United State*	Effluent Guideline* Division	EPA 440/1-82/072
Environmental Protection	WH-552	November 1982
Agency	Washington DC 20460
Water Bnd Waste Management
*>ERA Development	Final
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Porcelain Enameling
Point Source Category

-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for the
PORCELAIN ENAMELJNG
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Anne M. Burford
Administrator
Frederic A. Eidsness, Jr.
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Steven Schatzow
Director, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards
Jeffery D. Denit
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Ernst P. Hall, P.E.
Chief, Metals and Machinery Branch
Ben J. Honaker
.Project Officer
November, 1982
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
CONTENTS
Section	Title	Page
I.	Summary	1
II.	Recommendations	11
III.	Introduction	27
Background	27
Guidelines Development Summary	29
Description of the Porcelain Enameling
Industial Segment	33
Industry	40
IV.	Industry Subcategorization	47
Subcategorization Basis	47
Production Normalizing Parameters	51
V.	Wastewater Use and Water Characterization 53
Data Collection	53
Plant Sampling	55
Data Analysis	60
VI.	Selection of Pollutant Parameters	115
Verification Parameters	115
Regulation of Specific Pollutants	150
VII.	Control and Treatment Technology	171
End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies	171
Major Technologies	172
Chemical Reduction of
Chromium	172
Chemical Precipitation	174
Cyanide Precipitation	184
Granular Bed Filtration	186
Pressure Filtration	190
Settling	192
Skimming	195
Major Technology Effectiveness	200
Lime and Settle Performance	200
Lime, Settle and Filter
Performance	212
Analyses of Treatment System
Effectiveness	216
Minor Technologies	219
Carbon Adsorption	220
Centrifugation	222
Coalescing	224
Cyanide Oxidation	226
Evaporation	230

-------
Section
Title
Page
Flotation	.233
Gravity Sludge Thickening	236
Ion Exchange	237
Membrane Filtration	241
Peat Adsorption	243
Reverse Osmosis	245
Sludge Bed Drying	248
Ultrafiltration	250
Vacuum Filtration	253
In-Plant Technology	254
Water Reuse	255
Process Materials Conservation -
Filtration of Nickel Baths	255
Dry Spray Booths	255
Reclamation of Waste Enamel	256
Process Modifications	256
Material Substitutions	258
Rinse Techniques	259
Good Housekeeping	264
VIII.	Cost of Wastewater Control and Treatment	297
Cost Estimation Methodology	297
Cost Estimates for Individual
Treatment Technologies	309
Treatment System Cost Estimates	322
Energy and Non-Water Quality Aspects 325
IX.	Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available	359
Technical Approach to., BPT	359
Selection of Pollutant Parameters	363
Steel Subcategory	363
Cast Iron Subcategory	369
Aluminum Subcategory	370
Copper Subcategory	374
X.	Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable	383
Technical Approach to BAT	383
Selection of BAT Model Technology	386
Industry Cost and Effluent Reduction
Benefits of Treatment Options	387
Regulated Pollutant Parameters	388
Steel Subcategory	389
Cast Iron Subcategory	389
Aluminum Subcategory	390
Demonstration Status	391
li

-------
Section
Title
Page
XI.	New Source Performance Standards	421
Technical Approach to NSPS	421
Cost of NSPS	423
Regulated Pollutant Parameters	424
Summary	426
XII.	Pretreatment	433
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources 434
Regulated Pollutant Parameters	436
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources	437
XIII.	Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology	453
XIV.	Acknowledgements	455
XV.	References	457
XVI.	Glossary	465
i ii

-------
TABLES
Section	Title	Page
III-l Summary of Survey Responses	43
V-l	Summary of Sampling Sites	73
V-2	Verification Sampling Days for Each Discrete
Process Operation	74
V-3	Screening and Verification Analysis
Techniques	75
V-4	Summary of Responses to DCP	81
V-5	Effluent Profile	85
V-6	Parameters Found in Screening Analysis	88
V-7	Verification Analysis Parameters	89
V-8	Water Use: Water Use Rates for dcp Plants	90
V-9	Water Use: Water Use Rates for dcp Plants	91
V-l0	Coating Raw Wastewater Summary (mg/1)	92
V-l1	Total and Dissolved Metals Analysis:
Steel Subcategory	95
V-l2	Total and Dissolved Metals Analysis:
Subcategory	96
.V-l3	Total and Dissolved Metals Analyis:
Aluminum Subcategory	97
V-l4	Total and Dissolved Metals Analysis:
Copper Subcategory	98
V-l5	Dissolved Parameter"Analysis	99
V-l6	Pounds Per Year of Toxic Metals Discharged From
the Coating Waste Stream	100
V-l 7	Effluent Concentration (mg/.l) Steel Subcategory
Sampled Plants	101
iv

-------
Section
TABLES
Title
V-18	Effluent Concentration (mg/1) Cast Iron
Subcategory Sampled Plants
V-19	Effluent Concentration (mg/1) Aluminum
Subcategory Sampled Plants
V-20	Effluent Concentration (mg/1) Copper
Subcategory Sampled Plants
V-21	Raw Waste: Preparation of Steel (mg/1)
V-22	Raw Waste: Preparation of Aluminum (mg/1)
V-23	Raw Waste: Preparation of Copper (mg/1)
V-24	Sampled Plant Water Use (1/m2)
VI-1	Priority Pollutant Parameters Selected for
Consideration for Sepecific Regulation for
the Steel, Cast Iron, Aluminum and Copper
Subcategory Respectively
VI-2	Nonconventional and Conventional Pollutant
Parameter Selected for Consideration for
Specific Regulation in the Porcelain
Enameling Category
VII-1	pH Control Effect on Metals Removal
VI1-2 Effectiveness of Sodium Hydroxide for
Metals Removal
VI1-3 Effectiveness of Lime & Sodium Hydroxide
for Metals Removal
VI1-4 Theoretical Solubilities of Hydroxides and
Sulfides fo Heavy Metals in Pure Water
VII-5 Sampling Data from Sulfide Precipitation -
Sedimentation Systems
VII-6 Sulfide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Performance
VI1-7 Ferrite Co-Precipitation Performance
v

-------
TABLES
Section	Title	Page
VII-8	Concentration of Total Cyanide	186
VII-9	Multimedia Filter Performance	189
VII-10	Performance of Sampled Settling Systems	194
VII-11	Skimming Performance	197
VII-12	Trace Organic Removal by Skimming	198
VII-13 Hydroxide Precipitation - Settling (L&S)
Performance	207
VII-14 Hydroxide Precipitation - Settling (L&S)
Performance Additional Parameters	209
VII-15 Combined Metals Data Set - Untreated
Wastewater	210
VII-16 Maximum Pollutant Level in Untreated
Wastewater	210
VII-17 Precipitation - Settling - Filtration (LS&F)
Performance Plant A	213
VII-18 Precipitation - Settling - Filtration (LS&F)
Performance Plant B	214
VII—19 Precipitation - Settling - Filtration (LS&F)
Performance Plant C	215
VI1-20 Summary of Treatment Effectiveness	219
VII-21 Activated Carbon Performance (Mercury)	221
VII-22 Summary of Treatability Effectiveness for Organic
Priority Pollutants by Activated Carbon	265
VI1-23 Summary of Classes of Organic Compounds
together with examples of Organics that are
Readily Adsorbed on Carbon	266
VI1-24 Ion Exchange Performance	240
VII-25 Membrane Filtration System Effluent	242
vi

-------
TABLES
Section	Title	Page
VI1-26 Peat Adsorption Performance	244
VI1-27 Ultrafiltration Performance	251
VII-28	Theoretical Rinse Water Flows Required to
Maintain a 1,000 to 1 Concentration Reduction 262
VI11 — 1	Cost Program Pollutant Parameters	299
VIII-2	Treatment Technology Subroutine	303
VI11-3	Wastewater Sampling Frequency	307
VII1-4	Index to Technology Cost Tables	310
VII1-5	Clarifier Chemical Requirements	317
VII1-6	BPT Cost, Normal Plant	327
VII1-7	BAT Costs Normal Plant	328
VII1-8	NSPS Costs Normal Plant	329
VII1-9 Energy and Non-Water Quality Costs of Wastewater
Treatment Processes	330
VIII-10	Energy and Non-Water Quality Cost of Sludge
and Sol id Handling Processes	331
IX-1	BPT Effluent Limitations - Steel
Subcategory	375
IX-2	Comparison of Sampled Plant Mass Discharges'
and Discharge Limitations for the Steel
Subcategory	376
IX-3	Comparison of Reported Mass Discharges (dcp)
and Discharge Limitations for the Steel
Subcategory	367
IX—4	BPT Effluent Limitations - Cast Iron
Subcategory	377
IX-5	BPT Effluent Limitations - Aluminum
Subcategory	378
vii

-------
TABLES
Section	Title	Page
IX-6	Comparison of Reported Mass Discharges (dcp)
and Discharge Limitations for the Aluminum
Subcategory	379
X-l	Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Steel
Subcategory	392
X-2	Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Cast Iron
Subcategory	393
X-3	Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Aluminum
Subcategory	394
X-4	Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Copper
Subcategory	395
X-5	Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control
Systems - Steel Subcategory - Normal Plant	396
X-6	Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control
Systems Cast Iron Subcategory - Normal Plant 397
X7	Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control
Systems Aluminum Subcategory - Normal Plant	398
X-8	Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control
Systems Copper Subcategory - Normal Plant	399
X-9	Total Treatment Performance - Steel Subcategory 400
X-10	Total Treatment Performance - Cast Iron
Subcategory	401
X—11	Total Treatment Performance - Aluminum
Subcategory	402
X-l2	Total Treatment Performance - Copper
Subcategory	403
X-l 3	Total Treatment Performance - Total Category 404-
X-l4	Summary Table - Pollution Reduction Benefits 405
X-l5	Treatment Performance - Direct Dischargers -
Steel Subcategory	. 406
vi i i

-------
TABLES
Section	Title	Page
X-16	Treatment Performance - Direct Dischargers -
Cast Iron Subcategory,	407
X-17	Treatment Performance - Direct Dischargers -
Aluminum Subcategory	408
X-18	Treatment Performance - Direct Dischargers -
Total Category	409
X-19	Summary Table - Pollution Reduction Benefits -
Direct Dischargers	410
X-20	Porcelain Subcategory Costs	411
X-21	BAT Effluent Limitations - Steel Subcategory 412
X-22	BAT Effluent Limitations - Cast Iron
Subcategory	413
X-23	BAT Effluent Limitations - Aluminum
Subcategory	414
XI-1	NSPS Capital and Annual Costs - Normal
Plant	423
XI-2	New Source Performance Standards - Steel
Subcategory	427
XI-3	New Source Performance Standards - Cast Iron
Subcategory	428
XI-4	New Source Performance Standards - Aluminum
S
Subcategory	429
XI-5	New Source Performance Standards - Copper
Subcategory	430
XII-1	POTW Removals of the Major Toxic Pollutants
Found in Porcelain Enameling Wastewater	438
XI1-2 Treatment Performance - Indirect Dichargers
- Steel Subcategory	439
XI1-3 Treatment Performance - Indirect Dischargers -
Cast Iron Subcategory	440
ix

-------
TABLES
Section	Title	Page
XI1-4 Treatment Performance - Indirect Dischargers -
Aluminum Subcategory	441
XI1-5 Treatment Performance - Indirect Dischargers -
Total Category	442
XII-6 Summary Table Pollutant Reduction Benefits -
Indirect Dischargers	443
XII-7 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources -
Concentration Based Standards	444
XI1-8 PSES Mass Standards - Steel Subcategory	445
XI1-9	PSES Mass Standards - Cast Iron Subcategory	446
XII-10 PSES Mass Standards - Aluminum Subcategory	447
XII—11 PSNS Mass Standards - Steel Subcategory	448
XII-12 PSNS Mass Standards - Cast Iron Subcategory	449
XII-13 PSNS Mass Standards - Aluminum Subcategory	450
XII-14	PSNS Mass Standards - Copper Subcategory	451
XIII-1	First BCT Cost Test	452
x

-------
FIGURES
Number	Title
V-l	General Process Sequence for Porcelain
Enameling on Steel
V-2	General Process Sequence for Porcelain
Enameling on Cast Iron
V~3	General Process Sequence for Porcelain
Enameling on Aluminum
V-4	General Process Sequence for Porcelain
Enameling on Copper
VI1-1 Comparative Solubilities of Metal Hydroxides
and Sulfides as a Function of pH
VI1-2 Lead Solubility In Three Alkalies
VI1-3	Effluent Zinc Concentrations Versus Minimum
Effluent pH
VI1-4 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Cadmium
VI1-5 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Chromium
VI1-6	Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Copper
VI1-7 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Iron
VI1-8	Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Lead
VI1-9 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Manganese
VII-10 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Nickel
VII-11 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Phosphorus
XI

-------
FIGURES
Number Title	Page
VII-12	Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Zinc	278
VI1-13	Hexavalent Chromium Reduction with Sulfur Dioxide 279
VII-14	Granular Bed Filtration Example	280
VII-15	Pressure Filtration	281
VII-16	Representative Types of Sedimentation	282
VI1-17	Activated Carbon Adsorption Column	283
VI1-18	Centrifugation	284
VI1-1 9	Treatment of Cyanide Wastes by Alkaline
Chlorination	285
VI1-20	Typical Ozone Plant for Waste Treatment	286
VI1-21	UV/Ozonation	287
VI1-22	Types of Evaporation Equipment	288
VII-23	Dissolved Air Flotation-	289
VI1-24	Gravity Thickening	290
VI1-25	Ion 'Exchange with Regeneration	291
VII-26	Simplified Reverse Osmosis Schematic	292
VII-27	Reverse Osmosis Membrane Configuration	293
VII-28	Sludge Drying Bed	294
VI1—29	Simplified Ultrafiltration Flow Schematic	295
VII-30	Vacuum Filtration	296
VIII—1	Simplified Logic Diagram of System Cost
Estimation Program	332
VII1-2	Holding Tank Investment Costs	333
VII1-3	Holding Tank Investment costs	334
xii

-------
FIGURES
Number Title	Page
VII1-4 Holding Tank Investment Costs	335
VIII-5 Holding Tank Operation and Maintenance Costs	336
VII1-6 Holding Tank Energy Costs	337
VI11-7 Holding Tank Energy Cofets	338
VIII-8 Holding Tank Energy Costs	339
VII1-9 Chemical reduction of Chromium Investment Costs 340
VIII-10 Operation and Maintenance Costs for Chemical
Reduction of Chromium	341
VIII—11 Chemical Reduction of Chromium Labor Requirements 342
VIII-12 Chemical Reduction Energy Costs	343
VIII-13 Chemical Precipitation and Clarification
Investment Costs	344
VIII-14 Chemical Precipitation and Clarification
Operation and Maintenance Costs	345
VIII-15 Chemical Precipitation and Clarification Labor
Requirements	346
VIII-16 Chemical Precipitation - Sedimentation
Energy Costs	347
VI11-17 Multimedia Filter Investment Cost	348
VIII-18 Cartridge Filter Investment Costs	349
VI11 —1 9 Cartridge Filter Operation and Maintenance
Costs	350
VIII-20 Cartridge Filter Operation and Maintenance
Material Costs	351
VII1-21 Cartridge Filter Operation and Maintenance
Energy Requirements	352
VII1-22 Vacuum Filtration Investment Costs	353
x i i i

-------
FIGURES
Number	Title	Page
VII1-23 Operation and Maintenance Costs for
Vacuum Filtration	354
VIII-24 Vacuum Filtration Energy Costs	355
VIII-25 Equalization Tank Investment Costs	356
VIII-26	Equalization Tank Energy Costs	357
IX-1	BPT Treatment System for the Steel and
Aluminum Subcategories	380
IX-2	BPT Treatment System for the Cast Iron
Subcategory	381
X-1	BAT Option A Treatment System for Existing
Sources	415
X-2	BAT Option B Treatment System for Existing
Sources	416
X-3	BAT Option C Treatment System for Existing
Sources	417
X-4	BAT Option D Treatment System for Existing
Sources	418
X-5	BAT Option E Treatment System for Existing Sources 419
XI-1	New Sources Selected Option	431
xi v

-------
SECTION I
SUMMARY
Industry and Operations
Porcelain enameling is the application of glass-like coatings to
metals such as steel, cast iron, aluminum or copper. The purpose
of the coating is to improve resistance to chemicals, abrasion
and water and to improve thermal stability, electrical resistance
and appearance. The coating applied to the workpiece is a water
based slurry called a "slip" and is composed of one of many
combinations of frit (glassy like material), clays, coloring
oxides, water and special additives such as suspending agents.
These vitreous inorganic coatings are applied to the metal by a
variety of methods such as spraying, dipping, and flow coating,
and are bonded to the base metal at temperatures in excess of 500
degrees C (over 1000F). At these temperatures, finely ground
enamel frit particles fuse and flow together to form the
permanently bonded, hard procelain coating.
Porcelain enameling began in the United States in the late
1800's. Following the Depression, the manufacture of porcelain
enameled refrigerators, stoves, and other household items
expanded many times. The demand for procelain enamel products
and finishes remained at a peak until the early 1960's, when
substitute finishes began to replace many uses of the more costly
porcelain enamel surfaces. EPA estimates that currently there
are approximately 116 procelain enameling plants in the United
States; the majority are located east of the Mississippi River.
There are two major groups of standard process steps used in
manufacturing procelain enameled materials. These are: (1)
surface preparation and (2) coating. Surface preparation is for
removal of soil, oil, corrosion and similar dirt from the basis
material. Surface preparation cleaning processes includes water
based alkaline cleaners for removing oil and dirt; employ acid
pickling solutions to remove oxides and corrosion and to etch the
surface of the workpiece; and water rinses of the basis material
after alkaline cleaning or acid pickling.
The steel subcategory also uses a fourth metal preparation step,
water solution of nickel salts (nickel flash) is used to improve
adhesion of the slip to the basis metal.
Coating includes both ball milling and enamel application. Ball
milling is performed to mix and grind frit and other raw
materials, forming an enamel slip of appropriate consistency for
the intended use of the product. The steel subcategory also uses
1

-------
a fourth metal preparation step, The ball milling operation uses
water for washing out the ball mills between mixing batches and
for cooling the ball mills. During application of the porcelain
enamel slip, water also may be used in a curtain device to
capture waste slip in overspray.
The most important pollutants or pollutant parameters are: (1)
toxic metal pollutants—antimony, cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, nickel, selenium and, zinc; (2) conventional
pollutants—total suspended solids, pH, and oil and grease, and
(3) nonconventional pollutants—aluminum and iron. Toxic organic
pollutants, however, were not found with any frequency and are
not considered to be significant in this industry.
Data Base and Information Used
In developing this regulation, EPA studied the porcelain
enameling category to determine whether differences in raw
materials, final products, manufacturing processes, equipment,
age and size of plants, water use, wastewater constituents, or
other factors required the development of separate effluent
limitations and standards for different segments of the industry.
EPA has subcategorized the porcelain enameling industry based on
the basis material coated. The subcategories are defined as
procelain enameling on: steel, cast iron, aluminum, and copper.
No limitations are established for porcelain enameling on
precious metals (gold, silver and platinum group metals) because
they are believed to be very small sources and virtually all
would be excluded from regulation by the small indirect
discharger exemption.
This study included the identification of raw waste 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. Such analysis enabled EPA to determine the
presence and concentration of toxic pollutants in wastewater
discharges.
EPA also identified both actual and potential control and
treatment technologies, including both in-plant and
end-of-process technologies. The Agency analyzed both historical
and newly generated data on the performance of these technologies
including performance, operational limitations, and reliability.
Current wastewater treatment practices in the porcelain enameling
category range from no treatment by about 7 2 percent of the
plants to a high level of physical-chemical treatment combined
2

-------
with water conservation practices. Of the 116 porcelain
enameling plants for which data are available, 33 percent have
sedimentation or clarification devices, 24 percent have alkaline
addition pH adjustment systems, and 9 percent have acid addition
pH adjustment systems. There is no apparent difference between
direct or indirect dischargers in the .nature or degree of
treatment employed.
The control and treatment technologies available for this
category include both in-process and end-of-pipe treatment.
In-process treatment includes a variety of water flow reduction
steps and major process changes such as cascade rinsing to reduce
the amount of water used to remove unwanted materials from the
workpiece surface, the use of flow control equipment and the
recycle of treated coating wastewaters. End-of-pipe treatment
includes: hexavalent chromium reduction (where applicable), oil
skimming, chemical precipitation of metals using hydroxides or
carbonates and removal of precipitated metals and other materials
using settling, sedimentation, filtration, and combinations of
these technologies.	'
The effectiveness of these treatment technologies has been
evaluated and established by examining the performance of these
technologies on porcelain enameling and other similar
wastewaters.	The primary data base for hydroxide
precipitation—sedimentation technology is a composite of data
drawn from EPA sampling and analysis of copper and aluminum
forming, battery manufacturing, porcelain enameling, and coil
coating. These wastewaters are judged to be similar in
treatability because they contain similar ranges of dissolved
metals which can be removed by precipitation and solids removal.
Similarly, the precipitation—sedimentation and filtration
technology performance is based on the performance of full scale
commerical systems treating multicategory wastewaters which also
are essentially similar to porcelain enameling wastewaters.
The Agency estimated the costs of each control and treatment
technology using a computer program developed by standard
engineering analysis. EPA derived unit process costs for each of
116 plants using data and characteristics (production and flow)
applied to each treatment process (i.e.,hexavalent chromium
reduction, metals precipitation, sedimentation, granular
bed-multimedia filtration, etc.). These unit process costs were
added to yield total cost at each treatment level. After
confirming the reasonableness of this methodology by comparing
EPA cost estimates to treatment system costs supplied by the
industry, the Agency evaluated the economic impacts of these
costs.
3

-------
Regulation
On the basis of these factors, EPA identified various control and
treatment technologies as the basis for BPT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS.
The regulation, however, does not require the installation of any
particular technology. Rather, it requires achievement of
effluent limitations equivalent to those achieved by the proper
operation of these or equivalent technologies.
The effluent limitations for BPT, BAT, and NSPS are expressed as
mass limitations (mg/m2) and are calculated by multiplying three
elements: (1) effluent concentrations determined from analysis
of control technology performance data; (2) allowable wastewater
flow determined by an analysis of flow data at plants in each
subcategory with adequate water use practices; and (3) the
relevant process or treatment variability factor (e.g., maximum
monthly average vs. maximum day).
Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) are expressed
as concentration standards. The equivalent mass standards are
also presented for use when POTW'find it necessary to impose mass
pretreatment standards. Pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) are expressed as mass standards to assure the pollutant
reduction benefits of the 90 percent flow reduction included as
the basis of PSNS.
BPT
In general, the BPT level represents the average of the best
existing performances of plants of various ages, sizes, processes
or other common characteristics. Where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a different
subcategory or category.
In balancing costs in relation to effluent reduction benefits,
EPA considers the volume and nature of existing discharges, the
volume and nature of discharges expected after application of
BPT, the general environmental effects of the pollutants, and
cost and economic impacts of the required pollution control
level. .
This regulation imposes BPT requirements on the steel, cast iron,
and aluminum subcategories. The technology basis for the BPT
limitations being promulgated is the same as for the proposed
limitations and includes flow normalization, hexavalent chromium
reduction (for facilities which perform porcelain enameling on
aluminum), oil skimming, pH adjustment, and sedimentation to
remove the resultant precipitate and other suspended solids."
Zero discharge for metal preparation is required in the cast iron
4

-------
subcategory because the metal preparation method usually employed
does not result in a discharge of process wastewater. BPT (as
well as BAT and PSES) limitations are not being promulgated for
the copper subcategory because there are no existing direct
dischargers and no large indirect dischargers in this
subcategory.
The BPT technology outlined above applies all three regulated
porcelain enameling subcategories and the effluent concentrations
resulting from the application of the technology are identical.
However, the mass limitations vary due to different water uses
among the subcategories and the absence of some pollutants in
some subcategories.
The pollutants selected for regulation at BPT are: chromium,
lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum, iron, oil and grease, TSS, and pH.
Implementation of the BPT limitations will remove annually an
estimated 96,700 kg of toxic pollutants and 7,640,000 kg of other
pollutants (from estimated current discharge) at a capital cost
above equipment in place of $5.4 million and an annual cost of
$2.8 million (based on January 1978 dollars).
BAT
The BAT technology level represents, the best economically
achievable performance of plants of various ages, sizes,
processes or other shared characteristics. As with BPT, where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may be
transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may
include feasible process changes or internal controls, even when
not common industry practice.
In developing BAT, EPA has given substantial weight to the
reasonableness of costs. The Agency considered the volume and
nature of discharges, the volume and nature of discharges
expected after application of BAT, the general environmental
effects of the. pollutants, and the costs and economic impacts of
the required pollution control levels.
Despite this consideration of costs, the primary determinant of
BAT is still effluent reduction capability.
The Agency considered three major sets of technology options
which might be applied at the BAT level. The effectiveness and
costs of the BAT options were evaluated and considered in
selecting BAT. This regulation imposes BAT requirements on the
steel, cast iron and aluminum subcategories. The technology
basis for BAT or the final regulation is flow normalization,
5

-------
chromium reduction, oil & grease removal and lime and settle
end-of-pipe treatment. Flow reduction by reusing treated
wastewater for all coating water needs except ball mill washout
also is included as part of the BAT model technology. This will
reduce wastewater discharge from coating operations by about 95
percent (compared to BPT) and the overall wastewater discharge by
about 15-18 percent.
This technology basis for BAT eliminates filtration from the
proposed BAT model treatment system and added reuse of process
wastewaters. Industry comments opposed filtration as a basis for
BAT because of its cost and because it could present
technological problems for porcelain enamelers whose operations
are integrated with operations covered by other regulations.
Comments on an the alternative flow reduction option presented in
the proposed regulation stated that the ball mill allowance
should be higher than the amount specified. The final regulation
includes a substantial increase in the ball mill washout
allowance which is used as the basis for the mass based discharge
limitations.
The pollutants selected for regulation at BAT are: chromium,
lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum and iron. The toxic pollutants
considered for regulation at proposal, but not selected for
regulation, are arsenic, antimony, cadmium, copper, cyanide and
selenium. The technology that would be necessary to meet the
limitations for the regulated pollutants will effectively control
the unregulated pollutants.
The direct dischargers are expected to move directly to
compliance with BAT limitations from existing treatment because
the flow reduction used to meet BAT limitations will allow the
use of smaller — and less expensive — lime and settle equipment
than would be used to meet BPT limitations without flow
reduction.
Implementation of the BAT limitations will remove annually an
estimated 97,350 kg/yr of toxic pollutants and 7,650,000 kg/yr of
other pollutants (from estimated current discharge) at a capital
cost above equipment in place of $5.7 million and an annual cost
of $2.9 million (based on January 1978 dollars).
BAT will remove 650 kg/yr of toxic pollutants and 10,000 kg/yr of
other pollutants incrementally above BPT; the incremental
investment cost is $0.3 million and the additional total annual
cost is $0.1 million (January 1978 dollar basis).
6

-------
NSPS
NSPS (new source performance standards) are based on the best
available demonstrated technology (BDT), including process
changes, in-plant control, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies
which reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible. EPA
considered three options for selection of NSPS technology. This
regulation establishes NSPS for all four subcategories.
The proposed NSPS were based on the following technology: 90
percent reduction of metal preparation wastewater by
countercurrent rinsing followed by lime, settle and filter
end-of-pipe treatment. Elimination of all coatings * wastewater
was part of the model treatment technology and was to be achieved
by use of electrostatic dry powder coatings, a dry process that
eliminates the generation of wastewater. Industry comments
opposed eliminating coating wastewater. Many companies stated
that powder coatings are not appropriate for their products
because of problems associated with enameling complex shapes and
aluminum materials.
After consideration of these options we are promulgating a
modified NSPS based on multi-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing
after each metal preparation operation, reuse of most coating
operation water as in BAT and lime, settle and filter end-of-pipe
treatment technology for all wastewaters. The Agency has
eliminated dry electrostatic powder coating as a technology basis
for NSPS because this coating is not universally applicable.
Filtration has been retained in the NSPS model because filters
are substantially less costly for new sources after substantial
flow reduction, than for existing sources. Filtration and flow
reduction will remove an estimated 94 percent of the toxic
pollutants discharged after BAT.
The pollutants regulated are: chromium, lead, nickel, zinc,
aluminum, oil and grease, iron, TSS and pH. The capital
investment for new sources to meet NSPS is about 7 percent above
that needed by existing sources to comply with BAT.
PSES
PSES (pretreatment standards for existing sources) are designed
to prevent the discharge of pollutants which pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation
of POTWs. Pretreatment standards are to be technology-based and
analogous to the best available technology for removal of toxic
pollutants.
7

-------
This regulation establishes PSES for the steel, cast iron and
aluminum subcategories.
EPA determined there is pass-through of toxic metal pollutants
because POTW removals of major toxic pollutants found in
porcelain enameling wastewater average about 50 percent (Cr-18%,
Cu~58%, CN~52%, Zn-65%) while BAT technology treatment removes
more than 99 percent of these pollutants. This difference in
removal effectiveness clearly indicates pass-through of
pollutants will occur unless porcelain enameling wastewaters are
adequately pretreated. The pollutants to be regulated by PSES
include chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
The Agency proposed PSES using technology analogous to the
proposed BAT: flow normalization, chromium reduction, and lime,
settle and filter end-of-pipe treatment. For the reasons
discussed under BAT, we are removing filtration from the PSES
model technology and adding reuse of process wastewater. The
model technology on which the promulgated PSES is based is
analogous to the promulgated BAT model technology except that oil
skimming is not included. This PSES model technology consists of
flow reduction by reuse of treated process wastewater, chromium
reduction, and lime and settle end-of-pipe treatment.
The Agency determined that PSES are not not economically
achievable for small plants. Plants which produce less than 1600
m2/day product and discharge less than 60,000 1/day wastewater
are not controlled by the categorical PSES established by this
regulation. The two copper subcategory plants in the data base
are excluded from regulation by this provision. Indirect
discharging plants not controlled by this PSES must, however,
Conform to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 403. The exclusion
point is reasonable since the next projected plant closure is
about twice the cutoff level. This cut-off exempts from the
categorical PSES regulation 38 small indirect discharges which
represent about 4.6 percent of the total industry production and
6.8 percent of the production by indirect dischargers. Further
details of the small plant analysis are presented in the economic
analysis document.
The Agency has determined that there is no less stringent
technology that could be the basis of pretreatment standards for
small plants. EPA evaluated a less expensive, sump settling
technology suggested by public comments for small indirect
dischargers. However, the Agency determined that this technology
has not been adequately demonstrated in the industry and probably
would not appreciably reduce the discharge of toxic pollutants.
The 38 small indirect dischargers not regulated by this PSES
generate 21,800 kg/yr toxic pollutants and 1,426,000 kg/yr other
pollutants. If PSES applied to these facilities they would
8

-------
introduce into POTW only 605 kg/yr toxic pollutants and 8,500
kg/yr other pollutants.
Concentration based standards, rather than the proposed
mass-based standards, are promulgated for PSES with mass-based
alternate standards made available for use where desired by the
POTW.
Implementation of the PSES standards will remove annually an
estimated 179,500 kg of toxic pollutants and 14,200,000 kg of
other pollutants (from estimated current discharge) at a capital
cost above equipment in place of $13.5 million and an annual cost
of $6.6 million (January 1978 dollar basis)
The Agency has set the PSES compliance date at three years after
promulgation of this regulation: November, 1985.
PSNS
Like PSES, PSNS (pretreatment standards for new sources) are to
prevent the discharge of pollutants which pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatable with the operation of the
POTW. New indirect dischargers, like new direct dischargers,
have the opporturnity to incorporate the best available
demonstrated technologies including process changes, in-plant
controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies, and to use
plant site selection to ensure adequate treatment system
installation.
This regulation establishes mass-based PSNS for all four
subcategories. The treatment technology basis for the PSNS being
promulgated is identical to the treatment technology set forth as
the basis for the NSPS being promulgated: multi-stage
countercurrent cascade rinsing, coating wastewater recycle and
lime, settle and filter end-of-pipe treatment.
Although mass-based standards may be somewhat more difficult for
a POTW to enforce, mass-based standards are necessary for PSNS to
ensure that the considerable effluent-reduction benefits of flow
reduction techniques are obtained. Overall flow and pollutant
reduction of about 90 percent can be achieved by countercurrent
cascade rinsing, and countercurrent cascade rinsing is not
excessively costly in new plants. Since POTW removal of toxic
pollutants is only about 50 percent, pass-through of toxic
pollutants will occur.
The incremental capital investment (above the capital that would
have been required if PSES requirements applied) for new source
9

-------
standards is less than 0.5 percent of expected revenues and is
not expected to result in any barrier to entry into the category.
Regulated pollutants at PSNS are antimony, chromium, lead, nickel
and zinc.
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
Eliminating or reducing one form of pollution may cause other
environmental problems. Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act
require EPA to consider the non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements) of certain regulations.
In compliance with these provisions, we considered the effect of
this regulation on air pollution, solid waste generation, water
scarcity, and energy consumption.
This regulation was reviewed by EPA personnel responsible for
non-water quality programs. While it is difficult to balance
pollution problems against each other and against energy use, we
believe that this regulation will best serve often competing
national goals.
Wastewater treatment sludges from this category are expected to
be non-hazardous under RCRA when generated using the model
technology. Treatment of similar wastewaters from other
categories using this technology has resulted in non-hazardous
sludges. Costs for disposal of non-hazardous wastes are included
in the annual costs.
To achieve the BPT and BAT effluent limitation, a typical direct
discharger will increase total energy consumption by less than
one percent of the energy consumed for production purposes.
10

-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.	EPA has divided the porcelain enameling category into four
subcategories for the purpose of effluent limitations and
standards. These subcategories are:
steel
cast iron
aluminum
copper
2.	The following effluent limitations are being promulgated for
existing sources:
A. Subcategory A - Steel Basis Material
(a) BPT Limitations
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant Maximum for Maximum for
Property		any 1 day	Monthly average

Metal
Coat ing
Metal
Coating

preparation
operation
preparation
operation
Metric
Units—mg/m2
of -Area Processed or Coated
Chromium
1 6. 82
3 .41
6.81
1 . 38
Lead
6.01
1 .21
5.21
1 . 06
Nickel
56.46
11 .43
40. 05
8.11
Zinc
53.26
10.78
22.43
4.54
Aluminum
182.20
36. 87
74.47
1 5. 07
Iron
49. 26
9. 97
25. 23
5.11
Oil & Grease
800.84
162.10
480.51
97.23
TSS
1642.00
332.20
800.90
162.00
pH
( 1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
English Units
— lbs/1 million ft2 of
Area Processed
or Coated
Chromium
3.45
0.70
1 .40
0. 29
Lead
1 .23
0.25
1 . 07
0. 22
Nickel
11 . 57
2.34
8.20
1 .66
Zinc
10.91
2.21
4. 60
0. 93
11

-------
Aluminum	37.32	7.55	15.26	3.09
Iron	10.09	2.04	5.17	1.05
Oil & Grease	164.03	33.19	98.42	19.92
TSS	337.00	68.10	164.00	33.20
pH	(1 )	(1 )	( 1 )	(1 )
(1) Within the range 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
(b) BAT Limitations
BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant	Maximum for Maximum for
Property		any 1 day	Monthly average	
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
preparation operation preparation operation
Metric Units—mg/m2 of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium	16.82	0.27	6.81	0.11
Lead	6.01	0.10	5.21	0.09
Nickel	56.50	0.90	40.05	0.64
Zinc	53.30	0.85	22.43	0.36
Aluminum	182.00	2.90	74.48	1.19
Iron	49.30	0.79	25.23	0. 4i
English Units—lbs/1 million ft2 of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium	3.45	0.06	1.4	0.022
Lead	1.23	0.02	1.07	0.017
Nickel	11.57	0.19	8.20	0.13
Zinc	10.91	0.18	4.60	0.08
Aluminum	37.32	0.6	15.26	0.25
Iron	10.09	0.16	5.17	0.09
B. Subcategory B - Cast Iron Basis Material
(1)	There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants from metal preparation operations.
(2)	The discharge of' process wasterwater pollutants from
all porcelain enameling coating operations shall not exceed the
values set forth below:
1 2

-------
(a) BPT
Limitations



BPT Effluent Limitations

Pollutant or



Pollutant
Maximum for
Maximum for

Property
any 1 day
Monthly average




mg/m2 (lbs/1 million ft2) of
Area Coated
Chromium
0.29 (0.06)
0.12
(0.024)
Lead
0.11 (0.02)
0. 09
(0.02)
Nickel
0.98 (0.20)
0.7
(0.15)
Zinc
0.93 (0.19)
0.39
(0.08)
Aluminum
3.16 (0.65)
1 . 29
(0.27)
Iron
0.86 (0.18)
0. 44
(0.09)
Oil & Grease
13.86 (2.84)
8.32
(1.71)
TSS
28.42 (5.82)
13.86
(2.84)
PH
(1 ) (1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1) Within the range 7.5 to 10. 0 at
all times.

