EPA-440/1 a
for
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
NEW
and
for the
IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING
Anne M. Gorsuch
Administrator
Steven Schatzow
Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
CSE)
Jeffery Den it, Acting Director
Effluent Guidelines Division
Ernst P. Hall, P.E.
Chief, Metals 4 Machinery Branch
L. Dulaney» P.E.
Senior Project Officer
May, 1982
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Mater Regulations and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C, 20460
-------
-------
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION SUBJECT
PREFACE
I CONCLUSIONS 3
II INTRODUCTION 69
Legal Authority 69
Background 69
The Clean Water Act 69
Prior EPA Regulations 71
Overview of the Industry 72
Summary of EPA Guidelines Development 79
Methodology and Overview
Regulated Pollutants 82
Control and Treatment Technology 84
Capital and Annual Cost Estimates 86
Basis for Effluent Limitations and Standards 87
Suggested Monitoring Program 88
Economic Impact on the Industry 89
Energy and Non-water Quality Impacts 89
III REMAND ISSUES ON PRIOR REGULATIONS 125
Introduction 125
Site Specific Costs 125
Impact of Age on Costs 132
Consumptive Water Loss "136
IV INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION 155
V SELECTION OF REGULATED POLLUTANTS 165
Introduction 165
Development of Regulated Pollutants 165
Regulated Pollutants 166
VI WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AND TREATMENT 177
TECHNOLOGY
Introduction 177
End-of-Pipe Treatment 177
In-Plant Treatment and Controls 214
VII DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATE 217
Introduction 217
Basis of Cost Estimates 217
-------
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION SUBJECT PAGE
Assumptions Underlying Capital Recovery 218
Factors
Calculation of Capital Recovery Factors 219
Basis for Direct Costs 219
Basis for Indirect Costs 221
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS Cost Estimates 222
VIII EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE 223
APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Introduction 223
Identification of BPT 224
Development of BPT Limitations 227
IX EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE 235
APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Introduction 235
Development of BAT Effluent Limitations 236
X BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 245
XI EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLI- 247
CATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Introduction 247
Identification of NSPS 247
NSPS Costs 247
XII PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANTS DISCHARGING 249
TO PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
Introduction 249
National Pretreatment Standards 249
Categorical Pretreatment Standards 249
XIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, 257
XIV REFERENCES 259
-------
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX SUBJECT PAGE
A STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS 273
B IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY 341
C SUBCATEGORY SUMMARIES 389
D STEEL INDUSTRY WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS 547
in
-------
-------
VOLUME I
fABLSS
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1-1 BPT Concentration and Flow Summary 13
1-2 BPT Effluent Limitations Comparison 18
1-3 BAT Concentration and Flow Summary 27
1-4 BAT Effluent Limitations Summary 31
1-5 PSNS/NSPS Concentration and Flow 34
Summary
1-6 PSNS/NSPS Summary 40
1-7 PSES Concentration and Flow . 46
Summary
1-8 PSES Summary 51
1-9 BCT Concentration and Flow Summary 55
1-10 BCT Effluent Limitations Summary 59
1-11 Effluent Load Summary - Direct 63
and Indirect Dischargers
1-12 Effluent Load Summary - Direct 64
Dischargers
1-13 Effluent Load Summary - Indirect 66
Dischargers
1-14 Cost Summary 67
1-15 Control and Treatment Technology 68
Summary
II-1 Standard Industrial Classification 91
Listing
I1-2 Subcategory Inventory 97
II-3 Summary of Sampled Plants 100
11-4 Data Base Summary 109
II-5 Revised Iron and Steel Subcategories 110
-------
VOLUME I
TABLES (Continued)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
*
II-6 Cross Reference of Subcategorization Scheme 113
I1-7 Solid Waste Generation Due to Water 116
Pollution Control
II-8 Energy Requirements Due to Water 118
Pollution Control
III- 1 Capital Cost Comparison - Youngstown 142
Sheet and Tube
III-2 Capital Cost Comparison - U.S. Steel 143
Corpdration
II1-3 Capital Cost Comparison - Republic Steel 144
Corporation
III-4 Age of Plants in the Steel Industry - 145
By Subcategory
III-5 Examples of Plants with Retrofitted 147
Treatment
III-6 Water Usage Summary - Iron and Steel 152
Industry
III-7 Water Consumption Summary 153
V- 1 Development of Regulated Pollutant 167
List
V-2 Development of Regulated Pollutant 171
List - By Subcategory
V-3 Regulated Pollutant List - Iron and Steel 173
Industry
V-4 Regulated Pollutant List - By Subcategory 174
VI-1 Toxic Organic Concentrations Achievable 216
By Treatment
VIII-l BPT Cost Summary 230
IX-1 BAT Cost Summary 242
VI
-------
VOLUME I
TABLES (Continued)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
IX-2 Advanced Treatment Systems Considered 243
for BAT
XII-1 List of Plants with Indirect Discharges 251
to POTW Systems
XI1-2 Pretreatment Cost Summary 253
A-l Key to Long-Term Data Summaries 280
A-2 to Long-Term Data Analysis - Filtration 281
A-5 Systems
A-6 to Long-Term Data Analysis - Clarification/ 287
A-8 Sedimentation Systems
A-9 to Long-Term Data Analysis - By Plant 291
A-50
A-51 Standard Deviation of the 30-Day Averages 336
vn
-------
-------
VOLUME I
FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
II-l Product Flow Diagram - Steelmaking 121
Segment
I1-2 Product Flow Diagram - Steel Forming 122
Segment
I1-3 Product Flow Diagram - Steel Finishing 123
Segment
VIII-l Potential Means to Achieve BPT Effluent 233
Limitations
A-l to Long-Term Data Plots 337
A-4
-------
-------
VOLUME I
PREFACE
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated
effluent limitations and standards for the steel industry pursuant to
Sections 301, 304, 306, 307 and 501 of the Clean Water Act. The
regulation contains effluent limitations for best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT), best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT), and best available technology economically
achievable (BAT), as well as pretreatment standards for new and
existing sources (PSNS and PSES), and new source performance standards
(NSPS).
This Development Document highlights the technical aspects of EPA's
study of the steel industry. This volume addresses general issues
pertaining to the industry, while the remaining volumes contain
specific subcategory reports.
The Agency's economic analysis of the regulation is set forth in a
separate document entitled Economic, Analysig of Effluent Guidelines -
Integrated Iron and Steel Industry. That document is available from
the Office of Planning and Evaluation, PM-220, USEPA, Washington,
D.C., 20460.
-------
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Total process water usage in the steel industry is about
5,740,000,000 (5740 MGD) gallons per day. The untreated process
wastewaters contain about 43,600 tons/year of toxic organic
pollutants, 121,900 tons/year of toxic inorganic pollutants, and
14,500,000 tons/year of conventional and nonconventional
pollutants. Steel industry process wastewaters are treatable by
currently available, practicable and economically achievable
control and treatment technologies.
The Regulation contains limitations and standards for process
wastewaters generated in the different subcategories,
subdivisions and segments of the industry. The subcategorization
is based primarily upon differences in wastewater quantity and
quality related to differences in industry manufacturing
processes. The Agency has adopted a revised subcategorization of
the industry from that used in prior regulations to more
accurately effect production operations in the industry, and, to
simplify the use of the regulation. The subcategorization of the
industry in this fashion does not affect the substantive
requirements of the regulation. The Regulation applies to the 12
subcategories of the steel industry, their subdivisions, and
segments as shown below:
Subpart/Subcateqorv
A. Cokemaking
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
Subdivision
By-Product
Beehive
Iron Blast Furnace
Ferromanganese
Blast Furnace
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Open Hearth Furnace
Electric Arc Furnace
Segment
Iron and Steel
Merchant
Semi-Wet
Wet-Suppressed
Combustion
Wet-Open
Combustion
Wet
Semi-Wet
-------
Wet
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming Primary
> Section
Flat
Pipe & Tube Mills
H, Salt Bath Descaling Oxidizing
I. Acid Pickling
Reducing
Sulfuric Acid
Hydrochloric Acid
Combination Acid
Carbon and
Specialty Mills
without Scarfers
Carbon and
Specialty Mills
with Scarfers
Carbon Mills
Specialty Mills
Hot Strip and
Sheet Mills
Carbon Plate Mills
Specialty Plate
Mills
Batch: Sheet, Plate
Batch: Rod, Wire, Bar
Batch: Pipe, Tube
Continuous
Batch
Continuous
Rod, Wire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Strip, Sheet, Plate
Pipe, Tube, Other
Fume Scrubber
Rod, Wire, Coil
Strip, Sheet, Plate
Pipe, Tube, Other
Fume Scrubber
Acid Regeneration
Rod, Wire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Strip, Sheet, Plate-
Continuous
Strip, Sheet, Plate-
Batch
Pipe, Tube, Other
Fume Scrubber
-------
Cold Forming
Cold Rolling
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Cold Worked Pipe & Tube
Batch
Continuous
Galvanizing, Terne
and Other Metal
Coatings
Fume Scrubbers
Recirculation:
Single Stand
Multi-Stand
Combination
Direct Application:
Single-Stand
Multi-Stand
Water Solutions
Oil Solutions
Strip, Sheet, and
Miscellaneous
Products
Wire Products
and Fasteners
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Avai lable ( BPT )
For the most part, the BPT limitations for the basic steelmaking
operations (cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking,
vacuum degassing, and continuous casting) are the same as those
contained in the prior regulations and those proposed in January
1981, (46 FR 1858). Where the BPT limitations for the basic
steelmaking operations are different than those proposed, the
changes are the result of the Agency's evaluation and response to
comments received during the public comment period for the
proposed regulation. The major changes are summarized below:
A. Cokemaking
The total suspended solids limitations were relaxed to
reflect actual operations of biological treatment systems
used to treat cokemaking wastewaters. Separate limitations
are promulgated for merchant cokemaking operations.
B. Sintering
The limitations were relaxed to reflect a higher model
treatment system effluent flow rate.
C. Ironmaking
None
D. Steelmaking
-------
The limitations for the EOF wet-open combustion and EAF-Wet
segments were relaxed to reflect higher model treatment
system effluent flow rates. The Open Hearth semi-wet
segment was deleted.
E. Vacuum Degassing
None
F. Continuous Casting
None
Many of the BPT effluent limitations for the forming and
finishing operations (hot forming, descaling, cold rolling, acid
pickling, alkaline cleaning, and hot coating) were changed. Some
of the final limitations are more stringent than those proposed
and some are less stringent. These changes result partly from
revised segmentation and subdivision of certain subcategories and
partly from the Agency's re-assessment of its existing data base
and additional data received during the public comment period for
the proposed regulation. In all cases, however, the basic
technologies underlying the BPT limitations have remained the
same. The model treatment system flow rates and effluent quality
were changed to reflect actual, flows in the industry and the
performance of properly designed and operated treatment systems.
In all cases, the Agency believes the changes made have resulted
in more appropriate, technically sound limitations. These
changes are summarized below:
G. Hot Forming
The model treatment system flow rates and effluent quality
were revised to reflect actual performance of the model
treatment systems.
H. Salt Bath Descaling
The subcategory was resegmented to provide more appropriate
rinsewater flows by product and by type of operation.
Limitations were promulgated for suspended solids, chromium,
nickel, and pH.
I. Acid Pickling
The subcategory was resegmented to provide more appropriate
rinsewater flows by product. Separate daily mass
limitations were promulgated for fume scrubbers and for
regeneration system absorber vent scrubbers. Lead and zinc
are limited for sulfuric and hydrochloric acid pickling
operations and chromium and nickel are limited for
combination acid pickling operations.
-------
J, Cold Forming
Separate limitations were promulgated for single stand
recirculation and direct application cold rolling mills.
Lead and zinc are limited for cold rolling operations
processing carbon steels and chromium and nickel are limited
for cold rolling operations processing specialty steels.
Limitations for naphthalene and tetrachloroethylene are
provided for all cold rolling operations. There are no
changes to the BPT limitations for cold worked pipe and tube
operations.
K. Alkaline Cleaning
The limitations were relaxed to reflect higher model
treatment system effluent flow rates.
L. Hot Coating
Separate daily mass limitations were promulgated for fume
scrubbers. Limitations were promulgated for lead and zinc
for all hot coating operations. Chromium limitations are
promulgated for those hot coating operations with chromate
rinse operations.
The model treatment system flow rates and effluent quality used
to develop the BPT limitations are presented in Table 1-1.
Comparisons of the BPT limitations contained in prior regulations
with the promulgated BPT limitations are presented in Table 1-2.
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
The BAT limitations for the basic steelmaking operations are
generally based upon the same treatment technologies as the
proposed limitations. However, in several cases, the limitations
were changed based upon comments and data received as a result of
the public comment period. In some cases, different model
treatment technologies were used to develop the limitations. The
more significant changes are summarized below:
A. Cokemaking
The limitations for ammonia-N, cyanide, and phenols (4AAP)
were relaxed to a minor extent based upon a review of
extensive data for the model treatment system. Only daily
maximum limitations for benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and
naphthalene are promulgated. Separate limitations are
promulgated for merchant cokemaking operations.
B. Sintering
The model treatment system effluent flow rate was relaxed to
reflect achievable wastewater recycle rates for sintering
-------
operations with wet air pollution control systems on all
parts of the process. The selected model treatment
technology is filtration as opposed to alkaline
chlorination. However, limitations for ammonia-N, total
cyanide, and phenols (4AAP) were promulgated for those
sintering operations with wastewaters co-treated with
i ronmaki ng wastewaters.
C. Ironmaking
The ammonia-N limitation was significantly relaxed to take
into account full scale operation of the selected model
treatment technology.
D. Steelmaking
The model treatment system was changed by deleting the final
effluent filter and the limitations were adjusted
accordingly. Only limitations for lead and zinc were
promulgated. Limitations for chromium were proposed.
E.,F. Vacuum Degassing, Continuous Casting
The model treatment systems were changed from filtration to
lime precipitation and sedimentation to address treatment of
dissolved toxic metals. The promulgated limitations for
lead and zinc are consistent with those for steelmaking
operations.
G. Hot Forming
BAT limitations are not promulgated for hot forming
operations. The Agency has determined that the BPT model
treatment system provides sufficient control of toxic
metals.
H.,I.,J. Salt Bath Descaling, Acid Pickling, Cold Forming
BAT limitations more stringent than the promulgated BPT
limitations were not promulgated for descaling, acid
pickling, and cold forming operations.
K. Alkaline Cleaning
None
L. Hot Coating
For those operations with fume scrubbers, BAT limitations
based upon recycle of fume scrubber wastewaters and the BPT
model treatment system were 'promulgated. For those
-------
operations without fume scrubbers, BAT limitations more
stringent than the respective BPT limitations were not
promulgated.
The model treatment system effluent flow rates and effluent
quality used to develop the BAT limitations are presented in
Table 1-3. The BAT limitations are presented in Table 1-4.
5. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
In all cases, the promulgated NSPS are based upon the same basic
technologies used to develop the BPT and BAT limitations. In
several instances, NSPS more stringent than the respective BPT
and BAT limitations were promulgated based upon more stringent
model treatment system discharge flow rates demonstrated in the
industry. The development of NSPS is set out in each subcategory
report. The model treatment system effluent flow rates and
effluent quality used to develop NSPS are presented in Table 1-5.
The NSPS are presented in Table 1-6.
6. Pretreatment Standards (PSES and PSNS)
The promulgated pretreatment standards are designed to minimize
pass through of toxic pollutants discharged to POTWs from steel
industry operations. Except for cokemaking operations, the
promulgated PSES and PSNS are the same as the respective BAT
limitations and NSPS. For cokemaking operations, PSES and PSNS
are based upon the same pretreatment the industry provides for
on-site biological treatment of cokemaking wastewaters. The
model treatment system effluent flow rates and the effluent
quality used to develop the PSES are presented in Table 1-7, The
PSES are presented in Table 1-8. The same information for PSNS
and the PSNS are presented in Tables 1-5 and 1-6, respectively.
7- Best Conventional Technology (BCT)
As a result of the remand of the Agency's BCT costing methodology
in API vs EPA [660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981)] the Agency has
reserved BCT limitations in those subcategories where the model
BAT treatment technologies provide for conventional pollutant
removal beyond that provided by the model BPT technologies
(sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking, vacuum degassing, continuous
casting). For the remaining subcategories, the Agency has
promulgated BCT limitations that are the same as the respective
BPT limitations.
The model treatment system flow rates and effluent quality used
to develop the BCT limitations are presented in Table 1-9. The
BCT limitations are presented in Table 1-10.
8, The Agency concludes that the effluent reduction benefits
associated with compliance with the regulation will result in
significant removals of toxic, conventional and other pollutants.
-------
Table 1-11 presents a summary of the effluent reduction benefits
associated with this regulation on an industry-wide basis. Table
1-12 and 1-13 present summaries for direct and indirect
dischargers, respectively.
The Agency concludes that the effluent reduction benefits
associated with compliance with both existing and new source
limitations and standards outweigh the minor adverse energy and
non-water quality environmental impacts.
9. The Agency estimates that based upon production and treatment
facilities in place as of July 1, 1981, the industry will incur
the following costs to comply with the regulation. The Agency
has determined that the effluent reduction benefits associated
with compliance with the limitations and standards outweigh the
costs of compliance.
Costs (Millions of July 1, 1978 Dollars)
Capital Costs Total
Total In-place Required Annual
BPT 1697 1491 206 204
BAT 101 24 77 24
PSES 173 132 4J_ 3]_
TOTAL 1971 1647 324 259
Table 1-14 presents these costs by subcategory. The Agency has
also determined that the effluent reduction benefits associated
with compliance with new source standards (NSPS, PSNS) justify
the associated costs.
The industry production capacity profile used in this study
differs slightly from that used in the preparation of Economic
Analysis of_ Proposed Effluent Guidelines - Integrated Iron and
Steej. Industry which reviews in detail the potential economic
impact of this regulation. The capacity profile used in that
analysis is based upon information obtained from AISI and
includes predictions of future retirements, modernization, and
reworks over the next ten years, whereas this development
document has focused on the industry as it now exists and the
extent to which pollution control technologies are demonstrated.
10. With respect to the general issues remanded by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the Agency concluded:
a. The "age" of facilities has no significant impact on the
"cost or feasibility of retrofitting" pollution controls.
First, "age" is a relatively meaningless term in the steel
industry. It is extremely difficult to define because many
plants are continually rebuilt and modernized.
-------
Whether "first year of production" or "years since last
rebuild" is taken as an indicia of plant "age", the data
show that "age" has no significant impact on the
"feasibility" of retrofitting. Many "old" facilities are
served by modern and efficient retrofitted treatment
systems. With regard to the impact of plant "age" on the
cost of retrofitting, most respondents to EPA questionnaires
were unable to estimate "retrofit" costs, reported no
retrofit costs, or reported retrofit costs of less than 5%
of pollution control costs. The Agency compared its model
based cost estimates with actual industry costs for over 90
installed treatment facilities, many of which were
retrofitted to older production facilities. The Agency
found that the model based cost estimates are sufficiently
generous to account for retrofit costs at both older and
newer plants. Also, detailed engineering studies and
industry cost estimates for three of the "oldest" plants in
the country produced cost estimates similar to EPA's model
plant estimates.
The Agency found that both old and newer facilities generate
similar raw wastewater pollutant loadings; that pollution
control facilities can be and have been retrofitted to both
old and newer production facilities without substantial
retrofit costs; that these pollution control facilities can
and are achieving the same effluent quality; and, that
further subcategorization or further segmentation within
each subcategory on the basis of age is not appropriate.
However, even assuming that plant "age" does affect the
"cost or feasibility of retrofitting," EPA believes that
separate subcategorization or relaxed limitations for
"older" plants are not justifiable. "Older" plants cause
similar pollution problems as "newer" plants, and the need
to control these problems would justify the expenditure of
reasonable, if any, additional "retrofit" costs. Therefore
the regulation does not differentiate between "old" and
"new" facilities.
The Agency's cost estimates are sufficiently generous to
reflect all costs to be incurred when installing wastewater
treatment systems, including "site-specific costs". The
Agency's cost models now include several "site-specific
cost" items not included in prior cost models (See Sections
III and VII) and incorporate several conservative
assumptions. As noted above, the Agency also compared its
model plant cost estimates with actual costs reported by the
industry including "site-specific costs." Finally, detailed
plant-by-plant engineering estimates (cost estimates
provided by the industry) for eight plants reveal estimated
costs (including "site-specific costs") similar to EPA's
model plant cost estimates.
11
-------
c. The BPT and BAT limitations and the PSES, PSNS, and NSPS in
seven subcategories are based upon model treatment systems
including recycle systems and mechanical draft cooling
towers. The installation of these systems may result in
evaporative water losses of about 4.2 MGD above current
losses (16.0 MGD). However, the environmental benefits of
these treatment systems justify the additional evaporative
water losses. Recycle and cooling systems are extensively
used at steel plants in water-scarce areas and the Agency
concludes that the incremental impacts of the regulation on
these plants is either minimal or nonexistent.
11. Table 1-15 presents a summary, by subcategory, of the water
pollution control and treatment technologies considered by the
Agency in developing the limitations and standards.
12
-------
TABLE I-I
BPT CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IROH AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Subcategory
Cokenaking
Iron & Sleel
Her chan I
Beehive
Sintering
\
Ironaaking
Iran
Ferroaunganese
S tee lacking
•OF: Semi -Wet
BOF:Wet-Open
Coabustion
BOF: Net-Suppressed
Combustion
Open Hearth-Uet
Furnace : Semi -Wet
Electric Arc
Furnace: Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
A We
V8
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
DPT Effluent Concentrations (mg/l)
Discharge Toxic
Flow Phenol Organics
(GPT) TSS O&C Ammonia (4AAP) CN-T Cr Cr Hi Pb Zn 55 85
225 140 11.6 97.2 1.6 23.3
270 34.8 292 4.6 70.0
240 140 11.6 97.2 1.6 23.3
270 34.8 292 4.S 70.0
0
120 SO 10
ISO 30
125 SO 103 4.0 1S.O
ISO 309 12.0 4S.O
2SO 100 410 20.0 ISO
300 1240 60.0 450
0
110 SO
ISO
50 50
150
110 SO
150
o
110 50
150
25 50
150
-------
TABLE t-I
BPT CONCKHTKATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Primary: Carbon
& Spec w/o acarf.
PriaarytCarbon &
Spec M/scarf.
Sec Li on: Carbon
Sect ion: Specialty
FlatiHot Strip &
Sheet (Carbon &
Specialty)
FlatsPlate-Carbon
Flat:Plate-Spec.
Pipe & Tube
Salt Bath Descaling
Ox id iz ing-Batch,
Sheet & Plate
Oxidiz ing-Batch
Rod & Wire
Oxidizing-Batch
Pipe & Tube
Ox idi i ing-Con t.
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Discharge
Flow
(GPT)
125
897
1326
2142
1344
2560
1360
600
1270
700
420
1700
330
TSS
50
150
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
BPT Effluent Concentrations (rag/1)
Toxic
Phenol , Organics
OiG Aimonia (4AAP) CN-T Cr Cr Mi Pb En 55 85
15
45
-
10
_
10
_
10
-
10
_
10
_
10
-
10
_
10
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
-------
TABLI I-I
BPT CONCENTRATION AMD FLOW SUMMARY
IRON AMD STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Sub category
Salt Bath Descal. (Cont.
Rebuc ing-Batch
Reduc i ng-Cont .
Sulfuric Acid Pickling
Strip, Sheet & Plate
Rod, Wire & Coil
Bar, Billet ( Bloom
Pipe, Tube i Other
Fume Scrubber
HC1 Acid Pickling
Rod, Wire « Coil
Strip, Sheet & Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Sc rubber (2)
Acid Regeneration
Comb. Acid Pickling
Rod, Hire & Coil
Bar, Billet & Bloon
Diacharge
Plow
(GPT)
Avg 325
Max
Avg 1820
Max
Avg 180
Max
Avg 280
Max
Avg 90
Ma*
Avg 500
Max *
Avg 15 GPM
Max
Avg 490
Max
Avg 280
Max
Avg 1020
Max
Avg 15 GPM
Max
Avg 100 GPM
Max
Avg 510
Max
Avg 230
Max
TSS
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
O&G
( 1)
Ifl
(1 1
30tl;
(1)
30ll<
10,°*
30U)
( I )
10
30ll;
10u>
30* 1J
O\
in '
(1)
30u;
(11
i ft
30(1>
(ii
10
30 l '
"i!!
30VU
1 1 \
10: '
30
1U
30
1 1)
30<'»
BPT Effluent Concentrations (ag/l)
*
Phenol ,
An»onia (4AAP) CH-T Cr Cr Hi Pb
0.25 0.4 0.3
0.75 1.0 0.9
0.25 0.4 0.3
0.75 1.0 0.9
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
*
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
Toxic
Organic*
Zn 55 85
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
-------
TABLE 1-1
BPT CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 4
BPT Effluent Concentrations (ag/1)
Subcategory
Comb. Acid Pickling (Cont
Com. -Strip, Sheet
& Plate
Batch-Strip, Sheet
& Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
fume Scrubber
Cold Forming
Cold Rolling: Recir
Single Stand
Cold Rolling: Recir
Multi Stand
Cold Rolling:
Combination
Cold Rolling: Direct
Appl. Single Stand
Cold Rolling: Direct
Appl. Multi Stand
Pipe & Tube
Alkaline Cleaning
Batch
Continuous
_,
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Ma*
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Discharge
Flow
(CPT) TSS
1500 30
70
460 30
70
770 30
70
15 GPM 30
70
5 30
,., 60
25 30
60
300 30
60
90 30
60
400 30
60
0
250 30
70
350 30
70
Phenol ,
O&G Aa—onia (4AAP) CH-T Cr
/ 1 \
10
30U)
*
I1\
30U'
in
1 11
30U)
I0(1)
30(I)
10
25
10
25
10
25
10
25
10
25
10
30
10
30
Cr Hi Pb Zn
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3 0.15 0.1
1.0*3) 0.9(3) 0.45 0.3
O.tt(ll 0.^,11 0.15 0.1
1.0*3) 0,9*3) 0.45 0.3
Q.till °'tfll °'15 °-1
1.0t3) 0.9*3) 0.45 0.3
0.4(3> 0.3<3) 0.15 0.1
1.0 0.9 ' 0.45 0.3
0.4*3) °-3j3J °-15 °'1
1.0* ' 0.9* ' 0.45 0.3
Toxic
Organics
55 85
-
0.1 0.15
0.1 0.15
0.1 0.15
_
0.1 0.15
_
0.1 0.15
-------
TABLE 1-1
BPT CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUHMARV
IRON AND STEEL 1HDUST8Y
PACE 5
BPT Effluent Concentration! (ag/i)
Subcategory
Hot Coat ing -
(Includes all coaling
ope rat ions)
Str ip/Slieet/Misc.
wo/ Scrubbers
Wire Fasteners
wo/ Scrubbers
Fume Scrubbers*2^
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Discharge
flow
(GPT)
600
2400
100 CPH
Phenol
TSS
30
70
30
70
30
70
O&G Ammonia (4AAP) CN-T Cr Cr
10
30
10
30
10
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
.02
.06
.02
.06
.02
.06
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
Mi
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pb
.15
.45
.15
.45
.15
.45
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
Toxic
Organics
Zn 55 85
1
3
1
3
1
3
NOTE: pH is also regulated in all subcalegories and is limited to 6.0 to 9.0 standard units.
(1): This pollutant is regulated only when these wastes are treated in combination with cold rolling mill wastes,
(2): The fume scrubber allowance shall be applied to each fume scrubber associated with a pickling or hot coating operation.
(3): This pollutant shall apply in lieu of lead and zinc when cold rolling yastewaters are treated with descaling
or combination acid pickling wastewaiets.
(4): This pollutant shall apply only to those galvanizing operations which discharge wastewaters from a chtomaie rinse step.
-------
TABUS 1-2
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS COMPARISON
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Subcategory
Cokemak ing
Iron & Steel
Herchant
Seeh ive
Sinter ing
Ironmaking
Iron
Ferromangarteae
Steelmaking
EOF: Semi-Net
BOF: Het-Supp,
BOF: Wet-Open
Open Hearth:
Semi-Wet
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Re v . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
BPT Effluent Limitations (kg/kkg x 10~5)
Dis-
charge Toxic
Flow Phenol .. Organica
(GPT) TSS 04G Ammonia (4AAF) Fe-D CM-T Cr Cr Hi Zn Pb F 55 85
175 3650 1090 912 146 2190
11000 3290 2740 438 6570
225 13100 1090 9120 150 2190
25300 3270 27400 451 6570
No Separate Limitations Proposed for this Segment
240 14000 1160 9730 160 2330
27000 3480 29200 481 7010
0
No Change
50 1040 209
3130 626
120 2500 501
7510 1500
125 2600 5370 209 782
7820 16100 626 2340
No Change
250 10400 42900 2080 15600
31300 128000 6240 46900
No Change
0
No Change
50 1040
3130
No Change
50 1040
3130
110 2290
6880
50 1040
3130
Rev. Avg Segment Eliminated
Max
-------
TABLE 1-2
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS COMPARISON
PAGE 2
Subcat egory
Open Hearth: Wet
EAF: Semi-He t
EAF: Met
Vacuum Degassing
Con t inuous Cas t ing
Hot Forning
Prim. -Carbon w/s
Prim. -Carbon wo/s
Prim. -Spec. «/s
Prim. -Spec, wo/a
Sect ion-Carbon
1976
Rev.
1976
Rev.
1976
Rev.
1976
Rev.
1976
Rev.
1976
Rev.
19?6
Rev.
1976
Rev.
1976
Rev.
1976
Rev.
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Man
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Halt
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Mas
Dis-
charge
Flow
SGPT)
50
110
0
No Change
50
110
25
Ho Change
125
No Change
845
1326
692
897
1220
1326
1220
897
2626
2142
TSS
1040
3130
2290
6880
1040
3130
2290
6880
522
1560
2600
7800
4530
13600
8300
22100
3710
11100
5610
15000
6540
19600
8300
22100
6540
19600
5610
15000
24200
72600
13400
35700
BPT Effluent Limitations (kg/kkg x 10~ )
Toxic
Phenol ,- Organica
O&G Amnonia (4AAP) Fe-D CN-T Cr Cr Ni Zn Pb F 55 85
780
2340
3520
10600
-
5530
2880
8640
-
3740
5080
15200
-
5530
5080
15200
-v
3740
11000
33000
-
8940
-------
NJ
O
IrtliLt l-J.
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS COMPARISON
PAGE 3
Subcategory
Section-Spec.
Flat -Carbon HS&S
Flat-Spec. HS&S
Flat-Carbon Plate
Flat-Spec. Plate
Pipe & Tube-Carbon
Pipe & Tube-Spec.
Salt Bath Descaling
Ox. -Batch S&P^1'
Ox. -Batch R/W/B(1)
Ox. -Batch P&T(1)
1976 Avg
Max
Rev . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Re v . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
Dis-
charge
Flow
-------
TABLE 1-2
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS COMPARISON
PAGE 4
Subcategory
Ox.-Cont.(i) 1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Max
Red.-Batch(2) 1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
Red. -Cent. (2) 1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Max
Sulf. Acid Pickl.
Batch & Continuous 1976 Avg
Acid Recovery Max
Rev . Avg
Max
Batch Neut. 1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
Cent. Neut. wo/SPL 1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
Coot. Neut. K/SPL 1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
Strip/Sheet/Plate 1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
Rod/Wire/Coil 1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
BPT Effluent Limitations (kg/kkg x 10~5)
Dis-
charge Toxic
Flow Phenol ,, Organics
(CPT) TSS O&G Ammonia (4AAP) Fe-D CN-T Cr Cr Ni Zn Pb F 55 85
500 5210 209 52.1 10.4 104*
15600 627 156 31.3 313*
330 4130 55.1 41.3
9640 138 124
1200 12500 501 125 25.0 250*
37500 1500 375 75.1 751*
325 4070 33.9 54.2 40.7
9490 102 136 122
1200 12500 501 125 25.0 250*
37500 1500 375 75.1 751*
1820 22800 190 304 228
53200 759 569 683
0
Subdivision Eliminated
f i\
360 7510 1500n\ 15°
22500 45001 ' 450
Subdivision Eliminated
225 4690 939^l\ 93'9
14100 2820* ; 282
Subdivision Eliminated
250 5210 1040H\ 10A
15600 3120V ; 313
Subdivision Eliminated
Hew Subdivision
> ,
180 2250 751 ?L 7.51 11.3
5260 22501 ' 22.5 33.8
Nev Subdivision
280 3500 1170J^ n'7 17-5
8180 3500VJ; 35.0 52.6
-------
TABLE t-2
BPT EFFtUENT LIHITATIOHS COMPARISON
PAGE 5
NJ
KJ
Subcategory
Bar /Billet /Bloom
Pipe /Tube/Other
fe \
Fume Scrub. '
HCI Acid Piekl.
Cont . Neut . u/s
Cont. Neut. wo/8
Cont. Regen. u/s
Cont. Regen. wo/s
Bat. Neut. w/s
Bat. Neut. wo/s
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev . Avg
Max
Dis-
charge
Flow
(GPT) TSS O&G Ammonia
New Subdivision
90 1130 375 ,,.
2630 11301 '
Hew Subdivision
500 6260 2090^'
14600 62601 }
No Separate Limitations Proposed
15 GPM 245000 81900(?L
572000 245000
280 5840 1170,?!
17500 3510
Subdivision Eliminated
230 4800 960 ?L
14400 2880 U'
Subdivision Eliminated
^
450 9380 1870f^
28100 5610
Subdivision Eliminated
400 8340 1660fo\
2500 49801 '
Subdivision Eliminated
280 5840 H70f«
17500 3510Ui
Subdivision Eliminated
230 4800 960 ,L
14400 2880U}
Subdivision Eliminated
BPT Effluent Limitations (kg/kkg x 10~ )
Toxic
Phenol , Organics
(4AAP) Fe-D CN-T Cr Cr Ni Zn Pb F 55 85
3.75 5.63
11.3 16.9
20.9 31.3
62.6 93.9
819 1230
2450 3680
117
351
96.0
288
187
561
166
498
117
351
96.0
288
-------
TABLE 1-2
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS COMPARISON
PAGE 6
Subcategory
Strip/Sheet/Plate
Rod/Wire/Coil
Pipe, Tube & Other
Regeneration
Fume Scrub.
•
Comb. Acid Pickl.
Cont .
Bat., P & T
Bat. Other
Bat. Strip/Sheet/
Plate
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Re v . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Hax
Re v . Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Max
Rev . Avg
Max
Dis-
charge
Flow
(GPT) TSS
New Subdivision
280 3500
8180
New Subdivision
490 6130
14300
New Subdivision
1020 12800
29800
New Subdivision
100 GPM 1630000
3810000
No Separate Limitat
15 GPM 245000
572000
1000 10400
31200
1500 18800
43800
700 7300
21900
770 9640
22500
200 2090
6270
BPT Effluent Limitations
Phenol .
O&G Ammonia (4AAP) Fe-D CN-T Cr
1170")
3500
. .
2040, .
6130U;
. .
4260 ?:!.
128001 '
545000"}
1630000 '
ions Proposed
.
81900 ( .
24500g J;
4170 ,' 417
1250p!:,; 1250
6260 (3)
18800 '
2920"} 292
8760,^ 876
3210 "
964t)")
8341,' 83.4
25001 ' 250
(kg/kkg x 10"5)
Cr
209*
627*
250
626
146*
438*
128
321
41.7*
125*
Toxic
Organics
Ni Zn Pb F 55 85
11.7 17.5
35.0 52.6
20.4 30.7
61.3 92.0
42.6 63.8
128 191
5450 8190
16300 24500
819 1230
2450 3680
104* 6260
312* 18800
188
563
73.0* 4380
219* 13100
96.4
289
20.9* 1250
62.7* 3750
Subdivision eliminated
New Subdivision
460 5760
13400
. .
1920 3
5760U;
76.8
192
57.6
173
-------
TABLE 1-2
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS COMPARISON
PAGE 7
Subc ate gory
Rod/Hire/Coil
Bar/Billet/Bloom
(5)
Cold Forming
CR-Single Recir.
CR-Hulti Recirc.
CR-Coab.
CR-Single DA
CR-Hulti DA
P&T
1976 Avg
Max
Rev. Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
1976
Hax
Rev . Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev . Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev . Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Re v . Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Re v . Avg
Hax
Dis-
charge
Flow
(GPT)
TSS
BPT Effluent Limitations
Phenol +»
04G Aanonia (4AAF) Fe-D CN-T Cr
(ku/kkg x
Cr
io-5)
Hi Zn Pb
Toxic
Organic*
F 55 85
Hew Subdivision
510
6380
14900
,
f H
63801-"
85.1
213
63.8
191
Hew Subdivision
230
15 GPH
25
5
25
25
400
300
1000
90
1000
400
1002
0
2880
6720
245000
572000
261
783
62.6
125
261
783
313
626
4170
12500
3750
7510
10400
31200
1130
2250
10400
31200
5010
10000
14200
42600
960 (?L
2880
. ,
81900(**
245000V '
104 10.4^
312 31. 2W
20.9
52.2
104 10-4f4l
312 31. 2W
104
261 (4)
1670 167'*
5010 501W
1250
3130
4170 417(**
12500 1250V '
375
939
4170 417
12500 1250
1670
4170
4180
12500
38.4
96.0
3270
8190
°"83(7)
2.091 '
4.17<7>
10. 4m
(71
SO.l"'
1251"
, .
15.0,'f
37. S17'
( 7}
66-f"
1671"
28.8
86.4
2450
7350
0.63^*0.21 0.31
1.88UJ0.63 0.94
3.13?J?1.04 1.56
9.39m3.13 4.69
t 7V
37.5^'l2.5 18.8
11317J37.5 56.3
( 7}
11.3f'^3.75 5.63
33. & 'll.3 16.9
, ,
ISO"* 50.1
0.21 0.31
-
1.04 1.56
-
12.5 18.8
-
3.75 5,63
25.0 -
75.1 16.7 25.0
-------
TABLE 1-2
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS COMPARISON
PAGE S
Subcategory
Alkaline Cleaning
Batch
Continuous
Hot Coat ing
G«lv-St rip/Sheet/
Hisc i/a
Galv-St r ip/Shee t /
Hisc fo/s
Calv-Hlre/Fast .
M/8
Galv-Wire/Fast .
MO/ 8
Terne-M/s
Terne-wo/s
Other Strip/Sheet
Misc »/»
Other-Hire/Fast.
Misc wo/8
1976 Avg
Hax
Re v . Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Max
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
1975 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
1976 Avg
Hax
Rev. Avg
Hax
Dis-
charge
Flow
(GPT)
50
250
50
350
1200
600
600
2400
1200
600
600
600
BPT Effluent Limitations (kg/kkg x 10~5)
Phenol .
TSS O&G Ammonia (4AAP) Fe-D CN-T Cr Cr Hi Zn
522 20.9 10.4* 5.22*
1570 62.6 31.3* 15.6*
313O 1040
7300 3130
522 20.9 10.4* 5.22*
1570 62.6 31.3* 15.6*
4380 1460
10200 4380 . .
25000 7500 10.0>;n500 2500
75000 2250 30.0l/J4500 7500
Separate Allowance Given for Fume Scrubber
12500 3750 5.0oJ*,750 1250
37500 11300 15.0'1,2250 3750
7510 2500 5'01J7i 25.0
17500 7510 15.0V/J 75.1
Ho Separate Limitations Proposed for this Segment
Separate Allowance Given For Fume Scrubber
No Separate Limitations Proposed for this Segment
f 7)
30000 10000 20-°m 10°
70100 30000 60. I1 300
25000 7500
75000 22500
Separate Allowance Given for Fume Scrubber
12500 3750
37500 11300 . .
7510 2500 5.01,', 25.0
17500 7510 15.o"J 75.1
No Separate Limitations Proposed for this Segment
Separate Allowance Given For Fume Scrubber
Ho Separate Limitations Proposed for this Segment
7510 2500 5.01*7' 25.0
17500 7510 15.0(7) 75.1
Toxic
Organ ics
Pb F 55 85
37.5
113
150
451
250
750
250
750
37.5
11*3
37.5
113
-------
TABLE 1-2
BPT EFFLUEHT LIM1TAT1OHS CONPAHISOK
PAGE 9
BPT Effluent Limitations (kg/kkg x 10 )
Subcat egory
Other-Hire/Fast
»/8
Other-Hire Fast
wo/s
FU«K Scrub.
1976
Rev
1976
Rev.
1976
Rev.
Avg
Max
. Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
for the
Dis-
charge
Flow Phenol +fc
(GPT) TSS O&G Aamonia (4AAP) Fe-D CN-T Gr Cr
No Separate Limitation Proposed Cor this Segment
Separate Allowance Given For Fume Scrubber
No Separate Limitations Porposed Cor this Segment
.
2400 30000 10000 20. 0)1,
70100 30000 60. r'
No Separate Limitations Proposed for this Segment
100 GPM 1630000 545000 1090f7>
3810000 1630000 3270V
t
kolene scale removal subcateeorv.
Toxic
Organic a
Ni Zn Pb F 55 85
100 150
300 451
5450 8190
16300 24500
(2) Original limits were for the hydride scale removal subcategory.
(3) This load is allowed only when these wastes are treated in combination with cold rolling mill wastes.
(4) This load is allowed only when these wastes are treated in combination with pickling wastes.
(5) The fume scrubber allowance shall be applied to each fume scrubber associated with a pickling or hot coating operation.
The loads are expressed in kg/day x 10
(6) This load shall be applied in lieu of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling waatewaters are treted with descaling or combination acid
pickling wastewaters.
(7) This load shall apply only to those galvanizing operations which discharge wastevater from a chromate rinse.
* : Dissolved Metal
NOTE: pH is also regulated in all subcategoriea and is United to 6.0 - 9.0 standard units.
-------
BAT CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Dia. BAT Effluent Concentrations (mg/1)
Selected Flow Phenol Toxic Organies Cr CN(T) Pb Ni Zn
Subcategory
Cokenaking
I&S-Bio.
l&S-Phy. Che«n.
Kerch. -Bio.
Mereh.-Phy. Chen.
Beehive
Sintering
Ironraaking
Iron
Ferroraanganese
Steelraakitig
BOF ". Semi-wet
BOF: Wet-Open
BOF: Wel-Supp.
Open Hearth
EAF: Semi-wet
EAF : Wei
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hoi Forming
Prim. : C&S w/os
Prim.: C&S w/s
Sect.: Carb.
Seel.: Spec.
Option (GPT) Amonia Chlor. (4AAP) (4) (55) (73) (85) (119) (121) (122) (124) (128) Cr
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
AVg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
1
1
1
1
BPT
1
4
153 25 0.05 -
85 0.1 0.05 0.05 0
103 75 0.1
150 0.2 0.05 0.05 0
170 25 0.05 -
85 O.I 0.05 0.05 0
120 75 O.I - - -
150 0.2 0.05 0.05 0
0
120 10 - 0.1
30 0.5 0.2
70 10 - 0.1
30 0.5 0.2
5.5
.05 10
.05
5.5
.05 10
.05
1 0.
2 0.
1 0.
2 0.
25
75
25
75
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
9
3
9
Reserved
BPT
2
2
2
BPT
2
Z
2
No BAT
Ho BAT
Ho BAT
No BAT
0
110
50
110
0
110
25
25
Selected
Selected
Selected
Selected
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0,
1,
0.
•1,
45
35
45
35
45
35
45
35
45
35
45
35
-------
TABU: 1-3
BAT CONCEOTRATIOB AND PLOW SUMMARY
1EON & STEli INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Sis.
Selected Flow
Subcategory
Flat: HS&S (CSS)
Flat: Plate-Carb.
Flat: Plate-Spec.
P&T
Salt Bath-Be»ealing
Ox. -Bat. S&P
Ox. -Bat. MM
Ox. -Bat. P&T
Ox. -Con t.
Red. -Bat.
Red.-Cont .
Sulf. Acid Pickling
Rod, Hire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Strip, Sheet, Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrub. (1)
HC1 Acid Pickling
Rod, Wire, Coil
Strip, Sheet, Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrub. '
Acid Regeneration
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Opt i on
No BAT
No BAT
No BAT
No BAT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
(GPT) Amonia Chlor.
Selected
Selected
Selected
Selected
700
420
1700
330
,
325
1820
280
90
180
500
15 CPU
490
280
1020
15 GPM
100 GPH
BAT Effluent Concentrations (mg/1)
Phenol Tonic Organics Cr CN(T) Pb Hi
(4AAP) (4) (55) (73) (85) (119) (121) (122) (124)
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.25 0.3
1.0 0.75 0.9
0.4 0.25 0.3
1.0 0.75 0.9
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
Zn *6
(128) Cr °
•
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0,1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
-------
TABLE 1-3
BAT ODNCEWTRATIOB AND FLOW SWWARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
iO
Din.
BAT Effluent Concentrations («g/l)
Selected Flow Phenol Toxic Organics Cr CH(T) Pb
Subcategory
Comb-Acid Pickling
Rod, Wire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Cont-S, S4P
Bat.-S, S&P
P&T & Oth.
Fume Scrub. '
Cold Forming
CR: Recir-Single
CR; Recir-Multi.
CR: Comb.
CR: DA-Single
CR: M-Multi.
P&T
Alkaline Cleaning
Batch
Continuous
Rot Coating (all
operations)
S, S&Misc, no/scrub
W/Fast wo/scrub
Fwrae Scrub.
Hi
Option (GPTj Aaronis Chlor. (4AAP) (ft) (55) (73) (85) (119) (121) (122) (124)
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
Wo BAT
BPT
BPT
1
510
230
1500
460
770
15 GPM
5
25
300
90
400
0
.*«*««*- RffT
tpeleuLeu-J) il '
Selected ^P 7
600
2400
15 GPM
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.1 0.15 1.
0.
0.1 0.15 1.
- 0,
0.1 0.15 1.
0.
0.1 0.15 1.
- 0.
0.1 0.15 1.
4
0
4
0
ft
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
4<«
0(2)
4(2)
0
o{2)
4(2)
1 11
0
4(2)
f 7)
0(2)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
15
45
15
45
15
45
15
45
15
45
15
45
15
45
15
45
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
j<2)
;<2>
3(2)
9
,(2)
9(2)
j(2)
n\ */
3(2)
9^ '
2n .-
(128) Cr °
0.
0.
1
3
0.1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1 °"02f^
3 0.06,,'
1 0.02<3)
3 °-06(3)
1 0.02;'
3 0.06(3)
-------
TABU 1-3
BAT CONCEHTRATIOt! AHt) FLOW SUMMARY
IKON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PACK 4
(1) The tune scrubber allowance shall be applied to each fuae scrubber associated with a pickling or hot coating operation.
(2) This pollutant shall apply in lieu of lead and zinc iihen cold rolling vattevaters ace treated with descaling or combination
acid pickling »ast waters.
(3) This pollutant shall apply only to those galvanising operation" which discharge wastewaters froa a chroaate rinse step.
Ul
,O
-------
TABLE 1-4
BAT EFFLOIMT IIHITATIOHS SUMMARY
IRON & STEEl IMDUSTRY
Selected Discharge Phenol
Subcategory
Cokenaking
ItS-Bio.
ItS-Phy. Che».
Merch.-Bio.
Kerch. -Phy. Chen.
Beehive
Sintering
Irotnuking
Iron
Ferroaanganeie
Steelmaking
EOF: Seaji-Het
EOF: He (-Open
BOF: Wet -Sup.
Open Hearth
EAF: Sen! -Wet
EAFs Wet
Vaccim Degassing
Com inuous Cast ing
Hoi Forming
Prill. : CiS/vos
Prim.: C&S/vs
Sect.: Carb.
Sect.: Spec.
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hex
Avg
Max
A*g
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Opt ion
1
1
1
1
BPT
1
4
Flow (GPT) Amnonia Chlorine CAAAP)
153 1600 3.19
5430 6.38
103 3220 4.30
6450 8.S9
170 1770 3.55
6030 7.09
120 3750 5.01
7510 10.0
0
120 501 - 5,01
1500 25.0 10.0
70 292 - 2.92
876 14.6 5.84
BAT Effluent Limitations (kg/kkg x 10 )
Toxic Organics Cr CB(T) Pb
(4) (55) (73) (85) (119) (121) (122)
- - - 351
3.19 3.19 3.19 638
-
2.15 2.15 2.15
390
3.55 3.55 3.55 709
-
2.50 2.50 2.50
50.1 12.5
100 37.5
29.2 7.30
58.4 21.9
Hi Zn .
(124) (128) Cr
15.0
45.1
8.76
26.3
Reserved
BPf
2
2
2
BPT
2
2
2
Ho BAT
No BAT
Mo BAT
Ho BAT
0
110
50
110
0
110
25
25
Selected
Selected
Selected
Selected
13.8
41.3
6.26
18.8
13.8
41.3
13.8
41.3
3.13
9.39
3.13
9.39
20.7
62.0
9.39
28.2
20.7
62.0
20.7
62.0
4.69
14.1
4.69
14.1
-------
TABLE 1-4
— — -_^^_
BAT EFFiUIHT UMITAITOHS SUMMARY ^^
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
BAT Effluent Limitations (kg/kfcg x 10 )
Selected Discharge Phenol
Subcategory
Flat: HS&S (C&S)
Flat: Pl«te-C«rb.
Flat: Plate-Spec,
P&T
Salt Bath-Descal.
Ox,: Bat. S4P
Ox.: Bat. RAW
Ox.: Bat. P&T
Ox.: Cont .
Red. ! Bat .
i
•* R«d . : Cont .
Sulf. Acid Pickl.
Rod, Wire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Strip, Sheet, Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrub. *"
Comb. Acid Pickling
Rod, Hire & Coil
Bar, Billet & Bloon
Cont. S, S4P
Bat. S, S&P
Pipe, Tube & Other
( I )
Fu«e Scrub.
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
A»g
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Option
Ho BAT
No BAT
Mo BAT
Mo BAT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPf
BPT
BPT
BPf
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
Flow (GPT) Amnonia Chlorine (4AAF)
Selected
Selected
Selected
Selected
700
420
1700
330
325
1820
280
90
180
500
15 gpa
510
230
1500
460
770
15 gpm
Toxic Or panics Cr
(4) (55) (73) (85) (119)
117
292
70.1
175
284
709
55.1
138
54.2
136
304
759
85.1
231
38.4
96.0
250
626
76.8
192
128
321
3270
8190
C»(T) Pb Hi Zo ,
(121) (122) (124) (128) Cr
87.6
263
52.6
158
213
638
41.3
124
33.9 40.7
102 122
190 228
569 683
17.5 11.7
52.6 35.0
5,63 3.75
16.9 11.3
11.3 7.51
33.8 22.5
31.3 20.9
93.9 62.6
1230 819
3680 2450
63.8
191
28.8
86.4
188
563
57.6
173
96.4
289
2450
7350
-------
uo
u;
TABLE 1-4
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Selected Discharge
Subcategory
HC1 Acid Pickling
Rod, Wire & Coil
Strip, Sheet & Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrubber
Acid Regeneration( 1)
Cold Forming
CR: Recir-Sing
CR: Recir'Multi
CR: Comb.
CR: DA-Sing
CR: DA-Multi
P&T
Alkaline Cleaning
Batch
Cont inuous
Hot Coat -inc. all coat
S, S&Misc. wo/scrub
H/Fast wo/scrub
Fume Scrub.
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Opt ion
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
BPT
No BAT
Ho BAT
BPT
BPT
1
Flov (GPT) Ai
490
280
1020
15 GPM
100 GPM
5
25
300
90
400
0
Selected
Selected
600
2400
15 GPM
BAT Effluent Limitations (kg/kkg x 10 )
Phenol Toxic Organ ics Cr CH(T) Pb Hi
nnonia Chlorine (4AAP) (4) (55) (73) (85) (119) (121) (122) (124)
30.7
92.0
17.5
52.6
63.9
191
1230
3680
8190
24500
(2) (2)
0.83;,{ 0.31 »•"/,{
0.21 0.31 2.09),; 0.94 1-88:,'
4.17 < 1.56 3.13 <
1.04 1.56 10.4;,: 4.69 9.39;,'
50.i;t' 18.8 37.5"'
12.5 18.8 125 ,L 56.3 "3 /,»
15.0 5.63 11.3
3.75 5.63 37.5*?* 16.9 33-8,?!
66.8<2) 25.0 50.1<2)
16.7 25.0 167 75.1 150V '
37.5
113
150
451
1230
3680
Zn
(128)
20.4
61,3
11.7
35.0
42.6
128
819
2450
5450
16300
0.21
0.63
1.04
3.13
12.5
37.8
3.75
11.3
16.7
50.1
25.0
75.1
100
300
819
2450
+A
Cr 6
( 1)
5.01 3)
15.0 »}
20.0 »
60. r3'
164
490
(1) The fume scrubber allowance shall be applied to each fume scrubber associated with a pickling or hot coating operation.
The load is expressed in kg/day x 10
(2) This pollutant shall apply in lieu of lead and zinc when cold rolling uastewaters are treated with descaling or combination
acid pickling wastewaters.
(3) This pollutant shall apply only to those galvanizing operations which discharge wastewaters from a chromate rinse step.
(4) The absorber vent scrubber load is expressed in kg/day x 10 .
-------
TABLE 1-5
PSNS/NSPS CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON i, STEEL INDUSTRY
Subcategory
Cokemaking . .
Iron & Steel lv '
/ -»\
Iron & Steel VJ;
(2)
Merchant1 '
.
Merchant
Beehive
Sintering
Ironuking
Iron
Ferrosunganeae
Steelmaking
BOF: Semi-vet
BOFl Wet -Open
BOF: Hel-Supp.
Open Hearth - Wet
EAF: Semi-vet
EAF: Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuoua Caating
Hot Forming , .
Prim.: C&S w/os '
Prim.! C&S w/s(2)
Sect.: Carb.
d\
Sect.: Spec. '
Flat: HS&S (C&S)(2)
Flat: Plate-Carb/2'
/ *\
Flat: Plate-Spec. '
(2)
P&T1 '
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Selected
Option
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
BPT
NSPS-1
PSNS-2
NSPS-5
PSRS-5
Reserved
Reserved
NSPS-2
PSNS-3
NSPS-2
PSNS-3
NSPS-2
PSNS-3
Reserved
NSPS-2
PSNS-3
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
NSPS-1
NSPS-1
NSPS-1
NSPS-1
NSPS-1
NSPS-1
NSPS-1
NSPS-1
Discharge
Flo* (GPT)
153
103
170
120
0
120
70
110
50
110
110
25
25
90
140
200
130
260
140
60
220
TSS(1)
140
270
140
270
15
40
15
40
25
70
25
70
25
70
25
70
25
70
25
70
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
PSNS/NSPS Effluent Concentrationa (me/1)
f.v ... Phenol Toxic Organics
0 & G"' Ammonia Chlorine1' (4AAP) (4) (55) (73) (85)
25 0.05 -
10 85 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05
75 50
150 100
25 0.05 -
10 85 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05
75 50
150 100
10 - 0.1
10 30 0.5 0.2
10 - 0.1
10 30 0.5 0.2
10
30
-
10
10
-
10
-
10
10
10
-
10
-
10
-------
TABLE 1-5
PSHS/HSPS CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
1ROK t STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE ICOtrr.
Subcategor*
Cok.em.king
Iron 4 Steel 1* '
Iron 4 Steel
nercha«(2)
Merchant
Beehive
Sintering
Ironaiking
Iron
Ferronanganeae
Steetaaking
BOF: ScBi-vet
BOF: Hei-Dpen
BOF: Wet-Supp.
Open Hearth - Wet
EAF: Seai-MCt
EAF: Net
Vacuum Degas « ing
Continuous Ca*ting
Hot Forxung , ,
Pri«. J C4S n/o»
Prim.: C*S «/«(2)
Sect.: Carb.(2J
Sect.t Spec.'2'
FUt: HS&S (C*S)(2)
Flat: Pl*te-Carb.(2)
FUt: Plate-Spec. {2)
PST
Avg
Max
Avg
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Av«
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Cr CN(T)
(H») <1ZI>
5.5
10
20
40
5.5
10
20
40
I
2
1
2
n
(122)
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
Hi Zn
(124) (128) Cr *
•
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.45
1.35
0.45
1.35
0.45
1.35
0.45
1.35
0.45
1.35
0.45
1.35
-------
TABLE 1-5
PSNS/NSPS CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
Salt Bath-Deical.
Ox. -Bat. S&P
Ox. -Bat. R&W
Ox. -Bat. P&T
Ox. -Cont.
Red.-Bal.
Red. -Cont
Sulfuric Acid Pickling
Rod, Hire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloon
Strip, Sheet, Plate
P&T & Oth.
f r\
Fume Scrub/3'
HC1 Acid Pickling
Rod, Wire, Coil
Strip, Sheet & Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
/ c \
Fume Scrubber
Combination Acid Pickling
Rod, Wire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Cont-S, S&P
Bal.-S, S&P
P&T & Oth.
/ e %
Fume Scrub. ;
Cold Forming
CR: Recir-Sing
CR: Recir-Multi
CR: Comb.
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Mix
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Selected Discharge
Option Flou (GPT)
NSPS-1 280
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
HSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSHS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
HSPS-
PSHS-
HSPS-
PSHS-
HSPS-
PSNS-
NSPS-
PSNS-
HSPS-
PSHS-
HSPS-
PSNS-
HSPS-
PSNS-
HSPS-
170
1450
225
100
1800
50
30
40
70
15 GPM
60
40
110
70
15 GPM
70
70
40
70
170
60
100
15 GPM
70
5
10
PSNS-1
NSPS-1 130
PSNS-1
TSS
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
30
30
70
(1)
(4)
30
30
30
30
30
70
30
70
30
70
3°
30
30
60
30
60
30
60
:<*>
(4)
(*)
10
10
10
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
10*
10
25
10
25
10
25
PSHS/HSPS Effluent Concentrations (mg/1)
>nia Chlorine
(1)
Phenol
(4AAP)
(4)
Toxic Organica
(55)
(73)
(85)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.15
0.15
0.15
-------
TABLE 1-5
PSNS/NSPS CONCENTRATION AMD FLOW SUHHARt
IROS & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2 OOHT.
Subcategory
Sill Bath-Deaeal.
Ox. -Bat. S&P
Oic.-B»t. MM
Ox. -Bat. PiT
On. -Cont.
Red. -Bat.
Red. -Con t
Sulfuric Acid Ficklitlg
Rod, Hire, Coil
Bar, Billet.) Bloom
Strip, Sheet, Plate
P&t * Oth.
Fume Scrub, f5)
HC1 Acid Pickling
Rod, Wire, Coil
Strip, Sheet 4 Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrubber'5'
Combination Acid Pickling
Rod, Hire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Conl-S, SSP
B«l,-S, SiP
Pit 4 Olh.
Fume Scrub/5'
Cold Forming
CB: Recir-Sing
OR! Reeir-Hulti
CR: Comb.
Avg
Hi I
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Man
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
PSHS/MSPS Effluent Concentrations (TO/I)
Cr
(119)
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0,4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0,4(6)
1.0,*,
!:$>
0.4
1.0
CNCT) Pb
(121) (122)
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0,45
Hi
(124)
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0,9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0,9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
Zn
(128) Cr
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
O.I
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
-------
TABLE 1-5
PSHS/SSPS CONCEHTRATtON AND FLOW SUMMARY
IROH & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Subcategory
Cold Forming Cont.
CR! DA-Sing.
CR: DA-Multi.
P4T
Alkaline Cleaning.
Batch 4 Cont. '
Hot Coating Inc. all coal
S» S&Misc. wo/scrub.
W/Fast »o/scrub
Fume Scrub.15'
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Seine ted
Option
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
HSPS-1
PSNS-1
BPT
NSPS-1
NSPS-1
PSNS-l
»SPS-1
PSNS-1
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
Discharge
Flow (OPT)
25
290
0
50
150
600
15 GPM
TSS
30
60
30
60
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
. .
PSNS/HSPS Effluent Concentrations (iag/1)
0SG
10
25
10
25
10
30
10
30
10
30
10
30
<»
Amonia
Chlorine
(1)
(4)
Toxic Organ ica
(55)
0.1
0.1
(73)
(85)
0.15
0.15
-------
TABLE 1-5
PSNS/XSPS CONCENTRATION AMD FLOW SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PACE 3 CONT.
PSNS/NSPS Effluent Concentrations (mg/1)
Subcategory
Cold Forming Cont .
CR: DA-Sing.
CR: DA-Mulci.
P&T
Alkaline Cleaning.
Batch & Cont. '
Avg
tt»*
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Cr
(119)
°-*(6)
0.4,!!;
1.0
CN(T)
(121)
Pb
(122)
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
Hi
(124)
0 3(6)
09(6)
0.3; :
0.9
Zn
(128)
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
+fi
Ci 6
n«x
Hot Coating (All coating operations)
S, S&Misc. Ho/acurb. Avg
Max
W/Fast no/scrub Avg
(5) ""
Fume Scrub. Avg
Max
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.3
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.06
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
MOTE: pH is also regulated in all subcategories and is limited to 6.0 - 9.0 standard units.
(1) This pollut
(2) These value
(3) These value
(4) This pollut
(5) The fume sc
hot coating operation.
(6) This pollutant shall apply in lieu of lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated with descaling or combination
acid pickling wastewaters.
(7) This pollutant shall apply only to those galvaniting operations which discharge wastewaters from a chrornate rinse step.
nt is limited only at NSPS.
apply to the NSPS treatment level.
apply to the PSNS treatment level.
nt is allowed only when these wastes are treated in combination with cold rolling mill wastes.
ubber allowance shall be applied to each fume scrubber associated with a pickling or
-------
TABLE t-6
PSNS/HSPS SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Subcate^ory
Cokemaking ,
Iron & Steel1 '
t *\
Iron «. Steel
1 ?>
Merchant
Merchant13'
Beehive
Sintering
Ironaiaking
Iron
Ferromanganeae
Stee linking
BOF:Semi-Vet
BOF:Vet-Open Combuation
BOF:Vet-Supp. Combuttion
Open Hearth-Uet
EAF;S«*i-liet
EAF:Het
Vacuum Oegaaaing
Contintioua Caating
Hot Forming
trim. : CSS »/o»
Prim: C&S v/a
Sect: Carb.
Sect: Spec.
Flat: HSJS (CSS)
Flat: Plate-Cart).
Flat: Plate-Spec.
Pipe S Tube
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
*vg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Selected
Option
HSPS-1
PSHS.-l
HSPS-1
PSMS-l
BPT Only
HSPS-1
PSHS-2
WPS-5
PSHS-5
Reserved
Reaerved
HSPS-2
PSBS-3
HSPS-2
PSHS-3
•SPS-2
PSMS-3
Rea«rved
HSPS-2
PSBS-3
HSPS-1
PSHS-2
KSPS-1
PSMS-l
HSPS-I
MSPS-1
HSPS-1
HSPS-1
HSPS-1
HSPS-1
HSPS-1
HSPS-1
Di icharge
Floi. (CPT)
153
103
170
120
120
70
no
50
HO
no
25
25
90
140
200
130
260
140
60
220
fSS(l>
8940
17200
9930
19200
751
2000
438
1170
1150
3210
522
1460
1150
3210
1150
3210
261
730
261
730
563
1500
S76
2340
1250
3340
814
2170
1630
4340
876
2340
375
1000
1380
3670
PSHS/HSPS (kg/kkR x 10 )
... ... Phenol Toxic Organic*
0 4 CU' Ammonia Chlorine1" (4AAP) (4) (55) (73) (85)
1600 3.19 -
638 5430 6.38 3.19 3.19 3.19
3220 2150
6450 4390
1770 3.55 -
709 6030 7.09 3.55 3.55 3.55
3750 2500
7510 5010
501 - 5.01
501 1500 25.0 10.0
292 - 2.92
292 876 14.6 5.84
104
313
-
375
_
584
-
834
-
542
-
1080
-
584
-
250
-
919
-------
TABLE 1-6
PSNS/NSPS SUMMARY
IRON & STEEt IWDUSTRV
PACE 1 COHT.
Subcategory
Cokemaking
Iron & Steer '
Iron & Steel'3'
f ? ^
Merchant '
Merchant
Beehive
Sintering
Ixomoaking
Iron
Ferronanganeae
Steelnaking
BOF: Semi -Wet
BOF: Wet-Open Combustion
BOF:Wet-Supp. Combustion
Open Hearth Wei.
EAF: Semi-Wet
EAF: Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Prim.: C&S v/os
Prim.: C&S v/s
Sect.: Carb.
Sect.: Spec.
Flat: HS&S (GSS)
*
Flats Plate-Carb.
rial: Plate-Spec.
Pipe & Tube
Cr
(119)
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
PSHS/HSPS (ki/kkg x 10" )
C«(T) Fb Hi
(121) (122) (12*)
351
638
859
1720
390
709
1000
2000
50.1 12.5
100 37.5
29.2 7.30
58.4 21.9
13.8
41.3
6.26
18.8
13.8
41.3
13.8
41.3
3.13
9.39
1.11
9.39
Zn
(128) Cr**
15.0
45.1
8.76
26.3
20.7
62.0
9.39
2«.2
20.7
62.0
20.7
62.0
4.69
14.1
4.69
14.1
-------
TABLE 1-6
PSHS/NSPS SUMMARY
IROH & STEEL IRDU8TM
PACE 2
PSMS/NSPS (kg/kkg it 10'5)
Subcategory
Salt Bath-Deical.
Ox. -Bat. S&P
Ox. -Bat. R&H
Ox. -Bat. P&T
Ox . -Cont .
Red. -Bat.
Red . -Cont .
Sulf. Acid Pickl.
Rod, Hire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Strip, Sheet, Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
f * V
Fmae Scrubber13'
HC1 Acid Pickl.
lod, Hire, Coil
Strip, Sheet, Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
ff \
Fume Scrubber,
Comb-Acid Pickl.
Rod, Hire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Cont.-S, S&P
Bat.-S, S&P
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrubber
Cold Forming
CR: Recir-Sing.
CRs Recir-Multi.
CR: Comb.
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Selected
Opt ion
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-l
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSNS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSNS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSNS-1
NSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
HSPS-1
PSNS-1
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
Discharge
Flan (CPT)
700
420
1700
330
325
1820
50
30
40
70
15 CPM
60
40
110
15 GPM
70
40
170
60
100
15 CPM
5
10
130
TSS(1)
8760
20400
5260
12300
21300
49600
4130
9640
4070
9490
22800
53200
626
1460
375
876
501
1170
876
2040
245000
572000
751
1750
501
1170
1380
3210
245000
572000
876
2040
501
1170
2130
4960
751
1750
1250
2920
245000
572000
62.6
125
125
250
1630
3250
O & G AM«oni« Chlorine
209; '
626,
f41
375)*'
167*
501 t
292*
876**'
81900(*'
245000
250<*>
751;, ?
167 4
501 (11
459 f'.
1380 *|,
81»°° (i)
2450001 '
2»2<*>
876**'
16-3*4)
(4)
501*?'
709 (41
2130 t
250, t?
751 4
417 (4)
1250 <*>
81900'*'
245000**'
20.9
52.2
41.7
104
542
1360
Phenol Toxic Orgonics
(4AAP) (4) (55) (73) (85)
-
0.21 0.31
-
0.42 0.63
-
5.42 8.13
-------
TABLE 1-6
PSNS/HSPS SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2 COHT.
-5,
PSHS/NSPS (kg/kkg ii 10~3)
Subcategory
Sail Bath-test*1,
Ox.-Bat. SSP
Ox.-Bat. RiW
Ox.-Bat. P&T
On.-Bat. Cant.
Red.-Bat.
Red.Conl.
Sulf. Acid Piekl.
Bod, Wire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Strip, Sheet, Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fuae Scrubber(5)
HC1 Acid Pickl.
Rod, Wire, Coil
Strip, Sheet, Plate
Pipe, Tube S Other
Fume Scrubber'5'
Comb-Acid Pickl.
Rod, Wire, Coil
Bar, Billet, Bloom
Cont.-S, S&P
BaL.-S, SSP
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrubber
Cold Forming
CR: Recir-Sing.
CRs Keeir-Multi.
CRs Conb.
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Avg
Rax
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Cr CN(T)
(119) (121)
117
292
70.1
175
284
709
55.1
138
54.2 33.9
136 102
304 190
759 569
11.7
29.2
6.68
16.7
28.4
70.9
10.0
25.0
16.7
41.7
3270
8190
2!o9(6)
1-67(6)
»:!<«
Pb
(122)
3.13
9.39
1.88
5.63
2.50
7.51
4.38
13.1
1230
3680
3.75
11.3
2.50
7.51
6.88
20.7
1230
3680
0.31
0.94
0.63
1.88
8.14
24.4
Hi
(124)
87.6
263
52.6
158
213
638
41.3
124
40.7
122
228
683
8.76
26.3
5.01
15.0
21,3
63.8
7.51
22.5
12.5
37.5
2450
7350
K88(6)
1.25;':
jj"(6)
48.8(6)
In
(128) Cr*6
2.09
6.26
1.25
3.75
1.67
5.01
2.92
8.76
819
2450
2.50
7.51
1.67
5.01
4.59
13.8
819
2450
0.21
0.63
0.42
1.25
5.42
16.3
-------
TABLE 1-6
PSHS/HSPS SUMMARY
IROH & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Subcategory
Cold Forming
CR: DA-Sing.
CRs DA-Multi.
Pipe S Tube
Alkaline Cleaning
Bat. & Cant. '
Hoi Coating-inc. all coal
S, SiMisc. vo/aerub
H/Faat »o/acrub
(5)
Fun* Scrubber
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Selected Discharge
Option Flow (GPT)
NSPS-1 25
PSHS-1
NSPS-1 290
PSHS-1
BPf Only
HSPS-1 50
HSPS- 1 50
PSHS-
HSPS- 600
PSHS-
HSPS- 15 GPM
PSHS-
/ 1 \
TSSU>
313
626
3630
7260
626
1460
1880
4380
7510
17500
245000
572000
f i \
0 & GU)
104
261
1210
3020
209
626
626
1880
2500
7510
81900
2*5000
PSHS/NSPS (kg/kkg it 10~5)
... Phenol Toxic Organic*
Aononia Chlorine1' (4AAP) (4) (55) (73) (85)
-
1.04 1.56
_
12.1 18.1
-------
TABLE 1-6
PSNS/NSPS SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3 CONT.
PSNS/NSPS (kg/kkg x 10 5)
Subcategory
Cold Forming
CR: DA-Sing.
CR: DA-Multi.
Pipe & Tube
Alkaline Cleaning
Bat. & Cent.
Hot Coat-inc. all coat
S, SiMisc. no/scrub
W/Fast uo/scrub
Fume Scrubbers(5)
Avg
Max
*vg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Cr
(119)
*'I7(6)
48.4
121T6)
CN(T) Pb
(121) (122)
1.56
4.69
18.1
54.4
9.39
28.2
37.5
113
1230
3680
Mi Zn
(124) (128)
3-13<(6) 1'°*
9.39}^. 3.13
36.3', 12.1
109* 36.3
6.26
18.8
25.0
75.1
819
2450
Cr+6
1.25<7)
lioij"
15.0<7)
163 7
490l/J
NOTE: pH is also regulated in all aubcategories and is limited to 6.0 - 9.0 standard unita.
(1) This pollutant applies only to the NSPS treatment level.
(2) Theae values apply to the NSPS treatment level.
(3) Theae values apply to the PSN3 treatment level.
(4) Thia load ia allowed only when theae wastea are treated in combination with cold rolling mill waates.
(5) The fume scrubber allowance ahall be_applied to each fume scrubber associated with a pickling or hot coating operation.
The load is expressed in kg/day x 10
(6) This load ahall be applied in lieu of those for lead and cine when cold rolling waatewaters are treated with descaling or
combination acid pickling waatewatera.
(7) The load for hexavalent chromium ahall apply only to those galvanizing operations which discharge waatewater fron a chrornate
rinse step.
-------
TABLE 1-7
PSES COHCESTMTION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PSES Effluent Concentration (mg/l)
Subca tegory
Cokeaaking
Iron & Steel
Merchant
Beehive
Sintering
Ironmaking
Iron
Ferromanganese
SLeelmaking
BOFsSeai-Wet
BOF:Wet-Open
Combustion
EOF: Wet-Suppressed
Combustion
Open Hearth-Wet
Semi -Wet
Elec. Arc Furnace:
Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Option
Selected
1
1
BPT
2
5
Reserved
BPT
3
3
3
fttkf*
KIT
3
2
2
Dis-
charge
flau Phenal
(GPT) Aranonia (4AAP) CM-T Cr*6 Cr
103 75 50 20
150 100 40
120 75 50 20
150 100 40
0
120 10 0.1 i
30 0.2 2
70 10 0.1 ]
30 0.2 2
0
110
50
110
110
25
25
Hi Zn
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.45
1.35
0.45
1.35
0.45
1.35
0.45
1.35
0.45
1.35
0.45
1.35
Toxic
Organic*
Pb 55 85
0.25
0.75
0.25
0,75
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
-------
TABLE 1-7
PSES CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
Hot Forming
Primary: Carbon &
Spec, v/o scarf.
Primary.Carbon &
Spec. »/ scarf.
Section: Carbon
Section: Specially
FlatiHot Strip I
Sheet (Carbon 4
Specially)
Flat: Plate-Carbon
Flat:Plate-Spec.
Pipe & Tube
Salt Bath Descaling
Oxid i zing-Batch,
Sheet & Plate
Oxid i zing-Batch,
Rod & Wire
Oxidizing-Balch,
Pipe & Tube
Oxidizing-Cont .
Reducing-Balch
Reduc ing-Continuous
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Maxi
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Option
Selected
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
1
1
1
1
1
I
Dis-
charge
.FIOH
(6PT)
to General
to General
to General
to General
to General
to General
to General
to General
700
420
1700
330
325
1820
PSES Effluent Concentration (»K/1)
Toxic
Phenol Organics - Organics
Ammonia (4AAP) CH-T Cr * Cr Hi Zn Pb 55 85
Fret rea tment
Pretreatment
Pretreatment
Pretreatment
Pretreatment
Pretreatment
Pretreatment
Pretreatment
0.
0.
0.
0.
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
S tandards
Standards
Standards
Standards
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
25 0.4 0.3
75 1.0 0.9
25 0.4 0.3
75 1.0 0,9
-------
TABLE 1-7
PSES CONCENTRATION MID FLOW SUMMARY
IRON AMD STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
03
Subcategory
Sulfuric Acid Pickl.
Rod, Wire ft Coil
Bar, Billet & Bloom
Strip, Sheet *
Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
fume Scrubber
HC1 Acid Pickl.
Rod, Hire ft Coil
Strip, Sheet &
Plate
Pipe, Tube 4 Other
Fume Scrubber*1'
Acid Regeneration
Combination Acid Pickl
Rod, Wire & Coil
Bar, Billet & Bloom
Cont. -Strip, Sheet
Sheet & Plate
Batch-Strip, Sheet
* Plate
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
A*g
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Dis-
charge
Option Flow Phenol
Selected (GPT) Aimonia (4«AP)
1 280
1 90
1 180
1 500
1 15 GPM
1 490
1 280
1 1020
1 15 GPM
1 100 GPM
1 510
1 230
1 1500
1 460
PSES Effluent Concentration (nig/l)
Organics ,
CH-T Cr Cr Hi Zn
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
Toxic
Organic*
Pb 55 85
0.1S
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
-------
TABLE 1-7
PSES eoNCEWTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON ADD STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 4
Subcategory
Pipe, TuBe & Other
Products
Fume Scrubber(1)
Cold Forming
Cold RollingiRecir
Single Stand
Cold Roll ing sRecir
Multi Stand
Cold Rolling:
Combination
Cold Rolling:DirecL
Appl. Single Stand
Cold HollingsDirect
Appl. Mulli Stand
Pipe & Tube
Alkaline Cleaning
Batch
Continuous
Hot Coating
(includes all abating
operations)
Strip/Sheet/Mise.
wo/scrubbers
Wire/Fasteners
HO/ scrubbers
Fume Scrubbers
Avg
Max
Avg
Max •
Avf
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
PSES Effluent Concentration (ag/1)
Dis-
charge
Option Flow Phenol Organics
Selected (GPT) Anaemia (4AAP) CN-T Cr Cr Hi Zn
1 770 0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
1 15 GPM 0.4 0.3
1.0 0.9
t *\ ff\
I 5 °-l>ill °-3ill °-1
1.0* ' 0.91 ' 0.3
1 25 0.4<2> 0.3<2> 0.1
l.O*2' 0.9 ' 0.3
1 300 O'**?M 0,3(2) 0.1
l.O1 ' 0.9 0.3
1 90 C.4^ 0.3*2' 0.1
1.0V ' 0.91 ' 0.3
1 400 °'*f^ °-3lll °'1
l.O12' 0.9{2' 0.3
BPT 0
Subject to General Pretreatnent Standards
Subject to General Pretreatment Standards
(3)
2 600 °-02n> °'1
0.06 0.3
2 2400 °-02fl) "-1
0.06 0.3
2 15 CPM 0,02^ 0.1
0.0613' 0.3
Pb
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.45
Toxic
Organics
55 85
_
0.1 0.15
_ „
0.1 0.15
_
O.I 0.15
_
0.1 0.15
.
0.1 0.15
-------
TABLE 1-7
PSBS CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IROH AMD STEEL IHDDSTRY
PAGE 5
(1) The fume scrubber allowance shall be applied to each tume scrubber associated with a pickling or hot coating operation
(2) This pollutant shall apply in lieu of lead and zinc when cold rolling waatevates are treated with descaling or combinati
pickling vastevaters.
(3) This pollutant shall apply only to those galvanizing operations which discharge wastewaters from a chromate rinse step.
-------
TABLE 1-8
PSES SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PSES (kg/kkg x 10~5)
Sufacategpry
Cokemaking
Iron & Steel
Merchant
Beehive
Sintering
Irormaking
Iron
Fe r roraangane se
Steelaaking
BOF8 Seal-He t
BOF: Wet-Open
BOFs Wet-Suppressed
Open Hearth - Wet
EAFs Semi-Wet
EAP: Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot For»ing
Prim. : C&S w/o a
Prim.: CSS it/s
Section: Carbon
Avg
Max
Avg
Has
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Selected
Option __
1
1
BPT
2
5
Reserved
BPT
3
3
3
BPT
3
2
2
Subject to
Subject to
Subject to
Discharge
Flo* (GPT) Amonia Chlorine
103 3220
6450
120 3750
7510
0
120 501
1500
70 292
876
0
110
50
110
0
„
110
25
25
General Pre treatment Standards
General Pre treatment Standards
General Pretreatment Standards
Phenol Toxic Organica
(4AAP) (55) (85)
2150
4300
2500
5010
5.01
10.0
2.92
5.84
Cr CH(T)
(119) (121)
859
1720
1000
2000
50.1
100
29.2
58.4
Pb
(122)
12.5
37.5
7.30
21.9
13.8
41.3
6.26
18.8
13.8
41.3
13.8
41.3
3.13
9.39
3.13
9. "39
Hi Zn ,
(124) (128) Cr
15.0
45.1
8.76
26.3
20.7
62.0
9.39
28.2
20.7
62.0
20.7
62.0
4.69
14.1
4.*9
14.1
Section! Specialty
Avg Subject to General Pretreatment Standards
Max
-------
TABLE 1-8
PSES SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
tn
to
Subc ate gory
Flat: HSSS (c*S)
Flat: Plate-Carbon
flat: Plate-Specialty
Pipe & Tube
Salt Bath Descaling
Ox. -Bat. S&P
Ox. -Bat. R&H
Ox. -Bat. P&T
Ox.-Cont.
Red. -Bat.
Red.-Cont.
Su If uric Acid Pickling
Rod, Mire & Coil
Bar, Billet & Bloom
Strip, Sheet & Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrubber(1)
Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
Rod, Hire & Coil
Strip, Sheet & Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fune Scrubber(1)
Acid Regeneration
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
M*x
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Hex
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Si
1
Si
Si
Si
Si
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PSES (kR/kkB x 10"5)
Discharge Phenol Toxic Organic* Cr C»(T)
Flov (GPT) Annonia Chlorine (AAAP) (55) (85) (119) (121)
General Prelrea tment Standard*
General Pretreatsent Standard*
General Pretreatnent Standard*
General Pretreatntent Standard*
700 1 1 7
292
420 . 70.1
175
1700 284
709
330 55.1
138
325 54.2 33.9
136 102
1820 304 190
759 569
280
90
180
500
15 GPH
490
280
1020
15 GPM
100 GPM
Pb
(122)
17.5
52.6
5.63
16.9
11.3
33.8
31.3
93.9
1230
3680
30.7
92.0
17.5
52.6
63.8
192
1230
3680
8190
24500
Hi
(124)
87.6
263
52.6
158
213
638
41.3
124
40.7
122
228
683
Zn 46
(128) Cr *
11.7
35.0
3.75
11.3
7.51
22.5
20.9
62.6
819
2450
20.4
61.3
11.7
35.0
42.6
128
819
2450
5450
16300
-------
TABLE 1-8
PSIS SUMMARY
IRON t, STEEL INDUSTRY
PACE 3
PSES (kg/kkK x 10~5)
Subcategory
Combination Acid Pickling
Rod, Hire & Coil
Bar, Billet A Bloom
Continuous-S, S&P
Bat.-S, SAP
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrubber
Cold .Forming
CR: Recir. -Single Stand
CR: Recir. -Multi Stand
CR: Combination
CR: DA-S ingle Stand
CR: DA-Multl SI and
Pipe & Tube
Alkaline Cleaning
Batch
Avg
Hax
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Selected
Opt ion
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
BPT
Subject to
Discharge Phenol Toxic Organica
Flow (GPT) Amnonia Chlorine (4AAP) (55) (85)
510
230
1500
460
770
15 CPM
(E _, _
0.21 0.31
25 - -
1 .04 1 . 54
300
12.5 18.8
90 -
3.75 5.63
400
16.7 25.0
0
General Pretreatment Standards
Cr CH(T)
(119) (121)
85.1
213
38.4
96.0
250
626
76.8
192
129
322
3270
8190
...
0.83 *
r$«
*/5\
io.4;2)
50 1^ '
125 ,'
13.0 »
17 el/J
J'* Jt -y\
f, 8
167
Pb
(122)
0.31
0.94
1,56
4.69
18.8
56.3
5.63
16.9
25.0
75.1
Hi
(124)
63.8
192
28.8
86.4
188
563
57.6
173
96.4
289
2450
7350
O1
0.63 *
1.88 2
3.i3j*'
9 39
37.5<2>
113
»'•$
50. "'
150U)
Zn
(128) Cr*6
0.21
0.63
1.04
3.13
12.5
37.5
3.75
11.3
16.7
50.1
Continuous
Hot Coating (include!
all coating operations)
SS&H w/o scrubbers
WSF w/o scrubbers
Hax
Awg Subject to General Pretreatment Standards
Max
Fune Scrubbers
(I)
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
*vg
Max
600
2400
15 CPM
37,5
113
150
451
1230
3680
25.0
75.1
100
300
819
2450
J.01»>
15.0"
s-;
J°-b)
490
-------
TABLE 1-8
PSES SUMHARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 4
(1) The fume scrubber allowance shall be applied to each fume scrubber associated with a
pickling or hot coating operation. Load ia expressed in kg/day X 10 .
(Z) This load shall apply in lieu of lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
with a descaling or combination acid pickling xastewaters.
(3) This load shall apply to those galvanizing operations which discharge wastewaters from
a chromate rinse step.
-------
TABLE 1-9
BCT CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Subcates^ory
Cokenaking
Iron & Steel-Biological
Iron & Steel-Physical Chemical
Merchant-Biological
Merchant-Physical Chemical
Beehive
Sintering
Ironmaking
Iron
Ferroaanganese
Steelmaking
BOF: Semi -wet
BOPi Wet-Open Combustion
BOFi Wet-Suppressed Combustion
Open Hearth: Met
Electric Arc Furnace; Semi-wet
Electric Arc Furnaces Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Primary: Carbon & Spec, w/o Scarfers
Primary: Carbon & Spec, w/Scarfers
Section: Carbon
Section! Specialty
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Discharge
Flow (GPT)
225
175
240
190
BPT
Reserved
Reserved
Reserved
BPT
Reserved
Reserved
Reserved
BPT
Reserved
Reserved
Reserved
897
1326
2142
1344
BCT
Cone
TSS
140
270
179
346
140
270
177
341
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
Effluent
. (mg/D
O&G
11.6
34.8
14.9
44.8
11.6
34.8
14.6
43.9
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
55
-------
TABLE 1-9
BCT CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
Hot Forming
Flat: Hot Strip & Sheet (Carbon & Spec.)
Flat: Plate-Carbon
Flat: Plate-Specialty
Pipe & Tube
Salt Bath Descaling
Oxidizing: Batch, Sheet & Plate
Oxidizing: Batch, Rod & Wire
Oxidizing: Batch, Pipe & Tube
Oxidizing: Continuous
Reducing: Batch
Reducing: Continuous
Sulfuric Acid Pickling
Rod, Wire & Coil
Bar, Billet & Bloom
Strip, Sheet & Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrubber
Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
Rod, Wire & Coil
Strip, Sheet & Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
. .
Fume Scrubber
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Discharge
Flow (GPT)
2560
1360
600
1270
700
420
1700
330
325
1820
280
90
180
500
15 GPM
490
280
1020
15 GPM
BCT Effluent
Cone, (mg/1)
TSS
15
40
15
40
15
40
15
40
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
O&G
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
—
-
—
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
_
10m
,0(1)
10(1)
r i \
30)"
inCD
{ 1 ^
30 "
10
30
10(1)
{ i ^
30(1)
10^"
30
10r!
30
10m
30)"
10(1)
( n
30U;
56
-------
TABLE 1-9
BCf CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Subcategory
Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
Acid Regeneration
Combination Acid Pickling
Rod, Hire & Coil
Bar, Billet & Bloom
Continuous: Strip, Sheet & Plate
Batch; Strip, Sheet & Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
(2)
Fume Scrubber
Cold Forming
Cold Rolling: Recir.-Single Stand
Cold Rolling: Recir.-Multi Stand
Cold Rolling: Combination
Cold Rolling: Direct Appl.-Single Stand
Cold Rolling: Direct Appl.-Multi Stand
Pipe & Tube
Alkaline Cleaning
Batch
Continuous
Hot Coating-Call coating operations)
Strip, Sheet & Misc. wo/Scrubbers
Hire & Fasteners wo/Scrubbers
Fume Scrubbers
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Discharge
Flow (GPT)
100 GPM
510
230
1500
460
770
15 GPM
5
25
300
90
400
BPT
250
350
600
2400
100 GPM
BCT Effluent
Cone, (mg/1)
TSS
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
60
30
60
30
60
30
60
30
60
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
30
70
O&G
10
30
10
30
10
30
10
30
10
30
10
30
10
30
10
25
10
25
10
25
10
25
10
25
10
30
10
30
10
30
10
30
10
30
(U
(1)
(1)
CD
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
57
-------
TABLE 1-9
BCT CONCENTRATION AND FLOW SUMMARY
IRON S STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 4
Note: pH is also regulated in all subcategories and is limited to 6.0 to 9,0 standard
units.
(1) This pollutant applies only when these wastes are treated in combination with cold
rolling mill wastes.
(2) The fume scrubber allowance shall be applied to each fume scrubber associated vith
a pickling or hot coating operation.
58
-------
TABLE I-10
8CT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
BCT Effluent
Discharge Limitations (kg/kkg)
Subcategory
Coketnaking
Iron & Steel-Biological
Iron & Steel-Physical Chemical
Merchant-Biological
Merchant-Physical Chemical
Beehive
Sintering
Ironmsking
Iron
Ferromanganese
Steelmaking
BOF: Semi-wet
BOF: Wet -Open Combustion
BOF: Wet-Suppressed Combustion
Open Hearth: Wet
Electric Arc Furnaces Semi -Wet
Electric Arc Furnaces Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Av8
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Flow (GPT) TSS
225 0.131
0.253
175 0.131
0,253
240 0.140
0.270
190 0.140
0.270
BPT
*
Reserved
Reserved
Reserved
BPT
Reserved
Reserved
Reserved
BPT
Reserved
Reserved
Reserved
O&G
0.0109
0.0327
0.0109
0.0327
0.0116
0.0348
0.0116
0.0348
59
-------
TABLE 1-10
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
BCT Effluent
Subcategory
Hot Forming
Primary: Carbon & Spec, w/o Scarfers
Primary: Carbon S Spec. w/Scarfers
Section: Carbon
Section: Specialty
Flat! Hot Strip & Sheet (Carbon & Spec.)
Flat: Plate-Carbon
Flat: Plate-Specialty
Pipe & Tube
Salt Bath Descaling
Oxidizing! Batch, Sheet S Plate
Oxidizing: Batch, Rod & Wire
Oxidizing: Batch, Pipe 4 Tube
Oxidizing: Continuous
Reducing: Batch
Reducing: Continuous
Sulfuric Acid Pickling
Rod, Wire S Coil
Bar, Billet & Bloom
Strip, Sheet S, Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg,
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Discharge
Flow (GPT)
897
1326
2142
1344
2560
1360
600
1270
700
420
1700
330
325
1820
280
90
180
500
Limitations
TSS
0.0561
0.150
0.0830
0.221
0.134
0.357
0.0841
0.224
0.160
0.427
0,0851
0.227
0.0375
0.100
0.0795
0.212
0.0876
0.204
0.0526
0.123
0.213
0.496
0.0413
0.0964
0.0407
0.0949
0.228
0.532
0.0350
0.0818
0.0113
0.0263
0.0225
0.0526
0.0626
0.146
(kg/kkg)
O&G
0.0374
-
0.0553
_
0.0894
-
0.0561
-
0.107
-
0.0567
-
0.0250
-
0.0530
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
0.0117^
0.0350,;
0.00375:*'
0.0113 ,;.
0.00751,*'
0.0225,,;
0.0209, '
0.0626U)
60
-------
TABLE I-10
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Subcategory
Sulfuric Acid Pickling
Fume Scrubber
Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
Eod Wire & Coil
Strip, Sheet & Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
(2)
Fume Scrubber
Acid Regeneration
Combination Acid Pickling
Rod Wire & Coil
Bar, Billet & Bloom
Continuous-Strip, Sheet & Plate
Batch-Strip, Sheet 4 Plate
Pipe, Tube & Other
Fume Scrubber
Cold Forming
Cold Rolling: Recire.-Single Stand
Cold Rollings Rccirc.-Multi Stand
Cold Rolling: Combination
Cold Rolling: Direct Appl,-Single Stand
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Discharge
Flow (GPT)
15 GPM
490
280
1020
15 GPM
100 GPM
510
230
1500
460
770
15 GPM
5
25
300
90
BCT Effluent
Limitations (kg/kkg)
TSS
2.45
5.72
0.0613
0.143
0.0350
0.0818
0.128
0.298
2.45
5.72
16.3
38.1
0.0638
0.149
0.0288
0.0672
0.188
0.438
0.0576
0.134
0.0964
0.225
2.45
5.72
0.000626
0.00125
0.00313
0.00626
0.0375
0.0751
0.0113
0.0225
O&G
(!)
