industrial waste treatment handbook

Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook
Frank Woodard, Ph.D., P.E.,
President
Copyright © 2001 by Butterworth–Heinemann
A member of the Reed Elsevier group
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Recognizing the importance of preserving what has been written, Butterworth–Heinemann prints its books on acid-free
paper whenever possible.
Butterworth–Heinemann supports the efforts of American Forests and the Global ReLeaf program in its
campaign for the betterment of trees, forests, and our environment.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Woodard, Frank, 1939
Industrial waste treatment handbook/Frank Woodard
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 0-7506-7317-6
1. Factory and trade waste—Management—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Sewage—Purification—Handbooks, manuals,
etc. 3. Industries—Environmental
TD897.W67 2000]
628.4—dc21
00-044448
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
The publisher offers special discounts on bulk orders of this book.
For information, please contact:
Manager of Special Sales

Butterworth–Heinemann
225 Wildwood Avenue
Woburn, MA 01801-2041
Tel: 781-904-2500
Fax: 781-904-2620
For information on all Butterworth–Heinemann publications available, contact our World Wide Web home page at:

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
v
Dedication
To Dr. James C. Buzzell, whose fascinating
anecdotes lured me into this profession; Dr. Otis
J. Sproul, by whose example I became accustomed to
and enjoyed hard work and a scholarly approach
to life; Dr. James E. Etzel, by whose example I
developed an insatiable desire to figure out better
ways to achieve treatment of industrial wastes; and
my (almost) lifelong best friend, Jean McNeary
Woodard, who deserves much of the credit for the
existence of this book.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
vii
Table of Contents
Preface ix
Acknowledgments x
1 Management of Industrial
Wastes: Solids, Liquids, and
Gases 1
Management of Industrial Wastewater 1

O&M Costs 10
Management of Solid Wastes from
Industries 18
Management of Discharges to the Air 20
Bibliography 28
2 Fundamentals 29
Introduction 29
Characteristics of Industrial
Wastewater 29
The Polar Properties of Water 30
Electrical and Thermodynamic
Stability 33
Chemical Structure and Polarity of
Water 36
Hydrogen Bonding 37
Polar Solvents versus Nonpolar
Solvents — True Solutions 38
Emulsification 40
Colloidal Suspensions 43
Mixtures Made Stable by Chelating
Agents 44
Summary 44
Examples 45
Bibliography 48
3 Laws and Regulations 49
Introduction 49
History of Permitting and Reporting
Requirements 49
Water Pollution Control Laws 50
Groundwater Pollution Control Laws 52

Air Pollution Control Laws 55
Bibliography 60
4 Wastes from Industries 61
Chemical Descaling 61
Degreasing 62
Rinsing 64
Electroplating of Tin 65
The Copper Forming Industry 74
Prepared Frozen Foods 77
Wastes from De-inking 86
Die Casting: Aluminum, Zinc, and
Magnesium 93
Anodizing and Alodizing 99
Production and Processing of Coke 103
The Wine-Making Industry 107
The Synthetic Rubber Industry 110
The Soft Drink Bottling Industry 119
Production and Processing of Beef,
Pork, and Other Sources of
Red Meat 124
Rendering of By-Products from the
Processing of Meat, Poultry, and
Fish 130
The Manufacture of Lead Acid
Batteries 138
Bibliography 144
5 Industrial Stormwater Management 149
General 149
Federal Stormwater Regulations 149
Prevention of Groundwater

Contamination 151
Stormwater Segregation, Collection,
Retention, and Treatment 152
Design Storm 152
System Failure Protection 153
Stormwater Retention 153
Stormwater Treatment 153
Stormwater as a Source of Process
Water Makeup 154
Bibliography 165
viii Table of Contents
6 Wastes Characterization: The
Wastes Characterization Study,
Wastes Audit, and the
Environmental Audit 166
Wastes Characterization Study 166
Wastes Audit 169
Environmental Audit 172
Characteristics of Industrial
Wastewater 179
Characteristics of Discharges to the
Air 192
Sample Analysis 198
Ambient Air Sampling 198
Characteristics of Solid Waste Streams
from Industries 201
Bibliography 205
7 Pollution Prevention 208
§ 13101. Findings and Policy 208
General Approach 209