(b) BAT
Limitations



BAT Effluent Limitations

Pollutant or



Pollutant
Maximum for
Maximum for

Property
any 1 day
Monthly average




mg/m2 (lbs/1 million ft2) of
Area Coated
Chromium
0.27 (0.06)
0.11
(0.022)
Lead
0.10 (0.02)
0. 09
(0.017)
Nickel
0.90 (0.19)
0.64
(0.13)
Zinc
0.85 (0.18)
0.36
(0.08)
Aluminum
2.90 (0.60)
1.19
(0.25)
Iron
0.79 (0.16)
0.40
(0.09)
C. Subcategory C - Aluminum Basis
Material

(a) BPT Limitations
BPT Effluent Limitations

-------
Pollutant or
Pollutant Maximum for Maximum for
Property		any 1 day	Monthly average

Metal
Coating
Metal
Coating

preparation
operation
preparation
operation
Metric
Units—mg/m2
of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium
16.34
6.32
6.63
2. 56
Lead
5.84
2. 26
5.06
1 .96
Nickel
54.85
21 .21
38. 90
15.04
Zinc
51 .73
20.01
21 .79
8.43
Aluminum
176.98
68.44
72.35
27 . 98
Iron
47 . 85
18.50
24. 51
9.48
Oil & Grease
777.92
300.84
466.76
108.50
TSS
1594.74
616.68
777.92
300.82
pH
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
( 1 )
English Units
—lbs/1 million ft2 of Area Processed
or Coated
Chromium
3 . 35
1 .30
1 . 37
0.53
Lead
1 .20
0. 47
1 . 04
0.40
Nickel
1 1 .24
4.35
7. 97
3 . 08
Zinc
10.6
4.10
4.46
1 . 73
Aluminum
36.25
14.02
14.82
5.73
Iron
9. 80
3.79
5 . 02
1 . 94
Oil & Grease
159.33
61 .61
95.60
36. 97
TSS
326.63
126.33
159.33
61 .61
pH
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1) Within the
range 7.5 to
10.0 at all
times.


-------
(b) BAT Limitations
BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant Maximum for Maximum for
Property		any 1 day	Monthly average

Metal
Coating
Metal
Coating

preparation
operation
preparation
operation
Metric
Units—mg/m2
of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium
1 6. 34
0.27
6.62
0.11
Lead
5. 84
0.10
5.06
0. 09
Nickel
54.85
0.90
38.90
0. 64
Zinc
51 .74
0. 85
21 .79
0.36
Aluminum
176.98
2.9
72.35
1.19
Iron
47.85
0.79
24. 51
0.40
English Units
—lbs/1 million ft2 of
Area Processed
or Coated
Chromium
3 . 35
0. 06
1 .36
0 . 022
Lead
1 .20
0. 02
1 . 04
0. 02
Nickel
1 1 . 24
0.19
7.97
0.13
Zinc
10.60
0.18
4.46
0. 08
Aluminum
36.25
0. 60
14.82
0.25
Iron
9.80
0.16
5.02
0. 09

-------
D. Subcategory D - Copper Basis Material
(a)	No BPT effluent limitation are being promulgated.
(b)	No BAT effluent limitations are being promulgated.
3. The following effluent standards are being promulgated for
new sources.
A. Subcategory A - Steel Basis Material
NSPS
S466.13 New source performance standards.
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards:

Subpart A.
NSPS
Pollutant or



Pollutant
Maximum for
Maximum for
Property
any
1 day
Monthly average
Metal
Coating Metal Coating

preparation
operation preparation operation
Metric
Units—mg/m2
of Area
Processed or Coated
Chromium
1 .33
0.24
0.54 0.1
Lead
0.36
0.70
0.33 0.06
Nickel
1 .97
0. 35
1.32 0.24
Zinc
3.65
0. 65
1.51 0.27
Aluminum
1 0. 90
1 . 93
4.44 0.79
Iron
4.40
0.79
2.26 0.40
Oil & Grease
35.75
6.36
35.75 6.36
TSS
53.7
9.54
39.4 7.0
PH
(1 )
(1 )
(1 ) (1 )
English Units-
—lbs/1 million ft2 of
Area Processed or Coated
Chromium
0.27
0.05
0.11
0.02
Lead
0.08
0.013
0.07
0.012
Nickel
0.41
0.08
0.27
0.05
Zinc
0.75
0.14
0.31
0.06
Aluminum
2.22
0.4
0.91
0.17
16

-------
Iron
Oil &
TSS
pH
Grease
0. 90
7.33
10.99
(1 )
0.16
1.31
1 . 96
(1 )
0.46
7.33
8.06
(1 )
0. 09
1.31
1 . 44
(1 )
(1) Within the range 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
B. Subcategory B - Cast Iron Basis Material
(a)	There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants from metal preparation operations.
(b)	The discharge of process wastewater pollutants from all
porcelain enameling coating operations shall not exceed the
values set forth below:
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Subpart B. NSPS
Maximum for Maximum for
any 1 day	Monthly average
mg/m2 (lb/1 million ft2) of area Coated
Chromium
0. 24
(0.05)
0.10
(0.02)
Lead
0. 07
(0.013)
0.06
(0.012)
Nickel
0.35
(0.08)
0. 24
(0.05)
Zinc
0.65
(0.14)
0. 27
(0.06)
Aluminum
1 . 93
(0.4)
0.79
(0.17)
Iron
0.79
(0.16)
0.40
(0.09)
Oil & Grease
6. 36
(1.31)
6.36)
(1.31)
TSS
9. 54
(1.95)
7 . 00
(1.44)
pH
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1) Within the range 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
C. Subcategory C - Aluminum Basis Material
NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant	Maximum for Maximum for
Property		any 1 day	Monthly average	
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
preparation operation preparation operation
1 7

-------
Metric
Units—mg/m2
of Area
Processed or
.Coated
Chromium
1 .29
0.24
0.52
0.1
Lead
0.35
0.07
0.32
0.05
Nickel
1 .91
0. 35
1 . 29
0. 24
Zinc
3.55
0. 65
1 .46
0. 27
Aluminum
1 0. 53
1 . 93
4.31
0. 79
Iron
4.28
0.79
2.19
0.40
Oil & Grease
34. 73
6. 36
34.73
6. 36
TSS
52. 1
9. 54
38.21
7.00
pH
(1 )
(1 )
(1 >
(1 )
English Units—lbs/1 million ft2 of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium
0. 27
0. 05
0.11
0.02
Lead
0. 07
0.013
0.07
0.012
Nickel
0.39
0.08
0.27
0.05
Zinc
0.723
0.14
0.3
0.06
Aluminum
2.1 6
0.4
0.89
0.17
Iron
0. 88
0.16
0.45
0.09
Oil & Grease
7.12
1.31
7.12
1 .31
TSS
1 0.67
1 .96
7.83
1 .44
PH
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1) Within the range 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
D. Subcategory D - Copper Basis Material
NSPS
Maximum for Maximum for
	any 1 day	Monthly average	
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
preparation operation preparation operation
Metric Units—mg/m2 of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium	2.23	0.24	0.90	0.1
Lead	0.60	0.07	0.54	0.06
Nickel	3.31	0.35	2.23	0.24
1 8
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property

-------
Zinc
6.13
0.65
2.53
0.27
Aluminum
18.21
1 .93
7.46
0. 79
Iron
7.4
0.79
3.79
0.40
Oil & Grease
60. 1
6.36
60. 1
6. 36
TSS
90. 1 5
9. 54
66. 1 1
7.0
pH
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
English Units-
—lbs/1 million
ft* of
Area Processed
or Coated
Chromium
0.46
0.05
0.19
0. 02
Lead
0.13
0.013
0.11
0.012
Nickel
0.68
0.08
0.46
0.05
Zinc
1 . 26
0.14
0.52
0.06
Aluminum
3.73
0.4
1 .53
0.17
Iron
1 . 52
0.1 6
0.78
0.09
Oil & Grease
12.31
1 .31
12.31
1 .31
TSS
18.47
1 .96
1 3. 54
1 .44
PH
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1) Within the range 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
4. The following pretreatment standards are being promulgated for
existing sources and new sources.
A. Subcategory A - Steel Basis Material
(a) Pretreatment Standards for Existing Source
PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant	Maximum for Maximum for
Property		any 1 day	Monthly average	
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
preparation operation preparation operation
Milligrams per liter (mg/1)
Chromium	0.42	0.17
Lead	0.15	0.13
Nickel	1.41	1.00
Zinc	1.33	0.56
1 9

-------
(b) In cases where POTW find it necessary to impose mass
effluent pretreatment standards the following equivalent mass
standards are provided:
Pollutant or
Pollutant	Maximum for Maximum for
Property		any 1 day	Monthly average	
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
preparation operation preparation operation
Metric Units—mg/m2 of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium	16.82	0.27	6.81	0.11
Lead	6.01	0.10	5.21	0.09
Nickel	56.5	0.90	40.1	0.64
Zinc	53.3	0.85	22.9	0.36
English Units—lbs/1 million ft2 of Areas Process or Coated
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
3.45
1 .23
11.6
10.9
0.06
0.19
0.19
0.18
1.4
1 . 07
8 . 20
4.6
0. 022
0. 02
0.13
0. 08
20

-------
(b) Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
PSNS Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant	Maximum for Maximum for
Property		any 1 day	Monthly average	
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
preparation operation preparation operation
Metric Units—mg/m2 of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium
1 . 33
0.24
0. 54
0.1 0
Lead
0. 36
0.07
0. 33
0. 06
Nickel
1 . 97
0.35
1 .33
0.24
Zinc
3.65
0. 65
1 .51
0. 27
English Units-
— lbs/1
million ft2
of Area Processed
or Coati
Chromium
0.27
0. 05
0.11
0.02
Lead
0. 07
0.013
0. 07
0.012
Nickel
0.41
0.08
0 . 27
0. 05
Zinc
0. 75
0.14
0.31
0. 06
21

-------
B. Subcategory B - Cast Iron Basis Material
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
(a)	There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants from metal preparation operations.
(b)	The discharge of process wastewater pollutants from all
porcelain enameling coating operations shall not exceed the
values set forth below:
PSES Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant	Maximum for Maximum for
Property	any 1 day	Monthly average

milligrams per liter
(mg/1)
Chromium
0.42
0.17
Lead
0.15
0.13
Nickel
1 .41
1 .00
Zinc
1 .33
0.56
b) In cases when POTW find it necessary to impose mass
pretreatment standards the following equivalent mass standards
are provided.
(a)	There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants from metal preparation operations.
(b)	The discharge of process wastewater pollutants from all
porcelain enameling coating operations shall not exceed the
values set forth below:
22

-------
Subpart B.	PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant Maximum for	Maximum for
Property any 1 day*	Monthly average
Metric Units - mg/m2 (English Units - lb/1 million ft2) of area Coated
Chromium	0.27	(0.06)	0.11	(0.022)
Lead	0.10	(0.02)	0.09	(0.017)
Nickel	0.90	(0.19)	0.64	(0.13)
Zinc	0.85	(0.18)	0.36	(0.08)
(b) Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
(a)	There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants from metal preparation operations.
(b)	The discharge of process wastewater pollutants from all
porcelain
enameling coating operations shall not
exceed
values set
forth below:



Subpart B.
PSNS

Pollutant
or


Pollutant
Maximum for
Maximum for

Property
any 1 day
Monthly average


mg/m2 (lb/1 million ft2) of Area
Coated
Chromium
0.24 (0.05)
0.10
(0.02)
Lead
0.07 (0.02)
0. 06
(0.012)
Nickel
0.35 (0.08)
0. 24
(0.05)
Zinc
0.65 (0.14)
0. 27
(0.06)
23

-------
C. Subcategory C -
Aluminum Basis Material
(a) Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources

Subpart B. PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for Maximum for
any 1 day Monthly average
milligrams per liter (mg/1)
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
0.42 0.17
0.15 0.13
1.41 1.00
1.33 0.56
b) In cases when POTW find it necessary to impose mass
pretreatment standards the following equivalent mass standards
are provided:
Subpart C. PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant Maximum for Maximum for
Property		any 1 day	Monthly average

Metal
Coating
Metal Coating

preparation
operation
preparation operation
Metric
Units—mg/m2
of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium
1 6. 34
0. 28
6.62 0.11
Lead
5.84
0.10
5.06 0.09
Nickel
54. 85
0.90
38.9 0.64
Zinc
51 .74
0.85
21.79 0.36
English Units
—lbs/1 million ft2 of
Area Processed or Coated
Chromium
3.35
0. 06
1.36 0.022
Lead
1 .20
0. 02
1.04 0.017
Nickel
1 1 . 24
"1.19
7.97 0.13
Zinc
10.6
0.18
4.46 0.08
24

-------
(b) Pretreatment Standards for New Sources

PSNS


Pollutant or



Pollutant
Maximum for
Maximum for

Property
any 1 day
Monthly average
Metal Coating
Metal
Coating

preparation operation
preparation
operation
Metric
Units—mg/m2 of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium
1.29 0.24
0. 52
0.1
Lead
0.35 0.07
0.32
0. 06
Nickel
1.91 0.35
1 .29
0.24
Zinc
3.55 0.65
1 .46
0.27
English Units
—lbs/1 million ft2 of
Area Processed
or Coated
Chromium
0.27 0.05
0.11
0.12
Lead
0.07 0.013
0.07
0.012
Nickel
0.39 0.08
0.27
0.05
Zinc
0.73 0.14
0.13
0.06
25

-------
D. Subcategory D - Copper Basis Material
No Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources are
being promulgated
(b) Pretreatment Standards for New Source
PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant	Maximum for Maximum for
Property		any 1 day	Monthly average	
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
preparation operation preparation operation
Metric Units—mg/m2
of Area
Processed or
Coated
Chromium 2.23
0.24
0. 90
0.1
Lead 0.6
0.07
0. 54
0. 06
Nickel 3.31
0.35
2. 23
0.24
Zinc 6.13
0. 65
2. 53
0. 27
English Units—lbs/1 million ft2 of Area Processed or Coated
Chromium 0.46 0.05 0.19 0.02
Lead 0.13 0.013 0.11 0.012
Nickel 0.68 0.08 0.46 0.05
Zinc	1 . 26	0.14	0.52	0. 06
5. No effluent limitations based on the best conventional
treatment are being promulgated at this time.
26

-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Background
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. 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 are 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 are required to comply with Section
306 new source performance standards (NSPS), based on best
available demonstrated technology; and new and existing sources
which introduce pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
((POTW) are subject to pretreatment standards under Sections
307(b) and (c) of the Act. While the requirements for direct
dischargers are to be incorporated into National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under Section
402 of the Act, pretreatment standards are made enforceable
directly against any owner or operator of any source which
introduces pollutants into POTWs (indirect dischargers).
Although section 402(a)(1) of the 1972 Act authorizes 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 on regulations promulgated by the Administrator of
EPA. Section 304(b) of the Act requires the Administrator to
promulgate regulations providing guidelines for effluent
limitations setting forth the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of BPT and BAT. Moreover,
Section 306 of the Act requires promulgation of regulations for
NSPS. Sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c) requires promulgation
of regulations for pretreatment standards. In addition to these
regulations for designated industry categories, Section 307(a) of
the Act requires the Administrator to promulgate effluent
standards applicable to all dischargers of toxic pollutants.
Finally, Section 501(a) of the Act authorizes the Administrator
27

-------
to prescribe any additional regulations necessary to carry out
his functions under the Act.
The EPA was unable to promulgate many of these regulations by the
dates contained in the Act. In 1976, EPA was sued by several
environmental groups, and in settlement of this lawsuit EPA and
the plaintiffs executed a Settlement Agreement which was approved
by the Court. This Agreement required EPA to develop a program
and adhere to a schedule for promulgating for 21 major industries
BAT effluent 1 imitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and
new source performance standards for 65 priority pollutants and
classes of pollutants. See Natural Resources Defense Counci1,
Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9, 1979.
Porcelain Enameling "is included in the 21 industries in the
Agreement.
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean
Water Act of 1977. Although this law makes several important
changes in the Federal water pollution control program, its most
significant feature is its incorporation into the Act of several
of the basic elements of the Settlement Agreement program for
priority pollutant 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, EPA'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.
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.
BCT is riot an additional limitation but replaces BAT for the
control of conventional pollutants, TSS, BOD, oil and grease, pH
and fecal coliforms. 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.
Aroerican 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 to publicly owned
28

-------
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 BCT be less
stringent than BPT.
EPA published its methodology for analyzing BCT costs on August
29, 1979 (44 FR 50732). In the case noted above, the Court of
Appeals ordered EPA to correct data errors underlying EPA's
calculation of the first test, and to apply the second cost test.
(EPA had argued that a second cost test was not required.)
EPA has determined that the technology which is the basis for
porcelain enameling BAT can remove significant amounts of
conventional pollutants. However, EPA has not yet developed a
revised BCT methodology in response to the American Paper
Institute v. EPA decision mentioned earlier. Accordingly, EPA is
deferring a decision on the appropriate final BCT limitations.
NSPS are based on the best available demonstrated technology
(BDT). New plants have the opportunity to install the best and
most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment
technologies.
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that
pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with
the operation of pubiicly owned treatment works.
GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
The proposed effluent limitations and standards (January 27,
1981) for porcelain enameling were developed from data obtained
from previous EPA studies, literature searches, and a plant
survey and evaluation. Initially, information from EPA records
was collected and a literature search was conducted. This
information was then catalogued in the form of individual plant
summaries describing processes performed, production rates, raw
materials utilized, wastewater treatment practices, water uses
and wastewater characteristics.
In addition to providing a quantitative description of the
porcelain enameling category, this information was used to
determine if the characteristics of plants in the category as a
whole were uniform and thus amenable to one set of effluent
limitations and standards. Since the characteristics of the
plants in the data base and the wastewater generation and
discharge varied widely, the establishment of subcategories was
determined to be necessary. The subcategorization of the
29

-------
category was made by using basis material processed as the
subcategory descriptor. The subcategorization process is fully
discussed in Section IV of this Development Document.
To supplement existing data, data collection portfolios (dcp's)
under authority of Section 308 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, were transmitted by EPA to all known
porcelain enameling companies. In addition to existing and plant
supplied information (via dcp), data were obtained through a
sampling program carried out at selected sites. Sampling
consisted of a screening program at one plant for each basis
material type plus verification at up to 5 plants for each type.
Screen sampling was utilized to select pollutant parameters for
analysis in the second or verification phase of the program. The
designated priority pollutants (65 toxic pollutants) and typical
porcelain enameling pollutants formed the basic list for
screening. Verification sampling and analysis was conducted to
determine the source and quantity of the selected pollutant
parameters in each subcategory.
Available data were analyzed to determine wastewater generation
and mass discharge rates for each basis material subcategory. In
addition to evaluating pollutant generation and discharges, the
full range of control and treatment technologies existing within
the porcelain enameling category was identified. This was done
by taking into consideration the pollutants to be treated and the
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of these
pollutants. Special attention was paid to in-process technology
such as the recovery and reuse of process solutions, the recycle
of process water and the curtailment of water use.
The information as outlined above was then evaluated in order to
determine what levels of technology were appropriate as a basis
for effluent limitations for proposed existing sources based on
the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT)
and based on best available technology economically achievable
(BAT). Levels of technology appropriate for pretreatment of
wastewater introduced into a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) from both new and existing sources were also identified as
were the new source performance standards (NSPS) based on best
demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or
other alternatives (BDT) for the control of direct discharges
from new sources. In evaluating these technologies various
factors were considered. These included treatment technologies
from other industries, any pretreatment requirements, the total
cost of application of the technology in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits to be achieved, the age of equipment and faci-
lities involved, the processes employed, the engineering aspects
of the application of various types of control technique process
30

-------
changes, and non-water quality environmental impact (including
energy requirements). This information is summarized in the
proposed regulation development document for porcelain enameling
(EPA 440/1-81/072-b).
Sources of Industry Data
Before proposal of limitations, data on the porcelain enameling
category were gathered from previous EPA studies, literature
studies, inquiries to federal and state environmental agencies,
raw material manufacturers and suppliers, trade association
contacts and the porcelain enameling manufacturers themselves.
Additionally, meetings were held with industry representatives
and the EPA. All known porcelain enamelers were sent a data
collection portfolio (dcp) to solicit specific information
concerning each facility. Finally, a sampling program was
carried out at plants consisting of screen sampling and analysis
at five facilities to determine the presence of a broad range of
pollutants and verification sampling and analysis at 15 plants
(at two plants two subcategories were sampled) to quantify the
pollutants present in porcelain enameling wastewater. Specific
details of the sampling program and information from the above
data sources are presented in Section V of this Document.
Literature Study - Published literature in the form of books,
reports, papers, periodicals, and promotional materials was
examined. The most informative sources are listed in Section XV.
EPA Studies - A previous preliminary and unpublished EPA study of
the porcelain enameling segment was reviewed. The information
included a summary of the industry describing: the manufacturing
processes; the waste characteristics associated with these
processes; recommended pollutant parameters requiring control;
applicable end-of-pipe treatment technologies for wastewaters;
effluent characteristics resulting from this treatment; and a
background bibliography. Also included in these data were
detailed production and sampling information on approximately 19
manufacturing plants.
Plant Survey and Evaluation - The collection of data pertaining
to facilities that perform porcelain enameling was a two-phased
operation. First, a mail survey was conducted by EPA. A dcp was
mailed to each company in the country known or believed to
perform porcelain enameling. This dcp included sections for
general plant data, specific production process data, waste
management process data, raw and treated wastewater data, waste
treatment cost information, and priority pollutant information
based on 1976 production records. Nearly 250 requests for
information were mailed. From this mailing, it was determined
31

-------
that 103 companies operate 123 porcelain enameling facilities.
Of the total data requests, 117 submitted a completed dcp for
porcelain enameling, 2 plants that did no porcelain enameling
submitted dcps, 95 reported no porcelain enameling, three were
dry processors, six were not deliverable, 17 mailings went to
corporate addresses, 10 were duplicate mailings, and there was no
response from three. Some plants responded with 1977 or 1978
data, while most provided 1976 data. Table III—1 (Page 43)
summarizes the survey responses received. It was subsequently
learned in a telephone survey of several plants that plant 36069
had ceased operations. This reduced the number of porcelain
enameling plants identified to 116.
Utilization of Industry Data
Data collected from the previously listed sources are used
throughout this report in the development of a base for BPT and
BAT limitations and NSPS and pretreatment standards. The EPA
studies as well as the available literature provided the basis
for the porcelain enameling subcategorization discussed in
Section IV. Raw wastewater characteristics for each subcategory
presented in Section V were obtained from the screening and
verification sampling.	Dcp information on wastewater
characteristics was incomplete. Selection of pollutant
parameters for control (Section VI) was based on both dcp
responses and verification and screening results. These provided
information on both the pollutants which the plant personnel felt
were in their wastewater discharges and those pollutants
specifically found in porcelain enameling wastewaters as the
result -of sampling. Based on the selection of pollutants
requiring control and their levels, applicable treatment
technologies were identified and are described in Section VII of
this document. Actual waste treatment technologies utilized by
porcelain enameling plants (as identified in the dcp responses
and observed at the sampled plants) were also used to identify
applicable treatment technologies. The cost of treatment (both
individual technologies and systems) is based primarily on data
from equipment manufacturers and is contained in Section VIII of
this document. Finally, dcp data, sampling data and estimated
treatment system performance are utilized in Sections IX, X, XI,
and XII (BPT, BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment respectively) in the
selection of applicable treatment systems, the presentation of
achievable effluent levels, and the presentation of actual
effluent levels obtained for each porcelain enameling
subcategory. Cost of treatment systems and environmental
benefits are presented for BPT, BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment in
Sections IX, X, XI, and XII, respectively. The technical
development document was published with the proposed regulation
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Porcelain
32

-------
Enameling, and public comments were invited. In response to
public comments, changes were made in this document before the
final regulation was published. The two most important changes
to the proposed regulation are reanalysis of the combined metals
data base (described in Section VII) and recalculation of the
estimated compliance costs (described Section VIII). Other
changes include reevaluation of the feasibility of filtration,
dry powder coatings and a sump settling technologies (described
in Section VII), a reconsideration of the pollutants requiring
limitation (Sections VI and IX) and modifications of the
production normalized water use data base in Section V, IX, X,
XI ) .
DESCRIPTION OF THE PORCELAIN ENAMELING INDUSTRIAL SEGMENT
Background
Porcelain enameling is the application of glass-like coatings to
metals such as steel, cast iron, aluminum or copper. The purpose
of the coating is to improve surface characteristics of the
product such as; chemical resistance, abrasion resistance,
thermal stability, electrical resistance and appearance. Most
coatings are applied to the workpiece as "slip" which is composed
of frit (glassy-like raw material), clays, coloring oxides, metal
salts, water, and special additives such as suspending agents.
The vitreous inorganic coating is produced by applying the slip
to the metal by a variety of methods such as spraying, dipping,
and flow coating, and then bonding the coating to the base metal
at temperatures in excess of 500°C (1,000°F). At these
temperatures, finely ground enamel frit particles fuse and flow
together entrapping the other solid constituents of the slip to
form the permanently bonded, hard porcelain coating. Some enamel
coating is applied as a dry powder. The powder is prepared from
frit, fluxes, and other components. The dry powder is applied by
electrostatic powder spraying or by dusting the powder onto the
hot object (usually cast iron plumbing ware).
The facilities regulated by this category may be listed under SIC
codes 3469 (porcelain enameled products, except plumbing
supplies), 3431 (enameled iron and metal sanitary ware), 3479
(porcelain enameling for the trade), 3631 (household cooking
equipment), 3632 (household refrigerators and home and farm
freezers), 3633 (household laundry equipment), and 3639
(household appliances, not elsewhere classified). Included among
these areas are the large appliance, cookware, architectural
panel, and plumbingware industries.
33

-------
The porcelain enameling category is estimated to consist of 116
plants of various sizes. Included in this total are many plants
that also perform metal finishing, aluminum forming or other
processes included in other point source categories. Independent
shops obtain raw untreated metal, and produce a wide variety of
porcelain enameled products for specific customers. Sometimes
the independent porcelain enameler performs a toll function,
coating basis materials owned by the customer. A captive
porcelain enameling operation is usually an integral part of a
large corporation engaged in many phases of metal production and
finishing. The annual square footage for most independent shops
is lower than captive porcelain enameling operations.
Porcelain enameling facilities generally clean, etch and apply
porcelain enamel to one of four basis materials which are steel
(sometimes called sheet iron), cast iron, aluminum, and copper.
Special low-carbon steels, generally referred to as enameling
iron, are used extensively because of their superior performance
in enameling operations. A few facilities coat more than one
basis material, usually steel and cast iron. The basis metal is
prepared for enamel application on both sides of the work piece,
but the number of coats applied varies according to product
specifications. A ground coat is usually applied to the whole
work piece with the additional coatings applied to one side or
again to both sides as necessary.
Most porcelain enameling facilities purchase coating materials
and metal preparation chemicals including alkaline cleaners,
acids, neutralizers, etc. Virtually all porcelain enameling
facilities blend and grind purchased materials in a ball mill to
make slip, a viscous fluid to be coated on the work piece.
Slip ingredients are manufactured and sold by only a few
specialized chemical firms. Many formulations of slip may be
used in any plant so that the finished porcelain enamel surface
will meet individual product specifications. In general,
porcelain enamel facilities depend heavily on their individual
vendors for technical advice for optimum use of purchased
chemicals.
Description of Porcelain Enameling Process
Regardless of the basis metal being coated, the porcelain
enameling process involves the preparation of the enamel slip or
powder, surface preparation of the basis material, application of
the enamel, drying, and firing to fuse the coating to the metal.
The following sections describe the various production processes
involved in porcelain enameling. They are, ball milling, metal
34

-------
surface preparations, enamel application methods, and process
sequences for each basis metal coated.
Bal1 Milling
Ball milling is the process of mixing and grinding frit and other
raw materials to form an enamel slip of the appropriate
consistency for a particular application. The components of the
enamel are loaded into a revolving drum (ball mill) with water
and grinding balls made of porcelain or alumina. The revolving
motion of the ball mill causes the balls to impact, trapping raw
materials in between them. This action, over a period of time,
breaks the individual particles into very small fragments and
forms a homogeneous mixture suitable for spraying, dipping or
flow coating. The very fine particle size achieved in a ball
mill (about 99 percent will pass through a 325 mesh screen)
provides a very large surface area making metal components more
available for leaching into water.
A typical enamel slip is comprised of a combination of the
following:
1.	Frit or a combination of frits - These make up the
major portion of the slip.
2.	Clays - Clays are used as floating agents to suspend
the frit particles in the slip.
3.	Gums - Compounds such as gum arabic and gum tragacanth
are used as floating agents in some enamels and in
other cases are used as hardness controllers.
4.	Suspending agents such as bentonites and colloidal
silica.
5.	Opacifiers such as tin oxide, zirconium oxide or
"uverite".
6.	Coloring oxides which impart desired color to the
enamel.
7.	Electrolytes such as borax, sodium carbonate and
magnesium sulfate which control the properties of the
si ip.
8.	Water, which is the vehicle for the coating.
35