2,45'^
0.0204^
0.0613,:'
ill
0.0117;,'
0.0350}{'
0.0426;,'
°-128 )
0.0819;: '
2 4S
l\ )
"5 4S
n )
16. 3U'
0.0213
0.06381'
0. 00960** J
0.0288^^
0.0626^'
0.1884J,
0.0192JJ
0.0576;;'
fli
0.0321),'
0.0964;f
0.81^ }
2.45U'
0.000209
0.000522
0.00104
0.00261
0.0125
0.0313
0.00375
0.00939
61
-------
TABLE 10
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 4
BCT Effluent
Subcategory
Cold Forming Cont.
Cold Rolling: Direct Appl. -Multi Stand
Pipe & Tube
Alkaline Cleaning
Batch
Continuous
Hot Coating-includes all coating operations
Strip, Sheet & Misc. wo/Scrubbers
Wire & Fasteners wo/Scrubbers
(2)
Fume Scrubbers
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Discharge
Flow (GPT)
400
BPT
250
350
600
2400
100 GPM
Limitations (kg/kkg)
TSS
0.0501
0.100
0,0313
0.0730
0.0438
0.102
0.0751
0.175
0.300
0.701
16.3
38.1
O&G
0.0167
0.0417
0.0104
0.0313
0.0146
0.0438
0.0250
0.0751
0.100
0.300
5.45
16.3
Note: pH is also regulated in all subcategories and is limited to 6.0 to 9.0 standard
units.
(1) This load applies only when these wastes are treated in combination with cold rolling
mill wastes.
(2) The fume scrubber allowance shall be applied to each fume scrubber associated with a
pickling or hot coating operation.
Load is expressed in kg/day x 10 .
62
-------
TABtE I-11
EFFLUENT LOAD SUMMARY
DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Effluent Loadings (Cons/year)
A.
B.
C.
D.
I.
F.
a.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Subcate^orv
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironaaking
Steelmaking
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Salt Bath Descaling
Acid Pickling
Cold Forming
Alkaline Cleaning
Hot Coating
Totals
Treatment
Level
Raw
BAT/PSES
Raw
BAT/PSES
Raw
BAT/PSES
Raw
BAT/FSES
Raw
BAT/PSES
Raw
BAT/PSES
Raw
BPT/PSES
Raw
BPT/PSES
Raw
BPT/PSES
Raw
BPT/PSES
Raw
BPT
Raw
BAT/PSES
Raw
Treated
Discharge
Flow (USD)
32.5
27.5
99.2
7.7
864.0
17.2
273.3
20.5
55.4
0.9
233.2
1.1
3,974.4
1,543.2
1.1
1.1
86.7
69.1
76.5
28.3
17.5
17.5
30.4
23.9
5,744.2
1,758.0
Toxic Toxic
Organ icsd) Metals
23,200.8 128.8
704.8 35.0
78.8 317.5
6.0 5.1
19,948.2 34,935.5
5.4 12.0
12,3 22,220.4
1.2 32.5
667.0
1.3
575,4
2.2
52,964.9
123.1
191.2
0.9
7,438.4
56.5
365.0 332.0
4.3 21.7
1.2 6.7
1.2 5.3
2,098.1
12.8
43,606.3 121,875.9
722.6 308.4
Other
67,088
5,974
960,420
462
2,546,149
1,260
1,231,042
1,300
5,488
33
30,193
45
6,510,673
19,852
503
26
358,422
2,955
2,792,058
945
425
492
4,992
755
14,507,453
34,099
(1) Includes total cyanide and phenolic compounds (4AAP).
..63
-------
TABLE 1-12
EFFLUENT LOAD SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY - DIRECT DISCHARGES
Subcategory
A. CoRemaking
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
H. Salt Bath Descaling Raw
I. Acid Pickling
J, Cold Forming
Effluent Loadings (Tons/Year)
Treatment
Level
Ran
BPT
BAT-1
Raw
BPT
BAT-1
Raw
BPT
BAT-4
Ran
BPT
BAT-21 J
Raw
BPT
BAT-2
Raw
BPT
BAT-2
Raw
BPT(,,
BAT
Ran
BPT,,,.
BAT '
Raw
BPT(3>
BAT
Raw
BPT,,.
BAT
Discharge
Flow (MGD)
25.1
33.3
22.7
93.4
7.2
7.2
825.6
29.2
16.4
252.1
18.9
18.9
55.4
0.9
0.9
199.9
4.4
0.9
3,679.9
1,418.5
1,418.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
72.5
58.4
58.4
73.3
28.1
28.1
Toxic . .
Organics
17,922.0
416.1
120.3
74.1
5,7
5.7
19,061.6
287.8
5.1
11.3
1.1
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
~
356.9
4.1
4.1
Toxic
Metals
99.5
35.4
24.2
298.8
14.0
4.8
33,382.8
77.1
11.4
20,887.2
116.0
29.7
667.0
8.4
1.3
493.2
10.8
1.7
49,460.4
113,9
113.9
161.2
0.8
0.8
6,384.5
48.4
48.4
320.6
21.4
21.4
Others
51,824
8,200
3,042
903,925
844
433
2,432,987
6,548
1,199
1,138,622
2,250
1,202
5,488
55
33
25,880
333
35
6,052,741
18,159
18,159
432
22
22
306,145
2,524
2,524
2,787,508
939
939
-------
TABLE 1-12
EFFLUENT tOAD SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY - DIRECT DISCHARGES
PAGE 2
Subcategory
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Totals
Treatment
Level
Raw
BPT
BAT
(4)
Raw
BPT
BAT-1
Raw
BPT
BAT
(5)
Discharge
Flow (MGD)
12.4
12.4
12.4
22.9
22.8
18.3
5,313.5
1,635.1
1,603.7
Effluent Loadings (Tons/Year)
Toxic ... Toxic
Organica Metals Others
0.9
0.9
0.9
37,426.8
715.7
137.2
4.8
3.4
3.4
1,829.3
12.2
9.8
113,989.3
461.8
270.8
302
369
369
4,082
724
580
13,709,936
40,967
28,537
(1) Includes total cyanide and phenolic compounds (4AAP).
(2) BPT for semi-net steelmaking operations.
(3) BAT is being promulgated at a level equal to BPT in this subcategory.
(4) BAT is not being promulgated in this subcategory.
(5) BAT is being promulgated only for those operations with fume scrubbers.
65
-------
TABLE 1-13
EFFLUENT LOAD SUMMARY
IRON AMD STEEL INDUSTRY - INDIRECT DISCHARGES
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
B. Sintering
C. Irormaking
D. Steelmaking
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
H. Salt Bath Descaling
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Foraing
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Total
Effluent Loadings
Treatnent
Level
Raw
PSES-1
Raw
PSES-2
Raw
PSES-5
Ran (2)
PSES-3 k '
Raw
PSES-3
Raw
PSES-3
R*W (3)
PSES1 '
Raw
PSES-1 (BPT)
Raw
PSES-1 (BPT)
**" (A)
PSES-1 (BPT) k '
Raw ( }
PSES^ '
Raw
PSES-2 ^'
Raw
PSES
Discharge
Flow (MGD)
7.4
4.8
5.8
0.5
38.4
0.8
21.2
1.6
*
*
33.3
0.2
294.5
124.7
0.1
0.1
14.2
10.7
3.2
0.2
5.1
5.1
7.5
5.6
430.7
154.3
Toxic
Organ ics
5,278.8
584.5
4.7
0.3
886.6
0.3
1.0
0.1
*
*
-
-
-
-
8.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
-
6,179.5
585.4
(Tons/Year)
(1) Toxic
' Metals Others
29.3
10.8
18.7
0.3
1,552
0.6
1,333
2.8
*
*
82.2
0.5
3,504
9.2
30.0
0.1
1,053
8.1
11.4
0.3
1.9
1.9
268.8
3.0
7,886
37.6
15,264
2,932
56, "495
29
.7 113,162
61
.2 92,420
98
*
*
4,313
10
.5 457,932
1,693
71
4
.9 52,277
431
4,550
6
123
123
910
175
.6 797,517
5,562
*There are no indirect dischargers in this subcategory.
(1) Includes total cyanide and phenolic compounds (4AAP).
(2) PSES-1 for semi-wet steelnaking operations.
(3) Only general pretreatment standards are being promulgated in this subcategory.
(4) Only general pretreatment standards are being promulgated for cold worked
pipe and tube operations using water.
(5) PSES-1 for those operations without fume scrubbers.
66
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
I. Legal Authority
The regulation which this Development Document supports has been
promulgated by the Agency under authority of Sections 301, 304,
306, 307 and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C §§ 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, P.L. 95-217)(the
"Act"). This regulation has also been promulgated in response to
the "Settlement Agreement" in Natural Resources Defense Council/
Inc.. et al. v Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12 ERC
1833 (D.D.C. 1979).
II. Background
A. The Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
established a comprehensive program to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters," Section 101(a). By July 1, 1977, existing industrial
dischargers were required to achieve "effluent limitations
requiring the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available" (BPT), Section 301(b)(1)(A); and,
by July 1, 1983, these dischargers were required to achieve
"effluent limitations requiring the application of the best
available technology economically achievable...which will result
in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of
eliminating the discharge of all pollutants" (BAT), Section
301(b)(2)(A). New industrial direct dischargers were required to
comply with Section 306 new source performance standards (NSPS)
based upon best available demonstrated technology; and new and
existing dischargers to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
were subject to pretreatment standards under Sections 307(b) and
(c) of the Act. While the requirements for direct dischargers
were to be incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under Section 402«of
the Act, pretreatment standards were made enforceable directly
against dischargers to POTWs (indirect dischargers).
Although Section 402(a)(l) of the 1972 Act authorized the setting
of requirements for direct dischargers on a case-by-case basis,
Congress intended that, for the most part, control requirements
would be based upon regulations promulgated by the Administrator
of EPA. Section 304(b) of the Act required the Administrator to
promulgate regulations providing guidelines for effluent
69
-------
limitations setting forth the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of BPT and BAT. Moreover,
Sections 304(c) and 306 of the Act required promulgation of
regulations for NSPS, and Sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c)
required promulgation of regulations for pretreatment standards.
In addition to these regulations for designated industry
categories, Section 307(a) of the Act required the Administrator
to promulgate effluent standards applicable to all dischargers of
toxic pollutants. Finally, Section 501(a) of the Act authorized
the Administrator to prescribe any additional regulations
"necessary to carry out his functions" under the Act.
The Agency was unable to promulgate many of these regulations by
the dates contained in the Act. In 1976, the Agency was sued by
several environmental groups, and in settlement of this lawsuit,
the Agency and the plaintiffs executed a "Settlement Agreement"
which was approved by the Court. This Agreement required the
Agency to develop a program and adhere to a schedule for
promulgating BAT effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance standards for 65 "priority"
pollutants and classes of pollutants for 21 major industries.
See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v_._ Train, 8 ERC 2120
(D.D.C. 1976), as modified 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979).
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean
Water Act of 1977. This law makes several important changes in
the Federal water pollution control program including several of
the basic elements of the Settlement Agreement program for toxic
pollution control. Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) of the
Act now require the achievement by July 1, 1984 of effluent
limitations requiring application of BAT for "toxic" pollutants,
including the 65 "priority" pollutants and classes of pollutants
which Congress declared "toxic" under Section 307(a) of the Act.
Likewise, the Agency's programs for new source performance
standards and pretreatment standards are now aimed principally at
toxic pollutant controls. Moreover, to strengthen the toxics
control program, Section 304(e) of the Act authorizes the
Administrator to prescribe "best management practices" (BMPs) to
prevent the release of toxic and hazardous pollutants from plant
site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and
drainage from raw material storage associated with, or ancillary
to, the manufacturing or treatment process.
In keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean Water
Act of 1977 also revises the control program for nontoxic
pollutants. Instead of BAT for "conventional" pollutants
identified under Section 304(a)(4) (including biochemical oxygen
demand, oil and grease, suspended solids, fecal coliform and pH),
the new Section 301(b)(2)(E) requires achievement by July 1,
1984, of "effluent limitations requiring the application of the
best' conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT). The
factors considered in assessing BCT for an industry include the
costs of attaining a reduction in effluents and the effluent
70
-------
reduction benefits derived compared to the costs and effluent
reduction benefits from the discharge of publicly owned treatment
works (Section 304(b)(4)(B)). For nontoxic, nonconventional
pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F) require
achievement of BAT effluent limitations within three years after
their establishment or July 1, 1984, whichever is later, but not
later than July 1, 1987.
This regulation includes effluent limitations for BPT, BAT and
BCT, performance standards for new sources (NSPS), and
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources (PSNS and
PSES) which were promulgated under Sections 301,304,306,307 and
501 of the Clean Water Act.
B. Prior EPA Regulations
On June 28, 1974, EPA promulgated effluent limitations for BPT
and BAT, new source performance standards, and pretreatment
standards for new sources for basic steelmaking operations (Phase
I) of the integrated steel industry, 39 FR 24114-24133, 40 CFR
Part 420, Subparts A-L. That regulation covered 12 subcategories
of the industry: By-Product Cokemaking, Beehive Cokemaking,
Sintering, Blast Furnace (Iron), Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese),
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi-Wet Air Pollution Control Methods),
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control Methods), Open
Hearth, Electric Arc Furnace (Semi-Wet Air Pollution Control
Methods), Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control
Methods), Vacuum Degassing, and Continuous Casting and Pressure
Slab Molding.
In response to several petitions for review, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded that regulation
on November 7, 1975, American Iron and Steel Institute, et al. v
EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3rd Cir. 1975). While the Court rejected all
technical challenges to the BPT limitations, it held that the BAT
effluent limitations and NSPS for certain subcategories were "not
demonstrated." In addition, the court questioned the entire
regulation on the grounds that EPA had failed to consider
adequately the impact of plant age on the cost or feasibility of
retrofitting pollution controls, had failed to assess the impact
of the regulations on water scarcity in arid and semi-arid
regions of the country, and had failed to make adequate
"net/gross" provisions for pollutants found in intake water
supplies.1
*The court also held that the "form" of the regulations was improper,
because they did not provide "ranges" of limitations to be selected by
permit issuers. This holding, however, was recalled in American Iron
and Steel Institute, et al. v EPA, (3d Cir.1977).
71
-------
On March 29, 1976, EPA promulgated BPT effluent limitations and
proposed BAT limitations, NSPS standards and PSNS standards for
steel forming and finishing operations (Phase II) within the
steel industry, 39 FR 12990-13030, 40 CFR Part 420, Subparts M-Z.
That regulation covered 14 subcategories of the industry: Hot
Forming- Primary; Hot Forming-Section; Hot Forming-Flat; Pipe &
Tube; Pickling-Sulfuric Acid-Batch & Continuous;
Pickling-Hydrochloric Acid-Batch & Continuous; Cold Rolling; Hot
Coating-Galvanizing; Hot Coatings-Terne; Miscellaneous
Runoffs-Storage Piles, Casting, and Slagging/ Combination Acid
Pickling-Batch and Continuous; Scale Removal-Kolene and Hydride;
Wire Pickling and Coating, and Continuous Alkaline Cleaning.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded that
regulation on September 14, 1977, American Iron and Steel
Institute, et al. v EPA, 568 F.2d 284 (3d Cir. 1977). While the
court again rejected all technical challenges to the BPT
limitations, it again questioned the regulation in regard to the
age/retrofit and water scarcity issues. In addition, the court
invalidated the regulation for lack of proper notice to the
specialty steel industry, and directed EPA to reevaluate its cost
estimates in light of "site-specific costs" and to reexamine its
economic impact analysis.2
^
On January 28, 1981 the Agency promulgated General Pretreatment
Regulations applicable to existing and new indirect dischargers
within the steel industry and other major industries, 46 FR 9404
et seq, 40 CFR Part 403. See also 47 FR 4518 (February 1, 1982).
C. Overview of the Industry
The manufacture of steel involves many processes which require
large quantities of raw materials and other resources. Steel
facilities range from comparatively small plants engaging in one
or more production processes to extremely large integrated
complexes engaging in several or all production processes. Even
the smallest steel plant, however, represents a fairly large
industrial facility. Because of the wide variety of products and
processes, operations vary from plant to plant. Table II-l lists
the various products classified by the Bureau of the Census under
Major Group 33 - Primary Metal Industries.
The steel industry can be segregated into two major components -
raw steelmaking and forming and finishing operations. The Agency
estimates that there are about 680 plant locations containing
over 2000 individual steelmaking and forming and finishing
operations. A listing of these plants is presented in Appendix
2The court also held that the Agency had no statutory authority to
exempt plants in the Mahoning Valley region of Eastern Ohio from
compliance with the BPT limitations.
72
-------
B. Table 11-2 is an inventory of production operations by
subcategory.
In the first major process, coal is converted to coke which is
then combined with iron ore and limestone in blast furnaces to
produce iron. The iron is then converted into steel in either
open hearth, basic oxygen, or electric arc furnaces. Finally,
the steel can be further refined by vacuum degassing. Following
these steelmaking operations, the steel is subjected to a variety
of hot and cold forming and finishing operations. These
operations produce products of various shapes and sizes, and
impart desired mechanical and surface characteristics. Figure
I1-1 is a process flow diagram of the steelmaking segment of the
industry.
Coke plants are operated at integrated facilities to supply coke
for the production of iron in blast furnaces or as stand alone
facilities to supply coke to other users. Nearly all active coke
plants are by-product plants which produce, in addition to coke,
such usable by-products as coke oven gas, coal tar, crude or
refined light oils, ammonium sulfate or anhydrous ammonia, and
naphthalene. A by-product coke plant consists of ovens in which
bituminuous coal is heated in the absence of air to drive off
volatile components. The coke is supplied to blast furnaces,
while the volatile components are recovered and processed into
materials of potential value. Less than one percent of domestic
coke is produced in beehive cokemaking processes.
The coke from by-product cokemaking and beehive cokemaking is
then supplied to blast furnace processes where molten iron is
produced for subsequent steelmaking. In blast furnaces, iron
ore, limestone and coke are placed into the top of the furnace
and heated air is blown into the bottom. Combustion of the coke
provides heat and a reducing atmosphere which produce
metallurgical reactions in the furnace. The limestone forms a
fluid slag which combines with unwanted impurities in the ore.
Two kkg (2.2 tons) of ore, 0.54 kkg (0.6 tons) of coke, 0.45 kkg
(0.5 tons) of limestone, and 3.2 kkg (3.5 tons) of air produce
approximately 0.9 kkg (1 ton) of iron, 0.45 kkg (0.5 tons) of
slag, and 4.5 kkg (5 tons) of blast furnace gas containing the
fines (flue dust) carried out by the blast. Molten iron and
molten slag, which floats on top of the iron, are periodically
withdrawn from the bottom of the furnace. Blast furnace flue
gas, which has heating value, is cleaned and then burned in
stoves to preheat the incoming air to the furnace.
Steel is an alloy of iron containing less than 1.0% carbon. The
basic raw materials for steelmaking are hot metal, pig iron, or
steel scrap, limestone, burned lime, dolomite, fluorspar, iron
ores, and iron-bearing materials such as pellets or mill scale.
In steelmaking operations, the furnace charge is melted and
refined by oxidizing certain constituents, particularly carbon in
73
-------
the molten bath, to specified low levels. Various alloying
elements are added to produce different grades of steel.
The principal steelmaking processes in use today are the Basic
Oxygen Furnace (EOF or BOP), the Open Hearth Furnace, and the
Electric Arc Furnace. These processes refine the product of the
blast furnace (hot metal or, if cooled, pig iron) which contains
approximately 6% carbon. About fifteen percent of the steel
produced in this country is made in open hearth furnaces.
However, the trend has been towards less steel production in open
hearth furnaces because of inefficiencies in the process compared
to BOF and electric furnace steelmaking. Open hearth furnaces
are similar in design, but may vary widely in capacity. Furnaces
in this country range in capacity from 9 to 545 kkg (10 to 600
tons) per heat. The steelmaking ingredients are charged into the
front of the furnace through movable doors, while the flame to
refine the steel is supplied by liquid or gaseous fuel ignited by
hot air.
In the standard open hearth furnace, molten steel is tapped from
the furnace eight to ten hours after the first charge. Many
furnaces use oxygen lances which create more intense heat to
reduce tap-to-tap time. The tap-to-tap time for the
oxygen-lanced open hearth averages about eight hours. The
average is about ten hours when oxygen is not used. The open
hearth furnace allows the operator, in effect, to "cook" the
steel to required specifications. The nature of the furnace
permits the operator to continually sample the contents and make
necessary additions. The major drawback of the process is the
long time required to produce a "heat."
Since the introduction in the United States of the more
productive basic oxygen process, open hearth production has
declined from a peak of 93 million kkg (102 million tons) in 1956
to 19 million kkg (21 million tons) in 1978. Most basic oxygen
furnaces can produce eight times the amount of steel produced by
a comparable open hearth furnace during the same production time.
The annual domestic production of steel by the basic oxygen
process has increased from about 545,000 kkg (600,000 tons) in
1957 to 75 million kkg (83 million tons) in 1978.
Vessels for the basic oxygen process generally are vertical
cylinders surmounted by a truncated cone. Scrap and molten iron
are placed in the vessel and oxygen is then admitted.
High-purity oxygen is supplied at high pressure through a
water-cooled tube mounted above the center of the vessel. A
violent reaction occurs immediately, bringing the molten metal
and hot gases into intimate contact causing impurities to burn
off quickly. An oxygen blow of 18 to 22 minutes is usually
sufficient to refine the metal. Finally, alloys are added and
the steel is then tapped. A basic oxygen furnace can produce 180
to 270 kkg (200 to 300 tons) of steel per hour and permits very
close control of steel quality. Another major advantage of the
74
-------
process is the ability to process a wide range of raw materials.
Scrap may be light or heavy, and the oxide charge may be iron
ore, sinter, pellets, or mill scale.
The third process for making steel is the electric arc furnace.
This process is uniquely adapted to the production of high
quality steels and practically all stainless steel is produced in
electric arc furnaces. Electric furnaces range u-p to nine meters
(30 feet) in diameter and produce from 1.8 to 365 kkg (2 to 400
tons) per cycle in 1.5 to 5 hours.
The cycle in electric furnace steelmaking consists of a scrap
charge, meltdown, a hot metal charge, a molten metal period,
boil, a refining period, and the pour. The electric arc furnace
generates heat by passing an electric current between electrodes
through the charge in the furnace. The refining process is
similar to that of the open hearth furnace, but more precise
control is possible in the electric furnace. Use of oxygen in
the electric furnace steelmaking process has been common practice
for many years.
At many plants, only electric furnaces are operated with scrap as
the raw material. In most "cold shops" the electric arc furnace
is the sole steelmaking process. They are the principal
steelmaking process employed by the so-called mini steel plants
which have been built since World War II. The annual production
of steel in electric arc furnace has increased from about 7.2
million kkg (8 million tons) in 1957 to 29 million kkg (32
million tons) in 1978. Although electric arc furnaces are
usually smaller in capacity than open hearth or basic oxygen
furnaces, the trend is toward furnaces with larger heating
capacities.
The hot forming (including continuous casting) and cold finishing
operations follow the basic steelmaking operations. These
operations are so varied that simple classification and
description is difficult. In general, hot forming primary mills
reduce ingots to slabs or blooms and secondary hot forming mills
reduce slabs or blooms to billets, plates, shapes, strip, and
other forms. Continuous casting of molten steel into
semi-finished shapes is used to bypass the primary hot forming
operations. Steel finishing operations involve a number of other
processes that are not used to substantially alter the dimensions
of the hot rolled product, but are used to impart desirable
surface or mechanical properties. The product flow of these
operations is illustrated in Figures II-2 and II-3.
It is possible, and often economical, to roll ingots directly
through the bloom, slab, or billet stages into more refined or
finished steel products in one continuous mill, frequently
without reheating. Large tonnages of standard rails, beams, and
plates are produced by this practice. Most of the ingot tonnage,
however, is rolled into bloom, slabs, or billets in one mill,
75
-------
then cooled, stored, and eventually reheated and rolled in other
mills or forged.
The basic operation in a primary mill is the gradual compression
of the steel ingot between two rotating rolls. Multiple passes
through the rolls, ususally in a reversing mill, are required to
reshape the ingot into a slab, bloom, or billet. As the ingot
begins to pass through the rolls, high pressure water jets remove
surface scale. The ingot is passed back and forth between the
horizontal and vertical rolls while manipulators turn the ingot.
When the desired shape is achieved in the rolling operation, the
end pieces (or crops) are removed by electric or hydraulic
shears. The semi-finished pieces are stored or sent to reheating
furnaces for subsequent rolling operations.
As the demand for higher quality steel increases, the
conditioning of semi-finished products has become more important.
This conditioning involves the removal of surface defects from
blooms, billets, and slabs prior to shaping. Defects such as
rolled seams, light scabs, and checks generally retain their
identity during subsequent forming processes and result in
inferior products. Surface defects may be removed by manual
chipping, machine chipping, scarfing, grinding, milling, and hot
steel scarfing. The various mechanical means of surface
preparation are common in all metal working and machine shop
operations. Scarfing is a process of supplying jet streams of
oxygen to the surface of the steel product, while maintaining
high surface temperatures, resulting in rapid oxidation and
localized melting of a thin layer of the metal. While the
process may be manual (consisting of the continuous motion of an
oxyacetylene torch along the length of the piece undergoing
treatment), in recent years the hot scarfing machine has come
into wide use. This machine is designed to remove a thin layer
(1/8 in. or less) of metal from the steel passed through the
machine in a manner analogous to the .motion through rolling
mills.
Merchant-bar, rod, and wire mills are continuous operations which
produce a wide variety of products, ranging from shapes of small
size through bars and rods. The designations of the various
mills as well as the classification of their products are not
very well defined within industry. In general, the small
cross-sectional area and long lengths distinguish the products of
these mills. The raw materials for these mills are reheated
billets. Some older mills include hand looping operations in
which the material is manually passed from mill stand to mill
stand. Newer mills include mechanical methods for material
transfer. As with other rolling operations, the billet is
progressively compressed and shaped to the desired dimensions in
a series of rolls. Water sprays are used throughout the
operation to remove scale.
76
-------
The continuous hot strip mill is used to process slabs which are
brought to rolling temperatures in continuous reheating furnaces.
The slabs then are passed through scale breakers and high
pressure water sprays which dislodge loosened scale. A series of
roughing stands and a rotary crop shear are used to produce a
section that can be finished into a coil of the proper weight and
gauge. A second scale breaker and high pressure water sprays
precede the finishing stands where final size reductions are
made. Cooling water is applied by sprays on the runout table,
and the finished strip is coiled. On hot strip mills a six inch
thick slab of steel can be formed into a thin strip or sheet a
quarter of a mile long in three minutes or less. Strip up to
ninty six inches in width can be produced with hot strip mills,
although the most common width in newer mills is 80 in. Products
of the hot strip mill are sold as produced, or are further
processed in cold reduction mills. Cold rolled products are sold
as produced or are used in producing plated or coated products.
Welded tubular products are made from hot-rolled skelp with
square or slightly beveled edges. The width and thickness of the
skelp are selected to suit the desired size and wall thicknesses.
The coiled skelp is uncoiled, heated, and fed through forming and
welding rolls where the edges are pressed together at high
temperatures to form a weld. Welded pipe or tube can also be
made by the electric weld processes, where the weld is made by
either fusion or resistance welding. Seamless tubular products
are made by rotary piercing of a solid round bar or billet,
followed by various forming operations to produce the required
size and wall thickness.
Correct surface preparation is the most important requirement for
satisfactory application of protective and decorative coatings to
steel. Without a properly cleaned surface, even the most
expensive coatings will fail to adhere or prevent rusting of the
steel base. A variety of cleaning methods are used to insure
proper surface preparation for subsequent coating. The steel
surface must also be cleaned at various production stages to
insure that the oxides which form on the surface are not worked
into the finished product causing marring, staining, or other
surface imperfections.
The pickling process chemically removes oxides and scale from the
surface of the steel by the action of water solutions of
inorganic acids. While pickling is only one of several methods
of removing undesirable surface oxides, this method is most
widely used because of comparatively low operating costs and ease
of operation.
Some products such as tubes and wire are pickled in batch
operations. The product is immersed in an acid solution until
the scale or oxide film is removed. The material is lifted from
the bath, allowed to drain, and then rinsed by sequential
immersion in rinse tanks.
77
-------
Pickling lines for hot-rolled strip operate continuously on coils
that are welded together. The steel passes through the pickler
countercurrent to the flow of the acid solution, and is then
sheared and recoiled. Most carbon steel is pickled with sulfuric
or hydrochloric acid; stainless steels are pickled with
hydrochloric, nitric, and hydrofluoric acids. Various organic
chemicals are used in the pickling process to inhibit acid attack
on the base metal, while permitting preferential attack on the
oxides. Wetting agents are used to improve the effective contact
of the acid solution with the metal surface. As in the batch
operation, th-e steel passes from the pickling bath through a
series of rinse tanks.
Alkaline cleaners are used, where necesssary, to remove mineral
and animal fats and oils from the steel surface. Caustic soda,
soda ash, alkaline silicates, and phosphates are common alkaline
cleaning agents. Merely dipping the steel in alkaline solutions
of various compositions, concentrations, and temperatures is
often satisfactory. The use of electrolytic cleaning may be
employed for large scale production, or where a cleaner product
is desired. Sometimes the addition of wetting agents to the
cleaning bath facilitates cleaning.
Blast cleaning is a process which uses abrasives such as sand,
steel, iron grit, or shot to clean the steel. The abrasives come
into contact with the steel by either a compressed air blast
cleaning apparatus or by rotary type blasting cleaning machines.
However, th,ese methods usually result in a roughened surface.
The degree of roughness must be regulated to insure that the
product is satisfactory for its intended use. Newer methods of
blast cleaning produce smooth finishes and, consequently, have
potential as substitutes for some types of pickling.
Steel finishing also includes operations such as cold rolling,
cold reduction, cold drawing, tin plating, galvanizing, coating
with other metals, coating with organic as well as inorganic
compounds, and tempering.
Cold reduced flat rolled products are made by cold rolling
pickled strip steel. The thickness of the steel is reduced by
25% to 99% in this operation to produce a smooth, dense surface.
The product may be sold as cold reduced, but is usually heat
treated.
The cold reduction process generates heat that is dissipated by
flooded lubrication systems. These systems use palm oil or
synthetic oils which are emulsified in water and directed in jets
against the rolls and the steel surface during rolling. The cold
reduced strip is then cleaned with alkaline detergent solutions
to remove the rolling oils prior to coating operations.
Tin plate is made from cleaned and pickled cold reduced strip by
either the electrolytic or hot dip process. The hot dip process
78
-------
consists of passing the steel through a light pickling solution;
a tin pot containing a flux and the molten tin; and a bath of
palm oil. Effluent limitations for discharges from the
electrolytic processes are not included in this regulation but
are addressed in the Development Document for .the Electroplating
Point Source Category (40 CFR 413).
Hot dipped galvanized sheets are produced on either batch or
continuous lines. The process consists of a light pickling in
hydrochloric acid and the application of the zinc coating by
dipping in a pot containing molten zinc. Variations in
continuous hot dip operations include alkaline cleaning,
continuous annealing in controlled atmosphere furnaces, and a
variety of fluxing techniques.
In recent years, steel products which are coated with various
synthetic resins have become commercially important. Other steel
products are being produced with coatings of various metals and
inorganic materials. Several major tin plate manufacturers are
substituting chromium plating for tin plating for container
products. Finishing operations for stainless steel products
requiring a bright finish include rolling on temper mills or
mechanical polishing.
A more detailed description of steel industry operations can be
found in the individual subcategory reports of this Development
Document, and in the references cited in Section XIV.
D. Summary of EPA Guidelines Development Methodology and Overview
Approach t£ the Study
In order to develop the effluent limitations and standards, the
Agency first studied the steel industry to determine whether
differences in raw materials, final products, manufacturing
processes, equipment, age and size of plants, water usage,
wastewater constituents, or other factors justified the
development of separate effluent limitations and standards for
different segments of the industry. This study included the
identification of untreated wastewater and treated effluent
characteristics including: (1) the sources and volume of water
used, the processes employed, and the sources of pollutants and
wastewaters in the plant, and (2) the constituents of
wastewaters, including toxic pollutants. The Agency then
identified the wastewater pollutants which were considered for
effluent limitations and standards.
Next, the Agency identified several distinct control and
treatment technologies, including both in-plant and
end-of-process technologies, which are in use or capable of being
used in the steel industry. The Agency compiled and analyzed
historical data and recently obtained effluent quality data
resulting from the application of these technologies. Long term
79
-------
performance, operating limitations, and the reliability of each
control and treatment technology were also identified. In
addition, the Agency considered the non-water quality
environmental impacts of those technologies, including impacts on
air quality, solid waste generation, water consumption, and
energy requirements.
The Agency then developed the costs of each control and treatment
technology by using standard engineering cost analyses as applied
to steel industry wastewaters. Unit process costs were derived
from model plant characteristics (production, flow and pollutant
loads) applied to each treatment process unit (e.g., primary
coagulation-sedimentation, activated sludge, multi-media
filtration). These unit process costs were added to yield total
costs of the model treatment facility developed for each
treatment level. After confirming the reasonableness of this
methodology by comparing EPA cost estimates to actual treatment
system costs supplied by the industry and other data, the Agency
evaluated the economic impacts of these costs. Costs are
discussed in detail in each subcategory report and the economic
impact on the industry is reviewed in the economic impact
analysis done for this study.
Upon consideration of these factors, as more fully described
below, the Agency identified various control and treatment
technologies as models for the BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations and
for the PSES, PSNS, and NSPS. The regulation Does not require
the installation of any particular technology. Rather, it
requires the achievement of effluent limitations and standards
representative of the proper operation of the model technologies,
equivalent technologies, or operating practices.
Nearly all of the BPT, BCT and BAT limitations and the PSES,
PSNS, and NSPS are expressed as mass limits (kg/kkg of product)
and were calculated by multiplying three values: (1) effluent
concentrations determined from analysis of control technology
performance data, (2) model wastewater flow (gal/ton) for each
subcategory, and (3) an appropriate conversion factor. The
effluent limitations and standards for scrubbers used at acid
pickling and hot coating operations are established on the basis
of mass load per day (kg/day), and were calculated by multiplying
the same three factors, except that the model flows are expressed
in gal/minute. The Agency performed the basic calculation for
each limited pollutant for each subcategory of the industry.
Data and Information Gathering Program
oo
-------
Upon initiating this study, the Agency reviewed the data
underlying its previous studies of the steel industry.3 The
Agency concluded that additional data were required to respond to
the Third Circuit's remands and to develop limitations and
standards in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the
Clean Water Act of 1977.
The Agency sent Data Collection Portfolios (DGPs) to owners or
operators of all basic steelmaking operations and operators of at
least 85% of the steel forming and finishing operations. The
DCPs requested information concerning production processes,
production capacity and rates, process water usage, wastewater
generation rates, wastewater treatment and disposal methods,
treatment costs, location, age of production and treatment
facilities, as well as general analytical information. The
Agency received responses from 391 steelmaking operations and
from 1632 steel forming and finishing operations.
The Agency also sent Detailed Data Collection Portfolios
(D-DCPs), under the authority of Section 308 of the Act, to
owners or operators of 50 basic steelmaking facilities and 128
forming and finishing facilities. The D-DCPs requested detailed
information concerning the cost of installing water pollution
control equipment including capital, annual, and retrofit costs.
The D-DCPs also requested long-term effluent monitoring data and
data regarding specific production operations.
The Agency determined the presence and magnitude of the 129
specific toxic pollutants in steel industry wastewaters in a
two-part sampling and analysis program that included 31 basic
steelmaking facilities and 83 forming and finishing operations.
Table II-3 is a listing of those facilities sampled for this
study. Table I1-4 is a summary of the number of sampled plants
and the number of facilities for which the Agency received
questionnaire responses.
The primary objective of the field sampling program was to obtain
composite samples of wastewaters and flow measurements to
determine the concentrations and discharge rates of toxic
pollutants. Sampling visits were made during two or three
consecutive days of plant operation, with raw wastewater samples
taken either before treatment or after minimal preliminary
3See EPA 440/1-74-0243; Development Document for Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steel Making
Segment of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category,
June 1974; and EPA 440/1-76/048-d; Development Document for Interim
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Proposed New Source
Performance Standards for the Forming, Finishing and Specialty Steel
Segments of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category;
March, 1976.
ci
-------
treatment. Treated effluent samples were taken following
application of in-place treatment technologies. The Agency also
sampled intake waters to determine the presence of toxic
pollutants prior to contamination by steel industry processes.
This first phase of the sampling program detected and quantified
wastewater constituents included in the list of 129 toxic
pollutants. Wherever possible, each sample of an individual raw
wastewater stream, a combined waste stream, or a treated effluent
was collected by an automatic, time series compositor over three
24-hour sampling periods. Where automatic compositing was not
possible, grab samples were taken and composited manually. The
purpose of the second phase of the sampling program was to
confirm the presence and further quantify the concentrations and
waste loadings of the toxic pollutants found during the first
phase of the program.
The Agency used the analytical techniques described in Sampling
and Analysis Procedures for Screening of_ Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants, revised April, 1977. Analyses for metals
were performed by AA spectrophotometry. However, the standard
cold vapor method was used for mercury. This 304(h) method was
modified in order to avoid excessive matrix interference that
causes high limits of detection. Analyses for total cyanide and
cyanide amenable to chlorination were also performed using 304(h)
methods.
Analyses for asbestos fibers used transmission electron
microscopy with selected area diffraction; results were reported
as chrysotile fiber count.
Analyses for conventional pollutants (BOD5_, TSS, pH, and oil and
grease) and nonconventional pollutants (total residual chlorine,
iron, ammonia, fluoride, and COD) were performed using 304(h)
methods.
Industry Subcateqorization
The Agency has adopted a revised subcategorization of the steel
industry to more accurately reflect production operations in the
industry and to simplify the implementation of the regulation.
The modified subcategorization is displayed in Table 11-5. Table
II-6 cross references the modified subcategorization with
subparts of the previous regulations. Industry subcategorization
is reviewed in detail in Section IV of this report and in Section
IV of each subcategory report in the Development Document.
Regulated Pollutants
The basis upon which the Agency selected the polluta'nts specifically
limited, as well as the general nature and environmental effects of
these pollutants is set out in Section V.
82
-------
A. BPT
The pollutants limited by this regulation include, for the most
part, the same pollutants limited by the remanded BPT
regulations. Some pollutants have been deleted from the list of
limited pollutants because the sampling conducted subsequent to
the promulgation of the prior regulations showed that only very
low levels of these pollutants are present in the process
wastewaters. For the finishing subcategories, BPT limitations
for additional pollutants were promulgated to facilitate the
co-treatment of compatible wastewaters and to regulate toxic
pollutants where more stringent BAT limitations based upon more
advanced wastewater treatment were not promulgated. The
discharge of BPT limited pollutants is controlled by 30 day
average and maximum daily mass effluent limitations in kilograms
per 1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) of product, and in kilograms
per day for fume scrubbers associated with acid pickling and hot
coating operations.
B. BCT
The conventional pollutants controlled by this regulation include
TSS, oil and grease, and pH. BCT limitations have .been
promulgated in seven steel industry subcategories and in all
seven of those subcategories BCT is set equal to BPT. Therefore,
no additional costs beyond BPT will be incurred to comply with
the BCT limitations. In the remaining five subcategories, BCT
has been reserved for further consideration.
C.' BAT and NSPS
1. Nontoxic, Nonconventional Pollutants
Ammonia-N is a nontoxic, nonconventional pollutant limited
by BAT and NSPS.
2. Toxic Pollutants
Forty-eight toxic pollutants were found at concentrations
above treatability levels in steel industry wastewaters.
(Section V contains a list of these pollutants.) Most of
the toxic pollutants (29) are found in the cokemaking
subcategory. The Agency has promulgated effluent
limitations for the following toxic pollutants: total
cyanide, benzene, naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene,
tetrachloroethylene, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc.
These pollutants are subject to numerical limitations
expressed in kilograms per 1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) of
product or in kg/day for fume scrubbers associated with acid
pickling and hot coating operations. The remaining toxic
pollutants, which are not specifically limited, will be
controlled by limitations established for "indicator"
pollutants (discussed below).
83
-------
3. Indicator Pollutants
The cost of analyses for the many toxic pollutants found in
steel industry wastewaters has prompted the Agency to adopt
alternative methods of regulating certain toxic pollutants.
Instead of promulgating specific effluent limitations for
each of the forty-eight toxic pollutants found in steel
industry wastewaters at significant levels, the Agency has
promulgated effluent limitations for certain "indicator"
pollutants. These include chromium, lead, nickel, zinc,
phenols (4AAP) and certain toxic organic pollutants. The
data available to the Agency generally show that the control
of the "indicator" pollutants will result in comparable
control of toxic pollutants not specifically limited. By
establishing specific limitations for only the "indicator"
pollutants, the Agency has reduced the high cost and delays
of monitoring and analyses that would result from
limitations for each toxic pollutant. The total annual
monitoring cost to the industry is estimated to be about
$3.8 million (including $3.2 million for current monitoring
programs). The pollutants found and those that have been
specifically limited at the BAT and NSPS levels of treatment
are listed in Section V. The bases for selection of
"indicator" pollutants is presented in Section X of each
subcategory report.
D. PSES and PSKS
The pollutants for which PSES and PSNS have been promulgated are
identical to those limited at BAT and NSPS, with the exception of
the conventional pollutants. Limitations were promulgated for
certain toxic pollutants, and other "indicator" pollutants to
insure against POTW upsets-, to prevent accumulation of toxic
pollutants in POTW sludges, and primarily to minimize
pass-through of certain toxic pollutants. The PSES and PSNS are
expressed as 30 day average and maximum daily mass limitations in
kilograms per 1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) of product and in
kilograms per day.
Control and Treatment Technology
A. Status of In-Place Technology
There are several treatment technologies currently used by the
steel industry. Generally, primary wastewater treatment systems
rely upon physical/chemical methods including neutralization,
sedimentation, flocculation and filtration. Treatment for toxic
pollutants includes advanced technologies such as biological
oxidation and carbon adsorption. Technologies such as ion
exchange, ultrafiltration, multiple-effect evaporation, reverse
osmosis, and more sophisticated chemical techniques are generally
not currently used in the industry for wastewater treatment
applications.
84
-------
Within the cokemaking subcategory, treatment systems include a
component to remove organic wastes. Organic removal steps
include biological methods such as bio-oxidation lagoons and
activated sludge plants, and physical/chemical methods including
ammonia stills, dephenolizers and activated carbon systems.
Sedimentation and filtration techniques are also used.
Treatment facilities at plants in the sintering, ironmaking, and
steelmaking subcategories include sedimentation and flocculation
systems followed by recycle of treated wastewaters. Wastewaters
from nearly all hot forming operations are treated in scale pits
followed by lagoons, clarifiers, filters, or combinations
thereof, with recycle of treated or partially treated
wastewaters. Coagulants aids such as lime, alum, polymeric
flocculants, and ferric sulfate are normally used in conjunction
with clarifiers. Filters are usually of the multi-media pressure
type.
Cold finishing treatment techniques include equalization prior to
further treatment, neutralization with lime, caustic or acid,
flocculation with polymer and sedimentation. Central or combined
treatment practices are used widely with these operations.
The use of recycle is a common practice throughout the steel
industry. Recycle of treated process wastewaters can be
effectively used as a means of significantly reducing discharge
loadings to receiving streams. Systems including high recycle
rates are demonstrated in several subcategories. Recycle may be
applied to specific sources such as barometric condensers.(coke)
or fume scrubbers (pickling) or to the effluent from final
treatment facilities.
B. Advanced Technologies Considered
The Agency considered advanced treatment systems to control the
levels of toxic pollutants at the BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
levels of treatment. Some of these systems include in-plant
controls, however, most involve the installation of additional
treatment components.
In-plant control has been demonstrated in several subcategories.
As a result, such systems have been included in the treatment
models at the BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS levels. Rinse
reduction technology, such as cascade rinsing, is a means of
reducing wastewater volumes. This technology significantly
reduces the volume of wastewater requiring treatment.
Other in-plant control measures such as reduction of wastewater
generation by process water reduction and recycle and process
modifications have been considered. These control measures are
subcategory specific and are discussed in detail in the
respective subcategory reports.
85
-------
Add-on technology to the BPT model technology is also the basis
for the BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS levels of treatment. Some of
these control measures for toxic pollutants include 2-stage or
extended biological treatment (cokemaking); granular activated
carbon; pressure filtration; and, multi-stage
evaporation/condensation systems. Details on these advanced
systems are presented in Section VI.
Capital and Annual Cost Estimates
Additional expenditures will be required by the steel industry to
achieve compliance with the promulgated limitations. A short
discussion of the in-place and required capital costs and annual costs
are presented below for each level of treatment, based upon the size
and status of the industry as of July!, 1981. All costs are presented
in July 1, 1978 dollars.
A. BPT
The Agency estimates that as of July 1, 1981 the steel industry
had expended about $1.5 billion towards compliance with BPT
limitations out of a total required cost of $1.7 billion.
Industry will incur annualized costs (including interest,
depreciation, operating and maintenance) of about $204 million
when BPT has been fully implemented. The changes in the above
costs are the result of the Agency's update of the status of the
industry with respect to BPT compliance and the deletion of
plants that have been shutdown.
. Compliance with the BPT effluent limitations will result in the
removal of about 36,700 tons per year of toxic organic
pollutants, 113,500 tons per year of toxic metal pollutants and
13,670,000 tons per year of other pollutants from untreated
wastewaters. The Agency believes that these effluent reduction
benefits justify the associated costs, and other environmental
impacts which are small in relation to these benefits.
B. BAT
The Agency estimates that as of July 1, 1981, compliance with the
BAT and BCT limitations may require the steel industry to invest
about $77 million in addition to the BPT investment and to the
capital already spent on BAT systems. The annualized costs for
the steel industry, in addition to the BPT costs, may equal a
total of about $24 million.
Compliance with the BAT limitations will result in the removal of
about 580 tons per year of toxic organic pollutants, 190 tons per
year of toxic metal pollutants and 12,400 tons per year of other
pollutants. The Agency believes that the costs of compliance
with the BAT limitations and other environmental impacts are
86
-------
reasonable and justified in light of the effluent reduction
benefits obtained.
C. PSES
The Agency estimates that as of July 1, 1981, compliance with the
PSES may require the steel industry to invest about $41 million.
The Agency estimates that POTW dischargers have already expended
about $132 million for pretreatment facilities. The annualizes
costs for the steel industry may equal a total of about $31
million.
Compliance with the PSES will resut in the removal of about 5600
tons/year of toxic organic pollutants, 7850 tons/year of toxic
metal pollutants, and 792,000 tons/year of other pollutants from
raw wastewaters. The Agency believes that the prevention of
toxic pollutant pass through achieved with the promulgated PSES
justify the associated costs.
Basis for Effluent Limitations and Standards
As noted briefly above, the effluent limitations and standards for
BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS are expressed as mass limitations
in kilograms per 1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) of product and in
kilograms per' day. The mass limitation is derived by multiplying an
effluent concentration (determined from the analysis of treatment
system performance) by a model flow appropriate for each subcategory
expressed in gallons per/ton of product, or gallons per day.
Conversion factors were applied to yield the appropriate kg/kkg
(lbs/1000 Ibs) and kg/day value for each limited pollutant. The
limitations neither require the installation of any specific control
technology nor the attainment of any specific flow rate or effluent
concentration. Various treatment alternatives or water conservation
practices can be employed to achieve a particular effluent limitation
and standard. The model treatment systems presented in the
development document illustrate one of the means available to achieve
the limitations and standards. In most cases, other technologies or
operating practices are available to achieve the limitations and
standards.
NPDES permit limitations are specified as mass limitations (kg/day or
Ibs/day). In order to convert the effluent limitations expressed as
kg/kkg (lbs/1000 Ibs) to a 30-day average or daily maximum permit
limit, a production rate in either kkg/day or 1000 Ibs/day must be
used. The production rates previously used for NPDES permitting have
been the highest actual monthly production in the last five years
converted to a daily value, or production capacity. Where applicable,
the effluent limitations expresses as kg/day are additive to the other
permit limitations.
87
-------
Suggested Monitoring Program
The suggested long term monitoring and analysis program includes
continuous flow monitoring, grab sampling for pH and oil and grease (3
grabs/day, once/week) and the collection of 24-hour composite samples
once per week for all other pollutants. The composite samples would
be analyzed for those pollutants regulated at the BPT, BAT, BCT, and
PSES treatment levels for each contributing subcategory. Due to the
relatively high cost of organic analysis ($750-$!000 per sample in
July 1978 dollars), monthly monitoring of limited organics in the
cokemaking and cold forming subcategories is suggested.
More intensive monitoring is suggested for the period of time
necesssary to determine initial compliance with the limitations.
Accordingly, as of July 1, 1984, (the compliance date for BAT and
BCT), monitoring and analysis should be carried out on a schedule of
five daily composites per week (once per week for GC/MS pollutants).
When the appropriate regulatory authority determines that compliance
has been demonstrated, monitoring can then be decreased to the
frequencies indicated in the long term program discussed above.
Although total suspended solids and pH are regulated for each
subcategory, the total number of monitored pollutants ranges from
three (alkaline cleaning) to eight (cokemaking). The type of analysis
influences the overall cost with analysis for toxic organic pollutants
being the most expensive, and pH and the metals analyses being the
least expensive.
Updated cost estimates were developed using three alternative
contractural arrangements (in-house laboratory, contract laboratory,
and C.W. Rice Laboratory), to obtain an estimate of the range of
monitoring costs and to demonstrate that the monitoring program is
feasible with the resources available to the industry.
The subcategory with the largest annual monitoring expenses is
cokemaking ($8862-$!1,779/yr). The need for the GC/MS organic
analyses accounts largely for the high cost. The lowest annual
monitoring costs occur in the salt bath descaling-oxidizing
subdivision ($2,513-$5,794/yr). Annual monitoring costs for the
remaining subcategories are between $2,648 and $11,276.
The total annual monitoring cost to the industry is estimated to be
approximately $3.8 million of which $2.3 are expended for monitoring
at the BPT and PSES levels. However, actual expenses are likely to be
less due to the preponderance of central treatment facilities in this
industry. This substantially reduces the number of monitoring points
compared to that required with completely separate treatment and
monitoring at each process, as assumed by the Agency to estimate the
monitoring costs. Total BPT/BAT/PSES annual operating costs are
estimated to be $228 million. The monitoring cost is roughly 1.7% of
the annual cost of pollution control. The Agency considers these
costs reasonable in light of the size and complexity of this industry,
and the potential adverse environmental impacts of these discharges.
-------
Economic Impact on the Industry
The economic impact of the regulation on the steel industry is fully
described in Economic Analysis of Effluent Guidelines - Integrated
Iron and Steel Industry.
Energy and Non-water Quality Impacts
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may aggravate
other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and 306 of
the Act require the Agency to consider the non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements) of certain
regulations. In compliance with these provisions, the Agency
considered the effect of this regulation on air pollution, solid waste
generation, water scarcity, and energy consumption. There is no
precise methodology for balancing pollution impacts against each other
and against energy use. The Agency believes this regulation to be the
best possible approach to serving these competing national goals with
respect to environmental concerns and energy consumption.
The non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) associated with the regulation are described in general
below and more specifically in the respective subcategory reports.
A. Air Pollution
Compliance with the BPT, BAT, and BCT limitations and the NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS will not create any substantial air pollution
problems. However, in several subcategories, slight air impacts
may be expected. First, minimal amounts of volatile organic
compounds may be released to the atmosphere by aeration in
biological treatment systems used for the treatment of cokemaking
wastewaters. Secondly, minor particulate air emissions may
result as water vapor containing some particulate matter is
released from cooling tower systems used in several of the
subcategories. None of these impacts are considered significant.
B. Solid Wastes
EPA estimates that 22.2 million tons per year of solid wastes (at
30% solids for most dewatered sludges) will be generated by the
industry when full compliance with BPT, BAT, BCT, and PSES is
achieved. Of this amount, 20.0 million tons are generated at the
BPT level and 2.2 million tons at PSES. Solid waste generation
data by subcategory and by level is summarized in Table I1-7.
These solid wastes are comprised almost entirely of treatment
plant sludges. Much larger quantities of other solid wastes are
generated in the steel industry such as electric furnace dust and
blast furnace and steelmaking slags. However, these and other
solid wastes are generated by the process and not as a result of
this water pollution control regulation.
89
-------
The data gathered for this study demonstrate that most sludges
are presently produced by treatment systems already installed in
the industry. As a result, the industry is currently incurring
disposal costs and finding necessary disposal sites. (It is
unknown at this time how many of these disposal sites are secure,
well maintained operations.) The cost per ton for disposal is
related to the type of waste as well as to the amount. Tonnages
to be disposed of in the steel industry are high enough so that
lower costs per ton are incurred in relation to most other
industries. For this evaluation the Agency, after an extensive
evaluation, determined that sludge disposal costs of $5 per ton
for non-hazardous wastes and $18 per ton for hazardous wastes are
appropriate bases for cost estimating purposes. The costs for
disposal of these sludges are included in the Agency's present
cost estimate. The Agency has concluded that, the incremental
solid waste impacts associated with this regulation will be
minimal.
C. Consumptive Water Loss
The question of water consumption in the steel industry as a
result of the installation of wastewater treatment systems is a
remand issue of .the 1974 a'nd 19-76 regulations dealt with in
Section III. In summary, the Agency concludes that the water
consumed as a result of compliance with this regulation is
justified on both a national level and on a "water-scarce"
regional level when compared to the effluent reduction benefits
achieved.
D. Energy Requirements
The Agency estimates that compliance with the regulation will
result in the consumption of electrical energy, at the BPT, BCT,
BAT and PSES levels of treatment as follows:
Treatment Level Net Energy Consumption (kwh)
BPT/BCT 1.25 billion
BAT 0.07 billion
PSES 0.12 billion
Total 1.44 billion
This represents 2.5% of the total 57 billion kwhs of electrical
energy consumed by the steel industry in 1978, or about 0.4% of
the total energy consumed by the industry. A summary, by
subcategory and by level, of energy requirements due to water
pollution control is presented in Table II-8. The Agency
considers the expenditure of energy required for compliance with
this regulation justified by the effluent reductions benefits
achieved.
90
-------
TABLE II-l
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION LISTING
PART 420 - IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE. CATEGORY
SubparL A
Cokemaking SubcaLcgory
SubparL B
Sintering Subcategory
SubparL C
Iromaaking SubcaLegory
Applicability; Description
420.10 Applicability; description of the
cokemaking subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart
are applicable to discharges and
introduction of pollutants inLo
publicly owned treatment works
resulting from by-product and
beehive cokemaking operations.
420.20 Applicability; description of the
sintering subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works
resulting from sintering operations
conducted by the heating of iron
bearing wastes (mill scale and dust
from blast furnaces and steelmaking
furnaces) together with fine iron
ore, limestone, and coke fines in
an ignition furnace and traveling
grate to produce an agglomerate
for charging to the blast furnace,
420.30 Applicability; description of the
ironmaking subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works
resulting from ironmaking operations
in which iron ore is reduced to
molten iron in a blast furnace.
Standard Industry
Classification Codes
3312.05 Beehive coke products
3312.11 Chem. Rec. Coke
3312.12 Coal gas - coke
3312.13 Coal tar crudes
3312.14 Coke, beehive
3312.15 Chem. coke products
3312.17 Distillates
3312.52 Tar
3312.30 Iron sinter
Blast Furnace products
BF
3312.08
3312.19 Ferroalloys,
3312.29 Iron, pig
-------
TABLE II-l
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION LISTING
PART 420 - IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
PAGE 2
Subpart D
Steelmaking Subcategory
Subpart E
Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
Subpart F
Continuous Casting Subcategory
Applicability; Description
420.40 Applicability; description of the
Steelmaking Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart
are applicable to discharges and
to the introduction of pollutants
into publicly owned treatment works
resulting from Steelmaking operations
conducted in basic oxygen, open
hearth, and electric arc furnaces.
420.50 Applicability; description of the
vacuum degassing Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works
resulting from vacuum degassing
operations conducted by applying
a vacuum to molten steel.
420.60 Applicability; description of the
continuous casting Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works
resulting from the continuous
casting of molten steel into
intermediate or semi-finished steel
products through water cooled molds.
Standard Industry
Classification Codes
3312.28
3312.47
3312.58
Ingots, steel
Stainless steel
Tool steel
-------
TABLE II-l
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION LISTING
PART 420 - IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
PAGE 3
Subpart G
Hot Forming Subcategory
Applicability; Description
420.70 Applicability; description of the
hot forming subcategory.
The provisions of thia aubpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works
resulting from hot forming operations
conducted in primary, section, flat,
and pipe and tube mills.
Standard Industry
Classification Codes
Primary
3312.06 Billets, steel
3312.09 Blooms
3312.43 Slabs, ateel
Section
3312.02
3312.03
3312.04
3312.10
3312.18
3312.22
3312.26
3312.27
3312.31
3312,34
3312.35
3312.36
3312.37
3312.38
3312.39
3312.41
3312,45
3312.48
3312,51
3312.55
3312.59
3312,63
3312.64
3315.01
3315.02
3315.03
3315.04
3315.05,
3315.06
Axles, rolled
Bars, iron rolled
Bars, steel rolled
Carwheels, rolled
Fence posts, rolled
Frogs
Hoops, hot rolled
Hot rolled, iron & steel
Nut rods, rolled
Rail joints, etc.
Railroad crossings
Rails
Rods, rolled
Rounds, tube
Sheet pilings, rolled
Shell slugs, rolled
Spike rods, rolled
Steel works
Structural shapes
Tie plates
Tube rounds
Wheels
Wire products
Brads, steel
Cable, steel
Horseshoe, nails
Spikes, steel
-Staples, steel
Tacks, steel
-------
TABLE II-l
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION LISTING
PART 420 - IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
PAGE 4
Subpart G
Hot Forming Subcategory
Applicability; Description
420.70 Applicability; description of the
hot forming subcategory.
Standard Industry
Classification Codes
Section
3315.07 Wire, ferrous
3315.08 Wire products, ferrous
3315.09 Wire, steel
Flat
3312.01 Armor plate, rolled
3312.20 Flats, rolled
3312.33 Plates, rolled
3312.40 Sheets, rolled
3312.42 Skelp
3312.50 Strips, iron & steel
Pipe & Tube
3312.60
3312.61
3312.62
3317.03
3317.05
3317.07
Tubes, iron & steel
Tubing, seamless
Well casings
Pipe, seamless
Tubes, seamless
Well casing
Subpart H
Salt Bath Descaling Subcategory
420.80 Applicability; description of the
salt bath descaling subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to
the introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works
resulting from oxidizing and reducing
salt bath descaling operations.
-------
TABLE II-l
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION LISTING
PART 420 - IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
PAGE 5
Subpart I
Acid Pickling Subcategory
Subpart J
Cold Forming Subcategory
Applicability; Description
420.90 Applicability; description of the
acid pickling Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to
the introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works
resulting from sulfuric acid,
hydrochloric acid, or combination
acid pickling operations.
420.100 Applicability; description of the
cold forming Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works from
cold rolling and cold working pipe
and tube operations in which unheated
steel is passed through rolls or
otherwise processed to reduce its
thickness to produce a smooth
surface, or to develop controlled
mechanical properties in the steel.
Standard Industry
Classification Codes
3312.07 Blackplate
3312.16 Cold Strip Steel
3312.32 Pipe
3312.65 Wrought pipe, tubing
3316.01 Cold finished bars
3316.02 Cold rolled strip
3316.03 Corrugating CR
3316.04 Flat bright CR
3316.05 Razor blade strip C
3316.06 Sheet steel CR
3316.07 Wire, flat
3317.01 Boiler tubes
3317.02 Conduit
3317.04 Pipe, wrought
3317.06 Tubing, mechanical
3317.08 Wrought pipe & tube
-------
TABLE II-l
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION LISTING
PART 420 - IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
PAGE 6
Subpart K
Alkaline Cleaning Subcategory
Subpart L
Hot Coating Subcategory
Applicability; Description
420.110 Applicability; description of the
alkaline cleaning Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to
the introduction of pollutants
in'to publicly owned treatment works
resulting from operations in which
steel and steel products are
immersed in alkaline cleaning baths
to remove mineral and animal fats
or oils from the steel, and those
rinsing operations which follow
such imnersion.
420.120 Applicability; description of the
hot coating Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart
are applicable to discharges and
to the introduction of pollutants
into publicly owned treatment
works resulting from the operations
in which steel is coated with zinc,
terne metal, or other metals by
the hot dip process, and those
rinsing operations associated
with that process.
Standard Industry
Classification Codes
3312.23 Galvanized products
3312.25 Hoop, hot galvanized
rolled
3312.49 Strips, galvanized
3312.53 Terneplate
3312.54 Ternes
3312.57 Tin plate
3479.04 Coating (hot dipped)
3479.12 Galvanizing
(1) The EPA has added decimal digits to the standard four digit SIC code for
easy reference to individual products.
-------
TABLE II-2
SUBCATEGORY INVENTORY
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
1. Iron & Steel
2. Merchant
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
1. BOF
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet-suppressed
c. Wet-open
2. Open Hearth - Wet
3. Electric Arc Furnace
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
No, of
Active Plants
39
19
17
45
9
6
14
4
3
7
33
49
No. of
Individual
Units1 '
64
21
17
161
9(20)
6(15)
15(35)
4(28)
3(8)
9(20)
38
59
No. of Plants
Direct
Discharging
15
7
15
39
8
5
13
4
2
6
31
25
No. of Plants
Discharging
to POTWs
8
8
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
7
No. of Plants
With Zero
Discharges
Jt"'
1
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
17
-------
TABLE 11-2
SUBCATEGOSY INVENTORY
PAGE 2
Sobcacegory
G. Hot Forming
H.
I,
1 . Prinary
2. Section
3. Flat
a. Hot Strip & Sheet
b, Plate
4, Pipe & Tube
Salt Bath Descaling
1 , Oxidizing
2. Reducing
Acid Pickling
1, Sulfuric Acid
2. Hydrochloric Acid
3. Combination Acid
No. of
Active Plants
84
80
39
17
34
19
7
124
46
6?
No. of
Individual
0nitsU)
113
241
55
25
50
24
8
191
98
129
No. of Plants
Direct
Discharging
76
65
37
16
33
17
6
71
34
46
No. of Plants
Discharging
to
6
8
2
1
1
2
1
34
12
18
No. of'Plants
With Zero
Discharges
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
19(4)
0
3
-------
TABLE II-2
SUBCATEGORY INVENTORY
PAGE 3
Subcategory
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation
b. Combination
c. Direct Application
2. Pipe & Tube
a. Water
b. Oil Emulsions
K. Alkaline Cleaning
1. Batch
2. Continuous
L. Hot Coatings
1. Galvanizing
2. Terne
3. Other Metals
TOTAL
No. of
Active Plants
(1)
No. of
Individual
u;
53
10
21
15
19
31
31
63
5
10
1020
142
21
67
72
52
51
123
146
6
18
2023
No. of Plants
Direct
Discharging
No. of Plants
Discharging
to PQTWs
34
10
19
22
22
40
4
5
741
6
0
0
17
1
4
162
No. of Plants
With Zero
Discharges
13
0
(4)
(4)
,,(4)
17
6
0
I
117
(4)
( ) For steelmaking operations, the numbers in parentheses represent the number of furnaces at the specified
number of shops•
(1) Active as of 7/1/81.
(2) Multiple operating units or pollution,eontrol facilities within a subcategory may exist at a plant site.
(3) These coke plant operations achieve zero discharge either by disposing of their effluent via quenching
or deep well disposal.
(4) These plants achieve zero discharge by having their wastewater hauled off-site.
-------
TABLE I1-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DUKIHC IRON AND STEBL STODY
Subeategory
A. Cokemaking
1. By-Product
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
Sampling
Code
(l)
002, ,,„,
003
HA
006
007
008, .
009(1)
HA
A
B
C
'D
E
F
G
016
01?
019
H
I
J
K
021
022
023
024
025
026
02?
028
029
030
Plant
Reference Code
0732A
0464C
0868A
0860H
0584B
0320
0920F
0684F
0402
0432B
0112
0384A
0272
0428A
0428A
0724A
0112D
0432A
0060F
0432A
0291C
0396A
0112B
0196A
0856N
0860B
0860H
0112C
0112D
0432A
0684H
0684F
0112
Plant
Name
Shenango (Neville Island)
Koppers (Erie)
U.S.S. (Fairfield)
U.S.S. (South Works)
National Steel (Great Lakes)
Ford Motor Co. (Dearborn)
Wheeling-Pit (Follanabee)
Republic STeel (Cleveland)
Ironton Coke (Ironton)
J & L (Pittsburgh)
Bethlehem (Bethlehem)
Inland (East Chicago)
Donner-Hanna (Buffalo)
Jewell (Vansant)
Jewell (Vansant)
Sharon (Carpenter)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
J & L (Aliquippa)
Armco (Houston)
J & L (Aliquippa)
International Harvester (Chicago)
Interlake (Chicago)
Bethlehem (Buffalo-Lackawanna)
CF&I (Pueblo)
U.S.S. (Lorain)
U.S.S. (Gary Horks)
U.S.S. (Chicago-South)
Bethlehem (Johnstown)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
J & L (Aliquippa)
Republic (Chicago)
Republic (Cleveland)
Bethlehem (Bethlehem)
Type of
Operat ion
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
100
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 2
Sampling
Subcategory Code
L
X
N
0
P
Q
D. Steelmaking
1. BOF 031
032
033
034
035
036
038
D*
R
S
T
U
V
2. Open Hearth 042
043
W
Y
3. Electric Arc 051
Furnace
052
059B
U.
AB
Y
Z
E. Vacuum Degassing
062
065
• 068
Plant
Reference Code
0291C
0396A
0448A
0060F
• 0112B
0112C
0020B
0384A
0856B
0856N
0868A
0112D
0684F
02 48 A
0432A
0060
0112A
0396D
0584F
0492A
0864A
0112A
0060
0612
049 2A
0060F
0060F
0868B
0432C
0584A & B
0496
0584F
0684H
Plant
Name
Type of
Operat ion
International Harvester (Chicago) Iron
Inter lake (Chicago) Iron
Kaiser (Fontana) Iron
Armco (Houston) Iron
Bethlehem (Buffalo-Lackawanna) Iron
Bethlehem (Johnstown) FeMn
Allegheny-Ludlum (Brackenridge) W-OC
Inland (Indiana Harbor) W-SC
U.S.S. (Edgar Thompson) W-OC
U.S.S. (Lorain) W-SC
U.S.S. (Fairfield) W-OC
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor) W-OC
Republic (Chicago) W-SC
Crucible (Midland) W-OC
J & L (Aliquippa) Semi-wet
Armco (Hiddletown) W-SC
Bethlehem (Sparrows Point) W-OC
Inter lake (Chicago) Semi-Wet
National (Weirton) W-OC
Lone Star (Lone Star) Wet
U.S.S. (Provo) Semi-wet
Bethlehem (Sparrows Point) Wet
Armco (Hiddletown) Wet
Northwestern Steel & Wire Wet
(Sterling)
Lone Star (Lone Star) Wet
Armco (Houston) Semi-wet
Armco (Houston) Wet
U.S.S. (Texas Works, Baytown) Wet
J & L (Cleveland) Semi-wet
National (Ecorse) Semi-wet
Lukens (Coatesville)
National (Weirton)
Republic (Chicago)
101
-------
TABLE II-3
PLAHTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 3
Sampling
Subcategory Code
AC
AD
E
G
F, Continuous Casting
071
072
075
079
AE
AF
B*
D*
• Q*
G. Hot Forming
1. Primary 081
082
082
083
D*
E*
H*
K*
M*
Q*
R*
A-2
B-2
C-2 & 088
(Revisited)
D-2
L-2
285A 2
286Aj,(
288Aj~
289AW
Plant
Reference Code
0584F
0868B
0020B
08S6R
0284A
0496
0584F
0060K
Q584F
0868B
0900
0248A & B
0684D
0176
0496 (140" only)
0496 (140", 206" in
tandea)
0860H
0248B
0020B
0248A
0256K
Q432J
0684D
0240A
0112B
0112B
0684H
0946A
0060
0240A
0432C
0584F
0684B
Plant
Name
National (Weirton)
U.S.S. (Texas Works, Baytown)
Allegheny-Ludlum (Brackenridge)
U.S.S, (Duquenne)
Eastern Stainless (Baltimore)
Lulcens (Coateaville)
National (Ueirton)
Armco (Marion)
National (Weirton)
U.S.S. (Texas Works, Baytown)
Washington Steel (Washington)
Crucible (Midland)
Republic (Maaailon)
Carpenter Technology (Reading)
Lukens (Coatesville) »
Lukens (Coatesville)
U.S.S. (South Chicago)
Crucible (Midland)
Allegheny-Ludium (Brackenridge)
Crucible (Midland)
Universal Cyclops (Bridgeville)
J & L (Warren)
Republic (Massillon)
Copperweld (Warren)
Bethlehem (Lackawanna)
Bethlehem (Lackawanna)
Republic (Chicago)
Wisconsin (Chicago)
Armco (Middletown)
Copperweld (Warren)
J & L (Cleveland)
National (Heirton)
Republic (Warren)
Type of
Operation
Bloom
Slab/Rough
Plate
Slab/Rough
Plate
Slab/Bloom
Slab
Slab
Bloom
Slab/Bloom
Slab/Bloom
Bloom
Bloom
Bloom
Slab
Bloom
Bloom
Slab
Bloom
Slab
Slab/Bloom
Bloom
102
-------
TABLE H-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IROH AHD STEEL STUDY
PAGE 4
Samp I ing
Subcategory Code
290A^)
291 (2)
293A {2l
294A(2)
2. Section 083
087
088
088
C*
H*
K*
M*
0* & 081
(Revisited)
A-2
D-2
E-2
F-2
C-2
H-2
1-2 (2)
282?2)
283r"
285l"
290B
2938^'
3. Flat 082
082
083
Plant
Reference Code
08S6R
0856B
08S6N
0920M
0860H (02 & 03}
0432-02
0684H-02
0684H (01,03,05,06,07)
0424 (01-03)
0248A
0256K
0432J
0176 (01-03)
0112B
0946A
0196A (09 & 10)
0384A-06
06S2A (01 & 02)
0432A-04
08560
0088A
0112
0240A
0856R
08S6N
0496 (01 & 03)
0496 (02 & 04)
0860H-01
Plant
Name
U.S.S. (Duquesne)
U.S.S. (Edgar Thompson)
U.S.S, (Lorain)
Wheeling Pittsburgh (Mingo Jet.)
U.S.S. (South Chicago)
J $ L (Aliquippa)
Republic (Chicago)
Republic (Chicago)
Jessop (Washington)
Crucible (Midland)
Universal Cyclops (Bridgeville)
J & L (Harren)
Carpenter Technology
(Reading)
Bethlehem (Lackawanna)
Wisconsin (Chicago)
CF&I (Pueblo)
Inland (East Chicago)
Penn-Dixie (Joliet)
J & L (Aliquippa)
U.S.S. (Cleveland)
Babcock & Wilcoz (Koppel)
Bethlehem (Bethlehem)
Coppe rwe 1 d ( Bar ren ) _
U.S.S. (Duquesne)
U.S.S. (Lorain)
Lukens (Coateavil le)
Lukens (Coatesville)
U.S.S. (South Chicago)
Type of
Operat ion
Slab/Bloom
Slab/Bloom
Slab
34" & Rod
Mill
14" Mill
34" Mill
36", 32", 14",
10", 11" Mills
Bar Mills
Merchant
Mill
Bar Mill
Billet
Mill
Bar
Mills
Rail Mill
#2, 5, & 6
Mills
Bar &
Rod Mills
12" Bar
Mill
10" & 12"
Mill*
Rod Mill
Rod Mill
Round Mill
Round Mill
Re bar Mill
140",112"/120"
140"/206"
112"/120",140"
Mills
30" Plate
Mill
103
-------
TABLE I1-3
FUUTTS SAMPLED DURING IIOH AHD STEEL STUDY
PAGE 5
Sampling
Subeateeorv Code
086
086
087
D*
E*
F*
0
J-2
K-2
L-2
M-2
N-2
281 (2)
284 2
286B(2)
287 (2)
288B2
289B<2)
292
/ 2 \
4. Pipe and Tube 087
088
E-2
GG-2
II-2
JJ-2
KK-2.
293C<2)
295UJ
Plant
Reference Code
0112D-01
01120-02
0432A
0248B
0020B
08S6H
0176
0860B-01
0868B
0060
0384A-02
0396D-02
0020B
0112D
0432C
0534B
0584F
0684B
0860B
0920N
0432A-01
0684H
0196A-01
0240B-OS
0916A
0728
0256G
085 6N
0948A
Plant
Name
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
J & L (Aliquippa)
Crucible (Midland)
Allegheny-Ludlum {Brackenridge)
U.S.S. (Homestead)
Carpenter Technology (Reading)
U.S.S. (Gary Works)
U.S.S, (Baytown)
Araco (Middletown)
Inland (East Chicago)
Inter lake (Riverdale)
Allegheny Ludlua (Brackenridge)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
J S L (Cleveland)
National (Ecorse)
National (Weirton)
Republic (Warren)
U.S.S. (Gary)
Wheeling Pittsburgh (Mingo Jet.)
J & L (Aliquippa)
Republic (Chicago)
CF&I (Pueblo)
Ohio Steel & Tube (Shelby)
Wheat land (Wheat land)
Sharon (Sharon)
Cyclops (Sawhill)
U.S.S. (Lorain)
J & L (Campbell)
Type of
Operation
160" Plate
Mill
80 " Hot
Strip
44" Hot
Strip
Hot Strip
Hot Strip
160" Plate
Mill
*4 Hot
Mill
84" Hot
Strip
160" Plate
Mill
Hot Strip
S Sheet
80" Hot
Strip
#4 Hot
Strip
Hot Strip
Hot Strip
& Plate
Hot Strip
Hot Strip
Hot Strip
Hot Strip
Hot Scrip
Hoc Strip
Butt Held
Seamless
Seamless
Seamless
Buct Weld
Butt Weld
Butt Weld
Seamless
Seamless
104
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IKON AMD STEEL STUDY
PAGE 6
Subeategory
H. Salt Bath Descaling
1. Oxidizing
2, Reducing
I. Acid Pickling
1, Sulfuric Acid
2. Hydrochloric Acid
Sampling
Code
131
132
138
C*
L*
132
139
L*
Q*
092
094
095
096
097
098
R*
H-2
1-2
0-2
P-2
Q-2
K-2
S-2
T-2
QQ-2
SS-2
TT-2
HN-2
091
093
095
099
100
Plant
Reference Code
0424
0176-04
0440A
0424
0440A
0176 (01-03)
02S6N
0440A
0684D
088A
0948C
0584E
01121
0760
0684P
0240A
04 32 A
08S6P
0590
0312
0894
0240B
0256C
0792B
0584E
0112A
08560
0868A
0612
0396D
OS84P
QS28B
0384A
PUnt
Nane
Type of
Operation
Je*»op (Washington, Pennsylvania) Piece
Carpenter Technology Rod,
(Reeding) ' Wire
Joilyn (Fort Wayne) Bar, Rod
Jessop (WǤhington, Pennsylvania) Plate
Joilyn (Port Wayne) Bar,Rod
Carpenter Technology Bar,Rod
(Reading) Strip,Wire
Universal Cyclop! (Tituaville) Bar,Billet
Jotlyn (Fort Wayne) Bar,Rod
Republic (Hassillon) Strip
B&W (Beaver Falla) B
Y3&T (Indian* Harbor) C-N
National (Midwett) C
Bethlehem (Lebanon) B-H
Stanley (Hen Britain) C-AU
Republic (Haaaillon) B
Copperweld (Warren) B-N
J * L (AUquippa) B-N, C-N
U.S.S. (Cleveland) B
Nelton Steel (Chicago) B-AL'
Fitciiaoni (Youngitovn) B-AU
Walker Steel & Hire (Ferndale) B-AU
Ohio Sheet & Tube (Shelby) B-N
Cyclopa-Sawhill (Sharon) B-N
Thompson Steel (Chicago) C-AU
National (Midweit) C-N
Bethlehen (Sparrowa Pt.) C-N
U.S.S. (Itnin) , C-N
U.S.S. (Fairfield) C-N
Northwestern S&W (Sterling) C-N
Interlake (Riverdale) C-N
National (Ueirtoa) C-AR
KcLouth (Gibralter) C-AR
Inland (East Chicago) C-N
105
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 7
Sampling
Subcategory Code
1-2
U-2
V-2
W-2
X-2
Y-2
Z-2
AA-2
BB-2
3. Combination Acid 121
122
123
124
125
A*
C*
D*
F*
I*
L*
0*
U*
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling 101 A & B(1)
102
105
105
106
D*
I*
P*
X-2
BB
DD-2
EE-2
FF-2
W-2
XX-2
Tt-2
Plant
Reference Code
0856P
0480A
0936
-
0060B
-
0396D
0384A
0060
0900
0176
0088A
0088D
0674E
0900
0424
0248A & B
0856H
0432K
0440A
0176
00600
0020 B & C
0384A
0584F
0584F
0112B
0248B
0432K
0156B
0060B
0060
0584E
0112D
0384A
0584F
06841
0432D
Plant
Name
U.S.S. (Cuyahoga)
LaSalle (Hammond)
Wire Sales, Inc. (Chicago)
Dominion (Hamilton)
Armco (Ashland)
Steel Co. of Canada (Hamilton)
Inter lake (Riverdale)
Inland (East Chicago)
Armco (Middletovn)
Washington Steel (Washington)
Carpenter Technology
Babcock & Wilcox (Beaver Falls)
Babcock & Wilcox (Koppel)
Plymouth Tube (Dunkirk)
Washington Steel (Washington)
Jessop (Washington, Pennsylvania)
Crucible (Midland)
U.S.S. (Homestead)
J & L (Louisville)
Joslyn (Fort Wayne)
Carpenter Technology
Tube Associates (Houston)
Allegheny-Ludlum (W. Leechburg)
Inland (East Chicago)
National (Weirton)
National (Weirton)
Bethlehem (Lackavanna)
Crucible (Midland)
J & L (Louisville)
Cabot Steel (Kokomo)
Armco (Ashland)
Armco (Middleton)
National (Midwest)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
Inland (East Chicago)
National (Weirton)
Republic (Gadsden)
J & L (Hennepin)
Type of
Operat ion
C-N
B-N
B-N
C-AR
C-AR
C-AR
C-N
C-N
C-N
C-N
B-N
B-N
B-N
B-N
C-N
B-N
C-N
B-N
C-N
B-N
C-N
B-N
Recirc.
Recirc.
Direct Appl.
Recirc.
Direct Appl.
Recirc.
Recirc.
Recirc.
Recirc.
Recirc.
Combinstion
Recirc.
Recirc.
Direct Appl.
Recirc.
Combination
106
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 8
Sampling
Subcategory Code
301<2>
302,,(
304(2)
305<2)
™«> '
308)"
310),^
312(2)
313(2>
315(2)
(2)
316 2
318 2
319 2
321
(2)
323U'
2. Pipe & Tube HH~?T\
331
332[2>
335<2)
(2)
336 2
3371 '
338(2)
K. Alkaline Cleaning 152
156
157
I* /,%
317(2)
L. Hot Coating
1. Galvanizing 111
112
114
116
Plant
Reference Code
0020B
0060E
0176
0176
0248B
0248B
0320
0432C
0432D
0948C
0584B
0684
0684B
0856P
0856F
0684D
0060
0492A
0256G
0684L
0684A
0856N
0856Q
0678C
0240B
0176
01121
0432K
0432K
0796A
0612
0396D
0948C
01121
Plant
Name
Allegheny Ludlum (W. Leechburg)
Annco (Zanesville)
Carpenter Technology (Reading)
Carpenter Technology (Reading)
Crucible (Midland)
Crucible (Midland)
Ford Motor Co (Dearborn)
J 4 L (Cleveland)
J & L (Hennepin)
J & L (E. Chicago)
National Steel (Detroit)
Republic Steel (Cleveland)
Republic Steel (Warren)
U.S.S. (Cuyahoga Works)
U.S.S. (Fairless)
Republic Steel (Maasillon)
Armco Steel (Middletown)
Lone Star Steel (Lone Star)
Cyclops (Sharon)
Republic (Elyria OH)
Republic (Youngstown)
D.S.S. (Lorain)
U.S.S. (McKeesport)
Quanex (Shelby)
Copperweld (Shelby)
Carpenter Technology
(Reading)
Bethlehem (Lebanon)
J & L (Louisville)
J & L (Louisville)
Tinken (Canton)
Northwestern Steel (Sterling)
Interlake (Riverdale)
YS&T (East Chicago)
Bethlehem (Lebanon)
Type of
Operation
Recirc.
Recirc.
Recirc. &
Direct Appl.
Beeire, &
Direct Appl.
Rec ire.
Recirc,
Rec ire,
Recirc.
Combination
Comb inat ion
Comb inat ion
Recirc,
Recirc,
Eecirc,
Combination
Recirc.
Recirc.
Oil
Water
Hater &
Oil
Oil
Oil
Hater t. Oil
Oil
Oil
Cont inuous
Batch
& Cont.
Cont.
Cont.
Batch
107
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING I ROM AIR! STEEL STUDY
PAGE 9 '
Subcategory
2. Terne
3. Other
Soupling
Code
118
119
1-2
V-2
HM-2
HH-2
113
00-2
PP-2
116
Plant
Reference Code
0920E
0476A
08560
0936
0856F
09201
*
08360
0060R
0856D
01121
Flint
Wheeling-Pitt (Martina Ferry)
Laclede (Alton)
U.S.S. (Cleveland)
Hire Sales (Chicago)
U.S.S. (fairleaa)
Wheeling-Pitt (Martina Ferry)
U.S.S. (Irwin)
Araco (Middletonn)
U.S.S. (Iruin)
Bethlehem (Lebanon)
Type of
Operation
. Aluminum
(1) Data exists far more than one visit.
(2) Verification analyses protocol used af this plant visit.
NA: Sample code number was not aaaigned.
*: Sampled by Datagraphic*.
Key to Abbreviations-.
H-OC: "Bet-Open Combustion" type air pollution control system,
H-SC: "Het-Suppressed Combustion" type air pollution control system
B : Batch
C : Cent inuous
AU : Acid Recovery
AB : Acid Regeneration
108
-------
TABLE II-4
INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA BASS
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
No. of
Operat ions
Number Sampled for Original Guidelines -Study 133
Number Sampled for Toxic Pollutant Studies 161
Total Number Sampled (Not including re-visits) 244
Number Responding to the D-DCP's 174 incl.
44 above
Total Number Sampled or Surveyed via D-DCP's 374
Number Responding to the DCP'a 2023
109
-------
TABLE II-5
REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY SOBCATEG0RIZATION
A. Cokenaking
1. Byproduct
a. Iron & Steel - Biological
b. Iron & Steel - Physical Chemical
c. Merchant - Biological
d. Merchant - Physical Chemical
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
1, Iron
2. Ferromanganese (BPT only)
D, Steelmaking
1. BOF
a. Semi-vet
b. Wet - Open Combustion
c. Wet - Suppressed Combustion
2. Open Hearth - Wet
3. Electric Arc Furnace
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet
E, Vacuum Degassing
F, Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
1, Primary
a. Carbon and Specialty w/o scarfing
b. Carbon and Specialty u/scarfing
2, Section
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
110
-------
TABLE I1-5
REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
PAGE 2
3. Flat
a. Hot Strip and Sheet (Carbon and Specialty)
b. Plate - Carbon
c. Plate - Specialty
4. Pipe and Tube
H. Salt Bath Descaling
1. Oxidizing
a. Batch Sheet/Plate
b. Batch Rod/Wire/Bar
c. Batch Pipe/Tube
d. Cont inuous
2. Reducing
a. Batch
b. Continuous
I. Acid Pickling
1. SuIfuric Acid
a. Rod, Wire and Coil
b. Bar, Billet, and Bloom
c. Strip, Sheet and Plate
d. Pipe, Tube and Other Products
e. Fume Scrubber
2. Hydrochloric Acid
a. Rod, Wire and Coil
b. Strip, Sheet and Plate
c. Pipe, Tube and Other Products
d. Fume Scrubber
e. Acid Regeneration
3. Combination Acid Pickling
a. Rod, Wire and Coil
b. Bar, Billet, and Bloom
c. Cont. - Strip, Sheet and Place
d. Batch - Strip, Sheet and Plate
e. Pipe, Tube and Other Products
f. Fume Scrubber
111
-------
TABLE II-5
REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
PAGE 3
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculat ion - Single Stand
b. Recirculat ion - Multi Stand
c. Combination
d. Direct Application - Single Stand
e. Direct Application - Multi Stand
' 2. Pipe and Tube
a. Water
b. Oil Emulsion
K. Alkaline Cleaning
1. Batch
2. Cont inuous
L. Hot Coatings
1. Galvanizing, Terne & Other
2. Fume Scrubber
112
-------
TABLE II-6
CROSS REFERENCE OF REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY
S0BCATEGORIZATION TO PRIOR SUBCATEGORIZATIOS
Revised Subcategorization
A. Cokemaking
1. By-Product
a. Iron & Steel - Biological
b. Iron & Steel - Physical Chemical
c. Merchant - Biological
d. Merchant - Physical Chemical
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
C. Blast Furnace
1. Iron
2. Ferromanganese (BPT only)
D. Steelmaking
1. BOF
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet - Open Combustion
c. Wet - Suppressed Combustion
2. Open Hearth - Wet
3. EAF
a. Semi-wet
b. Met
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
Prior Subcategorization
(1974 and 1976 Regulations)
A. By-Product Coke
B, Beehive Coke
Remarks
C. Sintering
D. Blast Furnace - Iron
E. Blast Furnace - FeMn
F. BOF - Semi-wet
G. BOF - Wet
H. Open Hearth - Wet
I. EAF - Semi-wet
J. EAF - Wet
K. Vacuum Degassing
L. Continuous Casting
Segment Added
Segment Added
Segment Added
Segment Added
G. Hot Forming
1. Primary
a. Carbon and Specialty wo/scarfers
b. Carbon and Specialty w/scarfers
M, Hot Forming - Primary
1. Carbon wo/scarfers
2. Carbon w/acarfera
3. Specialty
Segments
Changed
113
-------
TABLE I1-6
CROSS REFERENCE OF REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY
SUBCATIGORIZATION TO PRIOR SUBCATEGORIZATION
PAGE 2
Revised Subcategorizat ion
2. Section
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
3. Flat
a. Hot Strip and Sheet
b. Plate - Carbon
c. Plate - Specialty
4, Pipe and Tube
H. Scale Removal
1. Oxidizing
a. Batch Sheet/Plate
b. Batch Rod/Mire/Bar
c. Batch Pipe/Tube
d. Cont inuous
2. Reduc ing
a. Batch
b. Cont inuous
I. Acid Pickling
1. Su If uric Acid
a. Rod, Hire and Coil
b. Bar, Billet and Blooa
c. Strip, Sheet and Plate
d. Pipe, lube and Other Products
e. Fume Scrubber
2. Hydrochloric Acid
a. Rod, Hire and Coil
b. Strip, Sheet and Plate
c. Pipe, Tube and Other Products
d. Fume Scrubber
e. Acid Regeneration
Prior Subcategorization
(1974 and 1976 Regulations)
N. Hot Forming - Section
1« Carbon
2. Specialty
0. Hot Forming - Flat
1. Hot Strip & Sheet
2. Plate
P. Hot Forming - Pipe and Tube
1. Isolated
2. Integrated
X. Scale Removal
a. Kolene
Remarks
b. Hydride
Q. Pickling - Sulfuric Acid -
Batch and Continuous
a. Batch - spent liquor,
Segment
Changed
Segments
Changed
Segments
Changed
Segments
no rinses Changed
b. Continuous - Neutralization
(liquor)
c. Continuous - Neutralization
(R, FHS)
d. Continuous - Acid Recovery
(new facilities)
R, Pickling - Hydrochloric Acid -
Batch and Continuous
a. Concentrates -
nonregenerat ive
b. Regenerat ion
c. Rinses
d. Fume hood scrubbers
Segments
Changed
114
-------
TABLE II-6
CROSS REFERENCE OF REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY
SUBCATEGORIZATION TO PRIOR SUBCATEGORIZATION
PAGE 3
Revised Subcategorization
3. Comb inat ion Ac id
a. Rod, Wire and Coil
b. Bar, Billet and Bloom
c. Cont. - Strip, Sheet and Plate
d. Batch - Strip, Sheet and Plate
e. Pipe, Tube and Other Products
f. Fume Scrubber
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculat ion - Single Stand
b. Recirculation - Multi Stand
c. Comb inat ion
d. Direct Application - Single Stand
e. Direct Application - Multi Stand
2. Pipe and Tube
a. Water
b. Oil emulsion
K. Alkaline Cleaning
a. Batch
b. Continuous
L. Hot Coatings
1. Galvanizing, Terne & Other
2. Fume Scrubber
Prior Subcategorization
(1974 and 1976 Regulations)
W. Combination Acid Pickling
. (Batch and Continuous)
Subcategory
a. Continuous
b. Batch - Pipe and Tube
c. Batch - other
S. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation
b. Combination
c. Direct Application
Remarks
Segments
Changed
Segments
Added
Segment Addec
Segment Addec
Z. Continuous Alkaline Cleaning
T. Hot Coatings - Galvanizing
a. Galvanizing
b. Fume scrubber
Subdivision
Added
Segments
Changed
115
-------
TABLE II-7
SOLID WASTE GENERATION DUE TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
IRON AMD STEEL INDUSTRY
BPT (tona/vr)
Subcategory
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Cokemaking
1. Iron & Steel
2. Merchant
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
1. BOF
a. Semi-Wet
b. Uet Suppreaaed
c. Uet Open
2. Open Hearth - Uet
3. Electric Furnace
a. Semi-Wet*
b. Uet
Vacuum Degaaaing
Continuoua Caating
Hot Forming
1. Primary
a. Carbon v/Scarfer
b. Carbon wo/Scarfer
c. Spec. v/Scarfer
d. Spec. no/Scar fer
2. Section
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
3. Flat
a. Carbon HS&S
b. Spec. HS&S
c. Carbon Plate
d. Spec. Plate
4. Pipe & Tube
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
Salt Bath Deacaling
1. Oxidizing
a. Batch Sheet/Plate
b. Batch Rod/Wire
c. Batch Pipe/Tube
d . Cont inuoua
2. Reducing
a. Batch
b. Continuoua
Mo. of
Planta
31
11
16
43
9
5
13
4
3
6
33
42
30
30
5
12
52
20
30
7
11
5
25
8
5
3
2
7
4
2
Model
Plant
1,239
546
165,940
119,465
800
7,550
63,260
30,360
1,500
19,270
80
400
80,262
20,718
19,738
6,498
16,577
6,578
38,479
4,883
16,979
5,342
759
2,479
380
440
540
420
160
60
Subcategory
38,409
6,006
2,655,040
5,136,995
7,200
37,750
822,380
121,440
4,500
115,620
2,640
16,800
2,407,860
621,540
98,690
77,976
862,004
131,560
1,154,370
34,181
186,769
26,710
18,975
19,832
1,900
1,320
1,080
2,940
640
120
BAT (tona/yr)
Ho. of
Planta
28
9
15
39
8
5
13
4
3
6
31
25
30
29
5
11
48
17
30
7
11
5
25
8
5
3
2
7
4
2
Model Ho. of
Plant Subcategory Planta
* * 8
* * 8
* * 1
550 21,450 2
0
70 350 1
200 2,600 1
265 1,060 0
0
42 252 1
40 1,240 0
40 1,000 7
2
2
0
2
7
1
2
0
- 1
0
1
0
0
1
0
- 1
1
0
PSES (tona/yr)
Model
Plant
1,314
292
165,940
120,015
800
7,620
63,460
30,625
1,500
19,310
120
440
( 1 ^
80,262 "
20,718;,.
