TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS OF WASTE COOLANT
OIL MANAGEMENT OPTIONS IN VERMONT
FINAL REPORT
-------
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS OF WASTE COOLANT
OIL MANAGEMENT OPTIONS IN VERMONT
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
and
AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
Prepared by:
CORDIAN ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Suite 405
Washington, D.C. 20006
In Association with:
RECRA RESEARCH, INCORPORATED
P.O. Box 448
Tonawanda, New York 14150
November 20, 1980
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
Public Law 94—580 — October 21, 1976
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION PANELS
SEC. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel, in-
cluding Federal, State, and local employees or contractors (hereinafter
referred to as “Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels”) to provide
Federal, State and local governments upon request with technical assist-
ance on solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource conser-
vation. Such teams shall include technical, marketing, financial, and
institutional specialists, and the services of such teams shall be pro-
vided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Region I EPA
Technical Assistance Project Officer, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does men-
tion of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
EPA Region I Project Manager: Susan Hanamoto
Gordian Associ&es Incorporated
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Chuck Peterson and by Recra Research,
Inc. Cordian would like to acknowledge the valuable work done by Torn
Stanzyk and Jerry Morgan of Recra Research, Inc., and the assistance
provided by the EPA Project Manager, Susan Hanarnoto, Bob Nichols of the
Vermont AEC, and the numerous equipment vendors who supplied time and
information to this 8tudy.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Chapter II. Summary and Conclusions 2
Chapter III. Coolant Oils — Background . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Chapter lV. Wastelnventory ................. 7
Chapter V. Treatment Processes for Extending Oil Lifetime . . 8
Chapter VI. Treatment Processes for Separating Oil—in—Water
Emulsions . . . . . . . . . . 12
Chapter VII. Alternative Utimate Disposal Options . . . . . . . 21
Chapter VIII. Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A — Sample Questionnaire and Cover Letter. . . . . . . . 60
Appendix B — Cost Projection Data for Each Management Option. . . 65
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
I
I
INTRODUCTION
Numerous tool manufacturing companies are located in Vermont. A
waste by—product of this industry is coolant oil, which has been class-
ified as a hazardous waste by the Vermont Agency for Environmental Con-
servation (AEC). Identification by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) of the types of waste oil (e.g., lubricating, coolant, hy-
draulic) which are hazardous is scheduled for publication in the Federal
Register before the end of 1981. Regardless of EPA 1 s classification,
companies in the machine tool industry will, have to comply with the AEC
hazardous waste regulations. One regulation of special importance to
the industry is the requirement that hazardous waste be sent only to
approved sites. As no approved hazardous waste sites exist in Vermont,
these wastes must be shipped out—of—state, an expensive procedure.
Since a majority of the tool manufacturing companies are small and em-
ploy 100 to 500 people, this requirement will place an economic burden
on the companies.
In an attempt to remedy this situation the AEC sought the advice of
EPA Region I. As a result, EPA commissioned this study through the
Technical Assistance Panels Program. The objectives of this study were
to evaluate technically and economically the options for management of
waste coolant oil both by individual plants and on a statewide basis.
In addition, the study was to examine the feasibility of extending cool-
ant oil life, thus reducing the quantity of waste coolant generated.
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
2
II
SUMNARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Technical
A technical evaluation was made of the three types of waste coolant
oil management options:
• Lifetime extension,
• Treatment, and
• Disposal.
Closed—loop processing, which cleans the coolant oil and returns it
to a machine for reuse, was found to be the most viable method of ex-
tending coolant oil lifetime. In the second category the two acceptable
treatments were: (1) ultrafiltration and (2) chemical phase separation.
The only suitable disposal alternative was use of outside contractors.
Economic
An economic evaluation was done on these options for both an in-
dividual plant and a statewide facility.
Individual Plant
The cost for the four management options (closed—loop, ultrafiltra-
tion, chemical phase separation, and outside contract disposal or the
traditional method) were developed for a hypothetical plant. The cost
data presented should be viewed as those from a hypothetical plant
rather than the costs which would apply to any specific plant. As such,
the cost data Ehould be used as indicators of the expense for each
management option. In addition, the procedure used to develop these
costs could be followed by a reader to determine specific costs at any
given plant. Such costs could then be used as a basis of discussion
with vendors on their price quotations for a specific management plan
(e.g., in—plant closed—loop systems, contract disposal).
Gord.ian Associates Incorporated
-------
3
Costs were developed both on a current cost basis and over the
anticipated 10—year useful life of the equipment. Current costs include
annualized capital costs as well as the operations and maintenance (O&M)
expense. Special interest should be given to O&M expenses, or the vari-
able costs, by readers interested in costs at a specific site. These are
the costs which will vary over time. Capital or fixed costs tend to be
constant over the life of the equipment, assuming straight—line deprecia—
t ion.
The current costs for the six options are presented in Table 2.1.
Besides the four management options, the residuals from traditional and
closed—loop were divided into two suboptions: disposal by bulk transport
and in drums.
Table 2.1
Rank and Current Total Cost of Each Management Option’
Total Annual Cost,
Rank Management Option 1980 ($ )
1 Traditional—Bulk 10,170
2 Ultrafiltration 12,960
3 Chemical Phase Separation 13,710
4 Closed—Loop — Bulk 15,020
5 Closed—Loop — Drum 17,080
6 Traditional — Drum 19,880
As mentioned above, each option has a different percentage of total
costs which are variable. Consequently, in the future the total costs
of these options will increase at varying rates. To determine this
variation, current variable costs were projected over the expected 10—
year useful life of the capital assets. Rather than project all variable
costs at one rate, three variable cost item categories were used:
• Disposal,
• Coolant oil, and -
• Other (e.g., labor, power).
Source: Table 6.4
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
4
Furthermore, since no agreement exists among the representatives of the
hazardous waste management and coolant .oil indus ries, six cost escala-
tion possibilities, or scenarios, were developed. These scenarios,
which were derived from conversations with these representatives, are
presented in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2
COST SCENARIOS
Disposal Costs Coolant Oil Costs Other Operating Costs
Scenario Z increase years % increase years Z increase years
1 40 1—2 20 1-10 10 1—10
15 3—10
2 40 1—2 30 1—10 10 1—10
15 3—10
3 30 1—5 20 1—10 10 1—10
15 6—10
4 30 1—5 30 1—10 10 1—10
15 6—10
5 20 1—10 20 1—10 10 1—10
6 20 1—10 30 1—10 10 1—10
The projected cost data were analyzed using the present value tech-
nique. With this technique the future costs of each option were dis-
counted to the present; thus, the annual costs over the life of the
project could be summed and compared. Discounting gives more weight to
the costs incurred in the early years of a project and, therefore, less
weight to costs incurred in the later years. This principal is based on
the time value of money. In other words, a dollar today is worth more
than a dollar in the future. The current dollar can be invested. This
dollar plus the investment earnings would be worth more than the future
dollar alone. In terms of this analysis, the money saved in the early
years with the lover cost options could be used for other investments
(e.g., productive equipment).
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
5
The ranking of each of the six management options for each scenario
is shown in Table 2.3. This ranking shows the sensitivity of these
options to variations in future costs. A reader who seeks to develop
site specific costs could use the escalation rates presented here, or
any other rates felt to be more likely to occur. As a note, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has yet to publish regulations on the
operation of hazardous waste treatment facilities. These regulations
will help to define the rate at which traditional, or outside contract,
costs will increase.
Table 2.3
PRESENT VALUE RANKING OF THE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
FOR EACH SCENARIO’.’ 2
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 CPS CL—B CPS CL—B Trad—B CL—B
2 Trad—B Trad—B Trad—B CPS CPS Trad—B
3 CL—B CPS CL—B Trad—B CL—B CPS
4 Ultra Ultra Ultra Ultra Ultra Ultra
5 CL-D CL-D CL—D CL-D CL—D CL—D
6 Trad—D Trad—D Trad—D Trad—D Trad—D Trad—D
Statewide
A statewide treatment facility was found to have a lower annual
operating cost than the current cost to the tool manufacturing industry
for hauling the 300,000 gallons of waste coolant oil. Cost for the
statewide facility was $127,490, which was $172,510 less than the $300,000
spent to transport and treat discarded oil.
Rankings based on data in Table 6.7.
2 Abbreviations: Trad—D (Traditional—Drum); Trad—B (Traditional—Bulk);
CL—D (Closed Loop—Drum); CL—B (Closed Loop—Bulk; CPS (Chemical Phase
Separation); and Ultra (Ultrafiltration).
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
6
III
COOLANT OIL — BACKGROUND
Coolant oils are necessary for the operation of the tool manufac-
turing industry. These oils, which are emulsified with water at a con-
centration of two to ten percent, are used to:
• Cool cutting and grinding tools and the metal workpiece;
• Prevent welding, galling, or seizures as a result of metal—to—
metal contact;
• Prohibit rust formation; and
• Lubricate.
After each use, coolant oil is processed to remove contaminates
which include:
• Tramp oils — foreign oil (e.g., lubricant, hydraulic);
• Metal filings; and
• Suspended solids (e.g., dirt).
Coolant oils then are stored in a holding tank prior to reuse.
These tanks may be centrally located or at individual machines. Indi-
vidual machine tanks, or sumps, are used in plants which have a diver-
sity of machine operations that require different types and concentra-
tions of coolant oils. Central systems are feasible where a coolant oil
with a coon characteristic is acceptable to a majority of the machines.
Over time, coolant oils are subject to microbiological degradation
due to anaerobic bacteria. Since these bacteria are most active in warm
weather, degradation time is primarily temperature dependent. In addi-
tion, anaerobic bacteria exist only in oxygen—free environments. There-
fore, sufficient aeration during use will reduce the presence of anaero-
bic bacteria in coolant oil. Central holding tanks, which contain
aeration equipment, are able to extend the useful life of coolant oil
longer than individual machine sumps. This is important because coolant
oil degradation, or rancidity, is the major reason coolant oil is dis-
carded.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
7
IV
WASTE INVENTORY
To evaluate the problem of discarded cutting oils in Vermont and
its potential solutions, current data were needed for the quantity, type,
location, and characteristics of the emulsions discarded. In addition,
information was needed on in—plant management practices and storage
procedures for the used oil as these affect the quantity generated and
the treatability/recoverability of the oil.
A questionnaire was developed to obtain this information. (See
Appendix A). On January 24, 1980 the questionnaire was sent to 20 coni—
panies in Vermont. (A copy of the cover letter which accompanied the
questionnaire is included in Appendix A). Twenty companies in New
Hampshire also were sent the questionnaire. Firms in New Hampshire were
queried so that a central treatment facility could be evaluatd on a
regional bi—state basis. Such an evaluation would allow a comparison of
the unit cost to process discarded coolant oil at a Vermont statewide
facility and a facility serving a larger area. This comparison would
indicate the service area with the lower unit cost.
Selection of the 40 firms to which the questionnaire was sent was
done by Robert Nicholas of the Vermont Agency of Environmental Conser-
vation, Companies in New Hampshire were selected after discussion with
that State’s Department of Health and Welfare. Identity of the com-
panies was kept by the state agencies to maintain the privacy of the
firms.
Fourteen questionnaires from the Vermont firms were returned — a
return rate of 70 percent. Only four questionnaires, however, were
returned from New Hampshire. This low return rate precluded an analy-
sis of a bi—state treatment facility.
A summary of the types of oil used, processes for which the oil was
used, quantity discarded, and disposal methods is presented in Table
2.1.
Gorclian Associates Incorporated
-------
8
V
TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR EXTEN1 INC COOLANT OIL LIFETIME
A reduction in the volume of waste coolant oil can be achieved by
extending the useful lifetime of the oils. Increasing the number of
times that a coolant oil can be used before being disposed of will re—
suit in a lower volume of waste coolant actually being generated. The
removal of contaminants, such as bacteria growth, tramp oils, metal
fines, and general suspended solids, along with using deionized water
for dilution water, should make the coolant oil suitable for re—use. It
may be necessary to mix the treated coolant oil with new coolant oil in
order to achieve proper operating specifications.
Systems Available to Extend Coolant Oil Lifetime
• “ Servi—Sump ” — A portable sump cleaning unit known as
Sump” is manufactured by Production Chemicals 3 Inc., Manilus,
New York. This heavy—duty suction system will vacuum Out spent
coolant oil along with metal chips and suspended solids. Pre-
mature spoilage of any new coolant oil being added to a machine
sump can be prevented by thoroughly cleaning the respective
machine sumps after removing the spent coolant. The “Servi—
Sump” unit is equipped with both a filtering unit that removes
most of the solids from the coolant oil, and a second stage
centrifuge to further remove contaminants (from the filtered
coolant) before returning the coolant oil to the machine sump.
• “ Servi—Sump Accumix Unit ” — Production Chemicals also manufac-
tures a total coolant oil reclaim system which will remove
tramp oils and provide proper coolant oil make—up, in addition
to being a portable sump cleaning unit. With this unit, the
vacuum sump cleaner is divided into two 150—gallon compartments
for transporting both fresh and spent coolant oil to and from
the machine sumps. The sump cleaner with one compartment fill-
ed with clean coolant is transported to the machine sump, where
the spent coolant and debris are vacuumed into the empty com-
partment. A filtering unit is included for removing the larger
solids contained in the spent coolant oil. The clean coolant
is then pumped into the cleaned machine, ready to be used.
This entire process can be completed in approximately five
minutes.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
9
The sump cleaner 18 then taken to the coolant reclaim cen-
ter, where the dirty coolant is pumped into a holding tank and
is allowed to settle. The tramp oils are then removed, as’the
spent coolant is automatically cycled through a “coalescing
unit.” This cleaned coolant is pumped into a recycled coolant
holding tank, where it is stored until needed. Fresh coolant
is available to replace any used or evaporated recycled coolant.
The “Accutnix Unit” automatically mixes and proportions the
fresh coolant with deionized water, which insures a constant
supply of accurately mixed coolant. This eliminates any wastes
caused by inaccurate and incomplete mixing. Deionized water is
used to prevent any corrosion, gummy deposits, and emulsion
“splitting,” caused by the mineral salts concentrating by evap-
oration when regular plant water is used. Refer to Figure 5.1
for a flow diagram of the “Servi—Sump Accumix Unit.”
