reflected
in the life cycle calculations.
CARBON ADSORPTION
Descripti on
Aqueous waste streams are contacted with carbon by passing
it through a vessel filled with carbon granules or with a carbon
slurry (Figure 69 ). Impuities are removed from the water by
adsorption when sufficient contact time is provided for this
process. The carbon system usually consists of a number of
columns or basins used as contactors. These are connected to a
regeneration system.
After a period of use, the carbon adsorptive capacity is
exhausted. The carbon must then be taken out of service and re-
generated thermally by combustion of the organic adsorbate.
Fresh carbon is routinely added to the system to replace that
lost during hydraulic transport and regeneration. These losses
include both attrition due to physical deterioration and burning
during the actual regeneration process. A multiple hearth fur-
nace is included in the regeneration system.
Certain organic compounds in wastewaters are resistant to
biological degradation and many others are toxic or nuisances
(odor, taste, color forming) even at low concentrations. Low
concentrations are not readily removed by conventional treatment
methods. Activated carbon has an affinity for organics, and its
use for organic contaminant removal from wastewaters is wide-
spread (23).
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Depending on the hydraulic loading imposed on the contactor,
high flow rates may identify the need for multiple contactors.
Thus, a modest hydraulic loading, coupled with the need for long
detention time, may require two or more carbon contactors in a
series. A large plant throughout (i.e., 1 mgd or greater) will,
for the typical range of hydraulic loading (2 to 10 gpm/ft2) ,
require a system in which two or more modules are arrayed in
parallel,
Applications
Activated carbon presently has a wide range of applications
for treating aqueous and dilute industrial wastes. It is esti-
mated that there are 100 large-scale systems currently in use
for industrial/municipal wastewater treatment (24).
174
-------
SECONDARY
WASTE WATER
TREATMENT,
HATTIES8URG, MISS.
REACTIVATED CARBON SLURRY
TO RIVER
AFTER FURNACE
FEED SLURRY
TO
IMPOUNDING BASIN
OVERFLOWS
FURNACE
FEED
Figure 69. Schematic diagram of a carbon adsorption system incorporating
thermal regeneration of the carbon.
175
-------
A wide variety of organic and inorganic solutes may be
efficiently adsorbed on activated carbon. Applications involv-
ing organic solutes are more prevalent and will be most attrac-
tive when the solutes have a high molecular weight, low water
solubility, low polarity and low degree of ionization.
Highly soluble organics, which often contain two or more
hydrophilic groups, are difficult to remove. For example, the
adsorption of glycols from an industrial waste stream was found
to be unfeasible in one recent study because of the low capacity
of the carbon for the glycols. In another case, the treatment
of wastewaters from a polyvinyl chloride production plant was
found to be impractical. Poor adsorption characteristics were
attributed to the presence of long-chain organic soaps contained
in the wastes. For some examples of low adsorption efficiency
(e.g. acetic acid adsorption), the higher process costs may be
offset by solute recovery. Macro-molecules, including certain
dyes, may be too large to reach a significant fraction of the
carbon's internal pores and may therefore be difficult to remove.
Most industrial waste streams contain multiple impurities, some
of which are easily adsorbed on carbon, while others are not.
In considering the use of an activated carbon system, a series
of laboratory tests is mandatory. Such tests should include
both equilibrium adsorption isotherms and carbon column studies.
Carbon adsorption of inorganic compounds (e.g.,the removal
of cyanide and chromium from the electroplating wastes) has been
found to be practical. Other sources indicate that a wide
variety of other inorganics will adsorb on activated carbon.
However, adsorption may be quite variable from chemical to chem-
ical; furthermore, it is likely to be highly pH dependent, and
thermal or chemical regeneration may not be feasible. In
general, strong electrolytes will not be adsorbed on carbon.
Removal of inorganic solutes by carbon will generally involve
invluent concentration of less than 1,000 ppm (preferably less
than 500 ppm). Processes other than physical or chemical ad-
sorption may be involved. Plating may occur in some cases (e.g.,
with ferric salts), and chemical reactions may take place in
others (e.g., reduction of ammonia to chloramines followed by
adsorption of the chloramines).
Costs
Capital costs for carbon adsorption are itemized in
Table 52 . The most costly unit process is the carbon adsorp-
tion columns, together with the regeneration system (included
in the carbon adsorption costs). The total capital cost for a
5,000 gpm facility is $1,205,423 (mid-1978 dollars).
Table 53 summarizes the first year operating costs. Energy
and chemical requirements comprise over 90 percent of the direct
O&M costs. The total first year operating costs, including
176
-------
TABLE 52. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR CARBON ADSORPTION*
Capital Cost
Category Module
Carbon adsorption
Steam generator
Waste pump
Piping
Total
Supplemental
capital Costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFOC;|:
Grand total of
capital costs
Costs
Site Mechanical
Preparation Structures Equipment
$ 11,400 $ 52,900*0 $ 552,000
13 1.163 12,900
10,800
1.125 72,500
12,538 54,063 648,200
141,303
--..
Quantities
Electrical Land
Equipment Land Total (ft2)
$ 552 $ 3.430 4,620
124 167
552 3,554 4,787
-- --- --- *--
$ 860.210
302.202
43,0]]
1,205.423
Other
Steam
Ibs/hr
664
664
---
* Scale = 5,000 gpin.
I Mid-1978 dollars.
» Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
:|: Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
tt Includes initial carbon charge.
-------
TABLE 53. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR CARBON ADSORPTION*
00
Costst
Labor
0«M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
Carbon
adsorption 35,260
Steam
generator 590
Waste pump ---
Piping
Total 35,850
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead!
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and InsuranceJ
Total first year
operating costs
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
10,396
105
10,501
...
...
Type 3 Energy Maintenance Chemical Other
Laborer Electrical Costs Costs Total KWH
($6.76/hr) ($0.035/KWH) (yr)
40,857 2,100,000 119,000 1,290,000 3,744,000
7,793 5,280 6,170
8,630
204 --- 363
48,854 2,113,910 119,363 1,296,170 3,744,000
1,770
3,626,418
725,284
247,606
24,108
4,623,416
* Scale * 5,000 gpm.
i Mid-1978 dollars.
# At 20% of direct operating costs.
** At 10% Interest over 7 years.
± At 2% of total capital.
-------
administrative overhead ($725,284), debt service and amortization
($247,606) and real estate taxes and insurance ($24,108) is
$4,623,416.
Figure 70 shows the capital costs (excluding land costs)
for five scales of operation and the corresponding land require-
ments for carbon adsorption. The capital costs per 1,000 gallons
of waste treated decrease from $1.78 at 1,000 gpm to $1.28 at
3,000 gpm. The same costs then increase slightly to $1.37 at
5,000 gpm. The costs for carbon adsorption, as well as the
steam generation system, offset any economy of scale for capital
at larger capacity facilities.
The O&M requirements for carbon adsorption as a function of
scale are shown in Figure 71 . Total labor costs are $47,800
and $95,205 at 1,000 and 5,000 gpm, respectively. A significant
portion of these costs are attributable to the operation -1 and
laborer labor categories. Maintenance also demonstrates econom-
ies of scale ($0.72/1,000 gal decreasing to $0.19/1,000 gal from
1,000 to 5,000 gpm). Energy requirements (mainly for carbon
regeneration) and chemical requirements (make-up carbon) also
exhibit economies of scale:
Scale (gpm) 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Energy(kwh/l ,000 gal)14.94 8,05 5.75 4.60 6.00
Chemicals 10.38 5.19 3.46 2.60 2.08
($/l,000 gal)
The average cost of the example facility, over a life cycle
of 7 years, is calculated in Table 54 . The life cycle average
cost for the 5,000 gpm facility is $7.31/1,000 gal ($1.93/mJ).
Figure 72 shows the life cycle average cost at five scales of
operation. The analysis reflects the significant economies of
scale for all O&M categories.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Description
Activated sludge processes are used for both secondary
treatment and complete aerobic treatment without primary sedi-
mentation. Wastewater is fed continuously into an aerated tank
where the microorganisms metabolize and biologically flocculate
the organics. Microorganisms (activated sludge) are settled
from the aerated mixed liquor under quiescent conditions in the
final clarifier and returned to the aeration tank. Clear super-
natant from the final settling tank is the plant effluent
(Figure 73 ).
179
-------
9-
3-
7-
5-
4
3'
2
TOTAL CAPITAL
1.000 2,000 3.000
gpra
4.000
s.ooo
2-
LANO CFT1)
1.000 2,000 3,'OQO
gpm
4,000
s.ooo
Figure 7Q. Carbon adsorption: changes in total capital
costs with scale.
180
-------
6 '
5 -
4 -
o
X
2.
1-
LABOR
LABI
12
U .
10 .
9
8 .
7
6
5 .
4 .
3 .
2
1
MAINTENANCE
1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 1.00(3 2.000 3.000 4.000 S',000
9P1" gpm
39
36
33
30
27
24
- 18
X
= 1S
2 12
9
6
3
ENERGY
CHEMICALS
16
14
12
"o 10
X 8
*» 6
4
2
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
gpm
1,000 2.00O 3,000 4,000 5,000
gpm
Figure 71. Carbon adsorption: changes in O&M requirements with scale.