19,738 }
6,498U)
/ 1 \
16'577m
6,578(1)
/I 1
38,479 "j
4,883j"
16,979;,.
5,342UJ
t\ ^
759J"
2,479(1)
380
440
540
420
160
60
Subcategory
10,512
2,336
165,940
240,030
0
7,620
'63,460
0
0
19,310
0
3,080
160,524
41,436
0
12,996
116,039
6,578
76,958
0
16,979
0
759
0
0
440
0
420
160
0
116
-------
TABLE II-7
SOLID WASTE GENERATION DDE TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PACE 2
BPT (tons/yr)
No. of
Subcategory Plant!
I.
J.
K.
L.
Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric
i. S/S/P Neut
b. R/W/C Neut
c. B/B/B Neut
d. P/T Neut,,..
e. s/s/p AU;;;
f. R/W/C AU);'
g. B/B/B fUi
h. P/T AUU'
2* Hydrochloric
a. S/S/P Neut
b. R/W/C Neut
c. P/T Neut
d. S/S/P AR
3. Combination
a. Batch S/S/P
b. Continuous S/S/P
c. R/W/C
d. B/B/B
e. P/T
Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Single Scand Recirc
b. Mulci Scand Recirc
c. Combination
d. Single Stand DA
e. Multi Stand DA
2. CF - Pipe & Tube
a. Water
b. Oil
Alkaline Cleaning
1. Batch
2. Continuous
Hot Coating
1. Galvanizing
a. S/S/M no/PS
b. S/S/M H/FS
c. WP/F HO/FS
d. WP/F H/FS
2. Terne
a. S/S/M HO/FS
b. S/S/M H/FS
3. Other
a. S/S/M Ho/FS
b. S/S/M H/FS
c. WP/F HO/FS
d. WP/F H/FS
23
16
15
17
2
5
0
1
21
7
2
4
9
14
9
3
11
13
21
10
9
10
9
19
22
22
IB
12
10
6
1
3
4
0
2
0.
Model
Plant
74,780
16,260
22,720
13,360
13,440
2,340
4,680
1,560
85,280
3,640
3,140
41,440
5,080
27,640
8,120
4,560
4,740
40
700
9,300
340
1,800
140
420
20
260
1,380
1,640
440
520
240
340
960
1,220
80
100
TOTALS
(1)
discharges.
BAT (tons/yr)
No. of Model ' No. of
Subcategory Plants Plant Subcategory Plants
1,719,940
260,160
340,800
227,120
26,880
11,700
0
1,560
1,790,880
25,480
6,280
165,760
45,720
386,960
73,080
13,680
52,140
520
14,700
93,000
3,060
18,000
1,260
7,980
440
5,720
24,840
19,680
4,400
3,120
240
1,020
3,840
0
160
0
19,963,367
23
16
15
17
2
5
0
1
21
7
2
4
9
14
9
3
11
13
21
10
9
10
9
19
22
22
14
11 *
9
6 *
1
3 *
3
0 *
2
0 *
4
18
3
9
0
0
0
0
3
8
1
0
0
1
B
1
B
3
3
0
0
0
2
0
9
9
2
* 1
7
* 7
1
* 0
0
* 0
4
* 0
27,952
PSES (tona/yr)
Model
Plant
74,780
16,260
22,720
13,360
_
-
-
85,280.
3,640
3,140
-
5,080
27,640
8,120
4,560
4,740
40
700
9,300
340
1,800
-
1,320
-
-
1,380
1,640
440
520
240
340
960
1,220
80
100
Subcategory
299,120
292,680
68,160
120,240
_
.
-
-
255,840
29,120
3,140
-
0
27,640
64,960
4,560
37,920
120
2,100
0
0
0
-
0
-
-
2,760
1,640
3,080
3,640
240
0
0
0
320
0
2,162,857
(2): Ferrous aulfate crystal disposal
: No limit ations/atsndards are being promulgated for this subdiviaion.
* : Sludge generation at this level is minimal and is included in the BPT sludge generation load.
117
-------
TABLE II-8
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS DUE TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
BPT (kvh)
Subcategory
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Cokemaking
1. Iron & Steel
2. Merchant
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
1. BOF
a. Semi-Wet
b. Wet Suppressed
c. Wet Open
2. Open Hearth - Wet
3. Electric Furnace
a. Semi-Wet
b. Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
1. Primary
a. Carbon v/Scarfer
b. Carbon vo/Scarfer
c. Spec. v/Scarfer
d. Spec. vo/Scarfer
2. Section
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
3. Flat
a. Carbon HS&S
b. Spec. HS&S •
c. Carbon Plate
d. Spec. Plate
No. of
Plants
31
11
16
43
9
5
13
4
3
6
33
42
30
30
5
12
52
20
30
7
11
5
Model
1,668,000
804,000
2,512,000
9,768,000
44,000
1,048,000
2,904,000
1,696,000
28,000
776,000
1,044,000
2,588,000
732,000
1,140,000
408,000
548,000
1,000,000
452,000
1,304,000
568,000
616,000
240,000
Subcategory
51,708,000
8,844,000
40,192,000
420,024,000
396,000
5,240,000
37,752,000
6,784,000
84,000
4,656,000
34,452,000
108,696,000
21,960,000
34,200,000
2,040,000
6,576,000
52,000,000
9,040,000
39,120,000
3,976,000
6,776,000
1,200,000
No. of
Plants
28
9
15
39
8
5
13
4
3
6
31
25
30
29
5
11
48
17
30
7
11
5
BAT (kvh)
No. of
Model Subcategory Plants
1,416,000 39,648,000 8
588,000 5,292,000 8
152,000 2,280,000 1
340,000 13,260,000 2
- 0
76,000 380,000 1
160,000 2,080,000 1
168,000 672,000 0
0
80,000 480,000 1
48,000 1,488,000 0
48,000 1,200,000 7
2
- 2
- 0
2
- 7
1
2
- 0
1
- 0
PSES (kvh)
Model
620,000
216,000
2,664,000
10,064,000
44,000
1,124,000
3,064,000
1,864,000
28,000
856,000
1,052,000
2,600,000
732,000 |f*
1,140,000 ]\'
408,ooo:::
548,000U'
1,000,000^
452,000^ '
1,304,000*}'
568,000^ '
616,000(1)
240,000 '
Subcategory
4,960,000
1,728,000
2,664,000
20,128,000
0
1,124,000
3,064,000
0
0
856,000
0
18,200,000
1,464,000
2,280,000
0
1,096,000
7,000,000
452,000
2,608,000
0
616,000
0
-------
TABLE II-8
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS DUE TO HATER POLLUTION CONTROL
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
4. pipe 6 Tube
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
H. Salt Bath Descaling
1. Oxidizing
a. Batch Sheet /Plate
b. Batch Rod/Hire
c. Batch Pipe/Tube
d. Continuous
2 - Reduc ing
a. Batch
b. Continuous
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfur ic
a. S/S/P Heut
b. R/H/C Heut
c. B/B/B Heut
d. P/f Ifeut
e. S/S/P AU
f. R/H/C AU
g. B/B/B AD
h. P/f.AU
2. Hydrochloric
a. S/S/P Neut
b. R/H/C Neut
c. P/T Heut
d. S/S/P AR
3. Combination
a. Batch S/S/P
b. Continuous S/S/P
c. R/H/C
d. B/B/B
e. P/T
No. of
Plants
25
8
5
3
2
7
4
2
23
16
15
17
2
5
0
1
21
7
2
4
9
14
9
3
11
BPT (kwh)
Model
428,000
768,000
188,000
196,000
200,000
200,000
76,000
76,000
860,000
448,000
424,000
404,000
2,148,000
396,000
744,000
232,000
7,040,000
332,000
316,000
11,716,000
332,000
1,112,000
388,000
316,000
324,000
Subcategory
10,700,000
6,144,000
940,000
588,000
400,000
1,400,000
304,000
152,000
19,780,000
7,168,000
6,360,000
6,868,000
4,296,000
1,980,000
0
232,000
147,840,000
2,324,000
632,000
46,864,000
2,988,000
15,568,000
3,492,000
948,000
3,564,000
Do. of
Plant*
25
8
5
3
2
7
4
2
23
16
15
17
2
5
0
1
21
7
2
4
9
14
9
3
11
BAT (kuh)
Model Subcategory
_
~ _
«. -
_
_
- -
_
-
- -
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
.
- ~
-
-
-
-
-
PSES (kvh)
No. of
Plants
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
4
18
3
9
0
0
0
0
3
8
1
0
0
1
8
1
8
Model
428,000* !>
768,000V '
188,000
196,000
200,000
200,000
76,000
76,000
860,000
448,000
424,000
404,000
-
-
-
"
7,040,000
332,000
316., 000
332,000
1,112,000
388,000
316,000
324,000
Subcategory
428,000
0
0
196,000
0
200,000
76,000
0
3,440,000
8,064,000
1,272,000
3,636,000
-
-
-
"
21,120,000
2,656,000
316,000
0
1,112,000
3,104,000
316,000
2,592,000
-------
TABLE II-8
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS DUE TO HATER POLLUTION CONTROL
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
KJ
O
•FT (tarti)
Subcategory
J. Cold
1.
2.
Forcing
Cold Boiling
a. Single Stand Kecirc
b. Hulti Stand Recirc
c . Comb inat ion
d. Single Stand DA
e. Hulti Stand DA
CF - Pipe & Tub*
a. Hater
b. Oil
Ho. of
Plant*
13
21
10
9
10
9
19
Model
120,000
220,000
1,444,000
292,000
1,104,000
8,000
8,000
Subcategory
1,560,000
4,620,000
14,440,000
2,628,000
11,040,000
72,000
152,000
Ho. of
Plant*
13
21
10
9
10
9
1
BAT (kvh)
Ho. of
Hodel Subcategory Plants
3
. - 3
0
-0
o
2
- 0
PSES {kvh)
Model
120,000
220,000
1,444,000
292,000
1,104,000
-
8,000
Subcategory
360,000
660,000
0
0
0
-
0
K. Alkaline Cleaning
1.
2.
L. Hot
1.
2.
3.
TOTALS
Batch
Com inuous
Coating
Galvanizing
a. S/S/M wo/FS
b. S/S/M v/FS
c. HP/F no/PS
d. HP/F M/FS
Terne
a. S/S/M vo/FS
b. S/S/H v/FS
Other
a. S/S/H vo/FS
b. S/S/H v/FS
c. HP/F wo/FS
d. WP/F v/FS
22
22
18
12
10
6
1
3
4
0
^
0
60,000
96,000
352,000
452,000
244,000
348,000
192,000
248,000
300,000
332,000
60,000
136,000
1,320,000
2,112,000
6,336,000
5,424,000
2,440,000
2,088,000
192,000
744,000
1,200,000
0
120,000
0
1,243,736,000
22
22
14
11
9
6
1
3
3
0
2
0
9
9
- 2
32,000 352,000 1
- 7
32,000 192,000 7
1
24,000 72,000 0
0
24,000 0 0
4
24,000 0 0
67,396,000
-
-
362,000
484,000
244,000
380,000
192,000
272,000
300,000
60,000
136,000
160,000
-
~
724,000
484,000
1,708,000
2,660,000
192,000
0
0
0
544,000
0
124,100,000
(1) Based upon current treatment practices.
-------
AIR
FINISHED
CAST STEEL
PRODUCTS
COAL
DISTILLATION
PRODUCTS
SLAG
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BLAST FURNACES
STEEL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
DWN.8/2/79
FIGURE IL-I
-------
PR/MARY
INGOTS
HOT ROLLED FLAT
PRODUCT-SHEET.STRIP
CAST STEEL
INTERMEDIATES
, SPECIAL
•SHAPES
BLOOMS
SECTION
LARGE | RP|_PRODUCTS_j
STRUCTURAL PRODUCTS
BAR
MILLS
HOT 1
MILLS
ROLLED BARS
1
1
I
SMALL
MILLS
l__ HOT ROLLED
BAR PRODUCTS
1
BILLETS
ROD (INTERMEDIATE)
FINISHED FORGED
PRODUCTS
HOT ROLLED
*ROD PRODUCTS
FORGED STEEL PRODUCTS
EXTRUDED
^PRODUCTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
HOT FORMING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Dwn.4/25/79
FIGURE H-2
-------
SLABS
HOT
BAND
COILS
COLD
ROLLED
PRODUCT
COLD
COATIN&
(ELECTROLYTIC)
PICKLED 8]
OILED
PRODUCT
COATED
PRODUCT
COATED
PRODUCT
ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
FLAT PRODUCTS GENERAL
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Dwn.7/1MSO
FIGURE n-3
-------
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION III
REMAND ISSUES ON PRIOR REGULATIONS
Introduction
After reviewing the 1974 (Phase I) and 1976 (Phase II) regulations for
the steel industry, the Court of Appeals ordered EPA to reconsider
several matters. This section provides a summary of the Agency's
evaluation and response to the "remand issues". The respective
subcategory reports provide the Agency's responses to subcategory
specific remand issues.
1. Site-Specific Costs
In its challenge to the Phase I regulation, the industry asserted
that EPA's cost estimates did not include allowances for "site-
specific" costs. The industry submitted no data showing the
magnitude of site-specific costs. The Agency responded that it
included all costs which could be reasonably estimated and that
it believed its estimates were sufficiently generous to cover
site-specific costs. On this basis, the court rejected this
challenge to the regulation. American Iron and Steel Institute
v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1975), modified iji part, 560 F.2d
589 (3d Cir. 1977), cert, den. 98 S. Ct 1467 (1978).
In the Phase II proceedings, however, evidence of the possible
magnitude of "site-specific" cost was presented.4 On this basis,
the court ordered EPA to reevaluate its cost estimates in light
of site-specific costs. In particular, the court ordered EPA to
include these costs, or analyze the generosity of its estimates
by comparing model cost estimates with actual reported costs, or
explain why such an analysis could not be done.
In response to the court's decisions, the Agency reevaluated its
cost estimates for Phase I and Phase II operations. First, the
Agency included in its estimates many "site-specific" costs which
were not included in prior estimates.5 In the Agency's view, it
has included all "site-specific costs" that can be reasonably and
accurately estimated without detailed site-specific studies. The
4This evidence consisted of the plant-by-plant compliance estimates
for facilities located in the Mahoning Valley region of Eastern Ohio.
5These newly added cost items include: land acquisition costs, site
clearance costs, utility connections, and miscellaneous utility
requirements. (Reference is made to Section VII)
125
-------
remaining "site-specific" costs not included are so highly
variable and inherently site-specific that reasonably accurate
estimates would require an evaluation of the factors as they
apply to each operation. It should be noted that studies
commissioned by AISI, itself, also exclude site-specific costs.
For example, in Arthur D, Little's Steel and the Environment - A
Cost Impact Analysis, site-specific costs and land acquisition
costs were excluded "... because detailed site-specific studies
would be required."
Second, the Agency included in its cost estimates allowances for
unforeseen expenses. The model-based cost estimates for each
subcategory include a 15% contingency fee.*
Third, the Agency has based its cost estimates on many
conservative assumptions. For instance, in most subcategories,
the Agency's cost estimates are based upon individual treatment
of wastewaters from all operations within each subcategory at
each plant site. In fact, however, the industry has installed
and will continue to install less costly "central treatment"
systems to treat combined waste streams from several
subcategories. Additionally, EPA's model based estimates reflect
off the shelf parts and costs for "outside" engineering and
construction services.7 In fact, however, the industry often uses
"in-house" engineering and construction resources, and improves
wastewater quality by "gerrymandering" existing treatment systems
and upgrading operating and maintenance practices. The Agency's
cost estimates reflect treatment in place as of 1976 and
treatment to have been installed by January 1978 [based upon
survey (DCP) responses]; and facilities in place as of July 1,
1981. The Agency updated the status of the industry from January
1978 to July 1981 from personal knowledge of Agency experts on
the industry; NPDES records; and, in some cases, telephone
surveys.
Fourth, EPA has compared its model-based cost estimates to the
costs reported by the industry. This comparison shows that the
Agency's estimates are sufficiently generous to reflect all
costs, including "site-specific" costs. Model-based estimates
cannot be expected to precisely reflect the costs incurred or to
be incurred by each individual plant. Variations of greater than
+50% would not be considered outside normal confidence levels.
For example, in Steel and the Environment - A Cost Impact
Analysis, a study by Arthur D. Little, Inc., commissioned by the
AISI, the authors indicated that cost estimates were within ± 50%
•This contingency fee was also included in previous cost estimates,
7The model estimates include 15% for engineering services.
126
-------
for individual process steps and ± 85% for individual plants.8
Often, variations from model estimates cannot be explained. The
validity of model estimates, therefore, should be judged by the
ability to depict actual costs for subcategories of the industry
for the industry, as a whole where several treatment systems are
evaluated collectively.
The Agency's comparison of model-based cost estimates and costs
reported by industry involved two complimentary analyses. First,
the Agency compared actual reported treatment costs (including
all site-specific costs) to the model cost estimates for the
treatment components in place at the reporting plants. These
comparisions include costs for all plants for which sufficiently
detailed cost information were provided, taking into account the
level of treatment in place. To generate valid comparisons, the
model cost estimate was scaled to the actual production of the
reporting plant by the application of the accepted engineering
"six-tenths" factor. The Agency scaled production of the model
to actual production of the reporting plant because, in its view,
this produces the most reliable cost comparison. Another
possible method of comparison would be to scale the flow of the
model to the actual flow of the reporting plant. This method of
scaling would overstate treatment costs because costs are highly
dependent on flow volume (higher flows require larger and more
costly treatment systems) and many plants in the industry use a"nd
discharge more water than necessary. Also, flow data are not
available for all plants while production data are available for
most operations and plants in the industry. This comparative
analysis is summarized below for those subcategories where the
Agency was able to obtain reliable subcategory-specific costs
from the industry.
•See pages B-64 and B-65 of Steel and the Environment - £. Cost Impact
Analysis which AISI submitted to EPA during the Phase Tl~~rulemaking.
127
-------
Treatment In Place v. Model Estimates for Same Treatment
Subpart Actual
(process) Cost
($xlO~«)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmak-ing
Steelmaking
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Total
56.05
6.43
110.12
37.61
2. 19
29.38
78.87
320.65
EPA
Model
Estimate
($xlO-«)
54.24
10.53
123.39
42.32
2.32
23.00
107.46
363.26
Actual as %
of Model
103
61
89
89
94
128
73
88.3
This summary shows that actual reported costs for the industry
(including all site-specific costs) represent about 88% of the
model estimates for the same treatment components. On this
basis, the Agency concludes that its model estimates are
sufficiently generous to reflect site-specific costs.
In the second comparison of reported costs and model estimates,
the Agency compared the reported costs (including all
site-specific costs) of plants meeting BPT (or BAT) to the model
estimates for the BPT (or BAT) treatment system. This
methodology, which the Agency presented in its brief in the Phase
II proceedings, demonstrates that the effluent limitations and
standards can be achieved with treatment systems comparable to
the Agency's treatment models at costs comparable to the Agency's
estimated costs. This comparison, which also is based upon
scaling of production by the "six-tenths factor," is summarized
below:
-------
SUMMARY
Complying Plant Costs v. Model Compliance Estimates
Subcategory Actual
(process) Costs
($xlO~«)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
fotal
40.71
5.92
33.16
37.61
2.08
19.36
77.64
216.48
Model
Estimate
($xlO-«)
40.60
6.35
51 .97
47.74
2.48
18.61
106.22
273.97
Actual as
of Model
100
93
64
79
84
104
73
79.0
Again, this summary shows that total reported costs (including
all site-specific costs) for plants meeting required effluent
levels is about 79% of model estimates. On this basis, EPA
likewise concludes that its model-based cost estimates are
sufficiently generous to reflect site-specific costs.
As . noted in the subcategory reports for many of the Phase II
operations, central treatment of wastewaters from finishing
operations is common in the steel industry. The cost data
reported by the industry for these central treatment systems are
often not directly usable for the purpose of verifying the
Agency's cost estimates for individual subcategory treatment
systems. As noted earlier, the Agency considered co-treatment of
wastewaters at plants within subcateogries, but did not consider
co-treatment or central treatment across subcategories in
developing cost estimates. To determine the impact of the
extensive amount of central treatment in the industry on the
Agency's ability to accurately estimate costs, the Agency
compared actual industry central treatment costs with the
Agency's model based cost estimates for the respective
subcategories included in the industry's central treatment
systems. This comparison is shown below.
129
-------
ACTUAL COSTS vs. EPA CO-TREATMENT ESTIMATES
PLANT SUBCATEGORIES
0112B Hot Forming (Primary, Section)
0112H Pickling (HC1, Combination)
0432K Pickling, Scale Removal, Alkaline
Cleaning
0796 & Vacuum Degassing, Continuous
0796A Casting, Hot Forming (Primary,
Section, Pipe and Tube),
Pickling (H2S04), Cold Rolling
0868A Cold Rolling, Pickling
(HC1, H2S04), Hot Coating,
Alkaline Cleaning
0868A Hot Forming (Primary, Section)
0176 Hot Forming (Primary and Section),
Cold Rolling (Direct Application),
Cold Worked Pipe and Tube, Pickling
(HC1, H2S04, Combination), Scale
Removal, Alkaline Cleaning
J0460A Hot Forming (Primary, Section)
J0612 Hot Coating (Galvanizing),
Pickling (HC1 )
0728 Hot Forming (Pipe and Tube),
Pickling (H,S04), Hot Coating
(Galvanizing)
TOTAL
ACTUAL COST
$ 2,578,000
746,000
9,350
16,770,000
4,857,000
303,000
3,060,000
340,000
1,645,000
198,000
31,432,000
MODEL COST
$ 5,133,000
882,000
1,374,000
15,793,000
5,235,000
2,317,000
5,587,000
1,017,000
3,914,000
437,000
41,689,000
These data clearly indicate that in total, the Agency's estimates
for separate subcategory-specific treatment systems far exceed
those costs reported by the industry for central treatment. Of
particular interest are the data reported for plants 0796-0796A,
a central treatment facility that achieves the BAT limitations
for the operations included in the central treatment facility.
The Agency's estimate is within six percent of the actual cost
reported by the company. This system includes several miles of
retrofitted wastewater collection and distribution piping not
likely to be included in most central treatment systems. Based
upon the above, the Agency concludes that its separate
subcategory-specific cost estimates for the Phase II operations
are sufficiently generous to include those site specific costs
likely to be incurred for most central treatment facilities, and
may be overly generous in depicting potential costs for steel
finishing operations as a whole.
Another approach to judging the sufficiency of the Agency's model
estimates, to account for "site-specific" costs, is to determine
the adequacy of the Agency's cost estimates for several steel
mills located in the Mahoning Valley of Ohio. Studies of these
plants completed in 1977 included cost estimates for compliance
with the previously promulgated and proposed Phase I and Phase II
130
-------
requirements. These eight plants were among the oldest in the
country. Estimated compliance costs were furnished by the owners
of the plants, based upon actual site inspections and engineering
studies, and were verfied by the Agency's engineering contractor.
The tables summarizing those studies, which were part of the
record of the Phase II rulemaking, are reproduced as Tables II1-1
through III-3. Table III-l summarizes the estimated compliance
costs for the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Corporation Brier Hill,
Campbell, and Struthers Works. Column il shows YS&T's estimate
of BAT compliance costs, totaling $54,106,000, including all
site-specific costs.* The Agency's contractor estimates,
$51,214,000, is shown in Column 12. In Columns 13 and #4, the
Agency's contractor scaled the flow and production of the BAT
cost model to the actual flow and production of the mills
involved, yielding cost estimates of $53,218,000 and $60,568,000,
respectively. By either method of scaling, the Agency's estimate
is representative of YS&T's estimate which includes site-specific
costs. In fact, the estimate scaled by production (the method
now used for all cost estimates) more than accounted for the
significant "site-specific" costs the industry claimed the model
could not reflect.10
Analyses of estimated compliance costs for facilities owned by
United States Steel Corporation and Republic Steel Corporation
yield similar results. Table III-2 shows that U.S. Steel's
$33,110,000 BAT estimate (including $13,145,000 site costs) for
its McDonald Mills and Ohio Works plants is within 4% of EPA's
model estimate of $34,389,000 (scaled by production). Similarly,
Table II1-3 shows that Republic Steel's BPT estimate of
$70,099,000 (including $15,590,000 site costs) for its Warren,
Youngstown, and Niles plants is within 4% of the Agency's model
estimated cost of $72,640,000 for physical/chemical treatment
(scaled by production) and within 5% of the Agency's model
estimate of $73,486,000 for biological treatment (scaled by
production).
•Column #5 reflects the judgment of the Agency's contractor that
YS&T's $54,106,000 estimate (Column II) included "site-specific" costs
of $18,176,000.
10Columns t6 and #7 add site-specific costs to model estimates scaled
by flow and production, yielding $71,394,000 and $78,744,000,
respectively. If accurate estimation required addition of
"site-specific" costs to model estimates, as industry claimed, then
YS&T's compliance costs would be overstated by $17,288,000 (scaled by
flow) or $24,638,000 (scaled by production).
131
-------
As a final comparison, the Agency has compared its model Cost*1
estimate for a blast furnace wastewater treatment facility
against that prepared by an engineering company as comissioned by
one of its clients. This company costs the BAT-2 system (as
identified in the 1979 draft development document) for blast
furnaces and supplied its costs estimate to the Agency in its
comments to the October 1979 draft development document. The
company's cost and flow basis is compared below to the estimate
made by the Agency. Both estimates are based upon the same model
size ironmaking operation.
EPA Estimate Company Estimate
Flow 50 gal/ton 100 gal/ton
Capital $2.49 million $3.94 million
If both estimates are costed on the same flow basis (100 gal/ton)
the costs are as follows:
EPA Estimate Company Estimate
$3.78 million $3.94 million
These data show that the Agency's estimate is within 4.1% of the
estimate made by the engineering firm. This comparison further
substantiates the reasonableness and accuracy of the Agency's
cost models and costing methodology.
In summary, EPA has thoroughly reevaluated its model cost
estimates in light of "site-specific" costs. It has added
additional site costs to the models (see Section VI15? included
contingency fees in the models; used conservative cost
assumptions; compared reported costs for treatment in place to
model estimates for similar treatment; compared reported costs
for compliance and model estimates for compliance/ and, compared
plant-by-plant compliance estimates with model-based cost
estimates. Based upon the above, the Agency concludes that its
cost estimates are sufficiently generous to reflect
"site-specific" costs and other compliance costs likely to be
incurred by the industry.
The Impact of Plant Age on the Cost or Feasibility of
Retrofitting Control Facilities
The industry challenged both the 1974 and 1976 regulations on the
basis that the Agency had failed to adequately consider the
impact of plant age. In the Phase I decision, the Court held
ll¥olume 3, Draft Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Point Source Category; the Agency 440/1-79/024a, October
1979.
132
-------
that while the Agency had adequately considered the impact of age
on wastewater characteristics and treatability, it had failed to
adequately consider the impact of age on the "cost or feasibility
of retrofitting" controls.
In the Phase II proceedings, the Agency strenuously argued that
plant age was not a meaningful criteria in the steel industry
because plants are continually rebuilt and modernized. In
response to this argument, the Court stated:
"Were we writing on a clean slate, we might find this argument
convincing. But since the facts in this case cannot be properly
distinguished from the facts in the earlier case we must reject
EPA's contention ... We note, however, that we have not dismissed
the EPA's resolution of the retrofit question on the merits. We
merely require that the Agency reexamine the relevance of age
specifically as it bears on retrofit," 568 F.2d at 299-300.
In light of these decisions, the Agency has throughly examined
the impact of plant "age" on the "cost or feasibility" of
retrofitting controls. First, in the basic Data Collection
Portfolio (DCP) sent to owners or operators of all "steelmaking"
operations and about 85% of "forming and finishing" operations,
the Agency solicited information on the "age" of plants
(including the first year of on-site production and the dates of
major rebuilds and modernizations); and, the "age" of treatment
facilities in place. Next, the Agency sent Detailed Data
Collection Portfolios (D-DCPs) for a selected number of plants,
asking owners of these plants, among other things, for a detailed
report of the costs of treatment in place and the portion of
those costs attributable to ."retrofitting" controls. Finally,
the Agency and its engineering consultant evaluated these data to
determine whether plant "age" affected the "cost or feasibility
of retrofitting" and, if so, whether altered subcategorization or
relaxed requirements for "older" plants are warranted.
The Agency's evaluation of all available data confirms its
earlier conclusion that plant "age" does not significantly affect
the "cost or feasibility of retrofitting" pollution controls to
existing production facilities in the steel industry. In the
first place, plant "age" is not a particularly meaningful
criteria in the industry. "Age" is extremely difficult to
define. Judging from the first year of on-site production, the
industry, as a whole, is "old." But, production facilities are
continually rebuilt and modernized, some on periodic "campaign"
schedules. Moreover, "campaign" schedules for operations in
different subcategories, or even for operations within the same
process (e.g., coke batteries) are different. Complicating this
further is the fact that integrated mills contain many processes
of different "ages" with different dates of first on-site
production and different rebuild schedules.
133
-------
Therefore, the year of first on-site production does not
represent the true plant "age." For instance, at the "oldest"
(1901) cokemaking facility (based upon first year of production),
the "oldest" active battery dates from 1968. At several "old"
plants (based upon first year of production), the "oldest" active
batteries range between 1953 and 1973 and the "newest" active
batteries date between 1967 and 1980.
The "age" of coke plants, therefore, changes dramatically with
the criteria for determining "age." Based upon the "oldest"
active battery, 7.4% of the plants date from 1920 or before; 5.9%
date between 1921- 1940; 65.5% date between 1941-1960; and 20.8%
date between 1961 and the present. Based on "newest" active
battery, 4.4% of the plants date from 1920 or before, 40.2% date
between 1941-1960, and the "age" of most (55.2%) of the plants is
between 1960 and the present. Depending on the criteria
selected, the age of a particular cokemaking plant, or the
cokemaking industry as a whole, can vary significantly.
In the ironmaking subcategory, the date of first on-site
production ranges between 1883 and 1974. However, most blast
furnaces undergo major rebuilds every 9 or 10 years. Therefore,
the age when determined by the last year of major rebuild would
be significantly less than that based upon the first year of
production.
Among most of the other subcategories, the situation is similar.
Table II1-4 summarizes, by subcategory, the "age" of plants in
the steel industry. In each case, the "age" of plants is
difficult to define because production facilities are
periodically rebuilt and modernized. In many of the remaining
subcategories and subdivisions, such as electric arc furnaces,
"age" is not relevant because all plants are of essentially the
same vintage.
Modernization of production facilities provides an impetus for
construction or modernization of treatment facilities. Thus, the
Agency concluded that because of the continual rebuilding and
modernization of production facilities, plant "age" is not a
meaningful factor in the steel industry. This conclusion is
supported by studies commissioned by the industry. For example,
in Steel and the Environment - A Cost Impact Analysis, which AISI
submitted to EPA in its comments on the 1976 rulemaking, Arthur
D. Little, Inc. concluded (at page 484) that:
"In the iron and steel industry it is difficult to define the age
of a plant because many of the unit operations were installed at
different times and also are periodically rebuilt on different
schedules. Thus, by definition, the age of steel facilities
should offer only limited benefits as a means of categorizing
plants for purposes of standard setting or impact analysis."
134
-------
Despite the difficulty of defining plant "age," the Agency did
not terminate its analysis of the impact of "age" on the "cost or
feasibility" of retrofitting controls. On the contrary, the
Agency selected determinants of "age" and then analyzed the
impact on the "cost or feasibility" of retrofitting.
With regard to the "feasibility" of retrofitting, the evidence is
conclusive: Plant "age" does not affect the "ease" or
"feasibility" of retrofitting pollution controls. Table III-5
shows that, in all subcategories, some of the "oldest" facilities
(based on first year of on-site production) have among the
"newest" and most efficient wastewater treatment systems. The
characteristics and treatability of wastewaters from plants of
all ages within each subcategory are similar. Moreover, the
Agency found that treatment systems applied to wastewaters within
each subcategory produced similar effluent loads, and that the
same effluent limitations can be met regardless of the age of the
plant. Among coke plants, for example, the oldest by-product
plant (0024B) was retrofitted with, water pollution control
facilities as recently as 1977. Moreover, Plant 0868A, which is
one of the oldest coke plants (first year of production in 1912),
retrofitted pollution control facilities. This treatment
facility produces an effluent which is among the best observed in
the industry. In fact, the Agency has used this treatment
facility as a model and has established the BAT limitations based
upon the performance of this plant. Clearly, age has no affect
on the feasibility of retrofitting pollution control equipment.
The Agency did find, however, that the "ease" or "feasibility" of
retrofitting and, to some extent, the cost of retrofitting one of
its model treatment technologies (cascade rinse systems for acid
pickling and hot coating operations) is significantly different
for new sources vs. existing sources of any age. Accordingly,
the Agency selected this technology as the basis for new source
performance standards and pretreatment standards for new sources
and did not use this technology to establish limitations and
standards for existing sources. The factors considered by the
Age.ncy in making this determination are set out in the Acid
Pickling subcategory report.
With regard to the cost of retrofitting, the impact of plant
"age" is more difficult to ascertain. Costs attributable to
retrofitting pollution control facilities were reported for only
15% of the plants for which responses to Agency questionnaires
were received. For those plants where "retrofit" costs were
reported, retrofit costs of less than 6% of pollution control
costs were reported for 73% of the plants. On the basis of these
survey responses, the Agency concludes that "age" of plants does
not have a significant impact on the cost of retrofitting
pollution controls on an industry wide basis.
The Agency's examination of the Mahoning Valley plants also
supports the conclusion that "age" of plants does not
significantly impact the "cost or feasibility" of retrofitting.
135
-------
This examination, discussed above in regard to "site-specific"
costs, showed that, for eight of the oldest plants in the
country, the industry's estimated compliance costs do not vary
significantly from the agency's model cost estimates.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Agency concludes that plant
"age" does not significantly affect the "cost or feasibility" of
retrofitting water pollution controls. However, even assuming
that "age" does significantly impact the "cost or feasibility" of
retrofitting, the Agency concludes that altered subcategorization
or relaxed requirements within subcategories for "older" plants
are not warranted. "Older" steel facilities are" responsible for
as much water pollution as "newer" facilities. Thus, even if it
could be shown that plant "age" did affect the "cost or
feasibility" of retrofitting controls, the Agency would not alter
its subcategorization or provide relaxed effluent limitations or
standards within subcategories for "older" plants as control of
the discharge of pollutants from those plants justify the
expenditures of reasonable additional costs.
Based upon the above, the Agency finds that both old and newer
production facilities within each subcategory generate similar
raw wastewater pollutant loadings; that pollution control
facilities can be and have been retrofitted to both old and newer
production facilities without substantial retrofit costs; that
these pollution control facilities can and are achieving the same
effluent quality; and, that further subcategorization or further
segmentation within each subcategory on the basis of age is not
appropriate.
3. The Impact of the Regulation on Consumptive Water Loss
In the 1974 BPT and BAT regulation for the steelmaking segment,
many of the Agency's model treatment systems include partial
recycle of wastewaters. Some of these model systems included
evaporative cooling towers to insure that the temperature of
recycled wastewater not reach excessive levels for process use.12
CF&I Steel Corporation, located in Pueblo, Colorado, claimed that
cooling through evaporative means would cause additional
consumptive water losses which would be inconsistent with state
law and would aggravate water scarcity in arid and semi-arid
regions of the country. The Court held that to the extent that
the regulations were inconsistent with state law, the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution required that federal law and
12The treatment models that included evaporative cooling towers were
the BPT and BAT models in the cokemaking, blast furnace, steelmaking,
vacuum degassing, and continuous casting subcategories. Although
there are other available means of temperature equalization (such as
lagoons and nonevaporative coolers), only cooling towers were included
in those treatment models.
136
-------
regulations prevail. The Court agreed with CF&I, however, in
holding that the Agency had failed to adequately consider the
impact of the regulation on water sources in arid and semi-arid
regions.
The 1976 regulation for the forming and finishing segment also
included treatment models with evaporative cooling towers.13 In
its response to CF&I's comments, the Agency stated:
"A means to dissipate heat is frequently a necessity if a recycle
system is to be employed. The evaporation of water in cooling
towers or from ponds is the most commonly employed means to
accomplish this. However, fin-tube heat exchangers can be used
to achieve cooling without evaporation of water. Such systems
are used in the petroleum processing and electric utility
industries.
The Agency also feels that recognition of the evaporation of
water in recycle systems (and hence loss of availability to
potential downstream users) should be balanced with recognition
that evaporation also occurs in once-through systems, when the
heated discharge causes evaporation in the stream. This is not
an obvious phenomenon,. since it" occurs downstream of the
discharge point, but to the downstream user it is as real as with
consumptive in-plant usage. Assuming that the stream eventually
gets back to temperature equilibrium with its environment, it
will get there primarily by evaporation, i.e., with just as
certain a loss of water. Additionally, the use of a recycle
system permits lessening the intake flow requirements." 41 FR
12990.
In addition, in its brief the Agency argued that, because of
current evaporative losses, the impact of the regulations was not
as severe as claimed by CF&I, and that the water scarcity issue
was pertinent only in arid and semi-arid regions of the country.
The Court, however, held:
"...Since EPA may have proceeded under a mistaken assumption of
fact as to the water loss attributable to the interim final
[Phase II] regulations, the matter will be remanded to the Agency
for further consideration of whether fin-tube heat exchangers or
dry type cooling towers may be employed despite any fouling or
scaling problems - assuming that cooling systems of some kind
will be employed in order to meet the effluent limitations
prescribed in the regulations.
Also, the Agency may not decline to estimate the water loss due
to the interim final regulations as accurately as possible on the
13The treatment models that included evaporative cooling towers were
the BAT models in the hot forming subcategories.
137
-------
grounds that, whatever the cost in water consumption, the
specified effluent limitations are justified. In order to insure
that the Agency completes a sufficiently specific and definite
study of the water consumption problem on remand, the Agency must
address the question of how often the various cooling systems
will be employed, or present reasons why it cannot make such an
assessment."
In light of these decisions, the Agency has evaluated the
"consumptive water loss" issue in the context of this regulation.
Several of the underlying model treatment systems include recycle
of wastewaters with evaporative cooling systems. Although
cooling can be accomplished by several means (i.e.,lagoons, spray
ponds, dry cooling towers), the model treatment systems are based
upon evaporative cooling towers, which are the most commonly
used, least space intensive, and among the least costly means of
cooling wastewaters. Additionally, evaporative cooling towers
have the highest water consumption rates. Thus, the Agency's
estimates of water loss are conservative and overstate actual
water loss. In evaluating possible consumptive water losses,
however, the Agency has also analyzed the effects of several
cooling mechanisms other than evaporative cooling towers.
On the average, the steel industry currently uses 5.7 billion
gallons of process water per day. Not all of the process water
requires cooling. A breakdown of this water usage by subcategory
is given in Table II1-6. Large volumes of this process water are
currently recycled through cooling towers, cooling ponds, and
spray ponds as 'shown below:
Approximate
Cooling Device* Evaporation Rate % Utilization
(1) Cooling Tower
(wet-mechanical draft) 2.0% 75%
(2) Cooling ponds 1.7% 20%
(3) Spray ponds 2.0% 5%
_* The Agency does not expect any significant use of dry
cooling towers in the steel industry.
Based upon the foregoing, the Agency estimates that evaporative
losses from currently installed recycle/cooling systems, and from
once-through discharges of heated water is about 16.0 MGD or 0.3%
of total industry process water usage. The Agency estimates that
nearly 50% of this consumption results from the once-through
discharge of heated wastewater and run-of-the-river cooling.
Assuming that the relative utilization rate of the various
cooling mechanisms remains the same, the Agency estimates that
total evaporative water losses will be 19.8 MGD or 0.3% of
process water usage at the BPT level, and 20.2 MGD or 0.4% of
process water usage at the BAT level when fully implemented.
138
-------
The important factor for regulatory purposes, however, is not the
above gross water losses, but the additional or net water loss
attributable to compliance with the regulation. This analysis
indicates that net water losses attributable to compliance with
the regulation will be 3.8 MGD or less than 0.1% of process water
usage at the BPT level and 4.2 MGD or 0.1% of process water usage
at the BAT level, including water consumed at the BPT level.
This analysis is detailed for those subcategories, where recycle
and cooling systems are envisioned, in Table II1-7 and is
summarized below:
Flow per Day
(MGD) % of Total
Total process water used 5744 100.0
Present water consumption1 16.0 0.3
Gross water consumption 5) BPT 19.8 0.3
Net water consumption a) BPT 3.8 0.07
Gross water consumption a) BAT2 20.2 0.4
Net water consumption a) BAT2 4.2 0.07
1 As of January 1, 1978.
2 This total includes the water consumed at BPT.
Assuming that cooling towers will be installed at all plants
requiring additional cooling (rather than current utilization
devices), the net water losses attributable to compliance with
the regulation would be 5.7 MGD or 0.1% of total process water
usage at the BPT level and 6.0 MGD or 0.1% of process water usage
at the BAT level. For purposes of estimating consumptive water
losses on a subcategory basis, the Agency made the conservative
assumption that evaporative cooling towers would be used in all
cases where a cooling device of some kind was deemed necessary.
12454
In the Agency's view, the water consumption attributable to
compliance with the regulation is not significant when compared
to the benefits derived from the use of recycle systems. The use
of recycle systems at the BPT, BAT, and PSES levels will result
in a 70% reduction in the total process water usage of the
industry. This reduction will prevent 4.0 billion gallons of
water per day from being contaminated in steel manufacturing
processes. Moreover, recycle systems permit a reduction in the
load of pollutants by over 11 million tons per year at the BAT
level (including 131,500 tons/year of toxic organic and toxic
inorganic pollutants). Finally, it is significant to note that
the use of recycle systems is often the least costly means to
reduce pollution. On a nation-wide basis, therefore, EPA
concludes that the environmental and economic benefits of recycle
systems justify the evaporative water losses attributable to
cooling mechanisms.
139
-------
In addition, the Agency evaluated the water consumption issue as
it relates to plants in arid and semi-arid regions. The Agency
surveyed the four major steel plants it considers to be in arid
or semi-arid regions of the country. Those plants are as
follows.
0196A CF&I Steel Corporation
Pueblo, Colorado
0448A Kaiser Steel Corporation
Fontana, California
0492A Lone Star Steel Company
Lone Star, Texas
0864A United States Steel Corporation
Provo, Utah
The Agency finds that most of the recycle and evaporative cooling
systems included in the model treatment systems which are the
bases for the promulgated limitations and standards have been
installed-at those plants. Thus, these plants are already
incurring most, if not all, of the consumptive water losses
associated with compliance with the regulation. Hence, the
incremental impact of the regulation on water consumption at
steel plants located in arid or semi-arid regions is either
minimal or nonexistant.
Despite the significant benefits and relatively small evaporative
losses from recycle/cooling systems, CF&I of Pueblo, Colorado,
claims that recycle/cooling systems will cause severe problems by
compounding the water scarcity problems in the arid and semi-arid
regions of the country. Therefore, this company suggests that
required effluent levels be based on once-through systems or less
stringent recycle rates in arid or semi-arid areas.
The Agency believes this proposal to be deficient in several
respects. First, discharging the heated wastewaters once-through
would not conserve a significant amount of water. For example,
for an average sized steel mill with a 100 MGD process flow,
discharging wastewaters once-through would only conserve 0.4 MGD
or 0.4% of the total process water flow, a very small water
savings. The savings is small because even in a once-through
system, a certain amount of water is evaporated (the evaporation
will occur in the receiving body of water as the temperature of
the heated wastewaters approaches the equilibrium temperature of
the receiving stream or lake). In this case, the evaporation
rate is approximately one-half of the evaporation rate of a
cooling tower. However, while a small water savings is achieved,
certain disadvantages result, some of which are outlined below:
a. A heated discharge (potentially up to 150°) which may cause
localized environmental damage will be allowed to enter a
receiving water.
140
-------
b. The once-through system will allow a significantly higher
pollutant load to enter the receiving water.
c. The once-through system will require additional water to be
taken from the water supply to meet the water requirements
of the steelmaking operations.
While the use of recycle/cooling systems now results in some
additional evaporative water losses in arid and semi-arid
regions, the Agency believes that here, too, the benefits of
recycle systems justify these losses. The Agency considered
establishing alternative limitations for facilities located in
arid and semi-arid regions, but concluded that alternative
limitations and, thus, separate subcategories are not
appropriate.
With respect to fouling and scaling of wet cooling towers, the Agency
believes that the only operation at which this could possibly be a
problem is blast furnace recirculation systems. The industry,
however, has not indicated it has had no significant fouling or
scaling problems with these systems.
141
-------
TABLE III-l
YOUNGSTOWH SHEET AMD TUBE CAPITAL COSTS
Treatment Systems YS&T EPA
I Electric Weld Tube 1,018,000 985,000
Brier Hill
II Blooming Hill 5,390,000 5,141,000
Brier Hill
III Blast Furnace 1,576,000* 1,522,000
Brier Hill
IV Seamless Tube 3,562,000 3,595,000
Campbe 1 1
V&VA Cold Reduced Hill 3,817,000 3,523,000
Campbell
VI Central Treatment 25,221,000 25,007,000
Campbell
VII Coke Plant 8,973,000 7,300,000
Campbell
VIII Galvanized Conduit 1,179,000 860,000
Struthers
IX Herchant Hill 3,370,000 3,283,000
Struthers
TOTAL 54,106,000 51,214,000
HC1 Regeneration 3,470,000
Campbell
Blast Furnace 2,262,000
Cambpill
Cold Drawn Bar 84,000
Brier Hill
TOTAL 59,922,000
BATEA +
BATEA BATEA + Site Costs
BATEA Scaled By Site Costs Scaled By
Scaled By Production Scaled By Production
Flow Rate Site Costs Flow Rate
216,000 1,113,000 602,000 818,000 1,715,000
5,114,000 10,645,000 1,150,000 6,264,000 11,795,000
980,000 1,466,000 1,151,000 2,131,000 2,617,000
2,890,000 2,284,000 748,000 3,638,000 3,032,000
2,466,000 2,771,000 507,000 2,973,000 3,278,000
28,656,000 30,331,000 10,321,000 38,997,000 40,652,000
6,822,000 7,691,000 2,074,000 8,896,000* 9,765,000
596,000 493,000 266,000 862,000 759,000
5,478,000 3,774,000 1,357,000 6,835,000 5,131,000
53,218,000 60,568,000 18,176,000 71,394,000 78,744,000
*: Includes 325,000 for blowdown treatment.
-------
TABLE III-Z
UNITED STATES STEEL CAPITAL COSTS
Treatment Systems
McDonald Plant
Rolling Mills (Outfall DOS)
Batch & Continuous Pickling
(Outfall 006)
Ohio Plant
Blast Furnace (Outfall 001)
Rolling Milli (Outfall 003)
Batch Pickling
(Outfall 004)
USS
12,800,000
550,000
13,440, 000(1)
5,800,000
520,000
EPA
12,131,000
549,000
11,479,000
5,675,000
540,000
BATEA T.M.
Scaled by
Flow
17,612,000
586,000
5,288, 000(2)
3,842,000
441,000
BATEA T.M<
Scaled by
Production
19,787,000
586,000
5,179,000(2)
8,453,000
402,000
Site Costs
4,400,000
35,000
6,000,000(2)
2,500,000
210,000
BATEA
T.M. +
Site Costs
by Flow
22,012,000
621,000
11,288,000(2)
6,342,000
651,000
BATEA T.M.
+ Site
Costs by
Production
24,187,000
603,000
11,179,000(2)
10,953,000
612,000
TOTAL
33,110,000
30,374,000
27,769,000
34,389,000
13,145,000
40,914,000
(1) Including dismantling of blast furnace.
(2) With base level of treatment.
47,534,000
ui
-------
TABLE II1-3
REPUBLIC STEEL CAPITAL COSTS**
Treatment Systems
Warren Plant
Finishing Mills Area
Finishing Mills Pickling
Hot Rolling Mills Area
Blast Furnace Area
Coke Plant
Physical/Chemical
Biological
Youngstown Plant
Poland Avenue
Blast Furnaces
Coke Plant
Physical/Chemical
Biological
Miles Plant
TOTAL
Physical/Chemical*
Biological*
Republic
BPCTCA
8,000,000
8,800,000
9,700,000
7,300,000
8,000,000
8,000,000
10,899,000
7,900,000
7,700,000
7,700,000
1,800,000
70,099,000
BPCTCA
Module
Scaled By
Flow
5,879,000
9,610,000
8,518,000
3,676,000
187,000
5,173,000*
414,000
5,500,000*
4,501,000
5,388,000
193,000
5,333,000*
530,000
5,670,000*
2,852,000
50,930,000
51,594,000
BPCTCA
Module
Scaled By
Product i on
14,387,000
12,243,000
12,543,000
4,444,000
189,000
5,218,000*
519,000
5,548,000*
8,010,000
5,417,000
296,000
8,164,000*
812,000
8,680,000*
2,214,000
72,640,000
73,486,000
BATEA
Module
Scaled By
Flow
8,765,000
9,678,000
11,826,000
4,105,000
1,121,000
6,106,000*
1,207,000
6,193,000*
8,742,000
6,023,000
959,000
6,099,000*
1,054,000
6,239,000*
3,160,000
64,504,000
64,731,000
BATEA
Module
Scaled By
Production
23,943,000
12,330,000
21,075,000
4,968,000
937,000
5,966,000*
1,074,000
6,103,000*
14,633,000
6,054,000
1,466,000
9,335,000
1,680,000
9,549,000
2,386,000
100,690,000
101,041,000
Site Costs
1,294,000
0
7,645,000
1,468,000
566,000
566,000
566,000
566,00
3,314,000
0
535,000
535,000
535,000
535,000
768,000
15,590,000
15,590,000
BPCTCA
By Flow + By
Site Costs *
7,458,000
9,610,000
16,163,000
5,144,000
753,000
5,739,000*
1,080,000
6,066,000*
7,815,000
5,388,000
728,000
5,868,000*
1,065,000
6,205,000*
3,620,000
66,815,000
67,479,000
BPCTCA
Production
Site Costs
15,681,000
12,243,000
20,188,000
5,912,000
755,000
5,784,000*
1,085,000
6,144,000*
11,324,000
5,417,000
831,000
8,699,000*
1,347,000
9,216,000*
2,982,000
88,230,000
89,076,000
BATEA
By Flow + By
Site Costs *
10,059,000
9,678,000
19,471,000
5,571,000
1,681,000
6,672,000*
1,773,000
6,759,000*
12,056,000
6,023,000
1,494,000
6,634,000*
1,594,000
6,774,000*
3,928,000
80,094,000
80,321,000
BATEA
Production
Site Costs
25,237,000
12,330,000
28,720,000
6,436,000
1,503,000
6,532,000*
1,640,000
6,699,000*
17,947,000
6,054,000
2,001,000
9,870,000
2,215,000
10,084,000
3,154,000
116,280,000
116,631,000
* : Including Level A Costs.
**: BPCTCA and BATEA costs are based on March, 1975 dollar values.
-------
TABLE III-4
PLANT AGE ANALYSIS
IR0H & STEEL imOSTRY
Subcategory
A.
B.
C.
D.
I.
F,
C,
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
1. EOF
2, Open Hearth
3. Electric Arc
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Ho t Forming
1 . Primary
2. Section
3. Plat
a. Strip & Sheet
b. Flat Plate.
4. Pipe & Tube* '
1919
and before
33
0
68
0
0
0
0
0
33
67
4
10
5
1920
1929 t0
16
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
12
49
9
1
8
1939to
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
11
21
11
3
11
1940.
1949*°
6
7
31
0
1
1
0
0
14
29
3
1
7
1959to
5
8
28
2
4
2
7
0
26
33
14
2
11
I960.
1969to
3
2
11
21
0
4
21
23
11
23
12
6
4
1970
and later
3
3
6
8
0
5
10
36
4
14
2
2
2
-------
TABLE 111-4
PLANT AGE ANALYSIS
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subeategory
1919
and before
1920
1929
1930.
1939*°
1940
1949
to
1950..
1959
I960..
1969
1970
and later
H. Scale Removal
I. Acid Pickling
12
J.
K.
L.
1. Sulfuric
Acid
2. Hydrochloric
Acid
3. Combination
Acid
Cold Forming
1. CR-Recirculation
2 . CR-CaBbinBtion
3. Ct-Direct
4, Pipe & Tube
Alkaline Cleaning
Hot Coating
15
1
6
21
0
0
0
0
5
16
1
16
4
0
28
4
4
16
25
17
9
11
1
18
1
20
20
41
14
22
23
3
5
8
14
26
43
17
23
28
5
8
23
41
40
31
38
36
32
8
7
34
59
51
14
7
11
13
2
1
20
23
12
(1) Age* baled on first year of production.
(2) Does not include the ages for four confidential plants.
Note; Count based on number of individual operations.
-------
TABLE III-S
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAV1 DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION COHTROL EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATE50RY
Plant
Reference Plant Age* Treatment Age
Subcategorg Code (Year) (Year)
A. eokemaking 012A 1920 1977
024A 1916 1953-1977
0241 1901 1969-1977
112A 1920 1977
272 1919 1957-1977
396A 1906-1955 1972
432B 1919-1961 1930-1972
464C 1925-1973 1971
464E 1914-1970 1914-1977
584F 1923-1971 1977
And Others
B. Sintering 060B 1958 1968
060F 1957 1975
112B 1950 1970
1120 1948 1960
448A 1943 1971
548C 1959 1965
584C 1959 1965
864A 1944 1962
868A 1941 1954
920F 1944 1973
946A 1939 1972
C. Ironmaking 060B 1942 1958
112A 1941 1948
320 1920-1947 1976
396A 1907-1909 1929
396C 1903-1905 1929
426 1958 1979
432A 1910-1919 1951
432B 1900-1966 1930
584C 1956-1961 1965
584D 1904-1911 1953
And Othera
147
-------
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO HETROFIT POLLDTIOH COHT10L EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATEGORY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
D. Steelmaking
1. Basic Oxygen Furnace
2. Open Hearth
3. Electric Furnace
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Ho t Forming
1. Hot Forming - Primary
Plant
Reference
Code
432C
6S4C
684F
724F
060
112A
492A
864A
74 8C
060F
432C
S28A
612
88A
496
084A
432A
476A
584
652
780
020B
06 OD
0601
088D
112
112A
112B
176
188A
188B
248C
320
And Others
Plant Age*
. (Year)
1961
1970
1966
1966
1952
1957
1953
1944
1952
1951
1959
1949
1936
1963-1968
1965
1970-1975
1969
1969
1968
1968
1966-1975
1948
1910
1941
1959
1907
1930
1928
1917
1959
1940
1962
1936
Treatment Age
(Year)
1964
1971
1976
1976
1970
1971
1966
1962
1967
1968
1964
1954
1971
1971
1971
1975
1974
1977
1970
1971
1975
1971
1959
1958
1971
1979
1970
1970
1965
1970
1946
1975
1952
148
-------
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONS?RATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATEGORY
PAGE 3
Subcategory
2. Hot Forming - Section
3. Hot Forming - Flat
' a. Plate
b. Hot Strip & Sheet
4. Pipe and Tube
Plant
Reference
Code
06 OC
060F
0601
06 OK
088D
112
112A
112F
136B
316
112C
424
448A
496
860B
020B
396D
432A
476A
684 F
856D
856P
060C
06 OF
060R
432A
476A
548A
652A
728
856S
856Q
And Others
Plant Age*
(Year)
1913
1942
1956
1920
1962
1907
1937
1922
1908
1959
1902
1970
1943
1918
1936
1953
1960
1957
1915
1937
1938
1929
1913
1950
1930-1947
1957-1958
1930
1945-1960
1954
1929
1930
1930
Treatment Age
(Year)
1920-1975
1965
1958
1955
1971
1954-1979
1971-1977
1947-1978
1959-1969
1966
1964
1971-1978
1948
1948-1977
1967
1971
1970
1974
1977
1969
1980
1966
1948
1971
1961
1974
1977
1969
1962
1952
1961
1963
149
-------
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATEGOEY
PAGE 4
Subeategory
H. Scale Removal
Plant
Reference
Code
0601
088A
256L
424
284A
176
256K
248B
Plant Age*
(Year)
. 1970
1962
1962
1971
1957
1941
1956
1950
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid
2, Hydrochloric Acid
3. Combination Acid
020B
048F
060D
060M
088A
088D
112
112C
256F
3 84 A
And Others
020C
112B
176
320
384A
396D
432C
448A
580A
And Others
020B
088A
112A
112H
256F
284A
584D
860F
And Others
1954
1944
1957
1970
1936
1962
1922
1926
1953
1958
1946
1936
1961
1936
1932
1967
1952
1954
1962
1947
1952
1926
1940
1953
1957
1940
1962
Treatment Age
(Year)
1972
1969
1969
1978
1971
1965
1971
1978
1974
1969
1968
1977
1969
1971
1977
1977
1975
1964
1977
1971
1956
1955
1970
1969
1964
1970
1967
1974
1969
1977
1951
1975
1971
1970
1977
150
-------
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATEGORY
PAGE 5
Plant
Reference Plant Age* Treatment Age
Subcategory Code (Year) (Year)
J. Cold Forming
020C 1951 1975
060 1936 1967
112A 1947 1971
1121 1936 1971
176 1921 1963
396D 1938 1959
432B 1937 1966
448A 1952 1969
584A 1948 1971
684D 1939 1970
And Others
K. Alkaline Cleaning 112A 1936 1971-1977
1121 1927 1950-1977
240B 1938 1968
256N 1956 1973
384A 1968 1970
432A 1940 1970
448A . 1959 1969
476A 1960 1977
548A 1957 1967
580A 1962 1967
And Others
L. Hot Coating 112B 1962 1971
112G 1922 1973
384A 1968 1970
448A 1967 1970
460A 1932 1968
476A 1930 1977
492A 1962 1976
580A 1962 1967
584C 1956 1965
640 1936 1961
Where ranges of ages are listed, this shows that these are multiple facilities on
site that vary in age as indicated.
151
-------
TABLE III-6
WATER USAGE IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY
Water Recycled Over Water Recycled Over
Total Process Cooling Systems Cooling Systems
Subcategory Water Usage (MGD) at BPT (MGD) at BAT (MGD)
A. Cokemaking 32.5 32.4(1) 42.0(1)
B. Sintering 99.2 0 0
C. Ironmaking 864.0 738.0 751.2
0. Steelmaking 273.3 0 0
E. Vacuum Degassing 55.4 54.4 54.4
F. Continuous Casting 233.2 220.1 226.4
G. Hot Forming 3,974.4 0 0
H. Salt Bath Descaling 1.1 0 0
I. Acid Pickling 86.7 0 0
J. Cold Forming 76.5 0 0
K. Alkaline Cleaning 17.5 0 0
L. Hot Coating 30.4 0 0
5,744.2 1012.5 1032.4
(1) Flow not included as part of the total process water flow.
152
-------
TABLE III-7
COHSUMPTIVE USE OF HATER (BY EVAPOBATIOH IH COOLING SYSTEMS) IH THE STEEL IHPUSTRY
(1)
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
C. Ironmaking
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
Present
Hater
Consumption (MGD)
0.69
11.21
0,70
3.44
Additional
Consumption at
BPT over
Present
-------
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
To develop the regulation it was necessary for the Agency to determine
whether different effluent limitations and standards should be
developed for distinct segments or subcategories of- the steel
industry. The Agency's subcategorization of the industry included an
examination of the same factors and rationale described in the
Agency's previous studies. Those factors are:
1. Manufacturing processes and equipment
2. Raw materials
3. Final products
4. Wastewater characteristics
5, Wastewater treatment methods
6. Size and age of facilities
7. Geographic location
8. Process water usage and discharge rates
9. Costs and economic impacts
For this regulation, the Agency has adopted a revised
subcategorization of the industry to more accurately reflect
production operations and to simplify the use of the regulation. The
Agency found that the manufacturing process is the most significant
factor and divided the industry into 12 main process subcategories on
this basis. Section IV of each subcategory report contains a detailed
discussion of the factors considered and the rationale for selecting
and subdividing the subcategories. The Agency determined that
process-based subcategorization is warranted in many cases because the
wastewaters of the various processes contain different pollutants
requiring treatment by different control systems (e.g., phenols by
biological systems in cokemaking). However, in some cases, the
wastewaters of different processes were found to have similar
characteristics. In those instances, the Agency determined that
subcategorization was appropriate because the process water usage and
discharge flow rates varied significantly, thus affecting estimates of
treatment system costs and pollutant discharges. The twelve
subcategories of the steel industry are as follows:
155
-------
A. Cokemaking
B, Sintering
C, Ironmaking
D, Steelmaking
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
H. Salth Bath Descaling
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Forming-
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
The subcategories of the steel industry are defined below. Also
discussed are any subdivisions and segments within the main
subcategories the rationale for the subdivision and segmentation.
Subcategory A; Cokemaking
Cokemaking operations involve the production of coke in by-product or
beehive ovens. The production of metallurgical coke is an essential
part of the steel industry, since coke is one of the basic raw
materials necessary for the operation of ironmaking blast furnaces.
Significant variations exist in the quantity and quality of waste
generated between the old beehive ovens and the newer by-product
ovens. In order to prepare effluent limitations and standards that
would adequately reflect these variations, a subdivision of the
Cokemaking subcategory was necessary. The first subdivision is
By-Product Cokemaking, a method employed by 99 percent of the coke
plants in the U.S. In by-product ovens, coke oven gas, light oil,
ammonium sulfate and sodium phenolate are recovered rather than
allowed to escape to the atmosphere. This subdivision been
further segmented to reflect the slightly different wastewater volume
generation rates between coke plants located at integrated steel
plants and - at merchant coke plants. Within both segments, there are
further distinctions upon type of treatment {physical/chemical
and biological), type of ammonia recovery process utilized (semi-
direct vs. indirect) an added allowance for plants employing wet
desulfurization systems.
Beehive Cokemaking is the other subdivision in the Cokemaking
subcategory. This process is only found in one percent of the U.S.
Cokemaking operations. In beehive ovens no effort is made to recover
volatile materials generated by the process so there is no wastewater
generated from gas cleaning as in the by-product plants. The
wastewater results from the direct spraying of water on the hot coke
to stop the coking process.
Subcategory B: Sintering
Sintering operations involve the production of an agglomerate which is
then reused as a feed material in iron and steelmaking processes.
156
-------
This agglomerate or "sinter" Is made up of large quantities of
particulate matter (fines, mill scale, flue dust) which have been
generated by blast furnaces, open hearth furnaces, and basic oxygen
furnaces, and scale recovered from hot forming operations,
Wastewaters are generated In sintering operations as a result of the
scrubbing of dusts and produced in the sintering process.
Quenching and cooling of the sinter, practiced' at plants,
generates additional wastewaters. The Agency determined that model
plant effluent flow rates can be achieved at sinter plants with wet
air pollution controls on all parts of the sintering operation. Since
there are no significant variations in wastewater quality from these
operations, the Agency did not subdivide sintering operations on the
basts of the type of net'air pollution control system used or the part
of the sintering operation controlled by wet air pollution control
systems.
Subcategory Cj Ironmaking
Irontnakinq operations involve the conversion of iron bearing
materials, limestone, and coke into molten iron in a reducing
atmosphere in a tall cylindrical furnace. The gases produced as a
result o£ this combustion are a valuable heat source but require
cleaning prior to reuse. Blast fyrnace wastewaters are generated as a
result of the scrubbing cooling of these off-gases. Both pig-iron
and ferromanganese can be produced in blast furnace operations.
Because the wastewaters produced at these two types of operations vary
significantly, different BPT limitations were promulgated. However,
BAT, iSPS, PSES and were promulgated only for ironmaking blast
furnaces since no ferromanganese fyrnaces are -in operation or
scheduled for operation and ferroalloy production has shifted to
electric furnaces.
Subcategory Di Steelmaking
.st.ee A ma* Any oper«ti.i,ons involve tne production oi Steel in DasiC
oxygen, open hearth, and electric arc furnaces. These furnaces
receive iron produced in blast furnaces along with scrap metal and
fluxing materials. During steelmaking, -large quantities of fume,
smoke, and waste are generated which require cleaning prior to
emission to the atmosphere, Steelmaking wastewaters are generated as
a result of some of the cleaning operations.
Each of the three types of furnaces operates differently. These
differences result in significant variations in wastewater volume,
pollutant loads generated, and wastewater characteristics. In order
to develop effluent limitations that would adequately .reflect these
variations, the Agency determined that subdivision of the Steelmaking
subcategory into the following three subdivisions is appropriate:
Basic Oxygen Furnace; Open Hearth Furnace,- and Electric Arc Furnace.
The Agency also determined that further segmentation of the BOF and
EAF subdivisions is appropriate because of differences in the methods
to clean condition furnace gases.
.57
-------
Three different scrubbing systems, each of which could result in a
wastewater discharge, are presently used to clean waste gases from
basic oxygen furnaces: semi-wet/ wet-suppressed combustion; and
wet-open combustion. Water is used in semi-wet systems to cool and
condition furnace gases to optimize the performance of the
electrostatic precipitators or baghouses that are relied upon to clean
the gases. These systems are characterized by wastewaters containing
relatively small quantities of particulate matter having a large
particle size. Wet systems result in much higher raw wastewater
pollutant loadings due to the increased amount of water used. In an
open combustion system, 90 percent of the particulates are of a
submicron size, because combustion is more complete. By comparison,
suppressed combustion systems generate larger particles, of which only
30-40 percent are of submicron size. Since much of the heavier
particulate matter remains in the furnace, the suspended solids
loadings in the wastewaters from suppressed combustion systems are
much lower.
Both semi-wet and wet systems are used at electric furnaces while only
wet systems are used at open hearth furnaces. The subdivision of the
Steelmaking subcategory takes the wastewater flow and quality
differences into account.
Subcategory E: Vacuum Degassing
Vacuum degassing is the process whereby molten steel is subjected to a
vacuum in order to remove gaseous impurities. It is advantageous to
remove hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen from the molten steel as these
gases can impart undesirable qualities to certain grades of steel.
The vacuum is most commonly produced through the use of steam
ejectors. The venturi action of the steam in the ejector throat and
the condensation of the steam combine to produce the vaccum. The
particle laden steam coming from the steam ejectors is condensed in
barometric condensers, thus producing a wastewater which requires
treatment.
The industry uses various types of degassers and degasses steels
containing a variety of different components. However, the Agency has
determined these variations do not affect the quantity or quality of
wastewaters produced in the vacuum degassing operations to the extent
that further subdivision of this subcategory is warranted.
Subcategory F: Continuous Casting
The continuous casting process is used to produce semi-finished steel
directly from molten steel. The molten steel from the steelmaking
operation is ladeled into a tundish from where it is continuously cast
into water cooled copper molds of the desired shapes. After leaving
the copper mold, the semi-solidified steel is sprayed with water for
further cooling solidifications. In addition to cooling, the water
sprays also serve to remove scale and other impurities from the steel
surface. The water that directly cools the steel and guide rollers
158
-------
contains particulates and roller lubricating oils, and must be treated
prior to discharge.
Although there are three types of continuous casters in use, they only
differ in physical orientation. When the Agency analyzed these and
other factors relating to the continuous casting subcategory, it found
no significant variations in the quantity or quality of wastewaters
generated. Therefore, the Agency determined that further subdivision
of the Continuous Casting subcategory is not appropriate.
Subcategory G: Hot Forming
Hot forming is the steel forming process in which hot steel is
transformed in size and shape through a series of forming steps to
ultimately produce semi-finished and finished steel products. Feed
materials may be ingots, continuous caster billets, or blooms and
slabs from primary hot forming mills (as feed to hot forming section
or hot forming flat mills). The steel products consist of many types
of cross-sections, sizes and lengths. Four different types of hot
forming mills are used to produce the many types of hot formed steel
products. The four types of mills (primary, section, flat, and pipe
and tube) are the bases for the principal subdivisions of the Hot
Forming subcategory. Variations in flow rates and configurations
among these subdivisions were the most important factors in making
these subdivisions. The Agency found that further segmentation is
necessary to reflect variations due to product shape, type of steel,
and process used.
Wastewaters result from several sources in hot forming operations.
The hot steel is reduced in size by a number of rolling steps where
contact cooling water is continuously sprayed over the rolls and hot
steel product to cool the steel rolls and the flush away scale as it
is" broken off from the surface. Scarfing is used at some mills to
remove imperfections in order to improve the quality of steel
surfaces. Scarfing generates large quantities of fume, smoke, and
waste gases which require scrubbing. Scrubbing of these fumes
generates additional wastewater.
The Agency found variations in the quantity of wastewaters generated
in the four subdivisions of the Hot Forming subcategory. The quality
and treatability of hot forming wastewaters is not significantly
different.
The Primary mill subdivision has been split into two segments: (1)
carbon and specialty mills without scarfing, and (2) carbon and
specialty mills with scarfing. The use of scarfing equipment results
in an additional applied process flow of 1100 gal/ton.
The Section mill subdivision has also been separated into two
segments, carbon and specialty steels. On the average, 1900 gal/ton
more water is used on carbon section mills. For this reason, the
Agency determined that it is appropriate to further divide the section
mill subdivision into carbon and specialty mill segments.
159
-------
The Flat mill subdivision has been split into three segments: (1) hot
strip and sheet (both carbon and specialty), (2) plate (carbon) and
(3) plate (specialty). As with section mills, carbon and specialty
plate operations differ significantly in several areas. About 1900
gal/ton more water is used in carbon flat plate operations than in
specialty flat plate operations. Also, carbon plate mills are about
three times as large as specialty plate mills. While no differences
were noted between carbon and specialty hot strip and sheet
operations, hot strip operations in general require 3900 gal/ton more
water than do plate operations. That difference resulted in the hot
strip and sheet segment in the hot forming flat subdivision.
TH;w;We Agency determined that the distinction between isolated and
integrated operations in the Hot Worked Pipe and Tube subdivision made
in the prior regulation is not appropriate. This former segment was
deleted.
Subcategory H: Salt Bath Descaling
Salt bath descaling is the operation in which specialty steel products
are processed in molten salt solutions for scale removal. Two types
of scale removal operations are in use: oxidizing and reducing. The
oxidizing process uses highly oxidizing salt baths which react far
more aggressively with the s,cale than with base metal. This chemical
action causes surface scale to crack so that subsequent pickling
operations are more effective in removing the scale. Reducing baths
depend upon the strong reducing properties of sodium hydride to
accomplish the same purpose. During that operation most scale forming
oxides are reduced to base metal.
Flow rates and wastewater characteristics differ between the two types
of operations. Wastewaters from reducing operations can contain
quantities of cyanide not contained in wastewaters from oxidizing
operations. Wastewaters from oxidizing operations contain large
amounts of hexavalent chromium, which are not usually found in
reducing bath wastewaters. In order to develop effluent limitations
that would adequately reflect these variations, the Agency determined
that subdivision of the scale removal subcategory into oxidizing and
reducing operations is appropriate.
The Agency has also concluded that the method of operation, i.e.,
batch or continuous, significantly affects water use requirements.
Hence, it has segmented both subdivisions. In addition, because of
variations in water use rates, related to the type of product being
processed in batch oxidizing operations, the Agency has segmented this
subdivision further to reflect these differences.
Subcategory I: Acid Pickling
Acid pickling is the process of chemically removing oxides and scale
from the surface of the steel by the action of water solutions of
inorganic acids. The three major wastewater sources associated with
acid pickling operations are spent pickle liquor, rinse waters, and
160
-------
the water used to scrub acid vapors and mists. wastewaters
contain free acids and ferrous salts in addition to other organic and
inorganic impurities, Most carbon steels are pickled in sulfuric or
hydrochloric acids. stainless and alloy steels pickled in a
mixture of nitric and hydrofluoric acids. Since wastewater
characteristics are dependent on the acid used, the Agency has
established three primary subdivisions of this subcategory; i.e.,
sulfuric, hydrochloric, and combination acid pickling operations.
The Agency'has concluded that, within each of the three acid pickling
subdivisions, further segmentation, primarily on the basis of product
type rather than on wastewater source or treatment technique, is
appropriate. Additionally, segments have been established in each
subdivision to separately limit the discharges from scrubbers,
The Sulfuric Acid Pickling subdivision been fyrther separated into
five segments, foyr of which reflect the different water rates
associated with product groupings and one reflective of the water use
rate in fume scrubbers. Since water use in a fume scrubber is not
related to the tonnage of product pickled, limitations and standards
for this segment have been established on the basis of kg/day rather
than kg/kkg of product.
The Hydrochloric Acid Pickling subdivision was further separated into
five segments, three of which reflect the different water use rates
associated with product groupings, -and the other two reflective of
water use rates on fume scrubbers. In this subdivision, scrubbers
used for fume collection over the pickling baths for fume
collection at the acid regeneration plant absorber vents. The
differences in water rates are reflected in the further
segmentation. Limitations and standards in both fume scrubber
segments are established on the basis of kg/day.
The Combination Acid Pickling subdivision further separated into
six segments/ five of which reflect the different water use rates
associated with product groupings, and the other based upon the water
rate in fume scrubbers. As above, limitations and standards in
fume scrubber have been established on the basis of
kg/day.
Subcategory J: Cold Forming
The Cold Forming subcategory is separated into two subdivisions: Cold
Rolling and Cold Worked Pipe and Tube. The Agency concluded that
subdivision is appropriate because of the differences in equipment
used to form flat sheets and tubular shapes, and because of
differences in rolling solution characteristics, wastewater flow rates
and treatment and disposal methods.
Cold rolling is to reduce the thickness of a steel product, which
produces a smooth dense surface and develops controlled mechanical
properties in the metal. An oil-water emulsion lubricant is sprayed
on the material as it enters the work rolls of a cold rolling mill,
161
-------
and the material is usually coated with oil prior to recoiling after
it has passed through the mill. The oil prevents rust while the
material is in transit or in storage. It must be removed before the
material can be further processed or formed. Oil from the oil water
emulsion lubricant is the major pollutant load in wastewaters
resulting from this operation.
In the Cold Rolling subdivision three methods of oil application are
used. The methods are direct application, recirculation, and
combinations of the two. Because recycle rate is dependent upon the
oil application system, flow rates vary for the three systems. These
differences in flow rates make further segmentation of the Cold
Rolling subdivision appropriate. Within the recirculation and direct
application segments, the number of rolling stands used affects the
water use rate. This is reflected in separate limitations within
these segments based upon whether a mill has a single stand or whether
the mill has multiple stands.
In the Pipe and Tube subdivision of the Cold Forming subcategory, cold
flat steel strips are formed into hollow cylindrical products.
Wastewaters are generated as a result of continuous flushing with
water or soluble oil lubricating solutions, resulting in significant
differences in the quantity and quality of wastewaters generated by
these methods. Therefore, the Agency determined that further
separation of the Pipe and Tube subdivision into water type operations
and oil solution type operations, is warranted.
Subcategory K: Alkaline Cleaning
Alkaline cleaning baths are used to remove mineral and animal fats and
oils from steel. The cleaning baths used are not very aggressive and
therefore do not generate many pollutants. The alkaline cleaning
solution is usually a dispersion of chemicals such as carbonates,
alkaline silicates, and phosphates in water. The cleaning bath itself
and the rinse water used are the two sources of wastewaters in the
alkaline cleaning process. Both continuous and batch operations are
used by the industry. The Agency, after further review of available
wastewater flow data, has concluded that significant differences in
the quantity of wastewaters generated at batch and continuous
operations should be reflected in the limitations and standards for
alkaline cleaning operations. Therefore, the Alkaline Cleaning
subcategory has been subdivided into batch and continuous operations.
Subcategory L; Hot Coating
Hot coating processes involve the immersion of clean steel into baths
of molten metal for the purpose of depositing a thin layer of the
metal onto the steel surface. These metal coatings can impart such
desirable qualities as corrosion resistance or a decorative appearance
to the steel. Hot coating processes can be carried out in continuous
or batch operations. The physical configuration of the product being
coated usually determines the method of coating to be used.
162
-------
The Hot Coating subcategory has been divided into three subdivisions
based upon the type of coating used. Galvanizing is a zinc coating
operation. Terne coating consists of a lead and tin coating of five
or six parts lead to one part tin. Other metal coatings can include
aluminum, hot dipped tin, or mixtures of these and other metals.
These operations generate different polutants due to the variety of
metals used.
However, the control technologies, except for hexavalent chromium
reduction required for galvanizing lines with chromate passivating
dips, are the same for all hot coating operations. The lime
precipitation and clarification process will adequately control each
of the toxic metals. There is a considerable difference in the water
use rates based upon the type of product coated. Therefore the Agency
has concluded that further separation of the galvanizing, and terne
and other coatings subdivisions into two segments based upon product
type is warranted. These segments are the strip, sheet, and
miscellaneous products segment and the wire product and fasteners
segment. The Agency has also provided a segment for fume scrubbers
applicable to any hot coating operation with fume scrubbers.
163
-------
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION V
SELECTION OF REGULATED POLLUTANTS
Introduction
Three types of pollutants were considered for regulation in the steel
Industry; conventional pollutants, nonconventional pollutants, and
toxic pollutants. To determine the presence and level of these
pollutants in steel industry wastewaters, the Agency conducted
extensive monitoring at several representative plants in the industry.
Average wastewater concentrations of each pollutant were determined
for each subcategory. These concentrations, in conjunction with the
waste loading, formed the basis for determining whether a particular
pollutant was considered for regulation.
Development of_ Regulated Pollutants
The concentration data were reviewed for 141 pollutants; 130 toxic, 8
nontoxic nonconventional, and 3 conventional. These values ranged
from- "not detected" to 71,000 mg/1 (ppm). The concentration values
were reviewed and each pollutant was assigned to one of four
categories.
1. Not Detected - Reserved for any pollutant which was not detected
during industry-wide plant sampling.
2. Environmentally Insignificant - Pollutants detected at levels of
0.010 mg/1 (10 ppb) or less in industry-wide sampling,- or,
pollutants not normally occurring in wastewaters from these
sources.
3. Not Treatable - Pollutants detected at levels greater than 10 ppb
but at levels below the treatability level determined for that
• pollutant.
4. Regulation Considered - Any pollutant detected at a level greater
than the corresponding treatability level was considered for
regulation.
The results of the categorization are presented in Table V-l. Of the
141 pollutants initially considered, 60 (50 toxics and 10 others) have
been considered for regulation. In order to further analyze the
source of these pollutants, their presence by subcategory was
tabulated. Table V-2 lists pollutants appearing in the twelve
subcategories at levels greater than treatability. The physical
properties, toxic effects in humans and aquatic life, and behavior in
POTWs of these 60 pollutants are discussed in Appendix D to this
document. In compiling this material, particular weight was given to
165
-------
documents generated by the Criteria and Standards, and Monitoring and
Data Support Divisions of EPA.
Regulated Pollutants
Most of the toxic pollutants (29) are found in two subcategories: Cold
Forming and Cokemaking. In order to avoid costly analytical work,
four organic pollutants (benzene, naphthalene, benzo-a-pyrene and
tetrachloroethylene) are limited and serve as indicator pollutants.
Other toxic pollutants known to be present in wastewaters in
significcant quantities are also limited.
The list of pollutants directly limited by the regulation is found in
Table V-3. This list consists of 16 pollutants; 9 toxic, 4 nontoxic
nonconventional, and 3 conventional. Table V-4 lists the pollutants
limited in each subcategory.
166
-------
TABLE V-l
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Not EnvironmentallYv Not ,,v Regulation
No. Pollutant Detected Insignificant Treatable Considered
001 Acenaphthene - - X
002 Acrolein X - -
003 Acrylonitrile - - -X
004 Benzene - ' - - X
005 Benzidine X -
006 Carbon tetrachloride - - X
007 Chlorobenzene X -
008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene X -
009 Hexachlorobenzene - X -
010 1,2-dichloroethane - X -
Oil 1,1,1-trichloroethane - - X
012 Hexachlorethane X -
013 1,1-dichloroethane 7 - X
014 1,1,2-trichloroethane -X -
015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane - X -
016 Chloroethane X -
017 bis(chloromethyl)ether X - -
018 bis(2-chloroethyl)ether X - -
019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether X - -
020 2-chloronaphthalene - X -
021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol - - X
022 Parachlorometacresol - - X
023 Chloroform - - X
024 2-chlorophenol - - X -
025 1,2-dichlorobenzene - X -
026 1,3-dichlorobenzene X - - -
027 1,4-dichlorobenzene - X -
028 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine X -
029 1,1-dichloroethylene X -
030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene - X -
031 2,4-dichlorophenol - X -
032 1,2-dichloropropane X - -
033 1,2-dichloropropylene X - -
034 2,4-dimethyl phenol - - X
035 2,4-dinitrotoluene - - X
036 2,6-dinitrotoluene - - X
037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine - X -
038 Ethylbenzene - - X
039 Fluoranthene - - X
040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether X -
041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether X -
042 bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether X -
043 bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane X -
044 Methylene chloride - X -
167
-------
TABLE V-l
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Not Environmentally. Not ,,•> Regulation
No. Pollutant Detected Insignificant Treatable Considered
045 Methyl chloride X -
046 Methyl bromide X -
047 Bromoform X - -
048 Dichlorobromontethane - X -
049 Trichlorofluoromethane X - - -
050 Dichlorodifluoronethane X - - -
051 Chlorodibromomethane X - -
052 Hexachlorobutadiene X -
053 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene X -
054 Isophorone - X -
055 Naphthalene - - X
056 Nitrobenzene, - X -
057 2-nitrophenol - X -
058 4-nitrophenol - X
059 2,4-dinitrophenol - X -
060 4,6-dinitro-o-eresol - - X
061 N-nitrosodimethylamine X -
062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine X
063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine X - -
064 Pentachlorophenol - - X
065 Phenol - - - X
066 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate - - X
067 Butyl benzyl phthalate - - X
068 Di-n-butyl phthalate - X
069 Di-n-octyl phthalate - - X
070 Diethyl phthalate - - X
071 Dimethyl phthalate - - X
072 Benzo(a)anthracene - - X
073 Ienzo(a)pyrene - X
074 3,4-benzofluoranthene - X -
075 Benzo(k)£luoranthene X - -
076 Chrysene - - X
077 Acenaphthylene - X
078 Anthracene - - - X
079 benzo(ghi)perylene - X -
080 Fluorene - - X
081 Phenathrene - - X
082 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene - X - -
083 Indeno(l,2,3,cd)pyrene X - -
084 Pyrene - - X
085 Tetrachloroethylene - X
086 Toluene - X
087 Trichlorethylene - - - X
088 Vinyl chloride - X - -
089 Aldrin - X -
16S
-------
TABLE V-l
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
No.
090
091
092
093
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
Pollutant
Dieldrin
Chlordane
4,4'-DDT
4, 4 '-DDE
4,4'-DDD
a-endosul fan-Alpha
b-endosulf an-Bet a
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
r -BBC-Gamma
g-BHC-Delta
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
Toxaphene
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
.Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzo-
p-dioxin
Xylene
Not
Detected
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
Environmentally.. Not ,~\ Regulation
Insignificant Treatable Considered
X - -
X - -
X - -
X - -
X - -
X - -
X
X - -
X - -
X
X
X - -
X - -
X - -
X - -
X
X - -
X - -
X
X
X
X
X - -
x - -
- - X
- - X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
169
-------
TABLE V-l
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON i STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 4
No, Pollutant
Hot
Detected
Environment ally.
Insignificant
Not
Treatable
(2)
Aluminum
Ammonia
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Hexavalent Chromium
Manganese
Oil and Grease
pH
Phenol (4AAP)
Chlorine Residual
Total Suspended Solids
Regulation
Considered
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X: Indicates heading which applies to pollutant.
-: Indicates heading which does not apply to pollutant.
(1) Pollutants detected at levels of 0.01 mg/1 or less for pollutants not normally
occuring in uastewater from these sources.
(2) Concentration of pollutant found at levels below treatability.
However) pollutant load could be reduced by recycle.
170
-------
TABLE V-2
POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION BY SUBCATEGORY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
No.
1
3
4
6
9
11
13
21
22
23
24
31
34
35
36
38
39
54
55
58
60
64
65
66
71
72
73
76
77
78
80
81
84
85
86
87
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acrylonit r ile
Benzene
Carbon Tet rachlor ide
Hexachlorobenzene
1, 1,1-t rich lor oe thane
1 , 1 -d ichl or oe thane
2 ,4, 6-tr ichlorophenol
Parachlorometacresol
Chloroform
2-chlorophenol
2 ,4-Dich lorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinit rotoluene
Ethy Ibenzene
Fluoranthene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
4-Nitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-creaol
Pent ach lor ophenol
Phenol
Denzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Tr ichloroethylene
Coke-
making
_
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
-
X
-
Sintering
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
Iron-
making
_
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
Steel- Vacuum Continuous Hot Salt Bath Acid
making Degassing Casting Forming Descaling Picklii
_ _ _
_ - -
_ _
_ -
_ _
-
- - -
- - -
- - -
X - X
- - -
- - -
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
X -
- -
- -
X - -
- - -
x - -
- - -
_ -
- -
- -
- - -
-
_ _
_ _
_ _
- -
- -
_ _
Cold Alkaline Hot
Forming Cleaning Coat ings
-------
TABLE V-2
POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION BY SUBCATEGORY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
No. Pollutant
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
126 Silver
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
130 Xylene
Aluminum
Ammonia
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Hexavalent Chromium
Manganese
Oil and Grease
pH
Phenolic Compounds
TRC
Total Suspended Solids
Coke-
making
X
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
-
X
X
_
X
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
-
X
Sintering
_
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
X
-
_
-
-
X
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X: Selected for consideration in development of
-: Not selected for consideration in
development
Iron-
making
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
-
_
X
-
X
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
regulated
Steel-
making
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
_
-
-
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
pollutant
Vacuum
Degassing
_
-
-
X
X
-
X
X
-
_
-
X
-
_
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
X
list in this
of regulated pollutant list in
Cont inuoua Hot '
Casting Forming
_
-
-
X
X
-
X
-
X
_
-
X
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
-
-
X
subcategory.
_
-
-
X
X
-
X
X
-
_
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
-
-
X
Salt Bath
Descaling
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
_
-
X
-
X
-
-
X
-
-
X
Acid
Pickling
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
_
X
-
-
-
X
X
-
-
X
X
-
-
X
Cold
Forming
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
_
-
X
-
_
-
X
-
-
-
X
X
-
-
X
Alkaline Hot
Cleaning Coat ini
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
x'
-
-
X X
-
X
-
X X
-
-
-
X X
X X
-
-
X X
this subcategory.
-------
TABLE V-3
REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
4 Benzene
55 Naphthalene
73 Benzo(a)pyrene
85 Tetrachloroethylene
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
Ammonia
Oil & Grease
PH
Phenol (4AAP)
Chlorine Residual
Total Suspended Solids
Hexavalent Chromium
173
-------
TABLE V-4
No.
Pollutant
004
055
073
085
119
121
122
124
128
Benzene
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Te t r ach loroethy lene
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
X
X
X
-
_
X
-
-
-
Cokeaaking Sintering
REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST BY SOBCATEGORY
IROH & STEEL INDUSTRY
ronmaking
Basic
Oxygen
Furnace
(Steelnaking)
Open
Hearth
Furnace
(Steelaaking)
Electric
Arc
Furnace Vacuum Continuous
(Stee leaking) Degassing Casting
Hot
Fonainj
Anmonia
Fluoride
Oil & Grease
PH
Phenol (4AAP)
Chlorine (Residual)
Total Suspended Solids
Hexavalent Chromium
-------
TABLE V-4
REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST BY SUBCATEGORY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
No.
004
055
073
085
119
121
122
124
128
Pollutant
Benzene
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Tet rach lor oe thy lene
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Salt Bath
Descaling
(Oxidizing)
_
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
Salt Bath
Descaling
(Reducing)
_
-
-
-
X
X
-
X
_
Su If uric
Acid
Pickling
_
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
Hydrochloric
Acid
Pickling
_
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
Combination
Acid
Pickling
_
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
Cold
Rolling
:
X
-
X
X
-
X
X
X
Alkaline Hot
Cleaning Coat in|
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
Anmon ia
Fluoride
Oil & Grease
pH
Phenol (4AAP)
Chlorine Residual
Total Suspended Solids
Hexavalent Chromium
X: Selected for regulation in this subcategory.
-: Not selected for regulation in this subcategory.
-------
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION VI
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
A. Introduction
This section describes in-plant and end-of-pipe wastewater
treatment technologies currently in use or available for use in
the steel industry. The technology descriptions are grouped as
follows: recycle; suspended solids removal; oil removal; toxic
metal pollutant removal; toxic organic pollutant removal;
advanced technologies; and, zero discharge technologies. The
application and performance; advantages and limitations;
reliability; maintainability; and demonstration status of each
technology are presented. The treatment processes include both
technologies presently demonstrated within the steel industry,
and those demonstrated in other industries with similar
wastewaters.