• Closed Looped Coolant System — This unique system manufactured
by Master Chemical, Perrysburg, Ohio, is designed for unlimited
coolant life when using “Trim—Sol” or other “Trim” brand cool-
ant oils (produced by Master Chemical). The success of this
system is dependent upon using both proper coolant oil formula-
tion and proper coolant oil maintenance. The “Closed Looped
System” is equipped with a machine sump cleaner which will vac-
uum out spent coolant, metal fines, and suspended solids, thus
producing a clean machine sump. These cleaners are equipped
with a filter to remove larger particle chips and range in
capacity from 75 gallons with 400 pounds of chips to 700 gallons
• with 800 pounds of chips. These units are capable of vacuuming
and filtering up to 12 gallons of coolant per minute. The
cleaner transports the filtered coolant to a centrifuge which
has been jointly engineered by Master Chemical and the Westfalia
Centrifuge Corporation. This automatic self—cleaning centrifuge
package produces separation forces up to 8,600 times that of
gravity. It will effectively remove both free and emulsified
tramp oils down to less than 0.5 percent concentration, metallic
and silt contaminants down to 2 micron size, and 50—80 percent
of the micro—organisms present. The recycled coolant is then
stored ready to be used. A coolant cart transports the recycled
coolant to the respective machine tools, where it is mixed with
a percentage of fresh coolant. A positive displacement “Unimix”
proportioning pump, using a baffled mixing chamber, is used to
produce a stable, small particle size emulsion. This pump’s
accuracy will not be affected by changes in water pressure, flow
rate, viscosities, or the level of liquid in the drums. A
deinonized water unit is included in the system for the purpose
of diluting the fresh coolant. Reasons for using deionized have
been previously discussed in this report. Refer to Figure 5.2
for a flow diagram of the Closed Looped System.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
10
• Cyclonic Filtration System — Almco Industrial Finishing Systems,
Albert Lea, Minnesota, manufactures a “ jclonic Filtration
System” equipped with an exclusive Air—Hydro Skimmer. As the
spent coolant is pumped into the Cyclonic Chamber, it
accelerates downward in a spiral cyclonic motion. Particles
down to 5 microns in size are separated in the lower portion of
the cyclone and are subsequently discharged, with the cleaned
coolant being forced out the top. The cleaned coolant is
aerated as it leaves the cyclonic chamber and is pumped to an
upper tank where baffles are used to reduce turbulence. The
Air—Hydro Skimmer removes any tramp oils, particles, and
bacteria that has floated to the surface. The twice—cleaned
coolant is then stored in the lower clean fluid tank ready to be
re—used. This unit is not portable and, therefore, must be
installed either by the individual machine tools or by a central
coolant sump.
• Tn—Max Coolant Recycling System — Dirty coolant enters the
upper section of the filter at the inlet orifice on a tangent.
• The shape as well as the angle of the inlet nozzle initiates a
downward cyclonic motion of the coolant. This centrifugal
action develops the primary cyclone. As the centrifugal forces
multiply themselves, solid particles are spun out to the chamber
walls and down into the lover (ceramic) cyclonic chamber of the
filter. The downward action, initiated in the upper nozzle,
forces the solids out of the system at the discharge orifice.
A compressive effect, resulting from the large differentials
in the coolant’s velocity and pressure, in the lower (ceramic)
cyclonic chamber reserves the direction but not the rotation of
the coolant. This forms the secondary cyclonic, a spiraling
flow of cleaned coolant which passes up through the primary
cyclone to the vortex finder.
The diameter of the vortex finder is somewhat smaller than
the secondary cyclone, and therefore the vortex finder accepts
only the center of the upward secondary flow. The outer portion
of the secondary cyclone, containing some impurities missed by
the primary cyclone, is then diverted back to the primary
cyclone for additional clarification.
The clean coolant passing through the vortex finder is
directed to the clean coolant storage tank or to the machine
tool depending upon the application or design requirements.
Back pressure at the discharge orifice aerates the clean
coolant which will serve to inhibit bacterial growth.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
11
• Individual Methods for Extending Lifetime — The following are
individual methods which may be applied to extend the coolant
oil lifetime. The use of each of them, either independently or
in conjunction with each other, should extend the coolant oil
lifetime.
a. Tramp Oil Removal — any foreign oil that finds its way into
the coolant oil must be removed before the coolant oil may
be re—used. These tramp oils, such as hydraulic and
lubricating oils, are insoluble in water and generally float
to the surface of the coolant oils. The tramp oils may
either be skimmed off or removed mechanically (centrifuga—
tion) and burned as fuel (if within specifications).
b. Solids Removal — solids accumulate in the form of metallic
fines and general debris. It is essential to remove these
solids prior to re—using the coolant oil to prevent plugging
and/or contamination.
c. Machine Cleaning — when removing the spent coolant oil from
the machine sumps, it is necessary to thoroughly clean the
machine, including sumps. Any remaining coolant oil,
metallic fines, or debris may cause premature spoilage of
any new coolant being added. Bacteria remaining will
rapidly grow, thus ruining the new coolant oil.
d. Bactericides — the growth of anaerobic bacteria is a major
cause of coolant oil spoilage. In addition to the micro-
biological degradation caused by the bacteria, they also
produce nauseating odors and cause skin irritation. There
are a number of bactericides available with some being
specific to certain coolant oils.
e. Aeration — anaerobic bacteria tend to form when coolant oils
are being stored. By pumping air into the coolant oils,
anaerobic conditions are reduced thus making it difficult
for the anaerobic bacteria to form and grow.
f. Deionized Water — the use of deionized water for diluting
the coolant oils will be helpful in prolonging the useful
lifetime of the coolant. The presence of mineral salts in
normal plant water may cause corrosion, gummy deposits, and
emulsion “splitting” to occur. These mineral salts may be
removed by using a water deionizing system. As evaporation
of the coolant occurs during normal machining operation, the
mineral salts remain behind, thus increasing in concentra-
tion. As new coolant is added for makeup purposes, the
resulting mineral salts concentration will be greater than
in the original coolant. The mineral salts concentration
will continue to increase until the coolant is removed and
properly disposed.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
12
VI
TREATMENT PROCESSES AVAILABLE FOR SEPARATING IL—IN—WATER EMULSIONS
When a spent coolant has reached the stage where it no longer can be
further treated for re—use, it is considered a waste. This waste coolant
oil must be treated and/or disposed of properly, so that it will not have
any harmful effects on the environment. There are a number of treatment
processes that are available for treating oil—in—water emulsions. The
majority of these processes, including dissolved air flotation, electric
and various adsorbents (e.g. polyvinylchloride resin), involve the
removal of low concentrations of free and emulsified oils (5 to 5,000
ppm) from aqueous streams. There are two treatment processes that are
applicable to the separation of waste coolant oil—in—water emulsions.
These two processes are ultrafiltration and chemical phase separation.
Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis
The process of ultrafiltration involves the separation of high
molecular weight solutes or colloids from a solution or suspension, using
a membrane filtration medium. These membranes are composed of various
synthetic or natural polymeric materials, ranging from hydrophilic
polymers (such as cellulose), to very hydrophobic materials (such as
fluorinated polymers). Recent developments have led to the use of
polyarylsulfones and various inorganic materials, to contend with high
temperatures and pH values.
Ultrafiltration has been successfully applied in several industrial
situations, but has been limited to aqueous medias. The aqueous waste
stream is forced through the porous membrane, under a hydrostatic
pressure of between 10 to 100 psig, allowing the separation to occur.
The solutes with a molecular weight too small to be retained by the
membrane will pass through, and the larger ones will be retained at a
theoretical efficiency of 100 percent. This will result in two processed
streams:
• Stream of the large retained solutes and colloids, and
• Stream of the smaller molecular weight solutes
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
13
Ultrafiltration has been used in many applications and may be
categorized according to functions, such as:
• Concentration — where the desired component is rejected by the
membrane and taken off as a fluid concentration.
• Fractionation — where more than one solute is to be recovered
and products taken from both the rejected concentration and
the permeate, and
• Purification — where the desired product is a purified solvent.
Romicon, Incorporated produces a “Hollow Fiber” ultrafiltration unit
whose operation is .similar to Abcor’s models. Roinicon claims to produce
the most efficient and economical ultrafiltration systems. Their claims
over other systems include:
• Up to 45 percent lower capital costs, with easy installation,
• 20—50 percent lower operating costs; lower operating pressures
reduce power requirements, and
•• Unique backflushing capability for removing debris from membrane
surface — this helps to maintain a continuous flow and prevents
costly maintenance downtime. This action also increases the
lifetime of the membrane cartridge by up to twice as long as
other systems.
Reverse osmosis is similar in theory to ultrafiltration, only uses
a smaller membrane pore size. While ultrafiltration is limited to
suspended solids removal, reverse osmosis can be used to concentrate most
dissolved organic and inorganic solutes from aqueous streams. Reverse
osmosis systems often require the pretreatment of streams to optimize pH,
remove strong oxidants, and filter out both suspended solids and firm
formers. A reverse osmosis unit is often used in conjunction with
ultrafiltration as a “polishing treatment” for the permeate. Directly
following is a short list of components that can be rejected by a reverse
osmosis membrane:
Maximum
Component Percent Rejection Concentration Percent
Aluminum (Al 3 ) 99+ 5—10
Sodium (Na 2 94—96 3—4
Cadmium (Cdt 95—98 8—10
Chloride (C1 ) 94—95 3—4
Sulfate (S042) 99+ 8—12
Chromate (Cr0 4 2 ) 90—98 8—12
Glucose 99.9 25
Sucrose 100 25
Protein 100 25
Gordtan Associates Incorporated
-------
14
Osmonics, Incorporated claims to have a reverse osinosis/ultrafiltra—
don (RO/UF) system capable of concentrating sol ble oils and many non—
soluble oils. Previously, these oils were avoided with reverse osmosis
and ultrafiltration equipment due to the fouling of the membranes. In
cases where the membranes of the RO/UF unit do plug up, special cleaners
and dispersants have been developed to return the membrane to its orig-
inal condition. Comparable to ultrafiltration, concentrations of up to
70 percent oil and permeates containing less than 100 parts per million
of oil have been obtained from waters containing less than 1 percent
soluble oil. Membranes are also available for which salts will pass
through with the water or will be rejected with the oil.
The following are examples where ultrafiltration is being used in
coercial application:
• Electrocoat—paint rejuvenation and rinse water recovery, as a
fractionation process,
• Metal machining, rolling, and drawing—oil emulsion treatment, as
a purification process,
• Protein recovery from cheese whey, as a concentration and
fractionation process, and
• Textile sizing (polyvinyl alcohol) waste treatment, as a
fractionation process.
When applied to the metal machining industry, ultrafiltration may be
used to concentrate the oils and solids contents of the dirty spent oil—
in—water emulsions from a 0.1 percent concentration to one greater than
50 percent. This enables over 95 percent of the water to be removed for
treatment and a small volume of concentrate (50¼ oil) to be recovered for
subsequent treatment or disposal. The final objective is to produce an
oil concentration great enough to support combustion 1 thus reducing
incineration costs. If a low molecular weight emulsifying agent has been
used to keep the oil in suspension, this agent may permeate the membrane,
thus increasing the Biological Oxygen Demand of the permeate. If the
agent does indeed permeate as such, then the oil will agglomerate and
plug the membrane. In this case a reverse osmosis membrane will be
needed to prevent the emulsifying agent from entering the membrane
structure.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
15
Abcor, Incorporated of Wilmington, Maine, claims to be able to pro-
vide a straightforward, highly effective method for separating emulsified
or soluble oils from water. Their units have noncellulosic polymer mem-
branes capable of operating at high temperatures (up to 180°F) and a wide
pH range (2.5 to 13.0). They are solvent resistant and have demonstrated
a working life of several years in the treatment of oily wastewaters.
Their membranes are claimed not to plug, because the emulsified oil drop-
lets and suspended solids are larger than the pore openings (<0.005 ).
They are effective in treating wastewater streams containing 0.1 percent
to 10.0 percent oil, producing a permeate containing 10 to 50 mg/i of
oils and greases and a concentrate containing 50 percent oil. If a
highly soluble solvent or surfactant is present, the oil concentration of
the permeate will be higher. Typical installed equipment costs range
from 4 to $40 per gallon per day, and the operational costs vary from
$0.003 to $0.03 per gallon of vastewater treated. These prices vary
according to type of waste and system capacity. Abcor will conduct
feasibility tests of small samples or will provide pilot—scale equipment
on a rental basis for on—site testing and evaluation.
Chemical Phase Separation
Theory
The breaking (resolution) of an oil—in—water (o/w) emulsion,
typified by the soluble coolant oils and cutting fluids, can be
achieved by using various organic and/or inorganic chemicals. The
resolution will occur by neutralizing the emulsion’s stabilizing
factors, allowing the emulsified droplets to coalesce. The net
electrical charge on the o/w emmulsion is negative; therefore, a
cationic (positively charged) emulsion breaker is required. This
resolution treatment method is actually a two—step reaction,
occurring in one procedure:
1. Coagulation — actual destruction of the emulsifying agent or
neutralization of the charged oil droplets
2. Flocculation — agglomeration of the neutralized droplets
into large, separable globules
When resolution occurs, a three phase separation usually takes
place. The three phases vary accordingly; however, their general
compositions can be considered as:
a. Top Layer — primarily free oil that has coalesced and
floated to the surface; ususally low in total volume
b. Middle Layer — “rag layer”; combination of oil, water, and
solids (if present) in various percentages
c. Bottom Layer — aqueous layer containing low concentrations
of oil (usually 100 to 5,000 ppm), suspended solids, and
dissolved organics
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
16
Organic Emulsion Breakers
The most commonly used chemicals for resolution are sulfuric
acid and aluminum sulfate (referred to as t e acid/alum treatment),
see Figure 6.1. Most recent technologies use “organic emulsion
breakers,” as either a replacement for or as an enhancer for the
acid/alum treatment. The advantages of using “organic emulsion
breakers” are:
• Lower volume of oily sludge generated. This oily sludge can
be further treated for possible oil recovery. Usually
5O—75 less sludge is produced as with the inorganic
chemical treatment,
• More efficient effluent containing lower concentrations of
oil and suspended solids,
• Lover dosage rates are required, thus reducing costs and
increasing ease of handling, and
• Converts cutting oils, rolling oils, stamping oils,
synthetic cutting fluids, soaps, emulsifiers, and cleaning
agents into a “float” (sludge) capable of subsequent
treatment for oil recovery.
The “organic emulsion breakers” used in this process are usually
cationic quaternary ammonitun polyelectrolytes, and henceforth will
be referred to as polymers. An acidic (pH 3 to 6) condition is
necessary in this process.
When polymers are used, the three resultant separation phases
can subsequently be treated. These methods, which follow directly,
do not necessarily hold true when the inorganic “acid/alum,”
treatment program is used.
a. Bottom aqueous layer — usually contains oil (100 to 5,000
ppm) and suspended solids concentrations too large for
discharging into natural waterways or into a sewer system.
It may be treated in the following manner:
1. Neutralization with sodium hydroxide to remove water
soluble contaminants, such as metals, sulfates,
chlorides, and some dissolved organics. An anionic or
cationic polymer may be used to enhance the neutraliza-
tion process. This should result in producing an
effluent suitable for discharge into a sewage treatment
plant.
2. Air flotation units are often used in conjunction with
the neutralization process. The dispersed air bubbles
produced will help the contained oils and solid float to
the surface, thus producing an effluent suitable for
discharge into natural waterways.
b. Top oil layer — usually low in volume and can be combined
with the middle sludge layer for subsequent treatment for
oil recovery. If within specifications, usually less than 3
percent water and low in metallic contaminant concentra-
tions, it may be used as a fuel.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
c. Middle sludge layer (rag layer) — consists of water—in—oil
(yb) emulsions, typically consisting of 50 percent water
and 50 percent oil and solids. It will generally be equal
to approximately 10 percent by volume of the original waste
coolant oil. These w/o emulsions can subsequently be
treated by a process known as “demulsification” for poten-
tial fuel recovery. The “demulsification” process will be
discussed in more detail later in this report. This “rag
layer” may also be shipped to an oil reclaimer or a waste
oil disposal firm.