181
-------
TABLE 54. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
CARBON ADSORPTION
(LIFETIME - 7 YEARS)
Item
YEAR ll
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
Di rect
Operating
Costs*
3,626,418
3,989,060
4,387,966
4,826,762
5,309,439
5,840,382
6,424,421
Indirect
Operating
Costst
996,992
1,069,521
1,149,302
1,237,061
1,333,596
1,439,785
1,556,593
Sum
Operating
Costs
4,623,410
5,058,581
5,537,268
6,063,824
6,643,035
7,280,168
7,981,014
Present
Value
Annuali zed
Costs#
4,623,410
4,598,710
4,576,254
4,555,840
4,537,282
4,520,411
4,505,074
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
TOTALS
43,187,300 31,916,981 4,368,000
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
9.89
2;61
7.31
1.93
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 5,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
I First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
182
-------
o
o
o
IS"
16-
14
12-
10-
8-
6
4
2
w
*
*
I 1 1 I 1
GPM l.OOO 2,000 3,OOO 4.0OO 5,000
5.00
4.00
3.00
UI
- 2.00
- l-.OO
1/S 63.1 126.2 204.2 252.3 3S0.4
Figure 72, Carbon adsorption: life cycle costs
at five scales of operation.
183
-------
Nutrient Feed
Excess Sludge
Mechanical Aerators
Primary
Clarifiers
Equalization
Basins
Secondary
Clarifiers
Excess
Sludge
Dewaterino
Figure 73. Activated sludge process: flow diagram.
-------
Microbial growth in the mixed liquor is maintained in the
declining or endogenous growth phase to insure good settling
characteristics. Synthesis of the waste organics results in a
buildup of the microbial mass in the system. Excess activated
sludge is wasted from the system to maintain the proper food-to-
rn! croorgani sm ratio to insure optimum operation.
Activated sludge is truly an aerobic treatment process,
since the biological floe are suspended in a liquid medium con-
taining dissolved oxygen. Aerobic conditions must be maintained
in the aeration tank; however, in the final clarifier, the dis-
solved oxygen concentration can become extremely low. Dissolved
oxygen extracted from the mixed liquor is replenished by air
supplied to the aeration tank (25, 26).
Unit processes included in this technology are:
Sedimentation basin
Aeration basin
Clari fi er
Sludge dewatering
Chemical storage
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Additional, parallel equal-sized modules are included for
increased flow rates. The equations in Appendix F describe how
the unit processes are sized according to flow and waste loadings.
Applications
Biodegradable organic constituents in waste streams asso-
ciated with the organic chemicals industry (Appendix E).
Costs
The capital and O&M unit cost files (Appendices B and C)
are used together with the cost equations in Appendix F to de-
rive capital and first year operating costs for activated
sludge (Tables 55 and 56 ). All costs are adjusted for inflation
to mid-1978 values and are based on charges as they exist in the
City of Chicago, Illinois.
The breakdown of capital costs for activated sludge shows
that the sedimentation basin, sludge dewatering and chemical
storage/feed facilities are the most expensive unit processes.
The major O&M costs are for labor and chemicals. The total
capital and first year operating costs are $4,329,039 and
$2,188,214 for the 5,000 gpm example facility.
The change in total capital costs (excluding land costs)
according to the scale of operation is shown in Figure 74.
185
-------
TABLE 55. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE*
Capital Cost
Category Module
Sedimentation
Basin
Aerated basin
Clarlfler
Sludge dewaterlng
Chemical feed
Chemical feed
Chemical pump
Chemical pump
Waste pump
Haste pump
Sludge pump
Yard piping
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFOC I
Grand total of
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$ 29,700
10,500
995
178
14,710
8,330
900
65,313
---
...
...
...
Structures
$ 241 ,000 $
116,000
116,000
42,600
213,000
107,000
834,600
141,3031?
...
_
Costst
Mechanical
Equipment
766 ,000
171,000
22,300
919,000
935 ,000
29,500
1,530
1,470
10,800
10,800
4,490
55 ,200
2,927.090
---
---
.__
Electrical
Equipment Land
$ 2.020 $ 25.500
12.800
172 645
9.190 4,120
6,220
1.520
11.382 50.805
___
-__
---
Other
Land
Total (ftz)
34,300
17,200
867
5,530
8,362
2,039
.,. ...
68.298
--- .--
4,030,493 ---
97,021 ---
201 ,525 ---
4,329,039
* Scale » 5,000 gpm; total nitrogen = 2,0 ppin; total phosphorus = 1.0 ppm. BOD - 150.
I- Mid-1978 dollars-
# Building-
** At one month of direct operating costs.
( Allowance for funds during construction at 5X of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 56. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE*
Labor
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
'Sedimentation
basin $3,911 $
Aerated basin 3,521
Clarlfler 10,636
Sludge
dewaterlng 2,933
Chemical feed
Chemical feed
Chemical pump
*-* Chemical pump
53 Waste pump
Waste pump
Sludge pump
Yard piping
Total 21,001
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead*
Debt service and
amortization **
Real estate taxes
and insurance f
Total first year
operating costs --
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
276 $
831
755
900
-_
--
--
--
--
-_
--
--
2,762
--
--
--
--
--
--
Type 3
Laborer
($6.76/hr)
40,850
33,686
111,078
30,637
179
216,430
_
...
_._
_
Costs |-
Energy
Electrical
($0.035/KWH)
$ 102 $
3,790
102
70,500
35
17
8,630
8,630
4.490
96,296
...
_..
...
...
Maintenance
Costs
68,600
34,100
2,230
9,240
900
800
363
116,233
1,770
_..
.._
Chemical Other
Costs Total KWH
-------
42
39
16
33
30
2 24
18
IS
12
9
6
3
TOTAL CAPITAL
l.COO
2-do° gpm 3'obo
4,000
5,000
7.
6.
1-
LAND (FT2)
1.000
gpm
3'000
4,000 S.OOO
Figure 74. Activated sludge: changes in total capital costs with
scale.
188
-------
lhOOOaPimal This PSr 1'°°° gallons of waste treated is $7.50 at
creases to $6.38 at 5,000 gpm.
Activated sludge O&M requirements are shown in Figure 75
Labor and maintenance costs demonstrate significant economies of
scale, while power requirements are constant throughout the
range.
_The direct and indirect operating costs (including debt
service and amortization) are used to calculate the average cost
over the 10-year life cycle of the 5,000 gpm activated sludge
T?n «^y*x The I1fe Cyc1e average cost is $3.10/1,000 gal
(50.81/m-s). Figure 76 shows the life cycle average costs at
five different scales of operation.
EVAPORATION POND
Descripti on
In arid regions, where evaporation rates are much greater
than the amount of rainfall, evaporation ponds are used for
volume reduction and disposal of industrial effluents. As shown
in Figure 77 , the pond must have sufficient volume to retain
the waste volume plus additional rainfall.
Wastes are introduced into the pond and retained for an
indefinite period of time. Water and other volatile components
are allowed to evaporate off, and less volatile compounds and
salts remain behind. The pond is periodically cleaned out, and
resulting sludges are disposed. In many cases, the evaporation
pond is present at a larger land disposal facility. After
sufficient solids buildup, the pond is covered over with soil
and relocated.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
There is no significant design change with scale. The
limiting factor is land since evaporation efficiencies are
directlv related to the surface area,
Applications
The evaporation pond is useful in dewatering of aqueous
wastes containing metal or other inorganic salts. Increasing
regulation of air emisstons has limited its applicability to
disposal of less volatile organic compounds only.
Costs
Summaries of capital and first year operating costs for
189
-------
22.,
20
18
16
14
12
x
» 6-
4
2
LABOR
LABORER
OPERATOR
OPERATOR 2
1.000 "2.600 3JOOO 4,000 '5,
gpm
12 -]
11 -
10 -
9 -
3 -
7 -
6 -
* 5 -
o
"" 4 -
X
» 3 -
2 -
1 -
MAINTENANCE
000
1,000 z.odo sTdoo *7ooo s.ooo
gpm
2B-
26-
24-
22-
20-
U-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
SCRGY
8 _
7 -
"06-
x 5 -
*4-
3 -
2 -
1 -
1.000 2.000 3.0004;0003.000
gpm
O-EMCALS
1,000'2,0003,000*;ooo5,000
gpm
Figure 75. Activated sludge: changes in O&M requirements with scale.
190
-------
TABLE 57. COMPUTATION OFLIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
(LIFETIME - 10 YEARS)
Item
YEAR ll
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
Direct
Operati ng
Costs*
1,164,252
1,280,677
1,408,745
1,549,619
1,704,581
1,875,039
2,062,543
2,268,798
2,495,678
2,745,245
Indirect
Operating
Costst
1,023,962
1,047,247
1,072,861
1,101,036
1,132,028
1,166,120
1,203,621
1,244,871
1,290,247
1,340,161
Sum
Operating
Costs
2,188,214
2,327,925
2,481,606
2,650,655
2,836,610
3,041,159
3,266,164
3,513,669
3,785,925
4,085,406
Present
Value
Annual i zed
Costs*
2,188,214
2,116,295
2,050,914
1,991,476
1,937,442
1,888,321
1,843,664
1,803,068
1,766,162
1,732,611
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal . )**
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
TOTALS
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Simple Average (Per Cubic Meter)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Gal.)
Life Cycle Average (Per Cubic Meter)
30,177,333 19,318,167 6,240,000
4.84
1.28
3.10
0.8T
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 5,000 GPM x 60 tnin x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
191
-------
8~
7
6-
S
i
§ »"
o
i
3~
'
Z~
^
*
III II
GPM 1,000 2.000 3.000 4.000 S.OOO
-2.00
-1.90
-1.80
1.70
1.60
- 1.50
1.40
- 1.30
- 1.20
-1.10
r i.oo
- 0.90
-0.30
- 0.70
-0.60
- 0.50
- 0.40
!-0.30
0.20
0.10
1/S 63.1 126.2 204.2 2S2.3 340.4
Figure 76. Activated sludge: life cycle costs at five scales of
operatton.
192
-------
10
Co
25'
Freeboard
JAnnual rainfall
Wastewater
nnual evaporation
Figure 77. Evaporation pond: flow diagram and levee configuration.