B. End of Pipe Treatment
Recycle Systems
Recycle is both an in-plant and end of pipe treatment operation
used to reduce the volume of wastewater discharged. Wastewater
reuse reduces the discharge flow and the pollutant load
discharged from the process.
Application and Performance
Recycle is included in the model treatment systems for nine of
the twelve steel industry subcategories. The Agency estimates
that the use of these recycle systems can result in a 68.5%
reduction in process water discharges at the BPT level and a 69%
reduction at the BAT level. To achieve these reductions, high
degrees of recycle demonstrated in the industry have been
included in model treatment systems as shown below:
177
-------
BAT
Subcateqory Recycle Rate (%)
Cokemaking (Barometric Condenser) 95
Sintering 92
Ironmaking 98
Steelmaking 96-100
Vacuum Degassing 98
Continuous Casting 99
Hot Forming 60-77
Acid Pickling (fume scrubber) 95-98
Hot Coating (fume scrubber) 85
Higher rates of recycle are demonstrated in these and other
subcategories. For example, rates of recycle up to 99% are
common for hot forming operations.
At high recycle rates, two problems can be encountered. First,
if the wastewater is contaminated, a build-up of dissolved solids
in the recycled water can cause plugging and corrosion. This
problem can be avoided by providing sufficient treatment of the
wastewater prior to recycle, by adding chemicals that inhibit
scaling or corrosion, and by having sufficient blowdown to limit
the build-up of dissolved solids and other pollutants. The
second problem that can occur is excessive heat build-up in the
recycled water. If the temperature of the water to be recycled
is too high for its intended purpose, it must be cooled prior to.
recycle. The most common method of reducing the heat load of
recycled water in the steel industry is with mechanical draft
cooling towers. Mechanical draft evaporative cooling systems are
capable of handling the wide range of operating conditions
encountered in the steel industry. Cooling towers are included
in the model treatment systems for four of the eight
subcategories (cokemaking final cooler and barometric condenser
recycle systems, ironmaking, vacuum degassing, and continuous
casting) where recycle systems are considered. Heat accumulation
in the other subcategory recycle systems is not detrimental to
the operation.
Advantages and Limitations
As discussed above, recycle systems can achieve significant
pollutant load reductions at relatively low cost. The system is
controlled by simple instrumentation and relatively little
operator attention is required.
A potential limitation on the use of recycle systems is plugging
and scaling. However, based upon the industry's response to
basic and detailed questionnaires, the Agency believes that with
proper attention and maintenance, plugging and scaling should not
present a significant problem with achieving the recycle rates
used as a basis for this regulation.
178
-------
Operational Factors
1. Reliability
The reliability of recycle systems is high, although proper
monitoring and control are required for high rate systems.
Chemical aids are often used in the recycle loops to
maintain optimum operating conditions.
2. Maintainability
Most recycle systems include only simple pump stations and
piping. These components require very little attention
aside from routine maintenance. However, for those recycle
systems associated with wet air pollution control devices,
higher maintenance costs are incurred to chemically control
the recycled water to remove suspended and dissolved
constituents and to prevent fouling and scaling.
Demonstration Status
Recycle systems are well demonstrated in the steel industry as
well as in numerous other industral applications. Full scale
recycle systems have been used in the steel industry for many
years. The recycle rates used to develop effluent limitations
and standards for each subcategory are demonstrated on a full
scale basis in the industry.
Suspended Solids Removal
Many types of suspended solids removal devices are in use in the
steel industry including clarifiers, thickeners, inclined plate
separators, settling lagoons, and filtration (mixed or single
media; pressure or gravity). Three broad categories that
encompass virtually all methods of suspended solids removal are
reviewed: (1) settling lagoons, (2) clarification which includes
clarifiers, thickeners, and inclined plate separators and (3)
filtration.
1. Settling Lagoon (or Basin)
Settling (sedimentation) is a process which removes solid
particles from a liquid matrix by gravitational force. The
operation reduces the velocity of the wastewater stream in a
large volume tank or lagoon so that gravitational settling
can occur. Because of the large wastewater volumes involved
in the steel industry, lagoons are generally large, on the
order of 0.1 to 10 acres of surface area, typically with a
standard working depth of 7 to 10 feet. The industry has
found lagoons up to 400 acres.
Long retention times are generally required for
sedimentation. Accumulated sludge is removed either
179
-------
periodically or continuously and either manually or
mechanically. But because simple sedimentation may require
an excessively large settling area, and because high
retention times (days as compared with hours) are usually
required to effectively treat the wastewater, the addition
of settling aids such as alum or polymeric flocculants is
often used.
Sedimentation is often preceded by chemical precipitation
and coagulation. Chemical precipitation converts dissolved
pollutants to solid form, while coagulation enhances
settling by gathering together suspended precipitates into
larger, faster settling particles.
Application and Performance
Settling lagoons are used to treat wastewaters from all
steel industry subcategories. Most are terminal treatment
lagoons which serve as a final treatment step prior to
discharge. Often these lagoons are a main component in
central treatment systems and are used to settle out
suspended solids from several process waste streams.
A properly operated sedimentation system is capable of
efficiently removing suspended solids (including metal
hydroxides), and other impurities from wastewaters. The
performance of the lagoon depends primarily on overflow rate
and a variety of other factors, including the density and
particle size of the solids, the effective charge of the
suspended particles, and the types of chemicals used for
pretreatment, if any.
Advantages and Limitations
The major advantage of suspended solids removal by
sedimentation is the simplicity of the process. The major
problem with simple settling is the long retention time
necessary to achieve a high degree of suspended solids
removal, especially if the specific gravity of the suspended
matter is close to that of water. Retention time is
directly related to lagoon volume. Thus, long retention
time means large area requirements not available at some
steel plants. Another limitation is that dissolved or
soluble pollutants are not removed by sedimentation.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Sedimentation is a highly reliable
technology for removing suspended solids. Sufficient
retention time and regular sludge removal are important
factors affecting the reliability of all settling
systems. The proper control of pH, chemical
180
-------
precipitation, and coagulation or flocculation are
additional factors which affect settling efficiencies.
b. Maintainability: Little maintenance is required for
lagoons other than periodic sludge removal.
Demonstration Status
Based upon the survey of the industry through questionnaires
and sampling surveys, the Agency estimates that there are
over 140 settling lagoons in use at 39 s,teel plant sites.
Hence, settling lagoons are well demonstrated in the steel
industry.
2. Clarifiers
Clarifiers are another type of sedimentation device widely
used in the steel industry. The chief benefits of
Clarifiers over lagoons are that Clarifiers are less land
intensive and provide for centralized sludge collection.
Suspended SOlids removal efficiencies are generally in the
same range as that for settling lagoons. Conventional
Clarifiers consist of a circular or rectangular tank with
either a mechanical sludge collecting device or with a
sloping funnel-shaped bottom designed for sludge-collection.
In alternative clarifier designs, inclined plates or tubes
may be placed in the clarifier tank to increase the
effective settling area and thus increase the capacity of
the clarifier. As with settling lagoons, chemical aids are
often added prior to clarification to enhance suspended
solids removal.
Application and Performance
The application of clarification is very similar to that
described above for settling lagoons. Clarifiers are used
to treat wastewaters from every subcategory for suspended
solids removal. Performance data are presented in Appendix
A.
The Agency statistically analyzed long-term data for several
clarification systems. The Agency calculated the mean,
standard deviation and other common statistical values, as
well as the 30-day average and daily maximum performance
standards. A 30-day average concentration was calculated
based upon a 95 percentile value while the daily maximum
concentration was calculated with a 99 percentile value.
The methods used to determine these values are explained in
Appendix A.
Based upon the data presented above, and other data
presented in the subcategory reports, the Agency concludes
181
-------
that a 30-day average concentration of 30 mg/1 TSS and a
daily maximum concentration of 70 mg/1 TSS or less are
attainable with clarifiers for most steel industry
wastewaters. Biological treatment of cokemaking wastewaters
produces low density suspended solids that are difficult to
settle. Higher concentrations have been used in developing
the limitations for this subcategory.
Advantages and Limitations
Clarification is more effective for removing suspended
solids than simple settling lagoons, requires less area, and
provides for centralized sludge collection. However, the
cost of installing and maintaining clarifiers is greater
than the costs associated with simple settling lagoons.
Inclined plate and slant tube settlers have removal
efficiencies similar to conventional clarifiers, but have a
greater capacity per unit area.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Similar to lagoon systems with proper
control and maintenance. Clarifiers can achieve
consistently low concentrations of solids and other
pollutants in the wastewater.
Those advanced clarifiers using slanted tubes or
inclined plates may require prescreening of the
wastewater in order to eliminate any materials which
could potentially clog the system.
b. Maintainability: The systems used for chemical
pretreatment and sludge dragout must be maintained on a
regular basis. Routine maintenance of mechanical parts
is also necessary.
Demonstration Status
Clarifiers are used extensively to treat wastewaters from
all subcategories of the steel industry. While the design
may vary slightly depending on the wastewaters being treated
(i.e., steelmaking vs. pickling), all systems operate in a
similar manner.
Filtration
Filtration is another common method used to remove suspended
solids, oil and grease, and toxic metals from steel industry
wastewaters. Several types of filters and filter media are
used in the industry and all work by similar mechanisms.
Filters may be pressure or gravity type; single, dual, or
182
-------
mixed media; and the media can be sand, diatomaceous earth,
walnut shells or some other material.
A filter may use a single media such as sand. However, by
using dual or mixed (multiple) media, higher flow rates and
efficiencies can be achieved. The dual media filter usually
consists of a fine bed of sand under a coarser bed of
another media. The coarse media removes most of the
influent solids, while the fine sand performs final
polishing.
In the steel industry, several considerations are important
when filter systems are designed. While either pressure or
gravity systems may be used, the pressure systems are more
common and provide some advantages, including smaller land
area requirements.
For typical steel industry applications, filter rates are in
the range of 6 gpm per square foat to perhaps 18 gpm per
square foot. The efficiency of suspended solids removal is
dependent upon the filtration rate, the filter media and the
particle size. A knowledge of particle density, size
distribution, and chemical composition is useful when
selecting a filter design rate and media.
Filter media must be selected in conjunction with the filter
design rate. The size and depth of the media is a primary
consideration and other important factors are the chemical
composition, sphericity, and hardness of the media chosen.
The presence of relatively large amounts of oil in the
wastewater to be filtered also affects the selection of the
appropriate media.
During the filtration process, suspended solids and oils
accumulate in the bed and reduce the ability of the
wastewater to flow through the media. To function properly,
all filters are backwashed. The method of backwashing and
the design of backwash systems is an integral part of any
deep-bed filtration system. Solids penetrate deeply into
the bed and must be adequately removed during the
backwashing cycle or problems may develop within the
filtration system. Occasionally, auxiliary means are
employed to aid filter cleaning. Water jets used just below
the surface of the expanded bed will aid solids and oil
removals. Also, air can be used to augment the cleaning
action of the backwash water to "scour" the bed free of
solids and oils.
Filter system operation may be manual or automatic. The
filter backwash cycle may be on a timed basis, a pressure
drop basis with a terminal value which triggers backwash, or
on a suspended solids carryover basis from turbidity
183
-------
monitoring of the outlet stream. Each of these methods is
well demonstrated.
Application and Performance
In wastewater treatment plants, filters are often employed
for final treatment following clarification, sedimentation
or other similar operations. Filtration thus has potential
application in nearly all industrial plants. Chemical
additives which enhance the upstream treatment equipment may
or may not be compatible with or enhance the filtration
process. Normal operating flow rates for various types of
filters are as follows:
Slow Sand 2.04-5.30 1/sq m/hr
Rapid Sand 40.74-51.48 1/sq m/hr
High Rate Mixed Media 81.48-122.22 1/sq m/hr
Suspended solids are commonly removed from wastewater
streams by filtering through a deep 0.3-0.9 m (1-3 feet)
granular filter bed. The porous media bed can be designed
to remove practically all suspended particles. Even
colloidal suspensions (roughly 1 to 100 microns) are
adsorbed on the surface of the media grains as they pass in
close proximity in the narrow be'd passages.
Data gathered from short-term sampling visits show that
filter plants in all subcategories readily produce effluents
with less than 10 mg/1 TSS (See Appendix A). However, the
analysis of long-rterm data for ten filtration systems has
shown that higher values are more appropriate for
performance standards. Based upon the statistical analysis
for long-term TSS data the Agency has determined that a
30-day average of 15 mg/1 TSS and a daily maximum of 40 mg/1
TSS are attainable with filtration. Moreover, data for many
steel industry subcategories demonstrate that these limits
can be applied to most wastewaters treated by filtration.
Advantages and Limitations
The principal advantages of filtration are low initial and
operating costs, modest land requirements, lower effluent
solids concentration, and the reduction or elimination of
chemical additions which add to the discharge stream.
However, the filter may require pretreatment if the
suspended solids level is high (over 100 mg/1). In
addition, operator training is necessary due to the controls
and periodic backwashing involved.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Filtration is a highly reliable method of
wastewater treatment.
184
-------
b. Maintainability: Deep bed filters may be operated with
either manual or automatic backwashing. In either
case, they must be periodically inspected for media
retention, partial plugging and particulate leakage.
Demonstration Status
Filtration is one of the more common treatment methods used
for steel industry wastewaters especially in the hot forming
subcategory. This technology is used to treat a variety of
wastewaters with similar results. Its ability to reduce the
amount of solids, oils and metals in the wastewater is well
demonstrated with both short and long-term data in the steel
industry.
Oil Removal
Oils and greases are removed from process wastewaters by several
methods in the steel industry including oil skimming, filtration,
and air flotation. Also, ultrafiltration is used at one cold
rolling plant to remove oils. Oils may also be incidentally
removed through other treatment processes such as clarification.
The source of these oils is usually lubricants and preservative
coatings used in the various steelmaking and finishing
operations.
As a general matter, the most effective first step in oil removal
is to prevent the oil from mixing with the large volume
wastewater flows by segregating the sumps in all cellars and by
appropriate maintenance of the lubrication and greasing systems.
If the segregation is accomplished, more efficient removals of
the oils and greases from wastewaters can be accomplished. The
oil removal equipment used in the steel industry is described
below.
1. Skimming
Pollutants with a specific gravity less than water will
often float unassisted to the surface of the wastewater.
Skimming is used to remove these floating wastes. Skimming
normally takes place in a tank designed to allow the
floating debris to rise and remain on the surface, while the
liquid flows to an outlet located below the floating layer.
Skimming devices are therefore suited to the removal of
nonemulsified oils from untreated wastewaters. Common
skimming mechanisms include the rotating drum type, which
picks up oil from the surface of the water as the drum
rotates. A doctor blade scrapes oil from the drum and
collects it in a trough for disposal or reuse. The water
portion is allowed to flow under the rotating drum. An
underflow baffle is usually installed after the drum; this
has the advantage of retaining any floating oil which
escapes the drum skimmer. The belt type skimmer is pulled
185
-------
vertically through the water, collecting oil which is then
scraped off from the belt surface and collected in a storage
tank. The industry also uses rope and belt skimmers of
various design that function in the same fashion. Gravity
separators, such as the API type, use overflow and underflow
baffles to skim a layer of floating oil from the surface of
the wastewater. An overflow-underflow baffle allows a small
amount of wastewater (the oil portion) to flow over into a
trough for disposition or reuse while most of the water
flows underneath the baffle. This is followed by an
overflow baffle, which is set at a height relative to the
first baffle such that only the oil bearing portion will
flow over the first baffle during normal plant operation. A
diffusion device, such as a vertical slot baffle, aids in
creating a uniform flow through the system and increasing
oil removal efficiency.
Application and Performance
Skimming may be used on any wastewater containing pollutants
which float to the surface. It is commonly used to remove
free oil, grease, and soaps. Skimming is always used with
air flotation and often with clarification to improve
removal of both settling and floating materials.
The removal efficiency of a skimmer is a function of the
density of the material to be floated and the retention time
of the wastewater in the tank. The retention time required
to allow phase separation and subsequent skimming varies
from 1 to 15 minutes, depending upon wastewater
characteristics.
API or other gravity-type separators tend to be more
suitable for use where the amount of surface oil flowing
through the system is fairly high and consistent. Drum and
belt type skimmers are suitable where oil can be allowed to
collect in a treatment device for periodic or continuous
removal. Data for various oil skimming operations are
presented in Appendix A.
Advantages and Limitations
Skimming as pretreatment is effective in removing naturally
floating waste material. It also improves the performance
of subsequent downstream treatments.
Many pollutants, particularly dispersed or emulsified oil,
will not float "naturally" but require additional treatment.
Therefore, skimming alone may not remove all the pollutants
capable of being removed by air flotation or other more
sophisticated technologies.
106
-------
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Because of its simplicity, skimming is a
very reliable technique. During cold weather, heating
is usually required for the belt-type skimmers.
b. Maintainability: The skimming mechanism requires
periodic lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of
worn parts.
Demonstration Status
Skimming is a common method used to remove floating oil in
many industrial categories, including the steel industry.
Skimming is used extensively to treat wastewaters from hot
forming, continuous casting, and cold forming operations.
2. Filtration
As explained above, filtration is also used to remove oils
and greases from steel industry wastewaters. The mechanism
for removing oils is very similar to the solids removal
mechanism. The oils and greases, either floating or
emulsified types, are directed into the filter where they
are adsorbed on the filter media. Significant oil
reductions can be achieved with filtration, and problems
with the oils are not experienced unless high concentrations
of oils are allowed to reach the filter bed. When this
occurs the bed can be "blinded" and must be backwashed
immediately. If too much oil is in the filter wastewater,
frequent backwashing is necessary which makes the use of the
technology unworkable. Therefore, proper pretreatment is
essential for the proper operations of filtration equipment.
Application and Performance
The discussion presented above for filtration systems
applies here as well. The filter will reduce oil from
moderate levels down to extremely low levels. Long-term
data for eight filtration systems demonstrate that an oil
and grease performance standard as low as 3.5 mg/1 can be
readily attained on a 30-day average basis and 10 mg/1 oil
and grease can be readily attained on a daily maximum basis.
However, because of problems with obtaining consistent
analytical results in the range of 5 mg/1, the Agency has
decided to establish only a maximum effluent limitation and
standard based upon a daily maximum concentration of 10 mg/1
for hot forming operations and other operations with similar
wastewaters.
Operational Factors and Demonstrated Status
See prior discussion on filtration.
187
-------
3. Flotation
Flotation is a process which causes particles such as metal
hydroxides or oils to float to the surface of a tank where
they are concentrated and removed. Gas bubbles are released
in the wastewater and attach to the solid particles, which
increase their buoyancy and causes them to float. In
principle, this process is the opposite of sedimentation.
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewaters
that carry finely divided suspended solids or oil. Solids
having a specific gravity only slightly greater than 1.0,
which require abnormally long sedimentation times, may be
removed by flotation.
This process may be performed in several ways: foam,
dispersed air, dissolved air, gravity, and vacuum flotation
are the most commonly used techniques. Chemical additives
are often used to enhance the performance of the flotation
process. For example, acid and chemical aids are often used
to break oil emulsions in cold rolling wastewaters. The
emulsions are part of rolling solutions used in the process.
Emulsion breaking is necessary for proper treatment of most
cold rolling wastewaters by flotation.
The principal difference between types of flotation
techniques is the method of generating the minute gas
bubbles (usually air) needed to float the 'oil. Chemicals
may be used to improve the' efficiency of any of the basic
methods. The different flotation techniques and the method
of bubble generation for each process are described below.
Froth .Flotation: Froth flotation is based upon the
differences in the physiochemical properties of various
particles. Wetability and surface properties affect
particle affinity to gas bubbles. In froth flotation, air
is blown through the solution containing flotation reagents.
The particles with water repellent surfaces stick to air
bubbles and are brought to the surface. A mineralized froth
layer, with mineral particles attached to air bubbles, is
formed. Particles of other minerals which are readily
wetted by water do not stick to air bubbles and remain in
suspension.
Dispersed Air Flotation: In dispersed air flotation, gas
bubbles are generated by introducing the air by mechanical
agitation .with impellers or by forcing air through .porous
media. Dispersed air flotation is used mainly in the
metallurgical industry.
Dissolved Air Flotation: In dissolved air flotation,
bubbles are produced as a result of the release of air from
a supersaturated solution under relatively high pressure.
1C8
-------
There are two types of contact between the gas bubbles and
particles. The first involves the entrapment of rising gas
bubbles in the flocculated particles as they increase in
size. The bond between the bubble and particle is one of
physical capture only. This is the predominant type of
contact. The second type of contact is one of adhesion.
Adhesion results from the intermolecular attraction exerted
at the interface between the solid particle and gaseous
bubble.
Vacuum Flotation: This process consists of saturating the
wastewater with air, either directly in an aeration tank or
by permitting air to enter the suction of a pump. A partial
vacuum causes the dissolved air to come out of solution as
minute bubbles. The bubbles attach to solid particles and
form a scum blanket on the surface, which is normally
removed by a skimming mechanism. Grit and other heavy
solids which settle to the bottom are generally raked to a
central sludge pump for removal, A typical vacuum flotation
unit consists of a covered cylindrical tank in which a
partial vacuum is maintained. The tank is equipped with
scum and sludge removal mechanisms. The floating material
is continuously swept to the tank periphery, automatically
discharged into a scum trough, and removed from the unit by
a pump also under partial vacuum.
Application and Performance
Flotation is commonly used to treat cokemaking and cold
forming wastewaters. Gas (hydrogen) flotation is used at
several cokemaking operations to control oil levels.
Dissolved air flotation is used extensively to treat cold
rolling wastewaters. The flotation process is used after
emulsion breaking and prior to final settling. Data for
three steel industry flotation units are presented below.
Performance of Flotation Units
Plant
Oil
In
& Grease
(mq/1)
Out
0684F (cokemaking) 93 45
0684F (cold rolling) NA 7.3
0060B 41,140 98
Advantages and Limitations
The advantages of the flotation process include the high
levels of solids and oil separation which are achieved in
many applications/ relatively low energy requirements,- and,
the capability to adjust air flow to meet the varying
requirements of treating different types of wastewaters.
The limitations of flotation are that it often requires
JLB9,
-------
addition of chemicals to enhance process performance; it
requires properly trained and attentive operators; and it
generates large quantities of solid wastes.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: The reliability of a flotation system is
normally high and is governed by proper operation of
the sludge collector mechanism and by the motors and
pumps used for aeration.
b. Maintainability: Maintenance of the scraper blades
used to remove the floated material is critical for
proper operations. Routine maintenance is required on
the pumps and motors. The sludge collector mechanism
is subject to possible corrosion or breakage and may
require periodic replacement.
Demonstration Status
Flotation is extensively demonstrated in the steel industry,
particularly for the treatment of cokemaking and cold
rolling wastewaters.
Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration (UF) includes the use of pressure and
semipermeable polymeric membranes to separate emulsified or
colloidal materials suspended in a liquid phase. The
membrane of an ultrafiltration unit forms a molecular screen
which retains molecular particles based upon their
differences in size, shape, and chemical structure. The
membrane permits passage of solvents and lower molecular
weight molecules. At present, ultrafiltration systems are
used to remove materials with molecular weights in the range
of 1,000 to 100,000 and particles of comparable or larger
sizes.
In. the ultrafiltration process, the wastewater is pumped
through a tubular membrane unit. Water and some low
molecular weight materials pass through the membrane under
the applied pressure of 10 to 100 psig. Emulsified oil
droplets and suspended particles are retained, concentrated,
and removed continuously. In contrast to ordinary
filtration, retained materials are washed off the membrane
filter rather than held by it.
Application and Performance
Ultrafiltration has potential application in cold rolling
operations for separating oils and residual solids from the
process wastes. Because of the ability to remove emulsified
oils with little or no pretreatment, ultrafiltration is well
190
-------
suited for many of the wastewaters generated at cold rolling
mills. Also, some organic compounds of suitable molecular
weight may be bound in the oily wastes which are removed.
Hence, ultrafiltration could prove to be an effective means
to achieve toxic organic pollutant removal for the cold
rolling subdivision.
The following test data depict ultrafiltration performance
for the treatment of cold rolling wastewaters at one plant:
Ultrafiltration Performance
Feed (mq/1) Permeate (mg/1)
Oil (freon extractable) 82,210 140
TSS 2,220 199
Chromium 6.5 1.2
Copper 7.5 0.07
2-chlorophenol 35.5 ND
2-nitrophenol 70.0 0.02
When the concentration of pollutants in the wastewater is
high (as above) the ultrafiltration unit alone may not
adequately treat the wastewater. Additional treatment may
be required prior to discharge.
Advantages and Limitations
Ultrafiltration is an attractive alternative to chemical
treatment in certain applications because of lower
installation and operating costs, high oil and suspended
solids removal, and little required pretreatment. It places
a positive barrier between pollutants and effluent which
reduces the possibility of extensive pollutant discharge due
to operator error or upset in settling and skimming systems.
Another possible application is recovering alkaline values
from alkaline cleaning solutions.
A limitation on the use of ultrafiltration for treating
wastewaters is its narrow temperature range (18 to 30
degrees C) for satisfactory operation. Membrane life is
decreased with higher temperatures, but flux increases at
elevated temperatures. Therefore, the surface area
requirements are a function of temperature and become a
tradeoff between initial costs and replacement costs for the
membrane. Ultrafiltration is not suitable for certain
solutions. Strong oxidizing agents, solvents, and other
organic compounds can dissolve the membrane. Fouling is
sometimes a problem, although the high velocity of the
wastewater normally creates enough turbulence to keep
fouling at a minimum. Large solids particles are also
sometimes capable of puncturing the membrane and must be
191
-------
removed by gravity settling or filtration prior to
ultrafiltration.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: The reliability of ultrafiltration
systems is dependent upon the proper filtration,
settling or other treatment of incoming wastewaters to
prevent damage to the membrane. Pilot studies should
be completed for each application to determine
necessary pretreatment steps and the specific membrane
to be used.
b. Maintainability: A limited amount of regular
maintenance is required for the pumping system. In
addition, membranes must be periodically changed. - The
maintenance associated with membrane plugging can be
reduced by selecting a membrane with optimum physical
characteristics and providing sufficient velocity of
the wastewater. It is necessary to pass a detergent
solution through the system at regular intervals to
remove an oil and grease film which accumulates on the
membrane. With proper maintenance membrane life can be
greater than twelve months.
Demonstration Status
The ultrafiltration process is well developed and
commercially available for treatment of wastewater or
recovery of certain high molecular weight liquid and solid
contaminants. Over 100 units are presently in operation in
the United States. Ultrafiltration is demonstrated in the
steel industry in the cold forming subcategory.
Metals Removal
Steel industry wastewaters contain significant levels of toxic
metal pollutants including chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc
and others. These pollutants are generally removed by chemical
precipitation and sedimentation or filtration. Most can be
effectively removed by precipitating metal hydroxides or
carbonates through reactions with lime, sodium hydroxide, or
sodium carbonate. Sodium sulfide, ferrous sulfide, or sodium
bisulfite can also be used to precipitate metals as sulfide
compounds with low solubilities.
Hexavalent chromium is generally present in galvanizing and
oxidizing salt bath descaling wastewaters. Reduction of this
pollutant to the trivalent form is required if precipitation as
the hydroxide is to be achieved. Where sulfide precipitation is
used, hexavalent chromium can be reduced directly by the sulfide.
Chromium reduction using sulfur dioxide or sodium bisulfite or by
192
-------
electrochemical techniques may be necessary, however, when
hydroxides are precipitated.
Details on various metal removal technologies are presented below
with typical treatability levels where data are available.
1. Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anions may be
chemically precipitated and removed by physical means such
as sedimentation, filtration, or centrifugation. Several
reagents are commonly used to effect this precipitation.
a. Alkaline compounds such as lime or sodium hydroxide may
be used to precipitate many toxic metal ions as metal
hydroxides. Lime also may precipitate phosphates as
insoluble calcium phosphate and fluorides as calcium
fluoride.
b. Both soluble sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide or
sodium sulfide and insoluble sulfides such as ferrous
sulfide may be used to precipitate many heavy metal
ions as insoluble metal sulfides.
c. Carbonate precipitates may be used to remove metals'
either by direct precipitation using a carbonate
reagent such as calcium carbonate or by converting
hydroxides into carbonates using carbon dioxide.
These treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or
rapid mix tank, a presettling tank, or directly to a
clarifier or other settling device. Coagulating agents may
be added to facilitate settling. After the solids have been
removed, a final pH adjustment may be required to reduce the
high pH created by the alkaline treatment chemicals.
Chemical precipitation as a mechanism for removing metals
from wastewater is a complex process made up of at least two
steps: precipitation of the unwanted metals and removal of
the precipitate. A small amount of metal will remain
dissolved in the wastewater after complete precipitation.
The amount of residual dissolved metal depends on the
treatment chemicals used, the solubility of the metal and
co-precipitation effects. The effectiveness of this method
of removing any specific metal depends on the fraction of
the specific metal in the raw waste (and hence in the
precipitate) and the effectiveness of suspended solids
removal.
Application and Performance
Chemical precipitation is used extensively in the steel
industry for precipitation of dissolved metals including
193
-------
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum,
nickel, tin, and zinc. The process is also applicable to
any substance that can be transformed into an insoluble form
such as fluorides, phosphates, soaps, sulfides, and others.
Chemical precipitation is simple and effective.
The performance of chemical precipitation depends on several
variables; the most important are:
a. Maintenance of an alkaline pH throughout the
precipitation reaction and subsequent settling.
b. Addition of a sufficient excess of treatment ions to
drive the precipitation reaction to completion.
c. Addition of an adequate supply of sacrifical ions (such
as iron or aluminum) to ensure precipitation and
removal of specific target ions.
d. Effective removal of precipitated solids (see
appropriate technologies discussed under "Solids
Removal").
A discussion of the performance of some of the chemical
precipitation technologies used in the steel industry is
presented below.
Lime Precipitation - Sedimentation Performance
Lime is sometimes used in conjunction with sedimentation
technology to precipitate metals. Numerous examples of this
technology are demonstrated in the steel industry, mostly
for treatment of steel finishing wastewaters. Data for one
plant and the median effluent concentration of long term
averages for several plants using this technology are shown
below. Plant 0584E has a lime precipitation/sedimentation
treatment system which treats wastewaters from several
finishing operations, including electroplating which is not
covered as part of the steel industry category. The median
data for the other plants were used to establish the
effluent limitation for carbon steel finishing operations
and are review in Appendix A of this volume.
194
-------
Lime Precipitation - Sedimentation Performance
Pollutant
Concentration of Pollutants
(mq/1)
Median
Performance*
Out
Plant 0584E
Dissolved Iron
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
TSS
PH
In
0.25
4.4
4.4
0.11
322
2.9-6.8
Out
0.01
0.054
0.0
0.02
4.5
7.0-7.4
<0.02
0.03
0.04
0. 10
0. 15
0.06
25
6.0-9.0
*See Appendix A
Lime Precipitation - Filtration Performance
A metals removal technology that is used in the steel
industry similar to the lime/sedimentation system includes
lime precipitation and filtration. These systems accomplish
better solids and oil removal and also achieves slightly
better control of the effluent concentration of the metallic
elements. Data for two plants that employ lime
precipitation/filtration technology are shown below.
Pickling and galvanizing wastewaters are treated at plant
0612, while pickling, galvanizing and alkaline cleaning
wastewaters are treated at plant 01121. The median effluent
concentrations of long term average for several plants which
were used to establish the effluent limitations for
filtration systems are also presented below. These effluent
data are more thoroughly, reviewed in Appendix A of this
volume. Pilot plant data for steelmaking wastewaters are
also presented in Appendix A.
195
-------
Lime Precipitation - Filtration Performance
Concentration of
(mq/1)
Pollutants
Pollutant
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
TSS
PH
Plant 0612
Plant 01121
In
1 .60
0.60
2.400
0.60
285.00
350.00
2.9-
3.9
Out
0.04
0.08
0.18
0.02
0. 12
11 .00
8.3-
8.5
In
0.12
0.17
0.19
0.08
18.00
199.00
5.2-
5.6
Out
0.03
0.02
<0.10
0.03
0.13
00
3-
7.7
Median
Performance*
Out
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.10
9.8
6.0
9.0
*See Appendix A
Sulfide Precipitation
Most metal sulfides are less soluble than hydroxides and the
precipitates are frequently more dependably removed from
water. Solubilities for selected metal hydroxides and
sulfide precipitates are shown below:
Theoretical Solubilities of Hydroxides and Sulfides
of Heavy Metals in Pure Water
Metal
Cadmium(Cd+2~)
Chromium (Cr+3
Copper (Cu+2)
Iron (Fe+2)
Lead (Pb+*)
Nickel (Ni+2)
Silver (Ag+*)
Tin (Sn+2)
Solubility of Metal, mq/1
As hydroxide
2.
8.
2.
8.
2.
6.
13.
1.
3
4
2
9
1
9
0
1
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10-
10-
10-
10-
10-
10-
10-
10-
s
s
2
1
0
9
0
4
As sulfide
6.7 x lp-10
No precipitate
5.8 x 10~18
3.4 x 10-s
3.8 x 10-*
6.9 x 10~8
7.4 x 10~12
2.3 x 10-7
Sulfide treatment has not been used in the steel industry on
a full-scale basis. However, it has been used in other
manufacturing process (e.g. electroplating) to remove metals
from wastewaters with similar characteristics and pollutants
to those of the steel industry.
In assessing whether this technology is transferable for use
in steel industry, the Agency consulted numerous references;
contacted sulfide precipitation equipment manufacturers, and
gathered data from operating sulfide precipitation systems.
The wastewaters treated by these sulfide precipitation
systems were contaminated with many of the same toxic metals
196
-------
found in steel industry wastewaters and at similar
concentrations. Accordingly, the Agency concluded that a
transfer of the effectiveness of this technology is
possible. However, as noted above there are no full scale
systems currently in use in the steel industry.
Data for several sulfide/filtration systems are shown below.
Sulfide Precipitation/Filtration Performance
Concentration of Pollutants (mq/1)
Data Set »1 Data Set #2
Pollutant Iji Out Iri Out
Chromium 2.0 <0.1 2.4 <0.1
Iron 85.0 0.04 108 0.60
Nickel 0.6 0.10 0.68 <0.1
Zinc 27.0 <0.1 33.9 <0.1
TSS 320 4.0
pH 2.9 8.2 7.7 7.4
Another benefit of the sulfide precipitation technology is
the ability to precipitate hexavalent chromium (Cr+*)
without prior reduction to the trivalent state as is
required in the hydroxide process. When ferrous sulfide is
used as the precipitant, iron and sulfide act as reducing
agents for the hexavalent chromium according to the
reaction:
Cr04=+ FeS + 4H20-»Cr(OH)3 + Fe(OH)3 + S + 20H-
In this reaction, the sludge produced consists mainly of
ferric hydroxides, chromic hydroxides and various metallic
sulfides. Some excess hydroxyl ions are generated in this
process, possibly requiring a downward pre-adjustment of pH.
Advantages and Limitations
Chemical precipitation is an effective technique for
removing many pollutants from industrial wastewaters. It
operates at ambient conditions and is well suited to
automatic control. The use of chemical precipitation may be
limited due to interference of chelating agents, chemical
interferences from mixing wastewaters and treatment
chemicals, and potentially hazardous situations involved
with the storage and handling of those chemicals. Lime is
usually added as a slurry when used in hydroxide
precipitation. The slurry must be well mixed and the
addition lines periodically checked to prevent fouling. In
addition, hydroxide precipitation usually makes recovery of
the precipitated metals difficult, because of the
heterogeneous nature of most hydroxide sludges. As shown
197
-------
above, lime precipitation of steel industry finishing
wastewaters can produce effluent quality similar to that
shown for sulfide precipitation.
The low solubility of most metal sulfides, allow for high
metal removal efficiencies. Also, the sulfide process has
the ability to remove chromates and dichromates without
preliminary reduction of the chromium to the trivalent
state. Sulfide precipitation can be used to precipitate
metals complexed with most complexing agents. However,
Sulfids precipitation can be used to care must be taken to
maintain the pH of the solution at approximately 10 in order
to prevent the generation of toxic sulfide gas during this
process. For this reason ventilation of the treatment tanks
may be a necessary precaution in most installations. The
use of ferrous sulfide reduces or virtually eliminates the
problem of hydrogen sulfide evolution. As with hydroxide
precipitation, excess sulfide ion must be present to drive
the precipitation reaction to completion. Since the sulfide
ion itself is toxic, sulfide addition must be carefully
controlled to maximize heavy metals precipitation with a
minimum of excess sulfide to avoid the necessity of post
treatment. Where excess sulfide is present, aeration of the
effluent stream can aid in oxidizing residual sulfide to the
less harmful sodium sulfate (Na2S04). The cost of sulfide
precipitants is high' in comparison with hydroxide
precipitants, and disposal of metallic sulfide sludges may
pose problems. An essential element in effective sulfide
precipitation is the removal of precipitated solids from the
wastewater and proper disposal in an appropriate site.
Sulfide precipitation will also generate a higher volume of
sludge than hydroxide precipitation, resulting in higher
disposal and dewatering costs. This is especially true when
ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.
Sulfide precipitation may be used as a final tratement step
after hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation. This treatment
configuration may provide the better treatment effectiveness
of sulfide precipitation while minimizing the variability
caused by changes in raw waste and reducing the amount of
sulfide precipitant required.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: The reliability of alkaline chemical
precipitation is high, although proper monitoring and
control are necessary. Sulfide precipitation systems
provide similar reliability.
b. Maintainability: The major maintenance needs involve
periodic upkeep of monitoring equipment, automatic
feeding equipment, mixing equipment, and other
hardware. Removal of accumulated sludge is necessary
198
-------
for the efficient operation of
precipitation-sedimentation systems.
Demonstration Status
Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides is a classic
wastewater treatment technology used throughout the steel
industry. Chemical precipitation of metals in the carbonate
form alone has been found to be feasible and, is used in
commercial application to permit metals recovery and water
reuse. Full scale commercial sulfide precipitation units
are in operation at numerous installations, however, none
are presently installed in the steel industry.
2. Filtration (for Metal Removal)
As discussed previously, filtration is a proven technology
for the control of suspended solids and oil and grease. The
filtration mechanism which reduces the concentrations of the
suspended solids and oils also treats the metallic elements
present in particulate form. To determine the treatability
levels for metals using filtration the Agency compiled all
available data for such systems. Data for seventeen
filtration systems were averaged to develop the treated
effluent concentrations. The average treated effluent
concentrations and the proposed monthly average
concentration for five toxic metals are shown below:
Metal Removal with Filtration Systems
Monthly Average Daily Maximum
Pollutant Concentration (mg/1) Concentration (mq/1)
Chromium 0.04 0.12
Copper 0.04 0.12
Lead 0.08 0.24
Nickel 0.05 0.16
Zinc 0.08 0.24
For purposes of developing effluent limitations, the Agency
is using 30 day average concentrations of 0.10 mg/1 and
daily maximum concentrations of 0.30 mg/1 for each toxic
metal except zinc. For zinc, the Agency is using a 30 day
average concentration of 0.15 mg/1 and daily maximum
concentration of 0.45 mg/1, since the performance standard
for zinc was greater than 0.10 mg/1. The Agency rounded the
zinc performance standard to 0.15 mg/1. Reference is made
to Appendix A for development of toxic metals effluent
concentrations.
199
-------
Advantages and Limitations
See prior discussion on filtration systems.
Operational Factors and Demonstrat ion Status
See prior discussion on filtration systems.
Organic Removal
Thirty-three organic toxic pollutants were detected in steel
industry wastewaters above treatability levels. Because some of
these pollutants are present in significant levels, the Agency
considered two demonstrated treatment alternatives for these
pollutants in several subcategories: carbon adsorption and
biological treatment (activated sludge). These technologies are
discussed separately below.
»
1. Carbon Adsorption
The use of activated carbon for removal of dissolved
organics from water and wastewater has been demonstrated and
is one of the most efficient organic removal processes'
available. Activated carbon has also been shown to be an
effective adsorbent for many toxic metals, including
mercury. This process is reversible, thus allowing
activated carbon to be regenerated and reused by the
application of heat and steam or solvent. Regeneration of
carbon which has adsorbed significant metals, however, may
be difficult.
The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of
carbon that has been* specially treated to give high
adsorption capacities. Typical raw materials include coal,
wood, coconut shells, petroleum base residues and char from
sewage sludge pyrolysis. A carefully controlled process of
dehydration, carbonization, and oxidation yields a product
which is called activated carbon. This material has a high
capacity for adsorption due primarily to the large surface
" area available for adsorption (500- 1500 square meters/gram)
which result from a large number of internal pores. Pore
sizes generally range in radius from 10-100 angstroms.
Activated carbon removes contaminants from water by the
process of adsorption (the attraction and accumulation of
one substance on the surface of another). Activated carbon
preferentially adsorbs organic compounds and, because of
this selectivity, is particularly effective in removing
toxic organic pollutants from wastewaters.
Carbon adsorption requires pretreatment (usually filtration)
to remove excess suspended solids, oils, and greases.
Suspended solids in the influent should be less than 50 mg/1
200
-------
to minimize backwash requirements. A downflow carbon bed
can handle much higher levels (up to 2000 mg/1), but
frequent backwashing is required. Backwashing more than two
or three times a day is not desirable. Oil and grease
should be less than about 15 mg/1. A high level of dissolved
inorganic material in the influent may cause problems with
thermal carbon reactivation (i.e., scaling and loss of
activity) unless appropriate preventive steps are taken.
Such steps might include pH control, softening, or the use
of an acid wash on the carbon prior to reactivation.
Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular
form. Powdered carbon is less expensive per unit weight and
may have elightly higher adsorption capacity but it is more
difficult to handle and to regenerate.
Application and Performance
Activated carbon has been used in a variety of applications
involving the removal of objectional organics from
wastewater streams. One of the more frequent uses is to
reduce the concentration of oxygen demanding substances in
POTW effluents. It is also used to remove specific organic
contaminants in the wastewaters of various manufacturing
operations such as petroleum refining. There are two full
scale activated carbon systems in use in the steel industry
for treating cokemaking wastewaters.
Tests performed on single compound systems indicate that
processing with activated carbon can achieve residual levels
on the order of 1 microgram per liter for many of the toxic
organic pollutants. Compounds which respond well to
adsorption include carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated
benzenes, chlorinated ethanes, chlorinated phenols,
haloethers, phenols, nitrophenols, DDT and metabolites,
pesticides, polynuclear aromatics and PCB's. Plant scale
systems treating a mixture of many organic compounds must be
carefully designed to optimize certain critical factors.
Factors which affect overall adsorption of mixed solutes
include relative molecular size, the relative adsorptive
affinities, and the relative concentration of the solutes.
Data indicate that column treatment with granular carbon
provides for better removal of organics than clarifier
contact treatment with powdered carbon.
Data from two activated carbon column systems used in the
steel industry and EPA treatability data for carbon
adsorption systems were combined to develop performance
standards for carbon column systems. The average
concentration values attainable with carbon adsorption
systems are shown in Table VI-1 for those toxic organics
201
-------
found above treatability levels in steel industry
wastewaters.
Advantages and Limitations
The major benefits of carbon treatment include applicability
to a wide variety of organics, and a high removal
efficiency. The system is not sensitive to fairly wide
variations in concentration and flow rates. The system is
compact, and recovery of adsorbed materials is sometimes
practical. However, the destruction of adsorbed compounds
often occurs during thermal regeneration. If carbon cannot
be thermally desorbed, it must be disposed of along with any
adsorbed pollutants. When thermal regeneration is used,
capital and operating costs are generally economical when
carbon usage exceeds about 1,000 Ib/day. Carbon does not
efficiently remove low molecular weight or highly soluble
organic compounds.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: This system is very reliable with proper
pretreatment and proper operation and maintenance.
b. Maintainability: This system requires periodic
regeneration or replacement of spent carbon and is
dependent upon raw waste load and process efficiency.
Demonstration Status
Carbon adsorption systems have been demonstrated to be
practical and economical for the reduction of COD, BOD and
related pollutants in secondary municipal and industrial
wastewaters; for the removal of toxic or refractory organics
from isolated industrial wastewaters; for the removal and
recovery of certain organics from wastewaters; and for the
removal, at times with recovery, of selected inorganic
chemicals from aqueous wastes. Carbon adsorption is
considered a viable and economic process for organic waste
streams containing up to 1 to 5 percent of refractory or
toxic organics. It also has been used to remove toxic
inorganic pollutants such as metals.
Granular carbon adsorption is demonstrated on a full scale
basis at tow plants in the cokemaking subcategory and one
blast furnace and sintering operation. Additionally, a
powered carbon addition study has been piloted for
biological treatment of cokemaking wasterwaters.
2. Biological Oxidation
Biological treatment is another method of reducing the
concentration of ammonia-n, cyanide, phenols (4AAP) and
202
-------
toxic organic pollutants from process wastewaters.
Biological systems, both single and two-stage, have been
used effectively to treat sanitary wastewaters. The
activated sludge system is well demonstrated in the steel
industry, although other systems including rotating
biological disks have also been studied.
In the activated sludge process, wastewater is stablized
biologically in a reactor under aerobic conditions. The
aerobic environment is achieved by the use of diffused or
mechanical aeration. After the wastewater is treated in the
reactor, the resulting biological mass is separated from the
liquid in a settling tank. A portion of the settled
biological solids is recycled and the remaining mass is
wasted. The level at which the biological mass should be
maintained in the system depends upon the desired treatment
efficiency, the particular pollutants that are to be removed
and other considerations related to growth kinetics.
The activated sludge system generally is sensitive to
fluctuations in hydraulic and pollutant loadings,
temperature and certain pollutants. Temperature not only
influences the metabolic activities of the microbiological
population, but also has an effect on such factors as gas
transfer rates and the settling characteristics of the
biological solids. Some pollutants are extremely toxic to
the microorganisms in the system, such as ammonia at high
concentrations and tocix metals. Therefore, sufficient
equalization and pretreatment must be installed ahead of the
biological reactor so that high levels of toxic pollutants
do not enter the system and "kill" the microorganism
population. If the biological conditions in an activated
sludge plant are upset, it can be a matter of days or weeks
before biological activity returns to normal.
Application and Performance
Although a great deal of information is available on the
performance of activated sludge units in controlling
phenolic compounds, cyanides, ammonia, and BOD, limited
long-term data are available regarding toxic pollutants
other than phenolic compounds, cyanides, and ammonia. Only
lately has there been an emphasis upon the performance of
the activated sludge units on the toxic organic pollutants.
Originally, advanced levels of treatment using a biological
system were expected to involve multiple stages for
accomplishing selective degradation of pollutants in series,
e.g., phenolic compounds and cyanide removal, nitrification,
and dentrification. The Agency sampled the wastewaters of
two well operated biological plants in the cokemaking
subcategory. Both of these plants achieved good removals of
toxic pollutants with organic removal averaging better than
203
-------
90% and completely eliminating phenolic compounds,
naphthalene, and xylene. The monitoring data for one of
these plants were used to develop performance standards for
ammonia-N, cyanide, phenols (4AAP), and toxic organic
pollutants for biological oxidation systems. These
standards are shown in Table VI-1 for those toxic pollutants
found in the steel industry wastewaters above treatability
levels.
Advantages and Limitations
The activated sludge system achieves significant reductions
of most toxic organic pollutants at significantly less
capital and operating costs than for carbon adsorption.
Also, consistent effluent quality can be maintained if
sufficient pretreatment is practiced and shock loadings of
specific pollutants are eliminated. The temperature, pH and
oxygen levels in the system must be maintained within
certain ranges or fluctuating removal efficiencies of some
pollutants will occur.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Thj.s system is very reliable with proper
pretreatment and proper operation and maintenance.
b. Maintainability: As long as adequate pretreatment is
practiced, high effluent quality can be maintained. If
the system is upset, the operation can be brought under
control by seeding with biological floe or POTW
sludges.
Demonstration Status
Activated sludge systems are well demonstrated in the steel
industry. Biological oxidation systems are installed at
eighteen cokemaking operations.
Advanced Technologies
The Agency considered other advanced treatment technologies as
possible alternative treatment systems. Ion exchange and reverse
osmosis were considered because of their treatment effectiveness
and because, in certain applications, they allow the recovery of
certain process material.
1. Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by
electrostatic forces to charged functional groups on the
surface of the ion exchange resin, are exchanged for ions of
similar charge from the solution in which the resin is
immersed. This is classified as an absorption process
204
-------
because the exchange occurs on the surface of the resin, and
the exchanging ion must undergo a phase transfer from
solution phase to solid phase. Thus, ionic contaminants in
a wastewater can be exchanged for the harmless ions of the
resin.
Low exchange systems used to treat wastewaters are always
preceeded by filters to remove suspended matter which could
foul the low exchange resin. The wastewater then passes
through a cation exchanger which contains the ion exchange
resin. The exchanger retains metallic impurities such as
copper, iron, and trivalent chromium. The wastewater is
then passed through the ariion exchanger which has a
different resin. Hexavalent chromium, for example, is
retained in this stage. If the wastewater is not
effectively treated in one pass through it may be passed
through another series of exchangers. Many ion exchange
systems are equipped with more than one set of exchangers
for this reason.
The other major portion of the ion exchange process is the
regeneration of the resin, which holds impurities removed
from the wastewater. Metal ions such as nickel are removed
by an acid cation exchange resin, which is regenerated with
hydrochloric or sulfuric acid, replacing the metal ion with
one or more hydrogen ions. Anions such as dichromate are
removed by a basic anion exchange resin, which is
regenerated with sodium hydroxide, replacing the anion with
one or more hydroxyl ions. The three principal methods used
by industry for regenerating the spent resins are:
a. Replacement Service: A regeneration service replaces
the spent resin with regenerated resin, and regenerates
the spent resin at its own facility. The service then
treats and disposes of the spent regenerant.
b. In-Place Regeneration: Some establishments may find it
less expensive to conduct on-site regeneration. The
spent resin column is shut down for perhaps an hour,
and the spent resin is regenerated. This results in
one or more waste streams which must be treated in an
appropriate manner. Regeneration is performed as the
resins require it, usually every few months.
c. Cyclic Regeneration: In this process, the regeneration
of the spent resins takes place within the ion exchange
unit itself in alternating cycles with the ion removal
process. A regeneration permits operation with a very
small quantity of resin and with fairly concentrated
solutions, resulting in a very compact system. Again,
this process varies according to application, but the
regeneration cycle generally begins with caustic being
pumped through the anion exchanger, which carries out
205
-------
hexavalent chromium, for example, as sodium dichromate.
The sodium dichromate stream then passes through a
cation exchanger, converting the sodium dichromate to
chromic acid. After being concentrated by evaporation
or other means, the chromic acid can be returned to the
process line. Meanwhile, the cation exchanger is
regenerated with sulfuric acid, resulting in a waste
acid stream containing the metallic impurities removed
earlier. Flushing the exchangers with water completes
the cycle. Thus, the wastewater is purified and, in
this example, chromic acid is recovered. The ion
exchangers, with newly regenerated resin, then enter
the ion removal cycle again.
Application and Performance
The list of pollutants for which the ion exchange system has
proven effective includes, among others, aluminum, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), copper,
cyanide, gold, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium,
silver, tin, and zinc. Thus, it can be applied at a wide
variety of industrial concerns. Because of the heavy
concentrations of metals in metal finishing wastewaters, ion
exchange is used extensively in that industry. As an
end-of-pipe treatment, ion exchange is certainly feasible,
but its greatest value is in recovery applications. It is
commonly used as an integrated treatment to recover rinse
water and process chemicals. At some electroplating
facilities ion exchange is used to concentrate and purify
plating baths.
Ion exchange is highly efficient at recovering metal bearing
solutions. Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate
solutions, and sulfuric acid from anodizing is commercially
viable. A chromic acid recovery efficiency of 99.5 percent
has been demonstrated. Ion exchange systems are reported to
be installed at three pickling operations, however, none of
these systems were sampled during this study. Data for two
plants in the coil coating category are shown below.
206
-------
Ion Exchange Performance
Pollutant
All Values
ma/1
Al
Cd
Cr+3
Cr + *
Cu
CN
Au
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Ag
S04
Sn
Zn
Plant
Prior to
Purifi-
cation
5.6
5.7
3.1
7.1
4.5
9.8
—
7.4
—
4.4
6.2
1 .5
-
1 .7
14.8
A
After
Purifi-
cation
0.20
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.04
—
0.01
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
0.00
0.40
Plant B
Prior to After
Purifi- Purifi-
cation cation
43.0
3.40
2.30
1 .70
1
9
210
1
60
10
00
10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
2.00
0.10
Advantages and Limitations
Ion exchange is a versatile technology applicable to a great
many situations. This flexibility, along with its compact
exchange an effective
However, the resins in
limiting factor. The
generally placed in the
its use in certain
nature and performance, makes ion
method of wastewater treatment.
these systems can prove to be a
thermal limits of the anion resins,
vicinity of 60°C, could prevent
situations. Similarly, nitric acid, chromic acid, and
hydrogen peroxide can all damage the resins as will iron,
manganese, and copper when present with sufficient
concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Removal of a particular
trace contaminant may be uneconomical because of the
presence of other ionic species that are preferentially
removed. The regeneration of the resins presents its own
problems. The cost of the regenerative chemicals can be
high. In addition, the wastewater streams originating from
the regeneration process are extremely high in pollutant
cncentrations, although low in volume. These must be
further processed for proper disposal.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: With the exception of occasional clogging
or fouling of the resins, ion exchange is a highly
dependable technology.
207
-------
b. Maintainability: Only the normal maintenance of pumps,
valves, piping and other hardware used in the
regeneration process is usually encountered.
Demonstration Status
All of the applications mentioned in this section are
available for commercial use, and industry sources estimate
the number of units currently in the field at well over 120.
The research and development in ion exchange is focusing on
improving the quality and efficiency of the resins, rather
than new applications. Ion exchange is used in at least
three different plants in the steel industry. Also, ion
exchange is used in a variety of other metal finishing
operations.
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation in which pressure is
applied to a solution on the outside of a semi-permeable
membrane causing a permeate to diffuse through the membrane
leaving behind concentrated higher molecular weight
compounds. The concentrate can be further treated or
returned to the original operation for continued use, while
the permeate water can be recycled for use as clean water.
There are three basic configurations used in commercially
available RO modules: tubular, sprial-wound, and hollow
fiber. All of these operate on the principle described
above, the major difference being their mechanical and
structural design characteristics.
The tubular membrane module has a porous tube with a
cellulose acetate membrane-lining. A common tubular module
consists of a length of 2.5 cm (1 inch) diameter tube wound
on a supporting spool and encased in a plastic shroud. Feed
water is driven into the tube under pressures varying from
40-55 atm (600-800 psi). The permeate passes through the
walls of the tube and is collected in a manifold while the
concentrate is drained off at the end of the tube. A less
widely used tubular RO module has a straight tube contained
in a housing, and is operated under the same conditions.
Spiral-wound membranes consist of a porous backing
sandwiched between two cellulose acetate membrane sheets and
bonded along three edges. The fourth edge of the composite
sheet is attached to a large permeate collector tube. A
spacer screen is then placed on top of the membrane sandwich
and the entire stack is rolled around the centrally located
tubular permeate collector. The rolled up package is
inserted into a pipe able to withstand the high operating
pressures employed in this process, up to 55 atm (800 psi).
When the system is operating, the pressurized product water
208
-------
permeates the membrane and flows through the backing
material to the central collector tube. The concentrate is
drained off at the end of the container pipe and can be
reprocessed or sent to further treatment facilities.
The hollow fiber membrane configuration is made up of a
bundle of polyamide fibers of approximately 0.0075 cm (0.003
in.) OD and 0.0043 cm (0.0017 in.) ID. A commonly used
hollow fiber module contains several hundred thousand of the
fibers placed in a long tube, wrapped around a flow screen,
and rolled into a spiral. The fibers are bent in a U-shape
and their ends are supported by an epoxy bond. The hollow
fiber unit is operated under 27 atm (400 psi), the feed
water being dispersed from the center of the module through
a porous distributor tube. The permeate flows through the
membrane to the hollow interiors of the fibers and is
collected at the ends of the fibers.
The hollow fiber and spiral-wound modules have a distinct
advantage over the tubular system in that they contain a
very large membrane surface area in a relatively small
volume. However, these membranes types are much more
susceptible to fouling than the tubular system, which has a
larger flow channel. This characteristic also makes the
tubular membrane easier to clean and regenerate than either
the spiral-wound or hollow fiber modules.
Application and Performance
At a number of metal processing plants, the overflow from
the first rinse in a countercurrent setup is directed to a
reverse osmosis unit, where it is separated into two
streams. The concentrated stream contains dragged out
chemicals and is returned to the bath to replace the loss of
solution due to evaporation and dragout. The dilute stream
(the permeate) is routed to the last rinse tank to provide
water for the rinsing operation. The rinse flows from the
last tank to the first tank and the cycle is complete.
The closed-loop system described above may be supplemented
by the addition of a vacuum evaporator after the RO unit in
order to further reduce the volume of reverse osmosis
concentrate. The evaporated vapor can be condensed and
returned to the last rinse tank or sent on for further
treatment.
The largest application of reverse osmosis systems is for
the recovery of nickel and other metal solutions. It has
been shown that RO can generally be applied to most acid
metal baths with a high degree of performance, providing
that the membrane unit is not overtaxed. The limitations
most critical are the allowable pH range and maximum
operating pressure for each particular configuration.
209
-------
Adequate prefiltration is also essential. Only three
membrane types are readily available in commercial RO units.
For the purpose of calculating performance predictions of
this technology, a rejection rate of 98 percent was assumed
for dissolved salts, with 95 percent permeate recovery.
Advantages and Limitations
The major advantage of reverse osmosis for treating
wastewaters is the ability to concentrate dilute solutions
for recovery of salts and chemicals with low power
requirements. No latent heat of vaporization or fusion is
required for effecting separations; the main energy
requirement is for a high pressure pump. RO requires
relatively little floor space for compact, high capactiy
units, and exhibits high recovery and rejection rates for a
number of typical process solutions. A limitation of the
reverse osmosis process is the limited temperature range for
satisfactory operation. For cellulose acetate systems, the
preferred limits are 18 to 30°C (65 to 85<>F); higher
temperatures will increase the rate of membrane hydrolysis
and reduce system life, while lower temperatures will result
in decreased fluxes with no damage to the membrane. Another
limitation is the Inability to handle certain solutions.
Strong oxidizing agents, strong acidic or basic solutions,
solvents, and other organic compounds can cause dissolution
of the membrane. Poor rejection of some compounds such as
borates and low molecular weight organics is another
problem. Fouling of membranes by failures, and fouling of
membranes by wastewaters with high levels of suspended
solids can be a problem. A final limitation is the
inability to treat or achieve high concentration with some
solutions. Some concentrated solutions may have initial
osmotic pressures which are so high that they either exceed
available operating pressures or are uneconomical to treat.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: RO systems are reliable provided the
proper precautions are taken to minimize the chances of
fouling or degrading the membrane. Sufficient testing
of the wastewater stream prior to application of an RO
system will provide the information needed to insure a
successful application.
b. Maintainability: Membrane life is estimated to fall
between 6 months and 3 years, depending upon the use of
the system. Down time for flushing or cleaning is on
the order of two hours as often as once each week; a
substantial portion of maintenance time must be spent
on cleaning any prefilters installed ahead of the
reverse osmosis unit.
210
-------
Demonstration Status
There are presently at least one hundred reverse osmosis
wastewater applications in a variety of industries. In
addition to these, thirty to forty units are used to provide
pure process water for several industries. Despite the many
types and configurations of membranes, only the spiral-wound
cellulose acetate membrane has had widespread success in
commercial applications. There are no known RO units
presently in operation in the steel 'industry to treat
wastewaters.
Zero Discharge Technologies
Zero discharge of process wastewater is achieved in several
subcategories of the steel industry. The most commmonly used
method is to treat the wastewater sufficiently so it can be
completely reused in the originating process or to control water
application in semi-wet air pollution control systems so that no
discharge results. This method is used principally in
steelmaking.
Another potential means to achieve zero discharge is by the use
of evaporation technology. Evaporation systems concentrate the
wastewater constituents and produce a distillate quality water
that can be recycled to the process. Although this technology is
very costly and energy intensive, it may be the only method
available to attain zero discharge in many steel industry
subcategories.
Evaporation
Evaporation is a concentration process. Water is evaporated from
a solution, increasing the concentration of solute in the
remaining solution. If the resulting water vapor is condensed
back to liquid water, the evaporation-condensation process is
called distillation. However evaporation is used in this report
to describe both processes. Both atmospheric and vacuum
evaporation are commonly used in industry today. Atmospheric
evaporation could be accomplished simply by boiling the liquid.
However, to aid evaporation, heated liquid is sprayed on an
evaporation surface, and air is blown over the surface and
subsequently released to the atmosphere. Thus, evaporation
occurs by humidification of the air stream, similar to a drying
process. Equipment for carrying out atmospheric evaporation is
quite similar for most applications. The major element is
generally a packed column with an accumulator bottom.
Accumulated wastewater is pumped from the base of the column,
through a heat exchanger, and back into the top of the column,
where it is sprayed into the packing. At the same time, air
drawn upward through the packing by a fan is heated as it
contacts the hot liquid. The liquid partially vaporizes and
211
-------
humidifies the air stream. The fan then blows the hot, humid air
to the outside atmosphere.
Another form of atmospheric evaporator also works on the air
humidification principle, but the evaporated water is recovered
for reuse by condensation. These air humidification techniques
operate well below the boiling point of water and can use waste
process heat to supply some of the energy required.
In vacuum evaporation, the evaporation pressure is lowered to
cause the liquid to boil at reduced temperature. All of the
water vapor is condensed and, to maintain the vacuum condition,
noncondensible gases (air in particular) are removed by a vacuum
pump. Vacuum evaporation may be either single or double effect.
In double effect evaporation, two evaporators are used, and the
water vapor from the first evaporator (which may be heated by
steam) is used to supply heat to the second evaporator. As it
supplies heat, the water vapor from the first evaporator
condenses. Approximately equal quantities of wastewater are
evaporated in each unit; thus, the double effect system
evaporates twice the amount of water that a single effect system
does, at nearly the same energy cost. The double effect
technique is thermodynamically possible because the second
evaporator is maintained at lower pressure (high vacuum) and,
therefore, lower evaporation temperature. Another means of
increasing energy efficiency is vapor recompression (thermal or
mechanical), which enables heat to be transferred from the
condensing water vapor to the evaporating wastewater. Vacuum
evaporation equipment may be classified as sumberged tube or
climbing film evaporation units.
In the most commonly used submerged tube evaporator, the heating
and condensing coil are contained in a single vessel to reduce
capital cost. The vacuum in the vessel is maintained by an
ejector-type pump, which creates the required vacuum by the flow
of the condenser cooling water through a venturi. Wastewater
accumulates in the bottom of the vessel, and is evaporated by
means of submerged steam coils. The resulting water vapor
condenses as it contacts the condensing coils in the top of the
vessel. The condensate then drips off the condensing coils into
a collection trough that carries it out of the vessel.
Concentrate is also removed from the bottom of the vessel.
The major elements of the climbing film evaporator are the
evaporator, separator, condenser, and vacuum pump. Wastewater is
"drawn" into the system by the vacuum so that a constant liquid
level is maintained in the separator. Liquid enters the
steam-jacketed evaporator tubes, and part of it evaporates sov
that a mixture of vapor and liquid enters the separator. The
design of the separator is such that the liquid is continuously
circulated from the separator to the evaporator. The vapor
entering the separator flows out through a mesh entrainment
separator to the condenser, where it is condensed as it flows
212
-------
down through the condenser tubes. The condensate, along with any
entrained air, is pumped out of the bottom of the condenser by a
liquid ring vacuum pump. The liquid seal provided by the
condensate keeps the vacuum in the system from being broken.
Application and Performance
Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are used in many
industrial plants, mainly for the concentration and recovery of
process solutions. Many of these evaporators also recover water
for rinsing. Evaporation has also been used to recover phosphate
metal cleaning solutions.
Advantages and Limitations
Advantages of the evaporation process are that it permits
recovery of a wide variety of process chemicals, and it is
applicable for concentration or removal of compounds which cannot
be accomplished by other means. The major disadvantage is that
the evaporation process consumes relatively large amounts of
energy. However, the recovery of waste heat from many industrial
processes (e.g., diesel generators, incinerators, boilers and
furnaces) should be considered as a source of this heat for a
totally integrated evaporation system. Also, in some cases solar
heating could be inexpensively and effectively applied to
evaporation units. For some applications, pretreatment may be
required to remove suspended solids or bacteria which tend to
cause fouling in the condenser or evaporator. The buildup of
scale on the evaporator surfaces reduces the heat transfer
efficiency and may present a maintenance problem or increase
operating cost. However, it has been demonstrated that fouling
of the heat transfer surfaces can be avoided or minimized for
certain dissolved solids by precipitate deposition. In addition,
low temperature differences in the evaporator will eliminate
nucleate boiling and supersaturation effects. Steam distillable
impurities in the process stream are carried over with the
product water and must be handled by pre or post-treatment.
Operational Factors
1. Reliability: Proper maintenance will ensure a high degree
of reliability for the system. Wthout such attention, rapid
fouling or deterioration of vacuum seals may occur,
especially when handling corrosive liquids.
2. Maintainability: Operating parameters can be automatically
controlled. Pretreatment may be required, as well as
periodic cleaning of the system. Regular replacement of
seals, especially in a corrosive environment, may be
necessary.
213
-------
Demonstration Status
Evaporation is a fully developed, commercially available
wastewater treatment technology. It is used extensively to
recover plating chemicals in the electroplating industry and a
pilot scale unit has been used in connection with phosphating of
aluminum. Evaporation technology is not used in steel industry
applications for wastewater treatment.
C. In-Plant Controls and Process Modifications
In-plant technology is used in the steel industry to reduce or
eliminate the pollutant load requiring end-of-pipe treatment and
thereby improve the efficiency of existing wastewater treatment
systems or to reduce the requirements of new treatment
facilities. In-plant technologies demonstrated in the steel
industry includes alternate rinsing procedures, water
conservation, reduction of dragout, automatic controls, good
housekeeping practices, recycle of untreated process waters and
process modifications.
1 . In-Process Treatment and Controls
In-process treatment and controls apply to both existing and
new installations and - include existing technologies and
operating practices. The data received from the industry
indicates that water conservation practices are widely used
in many subcategories. Within any particular subcategory
process wastewater can vary substantially. In many cases,
these variations are directly related to in-process water
conservation and control measures. Although the effluent
limitations and standards do not regulate flow, they are
based upon model flow rates demonstrated in the respective
subcategories.
While effective control over operating practices is one
method of in-plant control, others are more complex and
require greater expenditures of capital. One of these is
the installation of cascade rinsing (counter-current)
rinsing systems. Cascade rinsing is a demonstrated
in-process control for pickling and hot coating operations
and may be implemented at other processes that use
conventional rinsing techniques.
Another in-process control is the recycle of process water.
In several steel industry processes, wastewaters are
recycled "in- plant" even prior to treatment. For example,
in the cold rolling process, oil emulsions can be collected
and returned to the mill in recirculation systems thereby
reducing the volumes of wastewater discharged. This control
method may not necessarily be used in all processes because
of the product quality or recycle system problems that may
be encountered.
214
-------
Other simple in-process controls that can affect discharge
quality include good housekeeping practices and automatic
equipment. For example, if tight control over the process
is maintained and spills are controlled, excessive "dumps"
of waste solutions can be averted. Also, automatic controls
can be installed that control applied water rates to insure
that water is applied only when a mill is actually
operating. For mills or lines that are not operated
continuously the volume of watar that can be conserved with
this practice can be significant.
2. Process Substitutions
There are several instances in the steel industry where
process substitutions can be used to effectively control
wastewater discharges. One is a cold rolling operations
where mills can be designed to operate either in a
once-through or recycle mode. If those mills with
once-through systems operated in a recycle mode, oil usage
would be reduced and savings could be achieved since a
smaller treatment system would be required.
Another area where in-process substitutions can achieve
significant reductions in wastewater flows and pollutant
loads is by selecting dry air pollution control systems over
wet systems.
215
-------
TABLE VI-1
TOXIC ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS
ACHIE7ABIE BY fREATMEHT
Achievable Concentration(ug/1)
No. Priority Pollutant
003 Acryloftitrile
004 Benzene
009 Hexachlorobenzene
Oil 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
021 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
022 Parachlorometacresol
023 Chloroform
024 2-Chlorophenol
034 2,4-Dinethyl phenol
035 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
036 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
038 Ethylbenzene
039 Fluoranthene
054 Isophorone
055 Naphthalene
057 2-Nitrophenol
060 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
064 Pentaehlorophenol
065 Phenol
066-071 Phthalatea, Total
072 Benzo(aJanthracene
073 Benzo(a)pyrene
07 6 Chrya ene
077 Acenaphthylene
078 Anthracene
080 Fluorene
084 Pyrene
085 Tetrachlorethylene
086 Toluene
130 Xylene
Carbon Adsorption
200
50
1
100
25
50
20
50
25
50
50
50
10
50
25
25
25
50
50
100
10
1
5
10
1
10
10
50
50
10
Biological Oxidatii
100
50
*
*
50
*
200
50
5
50
100
25
5
100
5
100
25
*
25
200
5
5
10
10
1
5
10
100
50
100
.(1)
* No significant removal over influent level,
(1) Two-stage activated sludge system.
216
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION VII
DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES
Introduction
This section reviews the Agency's methodology for'developing cost
estimates for the alternative water pollution control systems
considered for each subcategory. The economic impacts due to these
costs and to other factors affecting the steel industry are reviewed
in the above references report.
Basis of Cost Estimates
Costs developed for. the various levels of treatment (i.e., BPT, BAT,
NSPS and Pretreatment) are presented in detail in each subcategory
report of the Development Document. Model costs include investment,
capital depreciation, land rental interest, operating and maintenance,
and energy. The costs for BPT and BAT are summarized and presented in
Sections VIII and IX of this report. Costs for PSES are presented in
Section XII. Only model costs are presented for NSPS and PSNS while
total industry costs are presented for the other levels of control.
The Agency did not include estimates of capacity addition in this
report. However, estimates of capacity additions, retirements, and
reworks are included in Economic Analysis of_ Effluent Guidelines -
Integrated Iron and Steel Industry. ~~
The Agency developed model wastewater treatment systems and cost
estimates for those systems. Industry-wide costs to comply with this
regulation were determined from application of the costs for the
selected model treatment systems to each plant taking into account
treatment in place as of a reference date. For each subcategory, the
model costs were developed as follows:
1. National annual production and capacity data for each subdivision
or segment along with the number of plants in each subdivision
were determined. From these data, an "average" plant size was
established for each subdivision.
2. For finishing operations, where more than one mill or line of the
same operation exists at one plant site, the capacities of these
mills or lines were summed to develop a site size and costs for
one wastewater treatment facility were developed as noted below.
This manner of sizing model plants more accurately represents
actual wastewater treatment practices in the industry.
Wastewaters from all cold mills at a given site are usually
treated in central treatment systems. By using site sizes, where
appropriate, wastewater treatment within subcategories was more
accurately reflected in the cost estimates.
217
-------
3. If different product types or steel types within a subcategory
were found to have different average sizes, separate cost models
were developed to more accurately define the costs for these
groupings.
4. Applied model process flow rates were established based upon data
obtained from questionnaires and accumulated during field
sampling visits. The model flows are expressed in 1/kkg or
gal/ton of product.
5. A treatment process model and flow diagram was developed for each
subcategory based upon appropriate subcategory treatment systems
and effluent flow rates representative of the application of
established water pollution control practices.
6. Finally, a detailed cost estimate was made on the basis of each
alternative treatment system. All cost estimated were developed
in July 1978 dollars.
Total annual costs were developed by summing the operating costs
(including those for chemicals, maintenance, labor, and energy) and
capital recovery costs. Capital recovery costs were calculated using
a capital recovery factor (CRF) derived specifically for the steel
industry. Separate CRF's were derived for capital investments and for
land costs. An explanation of the derivation of these factors is
provided below.
The purpose of a capital recovery factor is to annualize capital
investment costs over the useful life of an asset. Annualizing
capital investment costs using a capital recovery factor procedure
should be distinguished from using a depreciation schedule to
calculate depreciation expense for accounting purposes. The purpose
of a depreciation schedule is to match the historic cost or book value
of an investment with accounting revenues occurring over the useful
life of the asset. A capital recovery factor indicates the magnitude
of a series of periodic cash flows which, over the useful life of the
asset, will have a discounted present value equal to the discounted
present value of the investment. The discounted present value of an
investment is generally not the same as its book value due to the
impact of investment tax credits, tax-deductible non-cash expenses
such as depreciation, and tax-deductible investment-related expenses
such as interest and property taxes.
Assumption Underlying Capital Recovery Factors
For purposes of this study, it was assumed that pollution control
capital expenditures would be financed 20 percent by non-tax exempt
corporate debt and 80 percent by tax-exempt industrial revenue bonds.
The interest rate on the corporate debt was determined by adding a
premium of 2.7 percent to the inflation rate assumed for the period
1981-1982. The tax-exempt interest rate was assumed to be two-thirds
of the non-exempt interest rate. A marginal income tax rate of 50.1
percent was assumed, based on a marginal federal rate of 46 percent
218
-------
and a tax-deductible average state tax rate of 7.55 percent. An
investment tax credit of 10 percent and the five-year "capital
recovery" tax depreciation factors were assumed to apply to
investments in pollution control equipment associated with steel mill
equipment. A property tax rate of 2.38 percent of net book value was
also assumed, based on 14-year straightline depreciation for book
purposes.
The capital recovery factor used by the Agency in this report is
different from and more appropriate than that used in the December
1980 Development Document. This formula is more appropriate as it
accounts for the tax effects of the industry's investment in capital.
Calculation of. Capital Recovery Factors
Given the assumption listed above, the 9.4 percent inflation rate
projection for 1981 implies a weighted average interest rate on
pollution control debt of 8.91 percent:
(9.4 + 2.7)* .2 + .67*(9.4 + 2.7)* .8 - 8.91%
Using the discount rate to calculate the present value of a $1.0
million investment in pollution control equipment yields an estimated
present value of -$351,020. Annualizing this outlay over a 14-year
period at the assumed rate of interest results in a level annual
payment of $44,854 after taxes, which implies an outlay of $89,889
before taxes. Normalizing the before-tax outlay by the initial
investment of $1.0 million results in the capital recovery factor for
pollution control equipment of 0.0899.
The calculation of an annualized charge for land is slightly diferent
because land does not qualify for an investment tax credit and is not
a depreciable wasting asset. Instead, land investments are
characterized by capital appreciation which is recovered at the and of
the investment period. For purposes of this study, the Agency assumed
that property taxes would be based on an assessed value rising at the
average rate of inflation over the period, and that a recovery or
reversion of the appreciated land would occur at the end of the
14-year period. Based upon this assumption, a $1.0 million investment
in land financed at the weighted average interest rate used for
pollution control equipment would have a present value of -$247,340.
Recovery of this cost over a 14-year period would require receiving an
annual rent after-tax of $31,660 per year. This corresponds to a
before-tax imputed rental of $63,340. Normalizing this imputed rental
by the initial investment of $1.0 million yields the required capital
recovery factor for land of 0.0634.
Basis for Direct Costs
Construction costs are highly variable and in order to determine these
costs in a consistent manner, the following parameters were
established as the basis of estimates. The cost estimates reflect
average costs.
219
-------
1. The treatment facilities are contained within a "battery limit"
site location and are erected on a "green field" site. Site
clearance costs have been estimated based upon average site
conditions with no allowances for equipment relocation.
Equipment relocation costs could not be included because
equipment relocation is highly site specific and in fact not
required at most facilities.
2. Equipment costs for most components are based upon specific
effluent water rates and pollutant loads. A change in water flow
rates will affect costs. For vacuum filters, costs are based on
the square feet (ftz) of surface area of the filter which is a
function of the amount of solid waste to be dewatered. Costs for
rinse reduction technology (i.e., cascade rinse) is based upon
production capacity. For these two components, costs are
affected more by these variables than by flow.
3. The treatment facilities are assumed to be located in reasonable
proximity to the wastewater source. Piping and other utility
costs for interconnecting utility runs from the production
facility to the battery limits of the treatment facility are
based upon a linear distance estimate of 2500 feet. The Agency
considers 2500 ft to be generous for most applications. The cost
of return piping is included in recycle system costs.
4. Land acquisition costs are included in the cost estimates
prepared for this study. An average land cost of $38,000/acre
(1978 dollars) is used to estimate land cost requirements for the
model treatment components. Total land costs were then adjusted
to represent an annual charge to be incurred over the life or the
treatment system by applying the land cost capital recovery
factor explained above.
5. Costs for all nessary instrumentation to operate the model
wastewater treatment facilities have been included in the
Agency's cost estimates, including pH and ORP control, flow
meters, level controls, and various vacuum instruments, as
appropriate.
6.. The Agency's cost estimates include costs for standard safety
items including fencing, walkways, guard rails, telephone
service, showers, and lighting.
7. The Agency's cost estimates are based upon delivered prices of
the water pollution control equipment and related items, thus
freight charges are included in the Agency's cost estimates.
However, because of the highly variable nature of sales and use
taxes imposed by state, regional, country, and local governments,
the Agency did not include such taxes in its cost estimates.
8. Control and treatment system buildings are prefabricated
buildings; not of brick or block construction.
220
-------
In general, the cost estimates reflect an on-site installed cost for a
treatment plant with electrical substation and equipment for powering
the facilities, all necessary pumps, essential controls and
instrumentations, treatment plant interconnecting feed pipe lines,
chemical feed and treatment facilities, foundations, structural steel,
and a control house. Access roadways within battery limits are
included in estimates based upon 3.65 cm (1.5 inch) thick bituminous
wearing course and 10 cm (4 inch) thick sub-base with sealer, binder,
and gravel surfacing. A nine gauge chain link fence with three strand
barb wire and one truck gate were included for fencing. The cost
estimates also include a 15% contingency fee, 10% contractor's
overhead and profit allowance, and engineering fees of 15%.
Sources of cost data for wastewater treatment system components and
other direct cost items include vendor quotations and cost manuals
commonly used for estimating construction costs. These manuals
include;
a - The Richardson Rapid System, Process Plant Contruction
Estimating Standards; 1978-1979 Edition; Richardson
Engineering Services, Inc.
b - Building Construction Cost Data; 1978; Robert Snow Means
Company, Inc.
Basjs for Indirect Costs
In addition to developing estimates for individual treatment
components, the Agency has also included indirect costs in its total
cost estimates for water pollution control equipment. Indirect costs
cover such items as engineering expenses, taxes and insurance,
contractor's fees and overheads and other miscellaneous expenses.
Normally, these indirect costs are represented by three broad expense
categories: engineering, overhead and profit, and contingencies.
Cost manuals, vendor quotes and actual installation costs generally
show a range for total indirect costs of between 15% and 40% of total
direct costs. The Agency's estimates contain indirect cost factors
which total 45% of the total direct costs. The factors used by the
Agency and an example of how they are applied to direct costs are
shown below:
Incremental
Costs ($)
Total Cost ($)
Total Direct Cost
Contingency a) 15%
Overhead and Profit i 10%
Engineering i 15%
Total Indirect Costs
1,000,000 1,000,000
150,000 1,150,000
115,000 1,265,100
189,750 1,454,750
454,750 (45.5% of direct costs)
Cost comparisons made between the Agency's estimates and actual
installation costs have demonstrated that the Agency's methodology,
221
-------
including its method of applying indirect costs, is proper and can be
used to accurately estimate industry-wide costs.
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS Cost Estimates
Two cost estimates were made for this study for the BPT, BAT and PSES
levels of treatment. The first deals with the capital costs for the
systems already installed and the second accounts for the capital
costs for the treatment components still required at each of these
levels. Additionally, both in-place and required annual costs were
calculated and these costs are included in all cost summaries
presented in this document.
Because DCP responses were received from all major steel operations
and almost all minor steel facilities, the data base on installed
treatment components (as of January 1, 1978) was fairly complete.
Additionally, the Agency updated the information to July 1, 1981,
based upon personal knowledge of EPA Staff, NPDES records, and contact
with the industry during the public comment period on the proposed
regulation. Using this data base, a plant-by-plmnt inventory was
completed which tabulated the treatment components presently installed
and those components which are required to bring the systems up to the
BPT, BAT and PSES treatment levels. Hence, an estimate of capital
cost requirements was made for each plant and subcategory by scaling
individual plants to the developed treatment model and factoring costs
based upon production by the "six-tenth factor". By this method, the
Agency estimated the expenditures already made by the steel industry.
These data were summarized earlier in Section II and are also
summarized in*each subcategory report.
For NSPS and PSNS, total industry costs have not been presented in
this report since predictions of future expansion in the industry were
not made as part of this study.
222
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION VIII
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE
THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Introduction
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) is
generally based upon the average of the best existing performances at
plants of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within the
industrial subcategory. This average is not based upon a broad range
of mills within the subcategory, but is based upon performance levels
achieved at plants known to be equipped with the best wastewater
treatment facilities.
The Agency also considered the following factors:
1. The size and age of equipment and facilities involved.
2. The processes employed.
3. Non-water quality environmental impacts (including sludge
generation and energy requirements).
4. The engineering aspects of the applications of various types of
control techniques.
5. Process changes.
6. The total cost of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits'to be achieved from such application.
BPT emphasizes treatment facilities at the end of a manufacturing
process but can also include control technologies within the process
itself when they are considered to be normal practice within the
industry.
The Agency also considered the degree of economic and engineering
reliability in order to determine whether a technology is "currently
available." As a result of demonstrations, projects, pilot plants and
general use, the Agency must have a high degree of confidence in the
engineering and economic practicability of the technology at the time
of commencement of construction or installation of the control
facilities.
223
-------
Identification of BPT
For the most part, the proposed BPT limitations are the same as those
contained in prior steel industry water pollution control regulations.
The Agency proposed less stringent limitations where the prior
limitations were not being achieved in the industry, or more recent
and complete data indicated the prior limitations were not appropriate
because of changes in subcategorization or the absence of specific
limited pollutants in the respective wastewaters.
The major changes between the proposed BPT limitations
contained in the prior regulation are summarized belowi
and those
Sybcategory
A, Cokemaking
B. Sintering
D. Steelmaking
H. Scale Removal
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Rolling
Change; Prior Regulations to ProposedRegulation
The suspended solids limitation for coke-
making operations was increased.
All of the limitations for sintering opera-
tions were increased based upon increased
model treatment system flow rates.
Segments were added for BOF wet-suppressed
combustion operations.
For scale removal operations, the dissolved
chromium limitations were changed to total
chromium limitations; and, for Kolene©
operations, the cyanide limitations were
deleted.
For combination acid pickling operations,
limitations for dissolved chromium and nickel
were changed to total chromium and total
nickel.
Separate zero discharge limitations for cold
worked pipe and tube operations were proposed,
These operations had been included in the
subdivision for hot worked pipe and tube
operations in prior regulations.
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Limitations for dissolved iron, dissolved
chromium, and dissolved nickel were deleted
for alkaline cleaning operations.
Separate limitations were proposed for
galvanizing hot coating operations of wire
products and fasteners and all hot coating
operations using metals other than zinc and
terne metal. These operations were not
regulated separately in the prior regulation,
224
-------
Other than the changes noted above, the Agency proposed the same BPT
limitations that were contained in the prior regulations, even though
in many instances, more stringent limitations might be justified. The
Agency chose this course of action for the following reasons:
1. The technological bases of the prior regulations were upheld
by the Court in AISI-I and AISI-II and the- Agency believes
the limitations and standards are appropriate.
2. For virtually every subcategory, the Agency proposed BAT and
BCT limitations more stringent than the proposed BPT
limitations. Thus, upon promulgation, the BAT and BCT
limitations would become the operative limitations for NPDES
permits and, in most cases, the BPT limitations would have
little or no impact on the permitting process.
Based upon comments received on the proposed regulation, the Agency
has made some substantial changes to the BPT limitations from those
that were proposed, particularly for the forming and finishing
operations. In some cases, more stringent BPT limitations were
promulgated. In other cases, less stringent BPT limitations were
promulgated. For the basic steelmaking operations, most of the
proposed BPT limitations were promulgated. In all cases, however, the
Agency used the same basic model treatment technologies to develop the
proposed BPT limitations as were used to develop the final BPT
limitations.
The public comments caused the Agency to re-examine the subdivision of
each subcategory, in terms of whether or not model treatment system
flows based upon product type or operating mode are appropriate,
whether or not in-process of end-of-pipe flow reduction systems are
appropriate, and, the performance of the model treatment systems in
achieving the desired effluent quality. For the basic steelmaking
operations, the response to public comments did not cause the Agency
to substantially alter its conclusions regarding the appropriateness
of the proposed BAT limitations. Thus, upon promulgation of more
stringent BAT limitations for these operations, the Agency saw no
reason to alter the proposed BPT limitations except where public
comments provided compelling evidence that they are too stringent.
For many of the forming and finishing operations, the response to
public comments caused the Agency to substantially alter the
subdivision of the subcategories, change model treatment system flow
rates and, reevaluate the performance of the model treatment systems.
Also, the Agency found that substantial flow reduction systems
included in many of the BAT alternatives are not warranted. Thus, for
these operations, the Agency believes that revised BPT limitations are
appropriate. Alternatively, the Agency could have "promulgated the
proposed BPT limitation's and more stringent BAT limitations, but chose
not to do so because no additional technology would be required to
achieve the more stringent BAT limitations; and, the Regulation would
be confusing and not in accordance with the Agency's policy of
co-treatment of compatible wastewaters.
225
-------
The Agency revised the BPT limitations for the forming and finishing
operations for the following reasons:
1. Based upon data and comments received on the proposed
regulation, the Agency decided not to promulgate more
stringent BAT limitations in several subcategories (Hot
Forming, Salt Bath Descaling (formerly Scale Removal), Cold
Rolling, Acid Pickling, Alkaline Cleaning, and part of Hot
Coating). Because additional wastewater treatment
technology beyond that used to develop the BPT limitations
would not be required, the Agency believes it is appropriate
to limit those toxic pollutants found in the wastewaters
from the respective subcategories at the BPT level.
2. In some cases, the Agency's response to comments involved a
complete reevaluation of the new and previously available
data for particular subcategories. For some operations, the
data demonstrate that the model treatment technologies
perform substantially better than indicated by data used to
develop the prior regulations (Hot Forming, Acid Pickling,
Hot Coating). In the absence of more stringent BAT
limitations for these operations, the Agency believes it is
appropriate that the BPT limitations are based upon these
data. For other operations, the Agency found the
subdivision of certain subcategories contained in the
proposed regulation is not appropriate (Salt Bath Descaling
(formerly Scale Removal), Acid Pickling, Cold Forming,
Alkaline Cleaning). Revised subdivision of these
subcategories based upon product-related process water
requirements or mode of operation was provided.
3. The selection of limited pollutants was modified in several
instances to facilitate co-treatment of compatible
wastewaters not possible with the proposed BPT limitations;
(Salt Bath Descaling (formerly Scale Removal), Acid
Pickling, Cold Rolliing, Hot Coating).
The bases for all of these changes is set out in detail in the
subcategory reports presented in the development document. A summary
is provided below:
Subcateqorv Change-Proposed Regulation to Final Regulation
A. Cokemaking The suspended, solids limitations were
increased further based upon additional
data. A separate segment was provided
for merchant cokemaking operations.
B. Sintering All of the sintering limitations were
increased further based upon an increase
in the model treatment system flow rate.
D. Steelmaking The Open Hearth Semi-Wet segment was deleted.
226
-------
Hot Forming
Less stringent limitations were promulgated
for BOF Wet-Open Combustion and Wet Electric
Arc Furnace operations based upon changes in
respective model treatment system flow rates.
The limitations for all hot forming operations
were revised to reflect actual performance
of the model treatment system.
H.
Salt Bath Descaling The Salt Bath Descaling subcategory (formerly
Scale Removal) was subdivided differently to
take into account product-related process
water requirements and modes of operation
(batch and continuus). Performance data
submitted by the industry were used as a
basis for the limitations.
Acid Pickling
Cold Forming
Alkaline Cleaning
Hot Coating
The Acid Pickling subcategory was treated in
the same fashion as the Scale Removal
Subcategory. Fume scrubber operations
are limited separately on a daily mass basis
not related to production rate.
Separate limitations were promulgated for
Single Stand Recirculation and Direct
Application Cold Rolling Mills. Limitations
for two toxic organic pollutants were
promulgated for all cold rolling operations.
The Alkaline Cleaning subcategory has been
subdivided to take into account higher
process water requirements for both batch
and continuous operations.
Limitations for the Hot Coating subcate-
gory were made consistent with those for
acid pickling and cold rolling operations to
facilitate co-treatment.
Development of BPT Limitations
Model Treatment Systems
As noted above, the Agency used the same model treatment systems to
develop the promulgated BPT limitations as were used to develop the
prior and proposed BPT limitations. These technologies are installed
throughout the industry and" are well demonstrated. The model
treatment systems are described in detail in the subcategory reports
of this development document.
227
-------
Model Treatment System Flow Rates
The Agency's approach to developing the BPT limitations based upon the
model treatment systems includes specification of a model treatment
system effluent flow rate and performance standards for the limited
pollutants. The model treatment system flow rates have either been
retained from the proposed or prior regulations; or, in several
revised based upon some of the factors noted above. The^Agepcy has
established model treatment system effluent flow rates Based upon the
best performing plants in each subcategory rather than upon averages
of all plants or upon statistically derived flows because, to a large
extent, flow rates are within the control of the operator.
For the basic steelmaking operations where recycle of air pollution
control system wastewaters or process wastewaters is an integral part
of the model treatment systems, the "average of the best" blowdown
rates or recycle rates formed the basis for the model treatment system
effluent flow rates used to develop the BPT limitations. The hot
forming operations were evaluated in much the same fashion in that the
primary scale pit recycle rates and thus the model treatment system
effluent flow rate for each subcategory were determined from the
average of the best or most appropriate recycle rates.
For the other finishing operations, the Agency used two approaches for
developing the model treatment system effluent flow rates. Production
weighted flow rates were developed by product for Salt Bath Descaling
and Acid Pickling operations. As noted above, the Agency
substantially revised the subdivision of these subcategories to take
into account product related rinsewater flow requirements. In doing
so, the Agency believes that production weighted flows are appropriate
because it could not develop discreet groups of the best plants in
each segment. Thus, the production weighted flow provides the best
measure of a model plant. For Cold Rolling, Alkaline Cleaning, and
Hot Coating operations, the average of the best discharge flows were
used to establish the model BPT effluent flow rates. The Agency
believes the "average of the best" flows for these operations are
appropriate because it could identify the best plants. In any event,
in all but a few cases, the production weighted average flow rates for
these operations are about the same as, or less than, the "average of
the best" flow rates.