Source Reduction 212
The Waste Audit 215
Benefits of Pollution Prevention 216
Bibliography 216
8 Methods for Treating Wastewaters
from Industry 219
General 219
Principle and Nonprinciple Treatment
Mechanisms 220
Waste Equalization 223
pH Control 227
Chemical Methods of Wastewater
Treatment 230
Biological Methods of Wastewater
Treatment 255
Development of Design Equations for
Biological Treatment of Industrial
Wastes 256
Physical Methods of Wastewater
Treatment 322
Bibliography 394
9 Treatment and Disposal of Solid
Wastes from Industry 397
Characterization of Solid Wastes 398
The Solid Waste Landfill 400
Solid Waste Incineration 409
The Process of Composting Industrial
Wastes 421
Solidification and Stabilization of
Industrial Solid Wastes 427

Bibliography 433
10 Methods for Treating Air
Discharges from Industry 437
Reduction at the Source 437
Containment 437
Treatment 438
Bibliography 456
Index 461
ix
Preface
This book has been developed with the inten-
tion of providing an updated primary reference
for environmental managers working in indus-
try, environmental engineering consultants,
graduate students in environmental engineer-
ing, and government agency employees
concerned with wastes from industries. It pre-
sents an explanation of the fundamental
mechanisms by which pollutants become dis-
solved or suspended in water or air, then builds
on this knowledge to explain how different
treatment processes work, how they can be
optimized, and how one would go about effi-
ciently selecting candidate treatment processes.
Examples from the recent work history of
Woodard & Curran, as well as other environ-
mental engineering and science consultants,
are presented to illustrate both the approach
used in solving various environmental quality
problems and the step-by-step design of facili-

ties to implement the solutions. Where permis-
sion was granted, the industry involved in each
of these examples is identified by name. Other-
wise, no name was given to the industry, and
the industry has been identified only as to type
of industry and size. In all cases, the actual
numbers and all pertinent information have
been reproduced as they occurred, with the
intent of providing accurate illustrations of
how environmental quality problems have been
solved by one of the leading consultants in the
field of industrial wastes management.
This book is intended to fulfill the need for
an updated source of information on the char-
acteristics of wastes from numerous types of
industries, how the different types of wastes are
most efficiently treated, the mechanisms
involved in treatment, and the design process
itself. In many cases, “tricks” that enable lower
cost treatment are presented. These “tricks”
have been developed through many years of
experience and have not been generally avail-
able except by word of mouth.
The chapter on laws and regulations is pre-
sented as a summary as of the date stated in the
chapter itself and/or the addendum that is
issued periodically by the publisher. For infor-
mation on the most recent addendum, please
call the publisher or Woodard & Curran’s
office in Portland, Maine, at (207) 774-2112.

x
Acknowledgments
This work was produced over a period of more
than five years; during that time, a very large
number of individuals, corporations, and various
business organizations contributed significant
material. I have tried to cite each contributor,
and I apologize mightily if I have missed one or
more. Thus, I extend heartfelt gratitude and
acknowledgement to:
Adam H. Steinman; Aeration Technologies,
Inc.; R. Gary Gilbert; Albert M. Presgraves;
Andy Miller; Claire P. Betze; Connie Bogard;
Connie Gipson; Dennis Merrill; Dr. Steven
E. Woodard; Geoffrey D. Pellechia; George
Abide; George W. Bloom; Henri J. Vincent; Dr.
Hugh J. Campbell; J. Alastair Lough; Janet
Robinson; Dr. James E. Etzel; James
D. Ekedahl; Karen L. Townsend; Katahdin
Analytical Services; Keith A. Weisenberger;
Kurt R. Marston; Michael Harlos; Michael
J. Curato; Patricia A. Proux-Lough; Paul
Bishop; Randy E. Tome; Eric P. King; Ray-
mond G. Pepin; Robert W. Severance; Steven
N. Whipple; Steven Smock; Susan G. Stevens;
Terry Rinehart; and Thora Knakkergaard, all of
whom contributed text or verbal information
from which I freely drew, either word-for-word
or by way of paraphrase. I extend special
thanks to Adam Steinman, Esq., who provided