-------
evaporation pond are shown in Tables 58 and 59. These esti-
mates are based on mid-1978 costs for components, unit processes,
labor, utilities, etc., as applicable in Chicago, Illinois. The
estimates are based on the cost files in Appendices B and C, and
the cost equations included in Appendix F.
As shown in Table 58 , the most costly elements of
evaporation pond acquisition and construction are site prepara-
tion (pond excavation and levee construction), land and the pond
liner. The construction of ponds where natural clay layers can
serve as liners would significantly reduce the capital expense.
The use of natural depressions or areas already excavated for
landfill cover can also reduce site preparation costs.
The O&M requirements for evaporation pond are small
compared to other treatment/disposal technologies. The largest
annual expenditure is $75,534 for the labor staff. Maintenance
costs are low due to the absence of complicated mechanical
equipment. The only energy costs are those for waste pumping.
Figure 78,shows the capital costs (exclusive of land costs)
for five scales of operation and the corresponding land area
requirements. The capital costs demonstrate only small econom-
ies of scale ($42.89 versus $41.35/1,000 gal at 1,000 and 5,000
gpm, respectively). This is due to the dominance of total
capital cost by the site preparation costs. Because pond depth
and retention time are held constant, pond area (and hence site
preparation cost) is directly related to the imput flow rate.
The O&M requirements for evaporation pond as a function of
scale are shown in Figure 79. Although labor, maintenance and
energy all demonstrate significant economies of scale, their
absolute values are small in comparison to the capital costs.
There are, therefore, no economies of scale evidenced in the
life cycle average cost analysis.
The average cost of the 5,000 gpm facility, over a 20-year
life cycle, is $3.52/1,900 gal ($0.94/m3) (Table 60). The life
cycle average cost at five scales of operation is shown in
Figure 80. The data reflect the dominance of site preparation
costs over the entire range studied.
INCINERATION
Description
The rotary kiln incineration process selected as the model
for incineration is a versatile unit that can be used to dispose
of solid, liquid, and gaseous combustible wastes. They have
been utilized both in industrial and municipal installations.
Applications of rotary kiln incineration to the disposal of
obsolete chemical warfare agents and munitions have been reported.
194
-------
TABLE 58. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR EVAPORATION POND*
Cost si-
Capital cost Site Mechanical Electrical
Category Module Preparation Structures Equipment Equipment Land
Quantities
Other
Total
Land
Other Other
U3
cn
Evaporation
pond $22,875,000 $ - $
Waste pump --- 10,800
Yard piping 675 --- 39,300
Tota1 22,875,675 50,100
Supplemental
capital costs 141,303 I
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDC.J;
Grand total of
capital costs
$ $ 4.620.000 $2,732,400 6.21xl06 9. 62xl06 7.2x10
--- 4,620,000 2,732,400 --- 6.21x106 9.62xl06 7.2x10
$ 30,419,478
10,684
1,520,974 ---
31,951,136
* Scale = 5,000 gpm; batch treatment (30-day retention); evaporation/rainfall ratio is 2:1.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
H Building-
** At one month of direct operating costs.
t Allowance for funds during construction at 52 of capital costs .
-------
TABLE 59. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR EVAPORATION POND*
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
Evaporation
pond )27,55l
Waste pump
Yard piping
Total 27,551
Supplemental
O&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead**
Debt service and
amortization
Real estate taxes
and Insurance ±
Total first year
operating costs
Costs!
trtj'or
Type 2 Type 3 Energy Maintenance
Operator 2 Laborer Electrical Costs Total
($9.19/hr) ($6.76/hr) ($0.035/KHH)
- --- 8,630 203
154 197
14,327 75.534 8.630 400
1,770
$ 128,212
25,642
3,752,968
639,023
4,545,845
* Scale = 5,000 gpm; batch treatment (30-day retention); rainfall ratio 2:1 .
t Mid-1978 dollars.
S At 20% of direct operating costs.
** At 10* Interest over 20 years.
I At 2% of total capital.
-------
23-
26'
24
22-
20
18'
o
O 16-
X 14-
12
10
3'
6'
4
5-
o
X
2-
TDTAL CAPITAL
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
gpm
LAND (FT)
1000 2000 3000
gpm
4000
5000
Figure 78. Evaporation pond: changes in total capital costs with
scale.
197
-------
o
X *
LABOR
2 3
X
Z"
1000 2000 3000 4000 SOOO
MAINTENANCE
100O 2000 3000 4000 SOOO
24.
22
20
18 '
* 16 '
o
"1*1
X
l2 '
8-
6-
4-
2-
ENERGY
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
gpra
Figure 79.. Evaporation pond: changes in O&M requirements
wttn scale.
198
-------
TABLE 60. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
EVAPORATION POND
(LIFETIME - 20 YEARS)
Item
YEAR rf
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
YEAR 11
YEAR 12
YEAR 13
YEAR 14
YEAR 15
YEAR 16
YEAR 17
YEAR 18
YEAR 19
YEAR 20
TOTALS
Di rect
Operating
Costs*
128,212
141,033
155,137
170,650
187,715
206,487
227,135
249,849
274,834
302,317
332,549
365,804
402,384
442,623
486,885
535,573
589,131
648,044
712,848
784,133
Simple Average (Per 1,000
Simple Average (Per Cubic
Life Cycle
Life Cycle
* Assumes
Average (Per 1,
Indirect
Operating
Costst
4,417,634
4,420,198
4,423,019
4,426,121
4,429,534
4,433,289
4,437,418
4,441,961
4,446,958
4,452,455
4,458,501
4,465,152
4,472,468
4,480,516
4,489,368
4,499,106
4,509,817
4,521,600
4,534,561
4,548,818
Gal.)
Meter)
000 Gal.)
Sum
Operating
Costs
4,545,846
4,561,231
4,578,155
4,596,771
4,617,249
4,639,775
4,664,554
4,691,810
4,721,792
4,754,772
4,791,050
4,830,956
4,874,852
4,923,138
4,976,253
5,034,679
5,098,948
5,169,644
5,247,409
5,332,951
96,651,835
7.75
2.05
Average (Per Cubic Meter)
10% annual infl
at ion.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead
Present
Value
Annual ized
Costs#
4,545,846
4,146,574
3,783,599
3,453,622
3,153,643
2,880,935
2,633,019
2,407,640
2,202,751
2,016,487
1,847,157
1,693,221
1,553,278
1,426,058
1,310,403
1,205,262
1,109,680
1,022,786
943,793
871,980
44,207,734
3.54
0.94-
only.
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Gal.)**
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
624,000
12,480,000
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 5,000 GPM x 60 min x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
{ First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
199
-------
in
3
§
o
N
<»
280~
260~
240-
220~
200~
ISO""
160~
140-
U0~
100"
80~
60~
40-
20"
L
1 1 1 1 1
.BS/W 1.000 2,000 3.000 4,000 5,000
KG/m 4S3.6 907.2 1360.8 1814.4 2268.0
600
SSO
500
4SO
400
350
300
250
200
ISO
100
50
Figure 80. Evaporation pond: life cycle costs at five scales of
operation (assuming waste specific gravity = 1).
200
-------
The rotary kiln incinerator is a cylindrical shell lined
with firebrick or other refractory and mounted with its axis at
a slight slope from the horizontal. It is a highly efficient
unit when applied to solids, liquids, sludges and tars because
of its ability to attain excellent mixing of unburned waste and
oxygen as it revolves. The incinerator costed here includes the
secondary burner and scrubber.
Rotary kiln incinerators, when applied to industrial
(includes military) applications, are generally designed to
accept both solid and liquid feed. A typical unit is shown in
Figures 81 and 82. Liquid waste transported to the incinerator
is transferred to receiving tanks and then strained as it is
pumped into a burning tank, where it is blended with auxiliary
fuel for optimum burning characteristics. All liquid residues
are burned in suspension by atomization with steam or air. All
refuse is removed for disposal In a secure landfill ( 27 ].
Changes in Configuration with Scale
A single rotary kiln incinerator such as that shown in
Figures 81 and 82 can accommodate a feed rate of up to 700 Ib/hr.
Scales of operation above this will require additional waste
storage and/or incineration capacity. Although waste storage
facilities are provided to equalize disruptions in input flow,
it is assumed that the average storage input rate equals the
incinerator charging rate. Appendix F includes the cost
equations for waste storage,
Applicati ons
See Appendix E for a list of chemicals and chemical wastes
that can be disposed of by incineration.
Costs
Capital costs for incineration are itemized in Table 61 for
an example 1,000 Ib/hr facility. The incinerator (including
mechanical and electrical equipment) costs $580,000 and the
waste storage facilities (including structures and mech-anical
equipment) cost $524,300. The total capital cost for the 1,000
Ib/hr facility is $1,345,144 (mid-1978 dollars).
Table 62 summarizes the firsts-year operating costs for the
example incineration facility. The major operating cost is for
labor (Operator-! level comprises almost 40 percent of the sub-
total direct O&M costs). The total first-year operating cost,
including administrative overhead ($34,877), debt service and
amortization ($354,847) and real estate taxes and insurance
($26,903), is $597,014.
Figure 83 shows the capital costs (excluding land costs)
201
-------
IM
O
ro
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
SECONDARY
BLOWER
ACCESS
DOOR
ASH
REMOVAL
DRIVE
ASH REMOVAL
CHAMBER
ROTARY
CHAMBER
PRIMARY
COMBUSTION CHAMBER
SLUDGE
INLET
HEAT.TRANSFER
MEDIA
PRIMARY
BURNER
ROTARY CHAMBER
DRIVE
ASH
DISCHARGE
Figure 81. React-0-Therm Rotary Kiln Sludge Incinerator (Cutaway View).