-------
Basis Material Preparation
In order for the porcelain enamel to form a good bond with the
workpiece, the base metal to be coated must be properly prepared.
Depending on the type of metal being finished, one or more
surface preparation processes are performed. These processes may
include solvent cleaning, alkaline cleaning, acid etch, grit
blasting, nickel strike, neutralization, and chromate cleaning.
Solvent Cleaning is used to remove oily dirt, grease, smears and
fingerprints from metal workpieces. Solvent cleaning is
classified as either hot cleaning such as vapor degreasing or
cold cleaning which covers all solvent cleaning performed at or
near room temperature. Vapor degreasing, which is carried out in
specifically designed equipment that maintains a nonflammable
solvent such as trichloroethylene or 1,1,2-trichloroethane at its
boiling point, is used to clean metal parts. It is very
effective in removing non-saponifiable oils, and sulfurized or
chlorinated components. It is also used to flush away soluble
soil. In cold cleaning, the solvent or mixture of solvents is
selected based on the type of soil to be removed. For some
parts, diphase cleaning provides the best method of cleaning
where soil removal requires the action of water and organic
compounds. This approach uses a two layer system of water
soluble and water insoluble solvents. Diphase cleaning is
particularly useful where both solvent-soluble and water-soluble
lubricants are used.
Alkaline Cleaning is used to remove oils, soils or solid soil
from workpieces. The detergent nature of the cleaning solution
provides most of the cleaning action with agitation of the
solution and movement of the workpiece being of secondary
importance. Alkaline cleaners are classified into three types:
soak, spray, and electrolytic. Soak cleaners are used on easily
removed soil. This type of cleaner is less efficient than spray
or electrolytic cleaners.
Spray cleaners combine the detergent properties of the solution
with the impact force of the spray which mechanically loosens the
soil. A difficulty with spray cleaning is that to be effective
the spray must reach all surfaces. Another problem is that the
detergent concentration is often lessened because of foaming.
When aluminum is the metal being porcelain enameled, a stronger
alkaline solution is often used to bring about a mild etch or
micro etch of the metal. The purpose of the etch is to remove a
thin layer of aluminum, thereby ensuring that surface oxides are
removed.
36

-------
Electrolytic cleaning produces the cleanest surfaces available
from conventional methods of cleaning. The effectiveness of this
method results from the strong agitation of the solution by gas
evolution and oxidation-reduction reactions that occur during
electrolysis. Also, certain dirt particles become electrically
charged and are repelled from the surface. Direct current
(cathodic), the most common electrolytic cleaning, uses the
workpiece as the cathode, while reverse current (anodic) cleaning
uses the workpiece is the anode. Periodic reverse current
cleaning is a combination of ' anodic and cathodic cleaning in
which the current is periodically reversed. Periodic reverse
cleaning gives improved smut removal, accelerated cleaning and a
more active surface for subsequent coating.
Acid Etch - Acid may be utilized to remove rust, scale and oxides
that form on a part and to provide desired surface
characteristics prior to porcelain enameling. Acid etch may
include acid cleaning, acid pickling or acid etching. Acid
cleaning involves a mild acid solution which dissolves surface
oxides; acid pickling uses a stronger solution which dissolves
and attacks the metal, liberating hydrogen gas which forces scale
from the surface. Acid etching makes use of a strong acid
solution for the controlled removal of surface metal. The result
of this is a clean, bare and etched basis material.
As a rule, sulfuric acid is used for acid etching in the porce-
lain enameling industry, although hydrochloric (muriatic) acid,
phosphoric acid and nitric acid are also employed. In many
cases, an acid ferric sulfate solution is used in conjunction
with a sulfuric acid dip for pickling of steel. The ferric
sulfate solution attacks or etches the metal much (four to six
times) faster than acid alone. However, since it does not remove
rust, smut and scale as efficiently as sulfuric acid, a sulfuric
acid dip is also required.
Nickel Flash - Prior to the porcelain enameling of many steels, a
nickel plating step is performed. This deposition of nickel is a
form of immersion plating in which a thin, metal deposit is
obtained by chemical displacement on the surface of the basis
metal. In immersion plating, a metal displaces from solution any
other metal that is below it in the electromotive series of
elements. The more noble metal is deposited from solution while
the more active is dissolved. In this particular case, nickel
comes out of solution and deposits on the steel while iron ions
go into solution.
Nickel flash is employed in order to improve the bond between the
porcelain enamel and the metal. It is normally deposited after
the part has been etched and rinsed. The solution can consist of
37

-------
single (NiS04*6H20) or double (NiS04*(NH3)2S04*6H20) nickel salts
with nickel sulfate being the predominant component.
Neutralization - The neutralization step follows the acid etch
and nickel flash (if present) steps prior to the porcelain
enameling of steel. Its function is to remove the last traces of
acid left on the metal surface. Neutralization may or may not be
followed by a rinse.
The alkali neutralizer solution may be made up of soda ash, borax
or trisodium phosphate and water. The alkalinity of these
compounds neutralizes any remaining acid.
Chromate Cleaning - When certain aluminum alloys (such as high
magnesium alloys) are being porcelain enameled, a chromate
cleaning or pickling solution is usually used to enhance adher-
ence of the enamel. Typical solutions contain a source of
chromate (potassium chromate or sodium bichromate), sodium
hydroxide and water. This step, when used, is the final
preparation step performed on aluminum prior to porcelain
enameling. Data received indicate that four aluminum porcelain
enameling plants utilize the chromate cleaning process.
Grit Blasting is a mechanical surface preparation in which an
abrasive impacts the metal to be processed in order to produce a
roughened, matte surface. The mold chilled surface of cast iron
must be altered to achieve a good bond with porcelain enamel and
grit blasting has proven to be effective in producing a suitable
surface. Sand, steel grit, and steel shot are the abrasives used
in blasting, though steel grit appears to be most widely used in
porcelain enameling. The parts which are grit blasted require no
additional surface preparation since they are essentially clean
and their roughened surfaces provide a good 'tooth' for porcelain
enamel adherence.
Coating Application Methods
Once the workpiece has undergone the proper basis metal
preparation and the enamel slip has been prepared, the next step
is the actual application of the porcelain enamel. Included
among the application methods used are air spraying,
electrostatic spraying, dip coating, electrostatic powder
coating, flow coating, powder coating, and silk screening. After
each coating is applied, the part is dried if a wet coating is
used, then fired in a furnace to fuse the enamel coating to the
basis metal or substrate.
Air Spraying - The most widely used method of enamel application
is air spraying. In this process, enamel slip is atomized and
38

-------
propelled by air into a conical pattern, which can be directed
over the article to be coated by an operator or machine. The
atomization of the coating material occurs due to the expansion
and turbulence of compressed air, which tears the slip into tiny
droplets.
Air spraying operates with controlled air pressure supplied to
the slip container from a compressed air supply line and
finishing material supplied from a flexible fluid hose. This
type of spraying is especially good if there are frequent color
changes or if parts of random shape and size are to be coated.
Electrostatic Spray Coating incorporates the principles of air
atomized spray coating with the attraction of unlike electric
charges. In electrostatic spray coating, atomized slip particles
are charged at 70,000-100,000 volts and directed toward a
grounded part. The electrostatic forces push the particles away
from the atomizer and away from each other. The charged
particles are attracted to the grounded workpiece and adhere to
it.
Dip Coating consists of submerging a part in a tank of slip,
withdrawing the part, and permitting it to drain or centrifuging
it to remove excess slip. There are several instances for which
dip coating is well suited:
1.	Large parts too bulky to be spray coated.
2.	Parts with complex shapes or deep recesses.
3.	Parts that require metal protection, but uniformity of
coating and appearance are not important
4.	Large numbers of small parts such as hardware.
5.	Small objects that require coating on only one end.
Flow Coating - In the flow coating process, enamel slip is pumped
from a storage tank to nozzles that are positioned according to
the shape and size of the parts so as to direct the flow of
enamel onto the surface of the parts as the parts are conveyed
past the nozzles. The excess enamel drains back to the storage
tank for recirculation.
Powder Coating is an application method employed for cover
coating cast iron. It is a dry process which requires no water.
After a ground coat is applied and fused, the hot or reheated
cast iron part, in a red hot condition, is dusted with porcelain
enamel in the form of a dry powder. The glass powder melts as it
39

-------
strikes the hot surface. The dusting is carried out as long as
the temperature of the part is higher than the melting point of
the powder. If necessary, the casting can be reheated and dusted
several times to achieve the desired finish.
Electrostatic Powder Coating is a combination of electrostatic
spray coating and powder coating. Charged dry powder particles
are sprayed toward the workpiece and are attracted to the cold
grounded workpiece by electrostatic attraction. The process is
dry, neither using process water nor generating process
wastewater.
Silk Screening is utilized by some companies to impart a
decorative pattern onto a porcelain enameled piece. This is
accomplished through the use of an oil based porcelain enamel
which is applied to the part through a. stencil constructed of
silk. The enamel is spread on in a thin layer with a squeegee.
After application, the workpiece is baked to achieve fusion of
the enamel. It should be noted that only one color can be
applied and baked at one time.
INDUSTRY SUMMARY
The porcelain enameling industry in the United States is
estimated to consist of at least 116 porcelain enameling plants.
The basis materials enameled are steel, cast iron, aluminum and
copper. Products manufactured are varied, ranging from large
cooking appliances (porcelain on steel) to smaller, more
specialized items such as jewelry (porcelain on copper). Of the
116 plants known to apply porcelain enamel, 100 facilities enamel
on steel, 12 enamel on cast iron 16 enamel on aluminum, and two
enamel on copper. Several facilities coat two different basis
materials.
General Information
•	Plants range in age from new to almost 100 years old. Most
plants were built or modified significantly after 1960.
•	Employment in plants engaged in porcelain enameling ranges
from 3 to almost 3,000 people. These figures represent
total plant employment and do not necessarily represent only
employees engaged in porcelain enameling for captive
operations. The average employment is 173 people.
•	88 facilities discharge to municipal treatment systems; 28
discharge to streams or rivers.
40

-------
Production Profile
The average (mean) porcelain enamel plant applies
1.08 x 10* m2/yr (11.6 x 10* ft2/yr). metal preparation
1.18 x 10* m2/yr (12.7 x 10* £t2/yr). porcelain enamel coated
Total porcelain enamel applied each year by all plants
is estimated at 153 x 10* m2 (1610 x 10* ft2).
The average production rate of a plant in each basis
metal subcategory is:
	Metal Prep	Coating
(Millions)
m2/yr
ftVyr
m2/yr
ft2/yr
Steel
1 .230
13.23
1.400
15.06
Cast Iron


0.796
8.56
Aluminum
0.257
2.765
0.207
2.227
Copper
0.052
0.560
0.054
0.581
Porcelain enameling operations generate wastewater from surface
preparation of the basis material and from the enamel application
process. The rate of process water discharge varies from five to
almost 15,000 gallons per hour.
The porcelain enameling industrial segment has various types of
end-of-pipe treatment systems but only limited in-process
treatment to handle wastewater streams. Seventy-two percent of
the plants have no treatment in-place. Dcp's indicate that the
following waste treatment components are commonly found in this
industrial segment.
Treatment in Place	Percent of Plants
pH Adjust-Lime or Caustic	28
pH Adjust-Acid	9
Chemical Precipitation and Sedimentation	28
Sedimentation Lagoon	11
Contract Removal of Sludge	7
Landfill of Sludge	21
41

-------
Industry Outlook
Porcelain enameling as an industry in this country is about 100
years old. During the first half of the 20th century porcelain
enameling was a vigorous industry segment as it supplied a low
cost weather resistant surface of great durability. Products
ranged from household pots and plumbingware to outdoor signs and
building surface panels. The advent of stainless and aluminum
ware, improved characteristics of painted metals, molded and
formed plastic parts and changes in architectural taste have
combined to reduce the relative demand for porcelain enameling.
Despite the fact that lower cost competitive materials are
eroding some porcelain enamel markets, it appears to be a stable
industry. Additional consideration of the industry economic
outlook is provided in the Agency's Economic Analysis of the
Industry (EPA 440/2-82-005).
42

-------
TABLE III-l
PORCELAIN ENAMELING INDUSTRY PROFILE
SUBCATEGORIZATION AND DISCHARGE INFORMATION
PROCELAIN ENAMELING SUBCATEGORY
(a)	(b>
DISCHARGE
COPPER
DIR IND
PLANT
DATE
BUILT OR
NUMBER
OF
AND
DIRECT OR INDIRECT
STEEL
CAST IRON ALUMINUM
ID
MODIFIED
EMPLOYEES
DIR
IND
DIR IND DIR IND
01059
1978
22

X

01061
1978
500
X
X

01062
1972
10

X

03032
1976
50
X


03033
1972
9


X
04066
1946
20

X

04098
1976
30
X


04099
1973
12

X
X
04101
1952
30

X

04102
1975
40

X

04122
1964
65

X

04126
1946
160

X
X
04138
1966
32

X
X
06030
1971
8


X
06031
1970
10



09031
1977
66

X

09032
1973
55

X

09037
1967
600


X
11045
1965
12


X
11052
1975
160

X

11053
1976
1084

X

11082
1974
1237

X

11089
1976
53

X

11090
1976
75

X

11091
197 7
45

X

11092
1950
100
X

X
11105
1966
22

X

11106
196/
10

X

11107
1962
1080

X

11117
1965
1300

X

11923
1973
1200

X

12035
1955
154

X

12037
1946
40

X

12038
1968
86

X

12039
1968
185
X

X
12040
1946
125
X
X

12043
1929
390

X

12044
1958
538

X

12045
1975
20

X
X
(a)	Direct: Discharge of PE Process Wastewater to Surface Water Course.
(b)	Indirect: Discharge of PE Process Wastewater to POTW
43

-------
TABLE III-l (Continued)
PORCELAIN ENAMELING INDUSTRY PROFILE
SUBCATEGORIZATION AND DISCHARGE INFORMATION
PROCELAIN ENAMELING SUBCATEGORY
U>	(b>
DATE NUMBER	AND DIRECT OR INDIRECT	DISCHARGE
PLANT BUILT OR OF	STEEL	CAST IRON ALUMINUM COPPER
ID MODIFIED EMPLOYEES DIE IND DIR IND DIR IND DIR IND
12064
1977
750

X
12234
1974
65

X
12235
1977
290

X
13321
1964
_

X
13330
1977
175

X
15031
1970
75

X
15032
1976
15
X

15033
1968
175

X
15051
1967
275

X
15194
1971
79
X

15712
1959
1080


15949
1978
160

X
18538
1970
1400
X

19049
1976
15

X
20015
1976
80

X
20059
1978
7

X
20067
1969
50
X

20090
1964
14

X
20091
1970
76

X
21060
1965
500


22024
1977
13

X
23089
1949
_

X
30043
1970
138

X
30062
1967
46
X

33053
1960
8


33054
1968
2800
X

33076
1958
38


3307 7
1967
14


33083
1971
373


33084
1957
56

X
33085
1960
1155

X
33086
1954
155
X

33088
1965
4

X
33089
1977
_

X
33092
1973
40

X
33097
1957
70
X

33098
1969
27

X
(a) Direct: Discharge of PE Process Wastewater to Surface Water Course.
(b> Indirect; Discharge of PE Process Wastewater to POTW
44

-------
TABLE III-l (Continued)
PORCELAIN ENAMELING INDUSTRY PROFILE
SUBCATEGORIZATION AND DISCHARGE INFORMATION
PROCELAIN ENAMELING SUBCATEGORY
(a)	(b)
ID
MODIFIED
EMPLOYEES
DIR
IND
33104
1975
200
X
33617
1977
516
X

34031
1974
35
X

36030
1978
50

X
36039
1964
30

X
36052
1978
110
X

36069
1973
6

X
36072
1977
28

X
36077
1957
11
X

36078
1956
3

X
40031
1969
47

X
40032
1972
245
X

40033
1977
1500
X

40034
1976
51

X
40035
1977
25

X
40036
1968
6

X
40039
1977
75

X
40040
1953
20
X

40041
1977
28

X
40042
1964
11
X

40043
1976
11

X
40050
1972
50

X
40053
1966
75

X
40055
1973
210
X
X
40063
-
216
X

40540
1971
9
X

41062
1971
59
X

41076
1977
70

X
41078
1958
55

X
44031
1967
28

X
45030
1974
79

X
47032
1965
28


47033
1977
35

X
47034
1960
42

X
47036
1978
12


47037
1953
32

X
47038
1965
38

X
47050
1951
40

X
47051
1971
46


47111
1948
306


47670
1978
48


OR INDIRECT
DISCHARGE
CAST IRON
DIR IND
ALUMINUM
DIR IND
X
COPPER
DIR IND
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(a)	Direct: Discharge of PE Process Wastewater to Surface Water Course.
(b)	Indirect: Discharge of PE Process Wastewater to POTW
45

-------

-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
Subcategorization should take into account pertinent industry
characteristics, manufacturing process variations, water use,
wastewater characteristics, and other factors which do or could
compel a specific grouping of segments of industry for the
purpose of regulating wastewater pollutants.	Effluent
limitations and standards establish mass limitations on the
discharge of pollutants which are applied, through the permit
issuance process, to specific dischargers. Division of the
industry segment into subcategories provides a mechanism for
addressing process and product variations which result in
distinct wastewater characteristics. To allow the national
limitations and standards to be applied to a wide range of sizes
of production units, the mass of pollutant discharge must be
referenced to a unit of production. This factor is referred to
as a production normalizing parameter and is developed in
conjunction with subcategorization.
SUBCATEGORIZATION BASIS
Factors Considered
After considering the nature of the various segments of the
porcelain enameling industry and the operations performed
therein, the following subcategorization bases were selected for
evaluation.
1.	Basis Material Used
2.	Manufacturing Processes
3.	Wastewater Characteristics
4.	Products Manufactured
5.	Water Use
6.	Water Pollution Control Technology
7.	Treatment Costs
8.	Solid Waste Generation and Disposal
9.	Size of Plant
10.	Age of Plant
11.	Number of Employees
12.	Total Energy Requirements (Manufacturing Process
and Waste Treatment and Control)
13.	Non-Water Quality Characteristics
14.	Unique Plant Characteristics
47

-------
Subcategory Selection
A review of each of the potential subcategorization factors
reveals that the basis material used and the processes performed
on these basis materials are the principal factors affecting the
wastewater characteristics of p-lants in the porcelain enameling
category. This is because both the process chemicals and the
basis material constituents can appear in wastewaters. The major
manufacturing processes in the porcelain enameling industry are
cleaning, etching, and enamel application. Wastewaters from
cleaning and etching are dependent on the basis material
processed, while wastewaters from the enamel application step are
relatively independent of the basis material. Therefore,
subcategorization by basis material inherently accounts for the
process chemicals used. Such a subcategorization is:
A.	Porcelain enameling on steel
B.	Porcelain enameling on cast iron
C.	Porcelain enameling on aluminum
D.	Porcelain enameling on copper
In addition to the above subcategorization, the steel and
aluminum base metals could be further divided into two segments,
sheet and strip to account for the significant water saving
potential of continuous operations relative to individual sheet
processing. However, because there are only two known porcelain
enamelers on strip, it was not selected as a separate
subcategory.
Other Factors Considered
Other categorization bases considered but not selected for
categorization are presented in the following subsections along
with the reasons why they are not considered as appropriate as
the basis selected.
Products Manufactured. The products porcelain enameled are
varied ranging from pots and pans to washing machine drums.
While there are specific manufacturing differences from product
to product (and hence, wastewater differences), subcategorization
by the discrete process differences associated with each basis
metal inherently accounts for product variation in terms of
wastewater characteristics.
Water Use. Water use alone is not a comprehensive enough factor
for subcategorization. While water use is a key element in the
limitations established, it does not inherently relate to . the
source or to the type and quantity of the waste1. Water use must
48

-------
be related to the manufacturing process utilizing the water since
it dictates the water use and cannot be used alone as an
effective subcategorization base.
Water Pollution Control Technology and Treatment Costs. The
necessity for a subcategorization factor to relate to the raw
wastewater characteristics of a plant automatically eliminates
certain factors from consideration as potential bases for
subdividing the category. Water pollution control technology,
treatment costs, and effluent discharge destination have no
effect on the raw waste water generated in a plant. The water
pollution control technology employed at a plant and its cost are
the result of a requirement to achieve a particular effluent
level for a given raw wastewater load. It does not affect the
raw wastewater characteristics.
Solid Waste Generation and Disposal. Physical and chemical
characteristics of solid waste generated by the porcelain enamel
category are inherently accounted for by subcategorization
according to basis metal or manufacturiing process used, since
these factors determine the resultant solid waste from a plant.
Solid waste characteristics as well as wastewater characteristics
are a function of the basis metal and process employed in a
plant. Solid waste disposal techniques may be identical for a
wide variety of solid wastes and do not provide a sufficient
basis for subcategorization.
Size of Plant. The nature of the processes for the porcelain
enameling industry are the same in all facilities regardless of
size. The size of a plant is not an appropriate basis for
subcategorization parameter since the waste characteristics of a
plant per unit of production are essentially the same for plants
of all sizes when processing the same basis material. Thus, size
alone is not an adequate technical subcategorization parameter
since the wastewater characteristics of plants are dependent on
the type of products produced.
While size is not adequate as the technical subcategorization
parameter, it is recognized that the capital investment for
installing wastewater control facilities may be greater for small
plants relative to the investment in their production facilities
than for larger plants. Consequently, the size distribution of
plants was investigated during the development of limitations and
wastewater treatment technology recommendations were reviewed to
determine if special considerations are required for small
plants.
49

-------
Age of Plant. While the relative age of a plant is important in-
considering the economic impact of a guideline, it is not an
appropriate basis for grouping the porcelain enamel industry into
subcategories because it does not take into consideration the
significant parameters which affect the raw wastewater
characteristics. The basis material enameled dictates the
processes employed and these have a much more significant impact
on the raw wastewater generated than the age of the plant. In
addition, subcategorization would have to allow for old plants
with new equipment, new plants with old equipment and other
possible combinations.
Number of Employees. The number of employees in a plant does not
directly provide a basis for subcategorization since the number
of employees does not necessarily reflect the production or water
use at any plant. A plant manually controlled and operated by
six people may produce less than an automated plant with two
employees that has extensive automated equipment. Since the
amount of wastewater generated is related to the production
rates, the number of employees does not provide a definitive
relationship to wastewater generation.
Total Energy Requirements. Total energy requirements were
excluded as a subcategorization parameter primarily because of
the difficulty in obtaining reliable energy estimates
specifically for production and waste treatment. When energy
consumption data are available, they are likely to include other
energy requirements such as lighting, process, air conditioning,
and heating or cooling energy figures.
Non-Water Quality Aspects. Non-water quality aspects may have an
effect on the wastewater generated in a plant. "A non-water
quality area such as air pollution discharges may be under
regulation and water scrubbers may be used to satisfy such a
regulation. This could result in an additional contribution to
the plant's wastewater. However, it is not the prime cause of
wastewater generation in the porcelain enamel category, and
therefore not useful as an overall subcategorization factor.
Unique Plant Characteristics. Unique plant characteristics such
as geographical location, space availability, and water
availability do not provide a proper basis for subcategorization
since they do not necessarily affect the raw wastewater
characteristics of the plant. Plants in the same geographical
area have different wastewater characteristics. Process water
availability may be a function of the geography of a plant, and
the price of water determines any necessary modifications to
water use procedures employed in each plant. However, required
procedural changes to account for water availability only affect
50

-------
\
the volume of pollutants discharged, not the characteristics of
the constituents. Waste treatment procedures can be utilized in
most geographical locations.
A limitation in the availability of land space for constructing a
waste treatment facility may in some cases affect the economic
impact of an effluent limitation. However, in-process controls
and rinse water conservation can be adopted to minimize the size
- and thus land space required - for the end-of-process treatment
facility. Often, a compact treatment unit can easily handle end-
of-process waste if good in-process techniques are utilized to
conserve raw materials and water.
Summary of Subcateqorization
For this study, it was determined that the principal factor
affecting the wastewater characteristics of plants in the
porcelain enamel category is the basis metal enameled. This
dictates the type of preparation required, thus affecting the
waste characteristics. The coating operations were considered as
a separate subcategory because these wastewaters are basically
homogeneous regardless of basis metal to which the enamel is
applied. Because of the different subcategory flows observed,
the coating wastewaters are subcategoriz'ed according to basis
metal.
PRODUCTION NORMALIZING PARAMETERS
The relation of the pollution generation rate to spent solution
and slip generation rates is directly dependent on the amount of
porcelain enameling performed, i.e., the processed area. This
leads naturally to the selection of processed area as a
production related pollutant discharge rate parameter. Processed
area might be different for surface preparation operations and
enamel application. This results from the application • of
multiple coats of porcelain enamel to a part, or enamel
application on only one side of a part that has had both sides
prepared by a dip operation. Therefore, area processed must
consider both the area prepared (each side) and the area coated.
Weight of material being porcelain enameled is a direct and
readily identifiable production normalizing parameter. However,
the thickness of the basis material can vary. This can result in
a variation in surface area for products of identical weights.
This variation in surface area affects the quantity of spent
solutions and process baths. Thus, the weight of product is not
sufficient for determining a quantitative prediction of pollutant
discharge rate. The processed area must be used.
51

-------
Raw materials consumed was also considered for a production
normalizing parameter. The amount of chemicals and other
materials used in production is not an accurate measure of the
production rate because some plants are more efficient in their
use of porcelain enamels and chemicals. Reduction of dragout is
an important production feature that can. extend the life of
various solutions. As bath dragout is reduced, the amount of
solution makeup required is also reduced. Thus, the amount of
raw materials consumed for identical processed areas can vary
widely. For these reasons, the amount of raw materials consumed
is not appropriate as a production normalizing parameter. In
summary, area of basis material cleaned and area coated were
determined to be the most logical and useful production
normalizing parameters.
52

-------
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
This section presents supportive data which describe porcelain
enameling water use and wastewater characteristics. Data
collection and data analysis methodologies are discussed. Raw
waste and effluent concentrations, flows and pollutant mass per
unit of production area are presented for the four basis material
subcategories and for specific functional operations in each.
DATA COLLECTION
Data on the porcelain enameling category segment were gathered
from previous EPA studies, literature studies, inquiries to
federal and state environmental agencies, raw material
manufacturers and suppliers, trade association contacts and the
porcelain enamelers themselves via a mail survey and plant
visits. Additionally, meetings were held with industry
representat ives.
Literature Study:
Published literature in the form of books, reports, papers, per-
iodicals, and promotional materials was examined; the most infor-
mative sources are listed in Section XV. The material researched
covered the manufacturing processes utilized in porcelain enamel-
ing, water used, wastewater treatment technology and economic
data.
Previous EPA Studies:
Previous EPA studies of the porcelain enameling industry segment
were examined. From these studies information was gathered on
manufacturing processes, wastewater treatment technology, and
some preliminary raw wastewater characteristics at specific
plants.
Federal and State Contacts:
Federal EPA regional offices and several state environmental
agencies were contacted to obtain permit and monitoring data on
specific porcelain enameling plants.
53

-------
Raw Material Manufacturers and Suppliers:
Eight manufacturers of porcelain enamel slip ingredients were
contacted by the EPA and requested to supply priority pollutant
information concerning their formulations. This information was
tabulated and is discussed later in this section.
Trade Association Contacts:
In preparation for a survey of the industry, a meeting with
representatives of the Porcelain Enamel Institute (PEI) and the
Agency was held to discuss conclusions from previous EPA data
gathering efforts and to discuss the information to be gathered
in the data collection portfolio employed' in the study. Each dcp
question was reviewed to assure that it was necessary and
appropriate. Several additional meetings with the PEI took place
during the data collection period at their request to review the
progress of the Agency. The Agency specifically requested that
PEI assist the Agency by providing a mailing list of PEI members
who perform porcelain enameling. PEI refused to comply with this
request:
Dcp Survey Data:
The collection of information and data pertaining to individual
manufacturing facilities that perform porcelain enameling
consisted of a mail survey conducted by the EPA. A search
through the Dun and Bradstreet index and discussions with
industry personnel provided a list of the possible porcelain
enamelers in the U.S. Dcps were mailed to all of the companies
believed to do porcelain enameling. The dcp requested general
plant data, specific production information, waste treatment
information, process and treated wastewater data, waste treatment
cost information, and priority pollutant information. The Agency
mailed 250 dcp's to companies presumed to perform porcelain
enameling and received data and information on 117 plants. Of
the 117 portfolios received, only 2 contained data on raw waste-
water streams .and only 31 contained any effluent stream data.
Approximately 75 percent of the portfolios received" were
relatively complete and provided information regarding
production, size, process descriptions, wastewater treatment
systems, and water use. This information was used to provide a
good profile of the porcelain enameling industry. Of the
remaining portfolios: 95 facilities reported they were no longer
engaged in porcelain enameling, 17 went to corporate addresses,
six were undeliverable, 10 were duplicate mailings, the remainder
used no water (dry process) and three were never returned. It
was learned that one plant 36069 had subsequently ceased
54

-------
operations. The reduced the number of plants identified as
generating wastewater in procelain enameling operations to 116.
PLANT SAMPLING
The data collection effort also included engineering visits and
wastewater sampling at porcelain enameling facilities. A two
phased sampling program was conducted to collect technical and
chemical information about specific plants. The first phase -
called screening - was intended to collect incoming water, raw
wastewater and treated wastewater samples and determine the
presence or absence of pollutants with special emphasis on the
Agency list of 65 (129 specific) toxic pollutants. The second
phase, verification, was intended to further confirm (or refute)
the toxic pollutants found in the screening of each subcategory.
The presence of conventional pollutants and other pollutants was
determined as appropriate.
The principal difference between screening and verification
sampling and analysis is the chemical analysis method used for
analyzing toxic organic pollutants. Verification analysis more
extensive procedures to assure accurate quantification of
pollutants. For plants which were used for screening, a
screening analysis was performed on the first sampling day.
Verification analysis was performed on the remaining two days of
sampling. Usually, three consecutive days of sampling were
conducted at each sampled plant.
Site Selection - The dcp served as a primary information source
in the selection of plants for visitation and sampling. Specific
criteria used to select plant visit sites for sampling included:
1.	Assuring visits to plants using each basis metal.
2.	Providing a mixture of plants with relatively large and small
production. Production was judged a more important factor than
flow since a plant with poor housekeeping practice can have large
discharge, regardless of its size.
3.	Selecting plants whose production processes are typical of
the processes performed for each basis material. Consideration
was also given to selection of plants with unique processes or
treatment not universally practiced but applicable to the
industry in general as a potential pollutant reduction
alternative.
4.	Evidence of a company's knowledge of its production
processes, water use, wastewater generation and treatment system
as indicated in the dcp's received. This knowledge is important
55

-------
in establishing the degree to which sampling data from the plant
is representative of the industry.
5.	The presence of wastewater treatment or water conservation
practices. If a plant meets the first four criteria, it is cost
efficient for EPA to sample plants that will provide untreated
wastewater data as well as treatment performance data. Included
in this criteria was a consideration of dcp data that might
indicate proper design and operation of the treatment technology.
6.	Any problems or situations peculiar to the plant being
visited. In particular, consideration of accessibility of
wastewater streams or availability of transportation to convey
samples to laboratories within protocol requirements also
impacted the selection of sampling sites.
Table V-l (Page 73) presents a summary of the sampling sites
selected.
Sampling Program - The wastewater sampling program conducted at
each plant consisted of screening and verification, or just
verification. The object of screening was to determine, by
sampling, analysis and flow measurements the identity and
quantity of pollutants present in plant wastewater for each basis
material porcelain enameled. Screening involved sampling, flow
measurement and full spectrum analysis of one plant in each basis
material subcategory. Once the screening data were obtained,
parameters were chosen for verification analysis based on the
pollutants detected during screening, information reported in the
dcp, and technical judgment concerning the probable presence or
absence of each pollutant. The samples collected during
verification were then analyzed for those selected parameters.
Prior to each sampling visit, all available data, such as layouts
and diagrams of the selected plant's production processes and
wastewater treatment facilities, were reviewed. Often a visit to
the plant to be sampled was made prior to the actual sampling
visit to finalize the sampling approach. Representative sample
points were then selected to provide coverage of discrete raw
wastewater sources, total raw wastewater entering a wastewater
treatment system, and final effluents. Finally, before
conducting a visit, a detailed sampling plan showing the selected
sample points and all pertinent sample data to be obtained was
generated and reviewed.
For all sampling programs, flow proportioned composite samples or
the equivalent (for batch operations) were taken over the time
period that the plant was in operation - one day for screening
and three consecutive days for verification. On a screening
56