Inorganic Emulsion Breakers
As previously mentioned, the most effective inorganic chemicals
available for breaking waste coolant oil—in—emulsions are sulfuric
acid and aluminum sulfate (“acid/alum split”). In most cases
coagulation and flocculation can be achieved using acid/alum;
however, the possibility of fuel recovery is greatly reduced. The
mechanisms involved with acid/alum are similar to those mentioned
under Organic Emulsion Breakers, with the major difference being the
generation of a much larger amount of sludge.
Colloid Piepho, Inc., Skokie, Illinois, manufactures the “System
RI Unit” which is capable of treating wastewaters containing
emulsified oil and other water insoluble organic pollutants, such as
emulsifiable animal and vegetable fats, solvents, dyestuffs, latex,
and plastics. The “System RI Unit” is a complete system which
produces a clean water effluent for recycling or discharge, and a
stable, leaching resistant sludge. Units are available for batch
treatments capacities of up to 2,500 gallons per hour, with each
batch treatment taking 20 minutes for completion. The unit contains
a reaction vessel which fills in 3 minutes, and is capable of
supplying rapid agitation using an overhead turbine mixer. A
proprietary chemical separating agent, NT—75, is added, either
manually or automatically, and intensively mixed with the wastewater
for 6 minutes. NT—75 is an adsorbent/self—flocculant, single
chemical additive used for emulsion breaking and flocculation.
NT—75 consists of a number of different chemical formulations based
on their own individual performance characteristics. The resultant
floc is allowed to settle for 2 minutes, and the clean supernatant
liquid is drained off, passed through a filter media to remove
suspended solids, and collected in a container for recycling or
discharge (takes 5 minutes). The settled solids, or sludge, is
placed on a band filter for dewatering and then automatically
conveyed to a collection container for disposal. This sludge is
claimed to be a stable, leaching resistant sludge. However,
leaching potential evaluations would have to be performed for
determining the proper method of disposal. The solids content of
the sludge is typically of 20 to 40 percent concentration.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
18
The “System RP Unit” is claimed to effectively remove greater
than 99 percent of the emulsified oil and o er dispersed contami-
nants, such as detergents and paints. It is also claimed to be
capable of removing aromatic compounds, such as toluene. Compact
systems are available that can be installed easily at a low cost and
occupies 32 square feet in area. A unit of this size is capable of
processing 500 gallons per hour.
Option for Demulsification of Oily Sludge
There are three components of a water—in—oil (yb) emulsion.
These components are:
• The dispersed or internal phase — being water,
• The continuous or external phase — being oil, and
• The emulsifying agent.
The components of the dispersed phase are surrounded by a film which
may be negatively charged on one side and positively charged on the
dther. The distribution of the charges are dependent upon many
factors, one being the dielectric constant of the two phases. The
positive charge is usually contained in the phase with the greater
dielectric constant. Demulsification, which is the breaking of the
water—in—oil emulsion 1 occurs upon the neutralization or destruction
of any emulsifying factors; thus allowing the oil droplets to
coalesce and float to the surface. The neutralization and/or
destruction can be achieved by one or a combination of the
following:
• Heat (l8O—2OO F) — reduces the viscosity of the oil and
increases the motion of the small water droplets, thus
allowing coalescence to occur; ruptures the emulsifying
agent film, enabling the oil droplets to grow,
• Sulfuric Acid (1—2% by volume), or an alkalai —
neutralizes and destroys the emulsifying agent film,
causing the oil droplets to grow, and/or
• Demulsifier (3,000—5,000 ppm) — an organic surface —
active liquid which may have dual solubility (oil and
water). It reacts at the interface of the oil and
water, thus rupturing the emulsifying agent.
Each of the aforementioned methods may be used independently as a
demulsification process. However, when used in this manner, the
required treatment ratio makes them excessively high in cost. When
all three are used in conjunction with each other, the treatment
dosage rates will be dramatically reduced, thus making them econom-
ically feasible. The usual results obtained in the demulsification
process are:
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
19
• Top oil layer — usually consists of at least 95 percent
recovery of the original oil content. The oil should
contain a high ETU value, have a low water (less than 3
percent) and metallic contaminant content, and should be
suuitable for use as a fuel,
• Bottom aqueous layer — containing low concentrations of
oils and solids. It would most likely need subsequent
treatment prior to being discharged, and
• Middle sludge layer (“rag layer”) — low in volume and
containing low concentrations of oil, along with water
and solids. This “rag layer” either can be shipped out
for proper disposal and/or possible metal recovery, or
it may be treated by demulsification for further oil
recovery.
Distillation
The Hoffman vacui.m still has been applied for the destruction of
spent water soluble coolants. Waste emulsions with up to five percent
solids are pumped continuously into the still. The water is heated by
steam and boiled off, leaving a thickened oil stream which would most
probably be burnable or have a value. The water should be relatively
pure having been distilled. It may contain some organics created by
light oils in the emulsion. This water would form an excellent makeup
for the next batch of water soluble coolant. The claimed advantages of
the still are that it is continuous, relatively automatic, and can handle
a certain variable amount of solids and tramp oils. The disadvantages of
the still are that it requires steam and cooling water. However, only 25
to 30 pounds of steam are required, which is generally available or can
be obtained with the addition of a small steam generator. The smallest
still can handle approximately 35 gallons per hour (CPa) of water soluble
or 75 CPH of solvent and is priced at approximately $20,000. Our largest
still has a capability of 300 GPH soluble, 600 GHP solvent and is priced
at approximately $40,000.
Considerations for Discharge of Liquid Phase Effluent from Treatment
Processes
A part of the previous discussion in this section has addressed
effluent oil and grease concentrations from ultrafiltration and chemical
phase separation treatment machines. The range of this parameter, as
claimed by the equipment manufacturer, is as follows:
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
20
Abcor UF unit 10 — 50 mg/i oil and grease
Osmonics UF/RO less than 100 ppm oi]
Colloid Piepho less than l of influent (up to 250 ppm)
These ranges will be affected by equipment operating and maintenance
procedures 1 the type of coolant oil treated and the presence of solvents
in the waste coolant. Acceptability of the effluent discharge at the
local sewage treatment plant will depend on the presence and type of
toxic constituent (such as bacteriacides) in the discharge, the volume of
effluent residue to be discharged, the type and operating flow rate of
the receiving sewage treatment plant as well as concentration of oil and
grease. A pre—treatment permit will be required by the State Environ-
mental Agencies which will specify operating parameters and sampling!
reporting frequencies.
.In general the impact of any effluent from a coolant oil pre-
treatment facility, even if such a facility were treating the entire
waste coolant oil volume in Vermont, is expected to have a negligible
impact on a typical municipally operated sewage treatment plant with
secondary treatment.
Gordiari Associates incorporated
-------
21
V II
ALTERNATE ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Incineration
The process of incineration for the destruction of industrial
wastes has been quite limited due to the’ high energy requirements and
stringent air—emissions specifications. Scrubbers are usually needed to
prevent the escape of hazardous gases due to incomplete combustion.
Complete combustion of organic substances would make the final flue gas
composition to be water, carbon dioxide, elemental oxygen, and elemental
nitrogen.
However, there are Industrial Incinerations available which are
capable of “burning” waste waters in combination with a support fuel.
Temperatures of the flue gases in excess of 900°C are needed to burn the
organic contents of the waste waters,
Due to the high costs involved with incineration, it is not a very
highly recommended method for waste disposal. The coolant oils and
cutting fluids alone would not be capable of supporting combustion, and
thus would need energy for combustion. When considering incineration for
a process, you must take both the specific heats of each contained sub-
stance and the combustion products into account. It may be used after
the wastes have been pretreated to obtain an oil content (greater than 50
percent) capable of supporting combustion.
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization (s/s) includes many processes of iimnob—
ilizing wastes, in an attempt to reduce their leaching potential and to
make them unreactive. Immobilization can be achieved by encapsulating,
either macro—encapsulation or micro—encapsulation, or by incorporating
the contaminates into a stable crystalline lattice. This immobilization
would then make the wastes amenable for landfilling. Listed following
are the 5 principle categories of S/S and major reasons for eliminating
the process:
Gorthari Associates Incorporated
-------
22
a. Cement—based techniques — increased weight and bulk densities;
not applicable to organic wastes
b. Lime—based techniques — increased weight nd bulk densities; not
applicable to organic wastes
c. Thermoplastic techniques — high economical and operational costs;
not applicable to organic wastes
d. Organic Polymer techniques — (urea—formaldehyde) — not appli-
cable to organic wastes; produces acidic conditions which in-
crease the potential for metals leaching; contaminants are con-
tained within a loose resin matrix.
e. Encapsulation — high costs for both materials and equipment.
Solidification/Stabilization processes are not considered to be
economically and operationally feasible when disposing of wastes contain-
ing organics. In addition to the high leaching potential of the wastes,
there are also increases in weights and bulk densities, thus increasing
the costs of landfilling.
Disposal via Outside Contractors
Another ultimate disposal option which should be considered is the
outside contractor. There are many large and small facilities, govern-
ment approved, which specialize in the handling and ultimate disposal of
hazardous wastes. Some of the major facilities providing these services
are Rollins, N.J., SCA Services, and CECOS International (formerly known
as Newco Chemical). There are also several small facilities that spec-
ialize in oil recovery and fuel blending. Most of the larger facilities
have the capability of implementing the following disposal/treatment
mechanisms: secure and intermediate chemical land burial, industrial
wastewater treatment involving primary and secondary treatment, stabili-
zation/solidification, waste oil/solvent recovery, fuel blending and
incineration. The availability of these processes allows the individual
waste generator to pay a contractor to handle, treat and dispose of his
individual industrial wastes, thus eliminating major capital investment.
Most waste disposal facilities require that each waste be analyti-
cally characterized. The results of the waste characterization will be
utilized in deciding which individual treatment/disposal mechanisms can be
implemented. Oil sludges can be incinerated or landfilled but aqueous
and/or organic liquids cannot be landfilled presently in the CECOS and SCA
landfill facilities. Disposal of emulsified aqueous wastes via water
be acceptable for limited volumes of wastes. Generally, these wastes
Gorthan Associates Incorporated
-------
23
require evaluation to confirm that they will not phase separate nor create
potential hazardous conditions when discharged into an acidic oxidizing
lagoon. Another potential consideration which must be evaluated is the
air emissions liberated from the wastes. Oil—emulsions liberating
pungent, unpleasant odors or odors associated with solvent emissions are
generally unacceptable for disposal in open lagoons, or open pits which
are utilized for solidification. Solidifying these wastes generally
changes the physical nature of the waste, making them amenable to land
burial, and does not prevent contaminant mobilization, via air or
leachate. Operations utilizing waste oils/aqueous mixtures for road
covering purposes are generally being phased out and the practice limited
to non—toxic materials. Disposal operations currently involving oil
recovery and fuel blending with ultimate disposal via incineration are
increasing significantly due to the demand for waste recovered fuels. The
wastes proposed for these mechanisms are usually characterized and priced
according to their BTU content, chloride and sulfur content, ash weight,
chemical composition, and water content. There are incinerators which can
incorporate aqueous waste materials into their system, but the wastes must
be characterized prior to disposal.
Overall, the disposal of the oil/aqueous wastes via an outside con-
tractor is an acceptable procedure which is commonly utilized by large
and small waste generators. The factors to be considered when evaluating
a disposal facility are:
1. Is the disposal facility in accordance with Federal and State
regulations in regards to the transportation, handling, treat-
ment and disposal of hazardous wastes?
2. Are there any liabilities which may be a problem for the gen-
erators?
3. What are the disposal costs? For example, aqueous wastes
acceptable for industrial water treatment could cost 20$ — 40$
per ga ]. in bulk or $35 — $40 per 55 gal. drum for disposal.
If the wastes are layered, they will require special handling
and ‘the disposal costs will increase significantly. Landfill—
jug sludges could cost $25 — $50 per drum providing the flash
point is greater than 100°F. Solidifying the waste, with sub-
sequent land burial, will be very costly. All these prices do
not reflect transportation.
4. What are the transportation costs? For an example, it would
cost approximately $1500 to transport an 80 drum shipment from
Boston, Mass. to SCA Services in Model City, New York. The
transportation and handli g costs should be seriously considered.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
24
5. Are there any costs associated with chemically characterizing
the individual wastes? Most facilities J.ll require that the
individual wastes are chemically analyzed.
Considering all the available treatment mechanisms, it appears that
facilities involved in oil/solvent recovery and incineration would be the
most suitable.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
25
VIII
ECONOMICS
In this Section, the capital and operation and maintenance (0&M)
costs to manage discarded coolant oil were analyzed. These costs were
examined for two different conditions: (1) an individual plant and (2)
a central statewide facility.
At the individual plant level, costs were developed for the two
technologies —— closed—loop and treatement —— considered acceptable for
emulsion processing in Sections III and IV. In addition, the
traditional approach of use and discard was evaluated to provide a
baseline cost. Costs for these three options were projected over a 10
year period (1980 to 1990) to show how these costs are anticipated to
change during the useful life of the capital equipment. Operating costs
were escalated based on six different rates of increase to show how
these costs will change under various possible future conditions. The
current and projected costs for each technology under the six conditions
were analyzed using the present value technique. With this technique,
the future costs of each option were discounted to the present thus, the
annual costs over the life of the project can be summed and compared.
Discounting gives more weight to the costs incurred in the early years
of a project and, therefore, less weight to the cost incurred in later
years. The principal behind this analytical method is that a dollar
today is worth more than a dollar in the future. A current dollar can
be invested. This dollar plus the investment income would be worth more
than the future dollar alone. In terms of this analysis, the money
saved in the early years of the options with the lower initial costs
could be used for other investments (e.g., productive equipment).
Costs for a central facility were developed to determine the
economic viability of this approach as an alternative to individual
plant treatment/reuse of coolant oil. Only treatment was considered to
be a viable option with a central facility. To evaluate the expense of
this approach, the cost for the machine tool industry in Vermont to
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
26
ship and treat/dispose of discarded emulsions at out—of—state sites was
developed.
Individual Plant
For an individual plant the coolant oil management options
determined to be viable were:
• Traditional: simply use a coolant oil until it no longer
complies with performance specifications; then
discard it.
• Closed—loop: recycle, or extend the useful life, of an
emulsion.
• Treatment: separation of an emulsion into oil and water.
A cost analysis of these options specific to the machine tool
companies in Vermont is impractical. The plants in the State vary
considerably in size as well as in the type and relative importance of
operations (e.g., grinding, milling, and turning). In addition,
ni.mierous operating condition variables (e.g., in—plant housekeeping
practices) exist between companies. These factors affect the quantity
of used emulsions generated and, thus, the cost of coolant oil
management.
While the cost data presented below are inapplicable to any
specific plant, these data do indicate the relative cost variation
among the three options. A plant manager could use the data as an
indicator of which method might be applicable to a specific location.