-------
SlUUlif flllUAllI
iNJCctiou rum mowm nit))
ro
o
co
HACK IECIIONI
iECONOAIII CDMBUillOH ClUMUiH
ucoiiuAiir iimuc n
l-J LI III
!- ,-,- " JJ
ASH COHKtVOn
noiAfli uuuum uiuvi AUXIUAIII run cumuciiim
Figure 82. React-0-Therm Rotary Kiln Sludge Incinerator (side and plan view).
-------
TABLE 61. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR INCINERATION*
Capital Cost
Category Module
Incineration
Waste pump
Waste storage
ro
g Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFDC J
Grand total of
capital costs
Costs 1
Site Mechanical Electrical
Preparation Structures Equipment Equipment
$ 310 $ 6,840 $ 435,000 $ 145,000
2,950
31,240 427,000 97,300
31,550 433,840 535,250 145,000
97,324*
...
---
...
Other
Land Total Land
(ft2)
$ 893 1,200
... ... ---
23,000 30,980
23,893 32,180
... ... ...
$ 1,266,857
14,949 ...
63,343
1,345,149
* Scale = 1,000 Ib/hr.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
if Building.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
I Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 62. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR INCINERATION*
O&M Cost Type 1
Category Operator 1
Module ($7.77/hr)
Incinerator $70,7T3
Waste pump
Waste storage
Total 70,713
Supplemental
O&M costs
ro
§ Subtotal of
direct O&M costs
Administrative
overhead*
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and insurance t
Total first year
operating costs
Costs
Labor
Type 2 Type 3 Energy Maintenance Total
Operator 2 Laborer Electrical Costs
($9.19/hr) ($6.76/hr) ($0.035/KWII)
T~31T347 $""10.279 $ 10,200 $ 52,770
1;730
1,000
31,347 10,279 11,930 53,770
1,348
$ 179,387
35,877
354,847
26,903
597,014
Other
KWH
(yr)
270,000
270,000
.._
---
...
_._
---
I Mid-1978 dollars.
» At 20% of direct operating costs .
** At 10% interest over 5 years.
:j: At 2% of total capital.
-------
7.
6 -
5 '
TOTAL CAPITAL
16
IS
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
5-
4
3-
2-
1-
1.000
LAND fFT2)
2.000 3,000
lbs/hr
4;000 5.JOO
1.000
2.
'OQlbs/hr
3,000
4,000 5.000
Figure 83, Incineration: changes in total capital costs with scale.
206
-------
for five scales of operation and the corresponding land re-
quirements for incineration. The capital cost per 1,000 Ibs
of waste incinerated is $597.60 at 1,000 Ibs/hr and then de-
creases to $586.80 at 2,000 Ibs/hr and maintains approximately
that cost throughout the range.
The O&M requirements for incineration as a function of
scale are shown in Figure 84. Total labor costs are $112,339
and $223,907 at 1,000 and 5,000 Ib/hr, respectively. A signi-
ficant portion of these costs are attributable to the Operator-!
labor category. Maintenance and energy requirements are
constant throughout the range. The maintenance costs are equal
to $25.20/1,000 Ibs and the energy requirements are equal to
129.60 kwh/1 ,000 Ibs at all scales of operation.
The average cost of the example facility, over a life
cycle of 5 years, is calculated in Table 63. The life cycle
average cost for the 1,000 Ibs/hr facility is $256.55/1,000 Ibs
($565.70/t). Figure 85 shows the life cycle average cost at
five scales of operation. The analysis reflects the small
economy of scale between 1,000 and 2,000 Ibs/hr and the constant
unit costs thereafter.
Equipment included in incineration is as follows:
Rotary kiln with ash removal and burner
Combustion air blower
Atomizing air compressor
Afterburner with burner and accessories
Scrubbing system with pumps, fan , and all accessories
Stack
Instrumentation and controls.
207
-------
13
12
11-
10-
9.
8.
ro I-
X ^
" 5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
LABOR
28"
26"
24'
2?
20-
13'
16-
'OJ4-
LABORER
10'
a'
6"
4'
z
MAINTENANCE
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
lbs/hr
14 T
12
10
6-
2-
ENERGY
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
lbs/hr
1000 2000 3000 40005000
Ibs/hp
Figure 84. Incineration: changes in O&M requirements with scale.
208
-------
TABLE 63. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
INCINERATION
(LIFETIME - 5 YEARS)
Di rect
Operating
Costs*
Item
YEAR ij 179,387
YEAR 2 197,326
YEAR 3 217,058
YEAR 4 238,764
YEAR 5 262,641
TOTALS
Simple Average (Per 1,000
Simple Average (t)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1
Life Cycle Average (t)
Indirect
Operating
Costst
417,627
421,215
425,161
429,502
434,278
Ibs)
,000 Ibs)
Sum
Operating
Costs
597,014
618,541
642,219
668,266
696,919
3,222,959
309.94
683.33
Present
Value
Annuali zed
Costs*
597,014
562,310
530,760
502,078
476,005
2,668,167
256.55
565.70
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Ibs)**
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
10,400
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the
admini strati
ve overhead
only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 1,000 Ibs/hr x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
209
-------
3
280
260~
240
220~
200~
180~
160"
140-
120~
100~
80~
60"
40-
20~
I
1
*
1 1 1 1 I
JBSSH* 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000
""600
~~550
~500
~450
~400
~350
~*300
~2SO
~200
"~1SO
100
"so
KG/K* 453.6 907.2 1360.8 1814.4 2268.0
a
Figure 85. Incineration: life cycle costs at five scales of operation.
210
-------
LAND DISPOSAL
Description
The conceptual design as shown in Figure 86 provides a basis
for estimating capital and operating costs for implementing a
new hazardous waste landfill. Elements for the example site are
listed as follows:
Land procurement
Planning and design
Clearing and grubbing
Access roads
Permanent
Temporary
Drainage structures
30-in % round CMP
Earth walls
Debris basin/ea
0 Fencing
Buildings
Office
Mai ntenance/storage
Utilities
Electric generator
Communications equipment
Water tank (10,000 gal)
Equipment
Forklift
Front end loader
Track dozer
Pickup truck
Water truck
Initial cell examination
Hypalon liner with clay layer
Leachate collection system
t Groundwater monitoring.
Site preparation and construction cost estimates include
profit and contingencies for the contractor. The disposal cells
are lined with a 30 mil synthetic liner (hypalon) having a
guaranteed lifespan of 20 yrs (Figure 87 ). However, it is
assumed that the liner may have a longer useful life, because it
will not be exposed to the elements and because it will be
covered with a 0.6 m (2 ft) clay layer. The estimated installed
liner cost (membrane and clayey layer) is $0.44/ft^. Three 18 m
(60 ft) deep groundwater monitoring wells are specified.
Operation and maintenance costs include those costs
associated with daily disposal of incoming waste and other
actions required in maintaining a clean, environmentally safe,
211
-------
,: i-xWKWxv: ::: x ^ OFF J CE AND SAN 1 i ARY FAC I L I TY :
ro
!-
INi
CITY ROAD
'±m OUILDING^MAINTENAMCE SHOP
LIQUID PCD SluHAGE
FRONT-END;. : v.:;:
LOADER i?::i;:'.i:rl::.>;::
CONTAINERS
Figure 86. Hazardous waste landfill
-------
STANDPIPE
CO
RAMP
PERFORATED PIPE
SOIL BARRIER
Z^amUlKJiy/t&fsxsslK&ztialault
Figure 87. Disposal cell construction.
-------
aesthetically pleasing and efficient operation. The principal
operating cost elements are personnel, equipment operating
expenses (e.g., gas and oil repair), cover soil excavation and
haul costs, general site maintenance (e.g., repair of drainage
facilities) and administration and overhead. Costs to monitor
groundwater wells are also included ( 27 ).
Note that costs to transport wastes from points of genera-
tion to the disposal site are not included here.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
Figure 88 depicts the volume requirements for other scales
of operation.
Applications
The hazardous waste landfill, as described herein, may be
used for ultimate disposal of any hazardous solids or residual
sludges eminating from treatment facilities. Care must be taken,
however, not to mix reactive wastes or create subsurface environ-
ments which may destroy the burial cell integrity. Land dispo-
sal must be used as a last resort for approved wastes which
cannot be reprocessed or disposed of by other means (e.g.,
incinerated).
Costs
Summaries of capital and first year operating costs for
land disposal are shown in Tables 64 and 65 . These estimates
are based on mid-1978 costs for site preparation, structures,
equipment, land, labor, utilities, etc., as applicable in
Chicago, Illinois. The estimates are based on the cost files in
Appendices B and C and the cost equations included in Appendix F.
As shown in Table 64 , the land disposal site, including
service equipment and trucks, dozers, etc., (mechanical equipment),
are costed together. The most expensive elements are the
structures. These include access roads, drainage control, fenc-
ing, buildings, and the leachate collection and groundwater
monitoring system. The total capital cost for the example
1,000 Ib/hr facility is $2,311,135. O&M costs care minimal, the
highest being for labor. The total first year operating cost
for the example facility is $489,973.
Figure 89 shows the capital costs (excluding land costs)
for five scales of operation and the corresponding land area
requirements. The unit costs for operating a relatively small
site are significantly greater than for larger sites. Such
economies of scale are common for land disposal facilities.
