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 Laboratory—Gin., 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 l—1
— • 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

-------