text and verbal information regarding laws,
regulations and environmental audits.
1
1 Management of Industrial
Wastes: Solids, Liquids, and Gases
The approach used to develop systems to treat
and dispose of industrial wastes is distinctly
different from the approach used for municipal
wastes. There is a lot of similarity in the char-
acteristics of wastes from one municipality, or
one region, to another. Because of this, the best
approach to designing a treatment system for
municipal wastes is to analyze the performance
characteristics of many existing municipal sys-
tems and deduce an optimal set of design
parameters for the system under consideration.
Emphasis is placed on the analysis of other sys-
tems, rather than on the waste stream under
consideration. In the case of industrial waste,
however, few industrial plants have a high
degree of similarity between products pro-
duced and wastes generated. Therefore,
emphasis is placed on analysis of the wastes
under consideration, rather than on what is tak-
ing place at other industrial locations. This is
not to say that there is little value in analyzing
the performance of treatment systems at other,
more or less similar, industrial locations. Quite
the opposite is true. It is simply a matter of
emphasis.

Wastes from industries are customarily clas-
sified as liquid wastes, solid wastes, or air pol-
lutants, and often the three are managed by
different people or departments. The three sep-
arate categories are regulated by separate and
distinct bodies of laws and regulations, and his-
torically, public and governmental emphasis
has moved from one category to another from
one time period to another. The fact is, how-
ever, that the three categories of wastes are
closely interrelated, both as they impact on the
environment and as they are generated and
managed by individual industrial facilities.
Solid wastes disposed of in the ground can
influence the quality of groundwater and
surface waters by way of leachate entering the
groundwater and traveling with it through the
ground, then entering a surface water body
with groundwater recharge. Volatile organics in
that recharge water can contaminate the air. Air
pollutants can fall out to become surface water
or groundwater pollutants, and water pollutants
can infiltrate into the ground or volatilize into
the air.
Waste treatment processes can also transfer
substances from one of the three waste catego-
ries to one or both of the others. Air pollutants
can be removed from an air discharge by means
of a water solution scrubber. The waste scrub-
ber solution must then be managed to enable it

to be discarded within compliance with appli-
cable water regulations. Airborne particulates
can be removed from an air discharge using a
bag house, thus creating a solid waste to be
managed. On still a third level, waste treatment
or disposal systems themselves can directly
impact on the quality of air, water, or ground.
Activated sludge aeration tanks are very effec-
tive in causing volatilization of substances
from wastewater. Failed landfills can be potent
polluters of both groundwater and surface
water.
The total spectrum of industrial wastes, then,
must be managed as substances resulting from
a system of interrelated activities. Materials
balances must be tracked, and overall cost
effectiveness must be kept in focus.
Management of Industrial Wastewater
With respect to industrial wastewater, Figure
1-1 illustrates the approach for developing a
well-operating, cost-effective treatment system.
The first step is to gain familiarity with
the manufacturing processes themselves. This
2 Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook
Figure 1-1 Approach for developing an industrial waste-
water treatment system.
usually starts with a tour of the facility, and
then progresses through a review of the litera-
ture and interviews with knowledgeable
people. The objective is to gain an understand-

ing of how wastewater is produced, for two
reasons. The first is to enable an informed and
therefore effective wastes reduction, or minimi-
zation (pollution prevention) program; the
second is to enable proper choice of candidate
treatment technologies.
Analysis of Manufacturing Processes
One of the first steps in the analysis of manu-
facturing processes is to develop a block
diagram that shows how each manufacturing
process contributes wastewater to the treatment
facility, as is illustrated in Figure 1-2. In Figure
1-2, a block represents each step in the manu-
facturing process. The supply of water to each
point of use is represented on the left side of
the block diagram. Wastewater that flows away
from each point of wastewater generation is
shown on the right side.
Figure 1-2 is representative of the processes
involved in producing finished woven fabric
from an intermediate product of the textile
industry. The “raw material” for this process is
first subjected to a process called “desizing,”
during which the substances used to size the
woven greige goods, or raw fabric, are
removed. The process uses sulfuric acid; there-
fore, the liquid waste from this process would
be expected to have a low pH as well as contain
whatever substances were used as sizing. For
instance, if starch were the substance used to