214
-------
CCNTAM:NATSB WASTE ACCEPTED, :o x w
Figure 88. Volume requirements for a landfill
215
-------
TABLE 64. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL*
Capital Cost
Category Module
Land disposal
site
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Subtotal of
capital costs
Working capital**
AFOC |
Grand total of
capital costs
Costst
Site Mechanical Electrical
Preparation Structures Equipment Equipment Land Other Total Lan
«>
$121,000 $ 1,680,000 $ 230,000 $4,000 $ 31 ,100 $ 122,000 418,000
121,000 1,680,000 230,000 4,000 31,100 122,000 418
--- --- «.» _*« «_. ... . %.
--- $ 2,188,100
13,630
109,405
2,311,135
,000
._
--.
__-
.
* Scale = 1,000 lb/hr.
1 Mid-1978 dollars.
** At one month of direct operating costss
:); Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs <
-------
O&M Cost
Category
Module
TABLE 65. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL*
Type 1
Operator 1
($7.77/hr)
Costs I
Labor
Type 2
Operator 2
($9.19/hr)
Type 3
Laborer
($6.76/hr)
Energy
Electrical
(S0.035/KWII)
Maintenance
Costs
Total
ro
Land disposal
site $11,790
Total 11,790
Supplemental
p&M costs
Subtotal of
direct O&M costs ---
Administrative
overhead*
Debt service and
amortization**
Real estate taxes
and Insurance!-
Total flrst year
operating costs
$ 69,715
69,715
$ 51,165
51,465
$ 8,300
8,300
$ 2,300
2,300
$ 143,570
28,714
271,714
46,223
489,973
*Scale 1,000 Ib/hr.
I Mid-1978 dollars
t At 20% of direct operating costs.
** At 10% interest over 20 years
| At 2% of total capital
-------
26-
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
.
2 12-
TOTAL CAPITAL
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Ibs/hr
48'
44'
40'
36'
32
24
20
16
12
8
4
LAND (FT")
1000 2000 3000
Ibs/hr
4000
5000
Figure 89. Land disposal: changes in total capital costs
with scale.
218
-------
Basic equipment items and personnel must be assigned to the site,
and unused, excess capacity is available at the smaller sites.
Figure 90 confirms significant economies of scale for the O&M
requirements, particularly for labor and maintenance costs.
The average cost of the example 1,000 Ib/hr facility, over
a 20 yr life cycle, is calculated in Table 66. The life cycle
average cost is $154.34/1,000 Ib (340.27/t). The life cycle
average cost at five scales of operation is shown in Figure 91.
The significant economies of scale for both capital and annual
expenditures are reflected in the average costs.
CHEMICAL FIXATION
Description
The chemical fixation process assessed herein is modeled
after the portable silicate-based service offered by Chemfix,
Inc. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The proprietary process
(Patent No. 3,837,872) uses an inorganic chemical system which
reacts with polyvalent metal ions and certain other waste
components and with itself to form a chemically and mechanically
stable solid. Raw waste is withdrawn from a holding lagoon into
a reaction zone of a portable trailer. Once the waste is bound
in the silicate matrix, it is discharged for land disposal.
Leachate testing has confirmed that, after initial leaching from
the freshly processed waste, the matrix resists further decom-
position. Even under severe acid conditions, no metals were
solubili zed.
Changes in Configuration with Scale
There are no changes in configuration. The mobile units
are capable of handling flow rates of 1,100 to 1,900 liters/min.
If the waste has a solids content of approximately 7.5 parts per
thousand, then the operational range interms is solids processed
and between 489 and 783 kg/hr. However, sludges and slurries
up to 50 percent solids can be handled at little extra costs. At
the above flow rate, this would mean a solids handling capabi-
lity of up to 57,000 kg/hr.
Applications
Chemical fixation is particularly applicable to metal
wastes, such as those generated by the electroplating and metal
finishing industries. The process can also be used to immobi-
lize oily wastes and other dilute organic materials from chemi-
cal and petrochemical production. Organic compounds which
cannot be handled are toxic water-soluble organics, such as
pesticides, and non-water-based wastes such as solvents.
219
-------
15-
14-
13-
12-
11-
10-
9-
a- 8'
o
x
5'
4
3
2
1
LABOR
OPERATOR
LABORER
OPERATOR 1
30-
3-
6-
4-
2-
20-
3'
6'
4
2
10
3
6
4
2
MAINTENANCE
1000 2000 3000 4000 SOOO
lbs/hr
1000 2000 3000 4000 SOOO
lbs/hr
Figure 90. Land disposal: changes in O&M requirements with
scale.
220
-------
TABLE 66. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR'IMPLEMENTING
LAND DISPOSAL
(LIFETIME - 20 YEARS)
Direct
Operating
Costs*
Item
YEAR 1$ 143,570
YEAR 2 157,927
YEAR 3 173,720
YEAR 4 191,092
YEAR 5 210,201
YEAR 6 231,221
YEAR 7 254,343
YEAR 8 279,777
YEAR 9 307,755
YEAR 10 338,531
YEAR 11 372,384
YEAR 12 409,622
YEAR 13 450,584
YEAR 14 495,643
YEAR 15 545,207
YEAR 16 599,728
YEAR 17 659,700
YEAR 18 725,670
YEAR 19 798,237
YEAR 20 878,061
TOTALS
Simple Average (Per 1,000
Simple Average (t)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1
Life Cycle Average (t)
Indirect
Operating
Costst
346,403
349,274
352,433
355,907
359,729
363,933
368,558
373,644
379,240
385,395
392,166
399,613
407,806
416,818
426,730
437,634
449,629
462,823
477,336
493,301
Lbs.)
,000 Lbs.)
Sum
Operating
Costs
489,973
507,201
526,153
546,999
569,930
595,154
622,901
653,421
686,995
723,926
764,550
809,235
858,390
912,461
971,937
1,037,362
1,109,329
1,188,493
1,275,573
1,371,362
16,221,345
389.94
859.66
Present
Value
Annual ized
Costs#
489,973
461,096
434,813
410,960
389,262
369,531
351,628
335,336
320,483
307,017
294,734
283,637
273,483
264,340
255,911
248,344
241,390
235,084
229,476
224,218
6,420,716
154.34
340,27
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Lbs.)**
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
41,600
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 1,000 Ibs/hr x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
T First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
221
-------
o
§
w
2BO~
260~
24CT
220~
200"
180~
160"
140-
120~
100~
80~
60-
40-
20~
L
.
9
1 1 1 1 [
BS/l-R 1,000 2.000 3.000 4,000 5,000
~60O
"sso
-
~soo
~450
-400
~3SO
"*300
~250
~200
~150
"100
"so
KG^-R 4S3.6 907.2 1360.8 1814.4 2268.0
*/KKG
Figure 91. Land disposal: life, cycle costs at five
scales of operation.
222
-------
Costs
Since chemical fixation is a proprietary process and only
available as a service, the only cost associated with its use is
that of a service charge. As listed in Appendix C, that charge
is equal to $0.75/gal where solids removal is required. For
wastes containing no appreciable solids, the cost is approximate-
ly $0.20/gal. Assuming a waste specific gravity of 1.0, these
two operating costs at different scales of operation can be
calculated. The results are shown in Figure 92. The equivalent
life cycle average costs are shown in Figure 93. The life cycle
average costs are calculated over a 20-year life cycle and use
direct operating costs as the only input (e.g., indirect operat-
ing costs are equal to zero). The life cycle average cost at
all scales of operation is equal to $546.85/1,000 Ibs.
ENCAPSULATION
Descri pti on
Hazardous waste encapsulates are characterized by two
elements: A stiff, weight-supporting moiety and a tough,
flexible, encompassing, seam-free plastic jacket. The TRW pro-
cess as developed under EPA Contract Nos. 68-03-0089 and
68-03-2037 (28) were selected as models for the cost evaluation
contained here. The stiff element is geared to provide dimen-
sional stability under mechanical stresses and compaction in the
landfill. The flexible element ensures a seal, even if the
stiff element is distorted and it isolates the wastes from
developing leachates.
The encapsulation process, includes the following
steps:
Dewatering of wastes
Coating the waste particulates with the resin
Evaporating the solvent carrier
Compacting the resin-coated particulates
Consolidating by theremosetting to form a waste-binder
block
t Encapsulating the waste-binder block (jacketing)
Resins selected for forming the waste agglomerate and the
jacket are typically polybutadiene and polyethylene, respectively.
The costs for encapsulation processes are based on costs
for the entire process, (e.g., single modules were not costed
separately). This is due to 1) the complexity and unique
nature of the unit processes, and 2) the lack of detailed cost
information for certain unit processes.
223
-------
$X1Q
NO SOLIDS
I I I I I
1.000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
LBS/HR
Figure 92. Chemical fixation: two hourly operating costs at
different scales of operation.
224
-------
(ft
CD
_J
0
o
o
x
W
540~]
520-
5OO
4*0~
4fi£
120~
100
_
ao
60~
4O~
26"
.
WITH SOLIDS
WITHOUT SOLIDS
1 1 1 1 1
LBSXHR 1,000 2.000 3.000 4'jOOO S'.OOO
1.200
1.150
-1.100
-1.050
r i.ooo
^
"250
~200
"iso
~100
~50
KG/TO 453.6 907.2 1360.3 1814.4 2268.0
Figure 93. Chemical ftxattoti: Ttfe cycle costs at ftve
scales of operatfon. ~
225
-------
Changes in Configuration with Scale
No large-scale encapsulation plant has been constructed yet,
but it is estimated that a plant with a processing capacity of
20,000 tons/yr could be constructed utilizing the processing
steps shown in Figure 94 . Larger plants would be configured
with larger capacity equipment or parallel processes.
Applications
Encapsulation can be applied to any waste that has been
sufficiently dewatered to make the approach cost-effective.