The development of the respective model treatment system flow rates is
set out in detail in each subcategory report.
Model Treatment System Effluent Quality
The Agency used the model treatment system effluent flow rates and
performance standards for the limited pollutants to develop the BPT
limitations. The development of the performance standards for the
limited pollutants is presented in Appendix A. In several cases,
particularly in the forming and finishing operations, the Agency used
data from central treatment facilities that treat compatible
wastewaters to establish and demonstrate compliance with the BPT
228
-------
limitations. The Agency believes use of central treatment plant data
for these purposes is appropriate because it is consistent with the
manner in which the Agency structured the Regulation with respect to
co-treatment of compatible wastewaters and is consistent with current
treatment practices in the industry.
BPT Effluent Limitations
Table 1-2 summarizes the 1974 and 1976 BPT limitations, along with the
changes that have been made and the requirements of the promulgated
regulation. Where no changes are noted, the limitations are the same
as the original limitations. The guidelines are based on mass
limitations in kilograms per 1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) except for
fume scrubbers at acid pickling and hot coating operations where the
limitations are in kg per day. As noted earlier, these mass
limitations do not require the attainment of any particular discharge
flow or effluent concentration. There are virtually an infinite
number of combinations of flow and concentration that can be used to
achieve the appropriate limitations. This is illustrated in Figure
VIII-1 which shows the BPT limitation for suspended solids for the
Blast Furnace subcategory. Also shown on this figure, are the
relative positions of the sampled plants, some of which are in
compliance and some of which did not achieve the limitations. As
shown by this diagram, those plants that do not presently achieve the
discharge limitation could do so by reducing either discharge flow or
effluent concentration, or a combination of the two.
Costs to Achieve the BPT Limitations
Based upon the cost estimates developed by the Agency, the
industry-wide investment costs to achieve full compliance with the BPT
limitations is approximately $1.7 billion (in July 1, 1978 dollars).
The Agency estimates that as of July 1, 1981, about $0.21 billion of
this amount remained to be spent by the industry. The total annual
cost associated with the BPT regulation is about $0.20 billion. A
breakdown of these BPT costs by subcategory is presented in Table
VIII-1. The Agency believes that the effluent reduction benefits
resulting from compliance with the BPT limitations justify the
associated costs.
These costs are different than those presented in the Draft
Development Document. As noted earlier, the Agency updated the status
of the industry with respect to the installation of pollution control
facilities from January 1978 to July 1981. Also, the installed and
required costs for production facilities shut down during the mid to
late 1970's were deleted. These facilities were included in the data
base for the proposed regulation. The above estimates do not include
costs for treatment facilities installed by the industry which are not
required to achieve the BPT limitations or for facilities installed
which provide treatment more stringent than required to achieve the
BPT and BAT limitations (e.g. cascade rinse and acid recovery systems
for acid pickling operations; high rate recycle for hot forming
operations).
229
-------
TABLE VIII-1
BPT COST SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Subc a tegory/Subd ivi s i on
A. Cokenaking
1. ISS - Biological
2. ISS - Physical-Chemical
3. Merchant - Biological
4. Merchant - Physical-Chemical
5. Beehive
*Cokemaking Total
B. Sintering
C. Iromnaking
D. SteeImaking
1. BOFs Semi-Wet
2. BOFs Wet-SC
3. BOF: Wet-OC
4. Open Hearth
5, EAT: Semi-Wet
6. EAF: Wet
*Steelmaking Total
E. Vacuum Degassing
F, Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
1. Primary C w/s
2. Primary C wo/s
Primary S w/s
Primary S wo/s
Section Carbon
Section Spec
Flat C HSSS
Flat S
Flat
Capital
Annual
3.
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
HS&S
C Plate
Flat S Plate
Pipe 4 Tube-Carbon
Pipe S Tube-Spec
*Hot Forming Total
In-place
96.98
1.84
19.43
2.69
0.78
121.72
58.82
412.34
2.70
15.81
57.20
17.78
0.79
14.48
108.76
20.43
59.55
76.45
34.15
6.74
6.49
88.95
13.28
102.04
5.05
13.66
3,01
12.76
3.68
366.26
Required
41.50
3.70
2.45
0.00
0.00
47.65
5.07
22.40
1.61
0.00
1.42
0,00
0.22
0.00
3.25
7.47
4.84
20.78
9.85
0.00
0.76
19.05
4.17
23.26
0.14
6.49
0.18
9.35
0.00
94.03
In-Place
25.45
0.55
4.08
0.59
0.13
30.80
12.10
52.53
0.41
4.22
13.30
3.75
0.13
2.82
24.63
2.99
8.62
-29.62
-5.29
-0.75
-0.15
.96
.15
.83
0.23
-1.23
0.07
1.42
0.27
-0.
-0.
-4.
Required
9.51
0.88
0.54
0.00
0,00
-40.99
10.93
1.34
2.74
0.24
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.61
1.11
0.76
2.68
1.32
0.00
0.00
2.48
0.30
3.06
0.02
0.87
0.02
1.23
0.00
11.98
230
-------
TABLE VIII-1
BPT COST SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subeategory/Subdivision
H. Salt Bath Descaling
1. Oxidizing - B S/P
2. Oxidizing - B R/W/B
3, Oxidizing - B P/T
4. Oxidizing - Cont
5. Reducing - Batch
6, Reducing - Cont
*Salt Bath Descaling Total
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric-R/W/C-Neut
2, Sulfuric-S/S/P-Neut
3, Sulfuric-B/B/B-Neut
4. Sulfuric-P/T/0-Neut
5. Sulfuric-S/S/P Au
6. Sulfuric-R/W/C Au
7, Sulfuric-B/B/B Au
8. Sulfuric-P/T Au
9. Hydrochloric-R/W/C
10. Hydrochloric-S/S/P
11. Hydrochloric-P/T
12, Hydrochloric-S/S/P Ar
13, Combination-R/W/C
14, Combination-B S/S/P
15. Combination-C S/S/P
16. Combin«tion-B/B/B
17. Combination-P/T
*Acid Pickling Total
J. Cold Forming
1. CE-Recirc Single
2, CR-Recirc Multi
3. CR-Combin«tion
4. CR-DA Single
5. CR-DA Multi
6. CW Pipe&Tube Water
7. CW Pipe & Tube Oil
*Cold Forming Total
Capital
In- pi ace
0.58
0.86
, 0.76
1.53
0.61
0.20
4.54
12.96
21.30
9.22
7.55
3.55
3.75
0.66
0.77
3.70
35.81
0.85
15.00
5.70
3.17
17.49
0.61
2.56
144.65
0.56
4.22
7.57
3.68
6.59
3.30
3.06
Required
0.20
0.02
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.51
1.86
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
1.65
0.10
0.00
0.14
0.03
0.08
0.00
0.44
5.38
0.54
1.61
0.00
0.33
2.61
0.76
0.02
Annual
In-Place
0.08
0.13
0.11
0.23
0.09
0.03
0.67
3.37
13.13
2.93
1.92
0.54
0.58
0.00
0.12
0.75
22.87
0.19
-4.87
1.54
0.74
6.54
0.20
0.61
51.16
0.08
0.12
1.29
0.53
0.77
0.43
0.40
Required
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.13
1.23
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
1.46
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.08
3.05
0.08
0.28
0.00
0.05
0.44
0.10
0.00
28.98
5.87
3.62
0.95
231
-------
TABU VIII-1
BPT COST SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Subcategory/Subdivision
K. Alkaline Cleaning
1. Batch
2. Cont inuous
*Alkaline Cleaning Total
L. Hot Coating
1. Galv, SS wo/s
2. Galv. SS w/s
3. Galv. Wire wo/s
4. Galv. Wire w/s
5. Terne wo/s
6. Terne w/i
7. Other SS wo/s
8. Other SS w/s
9. Other Wire wo/s
10. Other Wire w/s
*Hot Coating Total
Total
Confidential Plants
Costs for Components Installed
Beyond BPT
Industry Total
Capital
Annua1
In-place
1.67
10.01
11.68
84.10
1,491.49
Required
0.31
0.27
0.58
0.00
205.96
In-Place
0.21
1.39
1.60
Required
0.04
0.04
0.08
9,87
9.80
5.44
1.10
0.52
1.32
0.73
0.31
0,74
29.83
1,367.56
39.83
1.47
0.44
0.66
0.66
0.05
0.32
1.00
0,00
0.00
4.60
201.52
4.44
1.48
1.55
0.69
0.17
0.07
0.20
0.11
0.04
0.00
4.31
152.04
4.98
0.26
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.01
0.05
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.76
34.36
0.91
0.00
35.27
NOTES: Costs are in millions of 7/1/78 dollars.
Basis: Facilities in-place as of 7/1/81.
232
-------
FIGURE Vlll-l
POTENTIAL FOR ACHIEVING
AN EFFLUENT LIMITATION
800-
480-
e 400-
o
3 300-
p 200-
<
| I804J
Q
100
80 H
EXAMPLE
SUBCATEGORY! IRONMAKIN6
POLLUTANT: TSS AT THE 8PT LEVEL
(PLANT
(PLANT N)
(PLANT 021)
(PLANT 026)
•(PLANT M)
-rf-
10 20 30 40 80 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 170
TSS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
: SOLID LINE REPRESENTS TSS LIMIT OF 0.026 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lb«)
NOTE: PLANTS ABOVE THE SOLID LINE DO NOT MEET TSS LIMITATIONS.
HOWEVER, THEY COULD ATTAIN THE APPROPRIATE LOAD BY EITHER
REDUCING THEIR FLOW OR EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION AS SHOWN
BY THE DASHED ARROWS OR ANY COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
233
-------
-------
GENERAL
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Introduction
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1984 are to
specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the
application of the best available technology economically achievable.
Best available technology is not based upon an "average of the best"
performance within an industrial category, but is determined by
identifying the best control and treatment technology used by a
specific point source within the industrial subcategory. Also, where
a technology is readily transferable from one industry to another,
such technology may be identified as BAT technology.
Consideration was also given to:
1. The size and age of equipment and facilities involved.
2. The processes employed.
3. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
4. The engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques.
5. Process changes.
6. The cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting from
application of BAT technology.
Best available technology may be the highest degree of control
technology that has been achieved or has been demonstrated to be
capable of being designed for plant scale operation up to and
including "no discharge" of pollutants. Although economic factors are
considered in the development, the level of control is intended to be
the top-of-the-line current technology, subject to limitations imposed
by economic and engineering feasibility. However, this level may be
characterized by some technical risk with respect to performance and
with respect to certainty of costs.
235
-------
Development of BAT Effluent Limitations
Model Treatment Systems
The Agency considered from two to five BAT alternative treatment
systems for each of the twelve steel industry subcategories. These
alternatives are designed to be compatible with the BPT model
treatment systems in each subcategory from the standpoint of
retrofitting the necessary water pollution control facilities. For
those operations where BAT limitations more stringent than the
respective BPT limitations have been promulgated, the required water
pollution control facilities can be installed , without significant
retrofit costs. For most subcategories (Sintering, Ironmaking,
Steelmaking, Vacuum Degassing, and Continuous Casting), flows
amounting to only a few percent of the model BPT treatment system flow
rates require treatment in the BAT model treatment systems. For
cokemaking operations, additional biological treatment compatible with
the BPT model biological treatment system is the model BAT technology.
The BAT alternative treatment systems are reviewed in detail in the
respective subcategory reports of the development documents.
Model Treatment System Flow Rates
The Agency's selection of model BAT flow rates is highly subcategory
specific. In every case the Agency sought to determine the best flow
rate that could be achieved on a subcategory wide basis. In some
cases, the model BAT flow rates for the .alternative treatment systems
are significantly more restrictive than the respective model BPT flow
rates. However, for most forming and finishing operations, where more
stringent BAT limitations were not promulgated, the model BAT flow
rates are the same as the model BPT flow rates. The Agency considered
zero discharge alternatives based upon evaporative technologies in all
subcategories. These technologies were rejected because of energy and
cost considerations.
A summary of the model BPT and BAT effluent flow rates for those
operations where more stringent BAT limitations were promulgated is
presented below:
Model BPT Model BAT
Subcateqory Flow Rate Flow Rate
A. Cokemaking
Iron and Steel 225 gal/ton 153 gal/ton
Merchant 240 170
b. Sintering 120 120
C. Ironmaking 125 70
D. Steelmaking
BOF, semi-wet 0 0
EOF, wet-supp. comb. 50 50
236
-------
EOF, wet-open comb. 110 110
Open Hearth, wet 110 110
EAF, semi-wet 0 0
EAF, wet 110 110
E. Vacuum Degassing 25 25
F. Continuous Casting 125 25
L. Hot Coating
Fume Scrubbers 100 gpm 15gpm
The lower BAT model flow rates for cokemaking operations are based
upon recycle of barometric condenser cooling water, or replacement of
the barometric condenser with a surface condenser. The ironmaking BAT
model flow was set at 70 gal/ton based upon demonstrated performance
at plants in this subcategory. The BAT model flow rate for continuous
casting operations was set at 25 gal/ton based upon widespread
demonstration of flows of 25 gal/ton and less in that subcategory.
Finally, the hot coating fume scrubber BAT model flow of 15 gpm is
based upon recycle of fume scrubber wastewaters, a common practice in
the industry. The Agency did not set more restrictive BAT model flow
rates for the other operations listed above because it does not have
sufficient information and data at this time to demonstrate that more
restrictive flow rates are achievable on a subcategory-wide basis.
Reference is made to the respective subcategory reports for additional
information on the selection of the BAT model treatment system flow
rates.
Model Treatment System Effluent Quality
The performance standards for the model BAT treatment systems were
determined in the same fashion as described in Section VIII for the
BPT limitations. Where more stringent BAT limitations were
promulgated, the Agency based the limitations upon the best performing
representative plant or plants in the subcategory; upon pilot scale
demonstration studies at plants within the subcategory; or upon pilot
scale demonstration studies at plants with similar, more highly
contaminated wastewaters. In all cases, however, the BAT limitations
are achieved on a full scale basis in the industry.
Summary of. Changes From Proposed Regulation
Based upon comments on the proposed regulation, the Agency made
several changes in promulgating the final BAT effluent limitations.
For the' most part, BAT effluent limitations more stringent than the
BPT limitations were promulgated for the basic steelmaking operations
and BAT limitations no more stringent than the BPT limittaions were
promulgated for the forming and finishing operations. These changes
are summarized below:
237
-------
Subcateqory
A. Cokemaking
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
Steelmaking
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
H. Salt Bath Descaling
Changes from Proposed to Promulgated Regulation
While the model BAT treatment systems have
not changed substantially, slightly less
stringent limitations for all pollutants
were promulgated based upon analysis
of additional data received for the best
treatment facilities.
The selected model technology was changed
from alkaline chlorination to filtration.
Limitations for ammonia-N, total
cyanide, and phenols (4AAP) were provided
for sintering operations with wastewaters
that are co-treated with ironmaking
wastewaters.
Less stringent ammonia-N limitations
were promulgated on the basis of comments
and data received on the proposed limit-
ations.
The selected model technology was changed
to delete post filtration of the lime
precipitation effluent. Slightly less
stringent limitations for lead and zinc
were promulgated and the limitations
for chromium were deleted.
The model treatment technology was
changed to lime precipitation and
sedimentation from filtration.
Less stringent limitations for
lead and zinc were promulgated
and the limitation for chromium was
deleted. The limitations for these
operations are now consistent with
those for steelmaking operations.
High rate recycle of hot forming
wastewaters was not selected as the
model BAT treatment technology.
Thus, BAT limitations for hot
forming operations were not
promulgated.
Filtration of the BPT model
treatment system effluent was
not selected as the model BAT
treatment system. Thus, BAT
limitations no more stringent
than the BPT limitations were
promulgated.
238
-------
I. Acid Pickling Cascade rinsing of acid pickling
rinsewaters was not selected as
the BAT model treatment system. Thus,
BAT limitations no more stringent than
the BPT limitations were promulgated.
J. Cold Forming BAT limitations no more stringent than
the BPT limitations were promulgated.
K. Alkaline Cleaning BAT limitations were not proposed
and not promulgated.
L. Hot Coating Cascade rinsing of hot coating
rinsewaters was not selected as the
model BAT treatment technology.
BAT limitations no more stringent
than the BPT limitations were
promulgated for those hot coating
operations without fume scrubbers.
More stringent BAT limitations were
promulgated for those hot coating
operations with fume scrubbers.
Best Available Technology Effluent Limitations and Associated Costs
Based upon the information contained in Sections II through VIII of
this report and upon data presented in the respective subcategory
reports, various treatment systems were considered for the BAT level
of treatment. A short description of the model BAT treatment systems
is presented in Table 1-15. The BAT effluent limitations are
summarized in Table 1-4. The costs associated with the model BAT
systems are summarized in Table IX-14 by subcategory. As with the BPT
effluent limitations, the Agency has concluded that the effluent
reduction benefits associated with the selected BAT limitations
justify the costs and non-water quality environmental impacts,
including energy consumption, water consumption, air pollution, and
solid waste generation.
Co-Treatment with Non-Steel Industry Finishing Wastewaters
The steel industry produces a number of finished products that are
coated with various metals for protective or decorative purposes.
This regulation contains effluent limitations and standards for the
hot coating processes (i.e., coating of steel by immersion in molten
baths of zinc, terne metal, or other metals). However, the regulation
does not include specific limitations for cadmium, copper, chromium,
nickel, tin, and zinc electroplating operations found at many steel
plants. It is common practice in the industry to co-treat wastewaters
from these operations with wastewaters from acid pickling, cold
rolling, alkaline cleaning, and hot coating operations. Often,
pretreatment of wastestreams with high levels of cyanide or a
particular metal is practiced prior to final neutralization and
settling (i.e., reduction of hexavalent chromium; separate
239
-------
neutralization and settling for zinc). The model BPT and BAT
treatment systems for steel industry finishing operations are
installed at many co-treatment plants and, effluent data from some of
the co-treatment systems were considered in developing the limitations
and standards in this regulation.
Application of the limitations and standards contained in this
regulation to plants with electroplating operations without any
allowance for those operations will present problems, both to permit
writers and to the industry. The following guidance is provided to
permit writers to develop plant specific NPDES permit conditions for
these facilities:
a. Treatment Plants with BPT/BAT Treatment Facilities In-Place
1) Determine the plant specific BPT/BAT effluent
limitations for those steel industry finishing
operations included in this regulation. Compare the
mass loadings to current performance of the treatment
facility in question for periods of relatively high
production.
2) If the applicable effluent limitations for the steel
operations included in this regulation are determined
not to be achievable considering appropriate historical
performance data, alternate BAT limitations should be
developed for those plants with well operated treatment
facilities. These treatment facilities should include
all of the BPT/BAT treatment components and not include
a substantial amount o'f cooling waters, surface runoff,
or process wastewaters from hot forming or any of the
basic steelmaking operations. These alternate mass
effluent limitations should be based upon the current
performance of the treatment facility on a concen-
tration basis, and treatment system flow rates which
take into account those finishing operations included
in this regulation and flows from the electroplating
operations. In some cases, in-process flow reduction
including recycle of fume scrubbers, reduction in
rinsewater flows, etc., may be required to further
reduce the discharge from current levels. In general,
the concentrations determined from actual performance
data should be in the immediate range of those
concentrations presented in the Development Document
used to develop the BPT and BAT effluent limitations.
b. Treatment Plants Without BPT/BAT Treatment Facilities In-
Place
1) Determine the plant specific BPT/BAT effluent
limitations for those steel industry finishing
operations included in this regulation.
2) Determine an allowance for the electroplating
operations based upon the process flow rates from those
operations (after appropriate flow minimization steps
are implemented i.e., fume scrubber recycle), and the
240
-------
performance data presented in the Development Document
for similar co-treatment systems.
Technical assistance for permit writers may be obtained from the
Effluent Guidelines Division for developing limitations for treatment
systems that treat wastewaters from operations covered by this
regulation and wastewaters from other operations.
241
-------
TABLE IX-1
BAT COST SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Subcategory/Subdivision
A. Cokemaking
1. I&S - Biological
2. US - Physical-Chemical
3. Merchant - Biological
4. Merchant - Physical-Chemical
*Cokem«king Total
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D, Steelmaking
1. BOF: Semi-Wet
2. BOF! Wet-SC
3. BOF: Het-OC
4. Open Hearth
5. EAF: Semi-Wet
6. EAF: Set
*Steelnaking Total
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
L. Hot Coating
1. Galv. SS wo/s
2. Galv. SS w/s
3. Galv. Wire wo/a
4. Galv. Wire w/s
5. Terne wo/s
6. Terne w/s
7, Other SS wo/s
8. Other SS w/s
9. Other Wire wo/s
10. Other Wire w/s
*Hot Coating Total
Total
Confidential Plants
Industry Total
Capital
In-place Required
4.83 28.62
3.74 0.00
0.39 4.33
.cal 2.16 0.00
11.12
0.51
7.63
1.20
0.56
0.33
0.46
2.55
0.20
0.82
0.31
0.04
0.00
0.10
0.45
23.28
0.80
32.95
5.51
23.20
0.34
5.32
1.44
1.09
8.19
2.82
2.23
0.32
0.03
0.16
0.00
0.51
75.41
1.94
Annual
IB-Place
0.92
1.62
0.07
0.98
3.59
0.05
2.27
0.16
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.35
0.03
0.11
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.05
6.45
0.18
Required
6.96
0.00
0.94
0.00
7.90
0.74
6.77
0.06
0.78
0.23
0.17
1.24
0.39
0.31
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.06
17.41
0.43
24.08
77.35
6.63
17.84
NOTES: Costs are in millions of 7/1/78 dollars.
Basis! Facilities in-place as of 7/1/81.
: BAT limitations equal to BPT are being promulgated in the
other subcategories/subdivisions. There is no additional
costs in these subcategories/subdivisions.
242
-------
TABLE IX-2
ADVANCED TREATMEHf SYSTEHS CONSIDERED
FOR BAT
IRON AMD STEEL INDUSTRY
Advanced
Treatment
System
Acid Recovery/
Regeneration
Activated Sludge
System
2 Stage
Chlorination
Rinse Reduction
System
Evaporation
Evaporation as
Quench
Evaporation on
Slag
Filtration
(Pressure or
Gravity)
Granular Carbon
Columns
Lime Precipitation
Pondered Carbon
Addition
Recycle System
Sulfide
Precipitation
Basic
Coke- Iron- Oxygen Open Electric Vacuum Com. Hot
•aki ng Sintering making Furnace Hear th Arc Degassing Caa ting Formin
X X
X XX XX X
X X
x x
Salt
Bath H2S04 HCL Comb Cold Alkaline Hot
Descaling Pickling Pickl ing Pickling Forming Cleaning Coatinj
XXX
XXX XXX
-------
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION X
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
The 1977 Amendments added Section 301(b)(2)(E) to the Act,
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT)
for discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial
point sources. Conventional pollutants are those defined in Section
304(a)(4) [biochemical oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD5), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, and pH], and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as "conventional" (oil and
grease, 44 FR 44501, July 30, 1979).
BCT is not an additional limitation but replaces BAT for the control
of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors specified in
Section 304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT limitations be
assessed in light of a two part "cost-reasonableness" test. American
Paper Institute v. EPA, 660 F. 2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981). The first test
compares the cost for private industry to reduce its conventional
pollutants with the costs at publicly owned treatment works for
similar levels of reduction in their discharge of these pollutants.
The second test examines the cost-effectiveness of additional
industrial treatment beyond BPT. EPA must find that limitations are
"reasonable" under both tests before establishing them as BCT. In no
case may BAT be less stringent than BPT.
Because of the remand in American Paper Institute v. EPA (No. 79-115),
the regulation does not contain BCT limitations except for those
operations for which the BAT limitations are not more stringent than
the respective BPT limitations.
245
-------
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Introduction
NSPS are to specify the degree of effluent reduction achievable
through the application of the best available demonstrated control
technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives,
including, where applicable, a standard requiring no discharge of
pollutants.
For new source plants, a zero discharge of pollutants limit was sought
for each subcategory. There are several facilities in some
subcategories that demonstrate zero discharge. However, the Agency
determined that for most of these subcategories zero discharge is not
attainable for all new sources without the use of costly evaporative
technologies. For these wastewater operations, treatment systems at
lowest achievable flow rates have been considered.
Because new plants can be designed with water conservation and
innovative technology in mind, costs can be minimized by treating the
lowest possible wastewater flows. No considerations had to be given
to the "add-on" approach that was characteristic of the BPT and BAT
systems and therefore the NSPS Alternatives consider the most
efficient treatment components and .systems. NSPS systems are
generally the same as the BAT systems; however, in some subcategories,
alternate treatment components are included.
Identification of_ NSPS
The alternative treatment systems considered for NSPS are the same as
the alternatives considered for BAT with minor exceptions. However,
as noted above, in many subcategories lower discharge flows are
considered for NSPS. Since the criteria for NSPS is to consider only
the very best systems, the lowest demonstrated flow could be used to
develop NSPS standards. Table XI-1 lists the treatment systems used
as models for NSPS. The standards associated with the model NSPS
systems are summarized in Table 1-15. Additional details on the
development of NSPS are provided in the individual subcategory
reports. All of the NSPS are demonstrated in the steel industry.
NSPS Costs
The Agency did not estimate the number of new source plants to be
built. However, the Agency did consider the potential economic
impacts of NSPS in Economic Analysis of_ Effluent Guidelines -
247
-------
Integrated Iron and Steel Industry. Model costs for the NSPS systems
are detailed in the individual subcategory reports.
248
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANTS DISCHARGING
TO PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
Introduction
The industry discharges untreated or partially treated wastewaters to
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) from operations in nearly every
subcategory. Table XII-1 lists all plants which reported discharges
to POTWs, In the individual subcategory reports, two classes of
discharges to POTWs were addressed; existing sources and new sources.
Also, the national pretreatment standards developed for indirect
discharges fall into two separate groups: prohibited discharges,
covering all POTW users, and categorical standards applying to
specific industrial subcategories.
As was done for BAT, BCT and NSPS, various alternative treatment
systems were considered for pretreatment standards. Up to six
alternatives were considered for each subcategory.
National Pretreatment Standards
The Agency has developed national standards that apply to all POTW
discharges. For detailed information on the Agency's approach to
Pretreatment Standards refer to 46 FR 9404 et seq, "General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution,
(January 28, 1981). See also 47 FR 4518 (February 1, 1982). In
particular, Part 403, Section 403.5 et. seq. describes national
standards, prohibited discharges and categorical standards, POTW,
pretreatment programs, and a national pretreatment strategy.
Categorical Pretreatment Standards
The Agency based the categorical pretreatment standards for the steel
industry on the minimization of pass through of toxic pollutants at
POTWs, For each subcategory, the Agency compared the removal rates
for each toxic pollutant limited by the PSES to the removal rate for
that pollutant at well operated POTWs. The POTW removal rates were
determined through an extensive study conducted by the Agency at over
forty POTWs, The POTW removal rates are presented below;
Toxic Pollutant POTW Removal Rate
Cadmium 38%
Chromium 65%
Copper 58%
Lead 48%
Nickel 19%
249
-------
Silver 66%
Zinc 65%
Cyanide 52%
As shown in the respective subcategory reports, the pretreatment
alternatives selected by the Agency in all cases provide for
significantly more removal of toxic pollutants than would occur if
steel industry wastewaters were discharged to POTWs untreated. Thus,
the pass through of these pollutants at POTWs will be minimized.
Except for the Cokemaking subcategory, all selected PSES and PSNS
alternatives are the same as the respective BAT and NSPS alternatives.
For cokemaking operations, the Agency's selected PSES alternative is
based upon the same physical/chemical pretreatment the industry
provides for its on-site coke plant biological treatment systems.
The PSES and PSNS are set out in Tables 1-8 and 1-6, respectively.
The associated industry-wide PSES costs are presented in Table XI1-14.
PSNS model treatment system costs are presented in the respective
subcategory reports.
250
-------
TABLE Xli-l
LIST OF PLANTS WITH INDIRECT DISCHARGES TO POTW SYSTEMS
PLANT
0020B
0020C
OQ24A
0048D
0048F
0060
OQ606
0060H
00601
0060L
0060M
0060R
0060 S
0068
0088
0088 B
OI12F
OII2G
0112 I
OI36B
OI36C
OI76C
OI76D
0180
0212
0248A
0248E
0256A
0256K
0256N
0264
0264A
0264C
0264D
0280B
0320
0380
0384A
0396A
0396C
03960
0432 B
0432 E
0432J
0432 L
251
-------
TABLE XII-I
LIST OF POTW DISCHARGERS
PAGE 2
PLANT
0440A
0444
0448A
0460A
0460B
0460C
0460F
04606
0460H
0464B
0464C
0528
05488
0580
05808
0580C
0580E
0580F
0580G
05848
0636
0640A
06408
0648
0656A
06728
0684 H
0684 K
0684 Z
0696A
0740 A
0760
0776C
07760
0776J
0792A
0792C
0810
0856 F
0860H
0884E
0936
0946A
0948 B
0948C
TOTAL
(90 Sitas)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
18
1
X
2
X
X
2
0
X
1
0
X
X
X
*
X
7
X
X
X
6
X
x.
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
3
X
1
X
X
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
29
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IS
X
3
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20
252
-------
TABLE XI1-2
PRETREATMEOT COST SUMMARY
IRON AND STIEi INDUSTRY
Subca t e go r y/Subd i vi a i on
A. Cokemaking
1. I&S - Plants
2. Merchant - Plants
*Cokemaking Total
B. Sintering
C. Iromnaking
D, Steelmaking
1. BOF: Semi-Wet
2, BOF: Wet-SC
3. BOF: Wet-OC
4. Open Hearth
5. EAF: Semi-Wet
6. EAF; Wet
*Steelmaking Total
E, Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
1. Primary C w/s
2. Primary C wo/s
3. Primary S w/s
4. Primary S wo/s
5. Section Carbon
6. Section Spec
7. Flat C HSiS
8. Flat S HS&S
9, Flat C Plate
10. Flat S Plate
11. Pipe &-Tube-Carbon
12. Pipe & Tube-Spec
*Hot Forming Total
Capital
In- pi ace Required
28.21
2.66
30.87
3.23
13.21
3.06
5.73
2.90
11.69
9.01
3.93
5.64
0.67
11.47
0.05
3.39
2.81
1.16
7.52
7.41
14.93
0.36
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.43
0.00
0.30
2.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Annual
In-Place
7.04
0.56
7.60
0.78
2.26
0.82
1.30
0.55
2.67
1.34
-1.08
-0.29
-0.08
0.00
-0.01
-0.33
0.07
0.14
Required
1.12
1.45
2.57
0.05
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.12
3.39
-1.58
0.27
253
-------
TABLE XII-2
PRETEEATMENT COST SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subcategory/Subdivision
H. Salt Bath Descaling
1. Oxidizing - B S/P
2. Oxidizing - B R/W/B
3. Oxidizing - B P/T
4. Oxidizing ~ Cont
5. Reducing - Batch
6. Reducing - Cont
*Salt Bath Descaling Total
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric-R/W/C-Neut
2. Sulfuric-S/S/P-Neut
3. Sulfuric-B/B/B-Neut
4. Sulfuric-P/T/0-Neut
5. Sulfuric-S/S/P Au
6. Sulfuric-R/W/C Au
7. Sulfuric-B/B/B Au
8, Sulfuric-P/T Au
9. Hydrochloric-R/W/C
10. Hydrochloric-S/S/P
11. Hydrochloric-P/T
12. Hydrochloric-S/S/P Ar
13. Conbination-R/W/C
14. Combination-B S/S/P
15. CotBbination-C S/S/P
16. Combination-B/B/B
17. Combination-P/T
*Acid Pickling Total
J. Cold Forming
1. CR-Recirc Single
2. CR-Recirc Multi
3. CR-Combination
4. CR-DA Single
5. CS-DA Multi
6. CW Pipe&Tube Water
7. CW Pipe&Tube Oil
*Cold Forming Total
Capital
Annual
In-place
0.07
0.09
0.04
0.20
3.05
1.11
0,53
1.42
1.18
1.74
0.01
1.28
0.02
0.44
0.25
11.03
0,00
0.00
0.09
Required
0.20
0.72
0.08
0.09
1.00
3.82
1.44
1.18
0.64
3.52
0.02
0.02
1.93
0.33
0.11
0.85
13.86
0.03
0.03
0.00
0,06
In-Place
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
1.05
0.80
0.23
0.41
0.40
1.59
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.15
0.07
5.09
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
Required
0.03
0.11
0.01
0.15
1.16
0.79
0.42
0.20
0.75
0.01
0.00
0.48
0.12
0.03
0.21
4.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
254
-------
fABLE XI1-2
PRITREATMENT COST SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Capital Annual
Subcategory/Subdivision In-place Required • In-Place Required
K. Alkaline Cleaning
1. Batch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2. Continuous 0.47 0.00 0.06 0.00
*Alkaline Cleaning Total 0.47 0.00 0.06 0.00
L. Hot Coating
1. Galv. SS wo/s 0.27 0.75 0.04 0.10
2. Galv. SS w/a 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.00
3. Galv. Wire wo/8 0.92 0.37 0.13 0.05
4. Galv. Wire w/8 1.24 0.70 0.18 0.11
5. Terne wo/s 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01
6. Terne v/a - - -
7. Other SS wo/8 -
8. Other SS w/s -
9. Other Wire wo/s 0.07 0.43 0.01 0.06
10. Other Wire w/s - - - -
*Hot Coating Total 2.65 2.30 0.38 0.33
Total 111.57 36.89 18.64 7.77
Confidential Plants 2.14 4.02 0.70 0.85
Costs for Components Installed
Beyond PSES 18.27 0.00 2.75 0.00
Industry Total 131.98 40.91 22.09 8.62
NOTES: Costs in millions of 7/1/78 dollars.
Basiss Facilities in-place as of 7/1/81.
255
-------
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The field sampling and analysis for this project and the initial
drafts of this report were prepared under Contracts No. 68-01-4730 and
68-01-5827 by the Cyrus Win. Rice Division of NUS Corporation. The
final report has been revised substantially by and at the direction of
EPA personnel.
The preparation and writing of the initial drafts of this document was
accomplished through the efforts of Mr. Thomas J. Centi, Project
Manager, Mr. J. Steven Paquette, Deputy Project Manager, Mr. Joseph
A. Boros, Mr. Patrick C. Falvey, Mr. Edward D. Maruhnich, Mr. Wayne
M. Neeley, Mr. William D. Wall, Mr. David E. Soltis, Mr. Michael C.
Runatz, Ms. Debra M. Wroblewski, Ms. Joan 0. Knapp, and Mr. Joseph J.
Tarantino.
The Cyrus W. Rice Field and sampling programs were conducted under the
leadership of Mr. Richard C. Rice, Mr. Robert J. Ondof and Mr. Matthew
J. Walsh. Laboratory and analytical servies were conducted under the
guidance of Miss C. Ellen Gonter, Mrs. Linda A. Deans and Mr. Gary A.
Burns. The drawings contained within and general engineering services
were provided by the RICE drafting room under the supervision of Mr.
Albert M. Finke. Computer services and data analysis were conducted
under the supervision of Mr. Henry K. Hess.
The project was conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr.
Ernst P. Hall, P.E. Chief, Metals and Machinery Branch, OWWM, Mr.
Edward L. Dulaney, P.E., Senior Project Officer; Mr. Gary A. Amendola,
P.E., Senior Iron and Steel Specialist, Mr. Terry N. Oda, National
Steel Industry Expert, Messers. Sidney C. Jackson, Dwight Hlustick,
Michael Hart, John Williams, Dr. Robert W. Hardy, and Dennis Ruddy,
Assistant Project Officers, and Messers. J. Daniel Berry and Barry
Malter, Office of General Counsel. The contributions of Mr.
Walter J. Hunt, former Branch Chief, are also acknowledged.
The cooperation of the American Iron and Steel Institute, and more
specifically, the individual steel companies whose plants were sampled
and who submitted detailed information in response to questionnaires,
is gratefully appreciated. The operations and plants visited were the
property of the following companies: Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corporation, Armco Inc., Ford Motor Company, Lone Star Steel
Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Inland Steel Company, Donner
Hanna Coke Corporation, Interlake, Inc., Wisconsin Steel Division of
Envirodyne Company, Jewell Smokeless Coal Corporation, National Steel
Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, Kaiser Steel
Corporation, Shenango, Inc., Koppers Company, Eastmet Corporation,
Northwestern Steel and Wire Company, CF&I Steel Corporation, Allegheny
257
-------
Ludlum Steel Corporation, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation,
Republic Steel Corporation, Lukens Steel Company, Laclede Steel
Company, Plymouth Tube Co., The Stanley Steel Division, Youngstown
Sheet & Tube Co., McLouth Steel Corp., Carpenter Technology, Universal
Cyclops, Joslyn Steel, Crucible Inc., Babcock & Wilcox Company,
Washington Steel, and Jessop Steel.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also givenf to the secretarial
staff of the RICE Division, of NUS (Ms. Rane Wagner, Ms. Donna Guter
and Ms. Lee Lewis) and to the word processing staff of the Effluent
Guidelines Division (Ms. Kaye Storey, Ms. Pearl Smith, Ms. Carol Swann
and Ms. Glenda Clarke) for their efforts in the typing of drafts,
necessary revisions, and preparation of this effluent guidelines
document.
258
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XIV
REFERENCES
1. Adams, C.E., Jr., "Treatment of a High Strength Phenolic and
Ammonia Wastestream By Single and Multi-Stage Activated Sludge
Processes", Proceedings of_ the 29th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, pp. 617-630 (1974).
2. Adams, C.E., Stein, R.M., Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., "Treatment of
Two Coke Plant Wastewaters to Meet Guideline Criteria",
Proceedings of_ the 29th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, pp. 864-880 (1974).
3. American Iron and Steel Institute, "Annual Statistical Report,
1976". Washington, D.C.
4. American Iron and Steel Institute, Directory of. Iron and Steel
Works of_ the United States and Canada, American Iron and Steel
Institute, New York (1976).
5. Anthony, M.T., "Future of the Steel Industry In The West", Iron
and Steel Engineer, pp. 54-55 (September, 1974).
6. "Armco's Innovative Electric Furnace Practice", Journal of_
Metals, pp. 43-44 (November, 1974).
7. Atkins, P.F., Jr., Scherger, D.A., Barnes, R.A. and Evans, F.L.
Ill, "Ammonia Removal By Physical Chemical Treatment", Water
Pollution Control Federation, Journal, 45^ (11), pp. 2372-2388
(November, 1973).
8. Balden, A.R. and Scholl, E.L., "The Treatment of Industrial
Wastewaters for Reuse, Closing the Cycle", Proceedings of_ the
28th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp. 874-880
(1973).
9. Becker, A.P., Lachajcztk, T.M., "Review of Water Usage in the
Iron and Steel Industry: Blast Furnace and Hot Forming
Subcategories" Presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium on Iron and
Steel Pollution Abatement Technology, October 1981.
10. Beckman, W.J., Avendt, R.J., Mulligan, T.J. and Kehrberger, G.J.,
"Combined Carbon Oxidation Nitrification," Journal of_ the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 44, October 10, 1972, p. 1916.
11. Bennett, K.W., "Mini-Midi Mills Show Larger Amount of Clout",
Iron Age, 218 (15), pp. MP-9-MP-38 (October 11, 1976).
259
-------
12. Bernardin, F.E., "Cyanide Detoxification Using Adsorption and
Catalytic Oxidation on Granular Activated Carbon," Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, 45, 2, February, 1973, p.
221 .
13. Black, H.H., McDermott, G.N., Henderson, C., Moore W.A. and
Pohren, H.R., "Industrial Wastes Guide", -Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University (May 15-17, 1956).
14. Borland, C.C. and Cruse, C.L., "Direct Reduction - How Is Quality
Measured?", Ironmakinq Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of_
A.I.M.E., Toronto, 34, pp. 206-215 (1975).
15. Brinn, D.G. and Doris, R.L., "Basic Oxygen Steelmaking: A
Bibliography of Published Literature", British Steel Corporation
Research Report, Section 7, pp. 25-28.
16. Brough, John R. and Voges, Thomas F., "Basic Oxygen Process Water
Treatment", Proceedings, Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, 24th, pp. 762-769 (1969).
17. Burns and Roe, Draft Development Document, Electric Power
Industry, November 1974.
18. Burns & McDonald, Evaluation of Wet Versus Dry Cooling Systems,
January, 1974.
19. Calgon Corporation Application Bulletin, "Calgon Cyanide
Destruction System", (1971).
20. Carson, James, E., Atmospheric Impacts of Evaporative Cooling
Systems, ANL/ES-53.
21. Cartwright, W.F., "Research Might Help to Solve Coking Industry
Problems, Gas World. 164, p. 497 (November 12, 1966).
22. Catchpole, J.R., "The Treatment and Disposal of Effluents in the
Gas and Coke Industry", Air and Water Pollution in the Iron and
Steel Industry, Iron and Steel Institute Special Report No.
1961, pp. 219-225~7T95877
23. Chen, Kenneth Y., "Kinetics of Oxidation of Aqueous Sulfide by
02", Environmental Science and Technology, 6_, p. 529 (June,
1972).
24. Cheremisnoff, P.N., "Biological Wastewater Treatment", Pollution
Engineering, "8 (9), pp. 32-38 (September, 1976).
25. Cheremisinoff, P.N., Perna, A.J. and Sevaszek, E.R., "Controlling
Organic Pollutants In Industrial Wastewaters", Industrial Wastes,
2J_ (5), pp. 26-35 (September-October, 1975).
260
-------
26. "Clean System Quenches Coke", Iron Age, 211 (14), p. 25 (April
5, 1973).
27. "Controlling Quenching Emissions", Iron and Steel Engineer, 53^
(12), p. 21 (December, 1976).
28. Cook, W.R. and Rankin, L.V., "Polymers Solve Waste Water
Problems", Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 43-46 (May, 1974).
29. Cooper, R.L., "Methods of Approach to Coke Oven Effluent
Problems", Air and Water Pollution in the Iron and Steel
Industry, Iron and Steel Institute Special Report No. 61, pp.
198-202 (1958).
30. Cooper, R.L. and Catchpole, J.R., "The Biological Treatment of
Coke Oven Effluents", The Coke Oven Manager's Yearbook, pp.
146-177 (1967).
31. Cooper, R.L. and Catchpole, J.R., "Biological Treatment of
Phenolic Wastes", Management of Water ir\ the Iron and Steel
Institute Special Report No. 128, pp. 97-102 (1970).
32. Cousins, W.G. and Mindler, A.B., "Tertiary Treatment of Weak
Ammonia Liquor", JWPCF, 44, 4 607-618 (April, 1972).
33. Cruver, J.E. and Nusbaum, I., "Application of Reverse Osmosis to
Wastewater Treatment," Journal WPCF, Volume 45, No. 2, February,
1974.
34. Davis, R.F., Jr. and Cekela, V.W., Jr., "Pipeline Charging
Preheated Coal to Coke Ovens", Ironmaking Proceedings, The
Metallurgical Socitry of. A.I.M.E., Toronto, 34, pp. 339-349
(1975).
35. Decaigny, Roger A., "Blast Furnace Gas Washer Removes Cyanides,
Ammonia, Iron, and Phenol", Proceedings, 25th Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University, pp. 512-517 (1970).
35. DeFalco, A.J., "Biological Treatment of Coke Plant Waste", Iron
and Steel Engineer, pp. 39-41 (June, 1976).
37. DeJohn, P.B., Adams, A.D., "Treatment of Oil Refinery Wastewaters
with Granular and Powdered Activated Carbon", Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference.
38. Directory of Iron and Steel Plants, Steel Publications, Inc.,
39. Directory o_f the Iron and Steel Works of. the World, Metal
Bulletins Books, Ltd., London, 5th edition.
40. Donovan, E.J., Jr., Treatment of Wastewater for Steel Cold
Finishing Mills, Water and Wastes Engineering, November, 1970.
261
-------
41. DuMond, T.C., "Mag-Coke Creates Big Stir in Desulfurization",
Iron Age, 211 (24), pp. 75-77 (June 14, 1973).
42. Dunlap, R.W. and McMichael, F.C., "Reducing Coke Plant Effluent",
Environmental Science and Technology, ]_0 (7), pp. 654-657 (July,
1976).
43. Duvel, W.A. and Helfgott, T., "Removal of Wastewater Organics by
Reverse Osmosis," Journal WPCF, Volume 47, No. J_, January, 1975.
44. Edgar, W.D. and Muller, J.M., "The Status of Coke Oven Pollution
Control", AIME, Cleveland, Ohio (April, 1973).
45. Effect of Geographical Variation on Performance of Recirculating
Cooling Ponds, EPA-660/2-74-085.
46. Eisenhauer, Hugh R., "The Ozonation of Phenolic Wastes", Journal
of_ the Water Pollution Control Federation, p. 1887 (November,
1968).
47. Elder, R.G., "Zinc Control in a Blast Furnace Gas Wash Water
Recirculation System", Presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium on
Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement Technology for 1981, October
1981 .
48. Elliott, J.F., "Direct Reduction of Iron Ores - Processes and
Products", Ironmakinq Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of
A.I.M.E., Toronto, 34, pp. 216-227 (1975).
49. Environmental Protection Agency, "Analytical Methods for the
Verification Phase of the BAT Review", Office of_ Water and
Hazardous Materials (June, 1977).
50.. Environmental Protection Agency, "Biological Removal of Carbon
and Nitrogen Compounds from Coke Plant Wastes", Office of
Research and Monitoring, Washington, D.C. (April, 1973).
51. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Development Document for
Effluent Limitations and Guidelines and Standards of Performance,
Alloy and Stainless Steel Industry, Datagraphics, Inc. (January,
1974).
52. Environmental Protection Agency, "Industry Profile Study on Blast
Furnace and Basic Steel Products ," C.W. Rice Division -NUS
Corporation for EPA, Washington, D.C. (December, 1971).
53. Environmental Protection Agency, "Pollution Control of Blast
Furnace Gas Scrubbers Through Recirculation", Office of_ Research
and Monitoring, Washington, D.C. (Project No. 12010EDY).
54. Environmental Protection Agency, "Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority
262
-------
Pollutants", Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio '(March, 1977 revised April, 1977).
55. Environmental Protection Agency, "Steel Making Segment of the
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category", Office of_
Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, B.C. (June, 1974).
56. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Pollution Control
Practices in the Carbon and Alloy Steel Industries", EPA,
Washington, B.C. (September 1, 1972).
57. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Pollution Control
Practices in the Carbon and Alloy Steel Industries", Progress
Reports for the Months of September and October, 1972 (Project
No. R800625).
58. Environmental Steel, The Council p_f Economic Priorities.
59. Fair, G.M., Geyer, I.C., Okum, D.P., Water and Wastewater
Engineering, Volume 1, Water Spray and Wastewater Removal.
60. Flynn, B.P., "A Model for the Powdered Activated Carbon -
Activated Sludge Treatment System; Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference.
61. Foltz, V.W., Thompson, R.J., "Armco Develops Cold Mill Waste Oil
Treatment Process", Water and Wastes Engineering, March 1970.
62. Ford, D.L., "Putting Activated Carbon in Perspective in 1983
Guidelines," National Conference on Treatment and Disposal of
Industrial Waste Waters and Residues, April 26-28, 1977.
63. Ford, D.L., Elton, Richard L., "Removal of Oil and Grease From
Industrial Wastewaters", Chemical Engineering, Oct. 17, 1977.
64. Fraust, C.L., "Modifying A Conventional Chemical Waste Treatment
Plant to Handle Fluoride and Ammonia Wastes", Plating and Surface
Finishing, p. 1048-1052 (November, 1975.)
65. Gelb, B.A., "The Cost of Complying with Federal Water Pollution
Law", Industrial Water Engineering, 12 (6), pp. 6-9 (December,
1975 - January, 1976).
66. George, H.D. and Boardman, E.B., "IMS - Grangcold Pelletizing
System For Steel Mill Waste Material", Iron and Steel Engineer,
pp. 60-64 (November, 1973).
67. Goldstein, M., "2. Economics of Treating Cyanide Wastes",
Pollution Engineering, pp. 36-38 (March, 1976).
86. Gordon, C.K., "Continuous Coking Process", Iron and Steel
Engineer, pp. 125-130 (September, 1973).
263
-------
69. Gordon, C.K. and Droughton, T.A., "Continuous Coking Process",
AISE, Chicago, Illinois (April, 1973).
70. Gould, J.P. and Weber, W.J., Jr., "Oxidation of Phenols by
Ozone", Water Pollution Control Federation, Journal, 4J3 (1), pp.
47-60 (January, 1976).
71. Grieve, C.G., Stenstron, M.K., "Powdered Carbon Improves
Activated Sludge Treatment, Hydrocarbon Processing, October,
1977.
72. Grosick, H.A., "Ammonia Disposal - Coke Plants", Blast Furnace
and Steel Plant, pp. 217-221 (April, 1971).
73. Hager, D.G., "Waste Treatment Advances: Waste Water Treatment
Via Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering Progress, 72^ (10),
pp. 57-60 (October, 1976).
74. Hall, S.A., Brantner, K.A., Kubarewicz, J.W., Sullivan, M.D.,
"Pilot Evaluation of Alkaline Chlorination Alternatives for Blast
Furnace Treatment", presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium on Iron
and Steel Pollution Abatement Technology for 1981, October 1981.
75. Hall, D.A. and Nellis, G.R., "Phenolic Effluents Treatment,"
Chemical Trade Journal (Brit.), 156, p. 786 (1965).
76. Hansen, L.G., Oleson, K.A., "Comparison of Evaporative Losses in
Various Cooling Water Systems," American Power Conference, April
21-23, 1970.
77. Harold, D.S., "Development of a Deduing Process for Recycling
Millscale", Presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium on Iron and Steel
Pollution Abatement Technology, October 1981.
78. Hoffman, D.C., "Oxidation of Cyanides Adsorbed on Granular
Activated Carbon", Plating, 60, pp. 157-161 (February, 1973).
75. Button, W.C. and LaRocca, S.A., "Biological Treatment of
Concentrated Ammonia Wastewaters," Water Pollution Control
Federation, Journal, 47 (5), p. 989-997 (May, 1975).
80. lammartino, N.R., "Formed Coke: A 1980's Boom for the World's
Steelmakers?", Chemical Engineering, 83_ (27), pp. 30-36
(December 20, 1976).
81. "Annual Review of Developments In The Iron and Steel Industry
During 1977," Iron and Steel Engineer, p. Dl (February, 1978).
82. Jola, M., "Destruction of Cyanides by the Cyan-Cat Process,"
Plating and Surface Finishing, pp. 42-44 (September, 1976).
264
-------
83. Kemmetmueller, R., "Dry Coke Quenching - Proved, Profitable,
Pollution - Free", Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 71-78 (October,
1973).
84. Kiang, Y., "Liquid Waste Disposal System", Chemical Engineering
Progress, 72 (1), pp. 71-77 (January, 1976).
85. Kibbel, W.H., "Peroxide Treatment For Industrial Waste Problems",
Industrial Water Engineering, pp. 6-11 (August/September, 1976).
86. Kolflat, T.D., Aschoff, A.F., Baschiere, R.S., "Cooling Towers
Versus Cooling Ponds - A State of the Art Review", presented at
ANS meeting, San Francisco, California, November 4, 1977.
87. Kohlmann, H.J., Hot stein, H., "Minimizing Water Blow downs from
selected steel plant processes", presented at the U.S. EPA
Symposium on Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement Technology for
1981, October 1981.
88. Knopp, P.V., Gifchel, W.B., Zimpro, Inc., "Wastewater Treatment
with Powdered Activated Carbon Regenerated with Wet Air
Oxidation.", Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
89. Kostenbader, Paul D., and Flecksteiner, John W., "Biological
Oxidation of Coke Plant Weak Ammonia Liquor", Water Pollution
Control Federation, Journal, 41, pp. 199-207 (February, 1969).
90. Kremen, S.S., "Reverse Osmosis Makes High Quality Water Now",
Environmental Science and Technology, £ (4), pp. 314- 318 (April,
1975).
91. Kreye, W.C., King, P.H. and Randall, C.W., "Biological Treatment
of High Thiosulfate Industrial Wastewater."Proceedings of the
28th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp. 537-545
(1973).
92. Kreye, W.C., King, P.H. and Randall, C.W., "Kinetic Parameters
and Operation Problems in the Biological Oxidation of High
Thiosulfate Industrial Wastewaters", Proceedings of the 29th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp. 410-419
(1974).
93. Labine, R.A., "Unusual Refinery Unit Produces Phenol- Free
Wastewater", Chemical Engineering, 66, 17, 114 (1959).
94. Lanouette, K. H., "Heavy Metals Removal," Chemical Engineering,
October 17, 1977.
95. Lanyon, R. Lue-Hing, C. "Reduction of Wastes Discharged from
Steel Mills in Metropolitan Chicago through local ordinance
enforcement", Presented at the U.S. EPA SYmposium on Iron and
Steel Pollution abatement Technology for 1981, October 1981.
265
-------
96. Lawson, C.T., Hovious, J.C., "Realistic Performance Criteria for
Activated Carbon Treatment of Wastewater from the Manufacturer of
Organic Chemicals and Pl-astics", Union Carbide Corp., Feb. 14,
1977.
97. Laufhuette, D., "Hydrogen Sulfide/Ammonia Removal From Coke Oven
Gas", Ironmakinq Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of.
A.I.M.E., Atlantic City, 33, pp. 142-155 (1974).
98. Linsky, B., Littlepage, J., Johannes, A., Nekooi, R. and
Lincoln, P., "Dry Coke Quenching, Air Pollution and Energy: a
Status Report", Journal of_ the Air Pollution Control Association,
25_ (9), pp. 918-924 (September, 1975).
99. Lisanti, A.F., "Ultrafiltration Oil Reclamation Process," Iron
and Steel Engineer, (March, 1977).
100. Ludberg, James E., and Nicks, Donald G., "Phenols and Thiocyanate
Removed from Coke Plant Effluents", Water and Sewage Works, 116,
pp. 10-13 (November, 1969).
101. Makridakas, S., Wheelwright, S., "Interactive Forecasting,
Holden-Day Inc., San Francisco, Cal., 1978.
102. Maloy, J., "Developments in Cokemaking Plant", Proceedings of.
Coke rn Ironmakinq Conference, Iron and Steel Institute, London,
pp. 89-97 (December, 1969).
103. Marting, D.G. and Balch, G.E., "Charging Preheated Coal to Coke
Ovens", Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, p. 326 (May, 1970).
104. Maruyama, T. et al., "Metal Removed by Physical and Chemical
Treatment Process," Journal WPCF, Volume 47, No. 5, (May, 1975).
105. McBride, T.J. and Taylor, D.M., "Joint Municipal-Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Based on Pilot Plant Studies," Proceedings
of. the 28th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp.
832-840 (1.973).
106. McKee, J.E. and Wolfe, H.W., "Water Quality Criteria", Second
Edition, State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento,
California, Publication No. 3-A.
107. McManus, G.J., "Mini Mill Approaches Continuous Steelmaking",
Iron Age, 211 (16), pp. 62-63 (April 19, 1973).
108. McManus, G.J., "One-Step Steelmaking Takes Another Step Toward
Reality", Iron Age, p. 41 (May 10, 1973).
109. McManus, G.J., "U.S. Examines Soviet Dry Coke Quenching", Iron
f, pp. 47-48 (May 31 , 1973) .
266
-------
110. McMichael, Francis C., Maruhnich, Edward D., and Samples, William
R., "Recycle Water Quality From a Blast Furnace", Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, 43, pp. 595-603 (1971).
111. McMorris, C.E., "Inland's Experience in Reducing Cyanides and
Phenols in the Plant Water Outfall", Blast Furnace and Steel
Plant, pp. 43-47 (January, 1968). '
112. McMorris, C.E., "Inland's Preheat - Pipeline Charged Coke Oven
Battery", Ironmaking Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of_
A.I.M.E., Toronto, pp. 330-338 (1975).
113. Medwith, B.W., Lefei Hoce, J.F., "Single-Stage Biological
Treatment of Coke Plant Wastewaters with a Hybrid Suspended
Growth-fixed firm Reactor", presented at the 36th Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, May 1981.
114. Minor, P.S., "Organic Chemical Industry's Waste Waters"
Environmental Science and Technology, £ (7), pp. 620-625 (July,
1974).
115. "More Pollution Control", Iron Age, 217 (22), p. 11 (May 31,
1976).
116. Muller, J.M. and Coventry, F.L., "Disposal of Coke Plant Waste in
the Sanitary Water System," Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, pp.
400-406 (May, 1968).
117. Nasco, A.C. and Schroeder, J.W., "A New Method of Treating Coke
Plant Waste Waters", Ironmakinq Proceedings, The Metallurgical
Society of A.I.M.E., Atlantic City, 33, pp. 121-141 (1974).
118. Nemec, F.A., "How Much Environmental Protection -What Should Be
The Federal Role?", Iron and Steel Engineer, 53. (10), pp. 35-37
(October, 1976).
119. Negmeth, R.L., Wisniewski, L.D., "Minimizing Recycled Water
Blowdown from Blast Furnace Gas Cleaning Systems", presented at
the U.S. EPA Symposium on Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement
Technology for 1981, October 1981.
120. Nilles, P.E. and Dauby, P.H., "Control of the OBM/Q-BOP Process",
Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 42-47 (March, 1976).
121. Osantowski, R., Geinpolos, A., Rollinger, G. "Physical/Chemical
Treatment of Coke Plant Wastewater", U.S. EPA 600/S2-ED-107
April 1981.
122. Patterson, J.W., et al, "Heavy Metal Treatment via Carbonate
Precipitation," 30th Ind. Wastes Conf., Purdue Univ., pg. 132
(May, 1975).
267
-------
123. Patton, R.S., "Hooded Coke Quenching System For Air Quality
Control", Ironmakinq Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of
A.I.M.E., Atlantic City, 33, pp. 209-219 (1974).
124. Pearce, A.S. and Punt, S.E., "Biological Treatment of Liquid
Toxic Wastes-Part 1", Effluent and Water Treatment Journal, 15,
pp. 32-39 (January, 1975).
125. Pearce, A.S. and Punt, S.E., "Biological Treatment of Liquid
Toxic Wastes-Conclusion," Effluent and Water Treatment Journal,
15, pp. 87-95 (February, 1975).
126. Pearce, J., "Q-BOP Facility Planning and Economics," Iron and
Steel Engineer, pp. 27-37 (March, 1976).
127. Pearce, J., "Q-BOP Steelmaking Developments," Iron and Steel
Engineer, pp. 29-38 (February, 1975).
128. Pengidore, D.A., "Application of Deep Bed Filtration to Improve
Slab Caster Recirculated Spray Water", Iron and Steel Engineer,
5_1 (7), pp. 42-45 (July, 1975).
129. Perry, J.H., Chemical Engineering Handbook, 4th edition.
130. "Pollution Control at Inland, A Long, Hard, and Costly Climb", 33_
Magazine, 12 (6), pp. 80-81 (June, 1974).
131. Potter, N.M. and Hunt, J.W., "The Biological Treatment of Coke
Oven Effluents", Air and Water Pollution in the Iron and Steel
Industry, Special Report No. 61, pp. 207-218 (1958).
132. Price, J.G., Berg, T.A. and Stratman, J., "Coke Oven Pushing
Emissions Control and Continuous Wet Coke Quenching," Ironmaking
Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of A.I.M.E., Atlantic
City, 33, pp. 220-232 (1974).
133. "Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption," U.S. EPA
Technology Transfer, (October, 1973).
134. Raef, S.F., Characklis, W.G., Kessick, M.A. and Ward, O.H., "Fate
of Cyanide and Related Compounds in Industrial Waste Treatment",
Proceedings of_ the 29th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, pp. 832-840 (1974).
135. Research on Dry Type Cooling Towers for Thermal Electric
Generation - Part I, Environmental Protection Agency,
16130EE511/70.
136. Rexnord, Inc., Environmental Research Center", Treatment of Steel
Plant Wastewaters to BATEA levels using Mobile Treatment Units",
prepared for U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, June 26,1979.
268
-------
136. Rizzo, J.L., "Granular Carbon for Wastewater Treatment," Water
and Sewage Works, Volume 118, pp. 238-240, (April, 1971).
138. Rosfjord, R.E., Trattner, R.E. and Cheremisinoff, P.N., "Phenols
- A Water Pollution Control Assessment,"Water and Sewage Works,
123 (3), pp. 96-99 (March, 1976).
139. Rouse, J.V., "Removal of Heavy Metals from Industrial Effluents,"
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, V 102, No.
EE5, (October, 1976).
140. Savage, E.S., "Deep-Bed Filtration of Steel Mill Effluents."
Date of publication unknown.
141. Scott, Murray C., Sulfex (TM) - "A New Process Technology for the
Removal of Heavy Metals from Waste Streams - Presented. at the
1977 Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, (May, 1977).
142. Scott, M.C., "Sulfide Process Removes Metals, Produces Disposable
Sludge,"Industrial Wastes - Pgs. 34-39, (July- August, 1979).
143. Skubak, J., Newfeld, R.D., "A Mass Balance Model for Rinsewater
in 'a Continuous Strip Halogen Electrolytic Tinning Operation for
use in Evaluting Wastewater Treatment and Recovery Alternatives",
presented at the U.S. EP'A Symposium on Iron and Steel Pollution
Abatement Technology for 1981, October 1981.
144. Smith, John M., Masse, A.N., Feige, W.A. and Kamphake, L.J.,
"Nitrogen Removal From Municipal Waste Water by Columnar
Denitrification", Environmental Science and Technology, 6_> p.
260 (March 3, 1972).
145. "Coke in the Iron and Steel Industry New Methods in Conventional
Processes" Steel Times, 193, pp. 551-556 (October 21, 1966).
146. Sugeno, T., Shimokawa, K. and Tsuruoka, K., "Nuclear Steelmaking
in Japan", Iron and Steel Engineer, 53^ (11), pp. 40- 47
(November, 1976).
147; Symons, C.R., "Treatment of Cold Mill Wastewater by Ultra-High
Rate Filtration," Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, (November, 1971).
148. Technical and Economic Evaluation of Cooling Systems Slowdown
Control Technologies, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, EPA-660/2-73-026.
149. Terril, M.E., Neufeld, R.D., "Investigation of Reverse Osmosis
for the Treatment of Recycled Blast-Furnace scrubber Water",
presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium ib Iron and Steel Pollution
Abatement Technology for 1981, October 1981.
269
-------
150. Traubert, R.M., "Weirton Steel Div. - Brown's Island Coke Plant",
Iron and Steel Engineer, 5^4 (1), pp. 61-64 (January, 1977) .
151. U.S. Department of the Interior, "The Cost of Clean Water",
Volume III - Industrial Wastes, Profile No. ]_.
152. United States Steel, The Making, Shaping, and Treating of_ Steel,
Harold E. McGannon ed., Harlicek and Hill, Pittsburgh, 9th
Edition, (1971).
/
153. Voelker, F.C., Jr., "A Contemporary Survey of Coke-Oven Air
Emissions Abatement", Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 57-64
(February, 1975).
154. Voice, E.W. and Ridigion, J.M., "Changes In Ironmaking Technology
In Relation To the Availability of Coking Coals", Ironmaking and
Steelmaking (Quarterly), pp. 2-7 (1974).
155. Wahl, J.R., Hayes, T.C., et al, "Ultrafiltration For Today's Oily
Wastewaters: A Survey of Current Ultrafiltration Systems."
Presented at the 34th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference,
(May, 1979).
156. Wagener, D., "Characteristics of High - Capacity Coke Ovens",
Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 35-41 (October, 1974).
157. Wallace, De Yarman, "Blast Furnace Gas Washer Water Recycle
System," Iron and Steel Engineer Yearbook, pp. 231-235 (1970).
158. "Waste Water Treatment Facility at U.S. Steel's Fairfield Works",
Iron and Steel Engineer, p. 65 (June, 1976).
159. "Weirton Steel Gets It All Together at New Coke Plant on Brown's
Island," 33 Magazine, 11 (1), pp. 27-30 (January, 1973).
160. Wilson, L.W., Bucchianeri, B.A., Tracy, K.D., "Assessment of the
Biological Treatment of coke-Plant Wastewaters with addition of
Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)", presented at the US.S EPA
Symposium on Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement Technology for
1981, October 1981.
161. Woodson, R.D., "Cooling Towers," Scientific American, 224(5),
70-78, (May, 1971 ).
162. Woodson, R.D., "Cooling Alternatives for Power Plants," paper
presented to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (November
30, 1972).
163. "World-Wide Oxygen Steelmaking Capacity - 1974", Iron and Steel
Engineer, p. 90 (April, 1975).
164. "Worldwide Oxygen Steelmaking Capacity - 1975", Iron and Steel
Engineer, p. 89 (April, 1976).
270
-------
165. "World Steel Statistics - 1975", Iron and Steel Engineer pp.
57-58 (August, 1976).
166. Zabban, Walter and Jewett, H.W., "The Treatment of Fluoride
Wastes, " Engineering Bulletiri of Purdue University, Proceedings
of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference, 1967, p. 706.
167. Zahka, Pinto, S.D., Abcor, Inc. Ultrafiltration of Cleaner Baths
Using Abcor Tubular Membranes.
271
-------
-------
VOLUME I
APPENDIX A
STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS
Introduction
Statistical Methodology
This section provides an overview of the statistical methodology used
by the Agency to develop effluent limitations for the steel industry.
The methodology consists essentially of determining long term average
pollutant discharges expected from well designed and operated
treatment systems, and multiplying these long term averages by
variability factors designed to allow for random fluctuations in
treatment system performance. The resulting products yield daily
maximum and 30-day average concentrations for each pollutant. The
daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations were then multipled by
an appropriate conversion factor and the respective treatment system
model effluent flow rate to determine mass limitations. A general
description of the methods employed to derive long term averages,
variability factors, and the resulting concentrations follows. The
development of the model treatment system flow rates are presented in
each subcategory report.
Determination gf_ Long Term Average
For each wastewater treatment facility, an average pollutant
concentration was calculated from the daily observations. The median
of the plant averages for a pollutant was then used as the long term
average for the industry. The long term average was determined for
each pollutant to be limited and used to obtain the corresponding
limitations for that pollutant.
The long term average (LTA) is defined as the expected discharge
concentration (in mg/1) of a pollutant from a well designed,
maintained, and operated treatment system. The long-term average is
not a limitation, but rather a design value which the treatment system
should be designed to attain over the long term.
Determination of_ Variability Factors
Fluctuations in the pollutant concentrations discharged occur at well
designed and properly operated treatment systems. These fluctuations
may reflect temporary imbalances in the treatment system caused by
fluctuations in flow, raw waste load of a particular pollutant,
chemical feed, mixing flows within tanks, or a variety of other
factors.
273
-------
Allowance for the day-to-day variability in the concentration of a
pollutant discharged from a well designed and operated treatment
system is accounted for in the standards by the use of a "variability
factor." Under certain assumptions discussed below, application of a
variability factor allows the calculation of an upper bound for the
concentration of a particular pollutant. On the average a specified
percent of the randomly observed daily values from treatment systems
discharging this pollutant at a known mean concentration would be
expected to fall below this bound. The 99th percentile for the daily
maximum value is a commonly used and accepted level in the steel and
other industrial categories. Also, this percentile has been chosen to
provide a balance between appropriate considerations of day-to-day
variation in a properly operating plant and the necessity to insure
that a plant is operating properly.
The derivation of the variability factor for plants with more than 10
but less than 100 observations is based upon the assumption that the
daily pollutant concentrations follow a lognormal distribution. This
assumption is supported by plots of the empirical distribution
function of observed concentrations for various pollutants (Figures
A-l to A-4). The plots of these data on lognormal probability paper
approximated straight lines as would be expected of data that is
lognormally distributed. It is also assumed that monitoring at a
given plant was conducted responsibly and in such a way that resulting
measurements can be considered independent and amenable to standard
statistical procedures. A final assumption is that treatment
facilities and monitoring techniques had remained substantially
constant throughout the monitoring period.
The daily maximum variability factor is estimated by the equation
(derived in Appendix XII-A1 of the Development Document for
Electroplating Pretreatment Standards, EPA 440/1-79/003, August,
1979),
In (VF) * Z(Sigma) - .5(Sigma)* (1)
where
VF is the variability factor
Z is 2.33, which is the 99th percentile for the standard normal
distribution, and
Sigma is the standard deviation of the natural logarithm of the
concentrations.
For plants with 100 or more observations for a pollutant, there are
enough data to use nonparametric statistics to calculate the daily
maximum variability factor. For these cases, the variability factor
was calculated by dividing the empirical 99th percentile by the
pollutant average. The empirical 99th percentile is that observation
whose percentile is nearest 0.99.
274
-------
The estimated single-day variability factor for each pollutant
discharged from a well designed and operated plant was calculated in
the following manner:
1. For each plant with 10 or more but less than 100 observations,
Sigma was calculated according to the standard statistical
formula14and was then substituted into Equation (1) to find the
VF.
2. For those plants with over 100 observations, the VF was estimated
directly by dividing the 99th percentile of the observed sample
values by their average.
3. The medinn of the plant variability factors was then calculated
for each pollutant.
The variability factor for the average of a random sample of 30 daily
observations about the mean value of a pollutant discharged from a
well designed and operated treatment system was obtained by use of the
Central Limit Theorem. This theorem states that the average of a
sufficiently large sample of independent and identically distributed
observations from any of a large class of population distributions
will be approximately normally distributed. This approximation
improves as the size of the sample, n, increases. It is generally
accepted that a sample size of 25 or 30 is sufficient for the normal
distribution to adequately approximate the distribution of the sample
average. For many populations, sample sizes as small as 10 to 15 are
sufficient.
The 30-day average variability factor, VF*, allows the calculation of
an upper bound for the concentration of a particular pollutant. Under
the same assumptions stated above, it would be expected that 95
percent of the randomly observed 30-day average values from a
treatment system discharging the pollutant at a known mean
concentration will fall below this bound. Thus, a well operated plant
would be expected, on the average, to incur approximately one
violation of the 30-day average limitation during a 20 month period.
The 95th percentile was chosen in a manner analogous to that explained
previously in the discussion of the daily variability factor.
i*[E(xi - x)z/
-------
The 30-day average variability factor was estimated by the following
equation (based on the Central Limit Theorem and previous
assumptions),
(VF*) - 1.0 + Z (S*/A) (2)
where
VF* is the 30-day average variability factor;
Z is 1.64, which is the 95th percentile of the standard normal
distribution;
S* is the estimated standard deviation of the 30-day averages,
obtained by dividing the estimated standard deviation of the
daily pollutant concentrations by the square root of 30;
and,
A is the average pollutant concentration.
In the case of biological treatment of cokemaking wastewaters, the
Agency determined that , the general assumption of statistical
independence between successive observations, which is a basis 'of the
general formula, is not valid. The other assumptions underlying the
application of the Central Limits Theorem valid. An analysis of the
data for the biological treatment system at Plant 0868A indicated that
sample measurements made over a number of succesive days are not
independent. As a result, the Agency modified its method for
calculating the 30-day average concentrations to account for this
correlation. It should be noted that the Agency did not find
correlations of any significance between successive sample
measurements made at physical-chemical treatment systems used to treat
other steel industry wastewaters.
The application of the Central Limit Theorem to the effluent data from
biological treatment of cokemaking wastewaters remains valid. Thus,
the variability factors, VF*, for the 30-day average concentrations
are calculated using equation (2) above. However, to account for the
statistical dependence of the effluent data, the correlation
(covariance) terms are included in the calculation of the standard
deviation of the 30-day averages, S*, as shown in Table A-51.
The effect of the dependency of the effluent data is to increase the
standard deviation, and, thus, increase the 30-day average
concentrations. The 30-day average concentration bases for total
suspended solids, ammonia-N and total cyanide for the BAT (biological)
limitations and NSPS for the cokemaking subcategory were calculated on
this basis. The phenols (4AAP) concentration was determined using the
original method since the Agency determined that the dependency of the
effluent data for phenols (4AAP) are not significant.
276
-------
Determination of Limitations
Daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations (L and L*,
respectively) were calculated for each pollutant from the long term
average (LTA), the daily variability factor (VF), and the 30-day
average variability factor (VF*) for that polluant by the following
equations:
L - VF x LTA (3)
L* « VF* x LTA (4)
The above concentrations were multiplied by the effluent flow
(gal/ton) developed for each treatment subcategory and an appropriate
conversion factor to obtain mass limitations and standards in units of
kg/1,000 kg of product.
The daily maximum limitation calculated for each pollutant is a value
which is not to be exceeded on any one day by a plant discharging that
pollutant. The 30-day average maximum limitation is a value which is
not to be exceeded by the average of up to 30 consecutive single-day
observations for the regulated pollutant. Long term data analyses are
presented in Tables A-2 through A-50.
Analysis of_ Data From Filtration and Clarification Treatment Systems
The observations used to derive daily maximum and 30-day average con-
centrations include both long term data obtained from the D-DCPs and
agency requests, and short term data obtained through sampling visits.
Engineering judgment1* was used to delete some data from the long term
data sets analyzed; Generally those data deleted indicate possible
upsets, lack of proper operation of treatment facilities, or bypasses.
These values typically could be considered effluent violations under
the NPDES permit system. The number of observations deleted for each
pollutant is identified in Tables A-9 to A-50. Table A-l presents a
key to the long-term data summaries for all plants included in the
analyses, A discussion of the analyses for filtration and for
clarification treatment systems follows.
Filtration Treatment System
Table A-2 presents average concentrations and variability factors for
total suspended solids for those plants1* with long term effluent data
for filtration treatment systems. Detailed descriptive statistics for
all relevant pollutants sampled at these plants are presented in
15The Agency's justification for using engineering judgment to delete
values from monitoring data sets was upheld in U.S. Steel Corp. v.
Train, 556 F.2d 822 (7th Cir. 1977).
16Plant 920N was not included in this long term data analysis. Visits
to this plant by EPA personnel have demonstrated that the treatment
system was not properly operated.
27?
-------
Tables A-9 to A-18. The median of the long term averages is
multiplied by the apporpriate median variability factor to obtain the
daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations for TSS as presented
in Table A-2. Table A-3 presents, in a similar manner, averages,
variability factors and daily maximum and 30-day average con-
centations for oil and grease.
The average concentrations for five toxic metals (chromium, copper,
lead, nickel and zinc) calculated from long and short term data are
presented with the respective medians in Table A-4. Variability
factors, presented in Table A-5, were calculated for those plants
having long term toxic metals data. The median daily maximum
variability factors for the metals range from 2.0 to 4.5 and the
30-day variability factor for all of the toxic metals is 1.2. These
values are similar to those obtained for TSS and oil and grease, in
which case the daily maximum variability factors are 3.9 and 4.2 for
TSS, and oil and grease, respectively; and the 30-day average
variability factor is 1.3 for both pollutants. Since these
variability factors were calculated from a larger data base, the
Agency decided to use the average of these to represent the
variability of the toxic metals. Therefore, variability factors of
4.0 and 1.3 were used to obtain the daily maximum and 30-day average
concentrations, respectively. The results are presented in Table A-5.
The daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations were rounded up to
0.3 and 0.1 mg/1, respectively, for all toxic metals except zinc. For
zinc the daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations were rounded
to 0.45 and 0.15 mg/1, respectively. These values were used to
calculate the toxic metals mass limitations for filtration systems,
where applicable.
Clarification/Sedimentation Treatment System
Tables A-6 and A-7 present the average concentrations of long term
data, the variability factors and the calculations used to derive the
daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations for TSS and oil and
grease, respectively. The long term effluent data and the resultant
concentrations apply to clarifacation/sedimentation wastewater
treatment systems. Detailed descriptive statistics of these plants
are presented in Tables A-18 to A-37 and A-50. For Plants 0112,
0684F, and 0684H, long term data were provided for several parallel
treatment systems in one central treatment facility. In these
situations the data from the clarifier providing the best treatment
were used.
Screening and verification data were used to calculate the average
concentrations for toxic metals removal by clarification treatment
systems treating wastewaters from carbon steel operations. These
average concentrations are presented in Table A-8. Variability
factors of 3.0 and 1.2 were used to calculate the daily maximum and
30-day average concentrations (shown in Table A-8), respectively, for
all the metals. The above variability factors were based upon:
278
-------
1. the variability factors for TSS and oil and grease in Tables A-6
and A-7; and,
2. the variability factors17 derived from toxic metals discharged
from clarification treatment systems in the electroplating
category.
The daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations were rounded to
0.3 and 0.1 mg/1, respectively for chromium, copper, and zinc, and
0.45 and 0.2 mg/1 for nickel, and 0.30 and 0.15 mg/1 for lead. These
concentrations were used to establish the toxic metals mass
limitations for all forming and finishing operations, with the
exception of combination acid pickling and salt bath descaling
operations.
For combination acid pickling and salt bath descaling operations, both
of which process speciality steels, the Agency relied on long term
effluent data from a clarification treatment facility located at Plant
0060B. This treatment facility treated wastewaters from both of these
specialty steel operations. The descriptive statistical data are
presented in Table A-34. The daily maximum and the 30-day average
concentrations used to establish the mass effluent limitations for
chromium are 1.0 mg/1 and 0.4 mg/1, respectively; and for nickel 0.7
mg/1 and 0.3 mg/1, respectively.
17Daily maximum variability factors presented in the "Development
Document for Electro- plating Pretreatment Standards"; are: Cu - 3.2,
Cr - 3.9, Ni - 2.9, Zn - 3.0, Pb - 2.9.
279
-------
TABLE A-l
KEY TO LONG-TERM DATA SUMMARIES
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Table No.
A-9
A-10
A-ll
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-l 7
A-l 8
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-38
A-39
A-40
A-41
A-42
A-43
A-44
A-45
A-46
A-47
A-48
A-49
A-50
Reference Code
0112B-5A
0112C-011
0112C-122
0112C-334
0112C-617
0112I-5A
0384A-3E
0384A-4L
0684H-EF
0684F-4I
0112-5B
0112A-5A
0112H-5A
0320-5A
0384A-5E
0384A-5F
0584A-5F
0584B-5F
0684F-5B
0684F-5E
0684H-5C
0856N-5B
0860B
0920G-5A
0060B
0060B
0860B
0584E
0856D
0860B
0012A-5F
0060A
0868A
0684F
0684F
0060
0060
0060
0612
0612
0612
0948C
Subcategory
Treatment
Hot Forming
Hot Forming
Hot Forming
Hot Forming
Hot Forming
Pickling/Al. Cleaning
Cont. Casting
Cont. Casting
Pipe & Tube
Hot Forming
Ironmaking
Sintering
Comb. Acid Pickling
Hot Forming
Ironmaking
Steelmaking (BOF)
Hot Forming
Hot Forming
Ironmaking
Ironmaking
Ironmaking
Hot Forming
Ironmaking
Cold Rolling
Comb. Acid Pickling
Comb. Acid Pickling
Forming & Finishing
Misc. Finishing Operations
Forming & Finishing
Ironmaking
Cokemaking
Cokemaking
Cokemaking
Cokemaking
Cold Rolling
Sintering
Sintering
Sintering
Steelmaking - EAF
Steelmaking - EAF
Steelmaking - EAF
Misc. Finishing Operations
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Lagoons/Filtration
Polymer/Clarifier
Thickener
Clarifier/Lagoons
Lagoons
Thickener
Thickener/Clarifier
Settling Basin
Lagoons
Clarifier
Clarifier
Clarifier
Settling Basin
Clarifier
Clarifier
Lime/Lagoons
Lime/Clarifier
Chem. Addition/Clarifiers
Chem. Addition/Clarifiers
Chem. Addition/Clarifiers
A. Chlorination/Filtration
Single-Stage Biological
Single-Stage Biological
2-Stage Biological
Phys-Chem (Carbon Columns)
Gas Flotation
Filtration (Pilot)
Lime/Clarifier (Pilot)
Lime/Clar/Filter (Pilot)
Filter (Pilot)
Hydroxide/Clarifier (Pilot)
Lime/Filter (Pilot)
Chem. Addition/Clarifiers
2CO
-------
TABLE A-2
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Plant
0112C-334
0112I-5A
0112C-617
0684H-EF
0112C-OH
0112B-5A
0384A-4L
0112C-122
0384A-3I
0684F-4I
Number
of
Sample
Points
415
59
399
40
580
87
289
496
305
78
Average (nig/1)
2.3
3.6
4.8
6.0
8.9
10.6
10.8
13.3
17.4
22.2
Variability Factors
Average
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
Maximum*
6.8
8.9
5.4
5.3
3.5
2.3
3.0
4.0
2.5
3.7
Median Values 9.8 1.3
30-Day Average Concentration Basis • (9.8 mg/1) (1.3) » 12.7 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis « (9.8 mg/1) (3.9) * 38.2 mg/1
3.9
Note; For the purposes of developing effluent limitations and standards,
the following values were used for total suspended solids.
Average m 15 mg/1
Maximum = 40 mg/1
* For plants with more than 100 observations:
99th Percentile
Daily Variability Factor •
Average
281
-------
TABLE A-3
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
FILTEATION SYSTEMS
OIL AND GREASE
Plant
0112B-5A
0112C-334
0112C-617
0112G-122
0684H-EF
0112C-011
0384A-4L
Average, (mg/1)
1.1
1.3
1.3
2.0
3.4
6.7
6.7
Variability Factors
rage Maximum*
1,1
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.2
2.9
5.3
4.5
5.3
3.8
5.1
3.4
Median Values 2.0 1.3
30-Day Average Concentration Basis " (2.0 mg/1) (1.3) - 2.6 ng/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis " (2.0 mg/1) (4.5) - 9.0 «g/l
4.5
Note: A maximum value of 10 mg/1 has been used to develop
effluent limitations and standards for oil and grease.
* For plants with nore than 100 observations:
99th Percentile
Daily Variability Factor •
Average
2C2
-------
TABLE A-4
DATA ANALYSIS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
Plant
A. Chromium
0112I-5A
0684F-4I
0684H
0584E
0496
0612
MEDIAN
Number of
Sample Points
61
11
3
3
3
3
Average
(mg/1)
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
B. Copper
0584F
0684F-4I
0684H
0612
0496
0112I-5A
0868B
MEDIAN
3
11
3
3
3
60
3
0.015
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.25
0.03
C. Lead
0684F-4I
0684H
0496
01121
0612
0868B
11
3
3
3
3
3
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.18
0.32
MEDIAN
0.06
283
-------
TABLE A-4
DATA ANALYSIS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
PAGE 2
Number of Average
Plant Sample Points (mg/1)
D. Nickel
0684H 3 0.02
0612 3 0.025
0496 3 0.04
0112I-5A 27 0.07
0684F-4I 11 0.09
MEDIAN 0.04
E. Zinc
0684H 3 0.02
0584E 3 0.02
0496 3 0.02
0112I-5A 58 0.10
0612 3 0.12
0684F 45 0.39
0868B 3 1.6
MEDIAN 0.10
2S4
-------
TABLE A-5
DERIVATION OF VARIABILITY FACTORS AND PROPOSED LIMITS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
Derivation of Variability Factors
Parameter
A. Chromium
0112I-5A
0684F-4I
MEDIAN
No. of
Sample Points
61
11
Variability Factors
1.2
1.2
1.2
Maximum
2.9
3.6
3.3
B. Copper
0112I-5A
0684F-4I
MEDIAN
60
11
1.2
1.1
1.2
5.1
2.7
3.9
C. Lead
0684F-4I
11
1.1
2.0
D. Nickel
0112I-5A
0684F-4I
MEDIAN
27
11
1.2
1.2
1.2
3.3
5.6
4.5
E. Zinc
0112I-5A
0684F-4I
MEDIAN
58
45
1.2
1.2
1.2
3.0
4.2
3.6
Note: Use for all regulated metals
Average Variability Factor • 1.3
Maximum Variability Factor -4.0
285
-------
TABLE A-5
DERIVATION OF VARIABILITY FACTORS AND PROPOSED LIMITS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
PAGE 2
Derivation of Concentration Values
A. Chromium
30-Day Average Concentration Basis - (0.03)(1.3) - 0.04
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis - (0.03X4.0) - 0.12
B. Copper
30-Day Average Concentration Basis - (0.03X1.3) - 0.04
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis « (0.03X4.0) - 0.12
C. Lead
30-Day Average Concentration Basis « (0.06X1.3) * 0.08
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis » (0.06X4.0) m 0.24
D Nickel
30-Day Average Concentration Basis • (0.04X1.3) " 0.05
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis » (0.04X4,0) • 0.16
E. Zinc
30-Day Average Concentration Basis » (0.10X1.3) » 0.13
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis * (0.10X4.0) " 0.40
Note: For the purposes of developing effluent limitations
and standards, the following values were used for all metals except zinc;
Average =0.10 mg/1
Maximum "0.30 mg/1
For zinc, the following values have been used:
Average "0.15 mg/1
Maximum "0.45 mg/l
All concentration values are in mg/1.
286
-------
TABLE A-6
LONG-TEKM DATA ANALYSIS
CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Number
of
Sample
Points
853
102
291
49
24
151
97
74
24
380
98
195
101
383
101
17
175
528
Average
(ttg/1)
5.2
8.9
9.9
11.7
14.5
15.8
16.1
19.0
23.1
24.5
24.6
25.0
25.4
26.7
32.1
33.1
35.7
45.5
23.8
Variability
Average
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.2
Factors
Maximum*
2.3
2.3
4.0
3.2
5.3
2.3
2.8
5.4
2.5
2.4
2.3
3.1
1.8
2.5
3.2
3.4
2.5
3.6
2.7
Plant
0584E
0860B
0112-5B
0112H-5A
0060B
0320-5A
0384A-5F
0684H-5C
0060B
0684F-5B
0584B-5F
0920G-5A
0584A-5F
0384A-5E
0856N-5B
0856D
0112A-5A
0684F-5E
Median Value*
30-Day Average Concentration Basis " (23.8 mg/1) (1.2) - 28.6 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis - (23.8 mg/1) (2.7) - 64.3 mg/1
Note: For the purposes of developing effluent limitations and standards,
the following values were used for total suspended solids:
Average - 30 mg/1
Maximum « 70 mg/1
*: For plants with more than 100 observations:
99th Percentile
Daily Variability Factor «
Average
287
-------
TABLE A-7
CLAHf I CATION/OIL SKIMMING SYSTEMS
OIL AND GREASE
Plant
0320-5A
0584E
0684F-5E
0856D
0860B
0584A-5F
0856N-5B
0584B-5P
MEDIAN VALUES
Number of
Sample Points
35
853
5
17
260
98
103
58
Average
(ng/1)
Variability Factors
rase Maximum*
4.8
5.9
7.0
8.4
4.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
4.0
3.7
'2.3
1.7
3.3
6.7
2.0
2.9
3.1
30-Day Average Concentration Basis «/(4.4 mg/l)(1.2), » 5.3 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis » (4.4 mg/l)(3.1) " 13.6 mg/1
Note: For the purposes of developing effluent limitations and standards,
the following values were used for oil and grease:
Average "10 «g/l
Maximum * 30 mg/1
* For plants with more than 100 observations:
99th Percentile
Daily Variability Factor
Average
288
-------
TABLE A-8
DATA ANALYSIS
CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
Number of Average
Plant Subcategory Sample Points (mg/1)
A. Chromium
0856D Forming 4 Finishing Wastes 17 0.02
0948C Pickling 3 0.02
NN-2 Galvanizing 3 0.03
0476A Pickling 3 0.03
0528 Pickling 3 0.03
0584E Finishing Wastes 853 0.04
0948C Finishing Wastes 236 0.04
0396A Pickling 3 0.08
0920E Galvanizing 3 0.27
0424-01 Pickling 3 1.32
MEDIAN 0.04
30-Day Average Concentration Basis » (0.04 mg/l)(1.2) » 0.05 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis » (0.04 mg/l)(3.0) • 0.12 mg/1
B. Copper
0948C Pickling 3 0.02
0476A Pickling 3 0.03
0528 Pickling 3 0.03
0920E Galvanizing 3 0.04
0424-01 Pickling 3 0.08
0396A Pickling 3 0.17
MEDIAN 0.04
30-Day Average Concentration Basis = (0.04 mg/l)(1.2) » 0.05 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis » (0.04 mg/l)(3.0) " 0.12 mg/1
C. Lead
0856D Forming & Finishing Wastes 17 0.02
0948C Pickling 3 0.05
0476A Pickling 3 0.10
0528 Pickling 3 0.10
0396A Pickling 3 0.57
0920E Galvanizing 3 0.60
MEDIAN 0.10
30-Day Average Concentration Basis = (0.10 mg/l)(1.2) " 0.12 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis = (0.10 mg/l)(3.0) = 0.30 mg/1
289
-------
TABLE A-8
DATA ANALYSIS
CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
PAGE 2
Plant
D. Nickel
0948C
0476A
0528
0396A
0424-01
0920E
Subcategory
Pickling
Pickling
Pickling
Pickling
Pickling
Galvanizing
Number of Average
Sample Points mg/1
Note: For the purposes of developing effluent limitations and standards,
the following values were used:
For chromium, copper and zinc:
Average -0.10 mg/1
Maximum * 0.30 mg/1
For nickel:
Average -0.20 mg/1
Maximum • 0,60 mg/1
For leads
Average • 0.15 mg/1
Maximum • 0.45 mg/1
3 0,03
3 0.03
3 0.03
3 0.27
3 2.50
3 2.90
MEDIAN 0.15
30-Day Average Concentration Basis - (0.15 ng/lKl.2) - 0.18 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis » (0.15 ng/l)(3.0) » 0.45 mg/1
I. Zinc
0528 Pickling 3 0.02
0424-01 Pickling 3 0.035
0584E Finishing Wastes 853 0.04
0476A Pickling 3 0.05
0948C Finishing Wastes 236 0.05
0948C Pickling 3 0.07
0856D Forming & Finishing Wastes 17 0.13
0396A Pickling 3 0.24
0920E Galvanizing 3 6.7
MEDIAN 0.05
30-Day Average Concentration Basis « (0,05 «g/l)(1.2) » 0.06 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis • (0,05 mg/l)(3.0) « 0.15 mg/1
290
-------
Plant : 0112B-5A
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatnent : Filtration
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
TABLE A-9
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
S . : Daily standard deviation
VF s Monthly variability factor
VF,: Daily variability factor
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Oba Min Max Ave S_,
87 1.6 24.4 10.6 3.9
87 0.2 3.8 1.1 0.6
ition = Sd/(30)"5
.on
ictor
or
,«~ . .. . ..— 99th Percentile
VFj*
2.3
2.9
Monthly
Average Analysis
S
—o
0.7
0.1
VF
1.1
l.l
Average
-------
TABLE A-10
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant s 0112C-011
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment ; Filtration
Daily Maximtm Analysis
(1) 5 observations deleted
(2) 11 observations deleted
SB : 30-Day standard deviation • S./(30>*
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VFTj Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations? VF. -
99th Percent i le^
Average
30-Day
Average Analysis
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Mo. of
Obs
580(25
690
-------
TABLE A-11
LONG-TEEM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0112C-122
Subcategory: Hoc Forming
Treatment : Filtration
Daily Maximum Analysis
W s 30-Day variability factor
VFTs Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF,
99th Perccntile
Average
30-Day
Average Analysis
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min
TSS
Oil &
vo
Ul
(1) 1
(2) 7
S :
496^ 0.1
Grease 684(1) 0.1
observation deleted
observations deleted
30-Day standard deviation - Sd/(30)
Max Av* Sj VFj* S VF
63.4 13.3 12.4 4.0 2.3 1.3
20.3 2.0 2.2 5.3 0.4 1.3
-------
TABLE A-12
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0112C-334
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment l Filtration
Daily Maximum Analysis
30-Day
Average Analysis
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
No. of
Obs
415
727
Min
0.1
0.1
Max
23.5
12.2
Ave
2.3
1.3
S,
— d
3.0
1.4
VF*
— m
6.8
5.3
S
-m
0.5
0.3
VF
— m
1.4
1.4
Si
VF°:
Sd/(30)
.5
30-Day standard deviation
Daily standard deviation
30-Day variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-13
LOHG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0112C-617
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Filtration
Paily Maximum Analysis
a, * uany oiaiiuai-u uc v j. oil. JLUU
VF s 30-Day variability factor
VF.; Daily variability factor
* i For plants with more than 100 observationsi VF.