size the fabric, the liquid waste from the desiz-
ing process would be expected to exhibit a high
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
As the knowledge became available, from
the industry’s records, if possible, or from mea-
surements taken as part of a wastewater charac-
terization study, the flow rates, total quantities
for a typical processing day, upper and lower
limits, and characteristics such as BOD, chemi-
cal oxygen demand (COD), total suspended
solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS),
and specific chemicals would be indicated on
the block diagram. Each individual process
Management of Industrial Wastes: Solids, Liquids, and Gases 3
undergone during the industrial process would
be developed and shown on the block diagram,
as illustrated in Figure 1-2.
Wastes Minimization and Wastes
Characterization Study
After becoming sufficiently familiar with the
manufacturing processes as they relate to
wastewater generation, the design team should
institute a wastes minimization program
(actually part of a pollution prevention pro-
gram) as described in Chapter 7. Then, after the
wastes reduction program has become fully
implemented, a wastewater characterization
study should be carried out, as described in
Chapter 6.
Figure 1-2 Typical woven fabric finishing process flow diagram. (From the EPA Development Document for the Textile

Mills Industry.)
4 Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook
The ultimate purpose of the wastewater
characterization study is to provide the
design team with accurate and complete
information on which to base the design of
the treatment system. Both quantitative and
qualitative data are needed to properly size
the facility and to select the most appropriate
treatment technologies.
Often, enough new information about mate-
rials usage, water use efficiency, and wastes
generation is learned during the wastewater
characterization study to warrant a second level
of wastes minimization effort. This second part
of the wastes minimization program should be
fully implemented, and its effectiveness should
be verified by more sampling and analyses,
which amounts to an extension of the wastewa-
ter characterization study.
A cautionary note is appropriate here con-
cerning maintenance of the wastes minimiza-
tion program. If, after implementation of the
wastes minimization program, operation of the
manufacturing facilities and/or housekeeping
practices loses attention and becomes lax so
that wastewater increases in volume, strength,
or both, the treatment facility will be underde-
signed and will be overloaded at the start. It is
extremely important that realistic goals be set

and maintained for the wastes minimization
program, and that the design team, as well as
the industry’s management team, are fully
aware of the consequences of overloading the
treatment system.
Treatment Objectives
After the volume, strength, and substance char-
acteristics of the wastewater have been
established, the treatment objectives must be
determined. These objectives depend on where
the wastewater is to be sent after treatment. If
the treated wastewater is discharged to another
treatment facility, such as a regional facility or
a municipal treatment system, pretreatment
requirements must be complied with. As a
minimum, the Federal Pretreatment Guide-
lines issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and published in the Federal
Register must be complied with. Some
municipal or regional treatment facilities have
pretreatment standards that are more stringent
than those required by the EPA.
If the treated effluent is discharged to an
open body of water, then a National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit, plus a permit issued by the appropri-
ate state agency, must be complied with. In
all cases, Categorical Standards issued by the
Federal EPA apply, and it is necessary to
work closely with one or more government

agencies while developing the treatment
objectives.
Selection of Candidate Technologies
Once the wastewater characteristics and the
treatment objectives are known, candidate tech-
nologies for treatment can be selected.
Rationale for selection is discussed in detail in
Chapter 8. The selection should be based on
one or more of the following:
• Successful application to a similar waste-
water
• Knowledge of chemistry, biochemistry, and
microbiology
• Knowledge of what technologies are avail-
able, as well as knowledge of their
respective capabilities and limitations
Then, bench scale investigations should be
conducted to determine technical as well as
financial feasibility.
Bench Scale Investigations
Bench scale investigations quickly and effi-
ciently determine the technical feasibility and
a rough approximation of the financial feasi-
bility of a given technology. Bench scale
studies range from rough experiments in
which substances are mixed in a beaker and
results are observed almost immediately, to
rather sophisticated continuous flow studies in
which a refrigerated reservoir contains repre-
sentative industrial wastewater, which is

