Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />:T.l <br />:.0 <br />N <br /> <br />part of ~~e treatment cost. <br /> <br />6 6 <br />From 0.26 x 10 gal/day to 2.0 x 10 gal/day of <br /> <br />Wasta must be disposed. For the large and relatively dilute waste stre~~s <br /> <br />considered h~re, ~e suggest tha~ it would be appropriate to use a vapor- <br /> <br />compression evaporator to concentrate for disposal. The costs for such a <br /> <br />system are discussed in Section 2.4. Because of the relatively large vol~~es, <br /> <br />we shall take the lower cost estimated there of S6.6/1000 gal (= S2150/acre- <br /> <br />ftJ of waste treated. ~his cost is taken to be largely independent of the <br /> <br />flow rate because of the macular character of the units. The recove~' 0= <br />fresh water is greater than 95\ so ~hat less eh~~ 5\ of the feed to ~~e evapora~or <br />would have to =e disposed in a li~ed pond. At most this would add an additional <br />SO.23/1000 gal {= S75/acre-ftl for the pond disposal costs, usi:1g the charges <br />derived in Section 2.4. Salanced agains~ tnis is a credit of about Sl!~OOJ <br />gal (= $326/acre-ft) for e:.e distilled water recover~d. ~his gives a =otal <br />cost =or dis?osal of the ~~r~~e system ccncentrace of 50.37/1000 gal <br />(= S:a';'/acre-!t.) with credit for the distilled ',{at.er recover-I a.."'ld $1. 22/1000 <br />gal (= $400/acre-ft) ',{i -c.....out the credi t. We may t:.a..'te an average of S 1/100C <br />gal as a suitable figure for estimation pUr?cses. <br />In s~~ary, we fi~d that ~~e total t:eatment cost, i~cluding boron =emoval, <br /> <br />ranges =etween ~out SO.80/1000 gal ~= $261/ac~e-ftl and $1.25/1000 gal <br />(= $4J8/acre-!t) or an average of about $1/1000 gal over t~e r~~ge of f:cw <br />rates an= concent~aticns considered. The disposal cos~s alsc average ~cut <br />$1/1000 ;al for a total average cost of $2/1000 gal (= S650/acre-it) for mine <br />water ~rea~ent and cisposal. These costs could be sign~~icanc if 13.5 x le6 <br />11 <br />gal/day oi water must be treated. For a 3 x 10 Btu/day output of shale oil, <br />this ~ould amount to a treatment cost of 99/106 3t~ of produc~. The cos~ <br />would be correspor.dingly reduced for lesser degrees of mine water trea~~ent <br />. 6 <br />and would =e about 4 times less for the lower flow rate of 3.1 x 10 gal/day <br />considered here. <br /> <br />4.3 Runoff and Leachates <br /> <br />As discussed in Sections 2.2 and 3.2. rai~ runoff f=~m the plant area is <br /> <br />not an imporeant or difficult problem. This ~ater is generally of good quality <br /> <br />and can be ccllec~ed for use. as is indicated in ?Lgure 4.3. <br /> <br />In mcdifiec in situ compleAes, the ~~nee out =aw shale ~annot be compacted <br /> <br />into an impe~eable cement so that some leaching :rcm the dis90sal area will <br /> <br />result from ;recipitation anc snow melt. All developers plan to con~ai~ the <br /> <br />gi <br />