99th Percentile
Average
30-Day
Average Analysis
K3
in
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
S i 30-Day standard
Ho. of
Obs
399
647
deviation = S,/(30)
Min
0.1
0.1
.5
Max Ave S VF * S VF
33.8 4.8 5.5 5.4 1.0 1.3
7.9 1.3 1.3 4.5 0.3 1.4
-------
TABLE A-14
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0112I-5A
Subcategory: Pickling/Al
Treatment : Filtration
Pollutant
TSS
Iron
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Nickel
Aluminum
Phenol
ine Cleaning
No. of
Obs
59(2)
60(1)
61
60(1)
58(3>
27
27
15
Min
~~^^~
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.2
0.0005
Daily Maximum Analysis
Max
""
30.0
0.9
0.06
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.01
Ave
3.6
0.4
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.07
0.2
0.006
R
— "O
6.4
0.2
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.003
VF*
— d
8.9
2.6
2.9
5.1
3.0
3.3
1.3
4.2
30-Day
Average Analys i s
S
— m
1.2
0.04
0.002
0.007
0.01
0.007
0.006
0.0005
VF
— ~in
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
(3) 3 observations deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation = S./C30)
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF.: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF
99th Fercentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-15
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0384A-3E
Subcategory: Continuous Casting
Treatment : Filtration
Pollutant
Daily Maximum Analysis
30-Day
Average Analysis
TSS
No. of
Obs
305(1)
Min
1.0
Max
45.0
Ave S.
17.4 9.3
vFd*
2.5
S
-m
1.7
1.2
fO
ID
(1) 3 observations deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation " S,/(30)
S, : Daily standard deviation
tf
30-Day variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF,
99th Percentile
Average
-------
IsJ
10
CD
TABLE A-16
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0384A-4L
Subcategory: Continuous Casting
Treatment : Filtration
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
(1) 18 observations deleted
(2) 19 observations deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation
S, s Daily standard deviation
VP s 30-Day variability factor
VF7: Daily variability factor
* ; For plants with more than 100 observations: VF
iting
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S,
d
273(2) 1.0 33.0 10.8 7.0
275(1) 0.1 28.0 6.7 6.0
:ion - S./(30)*5
a
VFj*
3.0
3.4
30-Day
Average Analysis
S
-n
1.3
1.1
VF
1.3
1.2
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-17
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0684H-EF
Subcategory; Pipe & Tube
Treatment ; Deep Bed Filter
Daily Maximum Analysis
30-Day
Average Analysis
tv)
<£>
US
No. of
Pollutant Oba Min Max Ave S VF * S VF^
TSS 40(1) 1.0 21,0 6.0 5.5 5.3 1.0 1.3
Oil & Grease 27 1.0 20.0 3.4 4.0 3.8 0.7 1,4
(1) 1 observation deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation - S./(30>*
S. : Daily standard deviation
VF s 30-Day variability factor
VF™s Daily variability factor
* > Vnr r,l ont-c ui ft\ mnrv. fhnn 1 flfl nKa er-unt-i nna • UW n 99th PerCCntlle
Average
-------
TABLE A-18
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
U)
o
o
Plant s 0684F-^I
Subcategory: Hoc Forming
Treatment : Lagoon & til
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Amnonia
Cyanide (Total)
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
ation
Daily Maximim Analysis
No. of
Obs
78
79(1)
6(z).
6
45<3>
11
11
11
Min
4.0
4.0
0.1
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
Max
60.0
27.0
0.5
0.05
1.0
0.09
0.05
0.2
Ave
22.2
9.6
0.3
0.02
0.39
0.03
0.02
0.09
S,
— <1
13.7
4.3
0.2
0.01
0.23
0.02
0.01
0.07
¥? *
3.7
2.3
4.2
3.6
4.2
3.6
2.7
5.6
30-Day
Average Analysis
S
"""HI
2.5
0.8
0.04
0.002
0.2
0.004
0.002
0.01
VP
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
-------
TABLE A-18
LOHG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
PAGE 2
Plant : 0684F-4I
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Lagoon & Filtration
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of .
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S_, VF.,*
Phenol 6 0.01 0.4 0.1 0.1 9.0
Cadmium 11 0.001 0.009 0.004 0.002 3.4
Iron 9 1.6 10.3 5.4 3.3 3.9
Zinc (Disa.) 74(3) 0.02 3.4 0.5 0.7 7.2
Lead 11 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.01 2.0
( 1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
(3) 24 observations deleted**
S 30-Day standard deviation = S./(30)'
S? Daily standard deviation
VF 30-Day variability factor
VF. Daily variability factor
d
* 1?rvr T^l flnf ra MT fh mm-n t"h-ln 1 fin nt\c o-«-ijof--i rtnc t W — ™.™±.. rerCentlle
d Average
** These observations were deleted since the hot forming wastewater treatment system was
30-Day
Average Analysis
S VF
=m — m
0.02 1.3
0.0004 1.2
0.6 1.2
0.6 1.2
0.002 1.1
contaminated with the filtrate from sludges removed from a cold rolling, pickling and
galvanizing central treatment system. This filtrate contains high zinc concentrations
and resulted in NPDES permit violations for the hot forming discharge.
-------
TABLE A-19
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
o
Plant : Q112-5B
Subcategorys Ironmaking
Treatment : Polymer/Clarifier
Pally Maximum Analysis
30-Day
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S. VP.* S
TSS
(1)
S :
rm .
"O —
-------
TABLE A-20
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0112A-5A
Subcategory: Sintering
Treatment : Thickener
Pollutant
TSS
Ammonia
Cyanide (Total)
Phenol
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs
175(2>
180
180
178(1)
Min
10.0
18.0
0.005
0.006
Max
10A.O
60.0
O.A
O.A
Ave
35.7
3A.9
0.1
0.05
S^
19.7
6.9
0.08
0.06
VF *
2.5
1.6
3.6
6.2
30-Day
Average Analysis
S
— m
3.6
1.3
0.1
0.01
VF^
1.2
1.1
2.6
1.3
(1) 2 observations deleted
(2) 5 observations deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation = S./(30)'
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF*?: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF,
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-21
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Ul
o
Plarxt : 0112H-5A
Subcategory: Combinatio
Treatment : Clarifier/Lagoon
Pollutant
TSS
Iron
Zinc
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation
ID
S : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VFT: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more
:id Pickling
ion
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave Sj
— d
49 2.8 25.6 11.7 5.9
47(2) 0.01 1.4 0.1 0.2
49(1) 0.01 1.3 0.2 0.2
ion = S./OO)'5
d
on
:tor
or
h*~ inn rtK«o^»i-^no. v* = 99th Percentile
30-Day
Average Analysis
VF.,* S VF
— d —TO —m
3.2 1.1 1.2
7.3 0.04 1.8
11.4 .0.04 1.3
Average
-------
TABLE A-22
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
ui
o
Plant : 0320-5A
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Lagoons
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Anmonia
(1) 2 observations deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF.: Daily variability factor
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S VF *
151(1) 0.1 39.0 15.8 7.4 2.3
35 0.03 0.3 0.1 0.06 4.0
146 0.1 14.0 3.3 2.2 2.7
:ion = Sd/(30)'5
.on
:tor
:or
-han 100 nbncrvntiona- VF - 99th Percentile
d Average
30-Day
Average Analysis
S VF
1.4 1.2
0.01 1.2
0.4 1.2
-------
TABLE A-23
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
UJ
o
Plant : 0384A-5E
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Thickener
Daily Maximum Analysis
30-Day
Average Analysis
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S, W.,* S VF
TSS
(1)
1;
d*
u U 111 ui
383^ 3.0 74.0 26.7 13.8 2.5 2.5 1.2
4 observations deleted
30-Day standard deviation - S./C30)"
Daily standard deviation
30-Day variability factor
Daily variability factor
99 Ch PGTT cc fit i Ic
Average'
-------
u>
o
TABLE A-24
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : Q384A-5F
Subcategory: Steelmaking, Basic Oxygen Furnace
Treatment : Thiekener/Clarifier
30-Day
Daily Maximum Analysis Average Analysis
Pollutant
TSS
Iron
S : 30-Day
S. : Daily
No. of
Obs
97
22
standard deviation = S./C30)
standard deviation
Min
3.0
2.4
.5
Max Ave SJ VF,* S_ VF_
47.0 16.1 8.3 2.8 1.5 1.1
21.0 9.5 4.9 2.8 0.9 1.1
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF,: Daily variability factor
* r For plants with more than 100 observations: VF, -
d Average
-------
TABLE A-25
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0584A-5F
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Settling Basin
Daily Maximum Analysis
VF
30-Day standard deviation « S./(30)*
Daily standard deviation
30-Day variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF.
99th Percentile
Average
30-Day
Average Analysis
UJ
o
00
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S^ VFj* S
"" "" ' ™"O "" Ci HI
TSS 101(1) 4.0 55.0 25.4 9.1 1.8 1.7
Oil & Grease 98 0.1 20.6 5.9 4.3 6.7 0.8
(1) 1 observation deleted
VF
1.1
1.2
-------
TABLE A- 26
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant s 0584B-5F
Subcategorys Hot Forming
Treatment : Lagoons
Daily Maximum Analysis
Ho. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S,
"™" "™ " "™fl
TSS 98(1) 10.0 50.0 24.6 8.6
Oil & Grease 58 2.0 29.0 8.4 4.2
ifi
o
(1) 3 observations deleted
S s 30-Day standard deviation «• S./{30>*
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF s 30-Day variability factor
VF,: Daily variability factor
30-Day
Average Analysis
VF.* S VF
— — ""-
-------
TABLE A-27
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0684F-5B
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Clarifier
Pollutant
TSS
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Oba
380(1)
Min
6.0
Max
64.0
Ave
24.5
11.2
VF.*
— a
2.4
30-Day
Average Analysis
2.0
1.1
U)
\->
o
(1) 1 observation deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation = S./(30)
8^ : Daily standard deviation
30-Day variability factor
.5
VF
d'
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF.
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-28
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0684F-5E
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Clarifier
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Crease
Anmonia
Cyanide (Total)
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Phenol
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Oba
528(4>
5
61(2>
62(1>
5
5
5
5
60(3)
Min
4.0
2.0
6.9
0.03
0.1
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
Max
206.0
4.0
67.4
1.9
0.4
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.3
Ave
45.5
2.8
29.5
0.5
0.2
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.06
s,
— ^
34.4
1.1
12.8
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
VP *
3.6
2.3
2.5
8.3
3.6
3.2
2.5
2.1
3.2
30-Day
Average Ana 1 ys i a
S
-m
0.7
0.2
2.3
0.09
0.02
0.002
0.004
0.004
0.007
VF
— m
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
-------
TABLE A-28
LONG-TERM DATA AHAL1TSIS
PAGE 2
Plant : 0684F-5E
Subcategory: Iromnaking
Treatment : Clarifier
Daily Maximum Analysis
30-Day
Average Analysis
Ho. of
Pollutant Obs Min
Cadmium S 0.006
Iron 6 6.2
Lead 5 0.05
(1) 2 observations deleted
(2) 3 observations deleted
(3) 5 observations deleted
(4) 11 observations deleted
S s 30-Day standard deviation = S,/(30)"
Ma* Ave s* V*A* §», YJL
0.008 0.007 0.0009 1.3 0,0002 1.0
23.9 14.1 7.4 3.3 1.4 1.2
0.1 0.08 0.02 2.0 0.004 1.1
a. i Daily standard deviation
Vr : 30-Day variability factor
VFT: Daily variability factor
* 5 For plants with more than 100 observations: VF,
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-29
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0684H-5C
Subcategory: Iroranaking
Treatment : Clarifier
Pollutant
TSS
Aura on i a
Cyanide (Total)
Phenol
Iron (Diss.)
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
(3) 3 observations deleted
(4) 4 observations del ted
S : 30-Day standard deviation
S, : Daily standard deviation
Vr : 30-Day variability factor
VF7: Daily variability factor
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S^ VFj*
74(2) 1.0 64.0 19.0 15.4 5.4
73*3) 0.1 36.0 13.4 8.0 5.1
75*1* 0.02 6.98 0.8 1.5 9.8
72(4) 0.008 4.68 1.6 1.2 8.0
76 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 2.8
ion - Sd/(30)'5
on
:tor
or
, ,„„ . . _„ 99th Percentile*
30-Day
Average Analysis
S VF
~m m
2.8 1.2
1.5 1.2
0.3 1.6
0.2 1.2
0.02 1.3
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF. ~
Average
-------
TABLE A-30
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0856N-5B
Subcategory: Hot Forcing
Treatment : Settling Basin
Daily Maximyro Analysis
30-Day
Average Analysis
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S. VF,*
TSS 101(2) 9.0 114.0 32.1 21.6 3.2
Oil & Grease 103 1.8 20.3 7.0 2.7 2.0
ChroniuB 43(1) 0.005 0.2 0.06 0.05 7.4
Zinc 44 0.04 0.5 0.1 0.1 3.4
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 3 observations deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation " S,/(30>*
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
s vr
3.9 1.2
0.5 1.1
0.009 1.2
0.02 1.2
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF.
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-31
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0860B
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Clarifier
Pollutant
TSS
Amnonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Phenol
Zinc
S : 30-Day standard deviation
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF ; 30-Day variability factor
VF.s Daily variability factor
d
* : For plants with more
30-Day
Daily Maximum Analysis Average
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S^ VP^* S^
102 1.0 26.0 8.9 4.3 2.3 0.8
102 4.7 98.1 53.1 15.4 1.7 2.8
102 0.01 6.2 1.9 1.6 3.3 0.3
102 0.001 0.6 0.04 0.08 6.8 0.01
18 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 4.0 0.04
:ion = Sd/(30)"5
.on
:tor
:or
h 100 L t" - vr 99th Percentile
d Average
Analysis
VF
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.2
-------
TABLE A-32
LONG-TERM DATA AHALYSIS
Plant t 0920G-5A
Subcategory: Cold Rolling
Treatment : Clarifier
Daily Maximum Analysis
V* s 30-Day variability factor
VF™: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF,
99th Percentile
Average
30-Day
Average Analysis
Pollutant
TSS
S s 30-Day
So. of
Obs
195
standard deviation = S,/(30)
Min Max Ave S,, VF^ S
a — a -«
2.0 81.0 25.0 13.3 3.1 2.4
.5
VF
1.2
-------
fABLE A-33
LONG-TERM DAfA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0060B
Subcategory: Combination Acid Pickling
Treatment : Lime/Lagoons
Pollutant
TSS
Chromium
Nickel
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs
24
21(1)
12(2)
Min
8.5
0.02
0.06
Max
49.0
0.59
0.55
Ave
23.1
0.14
0.19
£d
10.3
0.15
0.14
VFd*
2.5
5.4
3.8
30-Day
Average Analysis
1.9
0.03
0.03
1.1
1.4
1.3
(1) 2 observations deleted
(2) 1 observation deleted
Note; All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
.5
S./(30)'
a
S : 30-Day standard deviation
S. : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VFTs Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations; VF,
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-34
LGBG-TIRM DATA ANALYSIS
00
Plant : 0060B
Subcategory: Combinatio
Treatment : Lime/Clarifier
Pollutant
TSS
Chromiun
Nickel
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation
S. : Daily standard deviation
VP : 30-Day variability factor
VT7: Daily variability factor
:id Pickling
Daily Maximun Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S^ VF,*
mmmm "™U V
24 1.0 36.0 14.5 9.8 5.3
22(1) 0.02 0.61 0.28 0.17 5.2
19(2) 0.10 0.63 0.25 0,14 2.8
'1 unless otherwise noted.
:ion - S./C30)'5
a
.on
:tor
:or
» 99th Percentile
•tinn I fill f\ rift /"T*Tm t~ i nnn * ^f P ™~ *n «-*-«» •- * »-
d Average
30-Day
Average Analysis
S VF
— jn — m
1.8 1.2
0.03 1.2
0.03 1.2
-------
U)
I-1
IO
TABU A-35
LOWG-TERH DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0860B
Subcategory: (1)
Treatment ; Che»ic
Pollutant
Oil & Grease
Chroaiui
Zinc
S :
S:
30-Day standard deviation
Daily standard deviation
30-Day variability factor
VF.s Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF,
:ion, Clarifiera
Daily Maxitfim Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S. VF.*
260 1.0 18.0 4.8 2.4 3.3
260 0.05 0.51 0.06 0.04 2.2
260 0.05 0.30 0.06 0.02 2.5
is wastes from numerous steel forming 6 finishing operations (pickling,
ileaning, galvanizing, electroplating).
:ion = Sd/(30)'5
on
:tor
:or
Kan 1OO nhaaru. t-ln**' W m °°tn Percent lie
30-Day
Average Analysis
S VF
0.43 1.1
0.008 1.2
0.005 1.1
Average
-------
TABLE A-36
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
:ion, Clarifiers
No. of
Obs
853
853
853
853
853
853
853
Min
0.99
ND
0.09
0.01
0.10
ND
0.01
Daily Maximum Analysis
Max
23.4
15.8
0.29
2.85
9.14
8.0
0.56
Ave
5.2
1.6
0.10
0.04
0.78
0.63
0.045
s,
U
1.4
1.2
0.015
0.10
0.80
0.46
0.043
VF*
u
2.3
3.7
1.6
3.2
5.6
3.5
4.7
30-Day
Average Analysis
S
— n
0.25
0.22
0.003
0.018
0.15
0.08
0.008
VF^
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.8
1.3
1.2
1.3
Plant : 0584E
Subcategory: (1)
Treatment : Chemic
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Cyanide
Chromium
Fluoride
Iron
Zinc
(1) Treatment system receives wastes from numerous steel finishing operations (pickling,
cold rolling, alkaline cleaning, hot coating, galvanizing).
S : 30-Day standard deviation = S./C30)'
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF,: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF. = "th Percentlle
r d Average
-------
TABU: A-37
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0856D
Subcategory: (1)
Treatment : Chemic
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
:ion, Glarifiers
No. of
Oba
17
17
17
17
17
Min
7.5
2.2
ND
ND
ND
Daily Maximum Analysis
Max
88.9
5.2
0.12
0.14
0.45
Ave
33.1
4.0
0.02
0.018
0.13
s,
Q
20.2
0.90
0.035
0.032
0.13
VF *
3.4
1.7
4.8
3.6
10.5
30 -Day
Average Analysis
S
" ID
1.18
0.16
0.006
0.006
0.024
VF
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.3
(1) Treatment system receives wastes from numerous steel finishing operations (pickling,
galvanizing, alkaline cleaning, electroplating)
S : 30-Day standard deviation » S./(30)"
S , : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF.: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF. » 99th Percentile
r d Average
-------
TABLE A-38
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant ; 0860B
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Alkaline Cti
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
lo Cyani de
Phenol
Zinc
•ination/F:
No. of
Obs
36(1)
3,(2)
37(1>
36<3)
38° >
6(2)
tl tr at ion
Min
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.05
Daily Maxinu
Max
18.0
4.7
16.5
0.15
0.048
0.15
vi Analysis
Ave
3.6
2.5
4.5
0.02
0.01
0.08
30-Day
Average Analysis
R
4.0
1.1
4.0
0.03
0.01
0.04
VF*
7.1
3.0
7.0
4.0
10.8
2.4
S
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.006
0.003
0.007
12m
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.1
(1) 3 observations deleted
(2) 1 observation deleted
(3) 4 observations deleted
Note: All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
S : 30-Day standard deviation "* S./(30)'
S, i Daily standard deviation
VF s 30-Day variability factor
VfT: Daily variability factor
* s For plants with more than 100 observations: VF. - 99th Percent lie
v d Average
-------
TABLE A-39
LONG-TERM DATA AHALYSIS
Plant ; 0012A-5F
Subcategory: By-product Cokemaking
Treatment: : One-stage
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Anmonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Phenol
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
(3) 4 observations deleted
(4) 7 observations deleted
S : 30-Day standard deviation
S : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF7; Daily variability factor
:emaking
ogical
Daily Maximum Analysis
Ho. of
Obs Min Max Ave S.
— a
292(4) 4.0 220.0 81.6 40.7
54 4.0 36.0 18.6 8.2
298(2) 14.0 224.0 61.7 41.6
173(1> 0.5 6.8 2.6 1.4
281*3* 0.008 16.2 0.5 1.7
ion - S./(30)'5
a
on
:tor
:or
nan 100 obacrvationn- VF - 99th percentile
d Average
30-Day
Average Analysis
VF * S VF
2.5 7.4 1.2
3.0 1.5 1.1
3.4 7.6 1.2
2.5 0.3 1.2
6.4 0.3 2.0
-------
TABLE A-40
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant s 0060A
Subcategory: By-product Cokemaking
Treatment : Single-Sta
Pollutant
TSS
Cyanide
Phenols (4AAP)
Amnonia
S^ : 30-Day standard deviation «
S™ : Daily standard deviation
VF i 30-Day variability factor
VP.i Daily variability factor
ceraaking
liological Oxidation
Daily Maximum Analysis
Ho. of
Obs Min Max Ave S , Vf .*
— d — — d
632 1.00 5551.0 133.1 455.0 13.1
214 0.01 18.0 2-. 93 3.2 5.0
298 0.001 0.13 0.006 0.009 4.3
635 0.20 200.0 21.9 36.5 7.7
5
:ion * S./(30)
.on
\ tor
:or
. ,nn v ..• «to 99th Percentile
30-Day
Average Analysis
S VF
-m — m
83.1 2.0
0.58 1.3
0.002 1.5
6.7 1.5
Average
-------
TABLE A-41
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
u>
to
I/I
Plant : 0868A
Subcategory: By-Product Coke
Treatment : 2-stage Biological
Daily Maximun Analysis
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave Sj, VF.,*
•~ ^^^^^™" - ^~^~ "~^Cl u
TSS 1159* l5 4 300 76 59 3.6
Annum i a- (N) 1303 0.07 124 7.0 16.8 7.5
Cyanide (Total) 1302 0.25 17.1 2.75 2.0 3.6
Phenol 1303 0.005 0.246 0.021 0.017 2.8
Naphthalene, ppb 21 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 1.0
( 7)
Benzo(a)pyrene, ppb 20V ; 10.0 52.0 13.4 10.7 2.6
Benzene, ppb 21 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 1.0
(1) 78 observations deleted
(2) 1 observation deleted
Note; All concentration values are in rag/1 unless otherwise noted.
S : 30-Day standard deviation « S./(30)"
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF ; 30-Day variability factor
VFT: Daily variability factor
30-Day
Average Analysis
S VF
10.8 1.2
3.1 1.7
0.4 1.2
0.003 1.2
0.0 1.0
2.0 1.2
0.0 1.0
-
Average
-------
TABLE A-42
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0684F
Subcategory: Cokemaking
Treatment : Phys-Chem (
Pollutant
Ammonia
Cyanide
Phenol
TSS
rbon Columns)
30-Day
Daily Maximum Analysis Average Analysis
No. of
Obs
103
102
102
104
'1 unless
tion = S.
d
Min Max
11.8 860.0
0.4 68.0
0.001 0.8
3.0 146.0
otherwise noted.
/(30)'5
Ave S. VF* S
— d — a — m
129.8 115.9 5.1 21.2
19.8 11.0 3.8 2.0
0.04 0.1 14.0 0.02
25.6 20.5 4.5 3.7
VF
1.3
1.2
1.9
1.2
S : 30-Day standard deviation
S : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF*?: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF. =
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-43
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0684F
Subcategory: Cold Rolling
Treatment : Gas Flotation
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Benzene
Chloroform
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene 1
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorof luoromethane
Isophorone
Naphthalene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitro phenol
Pher.ol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 16
No. of
Obs
104(1)
105
17
17
1
17
5
1
16
16
1
16
16
Min
1.00
2.0
ND
ND
0.13
ND
0.023
0.004
ND
ND
0.47
ND
ND
Daily Maxinu
Max
66.0
21.0
0.028
0.018
0.13
0.042
0.16
0.004
0.092
0.013
0.47
0.77
0.016
n Analysis
Ave
15.8
7.3
0.003
0.002
0.13
0.008 ,
0.059
0.004
0.012
0.002
0.47
0.093
0.002
30-Day
Average Analysis
S
11.2
4.3
0.007
0.004
0.00
0.014
0.06
0.00
0.028
0.003
0.00
0.22
0.004
VF*
3.8
3-2
4.8
4.0
1.0
10.3
4.7
1.0
11.8
3.6
1.0
15.2
4.0
$m
2.0
0.8
0.001
0.001
0.00
0.003
0.01
0.00
0.005
0.001
0.00
0.04
0.001
VF^
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.8
1.0
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.7
1.8
1.0
1.7
1.8
-------
TABLE A-43
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
PAGE 2
Plant : 0684F
Subeategory: Cold Rolling
Treatment : Gas Flotation
30-Day
Daily Maximum Analysis Average Analysis
Pollutant
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
ut Toluene
KJ
00
Trichloroethylene
No. of
Obs
16
14
17
17
17
Hin
0.024
0.05
ND
ND
ND
Max
0.27
0.11
0.15
0.032
0.010
Ave
0.18
0.07
0.035
0.004
0.002
S
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.008
0.002
VF..*
— d
3.2
3.1
14.9
6.8
3.2
S
0.011
0.005
0.009
0.001
0.00
VF
— m
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.0
(1) 1 observation deleted
Note: All concentration values are in ng/1 unless otherwise noted.
S : 30-Day standard deviation = S./C30)
S : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VFTs Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF, = "th Percentlle
d Average
-------
TABLE A-44
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
co
K>
MS
Plant : 0060
Subcategory: Sintering
Treatment : Filtration (Pilot)
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Cyanide
Phenol
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
(1) 1 observation deleted
S. : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF": Daily variability factor
* ; For plants with more than 100 observations: VF
ilot)
30-Day
Daily Maximum Analysis Average Analysis
No. of
Oba Min Max Ave Sd VFd* S^
11(1) 1.00 7.0 3.1 1.7 3.0 0.3
6 5.0 9.0 5.7 1.6 1.7 0.3
12 0.03 0.26 0.13 0.07 3.4 0.01
12 0.01 0.22 0.07 0.06 4.6 0.01
12 0.01 0.43 0.17 0.17 10.0 0.03
12 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 1.2 0.00
12 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 1.9 0.00
12 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 1.3 0.00
12 0.02 0.47 0.18 0.15 5.8 0.03
/I unless otherwise noted.
tion - S./(30)*5
a
ion
ctor
tor
99th Percent ile
VF
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
Average
-------
TABLE A-45
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
u>
u>
o
Plant : 0060
Subcategory: Sintering
Treatment : Lime/Clari
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Fluoride
Cyanide
Phenol
Chromium
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Note:
Daily standard deviation
30-Day variability factor
Daily variability factor
(Pilot)
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S v^j*
12 4.0 92.0 47.4 26.3 5.0
8 1.0 5.0 2.9 1.5 3.5
12 12,0 43.0 18.4 8.8 2.2
12 0.02 0.11 0.07 0.03 2.8
12 0.10 0.43 0.2 0.1 2.6
12 0.03 0.29 0.14 0.08 4.4
12 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.008 2,4
12 0.02 0.18 0.03 0.05 3.6
12 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.02 2,5
1 unless otherwise noted.
:ion - S./C30)*5
d
.on
:tor
:or
h»« 100 „(««.,» H™,»t Vir - 99th Percentile
30 -Day
Average Analysis
S VF
— m — m
4.8 1.2
0.3 1.2
1.6 l.l
0.005 1.1
0.02 1.2
0.15 1.2
0.001 1.3
0.008 1.4
0.003 1.1
Average
-------
TABLE A-46
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0060
Subcategory: Sintering
Treatment : Lime/Clari
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Fluoride
Cyanide
Phenol
Chromium
•/Filter (Pilot)
No. of
Obs
12
8
12
12
12
12
Min
1.0
1.0
11.0
0.03
0.03
0.02
Daily Maximum Analysis
Max
61.0
4.0
24.0
0.11
0.30
0.24
Ave
9.8
2.1
15.9
0.07
0.15
0.13
s,
Q
19.7
1.1
4,4
0.03
0.09
0.08
VF *
10.4
3.2
1.8
2.3
3.9
4.6
•»
30-Day
Average Analysis
S
3.6
0.2
0.8
0.005
0.02
0.01
Vfm
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
Note: All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
S : 30-Day standard deviation = S./C30)*
S™ : Daily standard deviation
w : 30-Day variability factor
VF*7: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF^ =
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-47
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0612
Subcategory: Steelmakin
Treatment : Filter (Pilot)
Pollutant
TSS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Electric Furnace
No. of
Obs
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Min
4.0
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.10
1.10
Daily Maximum Analysis
Max
16.0
6.0
0.5
0.2
0.5
2.6
79.0
Ave
9.5
1.9
0.2
0.09
0.2
1.0
37.0
Id
4.7
1.6
0.2
0.04
0.2
0.7
28.7
Hd*
3.1
8.7
5.7
2.4
5.4
6.6
11.1
30-Day
Average Analysis
S*
0.9
0.30
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.14
5.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
Note: All values are in rag/1 unless otherwise noted.
S : 30-Day standard deviation = S./(30)°
S, : Daily standard deviation
VP : 30-Day variability factor
VFT: Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF. =
_ 99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-48
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0612
Subcategory: Steel
Treatment ; Hydrc
Pollutant
TSS
Cadmitan
ChromiuBi
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
S : 30-Day standard deviation
S, ; Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF,: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more
Electric Furnace
•ifier (Pilot)
Daily Maxinim Analysis
Ho. of
Obs Min Max Ave S.
8 9.0 33.0 21.9 9.8
8 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.03
8 0.07 2.8 1.04 0.9
8 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01
8 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.02
8 0.06 0.21 0.14 0.06
8 0.23 0.75 0.40 0.17
'1 unless otherwise noted.
rion = Sd/(30)*5
.on
:tor
:or
han 100 ob-crvotionn- VF - 99th percent««
d Average
30-Day
Average Analysis
VF * S VF
• q ro "™™™^pHj
3.0 1.8 1.1
3.4 0.01 1.4
9.0 0.17 1.3
2.3 0.00 1.0
1.9 0.00 1.0
3.0 0.01 1.1
2.3 0.03 1.1
-------
TABLE A-49
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0612
Subcategory: Steel
Treatment : Lime
Pollutant
TSS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
S : Daily standard deviation
VF : 30-Day variability factor
VF.: Daily variability factor
ilectric Furnace
ition/Fil tration (Pilot)
No. of
Obs Min
12 4.0
12 0.02
12 0.05
12 0.01
12 0.05
12 0.03
12 0.1
:ion = Sd/(30)'5
.on
:tor
:or
•hart inn nKc e*r\ra ^ i nna • V
30-Day
Daily Maximum Analysis Average Analysis
Max Ave Sj VFj* S^
14.0 8.8 3.3 2.4 0.6
0.5 0.07 0.14 5.6 0.03
2.9 0.9 0.9 11.0 0.16
0.5 0.08 0.15 8.7 0.03
0.13 0.08 0.03 2.5 0.01
0.8 0.23 0.2 4.9 0.04
0.66 0.28 0.15 2.7 0.03
_ 99th Percentile
VF
— m
1.1
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.2
Average
-------
TABLE A-50
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant :
Subcategory:
Treatment :
0948C
(1)
Misc. Finishing Operations
Chemical Addition and Clarification
U)
u>
SJ1
Pollutant
Cyanide
Chromium
Atnmonia-N
Oil & Crease
Phenol
TSS
Zinc
237
236
237
237
237
237
236
(2)
(2)
Daily Maximum Analysis
Ho. of
Obs
Min
Max
Ave
Sd VFd*
0.010
0.010
0.30
1.00
0.0010
1.00
0.010
0.21
0.28
1.80
4.00
0.14
41.00
0.30
0.056
0.040
0.95
1.67
0.0080
8.84
0.048
0.029
0.14
0.29
0.70
0.009
6.19
0.069
2.8
5.0
1.8
1.8
2.5
3.2
4.4
30-Day
Average Analysis
Sm
0.005
0.025
0.053
0.13
0.002
1.13
0.013
VFm
.15
,03
.09
.13
,41
,21
1.44
(1)
(2)
SB :
Sd s
VFm:
VFd:
* :
Treatment system receives waste from numerous steel finishing operations (pickling, cold rolling,
hot coating and tin mills).
One observation deleted.
30-day standard deviation = Sd/(30)
Daily standard deviation
30-day variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plant «ith more than 100 observations: VFd = . fercentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-51
STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE 30-DAY AVERAGES
S* = [ Var 0?n)]l/2
where, Var (Xn) = lL [ n + 2 ZT (n-k) r. ]
k=l K
N (Xf
= frl N
N-k
j=l (Xj - x) (Xj + k - 7) / (N-k)
rk = •
N
(Xi -x)2 / (N-l)
336
-------
FIGURE A-I
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT OI12C-334
FILTRATION
— * K
- 5
I 4
2
° 3
i- «
>i
N33NOO 6
2 r>4
si-
A £
A "8*
Art
Uud
01
! I
A
S
0 i
.
/
t 2
s
/
/"
0 i
*
X'
0 4
/
Q ;
^
0 S
/
0 7!
>
/"
3 S
/
0 8
X
'
9 i
5
/
/
0 9
-
/'
y
a 9<
PEHC6HT <3r QBSEaVflTIONS S CONCENTRATION SHOWN
(416 OBSERVATIONS)
337
-------
FIGURE A-2
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT OII2C-334
FILTRATION
20
'0
8
7
9
4
3
2
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1
i
9 10
/
9 2
/
/
?
/
*/
0 30 40 !
/
S
/
?
/
1
10 60 70 80 a
/
*
y
/
'
s '
S
s
/
\
3 90 99 9
z
o
5
c
H-
Z
U
u
o
u
w
n
<
w
oe
«
a
_i
o
PERCENT OF OBSEPVATtONS £ CONCENTRATION SHOWN
(714 OBSERVATIONS)
338
-------
FIGURE A-3
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT 0634H-5C
CLARlFiER
in
i
i
'
5 1
^x
^
0 1
X
^
S 2
.x
^
/^
0 3
X"
0 4
^
0 5
X
0 S
X'
0 TI
X
o a
o a
X
5 9
x
X
0 9
>^" *
X'
5 9
Z
o
p
M
V)
I-
PERCENT OF OBSERVATIONS £ CONCENTRATION SHOWN
573 OBSERVATIONS)
339
-------
FIGURE A-4
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT 0684H-5C
CLARIFIER
TO
60
50
40
30
20
* 10
O 9
8 4
<
5 3
10 IS 20
30 40 30 60 TO
1 I
80 S3 90
9S
PERCENT OF OBSERVATIONS S CONCENTRATION SHOWN
C75 OBSERVATIONS)
340
-------
VOLUME I
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
341
-------
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTOR*
PAGE I
PLANT
CODE
0004
A
COUP ANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
ACCO
BRIDGEPORT CT 06602
PACE FENCE DIVISION
MOM ESS EN PA 15062
SUKATEQOIIIES
oooe
w
•fc>.
w
0012
oote
AMERICAN CHAIN DIVISION
YORK PA 17403
CABLE CONTROLS DIVISION
ADRIAN HI 49221
ACCOM METALS COMPANY, INC.
JACKSONVILLE FL 32202
AOCOM METALS COMPANY, INC.
NICHOLASVILLE KY 40356
CONTAINER MIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY
JACKSONVILLE FL 32202
ALABAMA BY-PRODUCTS CORPORATION
BIRMINGHAM AL 35202
TARRANT COKE PLANT
TARRANT AL
KEYSTONE COKE
CONSHOHOCKEN
PA
35217
19428
ALAN HOOD STEEL COMPANY
CONSHOHOCKEN PA 19428
01
OCP
RSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
COMMENTS
FORMERLY OOlflA
SEE 00128
0020
ALAN MOOD STEEL COMPANY
IVY ROCK PA 1924B
ALAN MOOD COATED METALS
CORNHELLS HEIGHTS PA 19020
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORPORATION
PITTSBURGH PA 15222
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORPORATION
PITTSBURGH PA 15222
NO
NO
YES
NO
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE
PLAN
CODE
0020
0024
T
B
C
D
E
f
a
H
1
J
K
L
A
B
C
0
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
BRACKENHIOGi PLANT
BRACKENRIDQE PA 15014
WEST LEECHBURG PLANT
LEECHBURG PA 15656
BAR PRODUCTS DIVISION
DUNKIRK NY 1404S
BAR PRODUCTS DIVISION
WATERVLIET NY 12189
AJAX FORCING * CASTING COMPANY
FERNDALE MI 4B220
SPECIAL METALS CORPORATION
NEW HARTFORD NY 13413
HALLINGFORD STEEL
MALLINGFORD CT 06492
ARNOLD ENGINEERING COMPANY
MARENGO IL 60152
CARMET COMPANY
PITTSBURGH PA 15222
ALJAH STEEL CORPORATION
BUFFALO NY 14207
NEW CASTLE PLANT
NEW CASTLE IN 47362
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION
MORRISTOWN NJ 07960
ASHLAND COKE PLANT
ASHLAND KY 41101
DETROIT COKE PLANT
DETROIT Ml 4B231
SUBCATEGORIES DCP
RSP
D1 .D3.E.G1 ,G3,H, 11 ,13, YES
Jl
12.I3.U1 YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
D3 YES
NO
D3 YES
13, J) YES
NO
A YES
A NO
COMMENTS
SEE 0402
SEE 0810
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE
PLANT
CODE
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SUBCATEGORIES
DCP
RSP
COMMENTS
to
*»
in
0028
0032
0036
0040
0044
0048
ALLIED TUBE A CONDUIT CORPORATION
HARVEY 1L 60426
AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY
BIRMINGHAM AL 35202
ACIPCO STEEL PRODUCTS DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM AL 35207
AMERICAN COMPRESSED STEEL CORPORATION
CINCINNATI OH 45202
AMERICAN HOIST 8 DERRICK COMPANY
ST. PAUL MN 55107
BAY CITY STEEL CASTINGS DIVISION
BAY CITY MI 4B706
03
AMERON, INC.
MONTEREY PARK
CA
91754
AMERON STEEL « WIRE DIVISION
ETIWANDA CA 91739
AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION
MILWAUKEE HI 53201
HYCKOFF STEEL DIVISION
PITTSBURGH PA
MYCMJFF STEEL DIVISION
AMBRIDGE PA
HYCKOFF STEEL DIVISION
PLYMOUTH MI
UYCKOFF STEEL DIVISION
CHICAGO
IL
MYCKOFF STEEL DIVISION
NEWARK NJ
WYCKOFF STEEL DIVISION
PUTNAM
CT
0052
AMSTEO INDUSTRIES, INC.
CHICAGO
IL
15219
15003
48170
60690
07102
06260
60690
03
03, F
It
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YfS
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PACjt
PLANT
CODE
0052
OOS6
0060
A
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
MAC HHYTE COMPANY
KENOSHA
WI
93140
ANGELL NAIL • CHAPLET COMPANY
CLEVELAND OH 44105
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION
MIOOLETOHN OH
A
B
C
0
E
f
G
H
I
a
K
L
HAMILTON PLANT
HAMILTON
ASM LAND WORKS
ASHLAND
AMB RIDGE WORKS
AMB RIDGE
BUTLER WORKS
BUTLER
ZANESV1LLE PLANT
ZANESVILLE
HOUSTON WORKS
HOUSTON
KANSAS CITY WORKS
KANSAS CITY
SANO SPRING WORKS
SAND SPRING
BALTIMORE WORKS
BALTIMORE
OH
KY
PA
PA
OH
Tl£
MO
OK
MO
NATIONAL SUPPLY COMPANY
TORRANCE CA
MARION WORKS
MARION
H1TCO DIVISION
ATLANTA
OH
GA
45043
45011
41101
15003
160O1
43701
77015
64125
74063
21203
90509
43302
303 IB
SUBCATEGORIES DCP COMMENTS
RSP
NO
NO
A,B,C.D1,D2,i,F,G1,G3, YES
12,13,01, J2.L1 ,L2
A,C YES
8, C, 01,01 ,03, 12, J1 .LI YES
02. 64. 11 YES
D3,E, F.G1 ,G3.H,11 .12, 13 YES
J1.K
13, J1 YES
A,B,C,D3, E.G1 ,G2,G3,C4 YES
D3.G1 ,G2, 11 ,L1 YES
D3.F.G2 YES
D3.G1 .G2.H.I3, J1 YES
03, E YES
D3.F.G2 YES
12 YES
LECGET 4 PLATT DIVISION
CARTHAGE MO 64836
It
YES
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE
PLANT
CODE
0060
0064
006B
0072
0076
OOBO
N
0
P
Q
H
s
A
A
B
A
B
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
ADVANCED MATERIALS DIVISION
HOUSTON TX 77044
TUBE ASSOCIATES
HOUSTON TX 7702B
HILDWOOD PLANT
WILDHOOD FL 327BS
UNION WIRE ROPE
MIODLETOWN FABRICATING
MIDDLETOWN OH 45042
UNION WIRE ROPE
KANSAS CITY MO B4I26
BARNES GROUP, INC.
BRISTOL CT 060)0
WALLACE BARNES STEEL DIVISION
BRISTOL CT 06010
ATLANTIC STEEL COMPANY
ATLANTA GA 30301
ATLANTA BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
ATLANTA GA 30301
CARTERSVILLE FACILITY
CARTERSVILLE G* 30120
ATLANTIC WIRE COMPANY
BRANFORD CT OB40S
AUBURN STEEL COMPANY, INC,
AUBURN NY 13021
AUTOMATION INDUSTRIES, INC.
LOS ANGELES CA 90002
HARRIS TUBE DIVISION
LOS ANGELES CA 90002
SOUTNWEST STEEL DHILL ING Ml LLS, INC.
SUBCATEGORIES DCP COMMENTS
RSP
I3.U2.K YES
NO
13, U2 YES
G4.L1 YES
H.L1 YES
NO
NO
D3.G1 ,G2, 1 1 , 12. 13.K.L1 YES
NO
D3,F,G2 YES
NO
D3,F YES
NO
G4 YES
03 YES
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE
Ul
*>.
03
PLANT
CODE
COMPANY /
CITf
PLANT NAME
STATE IIP CODE
SUBCATEGORIES DCP
RSP
COMMENTS
0084
OOBB
0092
0096
0104
0108
0112
AZCON CORPORATION
KNOXV1LLE TN
37921
KNCHVIUE IRON DIVISION
KNOXVILLE TN 37921
BABCOCK « W1LCOX
NEM YORK NY
10017
TUBULAR PRODUCTS DIVISION
BEAVER FALLS PA 15010
TUBULAR PRODUCTS DIVISION
ALLIANCE OH 44601
TUBULAR PRODUCTS DIVISION
MILWAUKEE MI 53201
TUBULAR PRODUCTS DIVISION
BEAVER FALLS PA 15010
BARON DRAWN STEEL CORPORATION
TOLEDO OH 43607
BARRY STEEL CORPORATION
DETROIT MI 4B23B
BEKAERT STEEL HIRE CORPORATION
NEM YORK NY 10017
BEKAERT STEEL HIRE CORPORATION
RUIIE GA 30161
BEKAERT STEEL HIRE CORPORATION
RENO NV B9501
BEKAERT STEEL HIRE CORPORATION
ACHORTH CA 30101
BERGER INDUSTRIES, INC.
NASPETH NY 1137B
BERGER INDUSTRIES, INC.
METUCHEN NJ OBB40
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
BETHLEHEM PA 18016
03, t
03,E,OJ,G2,C4.I1,12,13,
K
It
04,13,*
Gl,02,12,13
A,B,C,D1,D3,E,C1,02,I
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE
PLANT
CODE
0112 A
B
c
0
E
F
G
w
ift.
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 8
Ul
yi
o
PLANT
CODE
0128 B
C
0
E
F
0132
one
A
B
C
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
BLISS « LAUGHLIN STEEL COMPANY, DIVISION
DETROIT HI 48089
8L1SS * LAUGHLIN STEEL COMPANY, DIVISION
MEDINA OH 44256
BLISS & LAUGHLIN STEEL COMPANY, DIVISION
LOS ANGELES CA 90040
BLISS & LAUGHLIN STEEL COMPANY, DIVISION
SEATTLE HA 98108
BLISS S LAUGHLIN STEEL COMPANY, DIVISION
HOUSTON TX 77011
BORDER STEEL MILL, INC.
VINTON TX 79912
BORG-WARNEf) CORPORATION
CHICAGO IL 60604
BORG-WARNER STEEL, INC.
CHICAGO HEIGHTS IL 60411
SUE-CATEGORIES
CALUMET STEEL COMPANY
CHICAGO HEIGHTS IL
6041 1
FRANKLIN STEEL COMPANY
FRANKLIN PA 16323
D3,F
03,F,132
G2
OCP
SSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
COMMENTS
SEE 0130C
0140
0144
014B
INGERSOLL PRODUCTS DIVISION
CHICAGO IL 60643
BORT2 COAL COMPANY
UN I ON I OWN PA 15401
BORTZ COAL COMPANY
SMITHFIELD PA 1S478
BUCKEYE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY
COLUMBUS OH 4321S
BUCYRUS-EAIE COMPANY
SOUTH MILWAUKEE MI
D3
03
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
53172
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PACE
PLANT COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CODE CITY STATE
OMB A GIASSPORT PLANT
Gl AS SPORT PA
0152 BUNDY CORPORATION
DETROIT HI
A BUNDY CORPORATION
WINCHESTER KY
• BUNDY CORPORATION
COLDHAVE HI
C BUNDY CORPORATION
HI. CLEMENS MI
0 BUNDY CORPORATION
BARREN MI
E BUNDY CORPORATION
HOMETOWN PA
OJ
(JI f BUNDY CORPORATION
1— CYNTHIANA KY
G BUNOY CORPORATION
MALVERN PA
0156 CABOT CORPORATION
BOS TOM MA
A MACHINERY DIVISION
PAMPA TX
B STElLITf DIVISION
KOKOMO IN
0160 CALIFORNIA STEEL S TUBE
CITY OF INDUSTRY CA
01B4 CAL-METAL CORPORATION
IRHINDALE CA
01 6B CAMERON IRON WORKS, INC
HOUSTON TX
0172 G.O. CARLSON, INC.
THORNOALE PA
SUBCATEGORIES
ZIP CODE
O2.O3
15045
48226
40391
49036
48043
48009
18252
41031
19355
02110
D3,E
79065
8,03
46901
91744
91706
03, E
T7001
19372
DCP
RSP
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
COMMENTS
SHUTDOWN
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 10
OJ
(_n
to
PLANT
CODE
0174
0176
OIBO
0184
01B8
0192
0196
0200
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
CARONOELET COKE CORPORATION
ST. LOUIS MO 63111
CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
READING PA 19601
CARPENTER STEEL DIVISION
BRIDGEPORT CT 06607
CARPENTER STEEL DIVISION
READING PA 19601
UNION PLANT TUBE DIVISION
UNION NJ 07083
JAMESSURQ PLANT TUBE DIVISION
CRAN6URY NJ 08512
CASCADE STEEL ROLLING MILLS, INC.
MCMINNVILLE OR 97128
CAVERT WIRE COMPANY. INC.
UNIONTOWN PA 15401
SUBCATEGORIES
CECO CORPORATION
CHICAGO
IL
60650
LEMONT MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LEMONT IL 60439
MILTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY
MILTON PA 17847
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC STEEL COMPANY
BIRMINGHAM AL 35202
CENTRAL STEEL TUBE COMPANY
CLINTON IA 52732
CFSl STEEL CORPORATION
PUEBLO CO
PUEBLO PLANT
PUEBLO
CO
81002
81004
D3.G1,G2,G3,H,11,12,13.
Jt ,K
03
13, J2
13,J2
03, T
D3.G1
03,G1 , G2
D3,F,G2
DCP
RSP
YES
YES
YiS
NO
YES
YES
NO
COMMENTS
FORMERLY 0348A
SHUTDOWN
A,B,C,D1,D3,F,G1,G2.G4,
II ,Lt
CHAMPION STEEL COMPANY
ORWELL OH
VES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 1 1
U)
Ln
U)
PLANT
CODE
0204
0208
0212
0216
0220
0224
0226
0228
0232
0236
0240
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
CHAPARAL STEEL COMPANY
MIDLOTHIAN TX
76065
CHRISTIE COAL & COKE COMPANY
NORTON VA 24273
CITIZENS GAS & COKE UTILITY
INDIANAPOLIS IN 46202
COLUMBIA STEEL CASTING COMPANY. INC.
PORTLAND OR 97203
COLUMBIA TOOL STEEL COMPANY
CHICAGO HEIGHTS IL 60411
COLUMBIAN STEEL TANK COMPANY
KANSAS CITY MO 64101 j
COMMERCIAL METALS. INC.
DALLAS TX 75247
ARKANSAS STEEL ROLLING MILLS, INC.
MAGNOLIA AR 71753
CONSOLIDATED METALS CORPORATION
NEWTON NJ 07860
CONSTELLATION STEEL MILL EQUIPMENT CORP.
CINCINNATI OH 45216
CONTINENTAL COPPER & STEEL INDUSTRIES
CRANFORD NJ 07016
BRADBURN ALLOY STEEL DIVISION
LOWER BURRELL PA 15068
COPPESWELD CORPORATION
PITTSBURGH PA
15219
COPPERWELD STEEL COMPANY
WARREN OH 44482
OHIO STEEL TU8E COMPANY
SHELBY OH 44875
REGAL TUBE COMPANY
CHICAGO IL
60638
SUEICATEGOR1ES
03, F
A
03
03, F
D3
D3,E,F,C1 ,02,11
G4.11 ,K
04 , 1 1 . K
DCP COMMENTS
RSP
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES FORMERLY 0764
NO FORMERLY 0764A
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 12
PLAN'
CODE
0240
0244
0248
0252
02S8
r
D
E
A
B
C
0
E
F
G
A
*
C
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY _ STATE ZIP CODE
BIMETALLICS DIVISION
GLASSPORT PA 15045
FLEXCO MIRE DIVISION
OSMEGO NY 13126
COREY STEEL COMPANY
CICERO IL 60650
COLT INDUSTRIES
NEW YORK NY 10022
ALLOY DIVISION
MIDLAND PA ISO 5 9
STAINLESS STEEL DIVISION
MIDLAND PA 15059
SPECIALTY METALS DIVISION
GEDDES NY 13209
TRENT TUBE DIVISION
EAST TROY MI S3120
TRENT TUBE DIVISION
FULLERTON ' CA 92634
TRENT TUBE DIVISION
CAR ROLL TON GA 30117
TRENT TUBE DIVISION
BREMEN GA 30110
CUMBERLAND STEEL COMPANY
CUMBERLAND MO 21502
CYCLOPS CORPORATION
PITTSBURGH PA 15228
DETROIT STRIP DIVISION
DETROIT Ml 48217
DETROIT STRIP DIVISION
NEW HAVEN CT 06507
EMPIRE DETROIT STEEL DIVISION
SUBCATEGORIES DCP
RSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
A, C. 01, 01 ,G2,I1 YES
D3,E,F,H, I3.J1 YES
Gt ,G3.I3, J1 .K YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
ii, «ji YES
n.ji YES
01 ,03 YES
COMMENTS
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 13
Ul
Ln
Ln
PLANT
CODE
0256
0260
0264
D
E
f
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
A
e
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
EMPIRE DETROIT STEEL DIVISION
DOVER OH 44622
EMPIRE DETROIT STEEL DIVISION
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662
SAWMILL TU8ULAR DIVISION
WHEAT LAND PA 16161
SAWMILL TUBULAR DIVISION
SHARON PA 16146
SAWMILL TUBULAR DIVISION
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55406
TEX-TUBE DIVISION
HOUSTON TX 7700?
UNIVERSAL CYCLOPS SPECIALTY STiEL DIV.
PITTSBURGH PA 15228
BRIDGEVILLE PLANT
BRIDGEVILLE PA 15017
PITTSBURGH PLANT
PITTSBURGH PA 15201
ALIQUIPPA FORGE DEPARTMENT
ALIQUIPPA PA 15001
TITUSVULE PLANT
TITUSVILLi PA 16354
COSHOCTON PLANT
COSHOCTON OH 43812
DAMASCUS STEEL CASTING COMPANY
NEW BRIGHTON PA 15066
DAVIS WALKER CORPORATION
LOS ANGELES CA 90040
DAVIS WALKER CORPORATION
CIT* OF INDUSTRY CA 91744
DAVIS WALKER CORPORATION
SUBCATEGORIES DCP
RSP
NO
A.C.DS YES
I1.I3.J3 YES
G4.1I.L1 YES
NO
NO
NO
D3.G1.G2.H YES
G3.H.I3.J1 YES
NO
D3.G2.H, I 3, J1 ,K YES
H.I3.J1.K YES
D3 YES
NO
NO
NO
COMMENTS
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 14
PLANT
CDDi
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SUBCATEGOR1ES
DCP
DSP
COMMENTS
U)
U1
CTi
0264 C
0272
0276
0280
0284
0288
0296
0300
DAVIS WALKER CORPORATION
KENT HA 98031
DQNNER-HANNA COKE CORPORATION
BUFFALO NY 14220
DONOVAN STEEL TUBE COMPANY
TOLEDO OH 43611
EASTERN QAS Si FUEL ASSOCIATION
PHILADELPHIA PA 19137
EASTERN ASSOCIATION COAL CORPORATION
PITTSBURGH PA 15219
PHILADELPHIA COKE DIVISION
PHILADELPHIA PA 19137
EASTMEI CORPORATION
COCKEYSVILLE MD
21030
EASTERN STAINLESS STEEL COMPANY
BALTIMORE MD 21224
EDGEWATER CORPORATION
OAKMONT PA 15139
EOGEWATEH STEEL COMPANY
OAKMONT PA 15139
JANNEY CYLINDER COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA PA 19136
EDWARDS COMPANY, E.H.
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080
ELECTRALLOY CORPORATION
NEW YORK NY 10019
ELECTRALLOY CORPORATION
OIL CITY PA 16301
ELLIOT BROTHERS STEEL COMPANY
NEW CASTLE PA 16103
F.G3.H,13,J1
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
VES
NO
YIS
NO
NO
EMPIRE COKE COMPANY
HOLT AL
NO
NO
3S401
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PACE 15
PLANT
CODE
0308
0312
0316
0320
0324
0328
0332
0336
0340
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP COOI
EMPIRE STEEL CASTINGS, INC,
READING PA 19603
EMPIRE STEEL CASTINGS, INC,
TEMPLE PA 19560
FIT2SIMMONS STEEL COMPANY
YOUNGSTOMN OH 44501
FLORIDA STEEL CORPORATION
TAMPA FL 33623
INDIAN TOWN STEEL MILL DIVISION
INDIAN[OWN FL 33456
CHARLOTTE STEEL MILL DIVISION
CHARLOTTE NC 2B213
JACKSONVILLE STEEL MILL DIVISION
JACKSONVILLE FL 32234
SUBCATEGORIES
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
DEARBORN MI
48121
FORT HOWARD STEEL A WIRE
GREEN BAY MI 54305
FOSBRINK MACHINE COMPANY
CONNELLSVILLE PA 15425
GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION
GREENWICH CT 06830
INDIANA STEEL * WIRE DIVISION
MUNCIE IN 47302
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
DETROIT MI 4B202
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
WAUKEGAN IL 600BS
.GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.
ST. LOUIS MO 63105
NATIONAL ROLL DIVISION
AVONMORE PA 156 IS
D3.F.G2
03,F,G2
D3.F.G2
G2
A.C.D1,D3,G1.G2.G3.12,
J1
03
DCC
RSP
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
COMMENTS
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 16
PLANT
CODE
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SUBCATEGOR1ES
OCP
RSP
COMMENTS
0344
0348
GILBERT S BENNETT MANUFACTURING COMPANY
GEORGETOWN CT 06829
GILBERT S BENNETT MANUFACTURING COMPANY
BLUE ISLAND IL 60406
COATINGS ENGINEERING CORPORATION
SUDBURV MA 01776
GREAT LAKES CARBON CORPORATION
NEW YORK NY 10017
NO
NO
NO
NO
SEE 0174
Ul
en
0352
0356
0360
0364
0368
0372
GREER STEEL COMPANY
DOVER OH 44622
GREER STEEL COMPANY
FERNDALE MI 48220
HARSCO CORPORATION
CAMP HILL PA 17011
HARRISBURG STEEL COMPANY
HARR1SBURG PA 17105
QUAKER ALLOY CASTING COMPANY
MYERS TOWN PA 17067
HAWAIIAN WESTERN STEEL LTD.
EWA HI 96706
HEPPENSTALL COMPANY
PITTSBURGH PA 15201
MIOVALE-HEPPENSTALL
PHILADELPHIA PA 19140
HOOVER BALL S. BEARING COMPANY
SOLON OH 44139
CUYAHOGA STEEL & HIRE DIVISION
SOLON OH 44139
HYDE PARK FOUNDRY t MACHINE COMPANY
HYDE PARK PA 15641
03
03
NO
NO
NO
NO
YiS
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PACE IT
PLANT COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CODE CITY STATE ZIP CODE
0376 IGOE BROTHERS. INC. *
NEWARK NJ 07114
0380 INDIANA GAS I CHEMICAL CORPORATION
TERRE HAUTE IN 47808
0384 INLAND STEEL COMPANY
CHICAGO IL 60603
A INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
EAST CHICAGO IN 46312
0388 INTERCOASTAL STEEL CORPORATION
CHESAPEAKE VA 23324
A GILMERTON PLANT
CHESAPEAKE VA 23323
0392 INTERCONTINENTAL STEEL CORPORATION
CHICAGO IL 6062B
Ui 0396 INTERLAKE. INC.
O OAK BROOK IL 60521
A IRON I STEEL DIVISION
SOUTH CHICAGO IN 6061 T
C TOLEDO PLANT
TOLEDO OH 43605
D RIVERDALE STATION
RIVERDALE IL 60627
E NEWPORT MILDER PLANT
NEWPORT KY 41072
F GARY STEEL SUPPLY COMPANY
BLUE ISLAND IL 60406
G BEVERLY PLANT
BEVERLY OH 45715
SUBCATEGORIES DCP COMMENTS
RSP
NO
NO
NO
A,B,C,D1.02,D3,F,G1,G2. YES
G3.I1.I2, Jl ,K,L1
NO
03 YES
NO
NO
A.B.C YES
A.C YES SHUTDOWN, COKEMAKING
SOLD TO 0464
Dt ,G1 ,02,03, 12, Jl YES
03, G1 .G4.I1 ,J1 YES
NO
NO
ALABAMA METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
SELINA AL 36701
HOEGANAES CORPORATION
RIVERTON NJ
NO
NO
08077
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PACE 10
PLANT
CODE
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SUBCATEGORIES
OCP
RSP
COMMENTS
0402
0408
0412
0416
0420
0424
0426
IRONTON COKE COMPANY
1RQNTON OH
45638
0430
ITT HARPER, INC.
MORTON GROVE IL 60053
IVY STEEL & WIRE COMPANY
JACKSONVILLE FL 3220S
JACKSON IRON 4 STEEL COMPANY
JACKSON OH 45640
JAMES STEEL 4 TUBE COMPANY
ROYAL OAK MI 48067
JAMES STEEL S TUBE COMPANY
MADISON HEIGHTS MI 48071
JERSEY SHORE STEEL COMPANY
JERSEY SHORE PA 17740
JERSEY SHORE STEEL COMPANY
SOUTH AVIS PA 17721
JESSOP STEEL COMPANY
WASHINGTON PA 15301
GREEN RIVER STEEL
OWENSBORO KY 42301
JIM WALTER RESOURCES
BIRMINGHAM AL 35202
JEWELL SMOKELESS COAL CORPORATION
KNOXVILLE TN 37902
JEWELL SMOKELESS COAL CORPORATION
VANSANT VA 24656
JOHNSON STEEL ft WINE COMPANY
WORCESTER MA 01607
D3.G1,G2,G3.H,13
03.£
*.C
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
SEE 0946
SEE 0946A
FORMERLY 0024C
FORMERLY 0848
FORMERLY 0920H
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PACf It
PLANT
CODE
0430 A
B
C
0432
*
a
c
Ui
cr>
l_ 0
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE
AKRON PLANT
AKRON
LOS ANGELES PLANT
LOS ANGELES
1NCERSOLL STEEL
NEW CASTLE
JONES A LAUGHL1N
PITTSBURGH
ALIOUIPPA WORKS
AL1QUIPPA
PITTSBURGH WORKS
PITTSBURGH
CLEVELAND WORKS
CLEVELAND
HENNEPIN WORKS
HENNEP1N
OIL CITY WORKS
OIL CITY
JONES S LAUGHLIN
GAINESVILLE
JONES S LAUGHLIN
MUNCY
JONES A LAUGHLIN
HAMMOND
JONES « LAUGHLIN
WILLIMANT1C
WARREN PLANT
WARREN
JONES & LAUGHLIN
LOUISVILLE
YOUNGSTOWN WORKS
YOUNGSTOWN
OH
CA
IN
STEEL
PA
PA
PA
OH
IL
PA
STEEL
TX
STEEL
PA
STEEL
IN
STEEL
CT
MI
STEEL
OH
OH
ZIP CODE
44309
90059
47362
CORPORATION
15230
15001
15203
44101
61327
16301
CORPORATION
76240
CORPORATION
17756
CORPORATION
46320
CORPORATION
06226
48090
CORPORATION
44641
44501
SUBCATEGOHUS OCP
RSP
NO
NO
03,G1,G3 YES
YES
A.B.C.DI ,F .Gl ,G2,G3,U , YES
J1,J2,K,L1
A,C,02.G1 .G2.G3.ll.J1 , YES
Lt
B.C.Ot .03.G1 ,G3, 12. J1 YES
I2.J1.L1 YES
11,13 YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
D3.G1.G2 YES
NO
H,lt,13 YES
COMMENTS
FORMERLY 09201
FORMERLY 0920J
FORMERLY 01360
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE
PLANT
CODE
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SUBCATECORIES
DCP
RSP
COMMENTS
0432 M
INDIANAPOLIS WORKS
INDIANAPOLIS IN
II
46241
0436
0444
0448
0452
0456
0460
JONES « LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION
LOS ANGELES CA 90052
JONES A LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION
NILES OH 44446
JONES S LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION
NEW KENSINGTON PA 1506B
JORGENSEN COMPANY, E.M.
LOS ANGELES CA 90054
iJOSLVN MANUFACTURING t SUPPLY COMPANY
CHICAGO 1L G0606
UOSLYN STAINLESS STEELS DIVISION
FORT WAYNE IN 46804
HUDSON STEEL CORPORATION
EMERYVILLE CA 94608
KAISER STEEL CORPORATION
OAKLAND CA 94612
STEEL MANUFACTURING DIVISION
FONTANA CA 92335
KAISER STEEL CORPORATION
NAPA CA 94558
KENNAMETAL, INC.
LATR08E
PA
15650
KENTUCKY ELECTRICAL STEEL COMPANY
ASHLAND KY 41101
KENTUCKY ELECTRICAL STEEL COMPANY
ASHLAND KY 41101
KEYSTONE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC.
PEORIA IL 61601
KEYSTONE STEEL AND WIRE
PEORIA IL 61641
D3.E
D3.GI,G2,H.13
03,F
A,B,C,D1,D2,GI,G2,G3,G4
,I2,JI,K,L1
03, F
D3,F,G1,G2.I2,L1
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
m
-------
PLANT
CODE
0460 B
C
0
E
f
G
H
oo
10 0464
A
B
C
D
E
046B
A
B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
COMPANY / PLANT NAME SUBCATEGOR I ES
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
KEYSTONE STEEL AND MIRE G2
CHICAGO HEIGHTS IL 60411
SANTA CLARA PLANT 11, LI
SANTA CLARA CA 95052
MID-STATES STEEL AND WIRE 11, K.LI
CRAMFOROSV1LLE IN 47933
JACKSONVILLE PLANT 11, LI
JACKSONVILLE FL 32201
MID-STATES STEEL AND WIRE 11. LI
SHERMAN TX 7S091
GREENVILLE PLANT I1.K.L1
GREENVILLE MS 3B701
CHICAGO STEEL AND WIRE 11. K.LI
CHICAGO IL 60617
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
PITTSBURGH PA 15219
ORGANIC MATERIALS DIVISION
PITTSBURGH PA 15219
ST. PAUL DIVISION A
ST. PAUL MN 55104
ERIE DIVISION A
ERIE PA 16512
ORGANIC MATERIALS DIVISION
KEARNY NJ 07032
MODDAHD COKE A
BESSEMER AL 35020
KORF INDUSTRIES, INC.
CHARLOTTE NC 20280
MI0REX CORPORATION
CHARLOTTE NC 26280
GEORGETOWN STEEL CORPORATION D3.F.G2
PAGE 21
DCP COMMENTS
DSP
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 22
PLANT
CODE
0468 C
D
E
F
0472
A
B
OJ
en
,fc. 0476
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
0480
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
GEORGETONN FERREDUCTION CORPORATION
GEORGETOWN SC 29440
ANDREWS WIRE CORPORATION
ANDREWS SC 29510
ANDREWS WIRE OF TENNESSEE
GALLATIN TN 37066
GEORGETOWN TEXAS STEEL CORPORATION
BEAUMONT TX 77704
MICHAEL KRAL INDUSTRIES. INC.
NEW YORK NY 10019
KOKOMO TUBE COMPANY
KOKOMO I A 46901
VENANGO METALLURGICAL PRODUCTS
OIL CITY PA 16301
LACLEOE STEEL COMPANY
ST. LOUIS MO 63102
ALTON PLANT
ALTON IL 62002
MADISON PLANT
MADISON IL 62060
BEAUMONT PLANT
8EAUMONT TX 77706
DALLAS PLANT
DALLAS TX 75206
MEMPHIS PLANT
MEMPHIS TN 38107
NEW ORLEANS PLANT
NEW ORLEANS LA 70126
TAMPA PLANT
TAMPA FL 33611
LASALLE STEEL COMPANY
CHICAGO IL 60680
SUBCATEGORIES DCP
RSP
NO
NO
NO
03 , F NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
D3.F,G1,G2,G3,G4.I3.K, YES
LI
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
COMMENTS
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 23
Ul
cn
Ul
PLANT
CODE
04 BO A
a
C
D
0488
0492
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SUECATEGORIES
0496
0500
0504
0508
HAMMOND PLANT
HAMMOND
IN
46327
KEYSTONE DRAHN STEEL COMPANY
SPRING CITY PA 19475
FLUID POWER DIVISION
CHICAGO IL 60680
FLUID POWER DIVISION
GRIFFITH IN 46319
LOFLAND STEEL MILL. INC.
OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73108
LONE STAR STEEL COMPANY
DALLAS TX 75235
LONE STAR STEEL COMPANY
LONE STAR TX 75668
LONE STAR STEEL COMPANY
FORT COLLINS CO 80521
LUKENS STEEL COMPANY
COATESVILLE PA 19320
MADISON WIRE COMPANY
BUFFALO NY 14220
MAGNA CORPORATION
FLOWOOD MS 39208
MISSISSIPPI STEEL DIVISION
FLO WOOD MS 39208
MARATHON MANUFACTURING COMPANY
HOUSTON TX 77002
MARATHON LETOURNEAU COMPANY
LONGVIEW TX 75601
MARATHON STEEL COMPANY
PHOENIX AZ 85005
ROLLING MILL DIVISION
TEMPE AZ 85282
A,B.C.02,Gl ,G3,n,J2,K,
Lt
0,F
D3
DCP
RSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YfS
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
COMMENTS
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 2«
PLANT
CODE
0512
0516
0520
0524
0528
A
B
0533
COMPANY / PLANT NAME SUIICATEGORIES
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
MARKIN TUBING, INC.
WYOMING NY 14591
MARYLAND SPECIALTY MIRE, INC.
COCKEYSVILLE MD 21030
MCCONMAY AND TORLEY CORPORATION D3
PITTSBURGH PA 15201
MCINNES STEEL COMPANY
CORRY PA 16407
MCLOUTH STEEL CORPORATION H.J1.K
DETROIT MI 48209
TRENTON PLANT C . Dl , D3 , F . G 1 , G3 , 1 1
TRENTON MI 48183
GIBRALTAR PLANT 12, J1
GIBRALTAR MI 48173
MEAD CORPORATION
DAYTON OH 45402
DCP COMMENTS
RSP
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
0536
0538
0540
CHATTANOOGA DIVISION
CHATTANOOGA TN
37401
MERCER ALLOYS CORPORATION
GREENVILLE PA 16125
MERCIER CORPORATION
BIRMINGHAM Ml
4800 1
ERIE COKE AND CHEMICAL COMPANY
FAIRPQRT HARBOR OH 44077
MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES, INC.
SOUTHFIELD MI 48075
FORMED TUBES, INC.
STURG1S MI 49091
FORMED TUBES, INC.
HALEYVILLE AL 35565
FORMED TUBES, INC.
ALBION IN 46701
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PACE 25
PLANT
CODE
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SUBCATEGORIES
DCP
BSP
COMMENTS
0544
054B
U)
Ch
MESTA MACHINE COMPANY
PITTSBURGH PA 15230
MESTA MACHINE COMPANY
PITTSBURGH PA 15230
MESTA MACHINE COMPANY
NEW CASTLE PA 16101
02,03
NO
YES
HO
SEE 0678
SEE 067BA
SEE 0679B
SEE 067BC
SEE 067BO
SEE 067BE
0552
0556
0560
0564
056B
0572
MID-AMERICA STEEL CORPORATION
CLEVELAND OH 44127
MID-WEST MIRE COMPANY
CLEVELAND OH
44104
MINNEAPOLIS ELECTRIC STEEL CASTINGS CO.
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55421
MISSOURI DOLLING MILL CORPORATION
ST. LOUIS MO 63143
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY
BEAVER FALLS PA 15010
MSL INDUSTRIES, INC.
PIQUA OH
45356
MIAMI INDUSTRIES, DIVISION
PIQUA OH 45356
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTOR*
PAGE 26
PLANT
CODE
0576
A
05BO
A
B
C
D
CT> E
00
F
G
05B4
A
B
C
D
E
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
NATIONAL FORGE COMPANY
IRVINE PA 16329
ERIE DIVISION
ERIE PA 16512
NATIONAL STANDARD COMPANY
NILES MI 49120
WOVEN PRODUCTS DIVISION
COR BIN KY 40701
MT. JOY PLANT
MT . JOY PA 1 75S2
ATHENIA STEEL DIVISION
CLIFTON NU 0701 S
COLUMBIAN* PLANT
COLUMBIANA AL 350S 1
AKRON PLANT
AKRON OH 44310
LOS ANGELES PLANT
LOS ANGELES CA 90001
WORCESTER WINE DIVISION
WORCESTER MA 01603
NATIONAL STEEL
PITTSBURGH PA 15219
GREAT LAKES STEEL DIVISION
DETROIT MI 4B229
GREAT LAKES STEEL DIVISION
DETROIT MI 48229
GRANITE CITY STEEL DIVISION
GRANITE CITY IL 62040
THE HANNA FURNACE CORPORATION
BUFFALO NY 14240
MIDWEST STEEL DIVISION
SU6CATEGORIES
03, £
D3.E
11, 12, 13, K
I2.K.L1
12, K
Il.I2.J1
12, K
12, K
12
13. K.LI
01 .D3.G1 , I2.J1
A.B.C.GS
A,B,C,01 ,G1 ,G3, 12, J1 , LI
C
11 ,Jt ,K,Lt
OCP
RSP
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
COMMENTS
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 27
10
PLANT
CODE
0584 F
G
H
05BB
0592
0596
0600
0604
0608
A
0612
0616
A
0620
A
B
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
WEIRTON STEEL
WEIR TON WV 26062
STEU6ENVILLE PLANT
STEU6ENVILLE PA 43952
NATIONAL PIPE AND TUBE
LIBERTY TX 77575
NAY LOR PIPE COMPANY
CHICAGO IL 60619
NEW ENGLAND HIGH CARBON WIRE CORPORATION
MILLBURY MA 01527
NEW JERSEY STEEL 4 STRUCTURAL CORPORATION
SAYREVILLE NJ OBB72
NEWMAN-CROSBY STEEL. INC.
PAWTUCKET RI 02861
NEWPORT NEWS SHIP BUILDING « DRYDOCK CO.
NEWPORT NEWS VA 23607
NORTH STAR STEEL COMPANY
ST. PAUL MN 55165
WILTON PLANT
WILTON IA 5277B
NORTHWESTERN STEEL AND WIRE COMPANY
STERLING IL 610B1
NORTHWEST STEEL ROLLING MILLS. INC.
SEATTLE WA 9B107
KENT PLANT
KENT WA 9B031
NUCOR CORPORATION
CHARLOTTE NC 2B211
NUCOR STEEL
DARLINGTON SC 29532
NUCOR STEEL
NORFOLK NC 6B701
SUElCATEGORIES DCP
* RSP
A.B.C.D1 .E.F.G1 .G2.G3.I YES
1.J1.L1
NO
J2 YES
NO
NO
03. F YES
NO
NO
NO
03, F YES
D3.G1.G2, 11 ,I2,L1 YES
NO
03 YES
NO
D3.F YES
D3.F YES
COMMENTS
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 28
U)
^J
o
PLANT
CODE
0620 C
0624
A'
B
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE
ZIP CODE
NUCOR STEEL
JEWETT TX 75846
GILMORE STEEL CORPORATION
PORTLAND OR 97308
OREGON STEEL NILLS DIVISION
PORTLAND OR 97209
HIVERGATE PLANT
PORTLAND OR 97203
SUBCATEGORIES
0628
0632
0636
0640
0644
0648
03,F
OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA SC 29202
OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CAYCE SC 29033
PACIFIC STATES STEEL CORPORATION
UNION CITY CA 94587
PACIFIC TUBE COMPANY
LOS ANGELES CA
90040
PENN-DIXIE STEEL COMPANY
KOKOMO IN 46901
PENN-DIXIE STEEL COMPANY
JOLIET IL 60434
03
03
G4.I1.I3.K
D3.G1.G2,II,L1
ENTERPRISE HIRE COMPANY
BLUE ISLAND
IL
HAUSMAN CORPORATION
KOKOMO IN
HAUSMAN CORPORATION
DENVER CO
CENTERVILLE DIVISION
CENTERVILLE IA
PETTIBONE CORPORATION
CHICAGO IL
60406
46901
60203
52544
606S1
03
PHILADELPHIA STEEL AND HIRE COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA PA 19154
DCP
RSP
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
COMMENTS
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 29
PLANT
CODE
0656
0672
COMPANY / PLANT NAME SUBC A TEGOR I £ S
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
PHOENIX "STEEL CORPORATION D3,F
CLAYMONT DE 1970S
PHOENIX STEEL CORPORATION G1,G2,G4
PHOENIXVILLE PA 19460
PICKANOS MATHER AND COMPANY
CLEVELAND OH 44114
MILWAUKEE SOLVAY COKE COMPANY A
MILWAUKEE WI 53204
PIPER INDUSTRIES, INC.
MEMPHIS TN
PIPER INDUSTRIES, INC.
ST. LOUIS MO
PIPER INDUSTRIES, INC.
GREENVILLE MS
PITTSBURGH TUBE COMPANY
MONACA PA
PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL
FAIRBURY IL
PORTEC, INC.
OAK BROOK I L
TROY PLANT
TROY NY
FORCINGS DIVISION
CANTON OH
MEMPHIS PLANT
MEMPHIS TN
CONNORS STEEL COMPANY
BIRMINGHAM AL
CONNERS STEEL DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM AL
WEST VIRGINIA WORKS
HUNTINGTON WV
381 13
63155
38701
15061
CORPORATION
61739
60521
12180
44701
3BI28
352 12
D3.F.G2
35212
D3,F,G1 ,Q2
25706
DCP
RSP
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
COMMENTS
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 30
PLANT
CODE
0674
0676
0678
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
a
c
A
B
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
PLYMOUTH TUBE COMPANY
WINFIELD IL 60190
ELLWOOD IVINS PLANT
HORSHAM PA 19044
PLYMOUTH TUBE DIVISION
WINFIELD IL 60190
WINAMAC PLANT
WINAMAC IN 46996
SFREATOR PLANT
SFREATOR IL 61364
PLYMOUTH TUBE DIVISION
DUNKIRK NY 14048
PLYMOUTH TUBE DIVISION
HORSHAM PA 19044
BIRMINGHAM PLANT
PINSON AL 35126
WEST MONROE PLANT
WEST MONROE LA 71291
PREDCO. INC.
PENNSAUKEN NJ 08110
PRECISION STEEL DIVISION
PENNSAUKEN NJ OBI 10
SOUTHERN PRECISION STEEL COMPANY
GULFPORT MS 39501
COMPRESSED STEEL SHAFTING COMPANY, INC.
READVILLE MA 02136
OUANEX COPORATION
HOUSTON TX 77056
GULF STATES TUBE CORPORATION DIVISION
ROSENBERG TX 77471
THE STANDARD TUBE COMPANY
SUBCATEGORIES DCP
RSP
YES
NO
NO
G4.I1 YES
11 YES
G4.I3 YES
13 YES
11 YES
G4 YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
G4 NO
G4.I3.K YES
G4,I1,I3,K NO
COMMENTS
FORMERLY 0884
FORMERLY 08B4A
FORMERLY OB84B
FORMERLY OB84C
FORMERLY OBB4D
FORMERLY OBB4E
FORMERLY OB84F
FORMERLY OBB4G
FORMERLY OBB4H
FORMERLY 0548
FORMERLY 0548 A
FORMERLY 05488
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAQE 31
PLANT
CODE
0678 C
0
E
0680
0684
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
THE STANDARD TUBE COMPANY
SHELBY OH 44B75
MAC STEEL COMPANY. DIVISION
JACKSON MI 48201
U.S. BROACH AND MACHINE
DETROIT MI
RAMCO STEEL, INC.
BUFFALO NY
REPUBLIC STEEL
CLEVELAND OH
COMPANY
48234
14240
44101
• YOUNCSTOWN MANUFACTURING
YOUNCSTOWN OH 44545
A
to 8
~J
UJ
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
YOUNCSTOWN WORKS
YOUNCSTOWN OH
WARREN WORKS
WARREN OH
NILES WORKS
NlLES OH
MASSILLON WORKS
MASSILLON OH
CANTON SOUTH WORKS
CANTON OH
CLEVELAND DISTRICT WORKS
CLEVELAND OH
BUFFALO WORKS
BUFFALO NY
CHICAGO DISTRICT WORKS
CHICAGO IL
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
GADSDEN AL
THOMAS WORKS
BIRMINGHAM AL
4450 1
441B1
44446
44646
44706
44127
14220
60617
35901
35202
SUDCATEGORIES DCP COMMENTS
RSP
G4 YES FORMERLY 054BC
03, F NO FORMERLY 0548D
NO FORMERLY OS4BE
NO
YES
K YES
A.C.G1 ,G2, J2.L1 YES
A. B.C. 01 ,G1 .G3.I2.J1. LI YES
,L2
I1.J1.K YES SHUTDOWN
A.G1 ,G2,I1 ,I3,J1 YES
D3.E.F.G1 .G2.I1 YES
A,C,D1.D2.G1 ,G2,G3,I2,J YES
1
C.D1 ,G1 ,G2. 11 YES
A.C,D2.D3.E.G1 ,G2.G4, 11 YES
A.B.C.D1 ,G1 .G3.I2.J1 ,L1 YES
A YES
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 33
U)
•-J
PLANT
CODE
0684 K
L
M
N
0
P
0
R
S
T
U
V
H
X
Y
Z
COMPANY / PLANT NAM£
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
STEEL AND TUBE DIVISION
CLEVELAND OH 44108
STEEL AND TUBE DIVISION
ELYRIA OH 44035
STEEL AND TUBE DIVISION
FERNDALE MI 48220
STEEL AND TUBE DIVISION
BROOKLYN NY 11237
STEEL AND TUSE DIVISION
COUNCE TN 38326
UNION DRAWN DIVISION
MASSILLON OH 44646
UNION DRAWN DIVISION
BEAVER FALLS PA 15010
UNION DRAWN DIVISION
GARY IN 46401
UNION DRAWN DIVISION
EAST HARTFORD CT 06108
UNION DRAWN DIVISION
LOS ANGELES CA 90052
A. FINKE AND SONS COMPANY
CHICAGO IL 60614
CANTON WORKS
CANTON OH 44706
GEORGIA TUBING
CEDAR SPRINGS GA 31732
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS DIVISION
CANTON OH 44705
DRAINAGE PRODUCTS DIVISION
CANTON OH 44705
NILES DOOR PLANT
SUF.CATEGORIES DCP
RSP
I2,I3,J2 YES
G4 YES
G4 YES
G4.I1 YES
G4 YES
11,13 YES
11 YES
NO
NO
NO
D3.E YES
G3.H, 11,13 YES
G4 YES
K YES
I1.K.L1 YES
K YES
COMMENTS
44446
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 33
PLANT
CODE
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SUBCATEGORIES
OCP
HSR
COMMENTS
0688
0716
0720
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS, INC.
NEW YORK NY 10016
ROME MANUFACTURING COMPANY DIVISION
ROME NY 13440
0692
A
0696
A
a
0700
0704
0706
0712
A
B
RM1 COMPANY
NILES OH
RMI COMPANY
ASH rABULA OH
ROBLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
BUFFALO NY
ROBLIN STEEL COMPANY
DUNKIRK NY
ROBLIN STEEL COMPANY
NORTH TONAWANOA NY
44446
44004
14202
14048
14120
ROME STRIP STEEL COMPANY
ROME NY 13440
ROSS-MEEHAN FOUNDRIES
CHATTANOOGA TN
ROSS STEEL WORKS, INC.
AMITE LA
SANOVIK STEEL, INC.
FAIR LAWN NU
SCR ANTON WORKS
CLARKS SUMMIT PA
BENTON HARBOR WORKS
BEN TON HARBOR MI
37401
70422
07410
1BS01
49022
SENECA STEEL SERVICE
BUFFALO NY
14217
03.E.F
J1
SENECA HIRE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY
FOSTORIA OH 44B30
SHARON STEEL CORPORATION
SHARON PA 16146
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
-------
IRON AND STEEL PU.NT INVENTORY
PAGE 34
PLANT
CODE
0724 A
B
C
0
f.
r
G
OJ H
-J
0728
0732
A
B
C
0736
0740
A
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
STEEL DIVISION
SHARON PA 16146
UNION STEEL CORPORATION
UNION PA 070B3
DEARBORN DIVISION
DETROIT MI 4B22B
BRAINARO STRAPPING DIVISION
WARREN OH 444B2
DAMASCUS TUBE DIVISION
GREENVILLE PA 16125
FAIRMONT COKE WORKS
FA I RMONT WV 26554
CARPENTERTOWN COAL AND COKE COMPANY
TEMPLE TON PA 16259
MACOMBER, INC.
CANTON OH 44711
SHARON TUBE COMPANY
SHARON PA 16146
SHENANGO, INC.
PITTSBURGH PA 15222
NEVILLE ISLAND PLANT
PITTSBURGH PA 15225
BUFFALO PLANT
BUFFALO NY 14240
SHARPSVILLE PLANT «
SHARPSVILLE PA 16150
SIMONOS STEEL DIVISION OF WALLACE MURRAY
NEW YORK NY 10017
SDULE STEEL COMPANY
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94124
STEEL MILL OPERATIONS
CARSON CA 90745
SUIlCATEGORIES DCP
RSP
C,01 ,D3,E,H, 12, I3.J1 , L1 YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
A NO
NO
NO
G4.I1,K,L1 YES
NO
A.C YES
NO
NO
D3 YES
NO
03, F YES
COMMENTS
SHUTDOWN
-------
IRON AND STEIL PLANT INVENTORY
PACE 35
-J
-4
PLANT
CODE
0744
0748
0752
0756
0760
0764
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SOUTHERN FABRICATING COMPANY
SHEFFIELD AL 35660
DIXIE TUBE AND STEEL, INC.
DOTHAN AL 36301
SOUTHWESTERN PIPE. INC.
HOUSTON TX 77001
SOUTHWESTERN PIPE, INC.
BOSSIER CITY LA 71010
STANDARD FOBQINGS CORPORATION
EAST CHICAGO IN 46312
STANDARD STEEL SPECIALTY COMPANY
BEAVER FALLS PA 15010
SUPERIOR DRAWN STEEL COMPANY
MONACA PA 15061
THE STANLEY STEEL DIVISION
NEW BRITAIN CT 06050
THE STANLEY STEEL DIVISION
NEW BRITAIN CT 060S3
SUBCATEGOHIES
11,J1.K
0CP
RSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
COMMENTS
SEE 0226
SEE 0226A
0768
0772
STUPP BROTHERS BRIDGE AND IRON COMPANY
ST. LOUIS MO 63125
STUPP CORPORATION
BATON ROUGE LA 70B21
MENGEL ROAD PLANT
BATON ROUGE LA 70821
THOMAS ROAD PLANT
BATON ROUGE LA 70821
SUPERIOR TUBE COMPANY
NOR HIS TOWN PA 19404
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 36
PLANT
CODE
0776
0780
0784
A
B
C
0
E
f
G
H
I
d
A
B
C
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
TEIEDYNE VASCO
LATR08E PA 15650
TELEDYNE ALLVAC
MONROE NC 28110
TELEDYNE COLUMBIA-SUMMER ILL
PITTSBURGH PA 15230
SCOTTOALE PLANT
SCOTTOALE PA 1S683
CARNEGIE PLANT
CARNEGIE PA 15106
TELEDYNE OHIO STEEL COMPANY
LIMA OH 45802
TELEOYNE PITTSBURGH TOOL STEEL
MONACA PA 15061
ROD AND HIRE DEPARTMENT
LATROBE PA 15650
COLONIAL PLANT
MONACA PA 15061
TELEDYNE SURFACE ENGINEERING
PITTSBURGH PA 15206
TELEDYNE VASCO-CK COMPANY
SOUTH BOSTON VA 24592
TENNESSEE FORGING STEEL
ROANOKE VA 24015
NEWPORT DIVISION
NEWPORT AR 72112
JONES AND MCKNIGHT CORPORATION
CHICAGO IL 60623
KANKAKEE ELECTRICAL STEEL WORKS
KANKAKEE IL 60901
TEXAS STEEL COMPANY
SUOCATEGORIES DCP
RSP
YES
NO
NO
13, K NO
I1,K NO
03, E NO
13 NO
D3.GJ.H.I3.K YES
G2,G3,H,I3 YES
NO
13 NO
D3.F YES
NO
NO
NO
03 YES
COMMENTS
761 10
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 37
PLANT
CODE
07BB
0792
0796
OBOO
0804
OBOB
OB10
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A
B
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP COOi
THOMAS STEEL STRIP CORPORATION
WARREN OH 44485
THOMPSON STEEL COMPANY, INC.
BRAINTREE MA 021B4
THOMPSON STEEL COMPANY, INC.
WORCESTER MA 0*603
THOMPSON STEEL COMPANY, INC.
CHICAGO IL 60131
THOMPSON STEEL COMPANY, INC.
SPARROWS POINT MD 21219
THE TlMKEN COMPANY
CANTON OH 44706
QAMBRINUS PLANT
CANTON OH 44706
WOOSTER PLANT
WOOSTER OH 44691
LATROBE STEEL COMPANY
LA T ROBE PA 15650
TIPPINS MACHINERY COMPANY, INC.
ETNA PA 15223
TIPPINS MACHINERY COMPANY, INC.
LAWRENCEVILLE PA 15201
TITANIUM METALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
TORONTO OH 43964
STANDARD STEEL DIVISION
BURNHAM PA 17009
LATROBt FORGE AND SPRING
LATROBE PA 1S6SO
TOLEDO PICKLING AND STEEL SERVICE
TOLEDO OH 43607
TON AMANDA COKE COMPANY
SURCATEGOR I ES DCP
RSP
NO
NO
G2.I3.L1 YiS
I1.J1.L1 YES
11. Jl YES
YES
D3,E,F,G1 ,02, 04, 11, 13, K YES
G4.I1 YES
D3,E YES
NO
NO
NO
03, E YES
D3,E YES
NO
A ND
COMMENTS
00240
FORMERLY 00240
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 38
00
00
PLANT
CODE
0812
0816
A
0820
0824
0828
A
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE
TONAWANOA IRON DIVISIOI
NORTH TONAWANOA NY
TOWNSEND COMPANY
BEAVER FALLS PA
TOWNSEND PLANT
NEW BRIGHTON PA
TREDEGAR COMPANY
RICHMOND VA
TUBE METHODS. INC.
BRIDGEPORT PA
TULL, J.N. INDUSTRIES.
ATLANTA GA
TAMPCO DIVISION
NORCROSS GA
ZIP CODE
>l
14120
15010
15066
23211
19405
INC.