pumped through a series of miniature treat-
ment devices that are models of the full-size
equipment. Typical bench scale equipment
Management of Industrial Wastes: Solids, Liquids, and Gases 5
includes the six-place stirrer shown in
Figure 1-3(a), small columns for ion exchange
resins, activated carbon, or sand, shown in
Figure 1-3(b), “block aerators,” shown in
Figures 1-3(c) and (d), for performing micro-
biological treatability studies, and any number
of custom-designed devices for testing the
technical feasibility of given treatment
technologies.
Because of scale-up problems, it is seldom
advisable to proceed directly from the results
of bench scale investigations to design of the
full-scale wastewater treatment system. Only in
cases for which extensive experience exists
with both the type of wastewater being treated
and the technology and types of equipment to
be used can this approach be justified. Other-
wise, pilot scale investigations should be
conducted for each technology that appears to
be a legitimate candidate for reliable, cost-
effective treatment.
In the absence of pilot scale investigations,
the design team is obliged to be conservative in
estimating design criteria for the treatment sys-
tem. The likely result is that the cost for the
facility will be greater than the total cost for the

pilot scale investigations plus the treatment
facility that would have been designed using
the information that would have been devel-
oped from the pilot scale investigations. Said
another way, the objective of pilot scale investi-
gations is to develop the data necessary to
determine the minimum size and least costly
system of equipment to enable the design of a
treatment system that will reliably meet its
intended purpose.
Figure 1-3(a) Photograph of a six-place stirrer. (Courtesy of Phipps & Bird, Inc., 2000.)
6 Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook
Figure 1-3(b) Illustration of a column set-up to evaluate treatment methods that use granular media. (From Wachinski and
Etzel, Environmental Ion Exchange: Principles and Design, 1997. Reprinted by permission of CRC/Lewis Publishers.)
Figure 1-3(c) Diagrammatic sketch of a block aerator set-up for performing treatability studies in the laboratory.
Management of Industrial Wastes: Solids, Liquids, and Gases 7
Pilot Scale Investigations
A pilot scale investigation is a study of the per-
formance of a given treatment technology
using the actual wastewater to be treated, usu-
ally on site, and using a representative model
of the equipment that would be used in the
full-scale treatment system. The term “repre-
sentative model” refers to the capability of the
pilot treatment system to closely duplicate the
performance of the full-scale system. In some
cases, accurate scale models of the full-scale
system are used. In other cases, the pilot
equipment bears no physical resemblance to
the full-scale system. Fifty-five gallon drums

have been successfully used for pilot scale
investigations.
Figure 1-3(d) Photograph of a block aerator set-up for performing treatability studies in the laboratory. (Courtesy of
AWARE Environmental, Inc.)
8 Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook
It is not unusual for equipment manufactur-
ers to have pilot scale treatment systems that
can be transported to the industrial site on a
flatbed truck trailer. A rental fee is usually
charged, and there is sometimes an option to
include an operator in the rental fee. It is
important, however, to keep all options open.
Operation of a pilot scale treatment system that
is rented from one equipment manufacturer
might produce results that indicate that another
type of equipment (using or not using the same
technology) would be the wiser choice.
Figure 1-4 presents a photograph of a pilot
scale wastewater treatment system.
One of the difficulties in operating a pilot
scale treatment system is the susceptibility of
the system to upset caused by slug doses, wide
swings in temperature, plugging of the rela-
tively small diameter pipes, and lack of famil-
iarity on the part of the operator.
When operating a pilot scale treatment sys-
tem for a sufficiently long period, it is critically
important to:
1. Evaluate its performance on all combina-
tions of wastes that are reasonably