Furthermore, the approach used in this report could be used as a guide
for developing costs in a specific plant. Thus, a plant manager would
have a basis upon which to evaluate proposals by the vendors of the
different options for managing coolant oil.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
27
Operating Parameters
To analyze the cost of coolant oil management a representative,
hypothetical plant was developed. General statistical data on this
plant are:
• Location — Windsor County
• Number of machines — 40
• Emulsion storage — Individual machine sumps
• Sump capacity — 120 gallons
• Oil/water ratio — 1:40
Windsor Country was selected as the location for this plant because the
majority (85 percent) of discarded emulsions in Vermont are generated in
this county. Operational data for this plant were based on the
response to the Vermont discarded coolant oil questionnaire.
The amount of emulsion related discards with each option are:
• Traditional — 15,360 gallons per year
• Closed—loop — 4,630 gallons per year
• Treatment — 3,000 gallons per year —
ultrafiltration
— 900 gallons per year — chemical
phase separation
With the traditional method, the amount of emulsions used is
essentially the quantity discarded. Some loss takes place during use
due to such factors as evaporation and spillage. An estimated 20
percent of emulsions are lost during use.
Typically, emulsion specifications vary depending on the process
(e.g., grinding, turning 3 milling) for which a coolant oil is used.
While many machines in a plant can use an emulsion with a common
specification, some are unable. Only emulsions with a common
specification can be processed in a central closed—loop system. For the
hypothetical plant, 70 percent of emulsions have a common specification.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
28
This is an average rate for machine tool plants. Waste generation with
a closed—loop system was found to be reduced 99.75 percent relative to
the traditional method. In the hypothetical plant, 20 gallons of
discarded emulsions would be generated per year by the machines on the
closed—loop system. The remaining 4,610 gallons were generated by those
machines excluded from the recycle operation.
A plant with a separation facility will generate the same quantity
of used coolant oil as a plant which uses the traditional approach.
After separation of the emulsion into water and coolant oil residue,
much less oil needs tb be discarded. The water generated must be
discarded to a sewage treatment plant prior to release to a water
course (see the discussion on page 6.9).
Transportation of discarded coolant oils can be done in either
drums.or bulk. Drum shipment is the more expensive alternative for two
reasons. First, drums take longer to load. A bulk tanker can be loaded
in less than an hour, while a trailer loaded to 80 drum capacity takes
almost two hours. The second reason is that incoming waste is tested
at a treatment/disposal site. Each drum must be tested, whereas several
samples from a bulk shipment are sufficient.
For both the traditional and closed—loop options, discards are
shipped by drum or bulk methods. With treatment the quantities
discarded are small enough to warrant shipment only in drums.
Cost Analysis
In this Section, the costs for the management options outlined
above are developed and analyzed. To achieve these objectives the
Section is divided into three parts:
• Capital and operating costs — 1980
• Cost projections to 1990
• Present value analysis
Capital and Operating Costs — 1980 . These costs were developed based on
the conditions outlined in the section on operating parameters.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
29
To insure an equitable comparison among the options, all capital
items were assumed to be purchased new in 1980. A plant manager Bhould
consider this assumption when evaluating a change in current disposal
practices. Some of the capital items listed might be already in use in
a plant, particularly those items associated with the traditional
option. Such equipment would have a different annual capital cost than
the figure given in the detailed cost tables in Tables 8.1 to 8.3.
The cost assumptions used to develop annual capital costs were:
• Useful life 10 years
• Amortization Rate 18 years
No capital cost was assessed on the options for the building space
required for the equipment.
Common operating cost factors (e.g., labor) were assumed to be the
same for each option. The common cost factors and costs were:
• Labor $9.40 per hour, including
fringe benefits
• Coolant oil $4.00 per gallon
Traditional management with bulk shipment to a treatment/disposal
site was determined to be the lowest cost option for the hypothetical
plant in 1980, Table 8.4. Cost of this alternative was estimated to be
$10,130 per year. Traditional management with drum shipment was
determined to be the most expensive option. In both cases, operating
costs accounted for the majority of total costs — bulk (81 percent) and
drum (96 percent), Table 8.5. This is important because operating cost
will increase over time, while capital costs are fixed over the useful
life of the equipment.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
30
TABLE 8.1
COST ANALYSIS
TRADITIONAL COOLANT OIL MANAGEMENT 1
.
Anortitation
Initial
Coats
Life
Factor
Annual
Costs
Drum
Bulk
(Years)
(181)
Drum
Bulk
CAPITAL COSTS 2
Sump cleaner $ 4,000 $ 4,000 10 0.223 S 890 $ 890
Storage tank _______ 4,600 10 0.223 _______ i ,020
TOTAL $ 4,000 8 8,600 $ 890 $ 1,910
OPERATING COSTS
Labor 3 $ 1,500 $ 1,500
Supplies 4 1,920 1,920
Energy 5 50 50
Mainc.: 3 of total initial capital costs 120 260
DisposaL 6 15,360 4,400
Misc. (insurance, administrative and management coats)
1% of total initial capital costs 40 90
TOTAL $18,990 $ 8,220
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $19,880 $10,130
Footnotes :
‘Data calculated by Cord ian Associates from responses to the Vermont discarded
coolant oil questionnaire and vendor sources.
2 The capital items listed are those necessary for the proper control of coolant oil.
A company might currently have these items and thua not have to purchase this equip-
ment. Even so, with any capital item there is an annual cost. To determine the
annual coat of capital, it was assumed that the listed capital items were purchased
in April 1980.
3 Labor coats were based on the time to empty and refill the machine aumps.
• Time to empty and refill sump 1 hour
• Annual frequency 4
• Total time 160 hours
• Number of machines 40
• Labor rate $9.40, includes
15 percent
fringe benefits.
The time to empty and refill a sump as well as annual frequency were based on the
knowledge of the staff of RECF.A Research of processes which use coolant oil.
The hourly race was taken from the Dodge Mean Guide and adjusted for Vermont.
-------
4 Supply costs were for coolant oil.
• Annual quantity 480 gallons
• Coat $4.00 per gallon
5 Energy Costa V 55 for power to operate the sump cleaner.
6 Disposal costs were for transportation and treatment at an acceptable site.
Average costs for these services were based on information given by Environmental
Waste Removal, Inc. — Waterbury, Connecticut — end Chemical Recovery 1 Inc. —
Boston, Massachusetts.
• Annual quantity discarded 15,360 gallon.
• Disposal coat
Drum $50 per drum in ehipments
of 36 drum..
Bulk $0.20 per gallon plu. a
shipping charge of $330.
31
-------
32
TABLE 8.2
COST ANALYSIS
CLOSED LOOP COOLANT OIL MANAGEMENT
Amortiration
Initial
Costs
Life
Factor
Annual
Costs
Drum
Bulk
(Years)
(182)
Drum
Bulk
CAPITAL COSTS 2
Sump cleaner $ 4,000 $ 4,000 10 0.223 $ 890 $ 890
Closed—loop system
complete,
in place 25,000 25,000 10 0.223 5,560 5,560
Storage tank _______ 1,150 10 0.223 _______ 260
TOTAL $29,000 $30,150 $ 6,450 S 6,710
OPERATING COSTS
Labor 3 $ 4,000 $ 4,000
Supplies 4 640 640
Energy 5 200 200
Maint.: 32 of total initial capital costs 870 900
Disposal 6 4,630 2,280
Misc. (insurance, administrative and management Costs)
12 of total initial capital costs 290 300
TOTAL $10,630 $ 8,320
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $17,080 $15,020
Footnotes :
‘Data calculated by Gordian Associates from responses to the Vermont discarded
coolant oil questionnaire and vendor sources.
2 The capital items listed are those necessary for the proper control of coolant oil
using a closed—loop system. A company might currently have some or all of these
items and thus not have to purchase this equipment. Even so, with any capital item
there is an annual cost. To determine the annual cost of capital, it was assumed
that the listed capital items were purchased in April 1980.
3 Laber coats were based on the time to empty and refill the machine eumps and to
operate the closed—loop system.
Machines
Closed— Non—Closed—
ioop loop TOTAL
• Time to empty and refill aump 1 hr. 1 hr.
• Annual frequency 6 4
• Total time 168 hrs. 48 hra. 216 hrs.
• Number of machines 28 12 40
The time to empty and refill a aump as well as annual frequency were based on the
knowledge of the staff of RECRA Rasearch of processes which use coolant oil.
Closed—loop equipment operation labor requirement:
• Weekly time 4 hours
Labor cost to empty and refill the lumps and operate the closed—loop system were
assumed to be the same.
• Labor rate ‘ $9.40, includes
15 percent fringe
benefits
The hourly rate was taken from the Dodge Mean Guide and adjusted for Vermont.
-------
33
4 Supply costa were for coolant oil.
• Annual quantIty 160 gallons
• Cost $4.00 per gallon
5 Energy costs were to power the su p cleaner and the closed—loop aysten.
6 Diaposal costa were for transportation and treatnent at an acceptable site.
Average costs for these services were based on information given by Enviro usentaL
Waste Removal, Inc. — Waterbury, Connecticut — end Chemical Recovery, Inc. —
Boston, Massachuaecta.
• Annual quantity diacarded 4)630 gallon.
• Dispoaal cost
Drum $50 per drum in •hipmenta
of 36 drums.
Bulk $0.20 per gallong plua a
shipping charge of $330.
This aaaumes 70 percent of machine on cloaed—loop system with a generation rate of
.25 percent per year. Hachines, excluded from syatem, generate 4,610 gallons per
year.
-------
34
TABLE 8.3
COST ANALYSIS
TREATMENT COOLANT OIL MANA’%TMENT 1
Initial Costa
Annual
Coats
Ultra—
Chemzcal
Amorti:ation Ultra—
Chemical
filtra—
Phase
Life
Factor
filtra—
Phase
tion
Separation
(Years)
(18%)
tion
Separation
CAPITAL COSTS 2
Sump cleaner S 4,000 S 4,000 10 0.223 $ 890 S 890
Treatment system,
complete,
in place 10,000 17,000 10 0.223 2,230 3,780
TOTAL $14,000 $23,000 $ 3,120 $ 4,670
OPERATING COSTS
Labor 3 $ 3,460 $ 3,460
Supplies 4 2,320 3,050
Energy 5 200 200
Maint.: 32 of total initial capital costs 420 690
Disposal 6 3,300 1,410
Misc. (insurance, administrative and management costs)
1% of total initial capital costs 140 230
TOTAL $ 9,840 $ 9,040
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $12,960 $13,710
Footnotes :
IData calculated by Cordian Associates from responses to the Vermont discarded
coolant oil questionnaire and vendor sources.
2 The capital items listed are those necessary for the proper control of coolant oil
using an on—site treatment system. A company might currently have some of these
items and thus not have to purchase this equipment. Even so, with any capital items
there is an annual cost. To determine the annual cost of capital, it was assumed
that the listed capital items were purchased in April 1980.
3 Labor costs were based on the time to empty and refill the machine sueps and to
operate the treatment system. Sump labor requirements:
• Time to empty and refill sump 1 hour
• Annual frequency 4
• Total time 160 hours
• Number of machines 40
The time to empty and refill a sump as well as annual frequency were based on the
knowledge of the staff of RECRA Research of processes which use coolant oil.
Treatment system equipment operation labor requirement:
• Weekly time - - 4 hours
Labor cost to empty and refill the sumps and operate the treatment system were
aaaumed to be the same.
• Labor rare $9.60, includes
15 percent fringe
benefits
The hourly rate was taken from the Dodge Mean Cuide and adjusted for Vermont.
-------
35
4 Supply costs were for coolant oil and treatment equipment.
Coolant oil:
• Annual quantity 480 gallon.
• Coat $4.00 per gallon
Treatment — Ultrafiltration:
• Quantity One filter each year
• Co .t $400 per filter
Treatment — Chemical Phase Separation:
• Quantity 10 pound. flocculation
agent per 100 gallon.
• Cost $0.75 per pound
5 Energy coat. were to power the sump cleaner and the treatment equipment.
6 oiaposal costs were for transportation and treatment at an acceptable aite.
Average coat. for these service. were based on information given by Enviroumental
Waste Removals Inc. — Wacerbury Connecticut — and Chemical Recovery, Inc. —
Boacon, )fasaachuaetta.
Chemical Phase
Ultrafiltration Separation
• Annual quantity diacarded 3,000 gallons 900 gallons
• Disposal cost $50 per drum in shipments
of 36 drums. Transporta-
tion charge on shipments
of less that 36 drums but
more than five drums: $75.
With shipments of five or
lea. drums the charge is
$127.50. In both cases,
there would be four shipments
per year.
-------
36
Table 8.4
Ranking Management Options Based on-Total Ann ial Costs, 19801
Management Total Annual
Rank Option Costs, 1980 ($ )
1 Traditional — Bulk 10,130
2 Ultrafiltration 12,960
3 Chemical Phase Separation 13,710
4 Closed—Loop — Bulk 15,020
5 Closed—Loop — Drum 17,080
6 Traditional — Drum 19,880
Footnote :
1. Source — Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
The treatment options were found to be the second and third lowest cost
alternatives. Ultrafiltration was less expensive ($12,960 per year) than
chemical phase separation ($13,710 per year). Operating costs, however, are
lower with chemical phase separation (61 percent of total costs) than with
ultrafiltration (70 percent of total costs).
A possible advantage with chemical phase separation is the ability
claimed by equipment vendors to treat other hazardous waste streams (e.g., paint
sludges), which might be generated by a company. In addition, the oil/flocculent
agent product has been claimed to be able to pass EPA’s criteria for a non—
hazardous waste. This claim was discounted in the cost analysis. Disposal
cost for the waste, therefore, was based on the assumption that the waste
product was hazardous.
Closed—loop processing was determined to have relatively high first year
- operating costs. - Annual system costs would e $l5, 020 with bulk shipment and
$17,080 with drum shipment.
-------
37
Table 8.5
Capital 1 Operating, and Total Annual Costs
By Management Option For Individual Plants) 19801
Management Annual Costs($)
Option Capital Operating Total
Traditional
Drum 890 18)990 19,880
Bulk 1,910 8,220 10,130
Closed—loop
Drum 6,450 10,630 17,080
Bulk 6,710 8,320 15,020
Treatment
Ultrafiltration 3,120 9,840 12)960
Chemical Phase
Separation 4,670 9,040 13,710
Cost Projections . To analyze the cost of the managnient options over the
10 year useful life of the equipment, projections were made to 1990.
During this time, all capital costs (the fixed costs) remained constant;
only the operating (the variable costs) were increased. The rate at
which specific operating cost items will increase, however, will vary.
three categories of cost items were identified:
• Disposal,
• Coolant Oil, and
• Other Operating Costs.
1 Source Tables 8.1,8.2, and 8.3
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
38
Rather than increase the cost items based on one set of inflation
factors, six cost scenarios were developed, Tab1e 8.6. This approach
was taken because representatives of the hazardous waste management and
coolant oil manufacturing industries were unable to give a single rate
at which these cost items would increase. For example, cost increases
ranging form 0.0 to 100.0 percent were given for hazardous waste
management during the next few years. Instead, a range of rates at
which these costs might escalate were given. The mid—range escalation
rates were used for this report.
The purpose of these scenarios is to show the change in operating,
and thus total costs, under several inflation rates for each cost item.
