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)
8esiimeih)? 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