30301
30091
SUBCATEGORIES
0832
0836
0840
0844
0848
ULBRICH STAINLESS & SPECIALTY METALS
WALLINGFORD CN 06492
UNARCO-LEAVITT TUBE DIVISION
CHICAGO IL 60643
UNION ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION
PITTSBURGH PA 15106
UNION ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION
CARNEGIE PA 15106
HARMON CREEK
BURGETTSTOWN
HARMON CREEK
VALPARAISO
PA
IN
15021
46383
D3.E
UNION SPECIALTY STEEL CASTING CORP.
VERONA PA 15147
OCP
RSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
COMMENTS
SEE 0436
0852
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
PITTSBURGH PA 15230
YES
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 39
PLANT
CODE
OB52 A
0856
A
B
C
0
E
Ul
2
G
H
]
a
K
L
M
N
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE
ZtP CODE
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
NEW YORK NY 10022
UNITED STATES STEEL -
PITTSBURGH PA
CLAIRTON WORKS
CLAIRTON
PA
EDGAR THOMSON WORKS
SHADDOCK PA
CHRISTY PARK
MCKEESPORT
IRVIN WORKS
DRAVOSBURG
VANQEHGHiFT WORKS
VAWOEHGHIFT
FAIRLESS WORKS
FAIHLESS HILLS
FAIRLESS WORKS
TRENTON
HOMESTEAD WORKS
HOMESTEAD
HOMESTEAD WORKS
HOMESTEAD
HOMESTEAD WORKS
HOMESTEAD
HOMESTEAD WORKS
HOMESTEAD
JOHNSTOWN PLANT
JOHNSTOWN
CANTON PLANT
CANTON
LORAIN PLANT
LOR A IN
PA
PA
PA
PA
NJ
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
OH
OH
EASTERN
15219
15025
15104
1S132
15034
15690
19030
0860 B
15120
15120
15120
15120
15902
44706
44055
SUBCATEGORIES DCP COMMENTS
RSP
NO
NO
A.C.G2 YES
C YES
04 YES
03,11. J1 ,K,L1,L2 YES
G3.H, M ,13. J1,K YES
A,B,C,D1 ,D3,E,F,G1 ,G2,G YES
304,11 ,K2,J1,K,L1
NO
D2.E.GI ,G2,G3,I3 YES
C YES
B YES
02 YES
NO
NO
A,8,C,D1 ,G1 ,G2, I 1 ,J2,K, YES
LI
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 40
PLANT
CODE
OB56 0
P
0
R
s
T
U
W OB60
NJ
A
B
C
D
F
G
H
OB64
COMPANY / PLANT t
CITY i
CENTRAL FURNACES
CLEVELAND
CUYAHOGA PLANT
CUYAHOGA HEIGHTS
NATIONAL PLANT
MCKEESPORT
DUQUESNE PLANT
DUQUESNE
NEW HAVEN WORKS
NEW HAVEN
YOUNGS TOWN WORKS
YOUNGSTOWN
MACOONALO WORKS
MAC DONALD
UNI TED STATES STE
PITTSBURGH
DULUTH PLANT
DULUTH
GARY WORKS
GARY
GARY TUBE WORKS
GARY
ELLWOOD PLANT
ELLWOOD CITY
JOLIET PLANT
JOL1ET
WAUKEGAN PLANT
WAUKEGAN
SOUTH WORKS
CHICAGO
UNITED STATES STE
JAME
iTATE
PLANT
OH
OH
PA
PA
CT
OH
OH
LEL -
PA
MN
IN
IN
PA
IL
IL
IL
LEL -
ZIP CODE
44115
44125
15132
15110
06507
44509
44437
CENTRAL
15230
55806
46401
46401
16117
60432
60085
60617
WESTERN
SUBCATEGORIES DCP
RSP
C YES
G2,G3,I1 , 12. J1 ,L1 YES
B.C.G1 .G2.I1 .J2.K YES
C.D1 ,D3.E,GI,G2,n YES
I1.I2.L YES
B,C,D2.G1,I1 YES
G2.G3.I1 YES
NO
A YES
A.B.C.D1 .D2.F.G1.G2 YES
NO
NO
G2, II. 12, 13. LI YES
11. L1 YES
B,C,D1.D3,E,F,G1 .G2.G3 YES
NO
COMMENTS
SHUTDOWN
SHUTDOWN
SHUTDOWN
SHUTDOWN
SHUTDOWN
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
Mfii 41
PLANT
CODE
OB64 A
a
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE
GENEVA WORKS
PROVO UT
PITTSBURGH WORKS
ZIP CODE
•460 1
OB6B
Ul
CO
U)
0872
0876
OBBO
OBB4
TORRANCc HORNS
TORRANCE CA 90501
UNITED STATES STEEL - SOUTHERN
PITTSBURGH PA 15330
FAIHFIELD WORKS
FAIHFIELD AL 35664
TEXAS WORKS
BAYTOWN
TX 77530
AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION
ORANGE TX 77630
VALLEY MOULD AND IRON
HUBBARD OH 44435
CHICAGO PLANT
CHICAGO IL 60617
CLEVELAND PLANT
CLEVELAND OH 44105
VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC.
VALLEY NB 6B064
VAN DORN HEAT TREATING COMPANY
CLEVELAND OH 44101
HiAT TREATING DIVISION
MCKEES ROCKS PA 15136
SU&CATEGORIES
A,8.C.02,GI,G2.G3,J2
oa.it.12,ji,K.LI
02.F,G1,G2
A,B.C,01,G1,G2,I1 ,l2,vM
K.LI
D3.E.F.G3.J2
DCP
RSP
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
COMMENTS
SHUTDOWN
SEE 0674
SEE 0674A
SEE 0674B
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 42
PLANT
CODE
0884 C
D
E
F
1 G
H
0888
LJ
CO A
J^
B
C
0892
A
B
C
D
E
COMPANY / PLANT NAME SUDCATEGQRI ES DCP COMMENTS
CITY STATE ZIP CODE RSP
VULCAN, INC.
LATROBE PA 15650
VULCAN MOULD AND IRON COMPANY
LATRQBE PA 15650
VULCAN MOULD AND IRON COMPANY
LANSING IL 60.438
VULCAN MOULD AND IRON COMPANY
TRENTON MI 48183
WALKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
RACINE Ml 53402
ABERDEEN PLANT
ABERDEEN MS 39730
ARDEN PLANT
ARDEN NC 28704
GREENVILLE PLANT
GREENVILLE TX 75401
HARRISONBURG PLANT
HARRISONBURG VA 22801
JACKSON PLANT
JACKSON MI 49201
SEE 0674C
SEE 0674D
SEE 0674E
SEE 0674F
SEE 0674G
SEE 0674H
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 43
U>
oo
PLANT
CODE
0892 F
0894
0896
0900
0904
0912
0916
0920
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE
NEWARK PLANT
NEWARK OH
SEWARO PLANT
SEWARD NB
WALKER STEEL AND WIRE
FERNDALE MI
WA5HBURN MIRE COMPANY
EAST PROVIDENCE Rl
WASHBURN WIRE COMPANY
NEW YORK NY
SUBCATifiQRIES
ZIP CODE
43055
58434
COMPANY
03. E
02916
10035
WASHINGTON STEEL CORPORATION
WASHINGTON PA 15301
FITCH WORKS
HOUSTON PA
03
15342
CALStRIP STEEL COMPANY
LOS ANGELES CA 90022
WELDED TUBES, INC.
ORWELL OH 44076
WELDED TUBE COMPANY OF AMERICA
PHILADELPHIA PA 19)48
WELDED TUBE COMPANY OF AMERICA
CHICAGO H 60633
WESTERN COLD DRAWN STEEL DIVISION
ELYHIA OH 44035
WESTERN COLD DRAWN STEEL DIVISION
GARY IN 46401
WHEAtLAND TUBE COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA PA
19106
WHEATLAND STEEL PRODUCTS
WHEATLANO PA 16161
WHEELING-PITTSBURGH STEEL CORPORATION
PITTSBURGH PA 15230
J2
J2
Q4.M.K.L1
OCP
RSP
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
COMMENTS
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
-------
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
PAGE 44
CO
PLANT
CODE
0920 A
B
C
0
E
F
G
H
I
J
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
STEUDENVILLE NORTH PLANT
STEUBENVILLE OH 43952
MOHESSEN PLANT
MONESSEN PA 15062
ALLENPOilT PLANT
ALLENPORT PA 15412
BENWOOD PLANT
BEN WOOD MV 26031
MARTINS FERRY PLANT
MARTINS FERRY OH 43935
STEU0ENVILLE EAST PLANT
FOLLANSBEE HV 2603?
YORKVILLE PLANT
YORKVILLE OH 43971
SUBCATEGORIES DCP COMMENTS
RSP
C,C1,I2,J1 YES
A,*,C,DI,GI,G2 YES
G3,G4.I2,J1 YES
It.J2.L1 YES
L1 YES
A,e.L2 YES
I2.J1.K YES
SEE 0430
SEE 0430 A
SEE 04301
0924
WHEELING CORRUGATION COMPANY
WHEELING HV 26003
BEECH BOTTOM PLANT
BEECH BOTTOM HV 28030
LABELLE PLANT
WHEELING
HV 26003
STEUBENVILLE SOUTH PLANT
MINGO JUNCTION OH 43930
CANFiELD PLANT
CANFIELD OH 44406
WHITTAKER CORPORATION
DETROIT MI 48234
C.D1.G1.G3
H
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
-------
IRON AND STEEL PUNT INVENTORY
PAGE 45
PLANT
CODE
0924 A
0928
0932
0936
0940
0944
0946
A
0948
A
B
C
D
COMPANY / PLANT NAME
CITY STATE
WHITTAKER STRIP STEEL
DETROIT MI
WILSON STEEL AND WIRE
CHICAGO IL
WIRE ROPE CORPORATION
ST. JOSEPH MO
WIRE SALES COMPANY
CHICAGO IL
WITTEMAN STEEL MILLS
FONT ANA CA
WRIGHT STEEL AND WIRE
WORCESTER MA
WSC CORPORATION
CHICAGO IL
WISCONSIN STEEL WORKS
CHICAGO IL
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND
YOUNGSTOWN OH
CAMPBELL WORKS
STRUTHERS - OH
BRIER HILL WORKS
YOUNGSTOWN OH
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
EAST CHICAGO IN
ZIP CODE
DIVISION
48234
COMPANY
60609
OF AMERICA
64502
60632
92335
COMPANY
01603
60617
60617
TUBE COMPANY
44501
44471
44510
46312
VAN HUFFEL TUBE CORPORATION
SUBCATEGORIES DCP COMMENTS
RSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
D3.G1 NO
NO ,
NO FORMERLY 0400
A.U,C,D1,E,F,G1,G2.G3 YES SHUTDOWN
FORMERLY 0400A
YES
A,B.C.D2,G1,G3,G4,I1, 12 YES
J1 ,L1
C.D2.G1 ,G2.I1 ,J2 YES
A,B,C,D1.D2,G1,G3,G4,M YES
J1 , LI
NO
VAN HUFFEL TUBE CORPORATION
GARDNER MA 01440
CAMPBELL WORKS-STRUTHERS DIVISION
STRUTHERS OH 44471
G2.I3.K
NO
YES
SHUTDOWN
-------
DEFINITION OF SUBCATEGORY ABBREVIATIONS
CO
CO
A : BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
B : SINTERING
C : IRONMAKING
Dt : STEELMAKING, BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
D2 : STEELMAKING, OPEN HEARTH FURNACE
D3 ! STEELMAKING, ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
E : VACUUM DEGASSING
F : CONTINUOUS CASTING
G1 : HOT FORMING, PRIMARY
G2 : HOT FORMING, SECTION
G3 : HOT FORMING, FLAT
G4 : HOT FORMING, PIPE 4 TUBE
H : SALT BATH DESCALING
II : ACID PICKLING, SULFURIC
12 : ACID PICKLING, HYDROCHLORIC
13 : ACID PICKLING, COMBINATION
J1 : COLD FORMING, COLD ROLLING
J2 i COLD FORMING, PIPE & TUBE
K : ALKALINE CLEANING
LI : HOT COATING. GALVANIZING
L2 : HOT COATING, TERNE A OTHER METALS
-------
VOLUME I
APPENDIX C
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARIES
309
-------
390
-------
BYPRODUCT COKEMAKING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
(PAGE I OF 2)
PSES-IX PSNS-I
1C
BAT/BCT/PSES-
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCESS
WASTES
WASTE
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
BENZOL
PLANT
WASTES
FINAL
COOLER
SLOWDOWN
t
CRYSTALUZER
SLOWDOWN
2/PSNS-2
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCESS
WASTES
[WASTE
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
BENZOL
PLANT
WASTES
FINAL
COOLER
SLOWDOWN
CRYSTALLIZER
IONCE -THROUGH!
i — ~ — <
1 ft<
— * n mirMrtf i 7 rn i «,.^ ^^^^^^^
Waste i " *, w STILL / T~\
Pickle ii i *( f
LiauQf l. — ..I t ^\ / ,,,, A i^wnM^h Tn rtATW
^ 1 f FIXFD \ /
\ \ STILL EQUALIZATION | ^ ^
Removed by
ln«r» Gas Clamshell
Dilution Water
- ^ to Optimize Bioxidation
J t 1 ftci P | studg,
— • 1 Fppp*j . — I im« ft^itinn Recycle
Waste •**•—« STILL i/ R
PtcWe i« Ir i • 1 v*
— fc i f Fl^Fn j \ A- Ill
4 1 STILL EQUALIZATION ^ ^ "^^T^^
*M 1L. „, _iiz:r_ilM:n* RA*^lW V--!
-------
BYPRODUCT COKEMAKING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
(PAGE 2 OF 2)
BAT-l/PSES-3
NSPS-I/PSNS-3
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCESS
WASTES
WASTE
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
SCRUBBERS ON
PREHEAT AND
CHARGING
1 <>
t» ':;
.... i f i— MI
SIDESTREAM
COOLING
(Up to 75% of
total flow)
FREE
il
Waste
Pickle
Liquor
STILL ' ^-Lime Addition
i '
EQUALIZATION
BASIN
-Slowdown replaces up to 506PT
of dilution water.
— — —-^^ Excess blowdown to
quench station.
Solids
Out
» -Free Still and Small Equalization Tank
prior to still not included in cost estimates.
Basin for pushing scrubber water is costed
as part of the air pollution regulation study.
BAT-2/PSES - 4
NSPS-2/ PSNS-4
BAT-3 / PSES-5
NSPS - 3/PSNS- 5
Powdered Activated
Carbon (Added to
Biological Reactor)
FILTRATION
BAT-4/PSES-6
PSNS-6
Dill
QUENCH
No Wastewater
Discharge
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
By-Product Cokemaking
Merchant Coke Producers
MODEL SIZE (TPD);
OPER. DAYS/YEAR :
TURNS/DAY :
POTW
USERS
920
365
3
ALL
OTHERS
1690
365
3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant
Indirect Discharger
All Others
7 Direct Dischargers
2 To Quenching Operations
8 Indirect Dischargers
2 Zero Dischargers
19 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
0.2 MGD
0.3 MGD
2.1 MGD
0.6 MGD
1.3 MGD
0.3 MGD
4.3 MGD
Investment
Indirect Dischargers
Other Dischargers-Biological
Other Dischargers-Physical-Chemical
Annual
Indirect Dischargers
Other Dischargers-Biological
Other Dischargers-Physical-Chemical
5/Ton of Production
Indirect Dischargers
Other Dischargers-Biological
Other Dischargers-Physical-Chemical
Investment
Annua1
5/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Aramonia-N
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Sulfides
Thiocyanates
Total Suspended Solids
RAW
WASTE
178
7-10
600
75
300
150
480
50
PSES-1
PSNS-1
1658
-
-
336
-
-
1.00
-
—
PSES-1
PSNS-1
120
6-9
BPT
BCT BAT-1
PSES-2 PSES-3
PSNS-2 PSNS-3
2180 506
3097 721
2455 2104
442 99.0
688 152
538 907
1.32 0.29
1.12 0.25
0.87 1.47
NSPS-1 NSPS-2
3762 3965
983 1010
1.59 1.64
BPT BAT-1
BCT NSPS-1
PSES-2 PSES-3
PSNS-2 PSNS-3
240 170
6-9 6-9
(75)60 (97)75 (25)7
(25)15 (11
(50)36 (1
50
180
BAT- 2
PSES-4
PSNS-4
647
924
2435
118
179
1070
0.35
0.29
1.73
NSPS-3
4000
1102
1.79
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-4
PSNS-4
170
6-9
(25)7
.6)8 (5**)4.4 (5**)4.4
.6)0.5 (0.05)0.02 (0
1 0.4
2 0.3
(140)100 (140)66 (140)66
.05)0.02 (0
0.4
0.3
(20)15
BAT-3
PSES-5
PSNS-5
672
959
-
169
271
-
0.50
0.44
~
BAT-3
NSPS-3
PSES-5
PSNS-5
170
6-9
(20)5
(5**)2.0
.025)0.01
0.3
0.2
(20)15
BAT-4
PSES-6
PSNS-6
610
870
2225
112
170
922
0.33
0.28
1.49
BAT-4
PSES-6
PSNS-6
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
395
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
PAGE 2
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
3 Acrylonitrile
4 Benzene*
21 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
22 Parachlorometacresol
23 Chloroform*
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
35 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
36 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
38 Ethylbenzene*
39 Fluoranthene*
54 Isophorone
55 Naphthalene*
60 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
64 Pentachlorophenol
65 Phenol*
66-71 Total Phthalates*
72 Benzo (a) Anthracene
73 Benzo (a) Pyrene*
76 Chrysene*
77 Acenaphthylene*
80 Fluorene*
84 Pyrene*
86 Toluene*
114 Antimony*
115 Araenic*
121 Cyanide*
125 Selenium*
128 Zinc*
130 Xylene*
RAW
WASTE
1.2
35
0.1
0.6
0.3
5
0.2
0.1
3
0.8
0.5
30
0.12
0.12
275
5
0.3
0.1
0.4
3.5
0.6
0.6
25
0.2
2
50
0.2
0.2
12
PSES-1
PSNS-1
0.25
10
0.05
0.15
0.2
1
0.1
0.05
0.8
0.2
0.3
5
0.08
0.08
30
2
0.2
0.05
0.2
1
0.2
0.2
5
0.1
1
(20)16
0.2
0.2
3
BPT
BCT
PSES-2
PSNS-2
0.05
0.3 (0.
0.02
0.05
0.2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.05 (0.
0.01
0.01
0.3
1
0.05
0.05 (0.
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
(23)5 (5
0.1
0.1
0.2
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-3
PSNS-3
0.02
05)0.04
0.005
0.005
0.2
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
05)0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.2
0.01
05)0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.1
0.4
.5)2.75
0.1
0.1
0.02
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0.02
(0.05)0.04
0.005
0.005
0.1
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
(0.05)0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.2
0.01
(0.05)0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.25
(5.0)2.75
0.05
0.05
0.02
BAT-3
NSPS-3
PSES-5
PSNS-5
0.01
(0.03)0.02
<0.005
<0.005
0.05
<0.005
0.005
0.005
0.02
0.01
0.005
(0.03)<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.1
0.005
(0.03)0.005
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.25
(5.0)2
0.05
0.05
0.01
BAT-4
PSES-6
PSNS-6
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-3 through PSES-6 and PSNS-3 through PSNS-6 costs are incremental over BPT, PSES-2 and PSNS-2 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop the
limitations/standards for the various levels of treatment. All other values
represent long term average values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
396
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLBEHT LOADINGS At»D TREAfMEHT COSTS
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKIHC SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SOBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOHS/Y1AR)
Flow (MGD)
Amnonia (N)
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Sulfidc
Thiocyanate
Total Cyanides
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annua1
(2)
RAH
HASTE
25.1
22,947.7
2,868.5
11,473.9
5,736.9
18,358.3
1,912.2
1,912.2
99.5
4,535.9
-.*
-
BPT/BCT
33,3
3,796.8
404.9
25.3
50.7
101.2
253.1
3,846.2
35.4
137.7
168.6
41.61
BAT-1
22.7
242.0
152.1
0.6
13.8
10.4
95.0
2,623.5
24.2
24.7
44.1
11.49
BAT-2
22.7
242.0
152.1
0.6
13.8
10.4
86.4
518.7
13.8
21.2
62.0
14.22
BAT-3
22.7
172.9
69.2
0.3
10.4
6.9
69.2
518.7
13.5
11.3
64.2
20.71
BAT-4
0
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
54.6
12.77
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flou (MGD)
Ammonia (N)
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyanate
Total Cyanides
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"S)
Itivestnetit
Annua1
(3)
RAH
HASTE
7.4
6,759.1
844.9
3,379.5
1,689.8
5,407.2
563.3
563.3
29.3
1,336.0
PSES-1
4.8
434.4
108.6
260.6
361.9
1,303.0
115.8
723.9
10.8
208.1
45.8
10.17
PSIS-2
10.3
1,167.3
124.5
7.7
15.6
31.2
77.8
1,182.3
10.9
42.3
52.7
13.10
PSES-3
7.1
74.6
46.9
0.2
4.3
3.2
29.3
809.8
7.4
1,1
13.7
3.61
PSES-4
7.1
74.6
46.9
0.2
4.3
3.2
26.7
159.9
4,3
6.6
18.5
3.73
PS1S-5
7.1
53.3
21.3
0.1
3.2
2.2
21.3
159.9
4.1
3.4
19,1
5.74
PSES-6
0
_
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
16.3
3.39
(1) Individual phenolic compounds (e.g., 2,4-Dinitrophenol, Pentachlorophenol) are not included
in Toxic Organic*.
(2) Two confidential plants have been excluded from costs shown.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include one confidential plant.
397
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Anmonia (N)
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyanale
Total Cyanides
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
22.1
20,200.5
2,525.1
10,100.3
5,050.1
16,160.5
1,683.3
1,683.3
87.6
3,992.9
BPT/BCT
29.6
3,380.1
360.5
22.5
45.1
90.1
225.3
3,424.0
31.5
122.6
144.0
36.39
BAT-1
20.1
214.5
134.8
0.6
12.2
9.2
84.2
2,325.1
21.4
21.9
37.2
9.50
BAT- 2
20.1
214.5
134.8
0.6
12.2
9.2
76.6
459.7
12.2
18.8
53.0
11.87
BAT-3
20.1
153.2
61.3
0.3
9.2
6.1
61.3
459.7
12.0
10.0
54.9
17.69
BAT-4
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46.2
10.54
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Ammonia (N)
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyanate
Total Cyanides
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
6.1
5,562.7
695.3
2,781.3
1,390.7
4,450.1
463.6
463.6
24.1
1099.6
PSES-1
3-9
353.7
88.4
212.2
294.7
1,061.0
94.3
589.5
8.8
169.5
35.7
8.17
PSES-2
8.5
965.7
103.0
6.4
12.9
25.8
64.4
978.6
9.0
35.0
39.7
10.46
PSES-3
5.8
61.3
38.5
0.2
3.5
2.6
24.1
665.1
6.1
6.3
10.7
2.48
PSES-4
5.8
61.3
38.5
0.2
3.5
2.6
21.9
131.3
3.5
5.4
14.6
3.02
PSES-5
5.8
43.8
17.5
0.1
2.6
1.8
17.5
131.3
3.4
2.8
15.1
4.73
PSES-6
0
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.7
2.73
(1) Individual phenolic compounds (e.g., 2,4-Dinitrophenol, Pentachlorophenol) are not included
in Toxic Organics.
(2) One confidential plant has been excluded from costs shown.
393
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
BY-PRODUCT COKIMAKING SUBCATEGORY
MERCHANT PLAKIS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Ammonia (N)
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyanate
Total Cyanides
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Orgonics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
SOBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Ammonia (N)
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyanate
Total Cyanides
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
(2)
SUBCAtEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(3)
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
RAH
WASTE
3.0
2,747.2
343.4
1,373.6
686.8
2,197.8
228.9
228.9
11.9
543.0
—
INDIRECT
HAH
WASTE
1,3
1,196.4
149.6
598.2
299.1
957,1
99.7
99.7
5.2
236.4
-
BPT/BCT
3.7
416.7
44.4
2.8
5.6
11.1
27.8
422.2
3.9
15.1
24.6
5.22
BAT-1
2.6
27.5
17.3
<0.1
1.6
1.2
10.8
298.4
2.8
2.8
6.9
1.99
BAT-2
2.6
27.5
17.3
<0.1
1.6
1.2
9.8
59.0
1.6
2.4
9.0
2.35
BAT-3
2.6
19.7
7.9
<0.05
1.2
0.8
7.9
59.0
1.5
1.3
9.3
3.02
BAT-4
0
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
2.13
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSIS-1
0.9
80.7
20.2
48.4
67.2
242.0
21.5
134.4
2.0
38.6
10.1
2.00
PSES-2
1.8
201.6
21.5
1.3
2.7
5.4
13.4
203.7
1.9
7.3
13.0
2.64
PSES-3
1.3
13.3
8.4
<0.1
0.8
0.6
5.2
144.7
1.3
1.4
3.0
0.59
PSES-4
1.3
13.3
8.4
<0.05
0.8
0.6
4.8
28.6
0.8
1.2
3.9
0.71
PSES-5 PSIS-6
1.3 0
9.5
3.8
<0.05
0.6
0.4
3.8
28.6
0.7
0.6
4.0 3.6
1.01 0.66
(1) Individual phenolic compounds (e.g., 2,4-Dinitrophenol, Pentachlorophenol) are not included
id Toxic Organics.
(2) One confidential plant, has been excluded from costs shown.
(3) The cast summary totals do not include confidential plants.
399
-------
400
-------
SINTERING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT, BAT, PSES MODEL PLANT - 4,000 TPD
NSPS.PSNS MODEL PLANT - 7,000 TPO
BPT/PSES-I/ PSHS-I
WotteMler
1,480 got /Ion
BAT- 1 /NSPS -1 / PSES -2 /PSNS ~Z
^ I2O gal /ion
m
I) pH control wih acid is SPT tt«p Khich it irontferid
for mcorporoiioo *ith BAT treatment, Th* coil of this
tt«P i* not included *ith Iha BAT cosli This itep n
not included m the PSES or PSNS models
21 DtiChloriiMlion
models,
is. not included in the PSES or PSNS
icfe1] • 120 «ol./loil
»d«
-------
SUBCATECORi SUHMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGOM: Sintering
8PT, BAT, PSES MODEL SIZE (TPD): 4000
NSPS, PSHS MODEL SIZE (TPD) r 7000
OPER. DAKS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Hade I Plant
15 Direct Dischargers
[ Indirect Discharger
1 Zero Discharger
17 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10":i)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
5.8 MCD
87.6 MCD
5.8 MCD
5.8 MCD
99.2 MCD
MODEL COSTS
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (CPT)
j>H *
122 Lead
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
HAH
HASTE
1460
6-12
6
6
240
0.2
6100
0.10
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.15
0.1
BPT
PSES-1
3615
1430
0.98
PSNS-1
4822
2299
0.90
BPT
PSES-1
PSNS-1
120
6-9
7
25
(10)7
0.2
(50)39
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.6
0.03
0.2
0.12
0.02
BAT-1
PSES-2
401
54.0
0.037
NSPS-1
PSNS-2
5362
!3$9
0.55
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-2
120
6-9
7
20
($*-«-«)3.5
0.2
(15)10
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.0)
0.2
0.02
0.2
(0.25)0.02
0.01
BAT- 2
PSES-3
J16
42.4
0.029
KSPS-2
PSNS-3
5219
1380
0.54
BAT-2
HSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-3
no
6-9
7
20
(10)7
0.2
(25)22
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.0)
0.15
D.02
0.2
(0.25)0.02
0.015
0.5
(0.3)0.18 (0.3)0.04
BAT-3
PSBS-4
647
151
0.10
KSPS-3
PSNS-4
5594
1462
0.57
BAT-3
NSPS-3
PSES-4
PSNS-4
BAT-4
PSES-5
3127
473
0.3i
HSPS-4
PSMS-S
8524
1842
0.72
120
6-9
(10**)6
20
(10)7
(10*
(5*
NSPS-4
PSEB-5
PSNS-5
120
6-9
*)6
20
»)3.5
(Oa*-)0.0)S (0.1**)O.OL5
(O.S**)0.05 (O.S«)0.05
(25)22 (15)10
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.02
(1*")0.03
(0.25)0.02
0.015
(0.3)0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.02
(1*«)0.03
(0.25>0.02
0.01
(0.3)0.01
BAT-5
P3ES-6
4936
1016
0.70
NSPS-5
PSMS-6
BAT-5
HSPS-S
PSKS-6
PSNS-6
No!asi All concentrations are in Eg/I unless otheruise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-6 costs are incremental ovez BPT/PSES-1 cotts.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop the limitations/standards lor the we noun
levels of treatment. All other values represent long term average values or predicted average parformAnce leva la.
* Toxic pollutant found LQ all raw waste samples.
*•* When co-treatecf uitn tranfflaking wastevatera. These values *re based upon the selected BAT alternative in the
IronmakIng Subcategory.
***LlEntt for oil and grease Ls based upon 10 fflgA (makimum only).
402
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SINTERING SUBCATEGQRY
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Ammonia (N)
Cyanide (Tocal)
Fluor ide
Oil and Grease
Phenols (4AAP)
Residual Chlorine
Tocal Suspended Solids
Tocal Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Ammonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Phenols (4AAP)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(?X10'6)
Investment
Annual
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
RAW
WASTE
93.4
853.8
28.5
853.8
34,153.3
28.5
-
868,064.2
298.8
17.1
~
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
5.8
53.4
1.8
53.4
2,134.6
1.8
54,254.0
18.7
1.1
-
BPT
7.2
65.8
2.2
274.1
76.8
2,2
-
427.6
14.0
1.3
63.89
22.00
BAT-1
7.2
65.8
2.2
219.3
38.4
2.2
-
109.7
4.8
1.3
6.02
0.79
BAT-2
7.2
65.8
2.2
219.3
76.8
2.2
-
241.2
2.8
1.3
4.98
0.64
BAT-3
7.2
65.8
0.3
219.3
76.8
0.2
0.5
241.2
2.8
1.3
10.33
2.29
BAT-4
7.2
65.8
0.3
219.3
38.4
0.2
0.5
109.7
2.4
0.3
47.86
7.15
BAT-5
0
_
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
74.80
15.40
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.5
4.4
0.1
18.3
5.1
0.1
28.5
0.9
0.09
3.23
1.28
PSES-2
0.5
4.4
0.1
14.6
2.6
0.1
7.3
0.3
0.09
0.36
0.048
PSES-3
0.5
4.4
0.1
14.6
5.1
0.1
16.1
0.2
0.09
0.28
0.038
PSES-4
0.5
4.4
0.02
14.6
5.1
0.01
16.1
0.2
0.09
0.58
0.14
PSES-5
0.5
4.4
0.02
14.6
2.6
0.01
7.3
0.2
0.02
2.79
0.42
PSES-6
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.99
1.04
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operation
are included in the direct discharger data. As this plant has no wastevater
discharge, it does not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent
was te loads.
(2) Individual phenolic compounds (e.g., 2,4-dinit rophenol, pentachlorophenol)
are not included in total organics.
403
-------
-------
IRONMAKINS
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
MODEL PLANT - 6000 TPD
BPT/NSPS-1 / PSES -1/ PSNS -1
Polymer
Row
Wastewoti
o
t_n
Solids
(2J pH control with acid Is not
included in PSES or PSNS.
(3)The dschlorinotion component is not
Muffed in PSES or PSNS model.
!4)The filtration component
in the NSPS-5 only.
Recycle40
* f f
COOLING 1 1
TOWERS f"
ZSflal./ton '
-
PS -I /PSES -I/
d ta 98% at
ent is not
model.
is included
«eAT-t/NSPS-2/PSES-2/PSNS-2 " c
.d> ••"
*mWJm
* A EVAPORATION No Wostewter
* ON SLAG Discharge ^
> — TOgoUton
v BAT-2 /NSPS-3/PSES-3/PSNS-3
Backwash *• — i
BAT-3/NSPS-4/PSES-4/PSNS-4
i— Lime r~st?*W
\fflfff II 7/| INCLINED
To , PLATE
Vacuum 41 « SEPARATOR
Filter
BAT-4/NSPS-5/PSES-5/PSNS-5 Bt-Htn-t-- 1
I — Lime |
* 2 STAGE <3I (4)
I'ifnfnfl CHLORINATION » DCd HJniNATIOH » TILTCR^ •• D.s,
~^^J — "INCLINED
.. To J PLATE
Vacuum^ ' SEPARATOR
Filter
BAT-5/NSPS-6/PSES-6/PSNS-6 „ k h^__^
I — Lime 1
*f »*,,,, Jj,, \ » 2 STAGE »DECHlOBINATinl »> FILTERS -» ACTIVATED
T~^ft^fn\ CHLOHINATION * DECHLGRIWATIOH » FILTERS » CARBON
^^TlNCLINEO
To 1 PLATE
Vacuum ^h-i SEPARATOR
Filter . Dis
BAT- 6/NSPS -7/PSES-7/PSNS-7
' »l EVAPORATION 1 ^100% Recycle
1 p io Process
' — » Centrifuge
To
To
-------
STOCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASTS 7/1/78 DOLLAtS
SUBCATECOlVi IroitMktng
RAU WASTE n.OW5
HODEi SIZE (TPD)
OPEt. OA¥S/TEAft
6000
365
3
Hodel Plant 19.2 KGB
M Direct Dischargers 74g,8 MCB
2 Indirect Discharger* 38,4 HCt>
-"U 76.8 HCO
864,0 MCO
4 Zero 0tsehargersv
45 Aciiue Plants
MOOEL COSTS (S!tlO~3)
inves iment
Annual .
(nilh Sinter Plant)
(viihout Sinier Plant.)
S/Tofi of Production ,.,
(wilh Sinter Hani)
(without Sifter Plant)
Investment
Aftnti,s I , .
(with Sinter Plant)
(vilhout Sinter Plant,)
S/Ton of Production . .
(with Sinter Plant)
(wilbout Sinter Hunt)
UASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow CGPT)
pH (SV)
ABS10C'. 1.1 (N)
Fluoride
?h*nols C4AAP)
8esie«imeih)? iphe^ol
39 Fhtoranr.beni
&S Phenol*
?3 B^nzo ( s ) pvres^e
76 Chrysune
84 l^virenf?^
H4 Antimony
5 1 *> Arsen ic"*
US Cadoiun*
) 1 9 Chrc-w. ^m*
12U Copper*
121 .lyanlde (Total)*
IJi I, -?ad
124 K'i-l,..!-l*
12} SffUriutn
US Z.nc*
RAW
HASTE
3200
6-9
iO
15
J
-
1900
0.01
0.01
O.OS
0.08
0.65
0.01
0.01
0,05
0.04
0.1
0,1
0,5
O.J5
12
S
0.5
0.06
20
BPt
PSES-)
9542
911
2244
0.44
1,03
HSPS-1
fSNS-1
«42
9J2
2248
0,44
1.03
iW
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
125
6-9
(103160
45
(4)2.3
-
(SO 142
0.01
0.03
0,15
0,08
2.1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
O.OS
0.1
0.2
0-03
(15)4
O.S
0.1
0,01
0,7
lAf-1
PSES-J
172
24.2
24.2
0.011
O.Olt
HSPS-2
PSNS-2
97)4
996
2272
0.45
1.0*
BAT-)
NSM-2
PSES-2
PSSS-2
0
-
BAT-2
PSES-3
286
38.2
J8.2
0.01?
0.01 1
MSPS-3
PSNS-1
982S
1010
2286
0.44
1.04
1AT-2
HSPS-3
PSES-J
PSMS-3
70
6-9
(103)&S
_
-
-
™
-
-
-
_
-
™
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
- (0.
-
_
<0
40
(4)2.3
-
1S)10
0-OS
0,03
0.15
0,08
J.I
O.Oi
5.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.1
0.2
O.OJ
(5)4
25)0.1
0.015
0.01
.3)0. 18
BAT- 3
PSES-4
38*
58.9
58. »
Q.OZ7
0.027
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
9«6
1031
2306
0.4?
1.05
BAT- 3
HSPS-4
PSES-4
fSNS-4
70
8-9
(103)65
20
(4)2.3
-
(25)22
0.01
0.03
0.15
O.Oi
2,1
0,01
0.01
0,05
0,04
O.OS
0.01
0,15
0.02
(5S4
(0,25)0,08
0.015
0.01
(0,3)0,08
1AT-4
PSES-5
784
234
234
0.11
0.11
HSPS-5
PSHS-5
10,326
1208
2412
0.55
1.13
iAf-4
SSPS-5
PSSS-5
PSNS-5
70
6-9
(10)6
20
(0.1)0.015
(0.5)0.05
(25512
0,01
0.02
0.02
0.08
0,01
O.OI
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.15
0,02
(1)0.03
(0,25)0,08
0,015
0.01
(0.3S0.08
BAT- 5
PSES-6
1149
541
541
0.25
O.J5
HSPS-&
PSNS-S
12,491
1512
2788
0.69
1.27
SAT-5
SSPS-&
PSES-6
PSNS-6
70
5-9
(1016
20
(0.1)0.015
(0.5)0.05
(15)10
O.Oi
0.02
o.oa
0,01
O.OI
0,01
0,01
O.Oi
0.04
0.05
0,01
0.15
0.02
(1)0.03
(0. 25)0.08
O.OS
0.0)
(0,3)0.02
BAT-6
PSES-7
4408
900
900
0.41
0.41
NSPS-)
PSNS-?
13,950
1672
3148
0.85
1.44
BAI-6
NSPS-J
PSSS-J
PSNS-J
0
_
-
_
-
.
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
^
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
All c0ncnn.traiiem3 are it* sag/ 1 y«l«s& otherwise noieci.
Cost for the BAT-1 through BAT-6 an4 PSES-2 through FSES™? ara
Valves in ^areritheses re^re
over the 8PT/PSES~i cosis-
the
s for the various levels of
valutas 6-r fredieled average
i ions MBed to deve lop the t injitaii&RS/
. All ath«r values re^resefti ioag iarm
ee level s,
Toxic
siiarst, found in all raw waste sample 3 .
(!) yasEewsl^rs f?om iro-nm^king operations ar® disposed o( by evaporation ocs slag.
(2) Cffidiis for recovery af i rorffl^kisig w&stew&tet s Iu4g€3 are inc Iu4sd .
406
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Amnonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Fluoride
Phenols (4AAP)
Residual Chlorine
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Amnonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Fluoride
Phenols (AAAP)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(3)
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
RAW
WASTE
825.6
25,147.2
15,088.3
18,860.4
3,772.1
-
2,388,979
33,382.8
201.2
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
38.4
1,169.6
701.8
877.2
175.4
111,115.3
1,552.7
9.4
-
BPT BAT-1
29.2 0
2,672.8
178.2
2,004.6
102.5
-
.8 1,871.0
77.1
7.1
434.74 7.28
55.27W 1.02
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1 PSES-2
1.5 0
137.1
9.1
102.8
5.3
95.9
4.0
0.4
12.92 0.23
2.13(A) 0.033
BAT-2
16.4
1,621.5
99.8
997.8
57.4
-
249.5
18.1
4.0
11.28
1.49
PSES-3
0.8
83.2
5.1
51.2
2.9
12.8
0.9
0.2
0.39
0.052
BAT-3
16.4
1,621.5
99.8
498.9
57.4
-
548.8
11.4
4.0
14.80
2.26
PSES-4
0.8
83.2
5.1
25.6
2.9
28.1
0.6
0.2
0.45
0.064
BAT-4
16.4
149.7
0.7
498.9
0.4
1.2
548.8
11.4
4.0
30.84
9.04
PSES-5
0.6
7.7
0.04
25.6
0.02
28.1
0.6
0.2
0.95
0.30
BAT-5
16.4
149.7
0.7
498.9
0.4
1.2
249.5
9.7
1.2
123.09
21.03
PSES-6
0.8
7.7
0.04
25.6
0.02
12.8
0.5
0.06
4.15
0.71
BAT-6
0
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
171.64
35.06
PSES-7
0
_
-
_
-
-
-
5.97
1.22
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations
are included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no wastewater
discharge, they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent
waste loads.
(2) Individual phenolic compounds (e.g., 2,4-dinitrophenol, pentachlorophenol)
are not included in total organics.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
(4) A credit for recovery of sludges in sinter plants has been applied for those
ironmaking operations which have sintering operations on-site or available
for use.
407
-------
-------
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE-SEMI-WET
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
MODEL PLANT-5300 TPD
BPT/BAT/BCT/PSES
Recycle 100 7.
o
vD
Row
Wastewdters-
Solids-
-Polymer
I I I i i 11 I I l I I I I I I I l I I
DRAGOUT TANK
-------
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE-WET-SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
MODEL PLANT-7400 TPD
BPT/PSES-I/PSNS-I
I pH Control1"
95%
Recycle •
Raw
Wostewoters
(1000 gal/ton)
Polymer
i.
BAT-I/NSPS-I/PSES-2/PSNS-2
Backwash*
50gal/ton -
Solids
pH Control "/Acid
1"
•50 gal/ton
BAT-2/NSPS-2/PSES-3/PSNS-3
^—Lime
•pH Control "/Acid1"
•50 gal/ton
INCLINED
PLATE
SEPARATOR
BAT-3/NSPS-3/PSES-4/PSNS-4
-M EVAPORATION
100% Recycle to Process
Centrifuge
(I) pH Control with acid is a BPT step which is
transferred for incorporation with BAT
treatment. The cost of this step is not included
with the BAT costs, nor is it included in the
PSES/PSNS models.
-------
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE-WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
MODEL PLANT-9100 TPD
BPT/PSES-I/PSNS-I
pH Control1
Raw .
(IIOOgal/ton)
1
i
i
. r|l 1 *
THICKFNFR
HOgal/ton
\ >
VACUUM
FILTER
Solids
BAT-I/NSPS-I/PSES-2/PSNS-2
Backwash < i
BAT-2/NSPS-2/PSES-3/PSNS-3
. Lime 1 pH Contro) "/Acidl"
1 1
^//////////// INCLINED
'//////////// PLATE
//////// / / // QC DADATOD
^^ J OC. rMnM | \Jn
To f
Vacuum 1
Filter-^ •
BAT-3/NSPS-3/PSES-4/ PSNS'4
^ » Centrifuge
(I) pH Control with acid is a BPT step which is
transferred for incorporation with BAT treatment.
The cost of this step is not included with the
BAT costs, nor is it included in the PSES/PSES models.
-------
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE-WET
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
MODEL PLANT-6700 TPD
BPT/PSES-I
F
Row x
(1700 gal/ton)
(1) pH control i!
PSES/PSNS
. , 1 I
/
THICKENER MOgal/ton^
,-,
I
M VACUUM
FILTER
Solids
> not included in the
models.
BAT-l/PSES-2
Backwash ^ i
|
BAT-2/PSES-3
• Lime 1 PH Control »/Acid(l)
1 I
'///////////\ INCLINED
'///////////A PLATE
r / / t'lf//ff/\ erpABATrtD
^^ ^j o c. r ** n M i \j n
To ||
Vacuum 1
Filter ^ '
BAT-3/PSES-4
1 ' » Centrifuge
-------
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE-SEMI-WET
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
MODEL SIZE-3IOO TPD
BPT/BAT/BCT/PSES
Recycle IOO%
Sol ids-
Raw Waslewater"
-Polymer
11 tun I 1 11 i n I 11 11 I
DRAGOUT TANK
-------
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE-WET
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
MODEL PLANT-1800 TPD
BAT/PSES-I/PSNS-I
Raw
Watsewater
Recycle 95%
Solids
(I) pH control is not included in the
PSES/PSNS models.
BAT - 1 /NSPS - 1 / PSES - 2 /PSNS - 2
^•110 gal./ton
BAT -2/NSPS-2/PSES-3/PSNS-3
pH Control
w/Acid<"
I
-^•110 gal/ton
PLATE
SEPARATOR
BAT-3/NSPS-3/PSES -4/PSNS - 4
100% Recycle
To Process
Centrifuge
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
:
Sleelmaking
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Semi-Wei
MODEL SIZE (TPD); 5300
OPER. DAYS/YEAR s 365
TURKS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 1.9 MOT
8 Direct Dischargers 15.3 MOD
0 Indirect Discharger 0.0 MGD
1 Zero Discharger 0.0 HOD
9 Active Plants 15.3 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
BPT/BCT
BAT/PSES
590
100
0,052
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SO)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
123 Mercury
128 Zinc*
RAH
WASTE
360
10-12
10
375
0.04
1.2
0.002
1
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted,
: NSPS and PSNS are reserved.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
415
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Steelmaking
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Wet-Suppressed Combustion
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 7400
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 7.4 MGD
5 Direct Dischargers 37.0 MGD
1 Indirect Discharger 7.4 MGD
6 Active Plants 44.4 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annua1
$/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
126 Silver
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
1000
7-12
15
720
0.06
0.6
0.15
8
0.3
0.02
6.8
BPT
PSES-1
3170
846
0.31
PSNS-1
3122
836
0.31
BPT
PSES-1
PSNS-1
50
6-9
15
BAT-1
PSES-2
247
33.0
0.012
NSPS-1
PSNS-2
3417
879
0.33
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-2
50
6-9
15
(50)36 (15)10
0.01
0.1
0.15
0.5 (0.
0.3
0.02
0.7 (0.
0.01
0.1
0.1
BAT-2
PSES-3
308
42.9
0.016
NSPS-2
PSNS-3
3478
889
0.33
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-3
50
6-9
15
(25)22
0.01
0.05
0.05
BAT-3
PSES-4
4082
817
0.30
NSPS-3
PSNS-4
7204
1653
0.61
BAT-3
NSPS-3
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
-
-
-
_
-
-
5)0.4 (0.3)0.2
0.25
0.02
5)0.4 (0
0.15
0.02
.45)0.4
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
416
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Sleelmaking
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Wet-Open Combustion
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 9100
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 10.0 MGD
13 Direct Dischargers 130.1 MGD
1 Indirect. Discharger 10.0 MGD
14 Active Plants 140.1 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
23 Chloroform
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
126 Silver
127 Thallium
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
1,100
8-11
20
4,200
0.05
0.06
0.4
5.2
1
3.9
0.02
0.4
0.02
0.08
0.03
14
BPT
PSES-1
4,738
1,102
0.33
PSNS-1
4,617
1,076
0.32
BPT
PSES-1
PSNS-1
110
6-9
20
(50)38 (
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.1
0.15
0.5 (0.
0.001
0.3
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.7 (0.
BAT-1
PSES-2
539
74.8
0.023
NSPS-1
PSNS-2
5,277
1,177
0.36
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-2
110
6-9
20
15)10
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.1
0.1
5)0.4 (0
0.001
0.25
0.02
0.01
0.03
5)0.4 (0.
BAT- 2
PSES-3
474
69.6
0.021
NSPS-2
PSNS-3
5,212
1,172
0.35
BAT- 2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-3
110
6-9
20
(25)22
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.05
.3)0.2
0.001
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.03
45)0.4
BAT-3
PSES-4
7,549
1,774
0.53
NSPS-3
PSNS-4
12,166
2,850
0.86
BAT-3
NSPS-3
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
417
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Steelmaking
: Open Hearth
: Wet
MODEL SIZE (17D): 6700
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 11.4 MGD
It Direct Dischargers 45.6 MGD
0 Indirect Discharger 0 0 MGD
4 Active Plants 45.6 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
BPT
PSES-1
4531
957
0.39
BAT-1
PSES-2
521
70.8
0.029
BAT-2
PSES-3
452
72.1
0.029
BAT-3
PSES-4
6336
1404
0.57
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
RAW
WASTE
Flow (OPT)
pH (SU)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
BPT
PSES-1
BAT-1
PSES-2
1700 110
3-7 6-9
150 140
1700 (50)40
BAT-2
PSES-3
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
128 Zinc*
110 110
6-9 6-9
140 20
(15)10 (25)22
1.4 0.05 0.4 0.05
2.8 1.5 (0.35)0.3 (0.3)0.2
140 4.4 (5.0)4.4 (0.45)0.4
BAT-3
PSES-4
Notes: All concentrations are inmg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT and PSES-1 costs.
: NSPS and PSNS are reserved.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
418
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Steelmaking
Electric Arc Furnace
Semi-Wet
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 3100
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.5 MGD
2 Direct Dischargers 0.9 MGD
0 Indirect Discharger 0 MGD
1 Zero Discharge 0.5 MGD
3 Active Plants 1.4 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER RAW
CHARACTERISTICS WASTE
Flow (GPT) 150
pH (SU) 6-9
Fluoride 30
Total Suspended Solids 2200
120 Copper* 2.4
122 Lead* 33
128 Zinc* 120
BPT/BCT
BAT/PSES
368
79.2
0.070
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted,
: NSPS and PSNS are reserved.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
419
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUB GATE GORY:
Steelmaking
Electric Arc Furnace
Wet
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1800
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 3.8 MGD
6 Direct Dischargers 22.7 MGD
1 Indirect Discharger 3.8 MGD
7 Active Plants 26.5 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annua1
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
39 Fluoranthene
58 4-Nitrophenol
64 Pentachlorophenol
114 Antimony*
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
126 Silver*
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
2100
6-9
40
3400
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.7
1.2
3.3
4.3
1.3
23
0.05
0.06
100
BPT
PSES-1
2268
596
0.91
PSNS-1
2268
596
0.91
BPT
PSES-1
PSNS-1
110
6-9
35
(50)47
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.7
0.01
1.5
2
0.15
1.5
0.05
0.06
20
BAT-1
PSES-2
162
21.5
0.033
NSPS-1
PSNS-2
2430
617
0.94
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-2
110
6-9
35
(15)10
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.7
0.01
1.4
1.5
0.15
BAT-2
PSES-3
242
35.5
0.054
NSPS-2
PSNS-3
2510
631
0.96
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-3
110
6-9
20
(25)22
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.5
0.01
0.1
1.3
0.1
BAT-3
PSES-4
2782
512
0.78
NSPS-3
PSNS-4
5049
1107
1.69
BAT-3
NSPS-3
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1)0.95 (0.3)0.2
0.05
0.06
(20)19 (0
0.05
0.06
.45)0.4
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
420
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY RAW
(TONS/YEAR) WASTE
Flow (MOD) 252.1
BPT
18.9
BAT-1
18.9
BAT-2
18.9
BAT-3
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(1)
16,894.6
1,121,727.4
20,887.2
11.3
1,130.6
1,119.1
116.0
1.1
1,130.6
289.4
95.4
1.1
564.9
636,6
29.7
1.1
112.00
26.28
11.00
1.51
10.74
1.58
156.60
34.87
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOMS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
RAW
WASTE
21.2
PSES-1
1.6
PSE8-2
1.6
PSES-3
1.6
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
704.2
91,715.8
1,333.2
1.0
49.6
92.4
11.7
0.09
49.6
23.8
10.0
0.09
45.0
52.5
2.8
0.09
11.16
2.79
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.071
0.00
0.00
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
421
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - SEMI-WET
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY RAW
(TONS/YEAR) HASTE BPT
Flow (MGD) 15.3 0
Fluoride 232,5
Total Suspended Solids 8,717.4
Total Toxic Metals 52.1
Total Organics - -
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment - 4.31
Annual - 0.65
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this segment.
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
422
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
RAW
WASTE
37.0
BPT
1.8
BAT-1
1.8
BAT-2
1.8
BAT-3
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
845.2
40,571.7
897.6
42.3
101.4
5.0
42.3
28.2
3.6
42.3
62.0
2.5
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
15.81
4.22
1.23
0.16
1.54
0.21
20.36
4.08
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
RAW
WASTE
PSES-1
PSES-2
PSES-3
PSES-4
Flow (MGD)
7.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
169.0 8.5 8.5 8.5
8,114.3 20.3 5.6 12.4
179.5 1.0 0.7 0.5
Investment
Annual
3.06
0.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
423
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annua1
(1)
RAW
WASTE
130.1
BPT
13.0
3,963.7 396.4
832,369.1 753.1
4,976.4 37.3
9.9 1.0
58.62
13.64
BAT-1
13.0
396.4
198.2
27.4
1.0
6.69
0.93
BAT-2
13.0
396.4
436.0
19.4
1.0
5.88
0.86
BAT-3
93.59
22.00
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
RAW
WASTE
10.0
PSES-1
1.0
5.37
1.25
PSES-2
1.0
0.00
0.00
PSES-3
1.0
304.9
64,028.4
382.8
0.8
30.5
57.9
2.9
0.08
30.5
15.2
2.1
0.08
30.5
33.5
1.5
0.08
0.37
0.048
PSES-4
0.00
0.00
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
424
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
OPEN HEARTH - WET
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOMS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organies
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
HASTE
45.6
10,407.9 628.6
117,956.5 179.6
10,005.5 26.7
BAT-1
2.9
628.6
44.9
21.3
BAT-2
2.9
89.8
98,8
2.9
BAT-3
17.78
3.75
2.05
0.28
1.77
0.28
24.89
5.52
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this subdivision.
425
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - SEMI-WET
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY RAW
(TONS/YEAR) WASTE
Flow (MGD) 1.4
Fluoride 63.7
Total Suspended Solids 4,674.0
Total Toxic Metals 330.2
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment - 1.00
Annual - 0.22
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this segment.
426
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - WET
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Fluoride
Total SuspendedSolids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X1Q~6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEG01Y LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X1Q~6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
22.7
1,381.6
117,438.7
4,625.4
1.4
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
3.8
230.3
19,573.1
770.9
0.2
BPT
1.2
63.3
85.0
47.0
0.07
14.48
3.80
BAT-1
1.2
63.3
18.1
43.1
0.07
1.03
0.14
BAT-2
1.2
36.2
39.8
4.9
0.07
1.55
0.23
BAT-3
0
-
17.76
3.27
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.2
10.6
14.2
7.8
0.01
2.73
0.72
PSES-2
0.2
10.6
3.0
7.2
0.01
0.00
0.00
PSES-3
0.2
6.0
6.6
0.8
0.01
0.18
0.023
PSES-4
0
-
0.00
0.22
427
-------
428
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
MODEL PLANT-IEOOTPD
NJ
OS
BPT/NSPS-l/PSES-l/PSNS-l
Raw
Wastewaters
Solids
(UpH control is not included in the
PSES/PSNS models.
98% Recycle-
BAT-I/NSPS-2/PSES-2/PSNS-2
:n
^S gal/Ion
BftT-Z/NSPS-3 / PSES-3/PSNS- 3(l)
Lime
rpH Control
"/Acid ^
25 gal/Ion
EMEO
E
IATOR
Solids
BAT-3/NSPS-4/ PSES-4/PSNS-4
»• EVAPORATION
-*• 100% Recycle
to Procest
cnlrifuge
-------
SOTCATEGQRY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORYi
Vacuum Degassing
Carbon and Specialty
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1200
OPER. DAYS/YEAR l 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WAST! FLOWS
Model Plant
31 Direct Dischargers
0 Indirect Dischargers
2 Zero Dischargers
33 Active Plants
1.
52,
.7 HGD
,1 MGD
0.0 MGD
3.4 MGD
55.5 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
5/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Manganese
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
1400
6-9
5
60
0.5
0.3
1
0.1
6
BPf
PSES-1
1116
166
0.38
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
1116
166
0.38
BPT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
25
6-9
5
BAT-1
PSES-2
32.0
4,3
0.0098
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
1148
171
0.39
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PS1S-2
PSNS-2
25
6-9
5
(50)34 (15)10
0.5
0.1
0.7 (0.
0.1
4.5 (4.
0.5
0.1
7)0.7
0.1
BAT-2
PSES-3
124
17.3
0.039
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
1240
184
0.42
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
25
6-9
1
(25)22
0.1
0.1
(0.3)0.2
0.1
BAT-3
PSES-4
1479
201
0.46
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
2595
368
0.84
BAT-3.
NSPS-4
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
5)4.5 (0.45)0.4
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
430
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOMS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Manganese
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($xio'6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
55,4
BPT
0.9
422.2 7.1
5,066.0 48.2
667.0 8.4
27.90
4.10
0.78
0.10
BAT-2
0.9
1.4
31.2
1.3
3.03
0.42
36.00
4.90
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this subcategory.
(1) The raw «aste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in this data. However, as these plants have no wastewater discharges, they
do not contribute to BAT co»ts or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads,
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
431
-------
432
-------
MODEL PLANT - 1.400 TFO
CONTINUOUS CASTING
BPT/BAT/PSES
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT/PSES-I
3.4OO got/ton
Solids
25 gal/ton
(1) Recycle is 96 3 % ot BPT.
Recycle is increosed lo 99^3% ot BAT.
(21pH control is not included in fhe PSES model
IOO% Recycle
to Process
Centrifuge
-------
MODEL PL ANT-1,400 TPD
NSPS-I / PSNS-I
Recycle to Process
3,400 gal/ton
Solidf
"I
CONTINUOUS CASTING
NSPS/PSNS
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
(t) pH control is not included in the PSNS model
f I
k,,,,,,,,,,
VA / r r i , i , , , T j
PRESSURE
FILTER
V
r N
NSPS-2/PSNS-2
— Lime
INCLINED
PLATE
SEPARATOR
NSPS-3/PSNS-3
r
PH Control
25
gal./ton
To
Disposal
EVAPORATION
•)00%
Recjrcle
to Process
Centrifuge
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Continuous Casting
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1400
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 4.8 MGD
25 Direct Dischargers 119.0 MGD
7 Indirect Dischargers 33.3 MGD
17 Zero Dischargers 80.9 MGD
49 Active Plants 233.2 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
BPT
PSES-1
BAT-1
PSES-2
BAT-2
PSES-3
BAT-3
PSES-4
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
2304
356
0.70
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
3400 125
6-9 6-9
25 (15)10
60 (50)40
35.4
4.8
0.0094
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
3442
499
0.98
124
17.3
0.034
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
3566
516
1.01
25 25
6-9 6-9
(5**)2.0 (10)4.4
(15)9.8 (25)22
0.65 0.65 0,65 0.65
0.11 0.11 0.11 0.1
0.08 0.08 (0.1)0.08 (0.3)0.08
0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
0.7 0.7 (0.7)0.7 (0.45)0.4
1581
219
0.43
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
5023
718
1.40
BPT
PSES-1
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
BAT-3
NSPS-3
PSES-4
PSNS-3
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term
average values or predicted average performance levels.
**Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
435
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
199.9
7,611.8
18,268.2
493.2
BPT
4.4
66.6
266.5
10.8
64.39
9.38
BAT-1
0.9
2.7
13.1
2.2
0,88
0.12
BAT-2
0.9
5.9
29.3
1.7
3.05
0.42
BAT-3
39.75
5.50
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
33.3
1,268.6
3,044.7
82.2
PSES-1
1.2
18.7
74.6
3.0
PSES-2
0.2
0.7
3.7
0.6
PSES-3
0.2
1.6
8.2
0.5
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
8.90
1.33
0.14
0.02
0.77
0.09
8.54
1.18
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no wastewater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
436
-------
HOT FORMING
BPT/BCT/BAT/PS ES
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
Recycle^
BPT/PSES-I/BCT
Oil
Raw PRIMARY
PIT '
Backwash
I >
KUUUIIINU i
CLARIFIER 1 TILTER |
i
VACUUM
FILTER ^S°'idS
4
BAT-l/PSES-2
Recycled
COOLING
TOWER
BAT-2/PSES-3
Recycle -4
COOLING
*" TOWER
HOT FORMING FLOW RATES
SUBDIVISION
PRIMARY W0/Scarfer
*/Scarfer
SECTION Carbon
Specialty
FLAT Hot Strip
Carbon Plate
Specialty Plate
APPLIED PSP
FLOW (GPT) RECYCLE(%)
2300 6 1
3400 6 1
5100 58
3200 58
6400 60
3400 60
1500 60
to Process
BPT BAT
DISCHARGE BAT DISCHARGE
FLOW (GPT) RECYCLE (%)'" FLOW (GPT)
897
1326
2142
1344
2560
1360
600
35 90
35 140
38 200
38 130
36 260
36 140
36 60
PIPE 8 TUBE
5520
77
1270
19
220
-------
HOT FORMING
NSPS/PSNS
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
NSPS-2/PSNS-Z
U>
CO
100% Recycle
to Process
Centrifuge
NSPS FLOW RATES
SUBDIVISION
PRIMARY
SECTION
FLAT
*°/scarfer
"/seorfer
Carbon
Specially
Hot Strip
Carbon Plate
Specialty Plate
APPLIED
FLOW(GPT)
2300
3400
5100
3200
640O
3400
I5OO
COMBINED
RECYCLE RATE(%)
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
DISCHARGE
FLOW IGPTI
9O
140
2OO
130
26O
140
6O
PIPE 8 TUBE
S520
96
220
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Hot Forming
All Subdivisions
RAW WASTE FLOWS
227 Direct Dischargers
18 Indirect Dischargers
9 Zero Dischargers
262 Active Plants
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
3,594.6 MGD
294.5 MGD
85.2 MGD
3,974.3 MGD
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BAT-1
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-2
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
6-9 6-9
30-130 <5**)2.0
790-3300 (15)9.8
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
<0.05-12
0.3-20
<0.05-11
0.8-20
0.6-5.4
0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.011 0.011
0.007H0.10)0.007
0.006 0.006
0.049 (0,15)0,049
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations for the various levels of
treatment. All other values represent long term
average values or predicted average performance levels,
**Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
439
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/76 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Hot Forming
Primary
Carbon With Scarfers
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 7400
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant. 25.2 MGD
30 Direct. Dischargers 754.8 MGD
2 Indirect. Dischargers 50.3 MGD
32 Act-ive Plants
805.1 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annua1
$/Ton of Product-ion
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
4863
-698
-0.36
BAT-1
PSES-2
2558
392
0.20
BAT-2
PSES-3
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
10132 5568
1934 -556
1.01 -0.29
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
13141
986
0.51
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Tola! Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
BPT
RAW BCT
WASTE PSES-1
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
3400 1326 140
6-9 6-9 6-9
56 (5**)2.0 (5**)2.0
3000 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
1.3 0.001 (0.10)0.001
5.7 0.011 0.011
6.5 0.007 (0.10)0.007
5.7 0.006 0.006
3.1 0.049 (0.15)0.049
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
440
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Hot. Forming
Primary
Carbon Without Scarfers
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 3800
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant.
30 Direct. Dischargers
2 Indirect Dischargers
1 Zero Discharger
33 Active Plants
8.7 MGD
262.2 MGD
17.5 MGD
8.7 MGD
288.4 MGD
MODEL COSTS (JX10~3)
Investment
Annua1
$/Ton of Production
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
2300
-44.5
-0.04
BAT-1
PSES-2
1240
184
0.19
BAT-2
PSES-3
5187
884
0.89
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
2868
46
0.05
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
6816
746
0.76
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
BPT
RAW BCT
WASTE PSES-1
2300
6-9
85
2200
897
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
90
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
BAT- 2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
0
1.9 0.001 (0.10)0.001
11 0.011 0.011
7.5 0.007 (0.10)0.007
4.6 0.006 0.006
4.0 0.049 (0.15)0.049
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
441
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Hot Forming
Primary
Specialty With Scarfers
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1850
OPER. BAYS/YEAR : 260
TURKS/HAY ! 3
RAH KASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 6.3 MOD
5 Direct Dischargers 31.4 HGD
0 Indirect Discharger* 0.0 MOD
5 Active Plant* 31.4 MOT
MODEL COSTS C$X10'3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solid*
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
HASTE
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
1963
-68.9
-0.14
BP1
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
PSIS-2
1022
151
0.31
BAT-1
HSPS-1
PSES-2
PSHS-1
BAT- 2
PSES-3
4243
703
1.46
BAT-2
HSPS-2
PSES-3
PSHS-2
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
2610
27.8
0.06
HSPS-2
PSHS-2
5832
580
1.21
3400 1326 140
6-9 6-9 6-9
56 (5**)2.0 (5**>2.Q
3000 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
12 0.001 (0.10)0.001
20 0.001 0.001
2.8 0.007 (0.10)0.007
12 0.006 0.006
4.1 0.049 (0.15)0,049
Note*: All concentration* are in ag/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
; Value* in parentheses represent the concentration* used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various level*
of treatment. All other value* represent long term average
value* or predicted average performance levels.
**Limit for oil and grease i* based upon 10 ng/1 (maximum only).
442
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot. Forming
t Primary
: Specially Without. Scarfers
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1200
OPER. DAYS/YEAR.: 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant. 2.8 MGD
11 Direct. Dischargers 30.4 MGD
2 Indirect. Dischargers 5.5 MGD
1 Zero Discharger 2.8 MGD
14 Active Plants 38.7 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
PSES-2
BAT-2
PSES-3
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
1361
71.5
0.23
676
95.8
0.31
2946
445
1.43
1804
134
0.43
4073
484
1.55
VASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
BPT
RAW BCT
WASTE PSES-1
2300 897
6-9 6-9
85 (5**)2.0
2200 (15)9.8
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
90
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
0
<0.05 0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.3 0.011 0.011
<0.05 0.007 (0.10)0.007
13 0.006 0.006
1.9 0.049 (0.15)0.049
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
443
-------
SUBCATEGOR^ SUHMARK DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 COLLARS
SUBCATECOEXl
Hot Forming
Section
Carbon
MODEL SIZE (tPD): 3050
OPER, 'OlCiSnSAR : 260
TURNS/BAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 15.6 MOD
48 Direct Dischargers 746.6 MOD
7 Indirect Dischargers 108.9 MGD
4 Zero Discharges 62.2 MGD
59 Active Plants 917.7 MGD
MODEL COSTS (?X10"3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
8PT
BCT
PSES-1
3985
267
0.34
BAT-1
PSES-2
1715
266
0.34
BAT-2
PSES-3
7446
1350
1.70
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
4163
327
0.41
KSPS-2
PSNS-2
9894
1411
1.78
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
HASTE
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
5100 2142
6-9 6-9
38 (5**)2.0
990 (15)9.8
BAT-1
HSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
200
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.4 0.001 (0.10)0.001
1.9 0.011 0.011
0.4 0,007 (0.10)0.007
1.3 0.006 0.006
5.4 0.049 (0.15)0.049
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 coses.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
oi treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Lirait for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (sutximus only).
444
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Hot Forming
Section
Specialty
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1200
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 3.8 MGD
17 Direct Dischargers 65.3 MGD
1 Indirect Dischargers 3.8 MGD
3 Zero Dischargers 11.5 MGD
21 Active Plants 80.6 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10'3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
1525
94.0
0.30
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
PSES-2
815
117
0.38
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
BAT- 2
PSES-3
3297
518
1.66
BAT- 2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
1891
150
0.48
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
4372
550
1.76
3200 1344 130
6-9 6-9 6-9
60 (5**)2.0 (5**)2.0
1600 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
0.8 0.001 (0.10)0.001
2.9 0.011 0.011
3.2 0.007 (0.10)0.007
6.3 0.006 0.006
1.4 0.049 (0.15)0.049
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
445
-------
SUBCATEG0RY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot Forming
: Flat
: Carbon Hot Strip and Sheet
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 7250
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY t 3
RAH HASTE FLOWS
Model Plant. 46.4 MGD
30 Direct Dischargers 1392.0 MGD
2 Indirect Dischargers 92.8 MGD
32 Active Plants 1484.8 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATfR
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
6589
270
0.14
BPT
RAM BCT
WASTE PSES-1
8AT-1
PSES-2
3941
617
0.33
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
6400 2560 260
6-9 6-9 6-9
30 (5**)2.0 (5**)2.0
790 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
1.8 0.001 (0.1030.001
0.4 0.011 0.011
0.7 0.007 (0.1050.007
0.8 0.006 0.006
1.3 0.049 (0.15)0.049
BAT-2
PSES-3
18253
3504
1.86
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
NSPS-1
PSSS-1
8314
585
0.31
NSPS-2
PSHS-2
22625
3472
1.84
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
446
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot Forming
: Flat
: Specialty Hot Strip and Sheet
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 900
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 5.6 MCD
7 Direct Discharger* 40.3 MCD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0.0 MCD
7 Active Plant* 40.3 MCD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment.
Annua1
S/Ton of Production
BPT
BCT
PSE8-1
1871
174
0.74
BAT-1
PSES-2
1000
148
0.63
BAT-2
P8ES-3
4053
666
2.85
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
2318
246
1.05
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
5371
764
3.26
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Create
Total Suspended Solid*
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
6400 2560 260
6-9 6-9 6-9
30 (5**)2.0 (5**)2.0
790 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
1.9 0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.3 0.011 0.011
<0.05 0.007 (0.10)0.007
3.4 0.006 0.006
0.6 0.049 (0.15)0.049
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
Note*: All concentration* are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are increaental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Value* in parentheses represent the concentration* used
to develop the limitations/standards for the variou* level*
of treatment. All other value* represent long term average
value* or predicted average performance level*.
**Limit for oil and grease i* bated upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
447
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot Forming
: Flat
: Specialty Plate
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1000
OPIR. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW HASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 1.5 HGD
5 Direct Dischargers 7.5 MGD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0,0 MGD
5 Active Plants 7.5 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Inves tment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
1112
53.6
0.20
BAT-1
PSES-2
642
91.5
0.35
BAT-2
PSES-3
2588
370
1.42
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
1343
90.9
0.35
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
3289
370
1.42
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SO)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Hickel
128 Zinc
BPT
RAH BCT
HASTE PSES-1
1500 600
6-9 6-9
130 (5**)2.0
3400 (15)9.8
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
60
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
BAT-2
HSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
0
-
-
-
2.9 0.001 (0.10)0.001
5.1 0.011 0.011
11 0.007 (0.10)0.007
20 0.005 0.006
1.9 0.049 (0.15)0.049
Notes: All concentrations are in tng/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Limit for oil and grease is based on 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SOBCATIGORY:
Hot Forming
Flat
Carbon Plate
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 3150
OPES. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAH WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 10.7 MGD
11 Direct Dischargers 117.8 MGD
1 Indirect Dischargers 10.7 HGD
12 Active Plants 128.5 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10'3j
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
2619
63.8
0,08
BAT-1
PSES-2
1390
210
0.26
BAT-2
PSES-3
5851
8Q2
0.98
HSPS-1
PSNS-1
3258
172
0.21
NSPS-2
PSHS-2
7720
764
0.93
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Sickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
HSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
3400 1360 140
6-9 6-9 6-9
56 (5**)2.0 (5**)2.0
1500 (15)».8 (15)9.8
1.3 0.001 (0.10)0.001
4.9 0.011 0.011
2.1 0.007 (0,10)0.007
3.9 0.006 0.006
1.8 0,049 (0,15)0.049
BAT-2
NSPS-2
FSES-3
PSNS-2
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs,
; Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 ng/1 (maximum only).
449
-------
SUBCATEGORY SlIHMAHY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot Forming
; Pipe and Tube
: Carbon
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 900
OPE*. DAYS/YEA! ! 260
TORUS /BAY : 3
RAH HASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 5.0 MOD
25 Direct Diacharger* 124.2 MCD
1 Indirect Di*chargert . 5.0 MCD
26 Active Plant* 129.2 MOD
HODEL COSTS ( $Xj(T 3j
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Plow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Create
Total Suspended Solidi
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
HASTE
WT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
HSPS-1
PSES-2
FSHS-1
5520 1270 220
6-9 6-9 6-9
56 (5**32.0 (5**)2,0
1500 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
2.9 0.001 (0.10)0.001
5.1 0.011 0.011
11 0.007 (0.10)0.007
20 0.006 0.006
1.9 0.049 (0.15)0.0*9
BAI-2
PSES-3
KSPS-1
PSNS-1
NSPS-2
PSHS-2
4664
708
3.02
Notes: All concentration* are in ng/1 unlet* otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSIS-2 and PSES-3 cotta are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 coat*.
: Valuei in parenthece* represent the concentration* uied
to develop the linitationa/Btandard* for the virioui level*
of treatment. All other value* represent long term average
value* or predicted average performance level**
**Limit for oil and greate if baaed upon 10 Bg/l (maximum only).
450
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Hot Forming
Pipe and Tube
Specialty
MODEL SIZE (TPDh 500
QPER. DAYS/YEAR ': 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW HASTE FLQHS
Model Plant 2.8 MOD
8 Direct Dischargers 22.1 MGD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0.0 MGB
8 Active Plants 22.1 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10'3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
WASTIKATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAH
HASTE
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
1264
125
0.95
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
PSES-2
642
91.5
0.70
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
BAT-2
PSES-3
2911
440
3.38
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
1544
167
1.29
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
3814
516
3.97
5520 1270 220
6-9 6-9 6-9
56 (5**)2.0 (5**)2.0
1500 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
0.2 0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.9 0.011 0.011
2.1 0.007 (0.10)0.007
1.3 0.006 0.006
1.7 0.049 (0.15)0.049
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
; BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards {or the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long tern average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Liaiit {or oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 deaxiinua only).
451
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOMS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(3)
(2)
RAW
WASTE
3,679.9
BPT/BCT BAT-1 BAT-2
1,418.5 145.2 0
174,540.2 3,077.6 314.5
5,878,201.0 15,081.0 1,540.8 -
49,460.4 113.9 11.6
460.28
-29.03
279.24
42.86
1,454.59
267.05
INDIRECT (POTO) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOMS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
U$X10"6)
'Investment
Anntia 1
(3)
RAW
WASTE
294.5
13,776.7
444,155.8
3,504.5
PSES-1
124.7
355.2
1,337.6
9.2
32.50
-1.30
PSES-2 PSES-3
11.9
25.7
125.6
0.9
23.10
3.68
108.61
19.26
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no wastewater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) Raw waste loads for zero discharge plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
452
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PRIMARY
CARBON WITH SCARPERS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SOTCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOMS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metala
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
C$X10"6)
Investment
Annua1
RAW
WASTE
754.8
45,857.4
2,456,647,6
18,261.1
BPT/BCT
294.4
638.7
3,129.8
23.6
BAT-1
31.1
67.4
330.4
2.5
BAT-2
0
-
97.23
-26.94
61.21
9,65
271.62
52.49
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAH
WASTE
50.3
3,057.2
163,776.5
1,217.4
42.6
208.7
1.6
4.36
-1.03
PSES-2
2.1
4.5
22.0
0.2
3.10
0.47
PSES-3
12.28
2.34
453
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PRIMARY
CARBON WITHOUT SCARFS8S
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGQRY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
(3)
RAW
WASTE
270.9
24,985.1
646,674.2
8,524.3
BPT/BCT BAT-1
102.3
221.9
1,087.2
8.2
44.00
-3.97
10.3
22.3
109.1
0.8
25.10
3.63
BAT-2
120.77
20.60
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
-($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(3)
RAW
WASTE
17.5
1,611.9
41,720.9
550.0
PSES-1
6.8
14.8
72.5
0.6
PSES-2
0.7
1.5
7.3
0.05
5.64
-0.29
2.82
0.42
PSES-3
14.50
2.49
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no wastewater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) Raw waste loads for zero discharge plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
454
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PRIMARY
SPECIALTY WITH SCARFERS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Toial Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
RAW
WASTE
31.5
1,910.7
102,360.3
1,736.7
BPT/BCT
12.3
26.6
130.4
1.0
BAT-1
1.3
2.8
13.8
0.1
BAT-2
0
_
-
_
6.74
-0.75
4.72
0.67
25.22
4.18
Note: There are no indirect (POTW) dischargers in this segment,
455
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PRIMARY
SPECIALTY WITHOUT SCASFERS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
(3)
RAW
WASTE
33.1
3,054.1
79,050.2
546.2
7.25
-0.15
BPT/BCT BAT-1
11.8 1,2
25.7 2.6
125.9 12.6
1.0 0.1
3.02
0.36
BAT-2
16.41
2.42
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(3)
RAW
WASTE
5.5
509.0
13,175.0
91.0
PSES-1
2,2
4.7
22.9
0.2
0.97
-0.03
PSES-2
0.2
0.5
2.3
0.02
0
0.14
PSES-3
5.44
0.67
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operation are
included in the direct discharger data. As this plant has no wastewater discharge,
it does not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) Raw waste loads for zero discharge plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
456
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - SECTION
CARBON
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
(3)
RAW
WASTE
808.9
33,346.2
868,756.9
8,247.4
108.01
1.52
BPT/BCT BAT-1
313.6 29.3
680.4 63.5
3,334.1 311.3
25.2 2.4
58.53
8.80
BAT-2
319.92
58.25
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annua1
(3)
RAW
WASTE
108.9 •
4,488.9
116,948.0
885.8
PSES-1
52.0
197.3
563.8
3.3
14.12
0.18
PSES-2
4.3
9.3
45.4
0.3
10.05
1.55
PSES-3
43.61
7.90
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no wastewater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to Che BPT and BAT effluent warte loads.
(2) Raw waste loads for zero discharge plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
457
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - SECTION
__ SPECIALTY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SDBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SOBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(2)
(3)
RAW
WASTE
76.8
4,999.2
133,312.5
1,216.5
2.7
59.5 5.8
291.5 28.2
2.2 0.2
17.44
0.14
6.26
0.87
41.54
6.56
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(tOHS/YlAR)
Flow (MGD)
RAW
WASTE
3.8
PSES-1
1.6
PSES-2
0.2
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
total foxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annua1
(3)
250.0
6,665.6
60.8
3.5
17.2
0.1
0.05
-0.01
0.3
1.7
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.39
0.06
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no wastewater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) Raw waste loads for the zero discharge plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
458
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - FLAT
HOT STRIP AND SHEET - CARBON
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
1,392.0
45,305.4
1,193,042.8
7,550.9
BPT/BCT BAT-1
556.8
56.6
1,208.1 122.7
5,919.9 601.2
44.7 4.5
125.29 86.06
-1.78 13.91
BAT-2
483.37
95.79
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
92.8
3,020.4
79,536.2
503.4
PSES-1
37.1
80.5
394.7
3.0
3.39
-0.33
PSES-2
3.8
8.2
40.1
0.3
5.09
0.80
PSES-3
23.57
4.53
459
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - FLAT
HOT STRIP AND SHEET - SPECIALTY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annua1
(1)
RAW
WASTE
40.3
1,312.3
34,557.1
271.2
BPT/BCT BAT-1
16.1
35.0
171.5
1.3
5.19
0.25
BAT-2
1.6
3.6
17.4
0.1
5.40
0.80
22.58
3.71
Note: There are no indirect (POTW) discharges in this segment.
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
460
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - FLAT
PLATE - CARBON
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment:
Annual
RAW
WASTE
117.8
7,157,5
191,718.1
1,789,4
BPT/BCT BAT-1
47.1
102.2
501.0
3.8
20.15
-0.36
4.9
10.5
51.6
0.4
11.72
1.76
BAT-2
58.97
8.03
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annua1
RAW
WASTE
10.7
650.7
17,428.9
162.7
PSES-1
4.3
9.3
45.6
0.3
2.81
0.07
PSES-2
0.4
1.0
4.7
0.04
1.49
0.22
PSES-3
6.27
0.86
461
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - FLAT
PLATE - SPECIALTY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
7.5
1,057.8
27,665.0
332.8
BPT/BCT BAT-1
3.0
6.5
31.9
0.2
3.19
0.10
0.3
0.7
3.2
0.02
2.11
0.30
BAT-2
8.28
1.18
Note: There are no indirect (POTW) dischargers in this segment.
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operation are
included in the direct discharger data. As this plant has no wastewater discharge,
it does not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PIPE AND TUBE
CARBON
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOMS/YEAR)
Flow {MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(2)
RAH
WASTE
124.2
4,716.1
122,617.6
835.4
BPT/BCT BAT-1
28.6
22.11
2.64
5.0
62.0 10.7
303.8 52.6
2.3 0,4
13,38
1.87
BAT-2
72.59
11.81
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
RAM
WASTE
5.0
PSES-1
1.1
FSES-2
0.2
PSES-3
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(2)
188.6
4,904.7
33.4
2.5
12.2
0.09
1.16
0.14
0.4
2.1
0.02
0.50
0.07
2.55
0.41
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operation are
included in the direct discharger data. As this plant has no wastewater discharge,
it does not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
463
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PIPE AND TUBE
SPECIALTY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(1)
RAW
WASTE
22.1
838.4
21,798.7
148.5
11.0
54.0
0.4
3.68
0.27
BPT/BCT BAT-1
5.1 0.9
BAT-2
1.9
9.4
0.07
1.73
0.24
13.32
2.03
Note: There are no indirect (POTW) dischargers in this segment.
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
464
-------
SALT BATH DESCALING
OXIDIZING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT/BCT/NSPS-I/PSES-I/PSNS-I
o>
l^Tvmc POLYMER
1 1 IUMEI
0 '• 0
1 ll ' ' ' ' ~^f ' '
cJo cJo
FLOW RATES (Gol./Ton)
SUBDIVISION
BATCH
Sheet, Plate 70O
Rod , Wire 420
Pipe , & Tube I, TOO
CLARIFIES
\,
i
VACUUM
CONTINUOUS 330 ^ FILTER
T
Solids
X
/
I
1 BAT-I/NSPS-2/PSES-2/PSNS-2
I
1 ^-.^
rr
!
1
1
1
BAT-2/NSPS-3/PSES-3/PSNS-3
1 H EVAPORATION [ »> IOO% Recycle
1 |o HrocBSS
1 .^
' — ^* Cflntrifufle
1
1
\
1
1
1
-------
SALT BATH DESCALING
REDUCING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
o
BPT/BCT/NSPS-i/PSES-l/PSNS-l
FLOW RATES (6q|./Ton)
Batch 325
Continuous 1,820
CLARIFIER
I
Solids
BAT-I/NSPS -2 /PSES-2/PSNS -2
Backwosh
«. FILTER
BAT-2/NSPS-3/PSES-3/PSNS-3
^•100% Recycle
to Process
^ Centrifuge
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Salt Bath Descaling
Oxidizing
Batch-Sheet/Plate
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 60
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 2
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant
5 Direct Dischargers
0 Indirect Dischargers
5 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10 3)
0.04 MGD
0.2 MGD
0 MGD
0.2 MGD
BPT/BCT BAT-1 BAT-2
NSPS-1 NSPS-2 HSPS-3
PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3
PSNS-1 PSNS-2 PSNS-3
Investment
Annua1
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Total Suspended Solids
23 Chloroform
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium*
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
364
53,9
3.46
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
50.9
6.8
0.44
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
RAW
WASTE
700 700 700
11-13 6-9 6-9
200 0.05 0.05
500 (30)23.8 (15)9.8
0.04
0.2
0.024
240
1
0.015
7
0.024
0.12
0.1
0.04
0.1
0.024
(0.4)0.28 (0.
0.04
0.015
(0.3)0.25 (0.
0.024
0.12
0.06
0.04
0.1
0.024
1)0.03
0.03
0.015
1)0.04
0.024
0.12
0.06
1984
285
18.27
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
0
Notes; All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, NSPS,PSES and PSNS costs are incremental over
BPT/NSPS-1/PSES-l/PSNS-l costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
*Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
467
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Salt Bath Descaling
Oxidizing
Batch - Rod/Wire/Bar
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 115
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY ; 2
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.05 MGD
3 Direct Dischargers 0.1 MGD
1 Indirect Dischargers 0.05 MGD
4 Active Plants 0.2 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Total Suspended Solids
23 Chloroform
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium*
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BPT/BCT BAT-1
NSPS-1 NSPS-2
PSES-1 PSES-2
PSNS-1 PSNS-2
387
57.4
1.92
54.9
7.2
0.24
BPT/BCT BAT-1
NSPS-1 NSPS-2
PSES-1 PSES-2
PSNS-1 PSNS-2
420 420 420
11-13 6-9 6-9
200 0.05 0.05
500 (30)23.8 (15)9.8
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.2 0.1 0.1
0.024 0.024 0.024
240 (0.4)0.28 (0.1)0.03
1 0.04 0.03
0.015 0.015 0.015
7 (0.3)0.25 (0.1)0.04
0.024 0.024 0.024
0.12 0.12 0.12
0.1 0.06 0.06
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
2042
298
9.97
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
0
Notes! All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS costs are incremental over
BPT/NSPS-1/PSES-1/PSNS-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to
develop the Imitations/standards for the various levels of
treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
468
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Sail Bath Descaling
Oxidizing
Batch - Pipe and Tube
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 35
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 2
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.06 MGD
2 Direct Dischargers 0.1 MGD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0 MGD
2 Active Plants 0.1 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Total Suspended Solids
23 Chloroform
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium*
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
435
64.3
7.07
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
62.5
8.2
0.90
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
1700 1700 1700
11-13 6-9 6-9
200 0.05 0.05
500 (30)23.8 (15)9.8
0.04
0.2
0.024
240 (0.
1
0.015
7 (0.
0.024
0.12
0.1
0.04
0.1
0.024
4)0.28 (0.
0.04
0.015
3)0.25 (0.
0.024
0.12
0.06
0.04
0.1
0.024
1)0.03
0.03
0.015
1)0.04
0.024
0.12
0.06
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
2278
337
37.03
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS costs are incremental over
BPT/NSPS-1/PSES-l/PSNS-l costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to
develop the limitations/standards for the various levels of
treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
469
-------
SUBGATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Salt Bath Descaling
Oxidizing
Continuous
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 140
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 2
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.05 MGD
7 Direct Dischargers 0.3 MGD
1 Indirect Dischargers 0.05 MGD
8 Active Plants 0.4 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Total Suspended Solids
23 Chloroform
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium*
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
375
55.7
1.53
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
53.6
7.0
0.19
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
BAT- 2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
2042
296
8.13
BAT- 2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
330 330 330
11-13 6-9 6-9
200 0.05 0.05
500 (30)23.8 (15)9.8
0.04
0.2
0.024
240 (0
1
0.015
7 (0
0.024
0.12
0.1
0.04
0.1
0.024
.4)0.28 (0.
0.04
0.015
.3)0.25 (0.
0.024
0.12
0.06
0.04
0.1
0.024
1)0.03
0.03
0.015
1)0.04
0.024
0.12
0.06
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES, PSNS and NSPS costs are incremental over
BPT/PSES-1/PSNS-l/NSPS-l costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to
develop the limitations/standards for the various levels of
treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
470
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Salt Bath Descaling
Reducing
Batch
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 130
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.04 MGD
4 Direct Dischargers 0.2 MGD
1 Indirect Dischargers 0.04 MGD
5 Active Plants 0.2 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annua1
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Iron (Dissolved)
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
121 Cyanide
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
125 Selenium*
126 Silver
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
325
11-12
0.26
12.4
420
0.48
0.042
5.6
0.4
0.038
0.45
3
0.018
0.06
0.092
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
291
41.5
1.23
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
325
6-9
0.05
1
(30)23.8 (
0.1
0.042
(0.4)0.28 (0
0.04
(0.25)0.038 (0.
0.1
(0.3)0.25 (0
0.018
0.06
0.06
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
39.6
5.2
0.15
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
325
6-9
0.05
0.5
15)9.8
0.1
0.042
.1)0.03
0.03
25)0.038
0.06
.1)0.04
0.018
0.06
0.06
BAT- 2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
1582
215
6.36
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
0
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES,PSNS and NSPS costs are incremental over
BPT/PSES-1/PSNS-l/NSPS-l costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to
develop the limitations/standards for the various levels of
treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
471
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Salt Bath Descaling
Reducing
Continuous
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 20
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.04 MGD
2 Direct Dischargers 0.08 MGD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0 MGD
2 Active Plants 0.08 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annua1
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Iron (Dissolved)
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
121 Cyanide
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
125 Selenium*
126 Silver
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
1820
11-12
0.26
12.4
420
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
354
48.8
9.38
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
1820
6-9
0.05
1
(30)23.8
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
36.2
4.9
0.94
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
1820
6-9
0.05
0.5
(15)9.8
BAT- 2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
1582
212
40.77
BAT- 2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
0
-
-
-
-
0.48 0.1 0.1
0.042 0.042 0.042
5.6 (0.4)0.28 '(0.1)0.03
0.4 0.04 0.03
0.038 (0.25)0.038 (0.25)0.038
0.45 0.1 0.06
3 (0.3)0.25 (0.1)0.04
0.018 0.018 0.018
0.06
0.92
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS costs are incremental over
BPT/NSPS-1/PSES-l/PSNS-l costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to
develop the limitations/standards for various levels of
treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
47:
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SALT BATH DESCALING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Total Suspended Solids
Total Cyanide
Total ToKic Metals
Total Organics
(2)
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($xio~6)
Investment
Annua 1
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Total Suspended Solids
Total Cyanide
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
1.0
3.3
429.2
(1)
161.2
(1)
_
—
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.1
0.6
70.6
(1)
30.0
(1)
_
BPT/BCT
1.0
0.3
21.4
(1)
0.8
(1)
4,92
0.73
BAT-1 BAT-2
1.0 0
0.1
8.9
(1)
0.4
(1)
0.92 35.23
0.11 5.05
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.1
(1)
3.5
(1)
0.1
(1)
1.19
0.18
PSES-2 PSES-3
0.1 0
(1)
1.4
(1)
(1)
(1)
0.26 9.52
0.04 1.37
(1) Load is less than 0.05 tons/year,
(2) Cost Suitmary totals do not include confidential plants.
473
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SALT BATH DESCALING SUBCATEGORY - OXIDIZING
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(2)
RAW
WASTE
0.8
319.0
158.5
(1)
15.2
0.6
(1)
4.11
0.61
BPT/BCT BAT-1
0.8 0.8
6.3
0.3
(1)
0.72
0.09
BAT-2
27.07
3.95
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
0.1
51.3
25.5
(1)
PSES-1
0.1
2.4
0.1
(1)
1.08
0.16
PSES-2
0.1
1.0
(1)
(1)
0.24
0.04
PSES-3
8.90
1.29
(1) Load is less than 0.05 tons/year.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
474
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SALT BATH DESCALING SUBCATEGORY - REDUCING
DIEECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Total Suspended Solids
Total Cyanide
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6>
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
0.2
3.3
110.2
(1)
2.7
0.3
6.2
(1)
0.2
0,81
0.12
BPT/BCT BAT-1
0.2 0.2
0.1
2.6
(1)
0.1
0.20
0.02
BAT-2
8.16
1.10
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Total Suspended Solids
Total Cyanide
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY -COST SUMMARY
(?X10"6)
Inves tment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
0.04
0.6
19.3
(1)
0.5
PSES-1
0.04
(1)
1.1
(1)
(1)
0.11
0.02
PSES-2
0.04
(1)
0.4
(1)
(1)
0.02
0.002
PSES-3
0.62
0.08
(1) Load is less than 0.05 tons/year.