Under these different rates, the ranking of the management options will
vary each year. Those options with a high percentage of operating costs
to total costs (e.g., traditional) fare the worst under the scenarios
with the high escalation rates.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
39
Table 8.6
Cost Scenarios
Disposal Costs Coolant Oil Costs Other Operating Costs
Scenario % increase years % increase years Z increase years
1 40 1—2 20 1—10 10 1—10
15 3—10
2 40 1—2 30 1-10 10 1—10
15 3—10
3 30 1—5 20 1—10 10 1—10
15 6—10
4 30 1—5 30 1—10 10 1—10
15 6—10
5. 20 1—10 20 1—10 10 1—10
6 20 1—10 30 1—10 10 1—10
Figure 8.1 through 8.12 show graphically the total annual costs over
the 10 year period of this study for each management option under the six
scenarios. Detailed annual cost projections for each option under the
scenario are given in Appendix B. The management options are divided
into two groups by scenario: (1) drum transport and (2) bulk transport.
Costs for the two treatment processes are shown in both groups. Also
shown on each graph is the present value of the projected costs. Present
va1ue which is discussed in the next section, was used to evaluate the
cost projections.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
40
FIGURE 8.1
Alternative
Traditional
Closed—Loop
Ultrafiltration
Chemical Phase
Separation
Present
Present Value
Value Rank
$231,100 4
$131,720 3
$106,370 2
$ 99,500 1
YEARS FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
SCENARIO 1 — DRUM BASIS 1
1
1.
12
11
101
9
8
f - s
0
Q
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
,
,
6 •
/
/
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Footnote
1 Data for these cost projections were taken from Appendix A.
-------
FIGURE 8.2
Present
Present Value
Value Rank
YEARS FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
Closed—Loop
Ultrafiltration
Traditional
Chemical Phase
Separation
SCENARIO 1 - BULK BASIS
1,2
Footnotes :
1
Data for these cost projections were taken from Appendix A.
2 Ultrafiltration and chemical phase separation are treatment
processes which generate small waste quantities, which
would be discarded in drums. These options are presented
as alternatives to bulk disposal both with the traditional
and closed—loop approaches.
14
13 1
121
11
Alternative
U)
14
U)
0
U
I
$132,890
$106,370
$ 98,460
$ 99,500
4
3
1
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-------
FIGURE 83
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
“S
,
Present
Present Value
Value Rank
Traditional
$244,000
Ultrafiltration
$119,270
2
Closed—Loop
$136,020
3
Chemical Phase
Footnote :
YEARS FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
SCENARIO 2 - DRUM BASIS 1
42
Alternative
131
121
11
10 ’
9’
C l ,
0
U
F- .
I- 0
<0
0
/
‘S
‘S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Data for these cost projectiOns were taken from Appendix A.
-------
43
FIGURE 8.4
Ultrafiltration
Traditional
Chemical Phase
Separation
Closed—Loop
Value
$119,270
$111,370
$112,400
$107,760
SCENARIO 2 — BULK BASIS 1,2
Footnotes :
1 Data for these cost projections were taken from Appendix A.
2 Ultrafiltration and chemical phase separation are treatment
processes which generate sma]. 1 waste quantities, which
would be discarded in drums. These options are presented
as alternatives to bulk disposal both with teh traditional
and closed—loop approaches.
Alternative
Present
1
12
11
8
V)
14
0
U
<0
I
7i
6’
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
YEARS FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
-------
44
FIGURE 8.5
/
/
1’
/
/
•1
/
/
/
/
/
Traditional
/
lternative
Closed—Loop
U ltrafilttation
Chemical Phase
Separation
Present
Present Value
Vlaue Rank
$255,570 4
$136,020 3
$111,730 2
$101,790 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
YEARS FROM PROJECT START—UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
SCENARIO 3 — DRUM BASIS 1
1.
12
C l )
0
Q
r.4
I
3’
/
-p . -.
2
1.
Footnote
1 Data for these cost projectioi’ts were taken from Appendix A.
-------
45
FIGURE 8.6
Traditional
Ultrafiltration
Chemical Phase
Separation
C losea—Loop
SCENARIO 3 — BULK BASIS 1,2
Footnotes :
Data for these cost projections were taken from Appendix A.
2 Ultrafiltration and chemical phase separation are treatment
processes which generate small waste quantities, which
would be discarded in drums. These options are presented
as alternatives to bulk disposal both with the traditional
and closed loop approaches.
Present
Present Value
Value Rank
$105,610 2
$111,730 4
1.
12
Alternative
U)
I -I
C l )
0
<0
< (1 )
1 -4
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
YEARS FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
-------
46
FIGURE 8.7
Ultrafiltration
Closed—Loop
Chemical Phase
Separation
Present
Value
$268,410 4
$124,630 2
$143,540 3
$114,690 I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
YEARS FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
SCENARIO 4 — Drum Basis 1
1.
Alternative
Traditional
I
/
/
I
1.
/
• /
/
/
/
8
/
U)
1-4
U)
0
C.)
<0
< ‘I).
I
/
7i
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
./
/
/
Footnote :
1 Data for these cost projectio ts were taken from Appendix A.
-------
FIGURE 8.8
Traditional
Ultrafiltration
Chemical Phase
Separation
Closed—Loop
$118,520
$124,630
$114,690
$111,460
YEARS FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
SCENARIO 4 — BULK BASIS 1,2
Footnotes :
1 Data for these cost projections were taken from Appendix A.
2 Ultrafiltration and chemical phase separation are treatment
processes which generate small waste quantities, which
would be discarded in drums. These options are presented
as alternatives to bulk disposal both with the traditional
and closed loop approaches.
47
15
14
Alternative
Present
Value
I-
C l )
ii
3
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-------
FIGURE 8.9
• _. Closed—Loop
Ultrafiltration
Chemical Phase
Separation
48
Present
Present Value
Value Rank
$205,620 4
$100,890
$ 97,160 1
YEARS FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
SCENARIO 5 — DRUM BASIS
15i
Alternative
j Traditional
/
/
I
/
U,
0
U
1- 4
T
6
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Footnote
Data for these cost projections were taken from Appendix A.
-------
49
FIGURE 8.10
Present
Present Value
Alternative Value Rank
150’
140’
130’
120’
110’
100’
1,,
t. 90”
U)
80
70.
Ultrafiltration $100,890 4
5” Traditional $ 91,160
40’ .‘ Chemical Phase
::
0’ ____________________________________
I P 1 I I I I 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
YEARS FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
SCENARIO 5 — BULK BASIS 1,2
Footnotes :
1 Data for these cost projections were taken from Appendix A.
2 Ultrafiltration and chemical phase separation are treatment
processes which generate small waste quantities, which
would be discarded in drums. ‘ These options are presented
as alternatives to bulk disposal both with the traditional
and closed loop approaches.
-------
50
FIGURE 8.11
Present
Present Value
Value Rank
/
I
I
/
I
/
/
/
I.
/
/
Traditional
Ultrafiltration
Closed—Loop
Chemical Phase
Separation
YEAR.S FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
SCENARIO 6 - DRUM BASIS 1
1
121
Alternative
U)
U)
0
U
<0
0Ih
I
$218,450
$113,790
$128,340
$110,060
4
2
3
1
/
I
/.
/
/
/
/
/
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Footnote
Data for these cost projections were taken from Appendix A.
-------
FIGURE 8.1.2
Present
Present Value
Alternative Value Rank
150’
140’
130’
120’
110’
100’
Cl )
90.
Cl )
80 ’
70 .
60’ Ultrafiltration $113,790 4
‘, Traditional $104,070 2
50’ . Chemical Phase
,.,‘. Separation $110,060 3
Closed—Loop $103,980
20”
10”
0” __________________________________
I I J I I I I 1 I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
YEARS FROM PROJECT START-UP
(BASE YEAR—1980)
SCENARIO 6 - BULK BASIS 1,2
Footnotes :
1 Data for these cost projections were taken from Appendix A.
2 Ultrafiltration and chemical phase separation are treatment
processes which generate sm4i. waste quantities, which would
be discarded in drums. These options are presented as
alternatives to bulk disposal with the traditional and closed
loop approaches.
-------
Present Value Cost Analysis . This analytical method is based on the
principle that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar in the future.
The resoning behind this method is that today’s dollar can be invested
and, thus, today’s dollar plust the investment income would have a
higher value than the future dollar alone. To assess alternative
projects, future savings (earinings) are discounted to the present and
summed so that comparisons can be made. The discount rate used in this
study was the prime interest rate in effect in April 1980. Since the
prime rate is the cost lenders charge for money, an investment has to be
able to save (earn) at least that much to be conomically justifiable.
The prime rate used was 18 percent. A lower prime rate would benefit
those options with a high percentage of capital costs to total costs
(e.g., closed—loop, treatment), since future savings would be discounted
at a lower rate.
A comparison of the summation of the yearly present values for each
project will indicate which project is preferable given the stated
conditions. In this case the project with the lowest present value is
preferable.
The present value of each management option under the six scenarios
is given in Table 8.7. In Table 8.8, the management options are ranked
in order present value with those options with the lowest present value
ranked first.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
Table 8.7
Present Values For Each Management Option’ 2
Management
Option
Traditional
Present
Value by Scenario ($)
1 2
3
4 5 6
Drum
Bulk
Closed—loop
231,100 244,000 255,570 268,410 205,620 218,450
98,460 111,370 105,610 118,520 91,160 104,070
Drum
Bulk
Treatment
131,720 136,020 139,240 143,540 124,030 128,340
103,460 107,760 107,160 111,460 99,670 103,980
Ultrafiltration
Chemical Phase
Footnotes :
Separation
106,370 119,270 111,730 124,630 100,890 113,790
99,500 112,400 101,790 114,690 97,160 110,060
1. Source — Appendix B
2. All data rounded to the nearest 10.
Rank
Table 8.8
Present Value Ranking of the Management Options
CPS CL—B CPS CL—B
Trad—B Trad—B Trad—B CPS
3
CL B
CPS CL—B
Trad—B CL—B
CPs
4
Ultra
Ultra Ultra
Ultra
5
6
CL-D
CL-D CL—D
Trad—fi Trad—D Trad—D
CL— I) CL-D
CL—D
Trad—D Trad—D Trad-D
Footnotes :
1. Rankings based on data in Table 6.7.
2. Abbreviations: Trade—D (Traditional—Drum); Trade—B (Traditional—Bulk);
CL—D (Closed Loop—Drum); CL—B (Closed Loop—Bulk); CPS (Chemical Phase
Separation); and Ultra (Ultrafiltration).
1
2
1 2 3 4
for Each ScenarioL 2
5
6
Trad—B CL—B
CPs
Trad—B
Ultra Ultra
-------
54
The ranking information in Table 8.8 fails to indicate that any of
the options is the preferable choice. 1n fact, he top four ranked
options (clo8ed loop, bulk; chemical phase separation; ultrafiltration;
and traditional, bulk) are all typically within a 10 percent range. The
variation in ranking and the small percentage difference between the
options indicates that none of the top four options is economically
preferable to others, at least under the conditions outlined in this
report.
A reader who wishes to evaluate which management options to use in
a plant should use this report as guide for developing site specific
cost data. As stated throughout this section, the information is based
on a hypothetical plant. Consequently, the results reported in this
study are only indicators, not definitive costs. In addition, changes
in economic conditions which cause the interest rate to rise or fall
will affect the ranking of each option. Options which have relatively
high capital costs will be most affected by these changes. Variations
from the escalation rates forecast will cause operating costs also to
grow at different rates. Again, this will have an affect on the ranking
of the options.
In summary, readers concerned about coolant oil management at a
specific plant should use this report as a guide in determining costs at
the plant. This gives a manager a basis upon which to discuss with
representatives of close—loop, treatment, and treatment/disposal
companies the cost of the services offered. In other words, a manager
will be able to develop site specific cost data prior to meeting with a
vendor. Therefore, the manager will be in a position to more fully
understand the cost data presented by a vendor to justify any given
approach to coolant oil management.
CENTRAL TREATMENT FACILITY
Implied in this approach is the shipment of the waste coolant oil
generated in Vermont to a central site for treatment. The objective of
such a facility would be to reduce the cost which the machine tool
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
industry must bear for the proper management of discarded emulsions
through economies of scale.
This evaluation of the economic viability of a central treatment
facility was divided into three phases. tn the first phase the total
amount of waste coolant oil generated in the State was quantified.
Costs to build and operate a central treatment facility were determined
in the second phase. In addition, the cost to the machine tool industry
to continue its current practices was developed. These costs are
compared in the third phase.
Waste Quantity
About 300,000 gallons of coolant oil emulsions will be generated in
1980. This rate was interpolated from the responses to the Vermont
discarded coolant oil questionnaire. For the purpose of this
evaluation, it was assumed that emulsions will continue to be discarded
at this rate. This assumption was based on the condition that those
respondents who expressed interest in closed—loop or treatment systems
would forgo this option if a central treatment facility were available.
Management Cost
The cost to management used coolant oil in Vermont were developed
on two basis: current practice and central treatment.
Current Practice An estimated $300,000 will be spent by the
machine tool industry in Vermont to transport and treat discarded
coolants in 1980. This cost does not reflect the expense incurred by
those companies which recycle or treat their coolants on—site. The
factors used to determine these costs were:
• Quantity: 6,000 barrels of emulsion will be discarded with
50 gallons per 55—gallon drum.
• Cost: $50.00 per barrel for hauling and processing at
sites in New England.
Central Treatment A cost analysis of a central treatment facility
required estimates on the fo1lowi tg three factors:
• Hauling cost from individual plants to a central facility,
- Gordon Associ&e 1icor r te i
-------
S
• Costs of facility operation, and
• Disposal cost for treatment residue.
A first step in the determination of hauling costs was to locate the
facility. Springfield, which is the major source (85 percent) of coolant
oil, was designated as the facility location to minimize transportation
cost. The estimated hauling costs to deliver waste coolant oil to a
Springfield site would be $32,550, shown on Table 8.9.
Table 8.9
Hauling Cost To Central Treatment Facility In Vermont
Percent of Emulsions Quantity Discarded Mileage Hauling
Source Discarded ( Gallons) to Site Cost
Springfield 85 255,000 10 $11,480
Lyndonville 10 30,000 105 14,180
Other 5 15,000 106 6,890
Total 100 300,000 221 $32,550
Lyndonville is another area with a concentration of machine tool
companies. The remaining companies in Vermont are located throughout
the State. Since exact locations for all these plants were unavailable,
an estimated mileage was used. This estimated was the average distance
from the 14 county seats to Springfield. All mileage information was
obtained from the American Automobile Association. Rate charges for
hauling coolant oils were obtained from the St. Johusbury Trucking
Company.
Costs for facility operation are based primarily on three
considerations: (1) treatment system used, (2) land and construction,
and (3) labor.
Although both ultrafiltration and chemical phase separation could
be used to treat coolant oil emulsions at a central facility, the latter
method was selected. This treatment method was selected based on
chemical ability to treat other hazardous wastes (e.g., paint sludge),
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
57
in addition to coolant oil emulsions. In addition 3 the residue
containing the coolant oil has passed the EPA leachate test as a
non—hazardous waste according to vendor claims. For the purpose of this
analysis, a conservative approach was taken and all residue was
considered to be hazardous.