-------
visit, a total raw wastewater sample was taken to determine what
pollutants were generated by the production processes, a final
effluent sample was collected to determine which pollutants were
removed or contributed by the wastewater treatment system, and a
plant incoming water sample was taken to determine if there were
any significant pollutants in the water source.
For the verification sampling visits, samples were taken of the
plant incoming water, final effluent and discrete raw wastewater
sources. Individual process operations were sampled at most
plants, these data were subsequently combined into two basic
functions: coating operations and metal preparation operations.
Figure V-l (Page 111) presents typical porcelain enameling on
steel process operations and raw wastewater sampling points.
These points generally included incoming water, metal preparation
(i.e., alkaline cleaning rinse, acid etch rinse, nickel flash
rinse, neutralization rinse) and coating (i.e., ball milling
wastewater and spray booth wastewater). Table V-2 (Page 74)
presents the number of days verification sampling was performed
on metal preparation and coating raw wastewater sources for the
sampling program.
Figure V-2 (Page 112) presents a process line diagram of a
typical porcelain enameling on cast iron facility. Raw
wastewater sampling points included incoming water and ball
milling and enamel application wastewater.
Figure V-3 (Page 113) presents typical porcelain enameling on
aluminum process operations and raw wastewater sampling points.
Sampling points for sampled facilities within this subcategory
included incoming water, metal preparation, (i.e., alkaline
cleaning rinse water), and coating (i.e., ball milling and enamel
application wastewater). All sampled porcelain enameling on
aluminum facilities performed the same process operations. Table
V-2 shows the number of sampling days for metal preparation and
coating raw wastewater at each sampled facility.
Figure V-4 (Page 114) presents typical porcelain enameling on
copper process operations and raw wastewater sampling points.
Sampling points for facilities within this subcategory included
incoming water, metal preparation (i.e., acid etch rinse water),
and coating (i.e., ball milling and enamel application
wastewater). Solvent cleaning was used at one sampled facility
(06031); however, no wastewater was discharged from this
operation. Alkaline cleaning, while being reported in the dcp's
as used, was not observed at any plants visited. Table V-2
presents the number of sampling days for metal preparation and
coat'ing raw wastewater at sampled facilities.
57

-------
All of the samples collected were kept on ice throughout each day
of sampling. At the end of the sampling day, the composite
samples were divided into several bottles and preserved according
to EPA protocol.
All samples were subjected to three levels of analysis depending
on the stability of the parameters to be analyzed. On-site
analysis, performed by the sampler at the facility, measured flow
rate, pH, and temperature. Four liters of water from each sample
point for each of the three sampling days were delivered to a
laboratory in the vicinity of the subject plant and analyzed for
total cyanide, cyanide amenable to chlorination, oil and grease,
phenols (4AAP method), and total suspended solids. This analysis
was performed by these local laboratories within a six hour
period after each day's composite sample was prepared. Because
of the sensitive nature of the cyanide analysis procedure, a
quality assurance questionnaire intended to document conformance
of the procedures used by the laboratories with EPA (Part 136)
analysis methods was completed by all laboratories performing
this analysis.
The remainder of the composite samples prepared each day were
analyzed by three different laboratories: a central laboratory
for verification samples and some screening analysis, the EPA
Chicago Regional Laboratory for metals screening analysis, and a
laboratory which specialized in gas chromatograph-mass
spectroscopy (GCMS) analysis for screening of organic priority
pollutants. The EPA Chicago Regional Laboratory employed an
inductively coupled argon plasma unit (ICAP) to analyze the
samples for metals.
On a verification sampling visit, the central laboratory only
analyzed for those parameters which were selected after screening
for verification analyses. In addition, special samples were
taken of various process solutions to determine their organic or
metals content and these samples were analyzed at the central
laboratory.
Screening and verification parameters and laboratory
methodologies are listed in Table V-3 (Page 75).
Verification Parameter Selection - In order to reduce the volume
of data which must be handled, to avoid unnecessary expense, and
to limit the scope of the sampling program, a number of the
pollutant parameters analyzed for during the screen sampling are
not analyzed for during the verification sampling. The pollutant
parameters which are chosen for further analysis are called
verification pollutant parameters. Because there are different
pollutants present in each subcategory, verification pollutant
58

-------
parameter selection is done separately for each subcategory.
Three sources of information are used for their selection: the
pollutants the industry believes are present in their wastewater
as reported in dcp responses, the screen sampling analyses, and
the pollutants the Agency believes should be present after
Studying the processes and materials used by the industry.
The absence or presence of priority pollutants in plant waste-
waters was also investigated as part of the data collection port-
folio survey transmitted to all known porcelain enamel plants.
Specifically, a list of the priority pollutants was attached to
all data collection portfolios to determine which of the priority
pollutants should be investigated further. Table V-4 (Page 81)
is a tabulation of the responses to this survey and presents raw
wastewater concentration ranges. For each priority pollutant, it
lists the number of plants that knew, or believed, it was absent
or present in their wastewater.
Supplementing the above information are the sampling data
supplied by porcelain enamelers in their dcp responses. The
information received is presented in Table V-5 (Page 85) for the
plants that supplied analytical data. These data are only from
effluent streams since no significant raw waste data were
received in the responses. In addition to those reported in
Table V-5, long term effluent data were received from two
facilities (18538 and 13330). These data are presented in
Section VII of this report, in Tables VII-14 and VII-15 (Pages 98
to 99).
Table V-6 (Page 88) presents screening results tabulated from all
screening visits.
Table V-7 (Page 89) presents the selected verification parameters
for each subcategory based on the above mentioned sampling dcp
information and engineering judgment.
In the final analysis a number of metals other than the basis
material processed or major process bath constituents were found
in raw wastewaters in measurable concentrations. These included
antimony, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese,
selenium, titanium, and zinc. These metals may be found in the
following areas:
•	The metals are components resulting from direct addition
or contamination of porcelain enamel slips used within
each subcategory.
•	The metals are present in incoming water.
59

-------
•	The metals are associated with the basis metal as con-
taminants. These metals can be contaminants resulting
from the original ore reduction and smelting operations.
Some of these metals are present in the applied oils and
greases used during forming or to protect the workpiece.
Metallic fumes and other contaminants, often present in
shop atmospheres, can dissolve into the applied oil film.
•	Metals from the tanks, pipes and soldered connections
can be dissolved by the process solutions.
As can be seen from Table V-7 a number of organic pollutant
parameters were also detected. Trichloroethylene and 1,1,2-
trichloroethane were detected in the copper subcategory since
vapor degreasing is sometimes used to prepare copper for the
application of slip. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-octyl
phthalate were detected in the aluminum subcategory. However,
these organic pollutants were detected only in relatively few
samples and were present at or near detection limits of 10 mg/1.
Incoming Water Analysis - Incoming water samples were collected
for each sampled plant and analyzed for verification (and
screening where applicable) parameters. Overall, these analyses
revealed very few parameters whose concentrations were above the
minimum detectable or analytically quantifiable limit of the
specific method. The concentration levels found in the incoming
water of parameters common to process discharges were not
significant enough to affect the anticipated design of a
wastewater treatment system.
DATA ANALYSIS
Porcelain enameling wastewater characteristics are presented for
each basis material in terms of water use, raw wastewater stream
concentrations and final effluent stream concentrations.
Water Use and Wastewater Generation - Water is used in most
porcelain enameling operations. It provides the mechanism for
removing undesirable material from the ware surface, is the
medium for the chemical reactions that occur on the basis metal,
is a vehicle for coating application, is used as cooling water
for ball milling operations and is used for plant clean-up and
maintenance. The nature of porcelain enamel operations, the area
of basis material processed, and the quantity of and types of
chemicals used produce a large volume of wastewater that requires
treatment before discharge, recycle or reuse. Sampled plant
water use by subcategory and process operation is shown on Table
V-24 (Page 108). The mean water use of these sampled plants is
used in calculating BPT limitations. In response to a comment on
60

-------
the proposed regulation data for plant ID# 33617 are excluded
from the existing source analysis because this plant uses
countercurrent rinsing and other in-process flow reduction
technology which is not part of BPT or BAT. However, the flow
data for # 33617 are used in Section XI as a basis for NSPS.
(Plant ID# 33617 effluent characteristics are used for comparison
with BPT limitations in Section IX).
Wastewater is generated in each subcategory (steel, cast iron,
aluminum, and copper). The wastewater generated by basis
material preparation and coating may (1) flow directly to a
municipal sewage treatment system or to surface water, (2) flow
to an onsite waste treatment system and then to a municipal
sewage treatment system or surface water, (3) be recirculated or
recycled following intermediate treatment, or (4) a combination
of the above. Table III—1 (Page 43) presented effluent
destinations as reported in the dcp's for each basis material
subcategory.
Specific Wastewater Sources - Specific wastewater sources in
porcelain enameling may vary from basis material to basis
material. Wastewaters generated from the coating operations are
uniform in their origin and are listed below only once although
they are applicable to each subcategory.
Coating Operations
1)	wastewater generated by spraying the outside of ball
mills for cooling
2)	wastewater from overspray during application which
is either caught in water curtains or results from
floor and booth area washdowns
3)	wastewater from cleaning operations associated with
the ball mills themselves.
4)	wastewater from cleaning of fixtures used to hold
work pieces during application of porcelain enamel slip.
Steel Subcategory - Potential wastewater sources from
basis material preparation are:
1)	alkaline cleaning wastewater including process bath
batch dumps and rinsing operations
2)	acid etch wastewater including process bath batch
dumps and rinsing operations
61

-------
3)	nickel flash wastewater including process bath
batch dumps, rinsing operations and filter discharges
(filters remove iron from the process bath to
extend the bath life).
4)	neutralization of remaining acid wastewater including
process bath batch dumps and subsequent rinsing opera-
tions.
Cast Iron Subcategory - There is .no water used for cast iron
basis material preparation. Dry, mechanical cleaning processes
are used.
Aluminum Subcategory - Potential wastewater sources from basis
material preparation are:
1)	alkaline cleaning wastewater including process bath batch
dumps and discharges from rinsing operations
2)	acid etch and chromate conversion coating wastewater.
Copper Subcategory - Potential wastewater sources from
basis material preparation are:
1)	alkaline cleaning wastewater that includes process bath
batch dumps and rinsing operations (some porcelain
enamelers on copper may substitute vapor degreasing)
2)	acid etching wastewater that includes process bath batch
dumps and rinsing operations.
Dcp flow data were not used because EPA plant visits revealed
lack of attention to water use at several plants. Only careful
analysis of plant operations during sampling visits provided an
adequate basis for determining whether adequate in-plant flow
control exists at any plant. Dcp data was inadequate for this
purpose.
Metal preparation water use and coating and enamel water use and
production rates obtained from dcp's for the steel and aluminum
subcategories are shown in Tables V-8 and V-9 (Pages 90-91).
These tables present the hourly flow rate (1/hr), hourly
production rate (m2/hr), and production normalized flow (1/m2)
for both streams for all plants within these subcategories for
which dcp data were provided. Dcp data for the cast iron and
copper subcategories relative to water use were limited and
plants reporting such information were also visited. The
production from the dcp's is average hourly production since it
was calculated as the annual production divided by the number of
62

-------
hours per year the facility operated. These reported production
rates represent the area which undergoes basis material
preparation and the area that receives porcelain enamel as
applicable. Where multiple coats of enamel are applied, they are
counted individually.
Raw Waste Characteristics
Wastewater from porcelain enameling operations is characterized
by the chemicals associated with each operation and the basis
metal. During verification sampling, discrete samples of each
wastewater-producing operation were obtained. The pollutants in
the wastewater streams sampled included the basis metal, oil and
grease, and a variety of other pollutants associated with
individual process solutions or porcelain enamel slips. Oil and
grease for the porcelain enameling subcategories is free oil and
emulsified oil, not soluble oil. Free oil and emulsified oils
are typically milling oils or rust inhibitors, and can be removed
by the application of coalescing agents, sedimentation,
separation and skimming.
Following is a detailed discussion of the raw wastewater sources
and characteristics for each basis material subcategory. Coating
wastewater characteristics are discussed first since these
operations contribute by far the largest quantity of pollutants
in comparison to basis material preparation operations. Included
is an explanation of ball milling operations and how they can
generate wastewater. Following the ball milling discussion, the
various methods of application of the porcelain enamel slip are
presented along with their respective contributions to
wastewater. Raw wastewater sampling data from the wastewater
streams are then presented. Finally, the result of an extensive
study done by the Agency to quantify and discern the
environmental impact of the toxic pollutants discharged by these
processes is presented.
Following the discussion of coating wastewater, basis metal
preparation operations and the resultant wastewater generated are
presented. In this presentation each basis material subcategory
is discussed separately since these operations, unlike coating
operations, vary significantly from subcategory to subcategory.
Bal1 Milling and Enamel Application
The first operation involved with application of porcelain enamel
is the grinding and mixing of all the various ingredients. The
constituents of porcelain enamel usually include a mixture of
frits (glassy raw material), clays and coloring oxides. Specific
additions to this basic mixture can include borax, feldspar,
63

-------
quartz, cobalt oxide and manganese dioxide. A wide range of
other additions can also be made depending on color, whitening
and opacification requirements. The constituents are weighed and
poured into the ball mill with a carefully measured amount of
water if the enamel is to be applied in a wet or slip form.
The ball mills are cylindrical drums of different sizes and are
usually up to 2/3 full of ceramic balls. The ceramic balls serve
to grind and throughly mix all the ingredients. The raw
materials are milled and this produces a potentially detrimental
amount of heat caused by friction. To control the temperature, a
fine mist of water is constantly sprayed onto the outer surface
of the mill. In the majority of cases this cooling water is a
source of wastewater since it usually comes into contact with
wasted slip when it falls onto the floor areas around the ball
mill and mixes with spilled slip. After several hours of
grinding, the slip is poured through a screen to trap oversized
particles, and is then placed in containers. Wastewater may be
generated by equipment cleaning, which is done to prevent color
contamination of this screening and holding equipment.
The procedures used for cleaning out ball mills vary greatly from
facility to facility. If space and finances permit, some
facilities have separate ball mills for each color they use and
the mills are rarely cleaned. In other cases close attention is
paid to scheduling of mill runs so the colors milled get
progressively darker making only occasional cleaning necessary.
It is a rule of thumb in most facilities to wash out ball mills
as infrequently as possible to avoid wasting the significant
amount of slip which adheres to interior walls and the ceramic
balls within the mill. The actual amount of wastewater generated
by ball mill washouts was determined in the proposed regulation
by evaluation of data gathered at six porcelain enameling
facilities (id's 12038, 15712, 33076, 33617, 33076, 40053).
However, several comments on the proposed regulation indicated
that some of the data was not correct. Upon close examination it
was found that plant ID 12038 supplied data in the dcp which was
inconsistent. Two possible flows—differing by a factor of five-
-could be calculated for ball mill washout. Plant ID 33076
recycles ball mill wash out water from a sump, therefore the
water used for one wash out cannot be calculated. Plant ID 33617
water use data from plant visit did not identify separate ball
mill washout flow; information obtained subsequent to the visit
was inadequate to provide uniquely defined ball mill washout
water usage. Plant ID 36077 sampled water flow data were not
definitive enough to calculate ball mill wash out water use. The
water use for the remaining two plants ID 15712 (0.0107 1/sq.m.)
and ID 40053 (1.2603 1/sq.m.) were used to calculate- a mean
production normalized wastewater usage of 0.636 1/sq.m. of area
64

-------
coated for ball mill wash out this revised mean is used in the
calculation of BPT and BAT limitations as well as new source and
pretreatment standards.
Porcelain enamel slip is applied by several different methods
that generate wastewater. Each method is described below.
•	Air Spraying - The most widely used method of enamel
application is air spraying. In this process enamel slip is
atomized and propelled by air into a conical pattern, which can
be directed over the article to be coated by an operator or
machine.
•	Electrostatic Spray Coating - Electrostatic spray coating
incorporates the principles of air atomized spray coating with
the attraction of unlike electric charges. In electrostatic
spray coating, atomized enamel slip particles are charged at
70,000-100,000 volts and directed toward a grounded part. The
electrostatic forces push the particles away from the atomizer
and away from each other. The charged particles are attracted to
the grounded workpiece and adhere to it.
•	Dip Coating - In dip coating a part is submerged in a tank
of enamel slip, withdrawn, and permitted to drain or is
centrifuged to remove excess slip.
•	Flow Coating - In this process, enamel slip is pumped from a
storage tank to nozzles that are positioned according to the
shape and size of the ware to direct the flow of enamel onto the
surface as the parts are conveyed past the nozzles.
•	Powder Coating - The ground (first) coat is applied. The
part is heated to red heat, the powdered enamel is dusted on the
part, and the part is re-fired. The most prevalent use of powder
coating is for the application of a cover (second) coat of enamel
to cast iron workpieces. Three porcelain enameling plants use
the dry process exclusively on cast iron, and therefore generate
no coating process wastewater.
All of these methods of porcelain enamel application generate
wastewater. Air spraying usually generates the largest
quantities of wastewater since overspray must be strictly
controlled. This is usually accomplished by the use of a water
curtain behind the spraybooth. Significant quantities of
wastewater are generated when the water curtains are dumped or
cleaned. Electrostatic, dip, and flow coating operations
generate wastewater when application equipment and floor areas
are cleaned. Powder coating operations generate the smallest
quantity of wastewater since little or no clean-up is necessary.
65

-------
A sixth enamel application method, electrostatic dry powder
coating, also exists and is described in Section III. However it
does not generate wastewater and is not discussed further in this
section.
For the purposes of sampling, wastewaters associated with ball
milling and enamel application at each plant were usually mixed.
This mixed sample generally included wastewater from the
following sources: ball mill cooling water, ball mill wash out
water, water curtain batch dumps, and general clean-up water from
drain board, spray equipment and floor areas. Table V-10 (Page
92) presents the raw wastewater concentrations (mg/1) of the 36
sampled coating streams for all subcategories. The mean
concentration of these streams is used in calculating the normal
plant and subcategory totals for the amount of pollutants removed
and discharged. These wastewater streams contain significant
amounts of toxic metals regardless of subcategory. To verify
this, an experiment comparing total metals analysis and dissolved
metals analysis on coating wastewater was conducted. Tables V—11
through V-14 (Pages 95-98) show the results of this comparison of
wastewater streams from typical plants in each subcategory.
For the dissolved metals analysis, samples were first settled and
then passed through a 0.45 micron filter. Total metals analysis
was performed on an aliquot sample of a well mixed and unfiltered
sample.
In response to industry comments questioning the need to control
discharges from coating operations a study was also performed to
determine the short term leaching characteristics of enamel
coating wastewaters at various pH levels over a 24 hour period.
The results of this experiment are shown in Table V-15 (page 99)
and indicate that at acidic pH levels, a significant amount of
toxic metals are dissolved from the coating solids into the
wastewater matrix.
From these studies EPA also was concluded that the toxic metals
contained in the wastewater of ball milling and enamel
application operations are variable, depending upon specific
formulations that may change hourly. Although a high
concentration of toxic metals is certain, it is virtually
impossible to predict the exact composition and specific metals
to be found at any specific time. Because of this extreme
variability and potential toxicity, EPA has focused its attention
on minimization of wastewater discharges from coating operations.
To further quantify the amounts of these metals that are
discharged to the environment, coating wastewater streams were
sampled at fourteen porcelain enameling facilities. Sample
location and potential sample contamination problems were checked
66

-------
to verify,that the sample was gathered before any settling had
occurred and that no other waste streams were mixed with the
coating wastewater streams. Of these fourteen plants, five
facilities could be used to quantify the amount of toxic metals
discharged. These five facilities were plants 11045, 33077,
33617, 40053 and 40063. EPA also quantified the amount of toxic
metals contained in the raw materials supplied as slip
ingredients. Dcp supplied raw material data often contained
amounts and brand names of frits and coloring oxides used by the
facility, however, no data were available on the actual amount of
toxic metals contained in each of these products. In order to
gather -these data, the Agency contacted the eight largest
manufacturers of frit and coloring oxides and asked them to
supply the percent of selected elements, including all of the
toxic metals, contained in each of their products and the amounts
of these products that were manufactured in 1976. The results of
this inquiry indicated that the toxic metals contained in the
frits were antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc. In addition, cobalt, manganese, and trace
quantities of several rare earth metals were reported. The
coloring oxides contained significant quantities of all of the
above with the exception of arsenic and the rare earth metals.
Selenium, vanadium and trace quantities of silver were present in
coloring oxides but not in the frits.
Using this information the amount of toxic metals in the raw
materials was calculated for the six visited plants previously
identified. These figures were compared to the quantitative
analysis of the raw wastewater streams of these six facilities
and a percent toxic metals discharged was calculated. The
percent discharge (not applied to workpiece or reclaimed) ranged
from 0.3 percent to 21 percent.
To determine the full magnitude of these discharges, these
percentages were applied to the entire porcelain enameling
category. Useful dcp data, gathered from 56 of these 116
facilities resulted in an EPA estimate that these 56 plants used
45,600,000 pounds of frit and 813,000 pounds of oxides. The data
for 56 plants represented approximately 75 percent of the total
raw materials used by the industry since all of the largest
porcelain enamelers were accounted for in this data base. To
depict the entire porcelain enameling industrial segment, these
amounts were extrapolated to represent the entire 116 facility
data base. This resulted in a total of approximately 57,000,000
pounds of frit and 1,000,000 pounds of oxides used by the entire
porcelain enameling category. The total amount of toxic metals
contained in these frits and oxides is 1,900,000 pounds.
67

-------
The discharge percentages calculated for the six visited
facilities were then applied to the extrapolated amount of frit
and oxide consumed by the 116 facilities in the data base. Table
V-16 (Page 100) presents the estimated total amount of toxic
metals discharged by the entire porcelain enameling category.
These totals emphasize the need for control of toxic discharges
from coating discharges.
Metal Preparation
Raw wastewater sample concentration data for metal preparation
for each subcategory are shown in Tables V-17, V-18 and V-19
(Pages 101-103). Each table lists the minimum, maximum, mean,
median and flow proportioned average concentration of
verification and screening sample data for parameters whose
concentrations were greater than 0.010 mg/1. This concentration
was selected for toxic organics because at 0.010 mg/1 and below
the organic priority pollutants cannot be quantified accurately.
The 0.010 mg/1 cutoff was also selected for metals since existing
control technologies cannot effectively reduce the concentration
of most metals below this concentration. The number of data
points defines the total number of positive values used for the
mean, median and flow proportioned average concentration
presentations. The "number of zeros" column reflects the number
of samples analyzed for each parameter where no detectable
concentration was measured.
Steel Subcategory Metal Preparation - Wastewater in this
subcategory results from alkaline cleaning, acid etch, nickel
flash, neutralization and coating operations.
Alkaline Cleaning solutions usually contain one or more of the
following chemicals: sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, sodium
metasilicate, sodium phosphate, (di-or trisodium) sodium
silicate, sodium tetra phosphate, and a wetting agent. The
specific content of cleaners varies with the type of soil being
removed, the cleaners for steel being more alkaline and active
than other cleaners. Wastewaters from alkaline cleaning
operations contain not only the consitituents of the cleaning
bath, but also ails and greases which have been removed from the
part. The wastewaters also contain iron removed from the base
metal, but the amount is small in relation to the iron removed in
the acid etching process.
Alkaline cleaning wastes enter the waste stream in three ways:
1.	Rinsing directly following the alkaline cleaning step.
2.	Continuous overflow of the rinse tanks.
68

-------
3. Batch dump of a spent alkaline cleaning bath.
Acid Etch typically utilizes either sulfuric acid, or ferric
sulfate in combination with sulfuric acid. Hydrochloric
(muriatic), phosphoric, and nitric acids are also reportedly in
use. The components of the acids enter the waste stream but they
are of little consequence in comparison to the metals that are
contributed by the acid etching operation. Acid solutions after
a period of use have a high metallic content due to the
dissolution of the surface of the steel when it is etched. As a
result, large amounts of iron enter by way of dragout from the
acid solutions into rinse waters and also when the baths are
dumped. Also present at significant levels are components of
steel such as phosphorus and manganese.
Nickel Flash, either through dragout into the rinsewaters or
batch dumping of the spent bath, contributes metals to the raw
waste stream. The process solutions contain nickel salts, nickel
sulfate in particular. After a period of use the nickel bath
also contains high concentrations of iron due to the displacement
reaction of the nickel ions on the steel surface. Thus the
nickel flash raw wastewater streams show high levels of nickel
and iron.
Neutralization is designed to remove the last traces of acid from
the steel workpiece. The neutralizing bath consists of an alkali
such as soda ash, borax, or trisodium phosphate and water. The
contents of the bath enter the wastewater stream either through
dragout into subsequent rinses or batch dumping of the process
solution tanks.
Coating Operations are the main source of pollution in the
porcelain enameling industry and were discussed previously in
this section.
Cast Iron Subcategory - The only waterborne wastes found at
sampled plants in this subcategory were from coating operations
and have been discussed previously in this section.
Aluminum Subcategory - Wastewater in this subcategory results
from alkaline cleaning, acid treatment, chromate treatment and
coating operations.
Alkaline Cleaning waters contain dirt and grease removed in the
cleaning process as well as the contents of the cleaning
solution. Depending on the strength of the solution, some amount
of aluminum is removed from the workpiece and is in solution. In
the case of an alkaline etch, a considerable amount of aluminum
can accumulate in a bath prior to dumping. The typical alkaline
69

-------
cleaning stream in this subcategory contains suspended solids and
phosphorus as well as aluminum.
Acid solutions are sometimes utilized in the preparation of
aluminum for the purpose of deoxidizing the surface of the
workpiece. This operation is not practiced frequently; a nitric
acid solution is used when this step is performed. The nitric
acid causes the dissolution of some metal, resulting in the
presence of aluminum in the waste stream. None of the sampled
facilities performed acid treatment.
Chromate Treatment is employed by some facilities to promote
adhesion and good enameling properties. This step is performed
last on the metal preparation line, after alkaline cleaning and
acid treatment. The chromate solution is composed of potassium
chromate and sodium hydroxide/ these chemicals enter the
wastewater stream from rinsing or batch dumps of the chromate
bath. None of the visited facilities performed chromate
treatment.
Coating Operations are the major source of pollutants in this
subcategory and were discussed previously in this section.
Copper Subcategory - Wastewater in this subcategory results from
surface preparation and coating operations.
Surface Preparation is accomplished by alkaline cleaning and acid
etching solutions. These materials can enter the wastewater
stream either from rinsing or through batch dumps of the process
solutions. The alkaline cleaning step produces wastewater
containing oil and soils that have been removed from the
workpieces. Specific raw wastewater data on alkaline cleaning of
copper is not available because it was not reported in dcp
responses and the two copper porcelain enameling plants sampled
did not employ this process. Acid etching adds to the wastewater
stream copper that has been dissolved from the surface of the
part to be coated. If a vapor degreasing step is used, trace
amounts of the degreasing solvent may be found in the wastewater
stream. These solvents are so volatile that the amount present
is likely to be negligible.
Coating wastewater is the major source of pollutants within this
subcategory and was discussed previously in this section.
Effluent Characteristics
A summary of treated effluents from 15 sampled plants with
various level's of treatment is presented in Tables V-20 through
V-23 (Pages 104-107). The sampled results are presented by
70

-------
subcategory for the pollutant parameters considered for
regulatory control (Reference Section VI). Each of these tables
also lists the treatment components at each plant. Limited dcp
effluent data are available and were presented previously in
Table V-5.
Data Summary
Comparison of wastewaters from the different subcategories within
the porcelain enameling industry segment is difficult because of
widely varying basis material preparation operations from
subcategory to subcategory. A comparison between subcategories
can best be made if subcategory wastewater characteristics are
split in terms of wastewater generated by metal preparation and
wastewater generated by coating.
Tables V-17, V-18, and V-19 (Pages 101-103) present wastewater
characteristics for the basis material preparation stream for
each subcategory. Specific information derived from these tables
follows:
Oil and grease concentrations in basis metal preparation streams
were highest in the copper subcategory and lowest in the aluminum
subcategory. This is caused by large amounts of drawing oils and
waxes applied to copper parts to prevent oxidation.
The basis metal preparation streams for all three subcategories
(steel, aluminum and copper) contain similar levels of total
suspended solids, with slightly higher levels in the steel and
aluminum subcategories. Steel and aluminum workpieces generally
undergo a larger number of forming operations than copper parts
and thus are likely to have more dirt and grease on the surface.
The basis metal preparation stream of the steel subcategory shows
the highest concentrations of basis material. This indicates
that steel workpieces undergo more severe basis material
preparation operations.
Concentrations of lead are significantly higher in the basis
metal preparation streams for the copper and aluminum
subcategories. This is attributable to higher lead levels in
these basis materials.
Concentrations of nickel in the basis material preparation
streams are highest in the steel subcategory. This significant
difference is attributed to the discharge from nickel deposition
operations used in basis material preparation for steel.
71

-------
In general, wastewater constituents associated with coating
wastewater streams vary only slightly according to bonding and
color requirements associated with the basis metal. These
requirements are reflected in the slip ingredients used, which
were previously discussed.
72

-------
TABLE V-l
SUMMARY OF SAMPLING SITES
AND DAYS SAMPLED

BASIS MATERIAL

Steel
Iron
Alum
mum
Cop]
oer
Plant ID
Screen
Verif
Screen
Verif
Screen
Verif
Screen
Verif
06031







1
11045





3


15051
1
2






15712


1
2




18538

3






33076



1




33077




1
2


33617

3






36030

3




1
2
36077
1
2






40053

3

3




40063

3






41062

3






47033

3






47051





3


Totals
2
25
1
6
1
8
1
3

-------
TRBLE V-2
NUMBER OF SAMPLING IftVS FOR DSCH OPERATION
ta EftCH SAMPLED FACILITY
Subcategory
15051 18538 33617 36030 36077 40053 40063 41062 47033
Steel
Steel	Cast
Steel Steel Steel Copper Steel Iron Steel Steel Steel
15712 33076 11045
33077
47051
06031
Cast Cast
Iron Iron Aluminum Aluminum Aluninun Copper
Prooess Cperation
-o
Alkaline Clean	3	3	3 3
Acid Treatment '	3	3	3 3
Nickel Deposition	3	3	3 (a)
Neutralization	3	3	13
Ball Hilling and	3	3	3	3
Enamel Application
(a)
(a)
3
3
3
(a)
3
1(b)
(a)	No discharge at time of visit. However, batch dumps do occur.
(b)	Essentially a dry cperation with a minor discharge fran rack washing.