475
-------
-------
ACID PICKLING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT/BCT7PSES-I
-15 gpm
Acid lo
Reuse
FUME
SCRUBBER
BLOWDOWN
PICKLE
RINSE
WATER
SPENT PICKLE
LIQUOR
EQUALIZATION
TANK
t (1)
ACID
REGENERATION
UMTISI
.T
i
f
i
>
ABSORBER
VENT „,
SCRUBBER
1
EQUALIZATION
TANK
100 gpm
«
1 LIME I
POLYMER
_"t?l_ ^
Jt | l^CLAR!
L«, \
- VACUUM — 1
"~ FILTER ^
Usonas
Discharge
BAT-I/NSPS-I/PSES-Z/PSNS-I
Acid to
Reuse
ACID
REGENERATI
UNIT IS 1
(I) Hydrochloric Acid
Regeneration Systems
Only at BPT.BAT.BCT and
PSES.
(21 Reduces Rinse Flouts
by 90%
« "Replaces Spent Pickle Liquor
Allowance for Hydrochloric
Acid Regeneration System.
BPT/BCT/PSES-I RINSEWATER FLOW RATES (qol/lon)
SULFURIC HYDROCHLORIC COMBINATION
260 480 490
TO — 210
480 I,OK) T5O
160 2TO 1,480
_ _ 440
2O tO 2O
ROD/WIRE/COIL
BAR/BILLET/BLOOM
PIPE/TUBE/OTHER
STRIP/SHEET/PLATE IConf.J
STRIP/SHEET/PLATE (Botch)
SPENT PfCKLE LIQUOR
To Discharge
To Discharge
100% Recycle
To Process
Centrifuge
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGOtY: Sulfuric Acid Pickling
: Slrip/Sheet/Plate
! Neutralization and Acid Recovery
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1660
OPER, DAYS/YEAR : 320
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant
23 Direct Dischargers
4 Indirect Dischargers
1 Plant Hauling All Hastes
2 Acid Recovery Plants
30 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Neutralization
Acid Recovery
Annua 1
Neutral ization
Acid Recovery
$/Ton of Production
Neutralization
Acid Recovery
Inve s tment
Annua 1
$/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pB (SO)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromiua*
1 20 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
126 Silver
128 Zinc*
Fume
0.3 MGB Model
6.9 MGD 14
1.2 MGD 2
0.3 MGD 0
0.6 MGD 0
9.0 MGD 16
RAW HASTE
Conc Rinse FS
20 160 135
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY: Sulfuric Acid Pickling
: Rod/Wire/Coil
: Neutralisation and Acid Recovery
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 370
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Fume Scrubber* (Additional Flow)
Total Flow
Model Plant 0.10 MGD
16 Direct Dischargers 1.7 MGD
18 Indirect Diichargers 1.9 MGD
2 Plants Hauling All Wastes 0.2 MGD
5 Acid Recovery Plants 0.5 MCD
41 Active Plants 4.3 MCD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Neutralisation
Acid Recovery
Annua1
Neutralisation
Acid Recovery
$/Ton of Production
Neutralisation
Acid Recovery
Model Plant 0.19 MGD
2 Direct Dischargers 0.4 MGD 2.1 MGD
2 Indirect Dischargers 0.4 MGD 2.3 MGD
0 Plants Hauling All Wastes 0 MCD 0.2 MGD
0 Acid Recovery Plants 0 MCD 0.5 MGD
4 Active Plants 0.8 MCD 5.1 MGD
BPT/BCT BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3
PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4
1026 133 173 1715
1092 -
325 16.8 22.1 239
170 - - -
3.38 0.17 0.23 2.48
1.77 ...
Inves tment
Annua 1
S/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
RAW
WASTE
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
1033 1073 2615
324 329 546
3.37 3.42 5.68
BPT/BCT(2) BAT-1 /PSES-2 BAT-2/PSES-3 BAT-3/PSES-4
PSES-1 NSPS-l/PSNS-1 NSPS-2/PSNS-2 NSPS-3/PSNS-3
Ml ( 1 1 Conc & ( 1 1 Conc & ( I
115
118
119
120
122
124
126
128
Flow (OPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Arsenic*
Cadmium
Chromium*
Copper*
Lead*
Nickel*
Silver
Zinc*
Conc
20
Conc & m
Rinse FS
50 15
6-9
0.5
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.1
0.02
0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
0.04
0.02
(0.1)0.06
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
Notes: All concentrations are in ng/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop the limita-
tions/standards for the various levels of treatment. All other values represent
long term average value* or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
** Limit for oil and grease based upon mg/1 (maximum only).
Concentration is less than 0.01 mg/1.
(1) Flow in gallon per minute (GPM).
(2) Zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants can be achieved with acid recovery systems.
479
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY; Sulfuric Acid Pickling
: Bar/Billel/Bloon
: Neutralization and Acid Recovery
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant 0.06 MGD
15 Direct Dischargers 1,0 MGD
3 Indirect Dischargers 0.2 MGD
4 Plants Hauling All Hastes 0.3 MGD
0 Acid Recovery Plants 0 MGD
22 Active Plants 1.5 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($XIO~3)
Investment
Neuiral izalion
Acid Recovery
Anitua 1
Neutralization
Acid Recovery
S/Ton of Production
Neutral ization
Acid Recovery
Investment
Annaul
$/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Cone
Flow (GPT) 20
pH (SU)
Rinse FS
30 15
6-9
1
(10)4.4
(30)23.8
0.1
0.02
0.04
0.04
(0,15)0.1
0.15
0.03
(0.1)0,06
Total
1.2
0.2
0.3
0
1.7
BAT-2
PSES-3
305
-
38.5
-
0.20
-
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
1339
434
2.32
BAT-2/PSES-3
NSPS-2/PSNS-2
Conc S. (1)
Rinse FS
30 15
6-9
0.5
(5**) 2
(15)9.8
0.1
0.02
0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
0.04
0.03
(0,1)0.06
720
260
3
Flow
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
BAT-3
PSES-4
1894
-
268
-
1.43
-
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
2927
663
3.54
BAT-3/PSES-4
NSPS-3 /PSNS-3
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
; BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-3 and PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop Lhe linila-
tions/standards for Lhe various levels of treatment. All other values represent
long term average values or predicted average performance levels,
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples,
** Limit for oil and grease based upon 10 fflg/1 (raaxitsuts only).
Concentration is less than 0.01 mg/1.
(1) Flow in gallon per minute (GPM).
(2) Zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants can be achieved with acid recovery systems.
480
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SCBCATEGORY: Sulfuric Acid Pickling
: Pipe/Tube/Other
! Neutralization and Acid Recovery
MODEL SIZE (TM»! 220
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW HASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant 0
17 Direct Discharger*
9 Indirect Diichargeri
4 Plants Hauling All Wastes
1 Acid Recovery Plant
31 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10 )
Investment
Neutralization
Acid Recovery
Annua 1
Neutralization
Acid Recovery
S/Ton of Production
Neutralization
Acid Recovery
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTE HATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
1 20 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
126 Silver
128 Zinc*
Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flox)
.11 MGD Model Plant 0.19 MGD
1.9 MGD 3 Direct Dischargers 0.6 MGD
1.0 MGD 1 Indirect Discharger 0.2 MGD
0.4 MGD 0 Plants Hauling All Hastes 0 MGD
0.1 MGD 0 Acid Recovery Plants 0 MGD
3.4 MGD 6 Active Plants O.B MGD
BPT/BCT BAT-1
PSES-1 PSES-2
971 79.2
873
286 10.0
131
5.00 0,17
2.29
PSNS-1
NSPS-1
918
278
4.86
BPT/BCT(2) BAT-1 /PSES-2
RAW WASTE PSES-1 NSPS-l/PSNS-1
(11 (1) Conc S (1) C°nC & (1)
Cone Rinse FS l "Total ' Rinse FS vl' Rinse FS K1J
20 480 135 211 500 15 70 15
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
s Strip/Sheet/Plate
: Neutralization and Acid Regeneration
MODEL SIZE (TPB)s 4020
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 320
TURKS/BAY ! 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant 1.13 MGD
21 Direct Dischargers 23.6 MGD
3 Indirect Dischargers 3,4 MGD
4 Acid Regeneration Plants 4,5 MGD
28 Active Plants 31.5 MGD
Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flov)
Model Plant 0,19 MSB
20 Direct Discharger* 3.8 MCD
2 Indirect Dischargers 0.4 MOD
4 Acid Regeneration Plants 0.8 MOD
26 Active Plants 5.0 MGD
Total flow
27.4 MGD
3.8 MGD
5.3 MGD
36.5 MGD
MODEL COSTS (SX10~3)
Investment
Neutralization
Acid Regeneration
Annual
Neutralization
Acid Regeneration
$/Ton of Production
Neutralization
Acid Regeneration
BPT/8CT
PSES-1
2231
5057
1734
-765
1.35
-0.59
BAT-1
PSES-2
1447
1592
181
202
0.14
0.16
BAT-2
PSES-3
1608
1770
202
225
0.16
0.17
BAT-3
PSES-4
4204
4645
667
751
0.52
0.5S
Investment
Annual
$/Toti of Production
NSPS-1
PSHS-1
3189
1836
1.43
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
3350
1857
1.44
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
5946
2322
1.80
482
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING
STRIP/SHEET/PLATE
PAGE 2
HASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
(Neutralization)
Flow (GPT)
(Acid Regeneration)
pH (SO)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Cone
10
10
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/76 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
: Rod/Wire/Coil
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant
7 Direct Dischargers
8 Indirect Dischargers
15 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annua 1
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (OPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Notes: All concentrations are
: BAT and PSES-2 through
MODEL SIZE (TPD):
OPER. DAYS /YEAR :
TTTBMC /HAV .
90
260
i
Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flow)
0.04 MGD
0.3 MGD
0.4 MGD
0.7 MGD
RAW
Conc Rinse
10 480
73 000 1 700
3.9 12
400 45
2.2 0.2
0.21 0.25
0.22
16 0.27
16 0.63
390 0.32
12 0.52
18 37
in mg/1 unless otherwii
PSES-4 costs are increr
Model Plant
4 Direct Dischargers
3 Indirect Dischargers
7 Active Plants
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
787
190
8.08
BPT/BCT
WASTE PSES-1
( 1 ) ( 1 ) Conc S ( 1 )
FS lJJTot«ll ' Rinse FS '
135 166 490 15
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
: Pipe /Tube
: Neutralization
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant
2 Direct Dischargers
1 Indirect Discharger
3 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annua 1
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Fume
0.11 MGD Model
0.2 MGD 1
0.1 MGD 0
0.3 MGD 1
RAW WASTE
Scrubbers (Additional
Plant
Direct
Discharger
Indirect Dischargers
Active
Conc Rinse FS Total
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
10 1010 135
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Combination Acid Pickling
: Batch Strip/Sheet/Plate
MODEL
OPER.
SIZE (TPD):
DAYS /YEAR :
TURNS /DAY :
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant 0.07 MGD
9 Direct Dischargers 0.6 MGD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0 MGD
1 Plant Hauling All Wastes 0.1 MGD
10 Active Plants 0.7 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10 )
Investment
Annual
5/Ton of Production
Investment
Annua 1
5/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Conc
Flow (GPT) 20
pH (SU)
-------
SOBCATEGORY SUMHARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Combination Acid Pickling
: Continuous Strip/Sheet/Plate
MODEL
OPER.
SIZE (TPD): 600
DAYS/YEAR : 320
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant 0.90 MGD
14 Direct Dischargers 12.6 MGD
1 Indirect Discharger 0.9 MGD
15 Active Plants 13.5 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Conc
Flow (GPT) 20
pH (SU)
-------
S0BCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBGATEGORY:
Combination Acid Pickling
Rod/Wire/Coil
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 270
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAH HASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant
9 Direct Dischargers
8 Indirect Dischargers
17 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flo*)
0.14 MGD
1.2 MGD
1.1 MGD
2.3 MGD
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
Model Plant
5 Direct Dischargers
5 Indirect Dischargers
10 Active Plants
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
9?7
256
3.65
0.19 MGD
1.0 MGD
1.0 MGD
2.0 MGD
BAT-1
PSES-2
97.2
12.2
0.17
NSPS-1
PSHS-1
930
248
3.53
BAT-2
PSES-3
140
17.8
0.25
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
973
254
3.62
Total Flo*
2.2 MGD
2.1 MGD
4.3 MGD
BAT-3
PSES-4
1679
238
3.39
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
2512
474
6.75
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
RAW WASTE
1 1 1 n i
114
118
119
120
122
124
128
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Antimony*
Cadmium
Chromium*
Copper*
Lead
Nickel*
Zinc*
Cone
20
-------
SUBGATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Combination Acid Pickling
: Bar/Billet/Bloom
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant
3 Direct Dischargers
1 Indirect Discharger
1 Plant Hauling All Wastes
5 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Fume
0.01 MGD Model
0,04 MGD 1
0.01 MGD 0
0.01 MGD 0
0.06 MGD 1
RAW WASTE
Scrubbers (Additional
Plant
Direct
Discharger
Indirect Dischargers
Plants
Active
(1) '
Cone Rinse FS Total
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
20 210 135
Cone &
Rinse FS
230 15
6-9
1
15
(10)4.4
(30)23.8
0.1
0.01
(0.4)0.28
0.04
0.04
(0,3)0.25
0.06
0.2 MGD
BAT-1
PSES-2
21.6
2.8
0.18
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
672
164
10.51
BAT-1 /PSES-2
NSPS-1 /PSNS-1
, . , Cone 4 / , >
Rinse FS v
40 15
6-9
I
15
(10)4.4
(30)23.8
0.1
0.01
(0.4)0.28
0.04
0.04
(0.3)0.25
0.06
Total
0.24
0.01
0.01
0.26
BAT-2
PSES-3
53.3
7.0
0.45
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
704
168
10.77
BAT-2 /PSES-3
NSPS-2/PSNS-2
Cone & ,.•,
Rinse FS
40 15
6-9
0.5
15
(5**)2
(15)9.8
0.1
0.01
(0.1)0.03
0.03
0.04
(0.1)0.04
0.06
60
260
3
Flow
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
BAT-3
PSES-4
1500
205
13.14
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
2151
366
23.46
BAT-3/PSES-4
NSPS-3 /PSNS-3
0
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes; All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
5 BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop the limita-
tions/standards for the varioua levels of treatment. All other values represent
long term average values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples,
** Limit for oil and grease ii based upon 10 i»g/l (maximum only),
Concentration is less than 0.01 mg/1.
NA Not analyzed.
(1) Flew in gallon per minute (GPM).
439
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Combination Acid Pickling
: Pipe/Tube
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 60
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Cor.eent.rat.es
Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flow)
Total Flow
11 Direct Dischargers
8 Indirect Dischargers
1 Plant Hauling All Wastes
20 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS (SX10~3)
Investment
Annua 1
S/Ton of Production
Investment
Annua 1
S/Ton of Production
l.'ASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead
124 Nickel*
'28 Zinc*
0.5 MGD
0.4 MGD
0.05 MGD
0.95 MGD
Conc
20
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
ACID PICKLING - ALL SUBDIVISIONS
ALL PRODUCTS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW(l)(2)
WASTE
72.5
277,873.5
18,512.6
1,070.8
8,688.1
6,384.5
BPT/BCT
58.4
75.8
302.4
342.1
1,803.7
48.4
BAT-1
9.8
12.6
44.7
56.1
303.9
8.0
BAT-2
9.8
6.4
44.7
26.6
125.2
4.9
BAT-3
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(3)
150.06
54.22
64.62
7.93
76.91
9.56
362.69
55.32
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
14.2
45,495.0
5,035.1
192.4
1,554.2
1,053.9
PSES-1
10.7
13.1
45.5
58.1
314.3
8.1
PSES-2
2.1
2.5
8.5
10.8
58.7
1.4
PSES-3
2.1
1.3
8.5
4.7
24.1
0.9
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
(3)
Investment
Annua1
24.88
9.26
5.48
0.68
7.15
0.91
63.20
9.04
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Raw waste loads for the acid recovery plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
491
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
STRIP /SHEET /PLATE: NEUTRALIZATION AND ACID RECOVERY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
10.5
78,438.0
224.1
3,501.7
434.9
BPT/BCT
7.8
10.4
45.7
247.0
5.9
BAT-1
1.8
2.4
10.7
58.1
1.4
BAT-2
1.8
1.2
4.9
23.9
1.0
BAT-3
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
(3)
Investment
Annual
26.71
14.91
13.52
1.69
15.90
2.00
67.16
9.98
INDIRECT (POTH) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
RAW
WASTE
1.6
PSES-1
1.2
PSES-2
0.3
PSES-3
0.3
PSES-4
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
11,843.8
33.8
528.7
65.7
1.6
7.3
39.4
0.9
0.4
1.8
9.8
0.2
0.2
0.8
4.0
0.2
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
2.55
1.59
0.90
0.11
1.06
0.13
4.47
0.66
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Raw waste loads for the acid recovery plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
492
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
ROD/WIRE/COIL: NEUTRALIZATION AND ACID RECOVERY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOSS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
MW(1)(2)
WASTE
2.8
8,419.0
33.1
360.8
49.9
BPT/BCT
2.2
2.4
10.6
57.3
1.3
BAT-1
0.3
0.4
1.6
8.8
0.2
BAT-2
0.3
BAT-3
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(3)
17.23
4.08
2.08
0.26
2.70
0.34
26.75
3.73
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
2.2
6,845.5
26.9
293.4
40.6
PSES-1
1.9
2.1
9.1
49.3
1.1
PSES-2
0.4
0.4
1.8
9.7
0.2
PSES-3
0.4
0.2
0.8
4.0
0.1
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
(3)
Investment
Annua 1
6.87
2.21
1.19
0.15
1.55
0.20
15.56
2.17
(1) Rau waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Raw waste loads for the acid recovery plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
493
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
BAR/BILLET/BLOOM: NEUTRALIZATION AND ACID RECOVERY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGQRY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment.
Annual
(3)
RAW(1>
WASTE
1.6
6,854.1
17.6
298.8
38.6
BPT/BCT
1,0
1.1
4.8
26.2
0.6
9.88
2.93
BAT-1
0.4
9.5
0.2
3.34
0.42
BAT-2
0.4
0.2
0.8
3.9
0. 1
3.93
0.50
BAT-3
24.38
3.45
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
0.2
PSES-1
0.2
PSES-2
0.06
822.5
2.1
35.8
4.6
5.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.7
(2)
PSES-3
0.06
(2)
0.1
0.7
(2)
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
1,71
0.65
0.46
0.06
0.54
0.07
3.35
0.48
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
494
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
PIPE/TUBE/OTHER; NEUTRALIZATION AND ACID RECOVERY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOSS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SU1CATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annaa 1
(3)
SUBCATSGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
MW(1)(2)
WASTE
3.0
7,819.2
39.1
358.4
47.6
BPT/BCT
2.0
2.2
9.8
52.8
1,2
BAT-1
0.3
0.4
1.6
8.4
0.2
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
1.2
3,083.8
15.4
141.3
18.8
8.74
2.11
1.39
0.17
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
1.0
1.1
4.8
26.1
0.6
PSES-2
0.2
0.2
0.8
4.1
0.1
BAT-2
0.3
0.2
0.7
3.5
0.1
2.12
0.27
PSES-3
0.2
1.7
0.1
BAT-3
29.08
4.12
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(3)
2.05
0.60
0.29
0.04
0.44
0.06
6.04
0.86
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Raw waste loads for the acid recovery plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
495
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
STRIP/SHEET/PLATE; NEUTRALIZATION AND ACID REGENERATION
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
32.6
161,273.1
479.5
2,266.5
2,027.7
-
s
~
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
3.8
18,603.0
55.3
261.4
233.9
*•
_
-
BPT/BCT
29.1
38.8
170.8
923.9
23.3
-
52.46
19.46
BAT-1
4.5
6.0
26.6
143.7
3.6
-
39.22
4.76
BAT-2
4.5
3.0
12.1
59.2
2.6
—
43.45
5.33
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
3.4
4.6
20.1
108.7
2.7
—
1.76
1.60
PSES-2
0.5
0.7
3.1
16.7
0.4
~
1.86
0.23
PSES-3
0.5
0.4
1.4
6.9
0.3
—
2.07
0.26
BAT-3
111.88
17.63
PSES-4
5.41
0.86
496
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
ROD/WIRE/COIL: NEUTRALIZATION
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
DIRECT
RAW
WASTE
1.1
1,414.2
11.8
35.4
15.9
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
0.4
0.4
1.9
10.2
0.3
BAT-1
0.1
0.1
0.6
3.2
0.1
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
BAT-2
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.3
0.1
BAT-3
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.9
1,218.5
10.2
30.5
13.7
3.86
0.78
0.18
0.02
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.4
0.4
2.0
10.8
0.3
PSES-2
0.1
0.1
0.5
2.8
0.1
0.51
0.06
PSES-3
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.1
10.92
1.55
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
(1)
Investment
Annual
4.70
1.15
0.25
0.03
0.62
0.08
15.04
2.13
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
497
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
PIPE/TUBE; NEUTRALIZATION
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
DIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.4
545.2
4.5
13.6
6.1
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
0.2
0.3
1.2
6.4
0.2
BAT-1
0.05
(1)
0.2
1.2
(1)
BAT-2
0.05
(1)
1.0
0.5
(1)
BAT-3
Total Organies
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
(2)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organies
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.1
146.1
1.2
3.6
1.6
0.96
0.21
0.07
0.009.
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.1
0.1
0.5
2.9
0.1
PSES-2
0.01
(1)
0.1
0.3
(1)
0.13
0.02
2.80
0.38
PSES-3
0.01
(1)
(1)
0.1
(1)
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
0.03
0.006
0.001
0.0002
0.003
0.0003
0.06
0.008
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year,
(2) The cost sumnary totals do not include confidential plants.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
BATCH STRIP/SHEET/PLATE; NEUTRALIZATION
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR) '
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
RAW(1)
WASTE
1.9
1,349.3
2,819.5
20.1
74.5
226.8
BPT/BCT
0.8
0.8
12.2
3.6
19.4
0.6
BAT-1
0.2
0.2
3.4
1.0
5.4
0.2
BAT-2
0.2
0.1
3.4
0.5
2.2
0.1
BAT-3
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($xio"6r
Investment
Annual
(2)
3.21
0.74
0.42
0.05
0.68
0.09
12.16
1.66
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
Note: There are no POTW dischargers in this segment.
499
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
CONTINUOUS STRIP/SHEET/PLATE: NEUTRALIZATION
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
DIRECT
RAW
WASTE
15.1
9,089.
10,502
202.0
1,615.
3,026.
-
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
12.9
0 17.2
.9 258.0
75.7
8 409.3
4 13.2
-
BAT-1
1.7
2.3
34.2
10.0
54.3
1.8
-
BAT-2
1.7
1.1
34.2
4.6
22.4
0.7
BAT-3
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
-
—
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
1.1
657.6
759.8
14.6
116.9
219.0
17.57
6.56
3.14
0.39
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.9
1.2
18.5
5.4
29.3
0.9
PSES-2
0.1
0.2
2.5
0.7
3.9
0.1
5.36
0.68
41.09
7.02
PSES-3
0.1
0.1
2.5
0.3
1.6
(1)
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
0.35
0.12
0.04
0.005
0.07
0.008
0.50
0.09
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
SOD
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
ROD/WIRE/COIL: NEUTRALIZATION
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEG01Y LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
RAW
WASTE
2.2
1,775.2
2,878.7
24.0
117.5
421.9
BPT/BCT
1.3
1.5
21.9
6.4
34.8
1.2
BAT-1
0.3
0.3
4.5
1.3
7.2
0.2
BAT- 2
0.3
0.2
4.5
0.6
3.0
0.1
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
BAT-3
Investment
Annua 1
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
2.1
1,664.7
2,699.4
22.5
110.2
395.6
5.84
1.55
0.99
0.12
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
1.2
1.3
19.7
5.8
31.2
1.0
PSES-2
0.3
0.3
4.2
1.2
6.7
0.2
1.44
0.18
17.09
3.14
PSES-3
0.3
0.1
4.2
0.6
2.8
0.1
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
3.20
0.87
0.41
0.05
0.59
0.08
7.08
1.00
501
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
BAR/BILLET/BLOOM: NEUTRALIZATION
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
DIRECT
( 1 1
RAWU;
WASTE
0.2
181.4
460.3
2.7
6.8
17.8
-
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
0.06
0.1
1.0
0.3
1.6
0.1
-
BAT-1
0.03
(2)
0.5
0.1
0.7
(2)
-
BAT-2
0.03
(2)
0.5
0.1
0.3
(2)
BAT-3
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
(3)
Investment
Annua1
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.01
10.0
25.4
0.1
0.4
1.0
0.60
0.20
(POTW)
0.06
0.008
DISCHARGERS
PSES-1 PSES-2
0.01
(2)
0.2
0.1
0.4
(2)
0.002
(2)
(2)
(2)
0.1
(2)
0.16
0.02
4.54
0.62
PSES-3
0.002
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2) •
(2)
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
0.56
0.18
0.04
0.005
0.10
0.01
2.72
0.37
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
502
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
PIPE/TUBE: NEUTRALIZATION
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
DIRECT
RAW(1)
WASTE
1.1
715,8
1,851.
12.3
38.3
70.9
-
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
0.6
0.6
2 9.3
2.7
14.8
0.5
-
BAT-1
0.1
0.1
2.1
0.6
3.4
0.1
-
BAT-2
0.1
0.1
2.1
0.3
1.4
(2)
BAT-3
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
(3)
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
1.0
599.5
1,550.5
10.3
32.0
59.4
3.00
0.69
0.21
0.03
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.4
0.5
7.1
2.1
11.2
0.4
PSES-2
0.1
0.1
1.8
0.5
2.9
0.1
0.53
0.07
PSES-3
0.1
0.1
1.8
0.2
1.2
(2)
14.84
2.04
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(3)
1.10
0.28
0.04
0.005
0.11
0.01
2.97
0.41
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
503
-------
504
-------
COLD FORMING: COLD ROLLING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT/BCT/PSES-I/NSPS-I/PSNS-I
Ln
O
Ln
LIME
RECIRCULATION
Single Stand
Multi Stand
COMBINATION
DIRECT APPLICATION
Single Stand
Mulli Stand
BPT/BCT/PSES/BAT
(gal/ton)
5
25
300
90
400
POLY
n
OkD
AIR
NSPS/PSNS
i gal/ion)
5
10
130
25
290
Solids
BAT-I / PSES-2/NSPS-2/PSNS-2
^•CARBON TO
REGENERATION
BAT-2/PSES-3/NSPS-3/PSNS-3
BAT -3 /PSES -4/NSPS-4/PSNS 4
100% RECYCLE
TO PROCESS
CENTRIFUGE
-------
COLD FORMING
PIPE AND TUBE (WATER)
TREATMENT MODEL SUMMARY
BPT/BAT/BCT/PSES/PSNS/NSPS
IOO% Recycle
O
-2,960 gal./ton
-------
COLD FORMING
PIPE AND TUBE (SOLUBLE OIL)
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT/BAT/BCT/PSES/PSNS-I/NSPS-I
Ul
o
Oil
4.770 gal/tonJ
PSNS-2/NSPS-2
SCALE PIT
Contractor
Removal
ac Required
0.5 gal/ton
SCALE PIT
-4770 gal/ton
0.9 gal/ton -
2.0 gal/mln
(BASED ON AN
8 HR TREAT-
MENT CYCLE)
EQUALIZATION
TANK
(OIL SOLUTIONS
ACCUMULATED
FOR A ONE WEEK
PERIOD.)
REACTOR
FLOCCULATOR FLOTATOR
AIR
SETTLING
BASIN
BATCH
DISCHARGE
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Cold Forming
Cold Rolling
Recirculation
MODEL SIZE (TPD):
OPER. DAYS/YEAR :
TURNS/DAY :
SINGLE
STAND
450
348
3
MULTI
STAND
2400
348
3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Single Stand
Model Plant 0.002 MGD
13 Direct Dischargers 0.03 MGD
3 Indirect Dischargers 0.006 MGD
10 Contract Hauled 0.02 MGD
26 Active Plants 0.06 MGD
Multi Stand
Model Plant 0.06 MGD
21 Direct Dischargers 1.3 MGD
3 Indirect Dischargers 0.2'MGD
3 Contract Hauled 0.2 MGD
27 Active Plants 1.7 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
BPT/BCT BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3
PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4
Investment
Single Stand
Multi Stand
Annual
Single Stand
Multi Stand
$/Ton of Production
Single Stand
Multi Stand
208
494
29.9
55.0
0.19
0.066
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
8.0
49.5
1.3
6.7
0.008
0.008
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
184
1142
24.2
147
0.15
0.18
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
538
1946
75.0
291
0.48
0.35
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
Investment
Single Stand
Multi Stand
Annual
Single Stand
Multi Stand
$/Ton of Production
Single Stand
Multi Stand
208
361
29.9
43.6
0.19
0.052
216
390
31.2
47.5
0.20
0.057
392
1,024
54.1
129
0.35
0.15
746
1,840
105
242
0.67
0.29
50C
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
COLD FORMING-RECIRCULATION
PAGE 2
WASTEWATES
CHARACTERISTICS
1
11
13
23
39
55
60
65
72
76
77
78
80
81
84
85
86
87
114
115
118
119
120
122
124
128
Flow (GPT) Single Stand
Flow (GPT) Multi Stand
pH (SB)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Acenaphthene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Phenol
Benzo (a) Anthracene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichlorocthylene
Antimony*
Arsenic*
Cadmium*
Chromium*
Copper*
Lead*
Nickel*
Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
5 [51
25 [ID]
6-9
14700
1013
0.055
0.063
0.011
0.037
0.27
1.5 (0
0.063
0.17
0.16
0.11
0.14
0.14
3.5
0.91
0.30
0.036 (0.
0.012
0.009
0.031
0.26
0.11
2.5
7.1
2.9
3.3
3.7
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
5 [5]
25 [10]
6-9
(10)7
(30)16
0.01
0.063
0.011
0.002
0.01
.1***)0.012 (0
0.063
0.093
0.005
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
15***)0.035 (0.
0.004
0.002
0.031
0.1
0.016
(0.4)0.28
0.1
(0.15)0.1
(0.3)0.2
(0.1)0.06
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
5 [5]
25 [10],
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.01
0.063
0.011
0.002
0.01
.1***)0.012
0.025
0.093
0.005
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
15***)0.035 (0,
0.004
0.002
0.031
0.05
0.016
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT- 2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
5 [5]
25 M
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.01
0.063
0.011
0.002
0.01
(0.02)0.012
0.025
0.05
0.005
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
, 15***)0.035
0.004
0.002
0.031
0.05
0.016
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT- 3
NSPS-4
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
0
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop the
limitations/standards for various levels of treatment. All other values
represent long term average values or predicted average performance levels.
: Values in brackets represent NSPS/PSNS flows.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
*** Maximum limit only.
PSNS/NSPS flow
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Cold Forming
Cold Rolling
Combination
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 4800
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 348
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 1.4 MGD
10 Direct Dischargers 14.0 MGD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0.0 MGD
10 Active Plants 14.0 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annua1
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
39 Fluoranthene
55 Naphthalene
78 Anthracene
80 Fluorene
81 Phenanthrene
84 Pyrene
85 Tetrachlorothylene
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
300 [130]
6-9
1481
843
0.071
4 (0
0.18
0.98
5.1
0.05
0.02 (0.
0.16
0.03
0.89
0.1
0.21
0.15
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
1540
299
0.18
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
1182
202
0.12
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
300 [130
6-9
(10)7
(30)16
0.01
.1***)0.012 (0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
15***)0.02 (0.
0.1
(0.4)0.03
0.1
(0.15)0.1
(0.3)0.2
(0.1)0.06
BAT-1
PSES-2
561
77.9
0.047
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
1652
266
0.16
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
300 [l30j
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.01
.1***)0.012 (0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
15***)0.02 (0.
0.05
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT- 2
PSES-3
3988
553
0.33
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
3731
533
0.32
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
300 [130]
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.01
.1***)0.012
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
15***)0.02
0.05
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT-3
PSES-4
12298
2470
1.48
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
6920
1386
0.83
BAT-3
NSPS-4
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop
the limitations/standards for various levels of treatment. All other
values represent long term average values or predicted average performance levels.
: Values in brackets represent NSPS/PSNS flows.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
*** Maximum limit only
NSPS/PSNS flow
510
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Cold Forming
Cold Rolling
Direct Application
HODEL SIZE {TPD)s
OPER. DAYS/YEAR :
TOSNS/DAY !
SINGLE
STAND
2000 ~
348
3
MULTI
STAND
2700
348
3
RAW HASTE FLOWS
Single Stand
Model Plant 0,2 MGD
9 Direct Dischargers 1.8 MGD
0 Indirect Discharger* 0 MGD
1 Contract Haultd 0.2 MGD
10 Active Plant! 2.0 MGD
Mulli Stand
Model Plant. 1.1 MGD
10 Direct Dischargers 11.0 MGD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0.0 MGD
1 Contract Hauled 1.1 MGD
11 Active Plants 12.1 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10"3)
BPT/BCT 8AT-1
PSES-1 PSES-2
Investment
Single Stand
Multi Stand
Annua1
Single Stand
Multi Stand
S/Ton of Production
Single Stand
Multi Stand
714
1216
102
206
0.15
0.22
153
539
20.1
75.3
0.029
0.080
BAT-2
PSES-3
2057
3367
264
468
0.38
0.50
BAT-3
PSES-4
2633
7887
461
1842
0.66
1,96
Investment
Single Stand
Multi Stand
Annual
Single Stand
Multi Stand
S/fon of Production
Single Stand
Multi Stand
HSPS-1
PSNS-1
432
1111
62.4
184
0.09
0.20
HSPS-2
PSHS-2
476
1651
68.4
256
0.10
0.27
NSPS-3
PSHS-3
1456
3983
194
557
0.28
0.59
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
2014
7670
290
1548
0.42
1.65
511
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
COLD FORMING-DIRECT APPLICATION
PAGE 2
HASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
6
11
55
78
85
86
115
117
119
120
122
124
128
Flow (GPT) Single Stand
Flow (GPT) Multi Stand
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Carbon Tetrachloride
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Napthalene
Anthracene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper*
Lead
Nickel*
Zinc
RAW
WASTE
90 [25]
400 [290
6-9
1215
135
0.007
0.043
4.4 (0
0.014
0.02 (0.
0.69
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.17
0.39
0.2
0.098
BPT/BCT BAT-1
NSPS-1 NSPS-2
PSES-1 PSES-2
PSNS-1 PSNS-2
90 E
] 400 K
6-9
(10)7
(30)16
0.007
0.043
.1***)0.012
0.01
15***)0.02
0.004
0.02
0.006
(0.4)0.04
0.1
(0.15)0.1
(0.3)0.2
(0.1)0.06
25] 90 '[25]
290] 400 [290]
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.007
0.043
(0.1***)0.012 (0.
0.01
BAT-2 BAT-3
NSPS-3 NSPS-4
PSES-3 PSES-4
PSNS-3 PSNS-4
90 t
400 I
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.007
0.043
1***)0.012
0.01
25] 0
290] 0
-
-
-
_
-
-
(0.15***)0.02 (0.15***)0.02
0.004
0.02
0.006
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
0.004
0.02
0.006
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BPT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop
the proposed limitations/standards. All other values represent long
term average values or predicted average performance levels.
: Values in brackets represent NSPS/PSNS flows.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyred.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
*** Maximum limit only.
NSPS/PSNS flow
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATE50RY: Cold Forming
: Cold Worked Pipe and Tube
: Using Water
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 500
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 1.5 MGD
9 Direct Diachargers 13.3 MGD
2 Indirect Dischargers 3.0 MGD
4 Zero Dischargers 5.9 MGD
15 Active Plants 22.2 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($K10~3)
Investment
Annua1
$/Ton of Production
BPT/BCT
BAT
RSPS
PSES
PSHS
498
64.5
0,50
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
120 Copper
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
2960
6-9
65
25
0.07
0.025
0.23
BPT/BCT
BAT
HSPS
PSES
PSNS
Hole: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
513
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Cold Forming
Cold Worked Pipe and Tube
Using Oil
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 270
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAH HASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 1.3 MOD
1 Direct Discharger 1.3 MCD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0.0 MGD
15 Plants Hauling Waste
Solutions 19.3 MGD
2 Zero Dischargers 2.6 MGD
1 Other Discharger 1.3 MGD
19 Active Plants 2A.5 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (OPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
39 Fluoranthene
65 Phenol
72 Bento (a) Anthracene
78 Anthracene
80 Fluorene
84 Pyrene
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
87 Trichloroethylene
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
12A Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
A770
6-9
10Z
1000
O.OA9
0.016
0.018
0.38
O.OA
0.079
0.078
0.015
0.092
O.A2
2
0.36
0.51
5
BPT/BCT
BAT
NSPS-1
PSES •
PSNS-1
A2A
55.6
0.79
BPT/BCT
BAT
NSPS-1
PSES
PSNS-1
0
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
665
87.2
1.2A
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
0.5
6-9
2
9.8
0.01
0.016
0.005
0.1
0.01
0.005
0.05
0.015
0.092
0.03
0.03
0.06
O.OA
0.10
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: All values represent long-term average values or predicted
average performance levels.
514
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLbENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
73.3
BPT/BCT BAT-1
28.1 28.1
2,742,937.8 285.8 81.7
44,570.5 653.0 400.0
320.6 21.4 9.8
356.9 4.1 4.0
34.86 12.98
4.57 1.84
BAT-2
28.1
81.7
400.0
9.8
3.8
113.95
15.44
BAT-3
268.31
53.48
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
3.2
4,194.9
355.0
11.4
8.1
PSES-1 PSES-2
0.2
0.2
1.9
4.4
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.02
0.6
2.7
0.2
0.2
0.09
0.01
PSES-3
0.2
0.6
2.7
0.2
0.2
1.99
0.26
PSES-4
3.89
0.57
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no wastewater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
515
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
COLD ROLLING
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annua1
RAW
(2)
BPT/BCT BAT-1
28.1 28.1
86,942.3 285.8 81.7
22,502.3 653.0 400.0
93.7 21.4 9.8
336.5 4.1 4.0
27.71
3.64
12.98
1.84
BAT-2
28.1
81.7
400.0
9.8
3.8
113.95
15.44
BAT-3
268.31
53.48
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annua1
(2)
RAW
WASTE
0.2
3,986.2
274.7
5.4
2.1
PSES-1
0.2
1.9
4.4
0.3
0.2
0.06
0.008
PSES-2
0.2
0.6
2.7
0.2
0.2
0.09
0.01
PSES-3
0.2
0.6
2.7
0.2
0.2
1.99
0.26
PSES-4
3.89
0.57
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations
(contract haul) are included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have
no wastewater discharges, they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT
effluent waste loads.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
516
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
COLD WORKED PIPE AND TUBE
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(1)
RAW
WASTE
43.7
2,655,995.5
27,068.2
226.9
20.4
BPT/BCT
BAT
7.15
0.93
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxic Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
3.0
208.7
80.3
1.0
PSES
0.09
0.01
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
517
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
COLD ROLLING - RECIRCULATION, SINGLE STAND
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
RAW(2)
WASTE
0.05
1,104.6
76.1
1.5
0.6
-
BPT/BCT
0.03
0.3
0.7
(1)
(1)
1.10
0.16
BAT-1
0.03
0.1
0.4
(1)
(1)
0.10
0.02
BAT-2
0.03
0.1
0.4
(1)
(1)
2.32
0.31
BAT-3
6.80
0.95
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flov (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
0.007
144.1
9.9
0.2
0.1
PSES-1
0.007
0.1
0.2
(1)
(1)
0.03
0.005
PSES-2
0.007
(1)
0.1
(1)
(1)
0.02
0.003
PSES-3
0.007
(1)
0.1
(1)
(1)
0.42
0.06
PSES-4
0
-
1.
0.
22
17
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
(2) Raw waste loads for contract haul plants have been included in these
totals.
518
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
COLD ROLLING - RECIRCULATION, MULTI STAND
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Inve s tment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
RAW(1>
WASTE
1.4
30,736.6
2,118.1
41.6
15.7
_
—
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.2
3,842.1
264.8
5.2
2.0
_
BPT/BCT
1.3
12.8
29.3
1.7
0.7
5.83
0.40
BAT-1
1.3
3.7
17.9
0.6
0.6
0.97
0.13
BAT- 2
1.3
3.7
17.9
0.6
0.5
22.32
2.87
BAT-3
0
-
-
-
-
38.04
5.68
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.2
1.8
4.2
0.2
0.1
0.03
0.003
PSES-2
0.2
0.5
2.6
0.1
0.1
0.07
0.009
PSES-3
0.2
0.5
2.6
0.1
0.1
1.57
0.20
PSES-4
0
-
-
-
-
2.67
0.40
(1) Raw waste loads for contract haul plants have been included
in these totals.
SI')
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
COLD ROLLING - COMBINATION
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(JXIO"6)
Investment
Ann ua1
RAW
WASTE
14.4
30,966.6
17,626.5
32.2
217.5
BPT/BCT
14.4
146.4
334.5
10.2
1.6
7.57
1.29
BAT-1
14.4
41.8
204.9
4.6
1.6
5.80
0.81
BAT-2
14.4
41.8
204.9
4.6
1.6
41.25
5.72
BAT-3
127.19
25.55
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this segment.
520
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCAfEGORY
COLD ROLLING - DIRECT APPLICATION, SINGLE STAMP
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
RAW(1)
WASTE BPT/BCT
1.8 1.6
3,175.6 16.5
352.8 37.6
2.4 1.2
13.5 0.2
4.02
0.58
BAT-1
1.6
4.7
23.1
0.6
0.2
0.92
0.16
BAT-2
1.6
4.7
23.1
0.6
0.2
15.65
2.04
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this segment,
(1) Raw waste loads for contract haul plants have been included in these totals.
BAT-3
20,36
3.57
521
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
COLD ROLLING - DIRECT APPLICATION, MULTI STAND
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
DIRECT
RAW(1>
WASTE
11.9
20,958
2,328.
16.0
89.2
-
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
10.8
.9 109.8
8 250.9
8.3
1.5
9.19
1.21
BAT-1
10.8
31.4
153.7
3.9
1.5
5.19
0.72
BAT-2
10.8
31.4
153.7
3.9
1.5
32.41
4.50
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this segment.
(1) Raw waste loads for contract haul plants have been included in these totals.
BAT-3
75.92
17.73
522
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
COLD WORKED PIPE AND TUBE - USING WATER
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
RAW
WASTE
BPT/BCT
BAT
Flow (MGD)
19,2.
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxic Organics
1,356,7
521.8
6.8
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
4.06
0.53
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
RAW
WASTE
PSES
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxic Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(?X10"6)
Investment
Annual
3.0
208.7
80.3
1.0
0.09
0.01
523
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
COLD WORKED PIPE AND TUBE - USING OIL
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY RAW BPT/BCT
(TOHS/YEAR) WASTE BAT
Flow (MGD) 24.5 0
Oil and Grease 2,654,638.8
Total Suspended Solids 26,546.4
Total Toxic Metals 220.1
Total Organics 20.4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X1Q~6)
Investment - 3.09
Annual - 0.40
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this subdivision.
(1) The cost sunmary totals do not include confidential plants.
S24
-------
ALKALINE CLEANING
IPT/iCT/BAT
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT/BCT
RAW
WASTEWATER
POLYMER
n
25O gal/ton-BATCH
350 gat/lon-OONTINUOUS
Oko
Solid!
BAT-I
t
Recycle to
06
Backwash
BAT-2
I
Recyclt lo
Proctssl9O%>
•100%
Recycle
lo Process
Centrifuge
-------
NSPS
ALKALINE CLEANING
NSPS
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
tn
r\j
ox
50 gal/ton
7
ACID
n
SOLIDS
TO
DISPOSAL
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Alkaline Cleaning
Batch
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 150
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 250
TURNS/DAY : 2
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.04 MGD
22 Direct Dischargers 0.8 MGD
9 Indirect Dischargers 0.3 MGD
31 Active Plants 1.1 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
BPT/
BCT
381
49.8
1.33
BAT-1
37.6
5.0
0.13
BAT-2
840
108
2.88
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
NSPS
237
30.7
0.82
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
(1)
Flow (GPT) NSPS only
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron. .
Oil and Creaseu;
Total Suspended Solids
36 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
39 Fluoranthene
84 Pyrene
114 Antimony
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
BPT/
BCT
BAT-1
NSPS
50
250
7-11
0.38
13
10
250
6-9
0.38
(10)4.4
(30)23.8
50
25
6-9
0.38
(5**)2
(15)9.8
0.016
0.017
0.11
0.048
0.085
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.12
0.016
0.017
0.011
0.048
0.04
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.06
0.016
0.01
0.005
0.048
0.03
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
BAT-2
0.06
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT costs are incremental over BPT costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
(1) The BPT and BCT total suspended solids and oil and grease limitations for alkaline
cleaning operations are applicable when alkaline cleaning wastewaters are co-treated
with wastewaters from other steel finishing operations.
527
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Alkaline Cleaning
ConLinuous
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1500
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 250
TURNS/DAY : 2
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.5 MGD
22 Direct Dischargers 11.6 MGD
9 Indirect Dischargers 4,7 MGD
31 Active Plants 16.3 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
BPT/BCT BAT-1
832
115
0.31
367
46.1
0.12
BAT-2
2430
348
0.93
Investment
Annua1
$/Ton of Production
KSPS
553
73.8
0.20
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT) NSPS only
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron.
Oil and Greaae
(1)
Total Suspended Solids
36 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
39 fluoranthene
84 Pyrene
114 Antimony
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc*
(1)
RAM
WASTE
50
350
7-11
0.38
13
10
BPT/BCf
350
6-9
0.38
(10)4.4
(30)23.8
BAT-1
HSPS
50
35
6-9
0.38
(5**) 2
<15)9.8
0.016
0.017
0.011
0.048
0.085
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.12
0.016
0.017
0.011
0.048
0.04
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.06-
0.016
0.01
0.005
0.048
0.03
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.06
BAT-2
dotes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT costs are incremental over iPT costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
*Toxic pollutant found in all ran waste samples.
**Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
(1) The BPT and BCT total suspended solids and oil and grease limitations for alkaline
cleaning operations are applicable when alkaline cleaning wastewaters are co-treated
with wastewaters from other steel finishing operations.
521
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
ALKALINE GLEAMING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
12,4
4.9
167.8
129.1
4.8
0.9
4.9
56.8
307.2
3.4
0.9
12.26
1.68
BPT/BCT BAT-1
12.4
1.3
0.5
2.6
12.6
0.3
0.1
7.61
0.96
BAT-2
57.72
8.10
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGOSY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
(U
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
RAH
WASTE
5.5
1.9
68.7
52.8
1.9
0.3
PSES
(3)
(1) Total Organics load includes total cyanide.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include
confidential plants.
(3) General Pretreatment Regulations apply, 40 CFR Part 403.
529
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
ALKALINE CLEANING SUBCATEGORY
BATCH
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGGRY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(2)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
0.8
0.3
11.2
8.6
0.3
0.1
BPT/BCT BAT-1
0.8
0.3
3.8
20.5
0.2
0.1
1,98
0.26
0.08
(1)
0.2
0.8
(1)
(1)
0.46
0.06
10.35
1.32
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOWS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
RAW
WASTE
0.4
PSES
(4)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic MeLals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(JXIQ"6)
Investment
Annua1
0.1
4.6
3.5
0.1
(1)
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include
confidential plants.
(3) Total Organics load includes total cyanide.
(4) General Prelreatment Regulations apply, 40 CFR part 403.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
ALKALINE CLEANING SUBCATEGORY
CONTINUOUS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(2)
RAW
WASTE
11.6
BPT/BCT BAT-1
11.6 1.2
4.6
156.6
120.5
4.5
0,8
4.6
53.0
286.7
3.2
0.8
0.5
2.4
11.8
0.3
0.1
10.28
1.42
7.15
0.90
BAT-2
47.37
6.78
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
RAW
WASTE
4.7
PSES
(3)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics '
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
IJXIO"6)
Investment
Annual
1.8
64.1
49.3
1.8
0.3
(1) Total organics load includes total cyanide.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
(3) General Pretreatment Regulations apply, 40 CFR part 403.
531
-------
-------
HOT COATING / GALVANIZING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT/BCT/PSES-I/
BAT-2/ PSES-3/
NSPS-3/PSNS-3
SOLIDS
HOT COATING RINSE WATER FLOW RATES (GPT)
PRODUCT
Strip/Sheet a
Misc. Products
Wire Products
8 Fasteners
BPT/BCT/PSES-iaZ ...
BAT-I/NSPS-I/PSNS-I1"
600
2400
ALL OTHER MODELS^2'
150
600
(l)Fume scrubber flow at BPT/BCT/PSES-I/NSPS-I/PSNS-I' 100 gpm/scrubber
(2)Fume scrubber flow at all other models: 15 gpm/scrubber
533
-------
BPT/BCT/PSES-IX
NSPS-I/PSNS-I
100 gpm
HOT COATING/TERNE 8 OTHER METALS
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
HOT COATING RINSE WATER FLOW RATES (GPT)
PRODUCT
BAT/BCT/PSES-182/,,,
BAT-l/NSPS-l/PSNS-r
ALL OTHER MODELS
(2)
Strip/Sheet a
Misc. Products
Wire Products
ft Fasteners
600
2400
150
600
(I) Fume scrubber flow at BPT/BCT/PSES - I/NSPS" I/PSNS'I • 15 gpm/scrubber
(2) Fume scrubber at all other models: 15 gpm/scrubber
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot Coating - Galvanizing
Strip, Sheet and Miscellaneous Products
MODEL SIZE (TPD)
OPER. DAYS/YEAR
TURNS/DAY
800
260
3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses
Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flow)
Total Flow
Model Plant 0.5
25 Direct Dischargers 12.0
3 Indirect Dischargers 1.4
5 Zero Dischargers 0.1
33 Active Plants 13.5
_•!
MODEL COST (SX10 )
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
S/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
5/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron ,..,
Hexavalent Chromium
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium
120 Copper*
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc*
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
RAW
No Scrub
600
2-9
16
1
60
120
0.2
7
0.8
0.6
1
120
Model Plant
11 Direct Dischargers
1 Indirect Dischargers
1 Zero Dischargers
13 Active Plants
BPT/BCT
P3ES-1
739
943
120
154
0.58
0.74
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
739
943
120
154
0.58
0.74
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
WASTE . PSES-1
W/Scrub BPT/BCT
(1> 600(1)
2-8 6-9
10 1
0.6 (0.02)0.01 (0
45 (10)4.4
100 (30)23.8
0.12 0.1
4 0.04
0.5 0.04
0.4 (0.15)0.1 (0
0.8 0.15
0.3 MGD
3.2 MGD
0.3 MGD
<0.03 MGD
3.5 MGD
BAT-1
PSES-2
-
59.1
-
8.3
-
0.04
PSES-2
BAT-1
600(2)
6-9
1
.02)0.01
(10)4.4
(30)23.8
0.1
0.04
0.04
.15)0.1
0.15
80 (0.1)0.06 (0.1)0.06
15.2 MGD
1.7 MGD
0.1 MGD
17.0 MGD
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
822
951
128
152
0.61
0.73
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
150(2)
6-9
1
(0.02)0.01
(10)4.4
(30)23.8
0.1
0.04
0.04
(0.15)0.1
0.15
(0.1)0.06
BAT-2
PSES-3
408
491
51.8
63.3
0.25
0.30
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
942
1095
143
170
0.69
0.82
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
PSES-3
BAT-2
150(2)
6-9
0.5
(0.02)0.01
(5**)2
(15)9.8
0.1
0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT- 3
PSES-4
2593
2864
402
452
1.93
2.17
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
3127
3467
493
559
2.37
2.69
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
PSES-4
BAT-3
0
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop the
limitations/standards for the various levels of treatment. All other
values represent long term averages or predicted average performance levels.
: PSES-1/BPT/BCT is the selected BAT for those operations without fume scrubbers.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw wascewater samples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
(1) Additional limitations for fume scrubbers are provided, based upon 100 gpm per scrubber serving each
galvanizing line.
(2) Additional limitations for fume scrubber blowdowns are provided, based upon 15 gpm per scrubber serving
each galvanizing line.
(3) Limitations/standards apply only to plants discharging wastewaters from a chromate rinsing step.
535
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot Coating - Galvanizing
: Wire Products and Fasteners
MODEL
OPER.
SIZE (TPD):
DAYS /YEAR :
TURNS/DAY :
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses
Model Plant 0.24
15 Direct Dischargers 3.6
14 Indirect Dischargers 3.4
1 Zero Discharger 0
30 Active Plants 7.0
^
MODEL COST ($X10 )
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
$/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
$/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Hexavalent Chromium
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
115 Arsenic
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
Fume Scrubbers (Additional
Model Plant
6 Direct Dischargers
7 Indirect Dischargers
0 Zero Dischargers
13 Active Plants
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
557
724
83.9
113
3.23
4.35
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
557
724
83.9
113
3.23
4.35
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
RAW WASTE PSES-1
No Scrub
2400
3-9
10
0.2
25
80
0.25
2
0.8
2
0.5
10
W/Scrub BPT/BCT
(1) 2400
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot Coating - Terne
All Products
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 365
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses
Model Plant 0.22
4 Direct Dischargers 0.9
1 Indirect Discharger 0.2
5 Active Plants 1.1
MODEL COST ($X10~3)
tnves tment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
$ /Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Inves troent
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
S/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Tin
Total Suspended Solids
115 Arsenic
118 Cadmium*
119 Chromium*
[20 Copper
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Notes: All concentrations are
Fume Scrubbers (Additional
MOD Model Plant
MOD 3 Direct Dischargers
MGD 0 Indirect Dischargers
MGD 3 Active Plants
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
477
557
70.1
84.3
0.74
0.89
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
477
557
70. I
84.3
0.74
0.89
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
RAW HASTE PSES-1
No Scrub W/Scrub BPT/BCT
600 (1) 600° }
2-8 2-8 6-9
40 25 1
30 20 (10)4.4
3 2 0.5
75 50 (30)23.8
0.15 0.1 0.1
0.3 0.2 0.1
5 3 0.04
0.6 0.4 0.04
1.2 0.8 (0.15)0.1 (0
1 0.6 0.15
Flew)
0. 14 MGD
0.4 MGD
0 MGD
0.4 MGD
BAT-1
PSES-2
-
53,8
-
7.4
-
0.088
PSES-2
BAT-1
600(2)
6-9
1
(10)4.4
0.5
(30)23.8
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.04
.15)0.1
0.15
1.5 1 (0.1)0.06 (0.1)0.06
in rug/ I unless otherwise noted.
Total Flow
1.3 MCD
0 . 2 MGD
1.5 MGD
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
452
545
65. 1
80.5
0.69
0.85
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
1SO(2)
6-9
1
(10)4.4
0.5
(30)23.8
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.04
(0.15)0.1
0.15
(0.1)0.06
BAT-2
PSES-3
178
242
22.6
31.4
0.24
0.33
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
499
602
71.2
88.0
0.75
0.93
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
PSES-3
BAT-2
150(2)
6-9
0.5
(5**)2
0. 1
(15)9.8
0.1
0.05
0.03
0.03
(0. 1)0.06
0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT -3
PSES-4
2030
2260
286
328
3.01
3.46
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
2351
2620
335
384
3.53
4.05
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
PSES-4
BAT- 3
0
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES~4 costs are incremental over SPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrat ions used Lo develop
1itaitations/sLandards for the various levels of treatment. All other values
represent long term averages or predicted average performance levels,
: PSES-I/BPT/BCT is the selected BAT for those operations without fume scrubbers,
* Toxic pollutant found•in all raw wastewater samples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
(1} Additional limitations for futie scrubbers are provided, based on 100 gpra per scrubber serving each
coa ting 1ine.
(2) Additional limitations for fume scrubber blowdowns are provided, based upon 15 gpm per scrubber serving each
coat ipg 1ine.
337
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS T/r/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORYs Hot Coating - Other Metallic Coatings
: Strip, Sheet and Miscellaneous Products
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses
Model Plant 0.3
3 Direct Dischargers 0.9
0 Indirect Dischargers 0
1 Zero Discharger <0.01
4 Active Plants 0.9
MODEL COST (SX10~3)
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Annua 1
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
S/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
HODEL COST (SXIO"3)
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
S/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
AluminuiD
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Tin
Total Suspended Solids
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Notes: All concentrations are
Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flow)
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
No
600
2-9
30
30
60
8
400
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
2
1
5
in a
Model Plant
0 Direct Dischargers
0 Indirect Dischargers
0 Zero Dischargers
0 Active Plants
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
571
660
89.5
106
0.69
0.82
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
571
660
89.5
106
0.69
0.82
HSPS-1
PSNS-1
RAW WASTE PSES-1
Scrub W/Scrub BPT/BCf
(1) 600(1)
3-9 6-9
20 1
20 1
40 (10)4.4
5 0.5
250 (30)23.8
0.1 0.1
0.3 0.04
0.3 0.04
0.3 0.04
0.1 MGD
0 MGD
0 MGD
0 «GO
0 MGD
BAT-1
PSES-2
-
53.8
-
7.4
-
0.06
PSES-2
BAT-1
600(2)
6-9
1
1
(10)4.4
0.5
(30)23.8
0.1
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.5 (0.15)0.1 . (0.15)0.1
0.6 0.15
3 (0.1)0.06
ig/'l unless otherwise noted.
0.15
(0,1)0.06
MODEL SIZI (TPD)s 500
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS /DAY ; 2
Total Flow
0.9 MGD
0 MGD
<0.01 MGD
0.9 MGD
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
568
684
86,8
107
0.67
0.82
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
150(2>
6-9
1
1
(10)4.4
0.5
(30)23.8
0.1
0.04
0.04
0.04
(0.15)0.1
0.15
(0.1)0.06
BAT-2
PSES-3
236
339
30.1
43.6
0.23
0.34
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
624
790
94.3
120
0.73
0.92
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
PSES-3
BAT-2
150(2)
6-9
0.1
0.1
(5**)2
0.1
(15)9.8
0.1
0.03
0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT-3
PSES-4
2232
2605
323
383
2.48
2.95
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
2620
3055
387
460
2.98
3.54
NSPS-4
PSHS-4
PSES-4
BAT-3
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 coats are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop the
limitations/standards for the various levels of treatment. All other values
represent long term averages or predicted average performance levels,
! PSES-1/BPT/BCT is the selected BAT for those operations without fune scrubbers,
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw uasteuater samples analysed.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
(1) Additional limitations for tune scrubbers are provided, based upon 100 gpm per scrubber serving each
coating line.
(2) Additional limitations for fume scrubber blowdowns are provided, based upon 15 gpn per scrubber serving each
coating line.
538
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUWtARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot Coating - Other Metal 1
; Wire Products and
Fastener
ic Coatings
s
MODEL
OPER.
SIZE (TPD):
DAYS /YEAR :
TURNS /DAY :
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses
Model Plant 0.04
2 Direct Dischargers 0.07
4 Indirect Dischargers 0.14
6 Active Plants 0.21
MODEL COST (SX10~3)
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants Hith Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
S/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants Hith Scrubbers
S/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
WASTEHATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flos (GPT)
pH (SU)
Aluminum
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Tin
Total Suspended Solids
115 Arsenic
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
MGD
HCD
MGD
MOB
RAW
No Scrub
2400
3-9
20
30
30
2
250
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
1
Fume Scrubbers (Additional
Model Plant
0 Direct Dischargers
0 Indirect Dischargers
0 Active Plants
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
225
404
31.4
57.9
8.05
14.85
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
225
404
31.4
57.9
8.05
14.85
HSPS-1
PSNS-1
WASTE PSES-1
W/Scrub BPT/BCT
(1) 240Q(U
3-9 6-9
5 1
8 1
15 (10)4.4
1 0.5
75 (30)23.8
0.1 0.1
0.1 0 . 04
0.1 0.04
0.1 0.04
0.2 (0.15)0.1 (0
0.2 0.15
Flow)
0. 14 MGD
0 MGD
0 MGD
0 MGD
BAT-1
PSES-2
-
53.8
-
7.4
-
1.90
PSES-2
BAT-1
2400(2)
6-9
1
I
(10)4.4
0.5
(30)23.8
0.1
0,04
0.04
0.04
.15)0.1
0.15
0.5 (0.1)0.06 (0.1)0.06
15
260
2
Total Flow
0.07 MGD
0.14 MGD
0.21 MGD
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
161
335
22.8
48.6
5.85
12.46
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
600(2)
6-9
1
1
(10)4.4
0.5
(30)23,8
0.1
0.04
0.04
0.04
(0.15)0.1
0.15
(0.1)0.06
BAT -2
PSES-3
20.8
91.8
2.9
12.4
0.74
3.18
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
176
368
24.9
52.8
6.38
13.54
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
PSES-3
BAT- 2
600C2)
6-9
0.1
0.5
(5**) 2
0.1
(15)9.8
0.1
0.03
0.03
0.03
(0. 1)0.06
0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT-3
PSES-4
1045
1538
137
205
35.13
52.56
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
1200
1814
159
245
40,77
62.82
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
PSES-4
BAT-3
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in rag/1 unless otherwise noted.
t BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop the
limitations/standards for the various levels of treatment. All other values
represent long term averages or predicted average performance levels,
: PSES-1/BPT/BCT ia the selected BAT cor those operations without fume "scrubbers,
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw wastewater samples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
(1) Additional limitations for fume scrubbers are provided, based upon 100 gpm per scrubber serving each
coating line.
(2) Additional limitations for fume scrubber blowdowns are provided, based upon 15 gpm per scrubber serving each
coating line.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT COATING-ALL SUBDIVISIONS
ALL PRODUCTS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUB GATE GORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Aluminum
Dissolved Iron
Hexavalent Chromium
Oil and Grease
Tin
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($xio'6)(1)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Aluminum
Dissolved Iron
Hexavalent Chromium
Oil and Grease
Tin
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
22.9
31.2
321.8
13.7
1,059.9
11.1
2,657.8
1,829.3
-
_
—
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
7.5
3.1
77.5
2.3
217.1
1.0
611.5
268.8
-
BPT/BCT
22.8
1.1
24.8
0.2
108.7
1.2
588.1
12.2
—
33.68
5.07
BAT-1
18.3
1.1
19.8
0.2
87.0
1,0
471.1
9.8
~
0.87
0.12
BAT-2
5.23
(2)
2.7
0.1
11.2
0.1
54.8
1.8
~
12.8
1.64
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
7.5
0.2
8.1
0.1
35.7
0.2
192.8
4.0
-
PSES-2
5.6
0.2
6.0
0.1
26.3
0.2
' 142.3
3.0
-
PSES-3
1.6
(2)
0.9
(2)
3.6
(2)
17.4
0.6
-
BAT-3
119.8
18.7
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)(1)
Investment
Annua1
4.97
0.73
0.08
0.01
1.58
0.21
23.0
3.35
(1) The cost summary totals da not include confidential plants.
(2) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
540
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT COATING-GALVANIZING
STRIP, SHEET AND MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
HexavalenL Chromium
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
DIRECT
RAW
WASTE
15.3
210.3
12.9
857.5
1,807.
1,747.
-
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
15.2
16.5
0.2
72.4
2 391.6
2 8.1
-
BAT-1
12.5
13.5
0.1
59.5
322.1
6.6
-
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)(1)
Investment
Annua1
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Hexavalent Chromium
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
-
—
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
1.7
25.0
1.5
100,0
208.3
206.5
21.58
3.36
0.63
0.09
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
1.7
1.9
(2)
8.2
44.6
0.9
PSES-2
1.5
1.6
(2)
7.1
38.3
0.8
BAT-2
3.5
1.9
(2)
7.5
36.9
1.2
9.92
1.27
BAT-3
73.8
12.11
PSES-3
0.4
0.2
(2)
0.9
4.3
0.1
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
1.16
0.17
0.012
0.002
0.61
0.078
4.03
0.61
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
(2) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
541
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT COATING-GALVABIZIHG
WIRE PRODUCTS AND FASTENERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Hexavalent Chromium
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
DIRECT
RAH
WASTE
5.3
40.6
0.8
110.1
359.3
63.1
-
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
5.3
5.8
0.1
25.4
137.6
2.8
-
BAT-1
3.9
4.2
(2)
18.4
99.6
2.0
-
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)(1)
Investment
Annum1
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Hexavalent Chromium
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
-
—
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
5.4
38.3
0.8
105.3
346.3
59.4
7.86
1.07
0.08
0.011
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
5.4
5.8
0.1
25.7
138.8
2.9
PSES-2
3.7
4.0
(2)
17.5
94.6
2.0
BAT-2
1.2
0.6
(2)
2.5
12.3
0.4
1.42
0.19
BAT-3
28.2
4.09
PSES-3
1.1
0.6
(2)
2.5
12.1
0.4
PSIS-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10~6)(I)
Investment
Annua1
3.23
0.48
0.07
0.010
0.90
0.12
16.21
2.38
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
(2) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
542
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT COATING-TERNE
ALL PRODUCTS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Tin
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(5X10 )
Investment
Annas 1
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
fin
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($xio"6>
Investment
Annua 1
RAW
WASTE
1.3
39.0
30.8
3.1
76.9
9.5
-
_
*
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.22
9.5
7.1
0.7
17.8
2.3
"*
_
BPT/BCT
1.3
1.4
6.2
0.7
33.8
0.8
—
2.21
0.33
BAT-1
0.94
1.0
4.5
0.5
24.3
0.5
—
0.16
0.02
BAT- 2
0.28
0.2
0.6
(1)
3.0
0.1
—
0.95
0.12
BAT-3
0
-
-
-
-
_
—
9.34
1.34
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.22
0.2
1.0
0.1
5.6
0.1
""*
0.07
0.01
PSES-2
0.22
0.2
1.0
0.1
5.6
0.1
—
_
PSES-3
0.055
(1)
0.1
(1)
0.6
(1)
~
0.03
0.003
PSES-4
0
_
-
-
_
-
—.
0.29
0.04
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
543
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT COATING-OTHER METALLIC COATINGS
STRIP, SHEET AND MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Aluminum
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Tin
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
RAW
WASTE
0.9
29.6
29.6
59.2
7.9
394.9
9.3
BPT/BCT
0.9
1.0
1.0
4.3
0.5
23.2
0.5
1.72
0.27
BAT-1
0.9
1.0
1.0
4.3
0.5
23.2
0.5
BAT-2
0.23
(1)
(1)
0.5
(1)
2.4
0.1
0.50
0.06
BAT-3
6.50
0.94
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this segment. Also, since none
of the plants have fume scrubbers, the BAT-1 discharge loads are identical
with the BPT/BCT loads.
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
544
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AMD TREATMENT COSTS
HOT COATING-OTHER METALLIC COATINGS
WIRE PRODUCTS AND FASTENERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/ YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Aluminum
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Tin
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
<$X10~6)(1)
Investment
Annual
DIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.07
1.6
2.3
2.3
0.2
19.5
0.2
-
*.
"•
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
0.07
0,1
0.1
0.3
(1)
1.9
(1)
-
0.31
0.04
BAT-1
0.07
0.1
0.1
0.3
(1)
1.9
(1)
-
—
"**
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow («GD)
Aluminum
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Tin
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organica
RAW
WASTE
0.14
3.1
4,7
4.7
0.3
39.1
0.4
-
PSES-1
0.14
0.2
0,2
0.7
0.1
3.7
0.1
-
PSES-2
0.14
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.1
3.7
0.1
-
BAT-2
0.02
(1)
(1)
(1)
U)
0.2
(1)
0.04
0.005
PSES-3
0.04
(1)
(1)
0.1
(1)
0.4
(1)
BAT-3
1,93
0.25
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
0.51
0.07
0.04
0.006
2,44
0.32
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
545
-------
-------
VOLUME I
APPENDIX D
STEEL INDUSTRY WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
Acrylonitrile (3). Acrylonitrile (CHZ=CHCN) is an explosive flammable
liquid having a normal boiling point of 77°C and a vapor pressure of
80 mmHg at 20°C. It is miscible with most organic solvents. It is
manufactured by the reaction of propylene with ammonia and oxygen in
the presence of a catalyst. Annual U.S. production is eight hundred
thousand tons.
»
The major use of acrylonitrile is in the manufacture of copolymers for
the production of acrylic and modacrylic fibers. It is also used in
the plastics, surface coatings, and adhesives industries.
The acute toxicity of acrylonitrile is well known. The compound
appears to exert part of its toxic effect through the release of
inorganic cyanide. Inhalation has been reported to be the major route
of exposure in lethal cases of acrylonitrile poisoning. Toxic
"manifestations of acrylonitrile inhalation include disorders of the
central nervous system and chronic upper respiratory tract irritation.
The next most likely route of exposure is dermal. Dermatologic
conditions include contact allergic dermatitis, occupational eczema
and toxodermia. The least likely route of exposure of acrylonitrile
is through ingestion. Ingestion usually occurs through exposure to
water or aquatic life containing acrylonitrile or exposure to food
products packaged in materials which leach acrylonitrile to the food.
There is suggestive evidence that acrylonitrile is carcinogenic to
humans and animals. NIOSH 1978 states, "...acrylonitrile must be
handled in the workplace as a suspect human carcinogen." Laboratory
rats which had acrylonitrile administered to them through inhalation
and drinking water developed central nervous system tumors and zymbal
gland carcinomas not evident in the control animals. Numerous reports
have been made of the embryotoxicity, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity
of acrylonitrile in laboratory animals.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to acrylonitrile through ingestion of
water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of acrylonitrile estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risk at levels of 10~7, 1Q-* and
10~5 are 5.79 x 10-* mg/1, 5.79 x ID"5 mg/1 and 5.79 x 1O-4 mg/1,
resepctively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed
excluding the consumption of water, the water concentration should be
less than 6.52 x 1Q-3 mg/1 to keep the lifetime cancer risk below
10~s. Limited acute and chronic toxicity data for fresh water aquatic
547
-------
life show that adverse effects occur at concentrations higher than
those cited for human health risks.
Some studies have been reported regarding the behavior of
acrylonitrile in POTW. Biochemical oxidation of acrylonitrile under
laboratory conditions at concentrations of 86-162 mg/1, produced 0, 2,
and 56 percent degradation in 5, 10, and 20 days, respectively, using
unacclimated seed cultures. Degradation of 72 percent was produced in
10 days using acclimated seed cultures. Based on these data and
general conclusions relating molecular structure to biochemical
oxidation, it is expected that acrylonitrile will be biochemically
oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological
treatment in POTW. Other reports suggest that acrylonitrile entering
an activated sludge process in concentrations of 50 ppm or greater,
may inhibit certain bacterial processes such as nitrification.
Benzene j_4). Benzene (C6H6) is a clear, colorless, liquid obtained
mainly from petroleum feedstocks by several different processes. Some
is recovered from .light oil obtained from coal carbonization gases.
It boils at 80°C and has a vapor pressure of 100 mm Hg at 26°C. It is
slightly soluble in water (1.8 g/1 at 25°C) and it disolves in
hydrocarbon solvents. Annual U.S. production is three to four million
tons.
Most of the benzene used in the U.S. goes into chemical manufacture.
About half of that is converted to ethylbenzene which is used to make
styrene. Some benzene is used in motor fuels.
Benzene is harmful to human health according to numerous published
studies. Most studies relate effects of inhaled benzene vapors.
These effects include nausea, loss of muscle coordination, and
excitement, followed by depression and coma. Death is usually the
result of respiratory or cardiac failure. Two specific blood
disorders are related to benzene exposure. One of these, acute
myelogenous leukemia, represents a carcinogenic effect of benzene.
However, most human exposure data are based on exposure in
occupationed settings and benzene carcinogenisis is not considered to
be firmly established.
Oral administration of benzene to laboratory animals produced
leukopenia, a reduction in number of leukocytes in the blood.
Subcutaneous injection of benzene-oil solutions has produced
suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence of benzene carcinogenisis.
Benzene demonstrated teratogenic effects in laboratory animals, and
mutagenic effects in humans and other animals.
For maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to benzene through ingestion of water and
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is
zero. Concentrations of benzene estimated to result in additional
lifetime cancer risk at levels of 10~7, 10-*, and .10~5 are 8 x 10~5
mg/1, 8 x 10~4 mg/1, and 8 x 10~3 mg/1, respectively. If contaminated
548
-------
aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of
water, the water concentration should be less than 0.478 mg/1 to keep
the lifetime cancer risk below 10~s. Available data show that adverse
effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations higher than those
cited for human health risks.
Some studies have been reported regarding the behavior of benzene in
POTW. Biochemical oxidation of benzene under laboratory conditions,
at concentrations of 3 to 10 mg/1, produced 24, 27, 24, and 29 percent
degradation in 5, 10, 15, and 20 days, respectively, using
unacclimated seed cultures in fresh water. Degradation of 58, 67, 76,
and 80 percent was produced in the same time periods using acclimated
seed cultures. Other studies produced similar results. Based on
these data and general conclusions relating molecular structure to
biochemical oxidation, it is expected that benzene will be
biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW. Other reports indicate that most
benzene entering a POTW is removed to the sludge and that influent
concentrations of 1 g/1 inhibit sludge digestion. An EPA study of the
fate of toxic pollutants in POTW reveals removal efficiencies of 70 to
98 percent for three POTW where influent benzene levels were 5 x 1Q~3
to 143 x 10~3 mg/1. Four other POTW samples had influent benzene
concentrations of 1 or 2 x 10~3 mg/1 and removals appeared
indeterminate because of the limits of quantification for analyses.
There is no information about possible effects of benzene on crops
grown in soils amended with sludge containing benzene.
Hexachlorobenzene (9). Hexachlorobenzene (C€C1«) is a nonflammable
crystalline substance which is virtually insoluble in water. However,
it is soluble in benzene, chloroform, and ether. Hexachlorobenzene
(HCB) has a density of 2.044 g/ml. It melts at 231°C and boils at
323-326QC. Commercial production of HCB in the U.S. was discontinued
in 1976, though it is still generated as a by-product of other
chemical operations. In 1972, an estimated 2425 tons of HCB were
produced in this way.
Hexachlorobenzene is used as a fungicide to control fungal diseases in
cereal grains. The main agricultural use of HCB is on wheat seed
intended soley for planting. HCB has been used as an impurity in
other pesticides. It is used in industry as a plasticizer for
polyvinyl chloride as well as a flame retardant. HCB is also used as
a starting material for the production of pentachlorophenol which is
marketed as a wood preservative.
Hexachlorobenzene can be harmful to human health as was seen in Turkey
from 1955-1959. Wheat that had been treated with HCB in preparation
for planting was consumed as food. Those people affected by HCB
developed cutanea tarda porphyria, the symptoms of which included
blistering and epidermolysis of the exposed parts of the body,
particularly the face and the hands. These symptoms disappeared after
consumption of HCB contaminated bread was discontinued. However, the
HCB which was stored in body fat contaminated maternal milk. As a
result of this, at least 95 percent of the infants feeding on this
549
-------
milk died. The fact that HCB remains stored in body fat after
exposure has ended presents an additional problem. Weight loss may
result in a dramatic redistribution of HCB contained in fatty tissue.
If the stored levels of HCB are high, adverse effects might ensue.
Limited testing suggests that hexachlorobenzene is not teratogenic or
mutagenic. However, two animal studies have been conducted which
indicate that HCB is a carcinogen. HCB appears to have multipotential
carcinogenic activity; the incidence of hepatomas,
haemangioendotheliomas and thyroid adenomas was significantly
increased in animals exposed to HCB by comparison to control animals.
For maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to hexachlorobenzene through ingestion of water
and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is
zero. Concentrations of HCB estimated to result in additional
lifetime cancer risk at levels of 10~7, 10-*, and 10~5 are 7.2 x 10~8
mg/1, 7.2 x 10-'mg/l, and 7.2 x 10~* mg/1, respectively. If
contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the water concentration should be less than 7.4
x 10~* mg/1 keep the increased lifetime cancer risk below 10~5.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at
concentrations higher than those cited for human health risks.
No detailed study of hexachlorobenzene behavior in POTW is available.
However, general observations relating molecular structure to ease of
degradation have been developed for all of the organic toxic
pollutants. The conclusion reached by study of the limited data is
that biological treatment produces little or no degradation of
hexachlorobenzene. No evidence is available for drawing conclusions
regarding its possible toxic or inhibitory effect on POTW operations.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane(11). 1,1,1-Trichloroethane is one of the two
possible trichlorethanes. It is manufactured by hydrochlorinating
vinyl chloride to 1,1-dichloroethane which is then chlorinated to the
desired product. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane is a liquid at room
temperature with a vapor pressure of 96 mm Hg at 20°C and a boiling
point of 74°C. Its formula is CC13CH3. It is slightly soluble in
water (0.48 g/1) and is very soluble in organic solvents. U.S.
annual production is greater than one-third of a million tons.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane is used as an industrial solvent and degreasing
agent.
Most human toxicity data for 1,1,1-trichloroethane relates to
inhalation and dermal exposure routes. Limited data are available for
determining toxicity of ingested 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and those data
are all for the compound itself not solutions in water. No data are
available regarding its toxicity to fish and aquatic organisms. For
the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
1 ,1,1-trichloroethane ingested through the consumption of water and
fish, the ambient water criterion is 18.4 mg/1. If aquatic organisms
alone are consumed, the water concentration should be less than 1030
5 5 0
-------
mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects in aquatic species can
occur at 18 mg/1.
No detailed study of 1,1,1-trichloroethane behavior in POTW is
available. However, it has been demonstrated that none of the organic
priority pollutants of this type can be broken down by biological
treatment processes as readily as fatty acids, carbohydrates, or
proteins.
Biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority pollutants has
been investigated, at least in laboratory scale studies, at
concentrations higher than commonly expected in municipal wastewater.
General observations relating molecular structure to ease of
degradation have been developed for all of these pollutants. From
study of the limited data, it is expected that 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane
will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage
by biological treatment in POTW. No evidence is available for drawing
conclusions about its possible toxic or inhibitory effect on POTW
operation. However, for degradation to occur a fairly constant input
of the compound would be necessary.
Its water solubility would allow 1,1,1-trichloroethane, present in the
influent and not biodegradable, to pass through a POTW into the
effluent. One factor which has received some attention, but no
detailed study, is the volatilization of the lower molecular weight
organics from POTW. If 1,1,1-trichloroethane is not biodegraded, it
will volatilize during aeration processes in the POTW.
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol (21 ). 2, 4, 6-Trichlorophenol (CljC^H^H,
abbreviated here to 2,4,6 TCP) is a colorless crystalline solid at
room temperature. It is prepared by the direct chlorination of
phenol. 2,4,6-TCP melts at 68°C and is slightly soluble in water (0.8
gm/1 at 25°C). This phenol does not produce a color with
4-aminoantipyrene, therefore does not contribute to the
nonconventional pollutant parameter "Total Phenols." No data were
found on production volumes.
2,4,6-TCP is used as a fungicide, bactericide, glue and wood
preservative, and for antimildew treatment. It is also used for the
manufacture of 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol and pentachlorophenol.
No data were found on human toxicity effects of 2,4,6-TCP. Reports of
studies with laboratory animals indicate that 2,4,6-TCP produced
convulsions when injected interperitoneally. Body temperature was
also elevated. The compound also produced inhibition of ATP
production in isolated rat liver mitochondria, increased mutation rate
in one strain of bacteria, and produced a genetic change in rats. No
studies on teratogenicity were found.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient
water concentration should be zero. The estimated levels which would
551
-------
result in increased lifetime cancer risks of 10~7, 10~6, and 10~5 are
1.18 x 10-s mg/1, 1.18 x 10~* mg/1, and 1.18 x 10~3 mg/1,
respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed,
excluding the consumption of water, the water concentration should be
less than 3.6 x 10~3 mg/1 to keep the increased lifetime cancer risk
below 10~5. Available data show that adverse effects in aquatic
species can occur at 9.7 x 10~4 mg/1.
Although no data were found regarding the behavior of 2,4,6-TCP in
POTW, studies of the biochemical oxidation of the compound have been
made in a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than those
normally expected in municipal wastewaters. Biochemical oxidation of
2,4,6-TCP at 100 mg/1 produced 23 percent degradation using a
phenol-adapted acclimated seed culture. Based on these results, it is
expected that 2,4,6-TCP will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser
extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTW. Another
study indicates that 2,4,6-TCP may be produced in POTW by chlorination
of phenol during normal chlorination treatment.
Para-chloro-meta-cresol(22). Para-chloro-meta-cresol (C1C7H6OH) is
thought to be 4-chloro-3-methyl-phenol (4-chloro-meta-cresol, or 2
chloro-5-hydroxy-toluene), but is also used by some authorities to
refer to 6-chloro-3-methyl-phenol (6-chloro-meta-cresol, or
4-chloro-3-hydroxy-toluene), depending on whether the chlorine is
considered to be para to the methyl or to the hydroxy group. It is
assumed for the purposes of this document that the subject compound is
2-chloro-5-hydroxy-toluene. This compound is a colorless crystalline
solid melting at 66-68°C. It is slightly soluble in water (3.8 gm/1)
and soluble in organic solvents. This phenol reacts with
4-aminoantipyrene to give a colored product and therefore contributes
to the nonconventional pollutant parameter designated "Total Phenols."
No information on manufacturing methods or volumes produced was found.
Para-chloro-meta cresol (abbreviated here as PCMC) is marketed as a
microbicide, and was proposed as an antiseptic and disinfectant, more
than forty years ago. It is used in glues, gums, paints, inks,
textiles, and leather goods. PCMC was found in raw wastewaters from
the die casting quench operation from one subcategory of foundry
operations.
Although no human toxicity data are available for PCMC, studies on
laboratory animals have demonstrated that this compound is toxic when
administered subcutaneously and intravenously. Death was preceeded by
severe muscle tremors. At high dosages kidney damage occurred. On
the other hand, an unspecified isomer of chlorocresol, presumed to be
PCMC, is used at a concentration of 0.15 percent to preserve mucous
heparin, a natural product administered intervenously as an
anticoagulant. The report does not indicate the total amount of PCMC
typically received. No information was found regarding possible
teratogenicity, or carcinogenicity of PCMC. Based on available
organoleptic data, for controlling undesirable taste and odor quality
of ambient water, the estimated level is 3 mg/1. Available data show
552
-------
that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as
0.03 mg/1.
Two reports indicate that PCMC undergoes degradation in biochemical
oxidation treatments carried out at concentrations higher than are
expected to be encountered in POTW influents. One study showed 59
percent degradation in 3.5 hours when a phenol-adapted acclimated seed
culture was used with a solution of 60 mg/1 PCMC. The other study
showed 100 percent degradation of a 20 mg/1 solution of PCMC in two
weeks in an aerobic activated sludge test system. No degradation of
PCMC occurred under anaerobic conditions. From a review of limited
data, it is expected that PCMC will be biochemically oxidized to a
lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTWs.
Chloroform(23). Chloroform is a colorless liquid manufactured
commercially by chlorination of methane. Careful control of
conditions maximizes chloroform production, but other products must be
separated. Chloroform boils at 61 °C and has a vapor pressure of
200 mm Hg at 25°C. It is slightly soluble in water (8.22 g/1 at 20°C)
and readily soluble in organic solvents.
Chloroform is used as a solvent and to manufacture refrigerents,
Pharmaceuticals, plastics, and anesthetics. It is seldom used as an
anesthetic.
Toxic effects of chloroform on humans include central nervous system
depression, gastrointestinal irritation, liver and kidney damage and
possible cardiac sensitization to adrenalin. Carcinogenicity has been
demonstrated for chloroform on laboratory animals.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to chloroform through ingestion of
water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of chloroform estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risks at the levels of 10~7,
10-*, and 10-* were 1.89 x 10~s mg/1, 1.89 x 10-* mg/1, and 1.89 x
10~3 mg/1, respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are
consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the water concentration
should be less than 0.157 mg/1 to keep the increased lifetime cancer
risk below 10~5. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic
life occur at concentrations higher than those cited for human health
risks.
Few data are available regarding the behavior of chloroform in a POTW.
However, the biochemical oxidation of this compound was studied in one
laboratory scale study at concentrations higher than those expected to
be contained by most municipal wastewaters. After 5, 10, and 20 days
no degradation of chloroform was observed. The conclusion reached is
that biological treatment produces little or no removal by degradation
of chloroform in POTW. An EPA study of the fate of toxic pollutants
in POTW reveals removal efficiencies of 0 to 80 percent for influent
concentrations ranging from 5 to 46 x 10~3 mg/1 at seven POTW.
-------
The high vapor pressure of chloroform is expected to result in
volatilization of the compound from aerobic treatment steps in POTW,
Remaining chloroform is expected to pass through into the POTW
effluent,
2-Chlorophenol(24). 2-Chlorophenol (C1C6H4OH), also called
ortho-chlorophenol, is a colorless liquid at room temperature,
manufactured by direct chlorination of phenol followed by distillation
to separate it from the other principal product, 4-chlorophenol.
2-Chlorophenol solidifies below '7°C and boils at 176°C. It is soluble
in water (28.5 gm/1 at 20°C) and soluble in several types of organic
solvents. This phenol gives a strong color with 4-aninoantipyrene and
therefore contributes to the nonconventional pollutant parameter
"Total Phenols." Production statistics could not be found.
2-Chlorophenol is used almost exclusively as a chemical intermediate
in the production of pesticdes and dyes. Production of some phenolic
resins uses 2-chlorophenol.
Very few data are available on which to determine the toxic effects of
2-chlorophenol on humans. The compound is more toxic to laboratory
mammals when administered orally than when administered subcataneously
or intravenously. This affect is attributed to the fact that the
compound is almost completely in the un-ionized state at the low pH of
the stomach and hence is more readily absorbed into the body. Initial
symptoms are restlessness and increased respiration rate, followed by
motor weakness and convulsions induced by noise or touch. Coma
follows. Following lethal doses, kidney, liver, and intestinal damage
were observed. No studies were found which addressed the
teratogenicity or mutagenicity of 2-chlorophenol. Studies of
2-chlorophenol as a promoter of carcinogenic activity of other
carcinogens were conducted by dermal application. Results do not bear
a determinable relationship to results of oral administration studies.
For controlling undesirable taste and odor quality of ambient water
due to the organoleptic properties of 2-chlorophenol in water, the
estimated level is 1 x 10~* mg/1. Available data show that adverse
effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations higher than that cited
for organaleptic effects.
Data on the behavior of 2-chlorophenol in POTW are not available.
However, laboratory scale studies have been conducted at
concentrations higher than those expected to be found in municipal
wastewaters. At 1 mg/1 of 2-chlorbphenol, an acclimated culture
produced TOO percent degradation /by biochemical oxidation after 15
days. Another study showed 45, 70, and 79 percent degradation by
biochemical oxidation after 5, 10, and 20 days, respectively. From
Study of these limited data, and gerieral observations on all organic
priority pollutants relating molecular structure to ease of
biochemical oxidation, it is expected that 2-chlorophenol will be
biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW. Undegraded 2-chlorophenol is expected
to pass through POTW into the effluent because of the water
-------
solubility. Some 2-chlorophenol is also expected to be generated by
chlorination treatments of POTW effluents containing phenol.
2,4-Dimethylphenol(34). 2,4-Dimethylphenol (2,4-DMP), also called
2,4-xylenol, is a colorless, crystalline solid at room temperature
(25°C), but melts at 27 to 28°C. 2,4-DMP is slightly soluble in water
and, as a weak acid, is soluble in alkaline solutions. Its vapor
pressure is less than 1 mm Hg at room temperature.
2,4-DMP is a natural product, occurring in coal and petroleum sources.
It is used commercially as a intermediate for manufacture of
pesticides, dystuffs, plastics and resins, and surfactants. It is
found in the water runoff from asphalt surfaces. It can find its way
into the wastewater of a manufacturing plant from any of several
adventitious sources.
Analytical procedures specific to this compound are used for its
identification and quantification in wastewaters. This compound does
not contribute to "Total Phenol" determined by the 4-aminoantipyrene
method.
Three methylphenol isomers (cresols) and six dimethylphenol isomers
(xylenols) generally occur together in natural products, industrial
processes, commercial products, and phenolic wastes. Therefore, data
are not available for human exposure to 2,4-DMP alone. In addition to
this, most mammalian tests for toxicity of individual dimethylphenol
isomers have been conducted with isomers other than 2,4-DMP.
In general, the mixtures of phenol, methylphenols, and dimethylphenols
contain compounds which produced acute poisoning in laboratory
animals. Symptoms were difficult breathing, rapid muscular spasms,
disturbance of motor coordination, and assymetrical body position. In
a 1977 National Academy of Science publication the conclusion was
reached that, "In view of the relative paucity of data on the
mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and long term oral
toxicity of 2,4 dimethylphenol, estimates of the effects of chronic
oral exposure at low levels cannot be made with any confidence." No
ambient water quality criterion can be set at this time. In order to
protect public health, exposure to this compound should be minimized
as soon as possible.
Toxicity data for fish and freshwater aquatic life are limited. Acute
toxicity to freshwater aquatic life occurs at 2,4-dimethylphenol
concentrations of 2.12 mg/1. For controlling undesirable taste and
odor quality of ambient water due to the organoleptic effects of
2,4-dimethylphenol in water the estimated level is 0.4 mg/1.
The behavior of 2,4-DMP in POTW has not been studied. As a weak acid
its behavior may be somewhat dependent on the pH of the influent to
the POTW. However, over the normal limited range of POTW pH, little
effect of pH would be expected.
555
-------
Biological degradability of 2,4-DMP as determined in one study, showed
94.5 percent biochemical oxidation after 110 hours using an adapted
culture. Thus, it is expected that 2,4-DMP will be biochemically
oxidized to about the same extent as domestic sewage by biological
treatment in POTW. Another study determined that persistance of
2,4-DMP in the environment is low, thus any of the compound which
remained in the sludge or passed through the POTW into the effluent
would be degraded within moderate length of time (estimated as 2
months in the report).
2,4-Dinitrotoluene(35). 2, 4-Dinitrotoluene [(N02)2C«H3CH3], a yellow
crystalline compound, is manufactured as a coproduct with the 2,6
isomer by nitration of nitrotoluene. It melts at 71°C.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene is insoluble in water (0.27 g/1 at 22°C) and
soluble in a number of organic solvents. Production data for the
2,4-isomer alone are not available. The 2,4-and 2,6-isomers are
manufactured in an 80:20 or 65:35 ratio, depending on the process
used. Annual U.S. commercial production is about 150 thousand tons of
the two isomers. Unspecified amounts are produced by the U.S.
government and further nitrated to trinitrotoluene (TNT) for military
use.
The major use of the dinitrotoluene mixture is for production of
toluene diisocyanate used to make polyurethanes. Another use is in
production of dyestuffs.
The toxic effect of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in humans is primarily
methemoglobinemia (a blood condition hindering oxygen tr |