expected to occur during the foreseeable
life of the prototype system.
2. Provide sufficient opportunity to evaluate
all reasonable combinations of operation
parameters. When operation parameters
are changed—for instance the volumetric
loading of an air scrubber, the chemical
feed rate of a sludge press, or the recycle
ratio for a reverse osmosis system—the
system must operate for a long enough
time to achieve steady state before data to
be used for evaluation are taken. Of
course, it will be necessary to obtain data
during the period just after operation
parameters are changed, to determine
when steady state has been reached.
During the pilot plant operation period,
observations should be made to determine
whether performance predicted from the results
of the bench scale investigations is being con-
firmed. If performance is significantly different
from what was predicted, it may be prudent to
stop the pilot scale investigation work and try
to determine the cause.
Preliminary Designs
The results of the pilot scale investigations
show which technologies are capable of meet-
ing the treatment objectives, but do not enable
an accurate estimation of capital and operating
costs. A meaningful cost-effectiveness analysis

can take place only after preliminary designs of
those technologies that produced satisfactory
effluent quality in the pilot scale investigations
have been completed. A preliminary design,
then, is a design of an entire wastewater treat-
ment facility, carried out in sufficient detail to
enable accurate estimation of the costs for con-
structing and operating a wastewater treatment
facility. It must be complete to the extent that
the sizes and descriptions of all of the pumps,
pipes, valves, tanks, concrete work, buildings,
site work, control systems, and labor require-
ments are established. The difference between
a preliminary design and a final design is prin-
cipally in the completeness of detail in the
drawings and in the specifications. It is almost
as though the team that produces the prelimi-
nary design could use it to directly construct
the plant. The extra detail that goes into the
final design is principally used to communicate
all of the intentions of the design team to people
not involved in the design.
Economic Comparisons
The choice of treatment technology and a com-
plete treatment system between two or more
systems proven to be reliably capable of meet-
ing the treatment objectives should be based on
a thorough analysis of all costs over the
expected life of the system.
Example: Pretreatment for a Microcrystal-

line Cellulose Manufacturing Plant
By Henri Vincent
The following sections illustrate an economic
comparison of five alternatives for treating
wastewater from an industrial plant producing
Management of Industrial Wastes: Solids, Liquids, and Gases 9
Figure 1-4 Photograph of a pilot scale wastewater treatment system. (Courtesy of Paques ADI, Inc.)
10 Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook
microcrystalline cellulose from wood pulp.
This plant discharged about 41,000 gallons per
day (GPD) of wastewater to the local municipal
sewer system (publicly owned treatment works
[POTW]). The municipality that owned the
POTW charged the industry a fee for treatment,
and the charge was proportional to the strength,
in terms of the BOD, TSS, fats, oils, and
greases (FOG), and total daily flow (Q).
In order to reduce the treatment charges
from the POTW, the plant had the option of
constructing and operating its own wastewater
treatment system; however, because there was
not an alternative place to discharge the
treated wastewater other than the municipal
sewer system, there would continue to be a
charge from the POTW, but it would be
reduced in proportion to the degree of treat-
ment accomplished by the industry. Because
the industry’s treated wastewater would be
further treated by the POTW, the industry’s
treatment system is referred to as a “pretreat-

ment system,” regardless of the degree of
treatment accomplished.
Sequencing Batch Reactors
The use of sequencing batch reactors is one
alternative for pretreating the plant’s wastewa-
ters. Table 1-1 presents capital costs associated
with this.
Rotating Biological Contactors
Table 1-2 presents a summary of the capital
costs associated with this option. Also included
in Table 1-2 is the number of each unit
required, along with its size and installed cost.
Fluidized Bed Anaerobic Reactors
Table 1-3 presents a summary of the capital
costs associated with this option. Also included
in Table 1-3 is the number of each unit
required, along with its size and installed cost.
Expanded Bed Anaerobic Reactors
Because the expanded bed is not commer-
cially available, capital costs were estimated
using the major system components from
the fluidized bed anaerobic reactor (see
Table 1-3) and deleting the following items
that are not required for the expanded bed
system:
• Two 40-ft Secondary Clarifiers
• Two 20 GPM Sludge Pumps
• One 40-ft
3
Filter Press