-------
TABLE V-3
SCREENING AND VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Priority Pollutants
Screening Analysis
Methodology
Verification Analysis
Methodology
1.
Aoenaphthene
SP

2.
Acrolein
SP

3.
Aczylonitrile
SP

4.
Benzene
SP

5.
Benzidine
SP

6.
Carbon Tetrachloride
SP


(Tetrachlorcme thane)


7.
Qilorobenzene
SP

8.
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
SP

9.
Hexachlorobenzene
SP

10.
1,2-Dichloroe thane
SP

11.
1,1,1-Trich loroethane
SP

12.
Hexachloroethane
SP

13.
1, l-Dichloroethans
SP
VPs L-L Extract; GC.ECD
14.
1,1,2-Trich loroethane
SP
VPi I/-L Extract; QC,BCD
15.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
SP

16.
Cliloroe thane
SP

17.
Bis(Chlorcmethyl) Ether
SP

18.
Bis( 2-Chloroethyl) Ether
SP

19.
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)
SP

20.
2-Chloronaphthalene
SP

21.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
SP

22.
Parachlonometa Cresol
SP

23.
Chloroform (Trichloxanethane)
SP

24.
2-Chloxophenol
SP

25.
1,2-Dich lorcbenzene
SP

26.
1,3-Dirhlorobenzene
SP

27.
1,4-Oichlorcbenzene
SP

28.
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
SP

29.
1,1-Oichloroethylene
SP

30.
1,2-Trana-Dichloroethylene
SP
VPi L-L Extract; GC,ECD

-------
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
SCREENING AND VESmCKPIOti ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Priority Pollutants
Screening Analysis
Methodology
Verification Analysis
Methodology
31.
2,4-Dichloropfoenal
SP

32.
1,2-Dichloixpxipane
SP

33.
1, 2HDicMorcpiopyleiJe
SP


(1,3-Dichloropropene)


34.
2,4^jjrethylpherol
SP
VPs GC - FID
35.
2,4-Dinitroboluene
SP

36.
2,6-Oinitnotoluene
SP

37.
1,2-Oiphenylhydrazine
SP

38.
Ethylbenzene
SP

39.
Pluoranthene
SP
SP
40.
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
SP

41.
4~Bxomophenyl Phenyl Ether
SP

42.
Bis (2K5iloroiscprcpyl) Ether
SP

43.
Bis( 2-4MoroethcB
-------
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
SCREQUNG MO VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Priority Pollutants
Screening Analysis
Methodology
Verification Analysis ]
Methodology
61. tHUtroeodimethylamine
SP

62, N-Nitzosodiphen/lamine
SP

63. N^troaodi^Prcpylaraine
SP

64. Rentadilozcphenol
SP

65. Phenol
SP
VPs m, ID
66. Bis(2-ltliylhe9(yl) Phthalate
SP
SP
67. Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
SP
SP
68. Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
SP
SP
69. Di-KhOctyl Phthalate
SP
SP
70. Diethyl Phthalate
SP
SP
71. Dimethyl Phthalate
SP
SP
72. 1,2-Benzanthraoene
SP
SP
(Benzo (a) Anthracene)


73. Benzo (a) Pyrene (3,4-Benzo-Pvrene)
SP
SP
75. 11#12-Benzofluoranthene


(Benzo (k) Fluoranthene)
SP
SP
76. Chrysene
SP
SP
77. Acenagphthylene
SP
SP
78. Anthraoene
SP
SP
79. 1,12-Benzopezylene
SP
SP
(Benzo (ghi)-Pezylene)


80. Fluorene
SP
SP
81. Pbenanthrene
SP
SP
82. 1,2,5,6-Oibenzathraoene


(Dibenzo (a#h) Anthraoene)
SP
SP
83. Indeno (1,2,3-od) Pyrene


(s,3HHPhenylene Pyrene)
SP
SP
84. Pyrene
SP
SP
85. Itetxachloroethylene
SP

86. Toluene
SP
VPs fc-L Extract! OC,PID
87. Trichloroetiylene
SP
VPs L-L Extract! OC,ECD
88. Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethylene)
SP

89. Aldrin
SP

90. Dieldrin
SP


-------
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
SCREENING AND VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Priority Pollutants
Screening Analysis
Methodology
Verification Analysis
Methodology
91.
Chlozdane
SP


(Technical Mixture and Metabolites)


92.
4,4-EOT
SP

93.
4,4-006 (p,p'-DOK)
SP

94.
4,4-DDD (p,pVnX)
SP

95.
Alpha-Endbeulfan
SP

96.
Beta-Endoeulfan
SP

97.
Endosulfan Sulfate
SP

98.
Endrin
SP

99.
Endrin Aldehyde
SP

100.
Heptachlor
SP

101.
Hepbachlor Epoxide



(BHOHexachlorocyclohexane)
SP

102.
Alpha-BBC
SP

103.
Beta-BHC
SP

104.
Gamra-BHC (Lindane)
SP

105.
Delta-BHC



(PCB-Polychlorinated Biphenyls)
SP

106.
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
SP

107.
FCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
SP

108.
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 121)
SP

109.
PC&-1332 (Arochlor 1232)
SP

110.
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
SP

111.
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
SP

112.
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
SP

113.
Toocaphena
SP

114.
Antimony
SP

115.
Arsenic
SP

116.
Asbestos
—

117.
Berylliun
ICAP

118.
Cadmium
ICAP
40CFR 136: AA
119.
Chromiun
ICAP
40CFR 136: AA
120.
Copper
ICAP
40CFR 136: AA

-------
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
SCREENING AND VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHHIQUES
Priority Pollutants
Sereaalog Analysis
Methodology
Verification Analysis
Methodology
121. (^anida
40 CPR 136s Diet./Col. Kea.
4QCFE 136: Met./Col. ttea.
122. Load
ICAP
40CF& 136: AA
123. Mercury
SP

124. Nickel
ICAP
40CFK 136: AA
12S. Selenlia
SP

126. Silver
SP

127. Tttalllua
SP

128. Zinc
ICAP
40CFE 136: AA
129. 2,3,4,8-TctrschlorodlbMXO-


P-Dioxia <1CI»)
SP

pB Minimi*
-
Elactroehaaical
1* Haxlmm
-
llactroeheaical
Teaperatura
-
•
Oil ¦ Grease
_
40CFR 136s SisC./I.S.
FlourIdas
-
Diat./I.E.
Phosphorous Total
-
SM: Dig/SoCl
TSS
-
40CF1 136
TDS
-
40CFR 136
Cyanlda lamaU* to Chlorlaatioia

40CFK 136s Siat./Col. Nea.
Phenola
_
40CFE 136

-
40CFR 136: AA
Baxavalsat OtroMitai
-
40CFK 136t Coloriaatric
Iron
-
40CPR 136: AA
Maaganaaa

40CFE 136: AA

-------
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
SCREENING AND VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Notes
40 CFR 136: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Fart 136
SP - Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants, U.S. EPA, Harch, 1977, Revised April, 1977.
VP - Analytical Methods for the Verification Phase of BAT Review.
U.S. EPA, June, 1977.
SK - Standard Methods. 14th Edition.
ICAP - Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma.
AA - Atomic Absorption.
L-L Extract; GC.ECD-Liquid - Liquid Extraction/Gas Chromatography, Electron
Capture Detection.
Dlg/SnClj - Digestion/Stannous Chloride.
Filt./Grav. - Filtration/Gravimetric
Freon Ext. - Freon Extraction
Dlst./Col. Mea. - Distillation/pyridine pyrazolone colorlmetrlc
Dlst./I.E. - Distillation/Ion Electrode
GC-FID - Gas Chromatography - Flame Ionization Detection
SIE - Selective Ion Electrode

-------
TABLE V-4
SDMffiRy OF RESPONSES TO DCP
(NUMBER CF PLANTS RESPONDING IN EACH AREA)

Fttiown
Believed
Believed
Known
Raw Wastewatei

To Be
To Be
To Be
To Be
Concentration
Priority Pollutant
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Ranqe mg/1
1. acenaphthene
0
0
58
14
0
2. acrolein
0
0
58
14
0
3. aczylonitrile
0
0
59
13
0
4. benzene
0
4
58
10
0
5. benzidine
0
0
57
15
0
6. carbon tetrachloride
0
0
57
15
0
(tetrachlorcmethane)





7. chlorcbenzene
0
0
58
14
0
8. 1,2,4-trichlordoenzene
0
0
57
15
0
9. hexachlorcfoenzene
0
0
57
15
0
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
0
0
58
14
0
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
2
2
56
12
0
12. hexachloroethane
0
1
58
13
0
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
0
0
58
14
0
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
0
0
56
13
0.007
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
0
0
58
14
0
16. chloroethane
1
1
58
12
0
17. bis (chloroemthy 1) ether
0
0
59
13
0
18. bis(2-diloroethyl) ether
0
0
59
13
0
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether





(mixed)
0
0
58
14
0
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
0
0
60
12
0
21. 2,4,6-trichlorqphenol
0
0
59
13
0
22. paradhlorcmeta cresol
0
0
58
14
0
23. chloroform (trichloramethane)
0
1
59
12
0.002-0.005
24. 2-chlorcphenol
0
0
59
13
0
25. 1,2-dichlorctoenzene
0
0
58
14
0
26. 1,3-dichlorcbenzene
0
0
58
14
0
27. 1,4-dichlorcbenzene
0
0
58
14
0
28. 3,3'-dichloaxbenzidine
0
0
57
15
0
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
0
0
58
14
0
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
0
0
58
14
0.002
31. 2,4-dichlorqphenol
0
0
58
14
0
32. 1,2-dichlorcprcpane
0
0
57
15
0
33. 1,2-dichlorcprcpylene





(1,3-dichlorcpropene)
0
0
59
13
0
34. 2,4-dimethyIphenol
0
0
59
13
0
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
0
0
59
13
0
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
0
0
59
13
0
37. 1,2-dipheny IJhydrazine
0
0
58
14
0
38. ethylbenzene
0
2
61
9
0
39. fluoranthene
0
0
59
13
0
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
0
0
59
13
0
41. 4-brcmophenyl phenyl ether
0
0
58
13
0
42. bis (2-chloroisoprcpyl) ether
0
0
58
13
0
43. bis(2-cdiloroethoxy) itethane
0
0
58
13
0
44. methylene chloride





(dichlorame thane)
1
4
54
12
0.002-0.005

81





-------
TABLE V-4 (CON T)




Kncwn
Believed
Believed Known
Raw Wastewater

To Be
To Be
To Be
To Be
Concentration
Priority Pollutant
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Range mg/1
45. methyl chloride





(chloromethane)
0
0
58
13
0
46. methyl brcmide (brcmcmethane)
0
0
58
13
0
47. hrcmoform (tribrancmethane)
0
0
58
13
0.002*
48. didilorcbrcmomethane
0
0
58
13
0.002-0.007*
49. trichlorofluoranethane
0
1
57
13
0
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
0
2
56
13
0
51. chlorodibromomethane
0
0
57
14
0.002-0.003*
52. hexachlorcbutadiene
0
0
57
14
0
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
0
0
57
14
0
54. isophorone
0
3
57
11
0
55. naphthalene
0
0
56
15
0
56. nitrobenzene
0
0
56
15
0
57. 2-nitrcphenol
0
0
56
15
0.001
58. 4-nitrqphenol
0
0
56
15
0
59. 2,4-dinitrqphenol
0
0
56
15
0
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
0
0
57
14
0
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
0
0
57
14
0
62. N-nitrosodipherylamine
0
0
57
14
0
63. N-nitrosodi-n-prcpylamine
0
0
58
13
0
64. pentachlorcphenol
0
0
57
14
0
65. phenol.
2
1
56
12
0
66. his(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
0
0
59
12
0.002-0.022
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
0
0
56
15
0
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
0
0
57
14
0.002-0.005
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
0
1
56
14
0.011
70. diethyl phthalate
0
0
57
14
0.002*
71. dimethyl phthalate
0
1
56
14
0
72. 1,2-benzanthracene





(benzo(a)anthracene)
0
1
57
13
0
73. benzo (a) pyrene (3,4-benzo-





pyrene)
0
0
58
13
0
74. 3,4-benzofluoranthene





(benzo(b)fluoranthene)
0
0
57
14
0
75. 11,12-benzofluoranthene





(benzo(k)fluoranthene)
0
0
57
14
0
76. chrysene
0
0
58
13
0
77. acenaphthylene
0
0
57
14
0
78. anthracene
0
0
57
14
0
79. 1,12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi)-





perylene)
0
3
56
15
0
80. fluorene
0
0
55
13
0
81. phenanthrene
0
0
59
13
0
82. 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene





(dibenzo (a,h) anthracene)
0
0
58
14
0
83. indeno(l,2/3-cd) pyrene





(2,3-o-pherrylene pyrene)
0
1
57
14
0
84. pyrene
0
1
58
13
0
* The same or a higher concentration was found in the incoming water

-------
TABLE V-4 (CON T )

Kncwn
Believed
Believed Known

To Be
To Be
To Be
To Be
Priority Pollutant
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
85. tetrachloroethylene
1
2
57
12
86. toluene
2
9
52
9
87. trichloroethylene
1
4
55
12
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
0
2
58
12
89. aldrin
0
0
60
12
90. dieldrin
0
0
58
14
91. chlordane (technical mixture




and metabolites)
0
0
60
12
92. 4,4'-DDT
0
0
59
13
93. 4,4'HDDE (p,p'-DDX)
0
0
59
13
94. 4,4'-DDD (p,p*-TDE)
0
0
59
13
95. alpha-endosulfan
0
0
60
12
96. beta-endosulfan
0
0
59
13
97. endosulfan sulfate
0
1
59
12
98. endrin
0
0
59
13
99. endrin aldehyde
0
0
60
12
100. heptachlor
0
0
59
13
101. heptachlor epoxide
0
0
59
13
(BHC=hexachlorocyclohexane)




102. alpha-BHC
0
0
60
12
103. beta-BHC
0
0
60
12
104. ganroa-BHC (lindane)
0
0
60
12
105. delta-BHC
0
0
59
13
(PCB-polychlorinated biphenyls)




106. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
0
0
59
13
107. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
0
0
59
13
108. PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
0
0
59
13
109. PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
0
0
59
13
110. PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
0
0
59
13
111. PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
0
0
59
13
112. PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
0
0
60
12
113. Ttoxaphene
0
0
59
13
114. Antimony
13
31
22
6
115. Arsenic
8
14
39
11
116. Asbestos
0
2
59
11
117. Beryllium
2
3
54
13
118. Cadmium
17
26
19
10
119. Chrcmium
29
21
15
7
120. Capper
28
21
19
4
121. Cyanide
4
1
53
14
122. Lead
23
24
17
8
123. ffercury
3
1
54
13
124. Nickel
32
19
15
5
125. Selenium
7
26
30
9
126. Silver
4
2
54
12
127. Thallium
1
1
58
12
128. Zinc
29
21
16
6
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-




p-dioxin (TCDD)
0
0
58
13
NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
0
2
23
3
Xylenes
2
5
20
3
Alkyl epoxides
0
2
23
3
83
Raw Wastewater
Concentration
Range mg/1
0
0.018
0.004
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.150
0
0.002
0.03-20.0
0.06-0.2
0.02-20.0
0.007
0.5-30.0
0.0002
1.0-3.0
0.72-13.84
0.02
0
0.4-0.7
0

-------
TABLE V-4 (Oont)
Known Believed Believed Known Raw Wastewater
lb Be lb Be	lb Be	lb Be Concentration
Priority Pollutant	Present Present absent absent Range mg/1
Aluminum
Not
Applicable
1.0-7.0
Barium
Not
Applicable
1.0-6.0
Boron
Not
Applicable
4.0-10.0
Chromium, Hexavalent
Not
Applicable
.2
Oobalt
Not
Applicable
.9-1.0
Fluoride
Not
Applicable
0
Iron
Not
Applicable
.3-100.0
Magnesium
Not
Applicable
7.4-12.0
Manganese
Not
Applicable
.08-3.0
Molybdenum
Not
Applicable
.2-.4
Phenol, total
Not
Applicable
0-.012
Phosphorus
Not
Applicable
4.14-80.1
Sodium
Not
Applicable
57.-400.0
Tin
Not
Applicable
.02-.04
Titanium
Not
Applicable
2.0-20.0
Vanadium
Not
Applicable
.02
Yttrium
Not
Applicable
0
Oil & Grease
Not
Applicable
1.0
TSS
Not
Applicable
32-364
84

-------
ID
DESTIN-
FLOW
F
TSS
ftL
SB
CD

ATION
(gph)





1059
row






1061
POTO/SURF






1062
POTO






3032
POTO
46.000

14.000
4.3

0.010
3033
BMW
86100

492.000


0.16
4066
POTO


520.000


0.000
4098
FOTW






4099
BOW






4101
FOTW






4102
POTO
4500

1130



4122
poto






4126
row






4138
BOW






6030
POTO






6031
row






9032
POTO






9037
row






11045
row






11052
row
3900

1396


0.004
11053
POTO






11082
POTO
4500
2.000
750.000


0.010
11089
POW






11090
POW
741.000




0.040
11091
POTO
2400

233.000
0.055

0.050
11092
SURF






11105
POW






11106
POTO






11107
POTO






11117
POTO






11923
POW






12035
POTO






12037
POW
120.000





12038
POW






12039
POW






12040
RIVR
5610

1108



12043
POW






12044
POTO






12045
POTO






12064
POW


1.700 .


0.000
12064
POTO


56.000


0.010
12234
POTO
68460

673.000
19.000


12235
POW






13321
BOW






13330
POW
84000




0.009
SABLE V-5
DCP EFFLUENT (mg/1)
CR-T CU FE	PB	MN NI	SE	TI	ZN
0.020 0.300	0.080	0.040	0.870
0.08 0.03 0.8	4.1	0.05 0.01	0.09
0.01 0.080	0.000	0.020	0.100
0.580	1.400	4.200	6.240
1.320 0.160	0.120	0.930
14.000	18.400	5.2 24.000
1.960	2.300	3.600
0.100	0.320	0.100	2.600
0.050 0.230 14.950	0.050	5.320	0.270
150.000	1.100 1.600
1.300 0.810	0.000 0.130	0.470
1.800 0.430	0.010 0.170	0.580
1.870 144.000	2.400	4.820
0.053 0.012 0.373	0.020 0.262	0.270

-------
ID
DBSTim-
FWW
P
TSS

TION
W


15031
FOOT

2.500
264.000
15031
row

1.900
96.000
15032
mm
1.000


15033
foto


274.000
15194
RIVR
12000


15712
FOTW



15949
BMW


274.000
19049
FOTO



20015
BOTH



20059
bow
1458


20067
RIVR
500.000

20.000
20090
BOW



20091
FOTH



21060
BOOT



22024
BOTH
1072


23089
BOTH



30043
BOTH



30062
SURF



33053
SURF



33054
RIVR
1950

26.000
33054
RIVR
2000

18.000
oo 33076
FOTH
1.000


c* 33076
BOOT
0.000


33077
LFLD
7200

20.000
33083
BOTH



33084
BOW



33085
BOTH



33086
SURF



33088
BOOT



33089
FOTH



33092
BOTH
21000

10.000
33092
BOW
24125

72.000
33092
BOTH
26750

14.000
33092
BOTH
26688

16.000
33092
BOTH
29688

90.000
33092
BOOT
28500

22.000
33092
BOOT
30125

74.000
33092
BOW
34625

19.000
33092
BOW
31750

12.000
33092
BOTH
38938

12.000
33092
BOOT
28000

22.000
33092
BOTH
25250

11.000
33092
BOW
29188

4.000
33092
BOW
21198

66.000
33092
KWH
23812

222.000
33092
BOW
29125

9.000
TOBLE V-S Con t.
DCP EFFLUENT (cg/l) •
CD	CR-T CU	FE
PB	UN
HI	SB
TI	ZN
0.002
0.001
0.078
0.199
0.003
0.023
27.000
58.000
0.320
0.030
1.97S 0.110 15.000 0.170
1.975 0.110 15.000 0.170
0.145
0.183
2.130
1.150
1.550
0.155
0.074
0.027
2.010
2.010
900.000
0.710
0.500
0.020
0.150
0.150
0.59
0.590
0.71
0.710
0.59
0.590
50.000
4.000
4.800
0.006	1.000
5.000
2.000
1.800
1.040
0.490
0.000 1.400
2.000
3.200
2.800
1.600
2.000
0.000 1.800
0.300
0.870
0.430
0.200
0.160
0.470
0.180

-------
DCP EFFLUENT (mg/1)
ID
DESTItft-
FLOW
F
TSS
AL
SB
CD
CR-T
CU
FE
PB
MN
NI
SE
TI
ZN

TIQN
(gph)














33097
NONE


15.000




0.050



0.500



33098
SOW















33104
SORF















33617
SURF















34031
BOTH
2280



0.014
0.005

0.000

0.027

0.040
0.020

0.000
36030
ram





0.010

0.010
14.000
0.010
0.020
1.000


0.010
36039
raw


40.000












36052
RIVR


400.000



1.200

200.000


0.500


0.500
36069
KMW















36072
EOTO
1980

.34.000



0.200
6.700
0.170
0.060

0.680


0.200
36072
E0W
1980

22.000



0.010
0.050
0.590
0.060

0.120


0.200
36072
PQTW
1980

38.000



0.050
0.100
0.530
0.120

1.200


0.290
36072
BOTH
1980

14.000



0.010
0.030
1.700
0.480

0.280


0.200
36072
ram
1980

124.000



124.000
0.080
100.000
0.480

6.250


2.250
36072
BOW
1980

84.000



0.200
0.100
11.500
0.250

3.250



36072
ram
1980

16.000



0.150
0.080
32.000
0.200

22.000


0.150
36077
SURF















36078
ram















40031
RIVR
0.000

1160



0.140
2.000
6.500
1.400
3.900
1.900


6.900
m 40032
RIVR
18000

2.500



0.300

0.140


0.190


0.060
3 40033
RIVR
200.000
5.460
103.570



0.020
0.040
7.430
0.150

0.120


0.040
40034
ram
3840

150.000





0.400






40035
ram
1560
2.200
44.000

0.001
0.002
0.012
0.035
9.300
0.022
0.110
0.291
0.001
0.220
0.200
40036
ram
17.000














40039
ram
1121
15.000
212.000





44.000






40040
RIVR
374.000

10.000











0.090
40041
ram















40042
BOW
1086




0.003
0.020
0.040
0.860


0.040



40043
NONE















40050
raw















40053
ram















40055
ram
4800


0.051
0.001
0.007
0.005

3.550
0.011

0.186


0.055
40063
RIVR
1000

1400





4.000


0.800



40540
ram
72.000





0.005
0.000
2.420


0.285


0.036
41062
tftKE
232.000

19.000


0.020
0.001







0.046
41076
ram















41078
RIVR
2704

560.000












41078
RIVR
2704

160.000












41078
RIVR
2704

190.000












41078
RIVR
2704

310.000












41078
RIVR
2704

370.000












44031
raw















45030
ram
1577

1.000


0.008
0.040
0.250

0.180

0.100


0.540
47032
row


129.000


0.130
0.010 .
0.010

0.220
0.020
0.050



47033
ram






1.800
0.190

0.060




0.040
47034
ram
3120

41.300








0.800


0.020
47036
row
4800

232.000


0.550
0.920
0.100

3.560

0.010


0.766
47037
row


282.000


0.750
0.220
0.090

5.450




0.350
47038
sow















47050
ram
858.000














47051
LAKE
11648

388.000



0.020
0.070

0.130
0.150
0.360



47111
ram
7083
1.800
9.800



2.300


0.300

1.600


0.200
47670
POW
51300

242.000



1.450
0.050

0.500

0.020


0.430

-------
TABLE V-6
PARAMETERS FOUND IN SCREENING ANALYSIS
Eferameter
Inlet
Water
Cbncentration Range (mg/1)
Raw
Wastewater Effluent	Blank
14 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
*
.007
*
*
23 Chloroform
.002-.068
.002-.005
*
.004-
30 1,2-transdichloroethylene
*
.002
*
*
44 Methylene chloride
.001-.012
.002-.005
.003
.014-
47 Bromoform
.002-.010
.002
*
*
48 Diehlorobromomethane
.003-.008
.002-.007
*
.003
51 Chlorod ibrorrome thane
.001-.010
.002-.003
*
*
57 2-nitrophenol
*
.001
*
*
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
.001-.008
.002-.022
*
*
68 Di-n-butyl phthalate
.002-.003
.002-.005
*
*
69 Di-n-octyl phthalate
¦k
.011
*
*
70 Diethyl phthalate
.002
.002-.024
*
*
86 Ibluene
.001
.018
*
*
87 Trichloroethylene
*
.004
*
*
114 Antimony
*
.150
*
*
117 Beryllium
*
.002
*
*
117 Cadmium
.01
.03-20.0
.014-.9
*
119 Chromium, Tbtal
.006-.043
.06-.2
.06-.4
*
Chromium, Hexavalent
*
.02
*
*
120 Cbpper
.018-.05
.02-20.0
.024-.5
*
121 Cyanide
.006-.13
.007
.03
*
122 Lead
.04-.16
.5-30.0
.2-. 5
*
123 Mercury
*
.0002
.0008
*
124 Nickel
.192
1.0-3.0
.25-4.0
*
125 Selenium
*
.72-3.84
.084-11.8
*
126 Silver
.033
.02
.01
*
128 Zinc
.10
.4-. 7
.07-2.0
*
Aluminum
.16-.3
1.0-7.0
.2-2.0
*
Barium
.01-.08
1.0-6.0
.3-2.0
*
Baron
.07
4.0-10.0
.157-20.0
*
Calcium
19.6-24.0
17.0-80.0
26.0-87.0
*
Cbbalt
.027
.9-1.0
.044-.8
*
Fluorides
1.1
*
2.0
*
Iron
.2
.3-100.0
100.0
*
Magnesium
4.5-15.0
7.4-12.0
3.1-13.0
*
Manganese
.007-.009
.008-3.0
.009-2.0
*
Molybdenum
.03
.02-.03
.02-.04
*
Phenols, Ibtal
.020-.054
.005-.012
.009-.038
*
Efcosphorus
.410-.6
4.14-80.1
2.06-5.14
*
Stadium
16-24
57.0-400.0
36.0-250.0
*
Tin
.009-.05
.02-.04
.03
*
Titanium
.02
2.0-20.0
.02-9.0
*
Vanadium
.036
.02
.03-.042
*
Yttrium
0.4
*
.05
*
* Nbt detected in analysis
88

-------
TABLE V - 7
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS SELECTED
FOR VERIFICATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
FOR THE PORCELAIN ENAMELING CATEGORY*
Pollutant	Subcategory
Parameter			Steel Cast Iron Aluminum Copper
14
1,1,2-Trichloroethane

-
-
X
66
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
-
-
X
—
69
Di-n-octy1 phthalate
—
-
X
~
86
Toluene
-
-
-
X
87
Trichloroethylene
-
-
-
X
114
Antimony
X
X
X
X
1 15
Arsenic
X
X
X
X
1 17
Beryllium
X
-
X
_
118
Cadmium
X
X
X
X
1 1 9
Chromium, Total
X
X
X
X
1 1 9
Chromium, Hexavalent
-
-
X
-
120
Copper
X
X
X
X
122
Lead
X
X
X
X
1 24
Nickel
X
X
X
X
125
Selenium
X
X
X
X
128
Zinc
X
X
X
X

Aluminum
X
X
X
X

Barium
-
_
X
X

Cobalt
X
X
X
X

Fluoride
X
X
X
X

Iron
X
X
X
X

Manganese
X
X
X
X

Phenols, Total
X
X
X
X

Phosphorus
X
X
X
X

Titanium
X
X
X
X

Oil & Grease
X
—
X
X

Total Suspended Solids
X
X
X
X

pH
X
X
X
X
*A dash {-) indicates the parameter was not selected for verification;
an x indicates the parameter was selected for verification. Selection
of parameters was made prior to the determination that coating
wastewaters are essentialy similar for each subcategory.
89

-------
01059
03032
04098
04102
09032
11052
11090
11105
11107
12038
12043
15031
15033
15194
15949
20059
20067
22024
33054
33084
33086
33092
33617
36030
36052
40031
40034
40035
40039
40040
40043
40055
40063
40540
44031
47033
47034
47037
11089
11106
20015
20091
33085
33098
40042
41062
11091
12039
TABLE V-8
WATER USE RATES REPORTED IN DCP's
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
METAL PREPARATION	COATING AND BALL MILLING
1/hr
m2/hr
1/m2
1/hr

2 ,u
m /hr

1/m2
397.43
245.
75
1. 62
227.
.48
245.
.75
0.926
14534
1492.
8
9.74
682,
.06
783.
.7
0.87
3028
96.
8
31.28
378.
.9
48.
.4
7.83
6797.9
224.
38
30.3
10291

355.
,28
28.97
71536
746.
8
95.79
3209.
.7
746.
,8
4.30
3633.98
466

7.80
113.
.17
466

0.243
1911.05
222

8.61
894.
.02
224

3.99
26571
87.
13
304.96
14307

131.
,47
108.82
339.89
455

0.75
1363

455

3.0
49205
1626

30. 26
3785

1626

2.33
5744.9
154.
55
37.17
3093

201.
, 6 6
15.34
10366.7
321.
8
32.21
8565

943

9.08
14079.8
1385

10.17-
44852

1385

32.38
53368.1
259

206.05
11355

279

40.70
38607
1061

36.39
112793

1185

95.18
10763.4
42.
82
251.36
5693.
.4
42.
,82
132.96
1229.7
164.
2
7.49
757

164.
,2
4.61
5376
41.
82
128.55
18.
,925
24.
,88
0.76
22710
906.
13
25.06
29523

824.
,8
35.79
5905.0
349.
34
16.9
6131.
.3
572.
,92
10.7
14761.9
515

28. 66
578

339

1.70
31794
536

59.32
10787

586

18.41
4-769.1
1990.
3
2.396
18320

2692

6.80
465.9
31.
65
14.72
1691.
,9
40.
,36
41.92
14288
234.
5
60.93
2271

109.
,6
20.72
7721.4
246

31.39
3406.
.5
467

7.29
14306.9
149

96.02
2953.
.1
292

10.11
1135.88
103.
5
10.97
1267.
.2
51.
,76
24.48
11808.8
569.
0
20.75
2952.
,3
569.
,0
5.19
923.16
10

92.32
265.
,7
18

14.76
49.92
191

0.26
33.
,28
191

0.174
13970
557.
17
25.07
3970.
,8
1446.
,7
2.74
8858.9
204

43.43
5906

29 2

20.23
3814.9
286

13.34
2089.
,7
286

7.31
7608
148

51.41
5072

207

24 .5
14429.2
88

163.97
9619.
,4
40

240.49
2725.2
217

12.56
4768.
,7
128

37.26
5677.5
274

20.72
4911.
,4
164

29.95
3406.5
27 3

12.48
1135.
,5
258

4.40
40878
263

155.43
757

229

3.3
5450.4
561.
21
9.71
1173.
.7
902.
,47
1.30
7948.5
209

38.03
18168.
.4
209

86.93
1457.2
157.
06
9.28
3141.
.9
236.
,5
13.28
49345
151

326.79
6294.
,8
155

40.61
2157.5
61

35.37
654.
.4
91

7.19
734.29
11

66.75
143.
,8
40

3.60
5954.2
215

27.69
3205.
,5
324

9.89
9084
254

35.76
8403

356

23.6
90

-------
TABLE V- 9
WATER USE RATES REPORTED IN DCP's
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY

METAL
PREPARATION
COATING
AND BALL
MILLING
PLANT ID
1/hr
m /hr
1/m
1/hr
2
m /hr
1/m2
09037
5205.9
520.75
10.0
2803.2
412.46
6.8
06030
6813
55.76
122.2
700.2
37.17
18.84
11045
1328.2
46.47 .
28.58
715.7
46.47
15.40
33077
8119.2
113.67
71.43
4371.7
113.67
38.46
33083
3633.6
107.11
33.92
567.75
53.55
10.60
47032
13626
73.37
185.72
1816.8
73.37
24.76
47036
3406.5
55.73
61.125
1286.5
55.73
23.08
47051
12490.5
88.87
140.55
1589.3
88.87
17.88
47670
11355
351.72
32.28
11177
175.86
63.56
33053
20.06
36.83
0.54
10.6
69.03
0.154
91

-------
TABLE V- 10
COATING RAW *RSTEHATER SUMMARY
(mg/l)

ID?
40053
40053
40063
40063
40063
47033
47033
47033

151
152
150
152
154
150
151
152
114
Antimony
0.0
0.0
4.226
8.983
12.190
0.0
1020.000
3.350
115
Arsenic
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.845
3.471
0.280
0.250
0.0
117
Beryllium
0.0
0.120
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.044
0.0
118
Cadmium
9.570
0.760
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.110
6.100
1.080
119
Chrcniun
0.210
1.070
0.036
0.005
0.460
1.190
37.400
0.110
120
Copper
2.245
8.750
0.314
1.139
2.976
55.000
12.100
0.520
122
Lead
3.030
7.580
0.285
0.0
0.0
10.800
1.470
0.840
124
Nickel
22.500
67.000
3.319
10.188
21.593
358.000
2.900
3.630
125
Selcniun
0.430
0.820
0.0
17.290
16.321
2.030
0.0
0.120
128
Zinc
95.000
645.000
10.425
30.457
61.448
1320.000
77.000
1.980

Alurainun
95.000
'290.000
23.633
85.054
287.203
1525.000
365.000
5.240

Barium









Ccbalt
8.910
95.000
0.310
6.502
12.598
350.000
90.000
6.240

Fluorides
38.000
105.000
46.373
33.251
34.449
74.000
60.000
14.500

Iron
52.000
150.000
2.903
24.371
41.403
152.000
620.000
3.330

Manganese
11.400
65.000
12.780
29.296
82.754
400.000
275.000
11.800

Phosphorus
0.490
0.940
0.856
0.600
0.692
9.810
2.060
1.640

Titaniun
19.100
102.000
41.190
184.058
1641.450
1500.000
138.000
5.750

Oil & Grease


54.274
3.820
3.360




Total Suspended Solids
6629.996
27899.988
2218.809
21708.258
21709.882
319599.937
10669.996


pH - Minimun
8.3
8.3
7.0
7.2
7.4
8.3
8.3
8.1

pH - Maximum
9.0
9.0
11.5
11.4
12.5
8.9
8.9
8.4

ID#
33077
36077
36077
36077
47051
47051
47051



151
150
151
152
150
151
152
Mean
114
Antimony
0.0
16.500
3.030
6.180
0.0
0.0
0.0
77.7472
115
Arsenic
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7924
117
Beryllium
0.0
0.060
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.049
118
Cadmium
11.300
8.000
3.300
22.400
0.580
0.290
0.310
6.7405
119
Gircmium
0.030
3.000
0.320
0.220
0.039
0.039
0.032
1.5728
120
Copper
0.0
3.000
0.240
0.430
0.006
0.005
0.010
4.0283
122
Lead
37.900
40.000
20.100
22.600
8.720
4.980
9.550
51.4413
124
Nickel
0.0
30.000
1.160
1.160
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.6847
125
Selenium
0.530
0.720
0.540
1.710
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.8858
128
Zinc
1.970
400.000
203.000
92.000
0.750
1.030
0.920
113.9000

Aluminum
2.080
200.000
29.700
43.800
0.380
0.330
0.500
184.0688

Barium
0.110
90.000


1.370
1.140
0.970
10.5239

Ccbalt
0.029
30.000
1.200
2.680
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.4673

Fluorides
0.920

8.800
15.000
1.850
1.450
1.400
27.9779

Iron
0.200
20.000
7.880
8.830
0.150
0.110
0.180
43.9262

Manganese
0.0
5.000
0.580
0.660
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.3345

Phosphorus
65.300
0.0
0.850
1.130
4.140
0.380
0.710
4.6307692

Titaniun
30.400
100.000
198.000
280.000
6.910
3.130
4.780
5357.25/

Oil & Grease
0.0
7.900
5.00
2.640
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.8652

Total Suspended Solids
650.000
22095.992
6019.996
5209.996
529.000
383.000
469.000
15291.658

pH - Minimum
9.2
8.4
8.7
8.2
8.2
9.1
8.5


pH - tteximum
9.5
9.3
9.4
8.5
9.3
10.0
10.0

NOTE: The number immediately below each plant ID# indicates either screening or verification sampling and
the sampling day on which these results were obtained. Numbers beginning with 14 indicate screening;
numbers beginning with 15 indicate verification sampling. The third digit represents a specific
sampling day in relation to other sampling days at the same plant.