An estimated five acres would be needed to house the central
treatment facility. To protect the equipment and one employee, a
building should be constructed. Sufficient room would be required for
equipment, office space and storage. A sewer connection would be needed
for discharge of the separated water. Site development would have to
include the protection measures required for a hazardous waste treatment
facility.
A full—time employee would be needed on—site. However, actual
operating time was estimated to be only 600 hours per year. This
employee’s responsibilities would include equipment operation and record
keeping. In fact, if a central facility were built, other types of
hazardous waste (e.g., paint and electroplating wastes) probably would
be treated at the site. Consequently, the employee would have tasks
associated with these other wastes and, thus, would be used more fully
than indicated here. Even so, the cost of a full—time employee was used
to analyze this option both to be conservative in assessing these
alternatives and because no guarantees exist that other wastes would be
treated at such a facility.
Annual cost to operate a central treatment facility has been
estimated to be $127,490, Table 8.10. This figure is comprised of
$27,220 for annual capital costs and $100,270 for operating expenses.
Based on an estimated statewide cost to transport and treat
discarded coolants of $300,000, the cost of a central treatment facility
would be $172,510 less in 1980.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE 8.10
COST ANALYSIS
CENTRAL TREATMENT FACILITY
Initial
Life
Amortization
Annual,
Coats
(Year)
Factor
(18%)
Costa
CAPITAL COSTS
Storage Tanks $9,200 10 0.223 $ 2,050
Treatment system, tom— $17,000 10 0.223 3,790
plete in place 2
Construction & Land $114,350 20 0.187 21,380
Building: 1,100 sq. ft.
@ $45/sq.ft. 49,500
Site development: 53%
of building 27,350
Land: 5 acre @
$7,500/acre 4 37,500
TOTAL $140,550 $ 27,220
OPERATING COSTS
Labor 5 18,000
Supplies 6 22,500
Energy 7 8.000
Maintenance:
5% of initial equipment costs 1,310
Disposal 8 16,500
Transportation 9 32,550
Misc: (insurance, administrative
and management costs) 12 of total
initial capital costs 1,410
TOtAL $100,270
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $127.490
Footnotes :
1. Data calculated by Gordian Associates from response to the Vermont discarded
coolant oil questionnaire and vendor sources.
2. Treatment system is a chemical phase separation unit.
3. Site development costs were based on a higher than normal (30 percent of building)
cost because the site would be used as a hazardous waste treatment facility.
4. Labor costs were based on the assumption that one employee would be needed at the
facility full time. This person would be responsible for equipment operations as
well as administering (e.g., bookkeeping) the facility. Actual work would be less
than the 2,080 hours in a full work—year. Even so, the operator would need to be
at the facility to receive shipments upon arrival. While shortened hours of operation
would be possible, hiring a qualified operator/administrator at less than the stated
rate of pay would be difficult.
-------
59
5. Supply Costa wre for the treatment equipment:
• Quantity Treated 300,000 gallons
• Unit Quantity 10 pounds of flocculation agent par
100 gallons of emulsion
• Unit Coats $0.75 per pound
6. Energy costs were to power the treatment equipment and to light and heat the
building.
7. Disposal costs were based on the following conditions:
• Generation rate of 5.5 gallons per 100 gallons treated
oily residue
• Quantity treated 300,000 gallons
• Costs $50 per drum in shipment of 36 drums
8. Treansportation costs were based on the following conditions:
• Cost $4.75 per 100 pounds — shipped 105
miles within Vermont, which was the
average shipping distance.
Transportation cost information was obtained from St. Johneburg Trucking
Company St. .Johnsburg, Vermont.
-------
6J
APPENDIX A
SA}IPLE QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
State of Vermont
61
AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Air and Solid Waste Programs, State Office Bldg.
Monipelier, Vermont 05.602
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Department of Fish end Game
Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation
Department of Weter Resources January 24, 1980
Environmental 8oard
Division of Environmental Engineering
Division of Environmental Protection
Natural Resources Conservation Council
Dear
The Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation, in conjunction with
the New Hampshire Department of Health and Welfare, has received a grant
from the USEPA to study a coniiion environmental and economic problem -
treatment and disposal of waste coolant oil emulsions. Forthcoming
hazardous waste regulations from both states as well as the Federal
government will require immediate attention to this problem and an
expeditious solution. These rules will prohibit land disposal of all
oils and will require e t shipment to treatment facilities in southern
New England — an expensive option. A regional solution will take advantage
of the economics of scale and will hopefully result in the development
of a treatment and disposal facility central in the Vermont-New Hampshire
region.
An independent contractor has been selected by the EPA to compile information
about the usage of the various coolant oil products in New Hampshire and
Vermont, to evaluate the feasibility of existing technologies for treatment
of these products when they become wastes, and to make recommendations
for environmentally and economically sound management practices. Information
on the coolants you use and discard is needed to determine which options
will be acceptable in the region. Therefore, I am asking you to give
the enclosed questionnaire your personal attention. A prompt response
will enable us to develop a solution to this problem in a timely manner.
To maintain the confidentiality of your answers, information which would
identify your company has been excluded from the questionnaire. Through
a tracking system, the AEC will be able to determine which companies
respond. In this way, outside individuals, including our consultants,
will be unable to match responses with specific companies.
A copy of the final report will be forwarded to each respondent upon
completion.
Sincerely,
Robert Nichols
Hazardous Waste Engineer
RN:lah
Enclosure
-------
DISCARDED COOLANT OIL QUEST ION A I RL
P1c s complete this quostioruiairc as thoroug1 ty as ;. , and return
with any further information you feel is important.
1. Plant location (county):
2 • Cool.tnt oils purch , cd (p1 a e i L tarli m.tntiricltirc: ‘ ‘i I ftni i’ i
she is for oils 1 i ,ted b 1.ow) :
Qu .uici ty Frr iic” y ( tdi tte
(1 nc1ic iLe - . I 3i. &’s i , 1’ : cd per
Brand Nanutacturer e. ., UG-L: porinri,
(A)
(B)
(C)
(1))
(E)
3. Coolant oil exLei krs:
— Arc extenders nsed: Yes
— Quantity of oil saved last t zo years (tndicate —t , e.g., :i1l. ):
1.979 _____________; 1.978
— Describe tec1iniq ies/chemicn]s used to extend oil. 1La: — - —
— Describe p].aus to save oil. Lhrough e:.Lendccs and cstf... t oil. •. .vi s:
-------
2
4. Pro ss cli;ir;u’ Lcristics’ :
— Indicate oil—to—water emulsion
function (i .g., grinding), and
ratio by (1) brand name, (2) process
(3) quanLity discarded.
63
BL ..Ind \‘anle
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
) .itio
(0 il/ t.cr)
Process
(e.g., grfnding)
QuantiLy Di’r.. 1 rdcd
(Estirate if x ct
quanti. ty UIT ,O .,U . )
5. Di carded cool. flt oil m3nQgC 11ent:
— co .ibfneil si. rage with other ir terials (e.g., solvents, gca :t’s, trar. p
oil s):
Yes —
Des ribc ri:iLeri.11S ____
— Type of storage: Drums -— Bulk ____—
— Material lajec ng ducing storage: Yes — No
— Physical a ’eai flCe
C l ariLy
(‘.l.car
Cl oi;ily —
— . tce . iulsiu,i’ currec tly Li:eated or recycled at
Yes
)cs ’cihe p& r.C S usi d (o. . , ulLcafilLr;itton, ruvc r e o n is)
Sf:tte
c,.. ,• •
your pla’ t:
-------
3
— Name and lor.ition of dis [ ’o :tI. ;ite for emulsions or residue’;:
• !ustc ;:i
flisposa l --
Trdnsportation $ _____ ______——
— D 2scribe plans for r cyc15ng, tLcatme.nt, or dtsposzil. of your
discarded emulsions:
Ph’.tse use reverse side if additional space is w c ied.
Return by Febrtiary 12, 1.980
to:
R 1 ert N cho1s
Air and Solid t ste PL-U LtmS
Ar ciicy of Euvi ,:on,llent at Ci ;t c ’i.i tion
St, te Office T iilr1ing
.oL ipeliar, Vur ont 05C02
-------
APPENDIX B
COST PROJECTION DATA FOR EACH MANAGEMENT OPTION
UNDER THE SIX COST ESCALATION SCENARIOS
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
PRESENT VALUE: 111366.75 .* . .a
TRADITIONAL. SCENARIO 3. RULK BASIS
DISPOSAL 4400.00
COOLANT 1920.00
OTHER 1900.00
TtI.. COST. 10130.00
VOLT 9V C N1RI
POtS.
DISPOSAL 4400.00
COOLA nT 1920.00
0 7HC 4 1900.00
TTI.. COST 10130.00
YRLT PT CONIRIB
p8 (1. VAt.
PRESENT VALUE: 105612.50.se ..
T010ITIONAL, SCENARIO 4. BULK OASIS
SC9dIr(.IJ 2 14 IS
6120.00 0623.99 9917.50 31405.21 13*15.99 15083.36 17345.8 % 19947.76 22939.91 26380.89
2496.00 3244.80 4210.23 5483.70 7128.80 9267.43 120*7.65 15661.93 20360.50 26468.63
20 0.00 2299.00 25’8.90 2701.70 3059.96 3365.95 3702.35 4072.80 4480.07 4928.00
12655.99 16077.73 18574.71 21580.69 25214.75 2962 .77 35006.00 4*592.49 49698.48 59637.60
10725.47 11546.82 11305.16 11131.12 11021.64 30974.74 10909.35 11065.26 11203.10 11404.27
10725.42 22272.24 33577.41 44708.S? 55730.16 66704.07 776 ’4. 19 88159.44 99962.50 111366.75
TEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 TIAR 9 YEAR 10
5720.00 7435.99 9666.78 *2566.00 *6338.33 10787.34 21605.44 24346.24 28573.17 32359.13
2304.00 2764.80 3317.76 3901.31 4777.5? 5733.08 6079.69 8255.62 9906.75 11088.09
2090.00 2299.00 2528.90 2781.78 3059.96 3365.95 3702.55 4072.80 4400.07 4920.03
12023.99 14409.78 17423.43 2*239.89 26084.35 29796.31 34097.68 39034. 44869.99 53585.30
10*89.02 10340.89 10604.46 10955.34 11403.75 1*037.51 10704.38 10390.08 18116.29 9856.20
10389.82 20538.72 31143.18 42098.57 33500.21 64537.84 •75242.00 35640.06 95756.31 105612.50
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR ‘ YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 TIAR 9 YEAR 10
YEAR 0 YEAR I YEAR 2 TEAR 3 1(00 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 TEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 18
5720.00
2496.00
2090.00
12215.99
10332.54
1 0352.54
7435.99
3244.80
2299.00
14889.78
10693.62
21046.16
DISPOSAL 4480.00
COOLANT 1920.00
OTHER *900.00
Ill.. COST *0*30.00
VOLT PT CONTRIB
ROES. VAL
A.... PRESENT VALUE:
118515.25 . .’a’
TRADITIONAL. SCENARIO
5. BULK BASIS
9666.78
4210.23
*8323.90
1*132.52
32198.67
12566.80
5483.70
2701.7?
22742.28
1*730.25
43928.92
16336.83
7128.80
309.92
2 04 35. 58
12429.50
56358.43
18787.34
926 7.43
3365.95
33330.73
*2346.82
60705.19
21605.44
12041.65
3702.55
39265.63
12326.54
8*031.69
24846.24
1566 1.93
4072.00
46490.97
12368.45
93400.12
P
2 857 3. *7
20360.50
4480.07
55323.74
12473.16
105873.25
32859.13
26468.63
4920 • 08
66165.81
12642.04
118535.25
DISPOSAL
4400.00
5280.00
6335.9’
7 (03. 19
9323.82
10940.50
13138.29
15765.93
18919.13
22102.94
27243.55
COOLANT
1920.00
2304.00
2764.80
3317.76
390I. l
4777.51
5733.08
6079.69
8255.62
9906.75. 1*880.09
OTHER
1900.00
2090.00
2299.00
2528.90
2701.78
3059.96
3365.95
3702.55
4072.80
4480.07
4928.08
tIL. COST 10230.00
YRLY PT CONTRIR
* 1583. ’9
90*6.94
13309.79
qs a.oq
)3359.84
9342.4’
17796.91
9179.44
20696.21
9046.49
24147.32
8944.90
28258.10
P073.00
33157.55
8823.23
3b999.7?
8792.80
45969.70
8783.25
PRCS. . . •
9 1s 1&. ’4
1937’.B4
20724.57
37983.80
46940.30
55895.27
64766.27
73587.50
02300.25
91163.44
PR( (MT VALUE: 91163.44.’...
-------
TRADITIONAL. SCU4IRIP F.. PULIC NASTS
9 (14 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 TEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAS 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
OISPOSIAJ ’ ,t .‘4,oo.oo 5280.00 6355.99 7A03.1 9223.82 109,6.58 13130.29 25765.95 I892 .I3 22702.95 27243.53
COOLANT 1920.00 24%.O0 3244.20 4210.2.! 5483.10 7228.00 9267.43 12047.65 25611. 3 20360.50 26468.63
OTHER 1400.00 20’O.OO 22 .0o 2528.90 2181.14 3O q.96 3365.95 3702.55 4072.00 4400.07 4924.00
TIL. COST 10130.00 3177i.99 1.’789.78 1(260.93 l929 .3O 23047.34 27603.68 33426.14 40563.81 49453.52 60550.24
YRLY P9 CONTRIB 9979.61 9903.62 9096.55 9954.39 10074.24 10254.22 10493.36 10791.61 11149.68 11569.09
PALS. 9*1 9979.66 19883.28 29779.82 39734.22 49600.46 60062.60 70556.00 01347.56 92497.19 104066.25
PPESENT VALUEO 104066.25.....
CLOSED LOOP. SCENARIO 1. CRUR OASIS
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 TEAR 2 TEAR 3 YEAR 4 TEAR 5 YEAR 6 TEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
DISPOSAL 4630.00 6482.00 9074.79 10436.00 12001.40 13001.60 15071.84 18252.60 20990.40 24139.05 27759.09
- COOLANT 640.00 768.00 921.60 1105.92 1327.10 1592.52 1911.03 2293.23 2751.80 3302.25 3962.70
OTHER 5360.00 5RQ6.00 6425.SQ 7134.34 7847.55 8632.30 9495.53 10445.07 11489.57 12638.52 13902.37
TIL. COST 17060.00 19545.49 22931.98 25126.07 27626.05 30476.43 33728.39 37440.91 41601.93 46529.82 52074.96
YPLY P9 CONTRID 16606.78 16469.41 15292.53 24249.26 13322.58 12494.12 21753.70 11089.06 20440.51 9949.75
PALS. 9*1 16606.18 33076.19 48368.12 62617.98 75939.50 88433.51 100187.25 111276.25 121166.75 131716.50
-- •1& .A PR(SENTVALUC 131716.50” * -
CLOSED LOOP, SCENARIO 2. CRUN BASIS
TEAR 0 TEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 TEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
DISPOSAL 4630.00 6482.00 9074.79 10436.00 12001.40 23802.60 15871.04 18252.60 20990.46 24139.85 27759.09
COOLANT 640.00 832.00 1081.60 1406.00 1827.90 2376.27 3009.15 4015.89 5220.65 6786.84 6822.08
OTHER 5360.00 5896.00 6485.59 7334.14 7847.55 8632.30 9495.53 20445.07 12489.57 12638.52 23902.37
TTL. COST 17080.00 19659.99 23091.94 25426.22 28126.05 31260.27 34906.51 39163.56 44150.71 50014.42 56935.14
981? P9 CONTRIB 16661.02 16504.3? 15475.2? 14507.56 23664.36 12930.54 122 4.49 11745.85 11216.13 10078.37
2 0( 5. VAL 16661.02 33245.34 40720.55 63220.12 76892.25 69022.75 102117.19 213063.00 125139.22 136017.44
• .i.. PR(SCNT VALUE: 136017.44.....