• Two 60 GPM Filter Feed Pumps
• Two 80 GPM Sludge Transfer Pumps
• One 10 BP Sludge Tank Mixer
• One 5 HP Sludge Tank Mixer
• One 100 CFM Compressor
Also, a smaller building was designed for
this option.
As a result of these deletions, the estimated
capital cost for the expanded bed anaerobic
reactor system is $1,600,000.
O&M Costs
Operational and maintenance costs presented
for each treatment alternative include the fol-
lowing elements:
• Chemicals
•Power
• Labor
• Sludge disposal, if applicable
• Sewer use charges
• Maintenance
The bases for estimating the annual operat-
ing cost for each of the previous elements were
(1) the quantity of chemicals required for aver-
age design value; (2) power costs for running
pumps, motors, blowers, etc.; (3) labor
required to operate the facility; (4) sludge dis-
posal costs, assuming sludge would be dis-
posed of at a local landfill; (5) the cost for
sewer use charges based on present rates; and
(6) maintenance costs at a fixed percentage of

total capital costs. The estimated sewer use
charges for each treatment alternative are given
in Table 1-4.
Management of Industrial Wastes: Solids, Liquids, and Gases 11
Table 1-1 Capital Cost Opinion; Sequencing Batch Reactors — Alternative #1
1
Total for Both Tanks
Equipment No. Units Size Installed Cost ($)
SBR Feed Pumps 3 220 GPM 20,000
Blowers 5 1,500 ACFM 120,000
Aeration Equipment 2 6,000 ACFM 77,000
Floating Mixer 2 15 HP 66,000
Floating Decanter 2 1,200 GPM 44,000
Decant Pump 2 1,200 GPM 26,000
Waste Sludge Pumps 2 450 GPM 13,000
Sludge Press 1
100 ft
3
186,000
Filter Feed Pumps 2 60 GPM 8,000
Thickener 1 100 GPM 100,000
Thickener Feed Pumps 2 50 GPM 8,000
Air Compressor 1 100 CFM 44,000
Ammonia Feed System 1 360 PPD 22,000
Phosphoric Acid Feed System 1 15 GPD 6,000
Potassium Chloride Feed System 1 50 PPD 11,000
Sludge Tank Mixer 1 15 HP 13,000
Filter Feed Tank Mixer 1 5 HP 7,000
Total Installed Equipment Cost 770,000
Site Work @ 5% 38,000

Electrical & Instrumentation @ 10% 77,000
Process Pipes & Valves @ 10% 77,000
30’ × 60’ Building @ $65/ft
2
117,000
2-SBR Tanks (390,000 gal)
300,000
1
Sludge Holding Tank (160,000 gal) 95,000
Equalization Tank (50,000 gal) 58,000
Subtotal: 1,532,000
OH & P @ 22% 337,000
Subtotal: 1,869,000
Engineering @ 12% 224,000
Subtotal: 2,093,000
Contingency @ 25% 523,000
Estimated Construction Cost: 2,616,000
Say: 2,600,000
12 Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook
Table 1-2 Capital Cost Opinion; Rotating Biological Contactors — Alternative #2
Equipment No. Units Size Installed Cost ($)
RBC Feed Pumps 3 220 GPM 20,000
Clarifiers 2 40’ Diameter 195,000
Sludge Pumps 2 100 GPM 11,000
Sludge Press 1
100 ft
3
186,000
Filter Feed Pumps 2 60 GPM 8,000
Thickener 1 100 GPM 100,000

Thickener Feed Pumps 2 50 GPM 8,000
Air Compressor 1 100 CFM 44,000
Ammonia Feed System 1 360 PPD 22,000
Phosphoric Acid Feed System 1 15 GPD 5,500
Potassium Chloride Feed System 1 60 PPD 11,000
Sludge Tank Mixer 1 15 HP 13,000
Filter Feed Tank Mixer 1 5 HP 7,000
Blowers 5 500 CFM 63,000
Aeration System 1 2,000 CFM 44,000
Total Installed Equipment Cost: 737,000
Site Work @ 5% 37,000
Electrical & Instrumentation @ 10% 74,000
Process Pipes & Valves @ 10% 74,000
30’ × 60’ Building @ $65/ft
2
117,000
Sludge Holding Tank (160,000 gal) 95,000
RBC Tanks (Concrete) 50,000
Subtotal: 1,184,000
22% OH & P 260,000
RBC Shafts & Enclosures 1,444,000
Subtotal: 2,806,000
12% Engineering 337,000
Subtotal: 3,143,000
25% Contingency 786,000
Estimated Construction Cost: 3,929,000
Say: 3,900,000
Management of Industrial Wastes: Solids, Liquids, and Gases 13
Table 1-3 Capital Cost Opinion; Fluidized Bed Anaerobic Reactors — Alternative #3
Sequencing Batch Reactors