-------
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
TABLE V-10 (Continued)
COATING RAW WASTEWATER SUMMARY




(mg/1)




ID#

33617
33617
33617
36030
36030
36030
40053


140
153
155
140
151
152
150
Antimony

0.0
0.0
0.0
1.580
3,500
2.350
0.0
Arsenic

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.420
0.0
Beryllium

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.059
0.0
0.035
0.069
Cadmium

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.260
0.097
0.220
0.410
Chranium

0.060
0.040
0.033
0.300
0.200
0.630
0.910
Copper

0.260
0.280
0.260
5.880
4.730
7.070
6.610
Lead

0.630
0.290
0.180
4.760
2.320
4.820
6.050
Nickel

2.000
1.810
2.000
38.200
39.800
49.000
42.500
Selenium

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.510
0.770
0.810
0.530
Zinc

3.360
1.090
1.520
57.500
82.000
196.000
3.600
Muninim

41.500
32.600
27.900
182.000
100.000
196.000
180.000
Barium








Cobalt

1.980
1.490
2.270
48.400
51.000
64.000
46.800
Fluorides

19.000
23.000
18.000
46.000
66.000
56.000
115.000
Iron

3.130
2.850
2.600
16.000
14.900
28.800
37.700
Sanganeso

2.300
1.750
2.250
64.000
85.000
118.000
28.900
Phosphorus

5.140
4.860
6.780
1.000


1.500
Titanium

45.800
20.800
23.700
120.000
220.000
554.999
54.000
Oil & Grease

34.000
28.000
12.000
10.000
98.000
2.000

Total Suspended Solids

488.000
2630.000
360.000
13799.996
31249.992
93899.937
26999.996
pH - Minimum

8.4
8.9
8.1
7.6
8.1
8.0
8.3
pH - Maximum

8.9
9.1
8.3
9.5
9.7
10.100
9.0
ID#
11045
11045
11045
15712
15712
15712
33076
33077
150
151
152
140
151
152
150
150
Antinony
0.362
0.208
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.002
0.0
ftrsenic
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.800
2.401
1.872
0.0
Beryllium
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.003
0.002
0.0
0.0
Cadmium
0.0
6.984
5.025
0.014
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.000
Qircmium
0.008
0.011
0.010
0.057
0.001
0.0004
0.740
0.024
Oapper
0.039
0.181
0.050
0.024
0.001
0.001
0.415
0.0
Lead
3.467
6.215
20.319
0.490
130.145
188.242
876.242
28.300
Nickel
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,250
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.O
Selenium
0.0
0.747
0.543
11.800
15.851
161.189
9.270
7.070
Zinc
0.153
0.202
0.564
0.0
0.681
0.732
14.405
0.300
Aluminum
0.253
0.270
0.292
0.376
144.209
342.873
1220.012
0.860
Barium
0.310
0.303
0.402
0.0



0.110
Cobalt
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.044
7.585
11.283
0.118
0.0
Fluorides
0.920
0.932
0.946
2.000
2.241
2.541
22.846
0.940
Iron
0.563
0.940
0.385
0.0
18.408
20.222

0.180
Manganese
0.003
0.011
0.0
0.009
0.004
0.003
2.771
0.0
Phosphorus
1.091
1.044
1.423
2.060
0.910
0.734
0.0
4.260
Titaniwi
3.680
5.176
9.812
0.022
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.500
Oil & Grease
2.335
4.698
3.304
1.000
3.718
9.525

0.0
Total Suspended Solids
121.630
249.146
161.861
11949.996
16971.363
18598.203
81337.875
55.000
pH - fUnimum
6.950
7.7
8.0
7.9
9.2
9.3
11.1
9.2
pH - Maximum
8.800
8.8
9.7
10.7
10.8
10.5
11.4
10.0

-------
¦mBtE v-10 (Ocntinued)
OQMTN3 RAW WV9EENMER SUM^®Y
(mg/1)

18538
18538
18538
41062

140
152
154
150
114 Antimony
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.920
115 Arsenic
0.0
0.130
0.0
0.060
117 Beryllium
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.014
118 Cadmium
0.004
0.0
0.0
4.640
119 Chromium
0.031
0.260
0.013
0.410
120 Copper
3.210
1.920
0.160
0.330
122 lead
1.280
0.750
0.047
3.590
124 Nickel
19.300
7.610
0.600
0.750
125 Selenium
0.0
0.150
0.0
0.680
128 Zinc
34.700
14.100
16.400
14.700
Aluminum
22.500
12,500
5.330
24.000
Bariun
Cobalt
8.000
3.090
0.440
2.950
Fluorides
8.400
6.400
1.900
6.200
Iron
1.920
1.530
0.450
2.420
Manganese
11.800
4.550
0.720
0.610
Phosphorus
1.690
2.250
1.350
2.710
Titanium
107.000
72.000
23.300
4.330
Oil & Grease
2.000
2.000
3.000
90.000
Dotal Suspended Solids
4272.000
2829.999
367.000
1560.000
- Miniitum
6.2
5.8
6.4
8.2
pH - Maxiirum
7.9
5.9
7.6
8.4
41062
41062
151
152
1.080
0.0
0.060
0.052
0.034
0.028
4.760
54.00
1.240
0.180
0.200
0.270
6.490
3.180
0.680
0.390
0.460
0.290
16.400
31.800
49.700
225.000
3.740
2.070
3.400
7.000
6.600
12.500
0.660
0.450
4.170
3.400
43.300
799.999
3.000
1.000
B40.000
11599.996
8.2
7.5
Msan
68.1538
1.2201
0.0425
8.2589
1.3699
3.4924
42.8145
28.3336
10.0473
98.0343
162.8082
10.5239
29.6220
24.1331
36.9222
44.0939
4.2491
4415.0263
16.1072
23918.1669

-------
TABLE V-ll
TOTAL & DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
Coating Waste Stream
PARAMETER
TOTAL mg/1
DISSOLVED mg/1
pH range
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
11.2-11.5
136.00
14.10
4.690
10.40
1.80
39.40
46.70
16.30
28.50
300.00
49.10
0.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.019
0.029
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.017
95

-------
TABLE V-12
TOTAL & DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
Coating Waste Stream
PARAMETER	TOTAL mg/1	DISSOLVED mg/]
pH range	10.3-10.5
Aluminum	254.0	0.0
Arsenic	2.930	0.0
Cobalt	7.860	0.0
Iron	18.900	0.007
Lead	135.00	2.10
Selenium	16.600	0.0
Zinc	0.710	0.011
96

-------
TABLE V-13
TOTAL & DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
Coating Waste Stream
PARAMETER	TOTAL mg/1	DISSOLVED mg/1
pH Range	9.2-9.5
Aluminum	0.86	0.0
Barium	0.110	0.0
Cadmium	54.00	0.003
Chromium, total	0.024	0.008
Iron	0.180	0.0
Lead	28.30	0.0
Selenium	7.070	0.07
Titanium	17.50	0.0
Zinc	0.30	0.010
97

-------
TABLE V-14
TOTAL & DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
Coating Waste Stream
PARAMETER
TOTAL mg/1
DISSOLVED mg/1
pH range
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
8.0-10.1
196.00
2.350
0.420
0.035
0.220
0.630
64.00
7.070
28.80
4.82
118.00
49.00
0.810
555.00
196.00
0
49
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
016
0
028
0
12
0
0
0
043
0
026
0
0
0
0
0
018
98

-------
TABLE V-15
SHORT TERM LEACHING CHARACTERISTICS
OP COATING WASTEWATER
Dissolved Parameter Analysis
CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
PARAMETER
pH=4
pH=7
pH=10
Arsenic
<1
<1
<1
Cadmium
0.70
0.00
0.00
Chromium
<1
<1
<1
Cobalt
19.0
2.68
<1
Copper
1.13
<1
<1
F1uoride
110
50
13
Iron
1.38
<1
<1
Lead
1
<1
<1
Manganese
24.8
1.58
<1
Nickel
47.0
4.70
<1
Zinc
26.1
<1
<1
99

-------
TABLE V- 16
TOXIC METALS DISCHARGED FROM THE
COATING WASTE STREAM PER YEAR
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
lbs/yr Discharged
8,000
2,200
1,600
425
6,000
3,000
16,500
225
100,000
Fraction of
Total Metals
Discharged
(Percent)
5.8
1.59
1.16
0.31
4.35
2.17
11.96
0.16
72.49
100

-------
TABLE V-17
SAMPLED PLANTS
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
Alun inum
Antirony
Arsenic
Cacfrniim
Chromium, Dotal
Cbtalt
(bfper
Fluoride
Iron
lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenol*, total
ftosptorua
Seleniun
Titaniua
Zinc
Oil and Grease
Ibtai Suspended Sal ids
S»I
TREAJMaW IH PLACE
Equalization
Chromium Reduction
Chemical Precipitation
Clarification/Settling
Sludge Dewaterlng
Aluminum
Antiraony
Arsenic
Cadniun
Oirommn, Dotal
Cobalt
Oopper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
R*enals» Dotal
Phosphorus
Seleniun
Titaniun
Zinc
Oil and Qrease
Tbtil Suspended Salids
i«
TREAT wan* tw PLACE
Equalization
Chromium Reduction
Chemical Precipitation
Clarification/Settling
Sludge Dewateriny
Filtration
•indicate* no data available.
mc 1
1.760
0
0.079
0.061
.590
0.530
s.ao
110.
0.530
1.550
0
0.800
0
4.630
1.790
740.
PLANT 36030
DMC 2
OUT 3
166.
16.3
0.780
0.480
1.330
50.
5.880
66.
770.
5.880
82.0
46.80
0.062
3.0
0.570
970.
257
12.0
60100.
*•2-8.2
210. ^
3.140
0.520
1.090
1.910
43.5
4.180
100.
1010.
4.180
69.
40.50
7.020
1.190
1025.
279
242.
unoo«.4-i».»
my i
.300
KANT 40053
OMf 2
0.0
0
0.011
0.0
0.056
1.050
180.
0
0.620
3.800
0.019
7.95
0
0.0
0..120
3.0
2.1-3.2
0
0.014
.029
0.046
0.980
275.
0
1.0
2.970
0.037
11.90
0
0.0
0.130
10.0
2.1-3.2
DM 3
.270
0
0.012
.036
0.055
0.720
300.
1
620
0."5
0
1
4
0
12.0
0
0.0
0.160
141
2.1-3.2

PIM7T 36077

act i
2
our 3
10.0
4.29
8.08
0.0
4.55
3.4
-
0.0
0.0
2.000
1.34
2.83
.080
0.024
0.0
.300
.270
.300
.200
0.115
0.0
-
8.3
13.0
2.000
1.08
2.39
2.000
1.57
J. 51
.300
0.185
0.21
1.000
0.78
0.71
0.014
0.006
0.007
1.98
0.8
1.23
0.0
0.0
0.37
10,00
6.66
U..80
5.00
5.13
26.9
0.0
7.0
9.0
336,0
90.
198.0
7.9-8.4
8.4-9.2
8.2—8.
MX 1
PlMfT HO 62
DMf 2
QMT 3
1.37
1.93
3.08
0
0

0
0
0
0.055
0.011
0.160
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.010
0.013
0.016
2.80
1.60
2.40
0.050
0.069
0.600
0
0
0
0
0
0.010
0,021
0
0.020
0.046
0.012
0.048
0.48
0.730
1.10
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
.480
0.480
0.130
0.088
1.0
3.0
1.0
6.0
13.0
18,0
7.5-8.9
8.4-9.4
8.4-8,9
101

-------
PARAMETER
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Tbtal
Cbbalt
(topper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
h Nickel
O
w Phenols, Ibtal
Ffrospborus
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
Ibtal Suspended Solids
pH
TREATMENT IN PLACE
Equalization
Chromium Reduction
Chemical Precipitation
Clarification/Settling
Sludge Dewatering
TABLE V-18
SAMPLED PLANTS
EFFLUENT CONCEOTRATION (mg/1)

CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY





1 PLANT 15712

PLANT 33076

PLANT 40053

DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 1
EftY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
.376
244.209
342.873
1220.012
180.
95.0
290.0
-
-
-
6.002
-
-
-
-
2.8
2.401
1.872
-
-
-
0.014
-
-
-
0.41
9.57
0.76
0.057
0.001
0.0
0.74
0.91
0.21
1.07
.044
7.585
11.283
.118
46.8
8.91
95.0
0.024
0.001
0.001
0.415
6.61
2.45
8.75
2.0
2.241
2.541
22.846
115.0
38.0
105.0
0.0
18.408
20.222

37.7
52.0
150.0
0.49
130.145
188.242
876.272
6.05
3.03
7.58
0.009
0.004
0.003
2.227
28.9
11.4
65.0
0.25
-
-
-
42.5
22.5
67.0
.038
.008
.014
-
.025
.016
.01S
2.06
.910
.734
_
1.5
.49
. 94C
11.8
15.851
161.189
9.27
0.53
0.43
0.82
.022
_
-
-
54.0
19.1
102.
0.0
0.681
0.732
14.405
3.6
95.0
645.0
11950
16971.363
18598.203
81337.87
26999.99
6629.99
27899.98
7.9-10.7
9.2-10.8
9.3-10.5
11.1—11.4
8.3-9.0
8.3-9.0
8.3-9.0
X
X

-------
TABLE V-19
SAMPLED PLANTS
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY


PIANT 11045


PLANT 33077


PLAHT 47051


DAY 1
W£ 2
EfcY 3
DAY 1
QHf 2
d&y 3
dry 1
DAY 2
DMT 3
Aluninum
.381
.410
10.450
.200
0.0
-0.027
2.86
8.8
8.6
Antirony
0.26
0.154
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
_
Arsenic
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
_
-
-
Barium
.228
.250
.243
.300
.200
.110
.340
.400
0.170
Cadmium
0.002
0.0
3.299
0.9
0.057
0.083
0.003
0.024
0.0
Chromium, "total
0.003
0.009
0.014
0.006
0.0
0.0
0.012
0.019
0.14
Chromium, Hexavalent
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cbbalt
-
-

-
-
-
0.0
.015
0.0
Cbpper
.092
.118
.040
0.0
0.0
0.0
.009
.088
.060
Fluoride
.910
.950
.936
1.50
2.0
1.8
.082
.082
1.00
Iron
.506
.622
.252
0.0
.038
.033
.100
.590
0.390
Dead
2.765
2.733
12.706
0.5
0.0
0.12
0.12
0.17
0.0
Manganese
.007
.007
.071
0.0
0.0
0.0
.04
.130
0.07
Nickel
-
-
-
-
-
-
.028
5.61
.165
Phenols, natal
.008
.013
.006
.009
0.0
0.0
.005
0.01
0.0
Fbosptorus
0.811
0.435
4.425
3.57
0.89
1.14
8.93
-
-
Selenium
-
0.186
0.345
0.084
0.0
0.0
_
-
_
Titanium
1.824
3.484
6.395
.400
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Zinc
0.1
0.175
0.344
0.07
0.54
0.57
0.69
0.091
0.078
Oil and Grease
3.116
3.483
3.184
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
172.0
35.0
Ibtal Suspended Solids
138.025
159.812
120.143
5.0
0.0
33.0
303.0
256.0
366.0
PH
6.95-8.8
7.0-8.8
8.0-10.4
8.7-8.8
9.4-10.0
8.9-9.0
7.0-11.0
7.3-8.5
7.0-11
TREATMENT IN PEACE
Equalization
ChroMium Reduction
Chemical Precipitation
Clarification/Settlins	X	x
Sludge Daw*taring
-indicates no data available
•indicates effluent contains pollutant from other Baint Source Categories.

-------
PARAMETERS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Tbtal
Cbbalt
Cbpper
Fluoride
Iron
lead
Manganese
g Nickel
Phenols, Tbtal
Phosphorus
Selenium
Titanium
It ichloroethylene
Zinc
Oil and Grease
Tbtal Suspended Solids
pH
TREATMENT IN PIACE
Equalization
Chromium Reduction
Clarification/Settling
Sludge Dewatering
-indicates no data available.
TABLE V-20
SAMPLED PLANTS
EFFLUEOT CCWCEOTRATICN (mg/1)
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
PLANT
06031
DAY 1
PLANT 36030
DMT 2
WX 3
.208
0.002
0.081
0.003
0.013
.024
0.751
.345
0.542
0.008
0.025
0.16
.004
.011
0.012
6.0-11.2
1.76
0.0
0.079
0.061
.590
0.53
6.8
110.0
0.085
1.55
0.0
.800
0.0
4.63
1.79
740.0
166
16.3
0.78
0.48
1.33
50.0
5.88
66.0
770.0
1.69
82.0
46.8
.062
3.0
0.57
970.
257.0
12.0
60100
6.2-8.2
210
3.14
0.52
1.09
1.91
43.50
4.18
100.0
1010.
4.58
69.0
40.5
7.02
1.19
1025.
279.0
242
113300
6.4-10.5
X
X

-------
TABLE V-21
RAJ-? WASTE: PREPARATION OF STEEL (mg/1)


AVERAGE DAILY VALUES

#
ff


MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
JEAN
MEDIAN
FTS
ZEROS

Flow . 1/day
9910.
206500.
91600%
57500.
CO
r—4
0

Minimum pH
2.000
6.80
2.472
2.100
18
0

Maximum pH
5.40
11.70
J8.34
9.50
18
0

Temperature Deg C
27.43
121.0
41.57
33.00
20
0
86
Toluene
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
2
114
Antimony
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
20
115
Arsenic
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
20
117
Beryllium
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
20
118
Cadmium
0.00169
0.02307
0.00892
0.00594
5
15
119
Chromium, Total
0.00742
0.3478
0.1088
0.0549
20
0

Chromium, Hexavalent
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
20
120
Capper
0.01944
0.1193
0.0574
0.4995
20
0
121
Cyanide, Total
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
7

Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
7
122
Lead
0.01583
0.03537
0.02405
0.0225
4
16
124
Nickel
0.0751
67.2
14.51
1.367
15
3
125
Selenium
0.00201
0.1898
0.0959
0.0959
2
18
128
Zinc
0.02002
0.3478
0.1002
0.0811
19
0

Aluminum
0.04577
3.150
0.3449
0.1633
17
3

Cobalt
0.01004
0.1267
0.0521
0.0243
17
3

Fluorides
0.2040
1.250
0.696
0.786
20
0

Iron
0.797
1357.
535.
488.5
17
0

Manganese
0.00326
6.24
1.938
1.247
18
0

Phenols, Ttotal
0.00667
0.4727
0.0752
0.03426
17
1

Phosphorus
0.3618
14.10
5.43
4.395
9
0

Titanium
0.04337
0.04337
0.04337
0.04337
1
19

Oil & Grease
1.2746
44.81
12.35
5.05
10
0

Total Suspended Solids
4.768
287.9
84.0
32.74
18
0

-------
66
69
86
114
115
117
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
#
o
o
o
o
8
8
3
8
8
8
7
6
8
6
6
6
6
8
8
1
1
8
8
0
0
5
1
0
8
TABLE V-22
RAN mSTE: PREPARATION OF ALUMINUM (mg/1)
Flow 1 /day
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
B2-Ethyhex]phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Toluene
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Aran, to Chlor.
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Ccbalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES

1
MUM
MAXIMUM
MEAN
MEDIAN
PTS
00.
216700.
130900.
168700.
8
6.30
9.500
8.00
7.93
8
7.90
10.40
9.35
9.60
8
18.00
36.90
24.41
23.40
8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
1
0.007
0.018
0.012
0.012
2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.021
0.056
0.038
0.038
2
0.015
0.176
0.095
0.095
2
0.015
0.176
0.095
0.095
2
0.040
4.310
2.175
2.175
2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.019
0.540
0.210
0.170
7
0.680
25.90
6.64
4.510
7
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.720
0.980
0.880
0.910
8
0.013
0.330
0.969
0.059
8
0.019
0.180
0.111
0.135
3
0.005
0.016
0.008
0.007
7
0.410
24.30
8.49
9.40
8
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
3.000
11.00
6.85
6.70
4
1.000
181.0
39.87
17.00
8

-------
RAW WASTE: PREPARATION OF OOPPER (rag/1)


AVERAGE DAILY VALUES

#
#


MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
MEAN
MEDIAN
FTS
ZEROS

Flow V.day
6140.
7270.
6890.
7280.
3
0

Minimum pH
1.800
6.500
4.833
6.20
3
0

Maximum
6.50
6.60
6.55
6.55
2
0

Temperature Deg C
19.00
28.00
21.67
19.00
3
0
6
Carbon tetrachloride
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
1
11
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
*
*
*
*
1
0
14
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
1
15
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
*
*
*
*
2
0
23
Chloroform
*
*
*
*
2
1
29
1,1-Ditihloroethylene
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
1
44
Methylene chloride
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
1
45
Methyl chloride
Dichlorcbrancme thane
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
1
48
*
*
*
*
2
0
85
Tetrachloroethylene
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
3
86
Toluene
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
2
87
Trichloroethylene
*
*
*
*
1
0
114
Antimony
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
3
115
Arsenic
0.00011
0.00011
0.00011
0.00011
1
2
117
Beryllium
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
3
118
Cadmium
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.022
1
2
119
Qircmium, Total
0.008
0.060
0.02566
0.009
3
0

Chranium, Hexavalent
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
3
120
Copper
9.68
815.
278.7
12.00
3
0
121
Cyanide, Ttotal
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
2

Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
1
122
Lead
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
1
2
124
Nickel
0.1199
0.1199
0.1199
0.1199
1
2
125
Selenium
0.00011
0.0001100
0.00011
0.00011
1
2
128
Zinc
0.049
2.400
0.890
0.220
3
0

Aluminun
0.0002
0.170
0.0734
0.050
3
0

Ccbalt
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
3

Fluorides
0.110
0.120
0.115
0.115
2
0

Iron
0.150
51.3
27.41
30.78
3
0

Manqanese
0.010
0.2599
0.0963
0.019
3
0

Phenols, Total
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
1
1

Phosphorus
0.520
0.520
0.520
0.520
1
1

TitaniiBTi
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
3

Oil & Grease
196.0
196.0
196.0
196.0
1
0

Total Suspended Solids
14.00
24.00
19.00
19.00
2
0
* < 0.01 mg/1

-------
Plant ID
15051
18538
36030
36077
40053
40063
41062
47033
TABLE V— 2 4	„
SAMPLED PLANT WATER USE (1/m )
Steel Subcategory
Sampling
Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3'
Metal.
Preparation
96.305
55.020
16.582
23.060
27.276
23.060
15.631
13.490
17.174
18.928
18.821
18.874
9.552
8.447
12.248
141.677
49.633
154.970
109.024*
183.749*
192.136*
Coating
4.229
8.767
6.232
11.480
16.675
8.438
4.914
4.936
3.861
4.472
2.708
5.498
1.098
1.596
1.087
18.939
32.291
35.137
4,
3,
221
384
8.377
1,
1,
3,
184
355
560
Mean
40.042
8.102
~Value deleted from subcategory average.
-No water use associated with metal preparation.
108

-------
TABLE V— 24 (Con't) ?
SAMPLED PLANT WATER USE (1/m )
Cast Iron Subcategory*
Sampling	Metal
Plant ID Day	Preparation Coating
15712 1	0.342
2	0.273
3	0.238
33076 1	0.219
40053 1	1.098
2	1.596
3	1.087
Mean	0.693
Plant ID
11045
SAMPLED PLANT WATER USE (1/m )
Aluminum Subcategory
Sampling
Day
1
2
3
Metal
Preparation
20.155
23.598
41.822
Coating
51.435
67.146
64.012
33077
47051
1
2
3
1
2
3
160.119*
139.686*
123.776*
49.998
45.491
52.313
15.656
34.921
30.869
3.406
3.771
1.625
Mean
38.896
15.041
*Value deleted from subcategory average.
109

-------
TABLE V— 24 (Con't) _
SAMPLED PLANT FLOW DATA (1/m )
Copper Subcategory
Plant ID
06031
36030
Sampling
Day
1
2
3
Metal
Preparation
87.357
59.26
55.243
67.29
Coating
0.168*
5.185
4.834
4.194
4.74
* Value deleted from
subcategory average.
- Indicates no data
available.
110

-------
HjO	HjO	HjO	HjO"	HjO	HjO
NICKEL
DEPOSITION
RINSE
RINSE
ALKALINE
CLEAN
ACID
ETCH
RINSE
h2o	h2o	h2o
SLIP i
FUSION
BALL
MILLING
DRY
RINSE
ENAMEL
APPLICATION
NEUTRALIZATION
'SAMPLE POINT
FIGURE V-t. TYPICAL PORCELAIN ENAMELING ON STEEL OPERATION

-------
HZo
h2o
h2o
FUSION
ALKALINE
CLEAN
RINSE
DRY
ENAMEL
APPLICATION
SLIP i
to
BALL
	HzO
•SAMPLE POINT
FIGURE V-2. TYPICAL PORCELAIN ENAMELING ON ALUMINUM OPERATION

-------
h2o	h2o	h2o
RINSE
PARTS
ACID
PICKEL
D EG R EASE
DRY
FUSION
ENAMEL
APPLICATION
i
i
milling
• SAMPLE POINT
FIGURE V-3. TYPICAL PORCELAIN ENAMELING ON COPPER OPERATION

-------
h2o
I
I
ABRASIVE
BLASTING
POWDER
COAT
FURNACE
FUSION
SPRAY
APPLICATION
SLIP
BALL
MILLING
DRY
FURNACE
FUSION
• SAMPLE POINT
FIGURE V-4. TYPICAL PORCELAIN ENAMELING ON IRON OPERATION

-------
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
In Section V, pollutant parameters to be examined for possible
regulation were presented together with data from plant sampling
visits and subsequent chemical analysis.	Priority,
nonconventional, and conventional pollutant parameters were
selected for verification according to a specified rationale.
Each of the pollutant parameters selected for verification
analysis is now discussed in detail. The selected priority
pollutant parameters are discussed in numerical order, followed
by nonconventional pollutants and then conventional pollutant
parameters, each in alphabetical order.
Finally, the pollutant parameters selected for consideration for
specific regulation and those dropped from further consideration
in each subcategory are set forth. The rationale for that
selection is also presented.
VERIFICATION PARAMETERS
Pollutant parameters selected for verification sampling and
analysis in the porcelain enameling point source category are
listed in Table V-7 (Page 89 ). The subcategory for each is
designated. The following discussion is designed to provide
information about: where the pollutant comes from - whether it is
a naturally occurring element, a processed metal, or a
manufactured compound; general physical properties of the
pollutants; toxic effects of the pollutant in humans and other
animals; and behavior of the pollutant in POTW at the
concentrations that might be expected from industrial discharges.
1 1 5

-------
1,1,2-Trichloroethane(14). 1,1,2-Trichloroethane is one of the
two possible trichloroethanes and is sometimes called ethane
trichloride or vinyl trichloride. It is used as a solvent for
fats, oils, waxes, and resins, in the manufacture of 1,1-
dichloroethylene, and as an intermediate in organic synthesis.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane is a clear, colorless liquid at room
temperature with a vapor pressure of 16.7 mm Hg at 20°C, and a
boiling point of 113°C. It is insoluble in water and very
soluble in organic solvents. The formula is CHC12CH2C1.
Human toxicity data for 1,1,2-trichloroethane does not appear in
the literature. The compound does produce liver and kidney
damage in laboratory animals after intraperitoneal
administration. No literature data was found concerning
teratogenicity or mutagenicity of 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
However, mice treated with 1,1,2-trichloroethane showed increased
incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Although bioconcentration
factors are not available for 1,1,2-trichloroethane in fish and
other freshwater aquatic Organisms, it is concluded on the basis
of octanol-water partition coefficients that bioconcentration
does occur.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to 1,1,2-trichloroethane through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the
ambient water concentration is zero. Concentrations of this
compound estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risks
at risk levels of 10-7, 10-6, and 10-5 are 0.00006 mg/1, 0.0006
mg/1, and 0.006 mg/1 respectively. If contaminated aquatic
organisms alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of water,
th'e water concentration should be less than 0.418 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.
No detailed study of 1,1,2-trichloroethane behavior in POTW is
available. However, it is reported that small amounts are formed
by chlorination processes and that this compound persists in the
environment (greater than two years) and it is not biologically
degraded. This information is not completely consistant with the
conclusions based on laboratory scale biochemical oxidation
studies relating molecular structure to ease of degradation. The
conclusion reached from the above information is that
1,1,2-trichloroethane will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser
extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTW.
11 6

-------
The lack of water solubility and the relatively high vapor
pressure may lead to removal of this compound from POTW by
volatilization.
Phthalate Esters (66-71).	Phthalic	acid,	or
1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, is one of three isomeric
benzenedicarboxylic acids produced by the chemical industry.
The other two isomeric forms are called isophthalic and
terephthalic acids. The formula for all three acids is
C6H4(C00H)2. Some esters of phthalic acid are designated as
priority pollutants. They will be discussed as a group here, and
specific properties of individual phthalate esters will be
discussed afterwards.
Phthalic acid esters are manufactured in the U.S. at an annual
rate in excess of 1 billion pounds. They are used as
plasticizers - primarily in the production of plastics based on
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resins. The most widely used phthalate
plasticizer is bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (66) which accounts
for nearly one third of the phthalate - esters produced. This
particular ester is commonly referred to as dioctyl phthalate
(DOP) and should not be confused with one of the less used
esters, di-n-octyl phthalate (69), which is also used as a
plasticizer. In addition to these two isomeric dioctyl
phthalates, four other esters, also used primarily as
plasticizers, are designated as priority pollutants. They are:
butyl benzyl phthalate (67), di-n-butyl phthalate (68), diethyl
phthalate (70), and dimethyl phthalate (71).
Industrially, phthalate esters are prepared from phthalic
anhydride and the specific alcohol to form the ester. Some
evidence is available suggesting that phthalic acid esters also
may be synthesized by certain plant and animal tissues. The
extent to which this occurs in nature is not known.
Phthalate esters used as plasticizers can be present in
concentrations up to 60 percent of the total weight of the PVC
plastic. The plasticizer is not linked by primary chemical bonds
to the PVC resin. Rather, it is locked into the structure of
intermeshing polymer molecules and held by van der Waals forces.
The result is that the plasticizer is easily extracted.
Plasticizers are responsible for the odor associated with new
plastic toys or flexible sheet that has been contained in a
sealed package.
Although the phthalate . esters are not soluble or are only very
slightly soluble in water, they do migrate into aqueous solutions
placed in contact with the plastic. Thus industrial facilities
with tank linings, wire and cable coverings, tubing, and sheet
1 1 7

-------
flooring of PVC are expected to discharge some phthalate esters
in their raw waste. In addition to their use as plasticizers,
phthalate esters are used in lubricating oils and pesticide
carriers. These also can contribute to industrial discharge of
phthalate esters.
From the accumulated data on acute toxicity in animals, phthalate
esters may be considered as having a rather low order of
toxicity. Human toxicity data are limited. It is thought that
the toxic effects of the esters is most likely due to one of the
metabolic products, in particular the monoester. Oral acute
toxicity in animals is greater for the lower molecular weight
esters than for the higher molecular weight esters.
Orally administered phthalate esters generally produced enlarging
of liver and kidney, and atrophy of testes in laboratory animals.
Specific esters produced enlargement of heart and brain,
spleenitis, and degeneration of central nervous system tissue.
Subacute doses administered orally to laboratory animals produced
some decrease in growth and degeneration of the testes. Chronic
studies in animals showed similar effects to those found in acute
and subacute studies, but to a much lower degree. The same
organs were enlarged, but pathological changes were not usually
detected.
A recent study of several phthalic esters produced suggestive but
not conclusive evidence that dimethyl and diethyl phthalates have
a cancer liability. Only four of the six priority pollutant
esters were included in the study. Phthalate esters do
bioconcentrate in fish. The factors, weighted for relative
consumption of various aquatic and marine food groups, are used
to calculate ambient water quality criteria for four phthalate
esters. The values are included in the discussion of the
specific esters.
Studies of toxicity of phthalate esters in freshwater and salt
water organisms are scarce. Available data show that adverse
effects on freshwater aquatic life occur at phthalate ester
concentrations as low as 0.003 mg/1.
The behavior of phthalate esters in POTW has not been studied.
However, the biochemical oxidation of many of the organic
priority pollutants has been investigated in laboratory-scale
studies at concentrations higher than would normally be expected
in municipal wastewater. Three of the phthalate esters were
studied. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found to be degraded
slightly or not at all and its removal by biological treatment in
a POTW is expected to be slight or zero. Di-n-butyl phthalate
11 8

