Waste-Disposal Costs

Reducing waste from feed impurities which undergo reaction. If feed impurities undergo reaction, this causes waste of feed material, products, or both. Avoiding such waste is most readily achieved by purifying the feed. Thus increased feed purification costs are traded off against reduced raw materials, product separation, and waste disposal costs (Fig. 10.2). 

The solubiHty of phosphoms in water is about 3 ppm. However, process water used in phosphoms manufacture or handling often catties larger amounts of phosphoms as particulates or small droplets, depending on the water temperature. Phosphoms-contaminated water is commonly called phossy water. Phosphoms has low solubiHty in most common solvents, but is quite soluble in carbon disulfide and some other special solvents. The solubiHty in CS2 and benzene was formerly used in phosphoms analyses, but toxicity and increasing waste disposal costs have led to mote use of toluene and xylene, and mote tecentiy to the use of nonchemical turbidity measurements. 

Economic data, including cost of raw material management cost of air, wastewater, and hazardous waste treatment waste management operating and maintenance costs and waste disposal costs... 

Manufacturing Fees, Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Costs, and Invoicing... 

Provides manifest tracking, permit tracking, source inventory, environmental events, TSCA required data management, waste disposal costs, and groundwater monitoring. 

Improved chemistry PI leads to a better control of the reaction environment (temperature, etc.). Thus, chemical yields, conversions, and product purity are improved. Such improvements may reduce raw material losses, energy consumption, purification requirements, and waste disposal costs as discussed above. 

Re-use, remanufacture and recycle. Focusing on re-use, remanufacture and recycling comes from a number of trends and drivers in society. Because of problems with waste disposal, many companies are trying to work towards a zero to landfill policy. As waste disposal costs rise, this trend will accelerate. At the same time, where raw materials are difficult or expensive to obtain, there is a real commercial incentive to recycle and reuse. Regulators also continue to push for the minimisation or elimination of the release of hazardous materials... 

Design the product for a secondary use so that it has a market value at end of life. Composting of municipal green waste to produce garden compost is an attempt to balance waste disposal costs by producing a valuable product. 

Production costs include capital-dependent costs, e.g. depreciation, interest, insurance, and taxes and operating costs such as costs of raw materials and auxiliaries, costs of utilities, waste-disposal costs, labour costs, maintenance costs, and overheads. 

Metal finishers are seeing their profits shrink as waste management costs increase. To control waste disposal costs, metal finishers must focus on developing and implementing a facility-wide waste reduction program. In other words, as discussed in Section 6.4, metal finishers must consciously seek out ways to decrease the volume of waste that they generate. 

All of these three usually consist of a number of partial costs. Investments, operation management costs, fuel prices, labour costs, solvent costs, and in some cases waste disposal costs are all common costs that has to be taken into account. 

The most common and widely used supercritical fluid in SFC is carbon dioxide. It is inert, in that it is non-toxic and non-flammable, it also has mild critical parameters, a low critical temperature of 31.3°C and a critical pressure of 72.8 atm [1], Using pure, supercritical carbon dioxide eliminates organic solvent waste and with it waste disposal costs and concerns. This is extremely practical advantage in the industrial environment where the generation of waste requires special handling and significant cost. 

Unit costs Installation costs Operating costs Building costs Waste disposal costs... 

Based on data obtained during testing for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1992, cost estimates were prepared. These estimates used a 2-gallon-per-minute (gpm) pilot plant as a baseline case, and projected the costs of a full-scale 300-gpm facility. It was estimated that the installed costs would be (US)275,000 for the 2-gpm system, and 4 million for the 300-gpm system. Annual operating costs were estimated to be 368,000 and 4 million for the 2-gpm, and 300-gpm systems, respectively. Annual secondary waste disposal costs were estimated to be 50,000 (2-gpm plant) and 8 million (300-gpm plant) (D152136, p. x). 

Many site-specific characteristics have an impact on vitrification technologies. One critical aspect of any thermal technology is the water content of the waste. Water dilutes feed material, requires energy to drive off, and physically limits the feed rate of waste. Feed preparation is another variable, which differs with the technology and with site-specific characteristics. Many estimates do not take into account site preparation and waste disposal costs. Only complete treatment life-cycle assessments can provide reliable comparison data, and such studies are, by definition, highly site and waste specific (D18248T, p. 55). 

In electrochemical treatment of extracted groundwater, the operating costs for electrode consumption, power, and acid for the electrochemical unit are estimated at approximately 10 cents per 1000 gal of groundwater treated. At an anticipated flow rate of 20 gal/min (gpm), the operating costs are approximately 1000 annually. Labor and waste disposal costs for the electrochemical treatment process are estimated to be approximately 50 per day (D168869, p. 7-14). 

Technology Cleaning Depth Cleaning Rate (ft /hr)2 Operating Costs ( /ft ) Primary Waste Disposal Costs ( /ft ) Secondary Waste Disposal Costs ( /tf) Total Cost ( /ft )... 

Waste disposal costs/yd Percent savings by vitrification = 56.27 193.15 963.72... 

Exchange resins may have an affinity for other ionic contaminants such as sulfates. Waste streams with these competing ionic contaminants may have lower removal efficiencies and these treatment systems may require more frequent resin regeneration or disposal. Ion exchange treatment does not destroy targeted contaminants. In some cases, waste disposal costs may render the technology cost prohibitive. 

Maintenance of a PSVE system is expected to cost 2% of the installed capital cost of the system per year. Operation and waste disposal costs are a function of concentration of contaminants and the airflow rate and will therefore vary widely (D14489S, p. 26). Once a system is installed, no utilities are generally required. If a valve and differential pressure control system are used, these could be run by solar-cell-powered batteries (D18119L, p. 384). 

---