An illustration of yearly O&M costs associ-
ated with the use of sequencing batch reactors
for wastewater pretreatment is presented in
Table 1-5.
Rotating Biological Contactors
Table 1-6 presents a summary of the capital
costs associated with this treatment alternative.
Also included in Table 1-6 is the estimated
quantity and unit cost for each O&M element.
Equipment No. Units Size Installed Cost ($)
Reactor Feed Pumps 3 220 GPM 20,000
Secondary Clarifiers 2 40’ Diameter 195,000
Sludge Pumps 2 20 GPM 3,300
Filter Press 1
40 ft
3
108,000
Filter Feed Pumps 2 60 GPM 8,000
Sludge Transfer Pumps 2 80 GPM 8,000
Sludge Tank Mixer 1 10 HP 1,000
Filter Feed Tank Mixer 1 5 HP 7,000
Compressor 1 100 CFM 44,000
Gas Recovery Blower 40 CFM 18,700
Total Installed Equipment Cost: 413,000
Site Work @ 5% 21,000
Electrical & Instrumentation @ 10% 42,000
Process Pipes & Valves @ 10% 42,000
30’ × 30’ Building @ $65/ft
2
58,000

Sludge Holding Tank (30,000 gal) 35,000
Subtotal: 611,000
OH & P @ 22% 134,000
Subtotal: 745,000
Upflow Fluidized Bed Reactor System 1,000,000
Subtotal: 1,745,000
Engineering @ 12% 209,000
Subtotal: 1,954,000
Contingency @ 25% 488,000
Estimated Construction Cost: 2,442,000
Say: 2,450,000
14 Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook
Table 1-4 Estimated Sewer Use Charges
Table 1-5 Yearly O&M Cost Summary; Sequencing Batch Reactors — Alternative #1
Fluidized Bed Anaerobic Reactors
Table 1-7 presents a summary of the capital
costs associated with this treatment alternative.
Included in Table 1-7 is the estimated quantity
and unit cost for each O&M element. Additional
information on gas recovery is also included to
show potential offsetting of O&M costs.
Expanded Bed Anaerobic Reactors
Because the expanded bed is not commercially
available, O&M costs were estimated with the
O&M elements from the fluidized bed anaero-
bic reactor (see Table 1-7) and adjusted for the
following:
• Labor. Because no sludge dewatering is
required, labor requirements can be
decreased by 75%.

• Sludge Disposal. None required because
cellulose can be recycled.
Based on the above, the total O&M cost
without gas recovery is $400,000, and with gas
recovery is $300,000.
Scenario *Yearly Cost ($)
*Based on flow, TSS, and BOD5 charges currently incurred.
No Treatment 928,000
SBR Alternative 325,000
RBC Alternative 325,000
Fluidized Bed Alternative 384,000
Expanded Bed Alternative 335,000
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost ($) *Yearly Cost ($)
*Total rounded to nearest $50,000.
Chemicals
Ammonia (Anhydrous) Ton 66 135 8,910
Phosphoric Acid (85%) lb 83,000 0.22 18,260
Potassium Chloride (99%) lb 41,000 0.67 27,470
Sludge Conditioning lb 9,000 1.00 9,000
Polymer
Power kw-hr 3,000,000 0.054 162,000
Labor man-hr 4,380 38 166,440
Sludge disposal
1
1
Sludge assumed to be nonhazardous; includes transportation.
Ton 3,600 70 252,000
Sewer Use Charges
2
2

Per Table 1-4.
— — — 325,000
Maintenance
3
3
Assumed to be 2% of total capital cost.
— — — 52,000
Total: 1,021,000
Say: 1,000,000