Typical wastes include dewatered sludges from physical-chemical
treatment processes. Pilot tests of encapsulation have been
successfully applied to electroplating sludge (containing copper,
chromium and zinc), nickel-cadmium battery production sludge
(nickel and cadmium), chlorine production brine sludge, and
calcium fluoride sludge (28). -
Costs
Capital and first year operating costs are calculated for
a phypthetical encapsulation facility (Tables 67 and 68 ). The
main expenses are for structures and mechanical equipment. The
total capital costs for the 1,000 Ibs/hr facility is $300,444.
The operating costs are primarily for labor (no distinction is
given in the TRW estimate for different labor categories).
Energy, maintenance and chemical costs are all relatively low.
The total first year operating cost is $112,885.
Figure 95 shows the capital costs (excluding land costs) at
two scales of operation for the technology. Cost estimates for
larger scale operations were not available. The slope of the
capital cost curve indicates that there is no economy of scale
within the range analyzed. The capital cost is equivalent to
$126.85/1,000 Ibs.
Figure 96 shows the O&M requirements for the two scales of
operation. Labor demonstrates economy of scale (a decrease from
$16.83 to $9.62/1,000 Ibs). Maintenance, energy, and chemical
unit costs are consistent at both scales of operation.
The average cost of the TRW model facility over a life
cycle of 7 years is calculated in Table 69 , The life cycle
average cost is $46.62/1,000 Ib ($102.78/t) for the 1,000 Ib/hr
facility. Figure 97 shows the variation in the average cost at
the two scales of operation, the slight reduction in the
average cost from 1,000 to 2,000 Ibs/hr reflects the scale of
economy noted for labor costs.
226
-------
Resin
Waste
Dewater
Particulate
Evap.
Sol.
Waste-Binder
Block
T
Jacket
Resin
Compact
Thermo-Set
Encapsulated
Waste
Figure 94. Encapsulation: process flow diagram.
227
-------
TABLE 67. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR ENCAPSULATION*
Capital Cost
Category Module
Encapsulation
Total
Supplemental
capital costs
Site
Preparation
$ 1 .950
1,950
_MV
Costiit
Mechanical
Structures Equipment
$ 180,000 $ 78,000
180,000 78,000
.... ----
Electrical
Equipment Land Total
$ 3,900 $ 19,300
3,900 19,300
__- ._._ ...
Other
Land
(ft2)
26 ,000
26 ,000
_-_-
PS Subtotal of
oo capital costs
Working capital**
AFDC :f
Grand total of
capital costs
$ 283,150
3,136
14,158
300.444
* Scale = 1,000 1u/hr.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
** At one month of direct operating costs.
Allowance for funds during construction at 5% of capital costs.
-------
TABLE 68. SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS FOR ENCAPSULATION*
Costsl-
Labor
O&M Cost Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Energy Maintenance Chemical
Category Operator 1 Operator 2 Laborer Electrical Costs Costs Total
Module ($7.77/hr) ($9.19/hr) ($6.?6/hr) ($0.035/KWH)
Encapsulation $ 35.000 $ 1,560 $ 780 $ 296
Total - 35,000 1,560 780 296
Supplemental
^ O&M costs
10 Subtotal of
direct O&M costs -- -- * 37,637
Administrative
overhead* - -- -- 7,527
Debt service and
amortization** --- --- -- -- 61.713
Real estate taxes
and Insurance -\. -- -- 6,009
Total first year
operating costs --- --- -- -- 112,885
Other
Chemical
(ton/yr)
672.88
672.88
---
---
---
...
*~3cale^T^"SO Ib/hr.
t Mid-1978 dollars.
H At 20% of direct operating costs
**At ]Q% interest over 7 years,
:t At 2% of total capital.
-------
TOTAL CAPITAL
o
X
1-
500
1000
1500
LAND trr')
*-
Ibs/hr
2000
t-
u.
2-
1 .
500
1000
1500
Ibs/hr
2000
Figure 95. Encapsulation: changes in total capital costs
with scale. _._
230
-------
60 -
56 -
52
48
44 -
40 -
36 -
32 -
28 -
24 -
20 -
16-
12-
8 -
LABOR (TOTAL)
1.000 2.000
1bs/hr
15
14
13
12
11
10.
9
8
7
6
5-
4
3
Z
1
MAINTENANCE
bs/hr
2, boo
11 -
10 -
9 -
a -
7 -
6 -
s -
4
3 -
Z -
1
ENERGY
i.doo ' ' 2,boo
lbs/hr
3 -
2 -
1 -
CHEMICALS
'l.boo' '2/300
lbs/hr
Figure 96. Encapsulate on r" changes in O&M requirements with scale.
231
-------
TABLE 69. COMPUTATION OF LIFE CYCLE AVERAGE
COST FOR IMPLEMENTING
ENCAPSULATION
(LIFETIME - 7 YEARS)
Item
YEAR 1?
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
Direct
Operating
Costs*
37,636
41,400
45,540
50,094
55,103
60,613
66,674
Indirect
Operating
Costst
75,249
76,002
76,830
77,740
78,742
79,844
81,057
Sum
Operating
Costs
112,885
117,401
122,369
127,834
133,845
140,457
147,731
Present
Value
Annualized
Costs#
112,885
106,728
101,132
96,044
91,418
87,213
83,390
Annual
Quantity of
Throughput
(x 1,000
Lbs.)**
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
TOTALS
902,522
678,810
14,560
Simple Average (Per 1,000 Lbs.)
Simple Average (t)
Life Cycle Average (Per 1,000 Lbs.)
Life Cycle Average (t)
61.91
136.66
46.62
* Assumes 10% annual inflation.
t Inflation increases the administrative overhead only.
# Assumes a 10% interest/discount rate to the beginning of the first
year of operation.
** 1,000 Ibs/hr x 8 hrs/day x 260 days/yr.
I First year costs in mid-1978 dollars - for Chicago example.
232
-------
3
o
0
o
N
tfft
540~[
520-
500
480
460-}
120~
100
30
*'
60~
40~
20~
*
1 1 1 1 1
1,200
1,150
-1,100
1,050
ri.ooo
5
~250
~200
~150
~100
50
L^SXHR 1,000 2,000 3,000 4^000 5-,000
K(^HR 453.6 907.2 1360.3 1814.4 2263.0
Figure 97, Encapsulation: life cycle costs at two scales of
operation.
233
-------
SECTION 7
ASSESSMENT OF RISKS
The objective of this section is to assist the user in identifying
potential risks associated with the existence and operation of each treat-
ment and disposal technology. To this purpose, the following risk categories
have been defined and assessed in a qualitative manner:
Catastrophic events
Unexpected downtime
Unexpected equipment damage
t Adverse environmental impacts.
The discussions and comparisons included in this section are designed
to help the user further assess the desirability of a particular treat-
ment/disposal scheme. The risk assessment is typically secondary to the
cost-effectiveness analyses presented earlier.
Risk analysis is at best a semi-quantitative process. The approach
taken here is similar to that presented by EPA for resource recovery pro-
jects ( 29 ). Resource recovery risks are similar to those in hazardous
waste management in the following respects:
t The technologies represent different levels of
development (e.g., pilot versus full-scale)
t The technologies process varying wastestreams
and produce varying byproducts for further
processing
Equipment and operations must be carefully
controlled to avoid breakdown, inefficient
operation, or undesirable environmental
conditions
t The technologies are, to varying degrees,
susceptible to catastrophic events.
Primary differences between the two types of technologies include the
design of unit processes, and the emphasis on production and marketing
of certain recovered products.
In the following discussions and comparisons, the risks associated
with capital equipment and operations are emphasized and issues of financial
23.4
-------
risk, risk management, input withdrawals, competition and construction risks
are minimized. The intent is to characterize only those risks that are
directly related to the level of complexity of typical installations, or
that stem from or have direct impacts on typical equipment and plant opera-
tion.
CATASTROPHIC EVENTS
Major catastrophies are unforeseeable occurrences that can destroy
structures and equipment installations. As a category of risk considered
here, they include earthquakes, floods, tornados, and fires. Such events
involve the risk of losing part or all of the capital investment. The
probability of such loss can differ appreciably among technologies. Lagoon
systems, for example, have few associated structures or equipment that can
be destroyed by such disasters. A complex distillation or carbon adsorption
system, on the other hand, would probably be severly damaged by an earth-
quake or tornado.
Certain areas of the United States may be prone to certain types of
catastrophies. The Gulf Coast, for example, experiences tornados and hurri-
canes. Heavily forested areas may become involved in fire and destroy
adjacent structures. Earthquakes are also specific to certain geographical
areas.
The probability of the occurrence of a catastrophy is entirely indepen-
dent of the presence and type of technology. But the impact of a catastro-
phic event depends on the technology type and is roughly equal to the total
value less site preparation and land. Loss of service also represents real
costs to waste generators, who must seek alternative treatment/disposal
arrangements. However, since the costs for this are difficult to quantify
and vary greatly, they will not be estimated here. Catastrophic_events.that
destroy onsite treatment/disposal facilities may also destroy or interrupt
the source of wastes.
Table 70 includes qualitative ratings of the probability of severe
damage (at least 50% loss of capital) resulting from each type of catastro-
phy. It is important to distinguish between the probabilities presented in
Table 71 and the probability of catastrophic occurrences which are indepen-
dent of the type of technology.