CLOSCO LOOP, SCENARIO 3. CRUN BASIS
- Y AR 0 YEAR I TEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
DISPOSAL 4630.00 6019.00 7824.64 10172.0 1372i.70 27190.00 19769.41 22134.02 26145.03 360(6.71 34576.17
COOLANT 2 646.00 768.00 921.60 lI0 .97 1327.10 1592.52 1912.03 2293.23 2753.88 3302.25 3962.70
OTHER 5360.00 5 8 A•0 0 64R5.’ 7I?4.14 7841.55 0632.30 495.53 20445.01 13489.5? 22638.52 13902.37
I lL. COST 17080.00 l 1’2.’J9 21621.87 ?4R0 .1’ 22840.36 330 ( 5.62 37625.96 41923.12 46836.48 52457.54 58892.84
YPLY PT CONTRIB 16214.4C 15511.62 15331.90 24819.11 14803.04 13937.91 251(0.79 22460.37 11026.96 13252.23
PR(S. VAL 16214.40 31786.02 46931.91 6l7 7.62 70600.6’ 40532.53 303699.25 126159.56 327926.50 139234.69
-------
PRESENT VALUE: 139238.69 s* .’
CLOSED LOOP, SCENARIC. 4. CRUM OASIS
YEAR 0 YEAR 3 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 6 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
DISPOSAL 4630.00 6019.00 7824.69 10172.09 33223.70 31190.80 19769.41 22734.82 26145.03 30066.77 34576.77
COOLANT 640.00 832.00 1081.60 1406.08 1827.90 2376.27 3089.15 4015.89 5220.65 6786.84 8822.88
OTHER 5360.00 5896.00 6485.59 7134.14 7847.55 8632.30 9495.53 10445.07 11489.5? 12638.52 13902.37
ITL. COST 17080.00 19196.99 21841.81 25162.30 29349.16 34649.37 3880i.09 43645.78 49305.25 55942.13 63752.02
YRLY Pv CONTRk ,r 16266.64 15686.52 15314.59 15138.02 15145.62 14374.33 13701.58 13117.16 12612.59 12180.84
PR(S. VAL 16268.64 31955.16 47269.75 62407.76 77553.37 91927.69 105629.25 118746.37 131358.94 143539.75
. . .. PRESENT VALUE 143539.7S. *. .
CLOSED LOOP, SCENARIO 5. CRUI4 BASIS
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
DISPOSAL 4630.00 5556.00 6667.19 8000.62 9600.75 11520.89 13825.07 11590.07 19908.08 23889.69 26667.62
COOLANT 640.00 768.00 921.60 1105.92 1327.10 1592.52 1911.03 2293.23 2751.88 3302.25 3962.70
OTHER- 5360.00 5896.00 6485.59 7134.14 7847.55 8632.30 9495.53 10445.07 11489.57 12638.52 13902.37
TIL. COST 27080.00 18669.99 20524.38 22690.69 25225.40 28195.71 31681.62 35778.38 40599.53 46280.46 52982.69
YRLY PV CONIRIB 15822.03 14740.31 13810.28 13011.02 12324.66 11735.93 11231.79 10801.09 10434.29 10123.19
PaLS. VAL 15822.03 30562.34 44372.62 57363.64 69708.25 81444.12 92675.87 103476.94 113911.19 124034.37
PRESENT VALUE: 124034.31’’”’
- CLOSED LOOP, SCENARIO 6. CRUK BASIS
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR S YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
DISPOSAL 4630.00 5556.00 6667.19 8000.62 9600.15 11520.89 13825.07 16590.07 19908.08 23869.69 28667.62
COOLANT 640.00 832.00 1081.60 1406.08 1827.90 2376.27 3089.15 4015.89 5220.15 6786.84 8822.88
OTHER 5360.00 5291.00 6485.59 71’4.14 7847.55 8632.30 9495.53 20445.07 11489.57 12638.52 13902.37
TTL. COST 17080.00 18733.99 20684.38 2299O.H 25726.20 28979.46 32859.74 37501.04 43068.30 49765.05 57842.87
YRLY PV CONIRIB 15876.27 14855.22 13992.97 13269.33 12667.24 12172.34 11772.bR 11457.89 11219.91 11051.81
PRES. VAL 15876.27 30731.49 44724.46 57993.79 70661.00 82833.31 94605.87 106063.75 117283.62 128335.37
• ‘... PRESENT VALUC : 128335.37’’’’.
CLOSED LOOP, SCENAR1t 1, BULi( BASIS
.1
YEAR 0 YrAR 1 YEAR 2 YLA ‘ YEAR 4 YLAR . YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
DISPOSAL 2280.00 3192.00 4468.80 5139.11 5909.98 6796.47 7815.93 8988.32 10336.56 11887.04 _13630 09
COOLANT 640.00 768.00 921.60 1105.92 1327.10 1592.52 1911.03 2293.23 2751.88 3302.25 3962.70
OTHER 5400.00 5940.00 7533.99 7187.39 7906.12 8696.73 9566.39 10523.02 11375.32 12732.84 14006.11
-------
CLOSED eOOP. SCENARIO 3. BULK BASIS - -
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR YEAR 6 YEAR 1 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
IlL. COST 15030.00
YRLY PV CONTRIB
eKES. VAL
PRESENT VALU( 103437.98
CLOSED LOOP. SCENARIO 2. BULK 9A 51
16610.99
14077.10
14077.10
18634.39
13382.93
27460.04
20142.42
12259.31
39719.35
21853.20
11271.62
50990.97
23795.72
10401.32
61392.29
26003.35
9632.48
71024.77
28314.57
8951.44
79976.22
31373.76
8346.62
88322.34
34632.13
7808.03
96130.87
38348.90
7327.11
103457.98
YEAR 0
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAH 3
YEAR 4
YEAR S
YEARS 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
DISPOSAL 2280,00
COOLANT 640.00
OTHER 5400.00
TTL. COST 15030.00.
YRLY PV CONTRIB
PRES. VAL
3192.00
832.00
5940.00
16673.99
14130.51
14130.51
4468.80
1081.60
6533.99
18794.39
13497.86
27628.36
5139.11
1406.08
7187.39
20442.57
12442.01
40070.37
5909.98
1827.90
7906.12
22354.00
j152 .98
51600.35
6796.47
2376.27
8696.73
24579.46
10743.95
62344.30
7815.93
3089.15
9566.39
27181.47
10068.92
72413.19
8988.32
4015.89
30523.02
30237.23
9492.28
81905.44
10336.56
5220.65
11575.32
33842.53
9003.46
90908.87
11887.04
6786.84
12732.84
38116.71
8593.71
99502.56
13670.09
8822.88
14006.11
43209.08
8255.79
107758.31
. ...‘ PRESENT VALUE
107758.31’s. .’
DISP0 AL 2280.00
2964.00 3853.20
5009.15
6511.89
8465.45
9135.26
11195.54
12874.86
14806.09
17026.99
COOLANT 640.00
768.00 921.60
1105.92
1327.10
3592.52
1911.03
2293.23
2751.88
3302.25
3962.70
OltIER ‘ 4OO.00
5940.00 6533.99
7187.39
7906.1?
8696.73
9566.39
10523.02
13575.32
12732.84
14006.11
YTI. COST 15030.00
36381.99 18018.79
20032.45
224’5.11
25464.69
27922.67
30721.79
33912.05
37551.18
41705.80
YRLY PV CONTRIB
13883.05 12940.83
12180.22
11582.13
11130.89
10343.49
9644.39
9021.96
8466.20
7968.56
PRES. VAL
13883.05 26823.88
39004.10
50586.23
61717.13
72060.56
81704.94
90726.87
99193.06
107161.62
. .*. . PRESENT VALUE
107361.62 ’• . .
CLOSED LOOP. SCENARIO
4. BULK BASIS
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YCAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
14806.09 17026.99
6786.84 8822.88
*2732.8* 14006.11
41035.’76 46565.98
9251.83 8897.18
102565.44 111462.56
DISPOSAL 2280.00
2964.00
3853.20 5009.15
6511.89
fi465.t .
9735.26
11195.54
12874.86
COOLANT 640.00
832.00
1081.60 3406.08
1827.90
2376.21
3089.15
4015.89
5220.65
OTHER - 5400.00
5940.00
6533.99 7187.39
7906.12
fi6 6.73
9566.39
10523.02
11575.32
TIL. COST 15030.00
16445.99
18178.79 20312.63
22955.91
26248.44
29100.79
32444.45
36380.83
YRLY PV CONIRIB
13937.29
13055.74 17362.91
11840.44
11473.48
10779.91
10185.18
9678.75
PRES. YAL
13937.29
2€993.03 39355.93
5119€.37
62669.85
73449.75
83634.87
93313.62
•.*.‘ PRESENT VALUE
CLOSED LOOP, SCENARIO
5 , BULK
BAcIS
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YLAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
-------
CLOSED LOOP. SCENARIO 6, BULK BASIS
TEAR a YEAR I YCAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEARS YEAR 6 YEAR 7 TEAR 8 TEAR 9 YEAR 10
PRESENT VALUE: 103975.37 ’
- I8tA,NFRTVPTIDWr!crRLRIO 1. ULTRAF!LTRITIDII BASIS
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEA? 4 YEAR 5 TEAR 6 YEAR 7 TEAR 8 SCAR 9 YEAR 10
.A...6 PRESENT TSEUC8 106365.BTeieI.
TREATRENT OPTION. SCENARIO 2. ULIRAFILTRATTON BASIS
YEAR 0 TEAR 1 YEAR 2 TEAR 3 YEAR 4 TEAR 5 YEAR S TEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YrAk*O
PRESENT VALUE: 319760.75...’’
DISPOSAL 2200.00
2736.00
3283.20
39 9.8$
4727.80
0673.36
6808.03
8369.63
9803.55
11764.26
143*7.21
COOLANT 640.00
762.00
921.60
1105.9?
1377.10
l5 2.52
1911.03
2293.23
2751.88
3302.25
5962.78
OTHER 5400.00
5940.00
6533.99
7187.39
7906.12
8696.73
9566.39
1 23.02
31575.32
12732.84
14006.11
TYL. COST 15030.00
16153.99
17448.79
18943.14
20671.02
22672.61
24995.44
27695.08
30840.74
34509.35
3R705. 2
TILT PV CONTRIB
33689.03
12531.46
11520.41
10611.92
9IO.4S
9259.14
8694.48
8204.87
7780.40
7412.58
PIES. TAL
i3 e .n3
26221.29
37750.70
48412.62
58323.06
67582.19
76276.62
84481.44
92261.81
99674.37
..... PRESENT YALUE’
99674.37.’..’
DISPOSAL
2780.00
2736.00
3203.20
3939.84
4727.80
5673.36
6808.03
0169.63
9805.55
11764.26
14317.11
COOLANT
640.00
832.00
1003.60
2406.08
1827.90
2376.27
3089.15
4015.49
5220.65
6786.04
8822.88
OtHER
5400.00
5940.00
6533.99
7187.39
7906.12
8696.73
9566.39
10523.02
31575.32
12732.84
14006.11
TTL. COST 15030.00
YRLY PT CONTRIB
16237.99
1374 .01
17608.79
12646.37
Z’243.30
11712.09
21173.82
10920.22
23456.35
10253.03
26173.56
9695.56
29410.54
9235.27
33309.52
8861.66
37993.93
0566.02
43656.30
0343.20
PRE!. VIL
- -
33744.07
26390.44
38302.53
49022.15
59275.78
68971.33
78206.56
07068.1995034.19 103975.3?
DISPOSAL
3300.00
4620.00
6467.99
7430.19
8553.91
9836.99
13332.54
33009.41
14960.82
37204.93
19785.66
-. COOLANT —- 1920.00
2304.00
2764.00
3317.76
3981.31
4777.57
5733.00
6879.69
8255.62
9006.70
31088.09
OTHER
4260.00
4686.00
5254.59
5670.04
6237.04
6860.74
7546.83
$301.48
9131.62
30044.78
*3049.25
TTL. COST 12600.00
TILT PT CONTRIR
14729.99
12403.05
37507.38
12573.54
39545.99
31896.32
2*892.26
11291.02
24595.30
10750.87
277*2.42
10215.6*
31310.59
9879.23
35460.07
9435.92
40276.46
9080.64
45043.00
0759.04
PIES. TAL
12483.05
25056.59
36952.91
48244.73
50995.60
69261.19
79090.37
80526.25
97606.87
106365.0?
DISPOSAL
3300.00
4620.00
6467.99
7438.19
0553. 1
9836.99
21312.54
13009.41
14910.02
27204.93
19785.66
COOLANT
1920.00
2496.00
3244.80
4238.23
5403.70
7328.80
9267.43
12047.60
15661.93
20360.50
26418.63
OIlIER
4260.00
4686.00
5154.59
5670.04
6237.04
6860.74
7546.81
8303.48
9331.62
10044.70
11049.25
TTL. COST
32100.00
14921.99
17947.5?
20446.46
23394.65
26946.53
31246.77
36478.54
42874.37
50730.23
60423.54
TILT PT CONTRIR
12645.76
12918.77
7444.37
12066.74
11778.62
11514.85
2*452.59
13406.29
11437.52
11544.89
PIES. SAL
32645.76
75564.03
32008.40
50075.14
61853.1?
73428.56
84880.12
96286.37
307773.8?
11 26R.75
—a
-------
TRCATRFNT OPTION. scrN*au) 3, ULTRAFILTRATION BASIS
YEAR 0 Y AB 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR S YElP 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 0 YEAR 9 YEAR I C
•ISI PRESENT VALUE: ll1721.25 .• •’
-. TREATNENT OPTTON,3CE118810 4, ULTRAFILTRATION BASIS
YEAR 0 TEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 TEAP 6 YEAR 7 YEAR S TEAR 9 YEAR 10
..... PRESENT VALUE: 100890.56.....
TIICATRENI OPTION. SCENARIO 6. ULTRAFILTRATION BASIS
OISPDAL
3300.00
4290.00
576.99
7250.00
9425.09
12252.61
14090.50
16204.07
18634.67
21429.06
21644.33
COOLANT
1920.00
2304.90
2764.00
3317.76
3981.31
4777.5?