-------
and diethyl phthalate were degraded to a moderate degree and it
is expected that they will be biochemically oxidized to a l'esser
extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTW.
Based on these data and other observations relating molecular
structure to ease of biochemical degradation of other organic
pollutants, it is expected that butyl benzyl phthalate and
dimethyl phthalate will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser
extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTW. On
the same basis, it is expected that di-n-octyl phthalate will not
be biochemically oxidized to a significant extent by biological
treatment in POTW. An EPA study of seven POTW revealed that for
all but di-n-octyl phthalate, which was not studied, removals
ranged from 62 to 87 percent.
No information was found on possible interference with POTW
operation or the possible effects on sludge by the phthalate
esters. The water insoluble phthalate esters - butylbenzyl and
di-n-octyl phthalate - would tend to remain in sludge, whereas
the other fo"r priority pollutant phthalate esters with water
solubilities ranging from 50 mg/1 to 4.5 mg/1 would probably pass
through into the POTW effluent.
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate(66). In addition to the general
remarks and discussion on phthalate esters, specific information
on bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is provided. Little information
is available about the physical properties of bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate. It is a liquid boiling at 387°C at 5mm Hg and is
insoluble in water. Its formula is C6H4(COOCeH!7)2. This
priority pollutant constitutes about one third of the phthalate
ester production in the U.S. It is commonly referred to as
dioctyl phthalate, or DOP, in the plastics industry where it is
the most extensively used compound for the plasticization of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate has been
approved by the FDA for use in plastics in contact with food.
Therefore, it may be found in wastewaters coming in contact with
discarded plastic food wrappers as well as the PVC films and
shapes normally found in industrial plants. This priority
pollutant is also a commonly used organic diffusion pump oil
where its low vapor pressure is an advantage.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ingested through water and through
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is
determined to be 15 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms
alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the
ambient water criteria is determined to be 50 mg/1.
Although the behavior of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in POTW has
not been studied, biochemical oxidation of this priority
1 1 9

-------
pollutant has been studied on a laboratory . scale at
concentrations higher than would normally be expected in
municipal wastewater. In fresh water with a non-acclimated seed
culture no biochemical oxidation was observed after 5, 10, and 20
days. However, with an acclimated seed culture, biological
oxidation occurred to the extents of 13, 0, 6, and 23 percent of
theoretical after 5, 10, 15 and 20 days, respectively.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentrations were 3 to 10 mg/1.
Little or no removal of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate by biological
treatment in POTW is expected.
Di-n-octyl phthalate(69). In addition to the general remarks and
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on
di-n-octyl phthalate is provided. Di-n-octyl phthalate is not to
be confused with the isomeric bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate which
is commonly referred to in the plastics industry as DOP.
Di-n-octyl phthalate is a liquid which boils at 220°C at 5 mm Hg.
It is insoluble in water. Its molecular formula is
C6H4(C00CeH17)2• Its production constitutes about one percent of
all phthalate ester production in the U.S.
Industrially, di-n-octyl phthalate is used to plasticize
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resins.
No ambient water criterion is proposed for di-n-octyl phthalate.
Biological treatment in POTW is expected to lead to little or no
removal of di-n-octyl phthalate.
Toluene(86). Toluene is a clear, colorless liquid with a benzene
like odor. It is a naturally occuring compound derived primarily
from petroleum or petrochemical processes. Some toluene is
obtained from the manufacture of metallurgical coke. Toluene is
also referred to as toluol, methylbenzene, methacide, and
phenylmethane. It is an aromatic hydrocarbon with the formula
C6H5CH3. It boils at 111°C and has a vapor pressure of 30 mm Hg
at room temperature. The water solubility of toluene is 535
mg/1, and it is miscible with a variety of organic solvents.
Annual production of toluene in the U.S. is greater than 2
million metric tons. Approximately two-thirds of the toluene is
converted to benzene and the remaining 30 percent is divided
approximately equally into chemical manufacture, and use as a
paint solvent and aviation gasoline additive. An estimated 5,000
metric tons is discharged to the environment annually as a
constituent in wastewater.
Most data on the effects of toluene in human and other mammals
have been based on inhalation exposure or dermal contact studies.
There appear to be no reports of oral administration of toluene
1 20

-------
to human subjects. A long term toxicity study on female rats
revealed no adverse effects on growth, mortality, appearance and
behavior, organ to body weight ratios, blood-urea nitrogen
levels, bone marrow counts, peripheral blood counts, or
morphology of major organs. The effects of inhaled toluene on
the central nervous system, both at high and low concentrations,
have been studied in humans and animals. However, ingested
toluene is expected to be handled differently by the body because
it is absorbed more slowly and must first pass through the liver
before reaching the nervous system. Toluene is extensively and
rapidly metabolized in the liver. One of the principal metabolic
products of toluene is benzoic acid, which itself seems to have
little potential to produce tissue injury.
Toluene does not appear to be teratogenic in laboratory animals
or man. Nor is there any conclusive evidence that toluene is
mutagenic. Toluene has not been demonstrated to be positive in
any vitro mutagenicity or carcinogenicity bioassay system, nor
to be carcinogenic in animals or;man.
Toluene has been found in fish caught in harbor waters in the
vicinity of petroleum and petrochemical plants. Bioconcentration
studies have not been conducted, but bioconcentration factors
have been calculated on the basis of the octanol-water partition
coefficient.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
toluene ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 14.3
mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed,
excluding the consumption of water, the ambient water criterion
is 424 mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic
life occur at concentrations as low as 5 mg/1.
Acute toxicity tests have been conducted with toluene and a
variety of freshwater fish and Daphnia magna. The latter appears
to be significantly more resistant than fish. No test results
have been reported for the chronic effects of toluene on
freshwater fish-or invertebrate species.
Only one study of toluene behavior in POTW is available.
However, the biochemical oxidation of many of the priority
pollutants has been investigated in laboratory scale studies at
concentrations greater than those expected to be contained by
most municipal wastewaters. At toluene concentrations ranging
from 3 to 250 mg/1 biochemical oxidation proceeded to fifty
percent of theroetical or greater. The time period varied from a
few hours to 20 days depending on whether or not the seed culture
was acclimated. Phenol adapted acclimated seed cultures gave the
121

-------
most rapid and extensive biochemical oxidation. Based on study
of the limited data, it is expected that toluene will be
biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTv. The volatility and relatively low
water solubility of toluene lead to the expectation that aeration
processes will remove significant quantities of toluene from the
POTW. The EPA studied toluene removal in seven POTW. The
removals ranged from 40 to 100 percent. Sludge concentrations of
toluene ranged from 54 x 10-3 to 1.85 mg/1.
Trichloroethylene(87).	Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-trichloro-
ethylene or TCE) is a clear colorless liquid which boils at 87°C.
It has a vapor pressure of 77 mm Hg at room temperature and is
slightly soluble in water (1 gm/1). U.S. production is greater
than 0.25 million metric tons annually. It is produced from
tetrachloroethane by treatment with lime in the presence of
water.
TCE is used for vapor phase degreasing of metal parts, cleaning
and drying electronic components, as a solvent for paints, as a
refrigerant, for extraction of oils, fats, and waxes, and for dry
cleaning. Its widespread use and relatively high volatility
result in detectable levels in many parts of the environment.
Data on the effects produced by ingested TCE are limited. Most
studies have been directed at inhalation exposure. Nervous
system disorders and liver damage are frequent results of
inhalation exposure. In the short term exposures, TCE acts as a
central nervous system depressant - it was used as an anesthetic
before its other long term effects were defined.
TCE has been shown to induce transformation in a highly sensitive
in vitro Fischer rat embryo cell system (F1706) that is used for
identifying carcinogens. Severe and persistent toxicity to the
liver was recently demonstrated when TCE was shown to produce
carcinoma of the liver in mouse strain B6C3F1. One systematic
study of TCE exposure and the incidence of human cancer was based
on 518 men exposed to TCE. The authors of that study concluded
that although the cancer risk to man cannot be ruled' out,
exposure to low levels of TCE probably does not present a very
serious and general cancer hazard.
TCE is bioconcentrated in aquatic species, making the consumption
of such species by humans a significant source of TCE. For the
protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to trichloroethylene through ingestion of
water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of trichloroethylene
estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risks of 10-7,
122

-------
10~6, and 10-5 are 2.7 x l.O-4 mg/1, 2.7 x 10-3 mg/1, and 2.7 x
10~2 mg/1, respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone
are consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the water
concentration should be less than 0.807 mg/1 to keep the
additional lifetime cancer risk below 10-5.
Only a very limited amount of data on the effects of TCE on
freshwater aquatic life are available. One species of fish
(fathead minnows) showed a loss of equilibrium at concentrations
below those resulting in lethal effects. The limited data for
aquatic life show that adverse effects occur at concentrations
higher than those cited for human health risks.
In laboratory scale studies of organic priority pollutants, TCE
was subjected to biochemical oxidation conditions. After 5, 10,
and 20 days no biochemical oxidation occurred. On the basis of
this study and general observations relating molecular structure
to ease of degradation, the conclusion is reached that TCE would
undergo little or no biochemical oxidation by biological
treatment in a POTW. The volatility and relatively low water
solubility of TCE is expected to result in volatilization of some
of the TCE in aeration steps in a POTW.
For a recent Agency study, Fate of Priority Pollutants in
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, the pollutant concentrations in
the influent, effluent, and sludge of 20 POTW were measured. No
conclusions were made; however, trichloroethylene appeared in 95
percent of the influent stream samples but only in 54 percent of
the effluent stream samples. This indicates that
trichloroethylene either is concentrated in the sludge or escapes
to the atmosphere. Concentrations in 50 percent of the sludge
samples indicate that much of the trichloroethylene is
concentrated there.
Antimony(114). Antimony (chemical name - stibnium, symbol Sb)
classified as a non-metal or metalloid, is a silvery white ,
brittle, crystalline solid. Antimony is found in small ore
bodies throughout the world. Principal ores are oxides of mixed
antimony valences, and an oxysulfide ore. Complex ores with
metals are important because the antimony is recovered as a
by-product. Antimony melts at 631°C, and is a poor conductor of
electricity and heat.
Annual U.S. consumption of primary antimony ranges from 10,000 to
20,000 tons. About half is consumed in metal products - mostly
antimonial lead for lead acid storage batteries, and about half
in non - metal products. A principal compound is antimony
trioxide which is used as a flame retardant in fabrics, and as an
opacifier in glass, ceramics, and enamels. Several antimony
1 23

-------
compounds are used as catalysts in organic chemicals synthesis,
as fluorinating agents (the antimony fluoride), as pigments, and
in fireworks. Semiconductor applications are economically
significant.
Essentially no information on antimony - induced human health
effects has been derived from community epidemiology studies.
The available data are in literature relating effects observed
with therapeutic or medicinal uses of antimony compounds and
industrial exposure studies. Large therapeutic doses of
antimonial compounds, usually used to treat schistisomiasis, have
caused severe nausea, vomiting, convulsions, irregular heart
action, liver damage, and skin rashes. Studies of acute
industrial antimony poisoning have revealed loss of appetitie,
diarrhea, headache, and dizziness in addition to the symptoms
found in studies of therapeutic doses of antimony.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
antimony ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.146
mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed,
excluding the consumption of water, the ambient water criterion
is determined to be 45 mg/1. Available data show that adverse
effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations higher than those
cited for human health risks.
Very little information is available regarding the behavior of
antimony in POTW. The limited solubility of most antimony
compounds expected in POTW, i.e. the oxides and sulfides,
suggests that at least part of the antimony entering a POTW will
be precipitated and incorporated into the sludge. However, some
antimony is expected to remain dissolved and pass through the
POTW into the effluent. Antimony compounds remaining in the
sludge under anaerobic conditions may be connected to stibine
(SbH3), a very soluble and very toxic compound. There are no
data to show antimony inhibits any POTW processes. Antimony is
not known to be essential to the growth of plants, and has been
reported to be moderately toxic. Therefore, sludge containing
large amounts of antimony could be detrimental to plants if it is
applied in large amounts to cropland.
Arsenic(115). Arsenic (chemical symbol As), is classified as a
non-metal or metalloid. Elemental arsenic normally exists in the
alpha-crystalline metallic form which is steel gray and brittle,
and in the beta form which is dark gray and amorphous. Arsenic
sublimes at 615°C. Arsenic is widely distributed throughout the
world in a large number of minerals. The most important
commercial source of arsenic is as a by-product from treatment of
copper, lead, cobalt, and gold ores. Arsenic is usually marketed
1 24

-------
as the trioxide (As203). Annual U.S. production of the trioxide
approaches 40,000 torts.
The principal use of arsenic is in agricultural chemicals
(herbicides) for controlling weeds in cotton fields. Arsenicals
have various applications in medicinal and veterinary use, as
wood preservatives, and in semiconductors.
The effects of arsenic in humans were known by the ancient Greeks
and Romans. The principal toxic effects are gastrointestinal
disturbances. Breakdown of red blood cells occurs. Symptoms of
acute poisoning include vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain,
lassitude, dizziness, and headache. Longer exposure produced
dry, falling hair, brittle, loose nails, eczema; and exfoliation.
Arsenicals also exhibit teratogenic and mutagenic effects in
humans. Oral administration of arsenic compounds has been
associated clinically with skin cancer for nearly a hundred
years. Since 1888 numerous studies have linked occupational
exposure to, and therapeutic administration of arsenic compounds
to increased incidence of respiratory and skin cancer.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to arsenic through ingestion of
water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of arsenic estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risk levels of 10-7, 10-6,
and 1 0-s are 2.2 x 10-7 mg/1, 2.2 x 10-6 mg/1, and 2.2 x 10_s
mg/1, respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are
consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the water
concentration should be less than 1.75 x 1 0~4 mg/1 to keep the
increased 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.
A few studies have been made regarding the behavior of arsenic in
POTW. One EPA survey of 9 POTW reported influent concentrations
ranging from 0.0005 to 0.693 mg/1; effluents from 3 POTW having
biological treatment contained 0.0004 - 0.01 mg/1; 2 POTW showed
arsenic removal efficiencies of 50 and 71 percent in biological
treatment. Inhibition of treatment processes by sodium arsenate
is reported to occur at 0.1 mg/1 in activated sludge, and
1.6 mg/1 in anaerobic digestion processes. In another study
based on data from 60 POTW, arsenic in sludge ranged from 1.6 to
65.6 mg/kg and the median value was 7.8 mg/kg. Arsenic in sludge
spread on cropland may be taken up by plants grown on that land.
Edible plants can take up arsenic, but normally their growth is
inhibited before the plants are ready for harvest.
1 25

-------
Beryllium(117). Beryllium is a dark gray metal of the alkaline
earth family. It is relatively rare, but because of its unique
properties finds widespread use as an alloying element especially
for hardening copper which is used in springs, electrical
contacts, and non-sparking tools. World production is reported
to be in the range of 250 tons annually. However, much more
reaches the environment as emissions from coal burning
operations. Analysis of coal indicates an average beryllium
content of 3 ppm and 0.1 to 1.0 percent*in coal ash or fly ash.
The principal ores are beryl (3Be0*Al203*6Si02) and bertrandite
[Be4Si207(OH)2]. Only two industrial facilities produce
beryllium in the U.S. because of limited demand and its highly
toxic character. About two-thirds of the annual production goes
into alloys, 20 percent into heat sinks, and 10 percent into
beryllium oxide (BeO) ceramic products.
Beryllium has a specific gravity of 1.846 making it the lightest
metal with a high melting point (1350C). Beryllium alloys are
corrosion resistant, but the metal corrodes in aqueous
environment: Most common beryllium compounds are soluble in
water, at least to the extent necessary to produce a toxic
concentration of beryllium ions.
Most data on toxicity of beryllium is for inhalation of beryllium
oxide dust. Some studies on orally administered beryllium in
laboratory animals have been reported. Despite the large number
of studies implicating beryllium as a carcinogen, there is no
recorded instance of cancer being produced by ingestion.
However, a recently convened panel of uninvolved experts
concluded that epidemiologic evidence is suggestive that
beryllium is a carcinogen in man.
In the aquatic environment beryllium is chronically toxic to
aquatic organisms at 0.0053 mg/1. Water softness has a large
effect on beryllium toxicity to fish. In soft water, beryllium
is reportedly 100 times as toxic as in hard water.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to beryllium through ingestion
of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of beryllium estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risk levels of 10-7, 10-6,
and 10-5 are 0.00000068 mg/1, 0.0000068 mg/1, and 0.000068 mg/1,
respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are
consumed excluding the consumption of water, the concentration
should be less than 0.00117 mg/1 to keep the increased lifeline
cancer risk below 10-5.
1 26

-------
Information on the behavior of beryllium in POTW is scarce.
Because beryllium hydroxide is insoluble in water, most beryllium
entering POTW will probably be in the form of suspended solids.
As a result most of the beryllium will settle and be removed with
sludge. However, beryllium has been shown to inhibit several
enzyme systems, to interfere with DNA metabolism in liver, and to
induce chromosomal and mitotic abnormalities. This interference
in cellular processes may extend to interfere with biological
treatment processes. The concentration and effects of beryllium
in sludge which could be applied to cropland have not been
studied.
Cadmium(118). Cadmium is a relatively rare metallic element that
is seldom found in sufficient quantities in a pure state to
warrant mining or extraction from the earth's surface. It is
found in trace amounts of about 1 ppm throughout the earth's
crust. Cadmium is, however, a valuable by-product of zinc
production.
Cadmium is used primarily as an electroplated metal, and is found
as an impurity in the secondary refining of zinc, lead, and
copper.
Cadmium is an extremely dangerous cumulative toxicant, causing
progressive chronic poisoning in mammals, fish, and probably
other organisms. The metal is not excreted.
Toxic effects of cadmium on man have been reported from
throughout the world. Cadmium may be a factor in the development
of such human pathological conditions as kidney disease,
testicular tumors, hypertension, arteriosclerosis, growth
inhibition, chronic disease of old age, and cancer. Cadmium is
normally ingested by humans through food and water as well as by
breathing air contaminated by cadmium dust. Cadmium is
cumulative in the liver, kidney, pancreas, and thyroid of humans
and other animals. A severe bone and kidney syndrome known as
itai-itai disease has been documented in Japan as caused by
cadmium ingestion via drinking water and contaminated irrigation
water. Ingestion of as little as 0.6 mg/day has produced the
disease. Cadmium acts synergistically with other metals. Copper
and zinc substantially increase its toxicity.
Cadmium is concentrated by marine organisms, particularly
mollusks, which accumulate cadmium in calcareous tissues and in
the viscera. A concentration factor of 1000 for cadmium in fish
muscle has been reported, as have concentration factors of 3000
in marine plants and up to 29,600 in certain marine animals. The
eggs and larvae of fish are apparently more sensitive than adult
1 27

-------
fish to poisoning by cadmium, and crustaceans appear to be more
sensitive than fish eggs and larvae.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
cadmium ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.010
mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life
occur at concentrations in the same range as those cited for
human health, and they are highly dependent on water hardness.
Cadmium is not destroyed when it is introduced into a POTW, and
will either pass through to the POTW effluent or be incorporated
into the POTW sludge. In addition, it can interfere with the
POTW treatment process.
In a study of 189 POTW, 75 percent of the primary plants, 57
percent of the trickling filter plants, 66 percent of the
activated sludge plants and 62 percent of the biological plants
allowed over 90 percent of the influent cadmium to pass through
to the POTW effluent. Only 2 of the 189 POTW allowed less than
20 percent pass-through, and none less than 10 percent
pass-through. POTW effluent concentrations ranged from 0.001 to
1.97 mg/1 (mean 0.028 mg/1, standard deviation 0.167 mg/1).
Cadmium not passed through the POTW will be retained in the
sludge where it is likely to build up in concentration. Cadmium
contamination of sewage sludge limits its use on land since it
increases the level of cadmium in the soil. Data show that
cadmium can be incorporated into crops, including vegetables and
grains, from contaminated soils. Since the crops themselves show
no adverse effects from soils with levels up to 100 mg/kg
cadmium, these contaminated crops could have a significant impact
on human health. Two Federal agencies have already recognized
the potential adverse human health effects posed by the use of
sludge on cropland. The FDA recommends that sludge containing
over 30 mg/kg of cadmium should not be used on agricultural land.
Sewage sludge contains 3 to 300 mg/kg (dry basis) of cadmium
(mean = 10 mg/kg; median = 16 mg/kg). The USDA also recommends
placing limits on the total cadmium from sludge that may be
applied to land.
Chromium(119). Chromium is an elemental metal usually found as a
chromite (Fe0*Cr203). The metal is normally produced by reducing
the oxide with aluminum. A significant proportion of the
chromium used is in the form of compounds such as sodium
dichromate (Na2Cr04), and chromic acid (Cr03) - both are
hexavalent chromium compounds.
128

-------
Chromium is found aa an alloying component of many steels and its
compounds are uses' in. electroplating baths and as corrosion
inhibitors for closed water circulation systems.
f
The two chromium forms most frequently found in industry
wastewaters are hexavalent and trivalent chromium. Hexavalaent
chromium is the form used for metal treatments. Some of it is
reduced to trivalent chromium as part of the process reaction.
The raw wastewater containing both valence states is usually
treated first to reduce remaining hexavalent to trivalent
chromium, and second to precipitate the trivalent form as the
hydroxide. The hexavalent form is not removed by lime treatment.
Chromium, in its various valence states, is hazardous to man. It
can produce lung tumors when inhaled, and induces skin
sensitizations. Large doses of chromates have corrosive effects
on the intestinal tract and can cause inflammation of the
kidneys. Hexavalent chromium is a known human carcinogen.
Levels of chromate ions that show no effect in man appear to be
so low as to prohibit determination, to date.
The toxicity of chromium salts to fish and other aquatic life
varies widely with the species, temperature, pH, valence of the
chromium, and synergistic or antagonistic effects, especially the
effect of water hardness. Studies have shown that trivalent
chromium is more toxic to fish of some types than is hexavalent
chromium. Hexavalent chromium retards growth of one fish species
at 0.200 mg/1. Fish food organisms and other lower forms of
aquatic life are extremely sensitive to chromium. Therefore,
both hexavalent and trivalent chromium must be considered harmful
to particular fish or organisms.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
chromium (trivalent) ingested through water and contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is 170 mg/1. If
contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the ambient water criterion for trivalent
chromium is 3,443 mg/1. THe ambient water quality criterion for
hexavalent chromium is recommended to be identical to the
existing drinking water standard for total chromium which is
0.050 mg/1.
Chromium is not destroyed when treated by POTW (although the
oxidation state may change), and will either pass through to the
POTW effluent or be incorporated into the POTW sludge. Both
oxidation states can cause POTW treatment inhibition and can also
limit the usefulness of municipal sludge.
1 29

-------
Influent concentrations of chromium to POTW facilities have been
observed by EPA to range from 0.005 to 14.0 mg/1, with a median
concentration of 0.1 mg/1. The efficiencies for removal of
chromium by the activated sludge process can vary greatly,
depending on chromium concentration in the influent, and other
operating conditions at the POTW. Chelation of chromium by
organic matter and dissolution due to the presence of carbonates
can cause deviations from the predicted behavior in treatment
systems.
The systematic presence of chromium compounds will halt
nitrification in a POTW for short periods, and most of the
chromium will be retained in the sludge solids. Hexavalent
chromium has been reported to severely affect the nitrification
process, but trivalent chromium has litte or no toxicity to
activated sludge, except at high concentrations. The presence of
iron, copper, and low pH will increase the toxicity of chromium
in a POTW by releasing the chromium into solution to be ingested
by microorganisms in the POTW.
The amount of chromium which passes through to the POTW effluent
depends on the type of treatment processes used by the POTW. In
a study of 240 POTW 56 percent of the primary plants allowed more
than 80 percent pass through to POTW effluent. More advanced
treatment results in less pass-through. POTW effluent
concentrations ranged from 0.003 to 3.2 mg/1 total chromium (mean
* 0.197, standard deviation = 0.48), and from 0.002 to 0.1 mg/1
hexavalent chromium (mean = 0.017, standard deviation = 0.020).
Chromium not passed through the POTW will be retained in the
sludge, where it is likely to build up in concentration. Sludge
concentrations of total chromium of over 20,000 mg/kg (dry basis)
have been observed. Disposal of sludges containing very high
concentrations of trivalent chromium can potentially cause
problems in uncontrolled landfills. Incineration, or similar
destructive oxidation processes can produce hexavalent chromium
from lower valence trivalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium is
potentially more toxic than trivalent chromium. In cases where
high rates of chrome sludge .application on land are used,
distinct growth inhibition and plant tissue uptake have been
noted.
Pretreatment of discharges substantially reduces the
concentration of chromium in sludge. In Buffalo, New York,
pretreatment of electroplating waste resulted in a decrease in
chromium concentrations in POTW sludge from 2,510 to 1,040 mg/kg.
A similar reduction occurred in Grand Rapids, Michigan POTW where
the chromium concentration in sludge decreased from 11,000 to
2,700 mg/kg when pretreatment was made a requirement.
1 30

-------
Copper(120). Copper is a metallic element that sometimes is
found free, as the native metal, and is also found in minerals
such as cuprite (Cu20), malachite [CuC03*Cu(OH)2], azurite
[2CuC03*Cu(OH)2], chalcopyrite (CuFeS2), and bornite (Cu5FeS4).
Copper is obtained from these ores by smelting, leaching, and
electrolysis. It is used in the plating, electrical, plumbing,
and heating equipment industries, as well as in insecticides and
fungicides.
Traces of copper are found in all forms of plant and animal life,
and the metal is an essential trace element for nutrition.
Copper is not considered to be a cumulative systemic poison for
humans as it is readily excreted by the body, but it can cause
symptoms of gastroenteritis, with nausea and intestinal
irritations, at relatively low dosages. The limiting factor in
domestic water supplies is taste. To prevent this adverse
organoleptic effect of copper in water, a criterion of 1 mg/1 has
been established.
The toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms varies significantly,
not only with the species, but also with the physical and
chemical characteristics of the water, including temperature,
hardness, turbidity, and carbon dioxide content. In hard water,
the toxicity of copper salts may be reduced by the precipitation
of copper carbonate or other insoluble compounds. The sulfates
of copper and zinc, and of copper and calcium are synergistic in
their toxic effect on fish.
Relatively high concentrations of copper may be tolerated by
adult fish for short periods of time; the critical effect of
copper appears to be its higher toxicity to young or juvenile
fish. Concentrations of 0.02 to 0.03 mg/1 have proven fatal to
some common fish species. In general the salmonoids are very
sensitive and the sunfishes are less sensitive to copper.
The recommended criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life is
0.0056 mg/1 as a 24-hour average, and 0.012 mg/1 maximum
concentration at a hardness of 50 mg/1 CaC03.
Copper salts cause undesirable color reactions in the food
industry and cause pitting when deposited on some other metals
such as aluminum and galvanized steel. To control undesirable
taste and odor quality of ambient water due to the organoleptic
properties of copper, the estimated level is 1.0 mg/1 for total
recoverable copper.
Irrigation water containing more than minute quantities of copper
can be detrimental to certain crops. Copper appears in all
soils, and its concentration ranges from 10 to 80 ppm. In soils,
131

-------
copper occurs in association with hydrous oxides of manganese and
iron, and also as soluble and insoluble complexes with organic
matter. Copper is essential to the life of plants, and the
normal range of concentration in plant tissue is from 5 to
20 ppm. Copper concentrations in plants normally do not build up
to high levels when toxicity occurs. For example, the
concentrations of copper in snapbean leaves and pods was less
than 50 and 20 mg/kg, respectively, under conditions of severe
copper toxicity. Even under conditions"of copper toxicity, most
of the excess copper accumulates in the roots; very little is
moved to the aerial part of the plant.
Copper is not destroyed when treated by a POTW, and will either
pass through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW
sludge. It can interfere with the POTW treatment processes and
can limit the usefulness of municipal sludge.
The influent concentration of copper to POTW facilities has been
observed by the EPA -to range from 0.01 to 1.97 mg/1, with a
median concentration of 0.12 mg/1. The copper that is removed
from the influent stream of a POTW is adsorbed on the sludge or
appears in the sludge as the hydroxide of the metal. Bench scale
pilot studies have shown that from about 25 percent to 75 percent
of the copper passing through the activated sludge process
remains in solution in the final effluent. Four-hour slug
dosages of copper sulfate in concentrations exceeding 50 mg/1
were reported to have severe effects on the removal efficiency of
an unacclimated system, with the system returning to normal in
about 100 hours. Slug dosages of copper in the form of copper
cyanide were observed to have much more severe effects on the
activated sludge system, but the total system returned to normal
in 24 hours.
In a recent study of 268 POTW, the median pass-through was over
80 percent for primary plants and 40 to 50 percent for trickling
filter, activated sludge, and biological treatment plants. POTW
effluent concentrations of copper ranged from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1
(mean 0.126, standard deviation 0.242).
Copper which does not pass through the POTW will be retained in
the sludge where it will build up in concentration. The presence
of excessive levels of copper in sludge may limit its use on
cropland. Sewage sludge contains up to 16,000 mg/kg of copper,
with 730 mg/kg as the mean value. These concentrations are
significantly greater than those normally found in soil, which
usually range from 18 to 80 mg/kg. Experimental data indicate
that when dried sludge is spread over tillable land, the copper
tends to remain in place down to the depth of tillage, except for
copper which is taken up by plants grown in the soil. Recent
1 32

-------
investigation has shown that the extractable copper content of
sludge-treated soil decreased with time, which suggests a
reversion of copper to less soluble forms was occurring.
Lead (122). Lead is a soft, malleable, ductile, blueish-gray,
metallic element, usually obtained from the mineral galena (lead
sulfide, PbS), anglesite (lead sulfate, PbS04), or cerussite
(lead carbonate, PbC03). Because it is usually associated with
minerals of zinc, silver, copper, gold, cadmium, antimony, and
arsenic, special purification methods are frequently used before
and after extraction of the metal from the ore concentrate by
smelting.
Lead is widely used for its corrosion resistance, sound and
vibration absorption, low melting point (solders), and relatively
high imperviousness to various forms of radiation. Small amounts
of copper, antimony and other metals can be alloyed with lead to
achieve greater hardness, stiffness, or corrosion resistance than
is afforded by the pure metal. Lead compounds are used in glazes
and paints. About one third of U.S. lead consumption goes into
storage batteries. About half of U.S. lead consumption is from
secondary lead recovery. U.S. consumption of lead is in the
range of one million tons annually.
Lead ingested by humans produces a variety of toxic effects
including impaired reproductive ability, disturbances in blood
chemistry, neurological disorders, kidney damage, and adverse
cardiovascular effects. Exposure to lead in the diet results in
permanent increase in lead levels in the body. Most of the lead
entering the body eventually becomes localized in the bones where
it accumulates. Lead is a carcinogen or cocarcinogen in some
species of experimental animals. Lead is teratogenic in
experimental animals. Mutagenicity data are not available for
lead.
The ambient water quality criterion for lead is recommended to be
identical to the existing drinking water standard which is 0.050
mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life
occur at concentrations as low as 7.5 x 1 0-4 mg/1 of total
recoverable lead as a 24-hour average with a water hardness of 50
mg/1 as CaC03.
Lead is not destroyed in POTW, but is passed through to the
effluent or retained in the POTW sludge; it can interfere with
POTW treatment processes and can limit the usefulness of POTW
sludge for application to agricultural croplands. Threshold
concentration for inhibition of the activated sludge process is
0.1 mg/1, and for the nitrification process is 0.5 mg/1. In a
study of 214 POTW, median pass through values were over 80
1 33

-------
percent for primary plants and over 60 percent for trickling
filter, activated sludge, and biological process plants. Lead
concentration in POTW effluents ranged from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1
(means = 0.106 mg/1, standard deviation = 0.222).
Application of lead-containing sludge to cropland should not
affect the uptake by crops under most conditions because normally
lead is strongly bound by soil. However, under the unusual
conditions of low pH (less than 5.5) and low concentrations of
labile phosphorus, lead solubility is increased and plants can
accumulate lead.
Nickel(124). Nickel is seldom found in nature as the pure
elemental metal. It is a relatively plentiful element and is
widely distributed throughout the earth's crust. It occurs in
marine organisms and is found in the oceans. The chief
commercial ores for nickel are pentlandite [(Fe,Ni)9S8], and a
lateritic ore consisting of hydrated nickel-iron-magnesium
silicate.
Nickel has many and varied uses. It is used in alloys and as the
pure metal. Nickel salts are used for electroplating baths.
The toxicity of nickel to- man is thought to be very low, and
systemic poisoning of human beings by nickel or nickel salts is
almost unknown. In non-human mammals nickel acts to inhibit
insulin release, depress growth, and reduce cholesterol. A high
incidence of cancer of the lung and nose has been reported in
humans engaged in the refining of nickel.
Nickel salts can kill fish at very low concentrations. However,
nickel has been found to be less toxic to some fish than copper,
zinc, and iron. Nickel is present in coastal and open ocean
water at con- centrations in the range of 0.0001 to 0.006 mg/1
although the most common values are 0.002 - 0.003 mg/1. Marine
animals contain up to 0.4 mg/1 and marine plants contain up to
3 mg/1. Higher nickel concentrations have been reported to cause
reduction in photosynthetic activity of the giant kelp. A low
concentration was found to-kill oyster eggs.
For the protection of human health based on the toxic properties
of nickel ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.0134
mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms are consumed, excluding
consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is determined
to be 0.100 mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on
aquatic life occur for total recoverable nickel concentrations as
low as 0.0071 mg/1 as a 24-hour average.
1 34