Earthquakes
Typically, seismic loadings on structures or vessels are caused by
horizontal ground motions that transmit forces into structures and equip-
ment. Towers or scaffolding with high centers of gravity and rigid
connections to the ground can be severly damaged or completely toppled by
failure of near-ground supports. The hydrodynamic masses for liquid-filled
rigid tanks excited by horizontal translational impulses may also result in
structural damage and possible release of contents to the environment ( 30,
31 ). The impact on low lying concrete or metallic structures may be less
severe, but there is still potential for slab and wall fractures or equipment
235
-------
TABLE 70. RISK OF DAMAGE FROM CATASTROPHIC EVENTS FOR
HAZARDOUS: WASTE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES*
Technology
Precipitation/
Iflocculation/
sedimentation
Filtration
Evaporation
Distillation
Flotation
R.O./ultrafiltration
Oxidation/reduction
Hydrolysis
Aerated lagoon
Trickling filter
Waste stabilization
pond
Anaerobic digestion
Carbon adsorption
Activated sludge
Incineration
Land disposal
Chemical fixation
Encapsulation
Evaporation pond
Earthquake Floods Tornados Fire
c *> c
so c o c
_ U O * (J U 7 *r» O
Top- o +> c o e w +* o> T-
, j f <* *- O ^- X O> 4> 4J u» C ut
D I eo at tm at t- v» & c 01 o 3 * o
£ _ COOWI C4^-r* U(9 0) .£1 -4^ V
Struc- Frac- pi§.o | ^ a- SlSg "S.
. »ew» » O s ^ ture v a uj t »« UJTJ QCJ s: LU
.
4> -((+ ... - ...
+ 4- + * - + 4-4-4- - 4--4-
4- 4---+ 4--- - 4---
4- 4-4--- 4--- 4- 4-4--
4- 4-4>-- 4--. - 4--4-
4- 4-4--- 4--- - 4--4-
__4-4- .-. - ...
4. __.+ ... . ...
- - - + +
4- 4---4- ... -' -_4-
4- 4- 4-4>-- 4-4-4- 4- 4-4--
4- +_4-+--++ ._.
4- 4- 4-4--- 4-4-4- 4- 4-4-.
- - * +
4- 4- 4-4-.. 4- - 4- 4- 4-4--
4- 4- + + ..+..+ + + + .
- - * + ' '
* 4- » impact.
- * no or minimal impact.
Z36
-------
TABLE 71. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Type of Environmental Impact
Technology
Precipitation/
flocculation/
sedimentation
Filtration
Evaporation
Distillation
Flotation
Reverse osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Potential
for Health
Impacts-
0
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
Potential
for .Surf ace
-later
Pollution
+
+
0
0
+
-
-
potenti al
for Sub- Potential
surface forr A-i-r
Pollution Emissions
-
-
+
0
-
-
Chemical oxidation/
reduction 0 + -
Hvdrolvsis
0
0
_
Ash/Sludge/
Concentrate
Production
+
+
+
' +
+
+
*
0
0
Aerated lagoon +
Trickling filter +
Waste stabilization
pond +
Anaerobic digestion 0
Activated sludge 0
Carbon adsorption 0
Incineration +
Land disposal *
Chemical fixation
Encapsulation
Evaporation pond +
f- 3 possible impact.
0 * variable.
- = no possible impact.
0
0
237
-------
misalignment, even under moderate seismic occurrences. Like other types of
catastrophies, the probability of severe earthquake is related to geograph-
ical location (Figure 98 ).
Floods
Floods can damage treatment and disposal installations by one or several
means:
Translocation (sweeping away by flowing water)
i Immersion (water damage to equipment and electrical
service)
t Deposition (substantial deposits of sand or silt
by flood waters)
Erosion (soil erosion and undermining of footings,
foundations, or dikes).
Each of these processes is analyzed individually in Table 70 . The
flood potential for the mean annual and 10-year flood locations in the
United States is shown in Figure 99 .
Tornados/High Winds
The direct impact of tornados is to uproot structures and equipment.
The probability of damage is therefore related to the number of free-standing,
tall structures included in the technology equipment. Under high wind con-
ditions, strong vortexes can form around objects placed in the wind (32 ).
Such vortexes create momentary areas of low pressure, which in the case of
tall, free standing towers, can enhance vibrational frequencies and result
in structural damage. High winds impinging on fixed structures (e.g. build-
ings) can also have damaging impacts through direct contact or generation of
negative pressures on the leeward side of the structures. Each technology
is therefore assessed (Table 70) for its likelihood of sustaining damage to
tall, free-standing towers or stacks (vortex), moderately sized fixed struc-
tures (impingement), and low-profiled structures and equipment (translocation).
States having the highest threat of tornados are Illinois and Florida
(Figures 100, 101 and 102). Figures 103 and 104 show geographical distribu-
tion of thunderstorms and high winds.
Fires
The susceptibility of a plant to damage by external fire (e.g., not
originating in or caused by plant operation) is a function of the flammable
or heat-sensitive equipment and structures included therein. Concrete
basins, for example, would not be as susceptible as an ultrafiltration unit
or a tank containing chlorine gas under pressure. The types of heat/fire
damage assessed (Table 70) include:
238
-------
I-NO DAMAGE"
2- MINOR DAMAGE
3-MODERATE DAMAGE
4-MAJOR DAMAGE
Figure 98. Potential earthquake damage levels for various areas
of the United States, 1979.
239
-------
Mean annual flood, 1965
(Thousands of cubic feet per second.)
Figure 99. Flood potential for the mean annual and ten year
floods in various United States locations.
240
-------
Figure 100. Deaths from tornados, 1953.
(Upper figure is number of deaths,
lower figure is number of deaths
per 10,000 square miles.)
Figure 101. Tornado incidence by State and area, 1953.
(Upper figure is number of tornados, lower
figure is mean annual number.)
241
-------
Figure 102.
Threat rating from tornados, 1953.
(10 = 10 tornados per 10,000 square miles
and 10 people per square mile or 1 tornado
per 10,000 square miles and 100 people per
square mile.)
242
-------
Figure 103. Mean annual number of days without thunder-
storms, based on data through 1964.
Figure 104.
Maximum expected winds: 50 year mean
recurrence interval. (Based on data
through 1968.)
243
-------
Electrical equipment damage
Direct combustion of structures/equipment
Melting of hoses, metallic pipes, etc.
t Heat or fire induced explosion (gases under
pressure, chemical reactions, etc.).
For purposes of the risk assessment presented in Table 70, it was
assumed thai all unit processes were equally exposed to flammable surround-
ings (i.e., the possibility of being housed in fire-protected structures
was ignored).
UNEXPECTED DOWNTIME
Unlike catastrophies, disruption in plant operations has numerous
possible causes including unexpected waste characteristics, system relia-
bility, chemical supply/labor disruptions, and other factors. Some causes
(such as chemical or labor supply) are independent of the type of technology,
although their potential impact is not. Other causes, such as system
reliability, are inherent to the type of technology.
The following possible causes of system disruption are considered:
System reliability/complexity
Stability (sensitivity to wastestream
fluctuations)
Labor productivity
Energy dependence
Sophistication of maintenance requirements
Water dependence
Chemical dependence
Amenability to upgrading.
Unexpected equipment damage is treated separately in the following sec-
tion. Stability is assessed in Table 72 according to fluctuations in waste
flow rates and constituent concentrations. There are cases where facilities
have been forced to shut down because of violations of discharge limitations.
This assessment therefore includes an indication of the amenability of various
technologies to upgrading or retrofitting with additional treatment equip-
ment.
244
-------
TABLE 72, .RISK. OF,UNEXPECTED DOWNTIME FOR
TECHNOLOGIES*
Technology
Precipitation/floc-
culation/sedinienta-
tion
Filtration
Evaporation
Distillation
R. O./ultrafil-
tratlon
Oxi da ti on/ reduc t1 on
Hydrolysis
Aerated lagoon
Trickling filter
Waste stabilization
pond
Anaerobic digestion
Carbon adsorption
Activated sludge
Incineration
Land disposal
Chemical fixation
Encapsulation
Evaporation pond
Flotation
Cause of System Disruption
Relia- Waste
bility/ Flow Con-
Com- . Sta- cen- Main-
pi ex- bil- tra- ten-
ity ity tlon Labor Energy ance
- - 4- 4-
0 4-
4- 4- - 4- - +.
4- 4- - 4- 4-
4- + + - 4- 4-
0 -
0 -
0 4- - +
0 + + + -
+
0 - + + _
+ + 4-
0 + -t- + + +
+ -(_+.. +.
+
f + - - + +
+ + - - + 4-
-
0 - - +
Up-
Chem- Water grad-
icals Supply ing
4- +
- + -
(-
+
4-4-Q
4- - 0
4- - 0
0 - -
0 - -
0-4.
4-
4- 4-
0 - -
- - -
+ - 4-
4- - 0
4- - 0
- - 0
4>
* 4- = high impact.
o = overuse inpact.
- » no or minimal impact.
245
-------
UNEXPECTED EQUIPMENT DAMAGE
Risks in this category include the cost of damage sustained over and
above any associated downtime costs (see proceeding section) and expected
equipment maintenance. Both non-technology-related and technology-related
causes are possible, with a number of resulting impacts. The risk of equip-
ment damage is directly related to the reliability and complexity of the
technology. This risk assessment is included in Figure 105.
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Socio-legal restrictions for hazardous waste treatment/disposal pro-
cesses have been extensively defined by RCRA.
Specific restrictions apply to the following types of environmental
impacts:
Exposure of operating personnel and
adjacent public (health effects)
t Contamination of surface water
resources (water pollution)
Contamination of subsurface resources
(groundwater pollution)
t Improper sludge handling
Discharge of hazardous combustion
products to the air (air pollution).
Typically, these environmental factors constitute the weak link in risk
analysis because it is difficult to assign costs to them as they relate to
various sites. The ramifications of discharges are not always related to
the technology, but rather to independent environmental factors. The variety
of possible impacts is difficult to predict and further confounds an eval-
uation that is not site specific. There are, however, some environmental
risks associated with treatment/disposal technologies that may be qualita-
tively compared. Table 71 summarizes these factors. Note, however, that
where treatment/disposal alternatives for a specific project site are being
compared, site-specific weighing schemes should be used.