5733.00
6R79.6
8255.62
9906.75
11888.09
OTHER
4260.00
•&PI..O0
5154.5
5670.04
6237.04
6060.74
7546.P1
8301.48
9131.62
10044.18
11049.29
YTL. COST
12600.00
1439 .99
16616.37
19397.88
22163.45
27010.92
30490.39
34505.74
39141.92
44501.39
50701.67
YRLY PV CONTRIO
12203.30
11933.64
11781.03
11741.1?
11006.77
II2 4.66
10832.12
10413.31
100i3.18
9607.3?
PRES. VAL
12203.38
24137.02
35918.85
47660.02
59466.19
70761.44
81593.50
92006.01
102039.94
111127.25
DISPOSAL 3300.00 4290.00 5576.99 7250.08
COOLANT 1920.00 2496.00 3244.80 4230.23
OTHER 4260.00 4686.00 5154.59 5670.04
III.. COST 12600.00 14591.99 17096.37 202 0.39
YRCY PV CONTRID 12366.10 l2278.36 12329.08
pots. VAL 12366.10 24644.46 36974.34
9425.09
5403.70
6237.04
24265.03
12514.09
49490.43
12252.61
7120.80
6960.14
29962.15
12834.52
62324.95
14090.50
9267.43
7546.81
34024.74
12603.90
74928.81
16204.0? 18634.67 21429.86
12047.65- 15661.93- 20360.50
0301.48 9131.62 10044.78
39673.20 46540.23 54955.14
124 4.4R 12383.69 123°0.06
87383.25 99766.94 112156.94
24641.33
26460.63
11049.25
65282.21
12473.21
124630.12
Idd . PIE TV1UJE - 124630.32’I .Sa - -
TREATRENT OPTION. SCENARIO 5, ULTRAFILTRATION OASIS
YEAR 0
DISPOSAL 3300.00 3960.00 4752.00 5702.3Q
COOLANT 1920.00 2304.00 2764.00 3317.76
OTHER 4260.00 4686.00 5154.59 9610.04
TTL. COST 12600.00 14069.99 15791.30 17030.29
VPLY PV CONTRIO 11923.73 11341.14 10039.86
PP(S. VAt. 11923.73 23264.07 34104.72
6842.87
3981.31
6237.04
20181.22
10409.28
44514.00
8211.44
4777.57
6860.74
22969.75
10040.33
94554.33
9853.72
9133.08
7546.81
26253.61
‘725.21
64279.55
11824.46
6879.6
0301.40
30125.64
9457.25
73736.75
14109.36
8255.62
9131.62
34696.61
9230.68
82967.37
17027.22
9906.75
10044.78
40090.75
9040.57
920 0?. 94
20432.66
11888.09
11 04’. 25
46490.00
8882.66
100890.56
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR S YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 20
YEAR 7 YEAR 0 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
11824.46 14109.36 17827.22 20432.66
12017.65 15661.93 203’ 0.50 26468.63
8301.48 ‘131.62 10044.78 3 10. ’.2’
3t2 3.60 42102.92 509 s2.50 61010.54
11079.61 11201.05 11397.45 11668.50
19926.50 90727.50 102121.94 113793.44
YEAR 0 TEAR 1 YEAR 2 lIAR 3 - YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YCAP 6
DISPOSAL 3300.00 3°60.00 4752.00 5702.39 6842.87 8211.44 9035.72
COOLANT 1920.00 2496.00 3244.80 4210.23 5403.70 7128.00 9267.43
OTHER 4260.00 4606.00 5134.5’ 5670.04 6237.04 6860.74 7546.81
TTL. COST 12600.00 14261.9’ 16271.38 187)0.66 21603.61 25320.98 2 ’787.96
YRLY PV CONTRIB 17086.44 11685.01 11387.91 11184.20 11068.07 11034.46
PPES. VAt 12086.44 23772.30 39160.21 46344.41 57412.49 68446.94
-J
-------
PRESENT YALUC: 1I’793.44414.a
T8EATNCNT OPTION, SCENARIO 1. CHENICAL PNASC SEPARATION BASIS -
YEAR 0 TrAR 1 YEAR 7 YEAR 3 TEAR 4 YEAR S YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR A YEAR 9 YEAR 30
“I ’ PRESENT ,AtU - 99 49r37’- . ’. -- - — -
TRCATNCNT OPTION. SCENARIO 2. CHEMICAL PHARE SEPARATION BASl
•‘•“ PRESENT VALUE: 112401.23..’’.
TREATMENT OPTION. SCENARIO 3. CHEMICAL PHASE SEPARATION BASIS
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 TEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 TEAR 9 YEAR I D
PRESENT VALUE: 101789.06.....
TREATMENT OPTION. SCENARIO 4i CNtMICAL PHASE SEPARATION BASIS
YEAR B YCIR I vrAm 2 YEAR 3 TEAR S TEAR TEAR I YFAR 7 TEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR IC
1 ISPO’AL 1410.00 1835.00 2582.40 3097.76 4027.09 5235.21 6020.49 6923.56 7962.09 9l 6.40 *052°.86
COOLANT 1920.00 2446.00 3244.80 4218.23 5483.70 7128.80 9267.43 12041.65 15661.93 20360.50 26468.63
OTHER 5710.00 (281.00 6909.09 759.99 8354.98 9* S.9R 38*15.57 11177.12 12239.82 134(3.79 14810.16
DISPOSAL
1410.00
1974.00
2T63.60
5178.14
3854.81
4203.08
4833.54
5558.5?
6392.35
73!*.20
8495.8?
COOLANT
1970.00
2304.00
2764.80
3317.76
3982.3*
4777.57
5733.08
6879.69
8255.62
9906.75
13088.09
OTHER
5710.08
6281.00
6909.09
7599.99
8359.98
9195.98
10115.57
11127.12
12239.82
13463.79
14810.16
TYL. COST
13710.00
35728.49
17107.48
187(5.89
20666.15
22846.62
25352.38
28235.37
31557.79
35391.73
39822.12
YRLY PY CONTRIB
22905.93
12286.34
11421.5?
10659.40
9986.51
9391.30
8863.84
8395.63
7979.34
1608.65
PRES. V II
12 05.93
25192.27
36613.80
4?273.20
57259.71
66651.00
75514.81
83910.44
91889.75
99498.3?
- YCAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2
YEAR 3
TEAR 4 TEARS TEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
OtSPOSAL
1410.00
1974.00
2763.60
3278.14
3654.86
4203.08
4833.54
5558.57
6392.35
7351.20
8455.81
COOLANT
1420.00
2496.00
3244.80
4218.23
5483.70
7128.80
9267.43
12047.65
15661.93
203(0.50
26 ’&8.63
OTHER
5710.00
6281.08
6909.09
739.99
8359.98
9195.98
10115.57
11127.12
12239.82
13463.79
14810.16
- TTL. COST 13710.00
35420.99
*7587.48
29666.36
22168.54
25197.86
28886.54
33403.33
38964.10
45845.49
54402.67
TRLY PT CONTRIO
13068.64
12631.01
11 6Q.5#
12434.32
11014.26
10700.54
10476.20
10366.01
*0336.22
*0394.50
PRES. vAt.
33068.64
25699.72
37669.29
49303.1.1
60117.87
70818.37
81304.56
91670.56 302006.75
112401.25
DISPOSAL
1410.00
1833.00
2382.90
3097.71
4027.09
5233.21
6020.49
1923.SA
7962.09
9156.40
10529.81
COOLANT
1920.00
2304.00
2764.80
3317.76
3981.31
4717.57
5733.08
6079.69
8255.62
9906.75
11apR.09
OTHER
5110.00
6281.00
6909.09
7599•99
8359.98
9195.98
10115.5?
11127.12
12239.82
334(3.79
34810.36
TTL. COST
13710.00
35087.99
16726.79
38685.51
2*038.38
23818.76
26539.14
29600.37
33127.54
371’6.94
43890.11
YRLY PT CONTRIB
12786.44
12012.93
11372.60
10851.40
10437.67
9830.98
92 2.35
0813.25
8386.34
8005.30
PRES. VAt.
12786.44
24799.37
36171.97
47023.3?
57461.04
67242.00
76384.31
85397.50
93783.82
301789.06j
1\
-------
PRC CNT VALUE:
97158.94.... ’
TREATMENT OPTION. SCENARIO 6. CHEMICAL PHASE SEPARATION RASIS
PRESENT VALUE: 1IO061.flh. ....
YEAR 7
5052.27
12047.15
12127.12
32897.04
10327.26
790 17.12
YEAR 8
6862.73
25661 .93
12239.82
38634.48
10278.31
89295.44
YEAR 9
727 5.21
20360.50
13463.79
45789.56
10319.10
99614.50
1 ( 40 10
0 730 .32
26468.63
24810.16
54679.12
20447.32
210061.01
TYL. COST 13710.00 152?9.9 17206.70 19 5R5.98 22540.77 26229.99 30073.49 34718.33 40533.85 47650.70 56478.65
YRLY PY CONTRIO 12949.15 12357.66 11420.66 11626.32 11465.41 21140.22 10924.71 10783.62 20743.21 10791.15
PAtS. VAL 12949.15 25306.81 37227.47 400’3.79 60329.20 71459.37 82314.06 93257.62 103900.01 111691.94
.1a. PRESENT VALUE 124691.94 . ’ . .l
TREATMENT OPTION. SCENARIO S. CHEMICAL PHASE SEPARATION OASIS
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR i YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 TEAR 9 YEAR 20
OTSPOSAI. 1410.00
2692.00
2030.40
2436.RR
2923.77
3508.53
4210.23
5052.27
6012.73
7275.27
8730.32
COOLANT 1920.00
2304.00
2764.80
3317.76
3901.31
4771.57
5733.08
1879.19
8255.62
9906.75
1 188R.09
OTHER 5710.00
6202.00
6909.09
7549.99
fi35 .9S
9l9 .98
10125.57
11227.12
12239.82
13463.79
14810.16
tTL. C09T 25710.00
YR PV CONTRIR
14946.9
12A66.95
16374.29
11754.77
18024.23
20470. 12
29933.07
20282.32
22152.07
9682.91
24728.87
9160.40
27729.08
8704.90
31228.17
8307.94
35315.01
7962.22
40090.57
7661.47
PAtS. VAL
12666.95
24426.72
35396.05
45679.16
55362.0?
64522.18
73221.37
81535.31
89497.50
97150.94
YEAR 0
YEAR 2
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEARS
YEAR 6
OISPOcAL 1420.00
1692.00
2030.40
2436.40
2923.77
3508.53
4210.23
COOLANT 1920.00
2496.00
3244.80
4218.73
5183.70
7220.80
9267.43
OTHCR 5710.00
6281.00
6909.09
7599.99
0359.9R
9195.9A
10115.5?
I lL. COST 13720.00
l5138.9
26854.28
18924.70
21437.45
24503.30
28263.23
YRLY PV CONTRIB
12029.66
12104.50
12516.10
11057.23
20718.66
10469.64
PAtS. VAL -
12029.66
24934.16
31452.34
47509. 7
50220.23
60689.87
t4
-------
traditional, Scenario 1, Drua Baste_
Year 0 Year 1 Tear 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Tear 6 Tear 7 Year B Year 9 Tear 10
Disposal 13360.00 21504.00 30103.60 34621.44 39817.66 45786.86 52654.88 60553.12 69636.08 80081.50 92093.72
Coolant 1920.00 2304.00 2764.80 3317.76 3981.31 4777.57 3733.08 6879.69 8255.62 9906.75 11888.09
Other 1110.00 1881.00 2069.10 2276.01 2503.60 2753.96 3029.36 3332.29 3663.52 4032.07 4435.27
Yti. Cost 19880.00 26579.00 35829.50 41105.21 47189.57 54208.39 62307.32 71655.10 82447.22 94910.32 109307.03
Trly Pv Contrib 22524.38 25732.19 25017.90 24339.86 23694.99 23080.60 22494.33 21934.11 l398.11 20884.70
Pres. V ii 22524.58 48256.77 73274.67 97614.33 121309.31 144390.11 166884.44 188818.55 210216.66 231101.36
•** * Present Value • 231101.36 *
Traditional, Scenario 2, Drug Basis
Year 0 Year I Tear 2 Tear 3 Year 4 Year 3 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Diepoasi 15360.00 21504.00 30105.60 34621.44 39814.66 45706.86 32654.88 60553.12 69636.08 80081.50 92093.72
Coolant 1920.00 2496.00 3244.80 4218.23 5483.70 7128.80 9267.43 12047.65 15661.93 20360.50 26468.63
Other 1710.00 1881.00 2069.10 2276.01 2503.60 2753.96 3029.36 3332.29 3665.52 4032.07 4435.27
Til. Cost 19880.00 26771.00 36309.50 42005.68 48691.96 56559.62 65841.67 76823.06 89853.53 105364.07 123837.62
Trip P, Contrib 22687.29 26076.92 23365.95 25114.77 24722.73 24389.83 24116.68 23904.47 23754.97 23670.52
Pres. VaL 22687.29 48764.21 74330.16 99444.93 124167.66 148557.49 172674.17 196378.64 220333.61 A44 i4.13
•**** Present Value — 244004.13 *****
Traditional, Scenario 3, Dr Basis
Year 0 Year 1 Tear 2 Year 3 Tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Tear 9 Year 10
Disposal 15360.00 19923.80 25900.96 33671.22 43772.59 56904.36 65440.02 73256.02 86544.42 99526.09 114455.00
Coolant 1920.00 2304.00 2764.80 3317.76 3981.31 4777.37 5733.08 6879.69 8255.62 9906.75 l1 88.09
Other 1710.00 1881.00 2069.10 2276.01 2503.60 2753.96 3029.36 3332.29 3665.52 4032.07 4435.27
Ttl. Cost 19800.00 24998.80 31624.84 60154.99 51147.50 65325.89 75092.46 86358.00 99355.56 114354.91 131668.36
Trip Pv Conirib 21185.42 22712.47 24439.57 26381.31 - 28554.35 27816.62 27109.94 26432.37 25782.01 25157.15
Frea. Val 21185.42 43897.89 68337.46 94718.77 123273.32 151069.93 178199.87 204632.24 230414.25 255571.40
Present Value 255571.40 *****
-4
-------
raditiona1 3csaarIo 1, Bulk Basis
Year .0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Disposal 4400.00 6160.00 8623.99 9917.58 11405.21 13115.99 15083.38 17345.80 19947.76 22939.91 263e9.89
Coolant 1920.00 2304.00 2764.80 3317.76 3981.31 4777.57 . 5733.08 6879.69 8255.62- 9906.75 11888.09
Other 1900.00 2090.00 2299.00 2528.90 2781.78 3059.96 3365.95 3702.55 . 4072.80 4480.07 4928.08
TtI.. Cost 10130.00 12463.99 15597.78 17674.23 20078.30 22063.52 26092.41 29838.12 34186.18 39236.73 45107.05
Yrly Pv Contrib 10562.71 11202.10 10757.11 10356.20 9993.89 8665.50 9366.98 9094.89 8846.22 8618.43
Prea. Val 10562.71 21764.80 32521.91 42878.11 52872.00 62537.50 71904.44 80999.31 89845.50 ‘845’.e7
** Preeen Value — 98463.87 *****
------- |