Regulations may be implemented that require unforeseen capital expenses
because of significant changes in design or additional discharge treatment
(upgrading).
As shown in Table 71 , certain treatment/disposal technologies have
greater potential for environmental pollution than others. Typically, the
regulations are aimed at reducing or eliminating such contamination. Reverse
osmosis and ultrafiltration have high-purity aqueous discharges and would
246
-------
Nontechnology
Related
Causes
I
Technology
Related
Impacts
Downtime
(total days)
Technology
Related
Causes
days/incidents
incidents/lifetime
Figure 105. Process for assessing equipment damage risk.
247
-------
probably not require further processing. They do, however, produce hazardous
concentrates that are subject to controlled handling and subsequent disposal.
Lagoons and land disposal technologies may pose a threat to subsurface water
resources. Liners or leachate collection systems mandated by law will place
additional financial burdens on existing facilities.
248
-------
SOURCES
(For complete literature citations, see bibliography numbers in parentheses)
1 Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBS) and PCB Contaminated
Materials Draft Copy EPRI Contract #1263-1 SCS Engineers 12-19-78 (27)
2 Means Building Construction Cost Data 1978
3 Watersaver Liners Denver, Colorado
4 Aqua Aerobic Systems, Inc. Rockford, Illinois
5 Swanson Company Fresno, California
6 Peabody Nelles Roscoe, Illinois
7 Handbook of Advanced Wastewater Treatment-2nd Edition,
Gulp, R.L. et al, 1978 (33)
8 Markson Company California
9 Serfilco Division of Service Filtration Corporation Northbrook, Illinois
10 In House Determination
11 Sullair Corporation Michigan City, Indiana
12 Komline Sanderson Peapack, New Jersey
13 Neptune Microfloc Corvallis, Oregon
14 Cleaver Brooks Milwaukee, Wisconsin
15 Envirotech BSP Belmont, California
16 Walker Process Equipment, Inc. Aurora, Illinois
17 Varec Division Emerson Electric Co. Gardena, California
18 Worthington Pumps Portland, Oregon
19 Wallace Tiernan Pennwalt Belleville, New Jersey
20 Greaves Company Seattle, Washington
21 Pfaulder Company Rochester, New York
22 FMC Corporation Pleasantville, California
23 Inland Transportation Company Seattle, Washington
24 CF Tank Lines (Matlack) Seattle, Washington
25 Union Pacific Railroad Seattle, Washington
26 Envirex Waukesha, Wisconsin
27 Clayton Manufacturing Company El Monte, California
28 General Electric Company Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
29 Blaw Knox Food and Chemical Co. Buffalo, New York
30 Chem Fix Incorporated Kenner, Louisiana
31 Capital and Operating Costs of Pollution Control Equipment,
Modules Volume II-Data Manual Environmental Protection Agency
July 1973
32 Capital Controls Company Colmar, Pennsylvania
33 City of Chicago Water Utility Department
34 Anthracite Filter Media Company Inglewood, California
35 Commonwealth Edison City of Chicago
36 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
37 A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment
Systems Environmental Protection Agency 1975 .
249
-------
38 McCall Oil Company Seattle, Washington
39 Owens Corning Fiberglass Toledo, Ohio
40 Nalco Chemical Company Oakbrook, Illinois
41 SCS Evaluation of Selected Biodegration Techniques for Treatment/Disposal
of Organic Materials September 1978
42 Development and Evaluation of Methods to Control Inorganic Chemical
Wastes Discharged to the Municipal System A.D. Little Progress Report
May 15, 1979
43 Carbon Adsorption Handbook, Cheremisinoff and Ellerbusch 1978 ( 23 )
44 Development of a Polymeric Cementing and Encapsulating Process for
Managing Hazardous Wastes EPA 600/2-77/045 August 1977
45 Hooker Chemical Des Moines, Washington
46 A. D. Little: Progress Report and Chemical Marketing Reporter
September 27, 1976
47 City of Chicago - Natural Gas Utilities
48 National Construction Estimator (27th Edition) 1979
Building Systems Cost Guide (3rd Edition) Means Co. 1978
and confirmed with Various Trade Unions
250
-------
REFERENCES
1. Bacon, G., Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste.
Practices: Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives Industries.
EPA SW-118c, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 376 pp.
2. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Inorganic Chemicals
Industry. EPA Contract No. 68-01-2246, SW-104c, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1975. 502 pp.
3. Martin, J. J., Jr. Chemical Treatment of Plating Waste for Removal
of Heavy Metals. EPA-R2-73-044, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., May, 1973. 40 pp.
4. Centec Consultants. Controlling Pollution from the Manufacturing
and Coating of Metal Products: Water Pollution Control. EPA-625/3-77-
009, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Transfer,
May, 1977. 140 pp.
5. Hallowell, J. B., L. E. Vaaler, J. A. Gurklis, and C. H. Layer.
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices - Electroplating
and Metal Finishing Industries - Job Shops. EPA Contract No. 68-01-2664,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., September 1976.
516 pp.
6. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment
Techniques for Industrial Wastes-Executive Summary. EPA Contract No.
68-01-3554, SW-148c, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
98 pp.
7. Robinson, C. S., and E. R. Gilliland. Elements of Fractional
Distillation. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1950. 492 pp.
8. Hengstabe, R. J. Distillation Principles and Design Procedures.
Reinhold Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1961. University of
Washington Chemical Engineering Library.
9. Fair, J. R., and W. L. Bolles. Modern Design of Distillation Columns.
Chemical Engineering. 75(8): 156-178, 1968. University of Washington,
Chemical Engineering Library.
10. Yaws, C. L., C. Fang, and P. M. Patel. Estimating Recoveries in
Multicomponent Distillation. Chemical Engineering, 86(1): 101-104, 1979.
University of Washington, Chemical Engineering Library.
251
-------
11. Oliver, E. D. Diffusional Separation Process: Theory, Design and
Evaluation. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1966.
University of Washington, Chemical Engineering Library.
12. Hazen and Sawyer, Engineers. Process Design Manual for Suspended
Solids Removal. EPA-625/l-75-003a, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Technology Transfer, January, 1975. 286 pp.
13. Colley, Forster, and Stafford (Editors). Treatment of Industrial
Effluents. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1976. 378 pp.
14. General Electric. Technical Manual - Oil/Water Separators. Re-entry
and Environmental Systems Division, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
15. Lovell, H. L. An Appraisal of Neutralization Processes to Treat
Coal Mine Drainage. EPA-670/2-73-093, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., November, 1973. 347 pp.
16. Groggins, P. H., Editor. Unit Processes in Organic Synthesis.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. 1952. 937 pp.
17. Rudolfs, W. Industrial Wastes. Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York,
New York, 1953. 497 pp.
18. Clark, J. W., W. Viessman, Jr., and M. J. Hammer. Water Supply and
Pollution Control. International Textbook Company, New York,
New York, 1971. 661 pp.
19. Brown, J. C., L. W. Little, D. Francisco, and J. C. Lamb. Methods
for Improvement of Trickling Filter Plant Performance - Part I,
Mechanical and Biological Optima. EPA 670/2-73-047, August, 1973.
235 pp.
20. Gloyna, E. F., and W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr., Editors. Advances in
Water Quality Improvement - Water Resources Symposium No. 1.
University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 1968. 513 pp.
21. Parker, C. E. Anaerobic-Aerobic Lagoon Treatment for Vegetable
Tanning Wastes. EPA-12120-DIK-12/70, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Federal Water Quality Administration, December, 1970. 84 pp.
22. Water Pollution Control Federation. Manual of Practice No. 16 -
Anaerobic Sludge Digestion. 1968.
23. Cheremisinoff, P. N., and F. Ellerbusch, Editors. Carbon Adsorption
Handbook. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arobr, Michigan,
1978. 1054 pp.
24. Zanitsch, R. H., and R. T. Lynch. Selecting a Thermal Regeneration
System for Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering, 85(1): 95-100,
1978.
252
-------
25. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering: Collection,
Treatment, Disposal. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1972. 782 pp.
26. Dallas, Oregon, City of. Combined Treatment of Domestic and
Industrial Wastes by Activated Sludge. EPA-12130-EZR-05/71, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, May, 1971.
125 pp.
27. SCS Engineers. Disposal of PCB's and PCB Contaminated Materials.
EPRI Contract No. 1263-1. December, 1978.
28. Pojasek, R. B., Editor. Toxic and Hazardous Waste Disposal:
Volume I - Processes for Stabilization/Solidification. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979. 407 pp.
29. Randol, R. E. Resource Recovery Plant Implementation: Guides for
Municipal Officials - Risks and Contracts. EPA SW-157.7, Contract
No. 68-01-3214; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 52 pp,
30. Wozniak, R. S., and W. W. Mitchell. Discussion of Seismic Codes
for Liquid Storage Tanks. In: Preprint 3320, ASCE Convention and
Exposition, American Society Civil Engineering, Chicago, Illinois,
1978. 8 pp.
31. Nash, W. A., J. Balendra, S. Shaaban, and J. Mouzakis. Finite
Element Analysis of Seismic Response of Cylyndrical Tanks. In:
Preprint 3315, ASCE Convention and Exposition, American Society
Civil Engineering, Chicago, Illinois. 1978. 13 pp.
32. Bowne, N. E., and J. E. Yocom. A Chemical Engineer's Guide to
Meteorology. Chemical Engineering, 86(16): 56-68, 1979.
33. Gulp, R. L., G. M. Wesner, and G. L. Culp. Handbook of Advanced
Wastewater Treatment. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York,
1978. 632 pp.
253
------- |