-------
Nickel is not destroyed when treated in a POTW, but will either
pass through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW
sludge. It can interfere with POTW treatment processes and can
also limit the usefulness of municipal sludge.
Nickel salts have caused inhibition of the biochemical oxidation
of sewage in a POTW. In a pilot plant, slug doses of nickel
significantly reduced normal treatment efficiencies for a few
hours, but the plant acclimated itself somewhat to the slug
dosage and appeared to achieve normal treatment efficiencies
within 40 hours. It has been reported that the anaerobic
digestion process is inhibited only by high concentrations of
nickel, while a low concentration of nickel inhibits the
nitrification process.
The influent concentration of nickel to POTW facilities has been
observed by the EPA to range from 0.01 to 3.19 mg/1, with a
median of 0.33 mg/1. In a study of 190 POTW, nickel pass-through
was greater than 90 percent for 82 percent of the primary plants.
Median pass-through for trickling filter, activated sludge, and
biological process plants was greater than 80 percent. POTW
effuent concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 40 mg/1
(mean = 0.410, standard deviation = 3.279).
Nickel not passed through the POTW will be incorporated into the
sludge. In a recent two-year study of eight cities, four of the
cities had median nickel concentrations of over 350 mg/kg, and
two were over 1,000 mg/kg. The maximum nickel concentration
observed was 4,010 mg/kg.
Nickel is found in nearly all soils, plants, and waters. Nickel
has no known essential function in plants. In soils, nickel
typically is found in the range from 10 to 100 mg/kg. Various
environmental exposures to nickel appear to correlate with
increased incidence of tumors in man. For example, cancer in the
maxillary antrum of snuff users may result from using plant
material grown on soil high in nickel.
Nickel toxicity may develop in plants from application of sewage
sludge on acid soils. Nickel has caused reduction of yields for
a variety of crops including oats, mustard,, turnips, and cabbage.
In one study nickel decreased the yields of oats significantly at
100 mg/kg.
Whether nickel exerts a toxic effect on plants depends on several
soil factors, the amount of nickel applied, and the contents of
other metals in the sludge. Unlike copper and zinc, which are
more available from inorganic sources than from sludge, nickel
uptake by plants seems to be promoted by the presence of the
135

-------
organic matter in sludge. Soil . treatments, such as liming,
reduce the solubility of nickel. Toxicity of nickel to plants is
enhanced in acidic soils.
Selenium(125). Selenium (chemical symbol Se) is a non-metallic
element existing in several allotropic forms. Gray selenium,
which has a metallic appearance, is the stable form at ordinary
temperatures and melts at 220°C. Selenium is a major component
of 38 minerals and a minor component of 37 others found in
various parts of the world. Most selenium is obtained as a
by-product of precious metals recovery from electrolytic copper
refinery slimes. U.S. annual production at one time reached one
million pounds.
Principal uses of selenium are in semi-conductors, pigments,
decoloring of glass, zerography, and metallurgy. It also is used
to produce ruby glass used in signal lights. Several selenium
compounds are important oxidizing agents in the synthesis of
organic chemicals and drug products.
While results of some studies suggest that selenium may be an
essential element in human nutrition, the toxic effects of
selenium in humans are well established. Lassitude, loss of
hair, discoloration and loss of fingernails are symptoms of
selenium poisoning. In a fatal case of ingestion of a larger
dose of selenium acid, peripheral vascular collapse, pulumonary
edema, and coma occurred. Selenium produces mutagenic and
teratogenic effects, but it has not been established as
exhibiting carcinogenic activity.
The ambient water quality criterion for selenium is recommended
to be identical to the existing drinking water standard which is
0.010 mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic
life occur at concentrations higher than that cited for human
toxicity.
Very few data are available regarding the behavior of selenium in
POTW. One EPA survey of 103 POTW revealed one POTW using
biological treatment and having selenium in the influent.
Influent concentration was 0.0025 mg/1, effluent concentration
was 0.0016 mg/1 giving a removal of 37 percent. It is not known
to be inhibitory to POTW processes. In another study, sludge
from POTW in 16 cities was found to contain from 1.8 to 8.7 mg/kg
selenium, compared to 0.01 to 2 mg/kg in untreated soil. These
concentrations of selenium in sludge present a potential hazard
for humans or other mammuals eating crops grown on soil treated
with selenium containing sludge.
1 36

-------
Zinc(128). Zinc occurs abundantly in the earth's crust,
concentrated in ores. It is readily refined into the pure,
stable, silvery-white metal. In addition to its use in alloys,
zinc is used as a protective coating on steel. It is applied by
hot dipping (i.e. dipping the steel in molten zinc) or by
electroplating.
Zinc can have an adverse effect on man and animals at high con-
centrations. Zinc at concentrations in excess of 5 mg/1 causes
an undesirable taste and odor which persists through conventional
treatment. For the prevention of adverse effects due to these
organoleptic properties of zinc, concentrations in ambient water
should not exceed 5 mg/1. Available data show that adverse
effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as 0.047
mg/1 as a 24-hour average.
Toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause adverse changes in
the morphology and physiology of fish. Lethal concentrations in
the range of 0.1 mg/1 have been reported. Acutely toxic
concentrations induce cellular breakdown of the gills, and
possibly the clogging of the gills with mucous. Chronically
toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause general enfeeblement
and widespread histological changes to many organs, but not to
gills. Abnormal swimming behavior has been reported at
0.04 mg/1. Growth and maturation are retarded by zinc. It has
been observed that the effects of zinc poisoning may not become
apparent immediately, so that fish removed from zinc-contaminated
water may die as long as 48 hours after removal.
In general, salmonoids are most sensitive to elemental zinc in
soft water; the rainbow trout is the most sensitive in hard
waters.	A complex relationship exists between zinc
concentration, dissolved zinc concentration, pH, temperature, and
calcium and magnesium concentration. Prediction of harmful
effects has been less than reliable and controlled studies have
not been extensively documented.
The major concern with zinc compounds in marine waters is not
with acute lethal effects, but rather with the long-term
sublethal effects of the metallic compounds and complexes. Zinc
accumulates in some marine species, and marine animals contain
zinc in the range of 6 to 1500 mg/kg. From the point of view of
acute lethal effects, invertebrate marine animals seem to be the
most sensitive organism tested.
Toxicities of zinc in nutrient solutions have been demonstrated
for a number of plants. A variety of fresh water plants tested
manifested harmful symptoms at concentrations of 0.030 to
1 37

-------
21.6 mg/1. Zinc sulfate has also been found to be lethal to many
plants and it could impair agricultural uses of the water.
Zinc is not destroyed when treated by POTW, but will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW sludge.
It can interfere with treatment processes in the POTW and can
also'limit the usefuleness of municipal sludge.
In slug doses, and particularly in the presence of copper,
dissolved zinc can interfere with or seriously disrupt the
operation of POTW biological processes by reducing overall
removal efficiencies, largely as a result of the toxicity of the
metal to biological organisms. However, zinc solids in the form
of hydroxides or sulfides do not appear to interfere with
biological treatment processes, on the basis of available data.
Such solids accumulate in the sludge.
The influent concentrations of zinc to POTW facilities have been
observed by the EPA to range from 0.017 to 3.91 mg/1, with a
median concentration of 0.33 mg/1. Primary treatment is not
efficient in removing zinc; however, the microbial floe of
secondary treatment readily adsorbs zinc.
In a study of 258 POTW, the median pass-through values were 70 to
88 percent for primary plants, 50 to 60 percent for trickling
filter and biological process plants, and 30-40 percent for
activated process plants. POTW effluent concentrations of zinc
ranged from 0.003 to 3.6 mg/1 (mean = 0.330, standard deviation =
0.464).
The zinc which does not pass through the POTW is retained in the
sludge. The presence of zinc in sludge may limit its use on
cropland. Sewage sludge contains 72 to over 30,000 mg/kg of
zinc, with 3,366 mg/kg as the mean value. These concentrations
are significantly greater than those normally found in soil,
which range from 0 to 195 mg/kg, with 94 mg/kg being a common
level. Therefore, application of sewage sludge to soil will
generally increase the concentration of zinc in the soil. Zinc
can be . toxic to plants, depending upon soil pH. Lettuce,
tomatoes, turnips, mustard, kale, and beets are especially
sensitive to zinc contamination.
Aluminum. Aluminum, a nonconventional pollutant, is an abundant
Silvery white metal comprising 8.1 percent of the earth's crust,
but never found in a free state. The principal ore for aluminum
is bauxite from which alumina (Al203) is extracted. Aluminum
metal is produced by electrolysis of the alumina in the cryolite
bath.
138

-------
Aluminum metal is relatively corrosion resistant because it forms
a protective oxide film on the surface which prevents corrosion
under many conditions. Electrolytic action of other metals in
contact with aluminum and strong acids and alkalis can break down
the oxide layer causing rapid corrosion to occur.
Aluminum is light, malleable, ductile, possesses high thermal and
electrical conductivity, and is non-magnetic. It can be formed,
machined or cast. Aluminum is used in the construction,
transportation, and container industries and competes with iron
and steel in these markets.
Aluminum had been found to be toxic to freshwater and marine
aquatic life. In freshwaters acute toxicity and solubility
increases as pH levels increase above pH 7. This relationship
also appears to be true as the pH levels decrease below pH 7.
Chronic effects of aluminum on aquatic life have also been
documented. Aluminum has been found to be toxic to certain
plants. A water quality standard for aluminum was established
(U.S. Federal Water Polluti9n Control Administration, 1968) for
interstate agricultural and irrigation waters, which set a trace
element tolerance at 1 mg/1 for continuous use on all soils and
20 mg/1 for short term use on fine-textured soils.
Aluminum and some of its compounds used in food preparation and
as food additives are generally recognized as safe and are
sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration. No limits on
aluminum content in food and beverage products have been
established.
There are no reported adverse physiological effects on man from
low concentrations of aluminum in drinking water, however, large
concentrations of aluminum in the human body are alleged to cause
changes in behavior. Salts of aluminum are used as coagulants
in water treatment, and in limited quantities do not have any
adverse effects on POTW operations. Some aluminum salts are
soluble, however, mildly alkaline conditions cause precipitation
of aluminum as hydroxide. The precipitation of aluminum
hydroxide can have an adverse effect on rooted aquatics and
invertebrate benthos.
Barium. Barium is a non-conventional pollutant. It is an
alkaline earth metal which in the pure state is soft and silvery
white. It reacts with moisture in the air, and reacts vigorously
with water, releasing hydrogen. The principal ore is barite
(BaS04) although witherite (BaC03) was a commerical ore at one
time. Many barium compounds have commerical applications.
However, drilling muds consume 90 percent of all barite produced.
For manufacture of the other chemicals barite is converted to
1 39

-------
barium sulfide first. The aqueous barium sulfide is then treated
to produce the desired product. Barite itself and some other
insoluble barium compounds are used as fillers and pigments in
paints. Barium carbonate is the most important commerical barium
compound except for the natural sulfate. The carbonate is used
in the brick, ceramic, oil-well drilling, photographic, glass,
and chemical manufacturing industries.
Barium compounds such as the acetate, chloride, hydroxide, and
nitrate are water soluble; the arsenate, chromate, fluoride,
oxalate, and sulfate are insoluble. Those salts soluble in water
and acid, including the carbonate and sulfide are toxic to
humans. Barium sulfate is so insoluble that it is non-toxic and
is used in X-ray medical diagnosis of the digestive tract. For
that purpose the sulfate must pass rigorous tests to assure
absence of water or acid soluble barium.
Lethal adult doses of most soluble barium salts are in the range
of 1 to 15 g. The barium ion stimulates muscular tissue and
causes a depression in serum potassium. Symptoms of acute barium
poisoning include salivation, vomiting, abdominal pain and
diarrhea; slow and often irregular pulse; hypertension; heart
disturbances; tinnitus, vertigo; muscle twitching progressing to
convulsions or paralysis; dilated pupils, confusion; and
somnolence. Death may occur from respiratory failure due to
paralysis of the respiratory muscles, or from cardiac arrest or
fibrillation.
Raw wastewaters from most industrial facilities are unlikely to
bear concentrations of soluble barium which would pose a threat
to human health. The general presence of small concentrations of
sulfate ion in many wastewaters is expected to be sufficient to
convert the barium to the non-toxic barium sulfate.
No data were found relating to the behavior of barium in POTW.
However, the insolubility of barium sulfate and the presence of
sulfates in most municipal wastewaters is expected to lead to
removal of soluble barium by precipitation follwed by settling
out with the other suspended solids. It is reported that the
typical mineral pick-up from domestic water use increases the
sulfate concentration of 15 to 30 mg/1. If it is assumed that
sulfate concentration exists in POTW, and the sulfate is not
destroyed or precipitated by another metal ion, the dissolved
barium concentration would not exceed 0.1 mg/1 at neutral pH in a
POTW.
Cobalt. Cobalt is a non-conventional pollutant. It is a
brittle, hard, magnetic, gray metal with a reddish tinge. Cobalt
ores are usually the sulfide or arsenide [smaltite-(Co,Ni)As2;
1 40

-------
cobaltite-CoAsS] and are sparingly distributed in the earth's
crust. Cobalt is usually produced as a by-product of mining
copper, nickel, arsenic, iron, manganese, or silver. Because of
the variety of ores and the very low concentrations of cobalt,
recovery of the metal is accomplished by several different
processes. Most consumption of cobalt is for alloys. Over two-
thirds of U.S. production goes to heat resistant, magnetic, and
wear resistant alloys. Chemicals and color pigments make up most
of the rest of consumption.
Cobalt and many of its alloys are not corrosion resistant,
therefore minor corrosion of any of the tool alloys or electrical
resistance alloys can contribute to its presence in raw
wastewater from a variety of manufacturing facilities.
Additionally, the use of cobalt soaps as dryers to accelerate
curing of unsaturated oils used in coatings may be a general
source of small quantities of the metal. Several cobalt pigments
are used in paints to produce yellows or blues.
Cobalt is an essential nutrient for humans and other mammals, and
is present at a fairly constant level of about 1.2 mg in the
adult human body. Mammals tolerate low levels of ingested water-
soluble cobalt salts without any toxic symptoms; safe dosage
levels in man have been stated to be 2-7 mg/kg body weight per
day. A goitrogenic effect in humans is observed after the
systemic administration of 3-4 mg cobalt as cobaltous chloride
daily for three weeks. Fatal heart disease among heavy beer
drinkers was attributed to the cardiotoxic action of cobalt .salts
which were formerly used as additives to improve foaming. The
carcinogenicity of cobalt in rats has been verified, however,
there is no evidence for the involvement of dietary cobalt in
carcinogenisis in mammals.
There are no data available on the behavior of cobalt in POTW.
There are no data to lead to an expectation of adverse effects of
cobalt on POTW operation or the utility of sludge from POTW for
crop application. Cobalt which enters POTW is expected to pass
through to the effluent unless sufficient sulfide ion is present,
or generated in anaerobic processes in the POTW to cause
precipitation of the very insoluble cobalt sulfide.
Fluoride. Fluoride ion (F~) is a non-conventional pollutant.
Fluorine is an extremely reactive, pale yellow gas which is never
found free in nature. Compounds of fluorine - fluorides - are
found widely distributed in nature. The principal minerals
containing fluorine are fluorspar (CaF2) and cryolite (Na3AlF6).
Although fluorine is produced commercially in small quantities by
electrolysis of potassium bifluoride in anhydrous hydrogen
fluoride, the elemental form bears little relation to the
141

-------
combined ion. Total production of fluoride chemicals in the U.S.
is difficult to estimate because of the varied uses. Large
volume usage compounds are: Calcium fluoride (est. 1,500,000
tons in U.S.) and sodium fluoroaluminate (est. 100,000 tons in
U.S.). Some fluoride compounds and their uses are: sodium
fluoroaluminate - aluminum production; calcium fluoride
steelmaking, hydrofluoric acid production, enamel, iron foundry;
boron trifluoride - organic synthesis; antimony pentafluoride -
fluorocarbon production; fluoboric acid and fluoborates
electroplating; perchloryl fluoride (C103F) - rocket fuel
oxidizer; hydrogen fluoride - organic fluoride manufacture,
pickling acid in stainless steelmaking, manufacture of aluminum
fluoride; sulfur hexafluoride - insulator in high voltage
transformers; polytetrafluoroethylene - inert plastic. Sodium
fluoride is used at a concentration of about 1 ppm in many public
drinking water supplies to prevent tooth decay in children.
The toxic effects of fluoride on humans include severe
gastroenteritis, vomiting, diarrhea, spasms, weakness, thirst,
failing pulse and delayed blood coagulation. Most observations
of toxic effects are made on individuals who intentionally or
accidentally ingest sodium fluoride intended for use as rat
poison or insecticide. Lethal doses for adults are estimated to
be as low as 2.5 g. At 1.5 ppm in drinking water, mottling of
tooth enamel is reported, and 14 ppm, consumed over a period of
years, may lead to deposition of calcium fluoride in bone and
tendons.
Very few data are available on the behavior of fluoride in POTW.
Under usual operating conditions in POTW, fluorides pass through
into the effluent. Very little of the fluoride entering
conventional primary" and secondary treatment processes is
removed. In one study of POTW influents conducted by the U.S.
EPA, nine POTW reported concentrations of fluoride ranging from
0.7 mg/1 to 1.2 mg/1, which is the range of concentrations used
for fluoridated drinking water.
Iron. Iron is a nonconventional pollutant. It is an abundant
metal found at many places in the earth's crust. The most common
iron ore is hematite (Fe203) from which iron is obtained by
reduction with carbon. Other forms of commercial ores are
magnetite (Fe304) and taconite (FeSiO). Pure iron is not often
found in commercial use, but it is usually alloyed with other
metals and minerals. The most common of these is carbon.
Iron is the basic element in the production of steel. Iron with
carbon is used for casting of major parts of machines and it can
be machined, cas't, formed, and welded. Ferrous iron is used in
paints, while powdered iron can be sintered and used in powder
1 42

-------
metallurgy. Iron compounds are also used to precipitate other
metals and undesirable minerals from industrial wastewater
streams.
Corrosion products of iron in water cause staining of porcelain
fixtures, and ferric iron combines with tannin to produce a dark
violet color. The presence of excessive iron in water
discourages cows from drinking and thus reduces milk production.
High concentrations of ferric and ferrous ions in water kill most
fish introduced to the solution within a few hours. The killing
action is attributed to coatings of iron hydroxide precipitates
on the gills. Iron oxidizing bacteria are dependent on iron in
water for growth. These bacteria form slimes that can affect the
aesthetic values of bodies of water and cause stoppage of flows
in pipes. However, high concentrations of iron can precipitate
on bottom sediments and affect rooted aquatic and invertebrate
benthos.
Iron is an essential nutrient and micro-nutrient for all forms of
growth. Drinking water standards in the U.S. set a limit of 0.3
mg/1 of iron in domestic water supplies based on aesthetic and
organoleptic properties of iron in water.
High concentrations of iron do not pass through a POTW into the
effluent. In some POTW iron salts are added to coagulate
precipitates and suspended sediments into a sludge. In an EPA
study of POTW the concentration of iron in the effluent of 22
biological POTW meeting secondary treatment performance levels
ranged from 0.048 to 0.569 mg/1 with a median value of 0.25 mg/1.
This represented removals of 76 to 97 percent with a median of 87
percent removal.
Iron in sewage sludge spread on land used for agricultural
purposes is not expected to have a detrimental effect on crops
grown on the land.
Manganese. Manganese is a non-conventional pollutant. It is a
gray-white metal resembling iron, but more brittle. The pure
metal does not occur in nature, but must be produced by reduction
of the oxide with sodium, magnesium, or aluminum, or by
electrolysis. The principal ores are pyrolusite (Mn02) and
psilomelane (a complex mixture of Mn02 and oxides of potassium,
barium and other alkali and alkaline earth metals). The largest
percentage of manganese used in the U.S. is in ferro-manganese
alloys. A small amount goes into dry batteries and chemicals.
Manganese is not often present in natural surface waters because
its hydroxides and carbonates are only sparingly soluble.
1 43

-------
Mangenese is undesirable in domestic water supplies because it
causes unpleasant tastes, deposits on food during cooking, stains
and discolors laundry and plumbing fixtures, and fosters the
growth of some microorganisms in reservoirs, filters, and
distribution systems.
Small concentratons of 0.2 to 0.3 mg/1 manganese may cause
building of heavy encrustations in piping. Excessive manganese
is also undesirable in water for use in many industries,
including textiles, dyeing, food processing, distilling, brewing,
ice, and paper.
The recommended limitations for manganese in drinking water in
the U.S. is 0.05 mg/1. The limit appears to be based on
aesthetic and economic factors rather than physiological hazards.
Most investigators regard manganese to be of no toxicological
significance in drinking water at concentrations not causing
unpleasant tastes. However, cases of manganese poisoning have
been reported in the literature. A small outbreak of
encephalitis - like disease, with early symptoms of lethergy and
edema, was traced to manganese in the drinking water in a village
near Tokyo. Three persons died as a result of poisoning by well
water contaminated by manganese derived from dry-cell batteris
buried nearby. Excess manganese in the drinking water is also
believed to be the cause of a rare disease endemic in
Northeastern China.'
No data were found regarding the behavior of manganese in POTW.
However, one source reports that typical mineral pickup from
domestic water use results in an increase in manganese
concentration of 0.2 to 0.4 mg/1 in a municipal sewage system.
Therefore, it is expected that interference in POTW, if it
occurs, would not be noted until manganese concentrations
exceeded 0.4 mg/1.
Phenols(Total).' "Total Phenols" is a toxic pollutant parameter.
Total phenols is the result of analysis using the 4-AAP (4-amino-
antipyrene) method. This analytical procedure measures the color
development of reaction products between 4-AAP and some phenols.
The results are reported as phenol. Thus "total phenol" is not
total phenols because many phenols (notably nitrophenols) do not
react. Also, since each reacting phenol contributes to the color
development to a different degree, and each phenol has a
molecular weight different from others and from phenol itself,
analyses of several mixtures containing the same total
concentration in mg/1 of several phenols will give different
numbers depending on the proportions in the particular mixture.
1 44

-------
Despite these limitations of the analytical method, total phenols
is a useful parameter when the mix of phenols is relatively
constant and an inexpensive monitoring method is desired. In any
given plant or even in an industry subcategory, monitoring of
"total phenols" provides an indication of the concentration of
this group of priority pollutants as well as those phenols not
selected as priority pollutants. A further advantage is that the
method is widely used in water quality determinations.
In an EPA survey of 103 POTW the concentration of "total phenols"
ranged from 0.0001 mg/1 to 0.176 mg/1 in the influent, with a
median concentration of 0.016 mg/1. Analysis of effluents from
22 of these same POTW which had biological treatment meeting
secondary treatment performance levels showed "total phenols"
concentrations ranging from 0 mg/1 to 0.203 mg/1 with a median of
0.007. Removals were 64 to 100 percent with a median of 78
percent.
It must be recognized, however, that six of the eleven priority
pollutant phenols could be present in high concentrations and not
be detected. Conversely, it is possible, but not probable, to
have a high "total phenol" concentration without any phenol
itself or any of the ten other priority pollutant phenols
present. A characterization of the phenol mixture to be
monitored to establish constancy of composition will allow "total
phenols" to be used with confidence.
Phosphorus. Phosphorus, a conventional pollutant, is a general
term used to designate the various anions containing pentavalent
phosphorus and oxygen - orthophosphate [(P04)-3], metaphosphate
[(P03)-], pyrophosphate [(P20)7~4], hypophosphate [(P206)~4].
The element phosphorus exists in several allotropic forms - red,
white or yellow, and black. White phosphorus reacts with oxygen
in air, igniting spontaneously. It is not found free in nature,
but is widely distributed in nature. The most important
commercial sources of phosphate are the apatites [3Ca3(P04)2»CaF2
and 3Ca3(P04)2*CaCl2]. Phosphates also occur in bone and other
tissue. Phosphates are essential for plant and animal life.
Several millions of tons of phosphates are mined and converted
for use each year in the U.S. The major form produced is
phosphoric acid. The acid is then used to produce other
phosphate chemicals.
The largest use for phosphates is fertilizer. Most of the U.S.
production of phosphoric acid goes into that application.
Phosphates are used in cleaning preparations for household and
industrial applications and as corrosion inhibitors in boiler
feed water and cooling towers.
145

-------
Phosphates are not controlled because of toxic effects on man.
Phosphates are controlled because they promote growth of algae
and other plant life in aquatic environments. Such growth
becomes unsightly first, and if it florishes, eventually dies,
and adds to the biological oxygen demand (BOD). The result can
be a dead body of water. No standards or criteria appear to have
been established for U.S. surface waters.
Phosphorus is one of the concerns of any POTW, because phosphates
are introduced into domestic wastewaters from human body wastes
and food wastes as well as household detergents. About ten
percent of the phosphorus entering POTW is insoluble and is
removed by primary settling. Biological treatment removes very
little of the remaining phosphate. Removal is accomplished by
forming an insoluble precipitate which will settle out. Alum,
lime, and ferric chloride or sulfate are commonly used for this
purpose. The point of addition of chemicals for phosphate
removal requires careful evaluation because pH adjustment may be
required, and material and capital costs differ with different
removal schemes. The phosphate content of the effluent also
varies according to the scheme used. There is concern about the
effect of phosphate contained in sludge used for soil amendment.
Phosphate is a principal ingredient of fertilizers.
Titanium. Titanium is a non-conventional pollutant. It is a
lustrous white metal occurring as the oxide in ilmenite
(Fe0*Ti02) and rutile (TiOz). The metal is used in heat-
resistant, high-strength, light-weight alloys for aircraft and
missiles. It is also used in surgical appliances because of its
high strength and light weight. Titanium dioxide is used
extensively as a white pigment in paints, ceramics, and plastics.
Toxicity data on titanium are not abundant. Because of the lack
of definitive data titanium compounds are generally considered
non-toxic. Large oral doses of titanium dioxide (TiOa) and
thiotitanic acid (H4TiS03) were tolerated by rabbits for several
days with no toxic symptoms. However, impaired reproductive
capacity was observed in rats fed 5 mg/1 titanium as titanate in
drinking water. There was also a reduction in the male/female
ratio and in the number of animals surviving to the third
generation. Titanium compounds are reported to inhibit several
enzyme systems and to be carcinogenic.
The behavior of titanium in POTW has not been studied. On the
basis of the insolubility of the titanium oxides in water, it is
expected that most of the titanium entering the POTW will be
removed by settling and will remain in the sludge. No data were
found regarding possible effects on plants as a result of
spreading titanium - containing sludge on agricultural cropland.
146

-------
Oil and Grease. Oil and grease are taken together as one
pollutant parameter. This is a conventional pollutant and some
of its components are:
1.	Light Hydrocarbons - These include light fuels such as
gasoline, kerosene, and jet fuel, and miscellaneous solvents
used for industrial processing, degreasing, or cleaning
purposes. The presence of these light hydrocarbons may make
the removal of other heavier oil wastes more difficult.
2.	Heavy Hydrocarbons, Fuels, and Tars - These include the
crude oils, diesel oils, #6 fuel oil, residual oils, slop
oils, and in some cases, asphalt and road tar.
3.	Lubricants and Cutting Fluids - These generally fall into
two classes: non-emulsifiable oils such as lubricating oils
and greases and emulsifiable oils such as water soluble
oils, rolling oils, cutting oils, and drawing compounds.
Emulsifiable oils may contain fat soap or various other
additives.
4.	Vegetable and Animal Fats and Oils - These originate
primarily from processing of foods and natural products.
These compounds can settle or float and may exist as solids or
liquids depending upon factors such as method of use, production
process, and temperature of wastewater.
Oils and grease even in small quantities cause troublesome taste
and odor problems. Scum lines from these agents are produced on
water treatment basin walls and other containers. Fish and water
fowl are adversely affected by oils in their habitat. Oil
emulsions may adhere to the gills of fish causing suffocation,
and the flesh of fish is tainted when microorganisms that were
exposed to waste oil are eaten. Deposition of oil in the bottom
sediments of water can serve to inhibit normal benthic growth.
Oil and grease exhibit an oxygen demand.
Many of the organic priority pollutants will be found distributed
between the oily phase and the aqueous phase in industrial
wastewaters. The presence of phenols, PCBs, PAHs, and almost any
other organic pollutant in the oil and grease makes
characterization of this parameter almost impossible. However,
all of these other organics add to the objectionable nature of
the oil and grease.
Levels of oil and grease which are toxic to aquatic organisms
vary greatly, depending on the type and the species
susceptibility. However, it has been reported that crude oil in
147

-------
concentrations as low as 0.3 mg/1 is extremely toxic to fresh-
water fish. It has been recommended that public water supply
sources be essentially free from oil and grease.
Oil and grease in quantities of 100 1/sq km show up as a sheen on
the surface of a body of water. The presence of oil slicks
decreases the aesthetic value of a waterway.
Oil and grease is compatible with a POTW activated sludge process
in limited quantity. However, slug loadings or high
concentrations of oil and grease interfere with biological
treatment processes. The oils coat surfaces and solid particles,
preventing access of oxygen, and sealing in some microorganisms.
Land spreading of POTW sludge containing oil and grease
uncontaminated by toxic pollutants is not expected to affect
crops grown on the treated land, or animals eating those crops.
pH. Although not a specific pollutant, pH is related to the
acidity or alkalinity of a wastewater stream. It is not,
however, a measure of either. The term pH is used to describe
the hydrogen ion concentration (or activity) present in a given
solution. Values for pH range from 0 to 14, and these numbers
are the negative logarithms of the hydrogen ion concentrations.
A pH of 7 indicates neutrality. Solutions with a pH above 7 are
alkaline, while those solutions with a pH below 7 are acidic.
The relationship of pH and acidity and alkalinity is not
necessarily linear or direct. Knowledge of the water pH is
useful in determining necessary measures for corrosion control,
sanitation, and disinfection. Its value is also necessary in the
treatment of industrial wastewaters to determine amounts of
chemcials required to remove pollutants and to measure their
effectiveness. Removal of pollutants, especially dissolved
solids, is affected by the pH of the wastewater.
Waters with a pH below 6.0 are corrosive to water works
structures, distribution lines, and household plumbing fixtures
and can thus add constituents to drinking water such as iron,
copper, zinc, cadmium, and lead. The hydrogen ion concentration
can affect the taste of the water and at a low pH, water tastes
sour. The bactericidal effect of chlorine is weakened as the pH
increases, and it is advantageous to keep the pH close to 7.0.
This is significant for providing safe drinking water.
Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions or
kill aquatic life outright. Even moderate changes from
acceptable criteria limits of pH are deleterious to some species.
The relative toxicity to aquatic life of many materials is
increased by changes in the water pH. For example,
1 48

-------
metallocyanide complexes can increase a thousand-fold in toxicity
with a drop of 1.5 pH units.
Because of the universal nature of pH and its effect on water
quality and treatment, it is selected as a pollutant parameter
for all subcategories in the porcelain enameling industry. A
neutral pH range (is generally desired because either extreme
beyond this range has a deleterious effect on receiving waters or
the pollutant nature of other wastewater constituents.
Pretreatment for regulation of pH is covered by the "General
Pretreatment Regulations for Exisiting and New Sources of
Pollution," 40 CFR 403.5. This section prohibits the discharge
to a POTW of "pollutants which will cause corrosive structural
damage to the POTW" and "discharges with pH lower than 5.0 unless
the works is specially designed to accommodate such discharges."
Total Suspended Solids(TSS). Suspended solids include both
organic and inorganic materials. The inorganic compounds include
sand, silt, and clay. The organic fraction includes such
materials as grease, oil, tar, and animal and vegetable waste
products. These solids may settle out rapidly, and bottom
deposits are often a mixture of both organic and inorganic
solids. Solids may be suspended in water for a time and then
settle to the bed of the stream or lake. These solids discharged
with man's wastes may be inert, slowly biodegradable materials,
or rapidly decomposable substances. While in suspension,
suspended solids increase the turbidity of the water, reduce
light penetration, and impair the photosynthetic activity of
aquatic plants.
Suspended solids in water interfere with many industrial
processes and cause foaming in boilers and incrustations on
equipment exposed to such water, especially as the temperature
rises. They are undesirable in process water used in the
manufacture of steel, in the textile industry, in laundries, in
dyeing, and in cooling systems.
Solids in suspension are aesthetically displeasing. When they
settle to form sludge deposits on the stream or lake bed, they
are often damaging to the life in the water. Solids, when
transformed to sludge deposit, may do a variety of damaging
things, including blanketing the stream or lake bed and thereby
destroying the living spaces for those benthic organisms that
would otherwise occupy the habitat. When of an organic nature,
solids use a portion or all of the dissolved oxygen available in
the area. Organic materials also serve as a food source for
sludgeworms and associated organisms.
149

-------
Disregarding any toxic effect attributable to substances leached
out by water, suspended solids may kill fish and shellfish by
causing abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and
respiratory passages of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly,
suspended solids are inimical to aquatic life because they screen
out light, and they promote and maintain the development of
noxious conditions through oxygen depletion. This results in the
killing of fish and fish food organisms. * Suspended solids also
reduce the recreational value of the water.
Total suspended solids is a traditional pollutant which is
compatible with a well-run POTW. This pollutant with the
exception of those components which are described elsewhere in
this section, e.g., heavy metal components, does not interfere
with the operation of a POTW. However, since a considerable
portion of the innocuous TSS may be inseparably bound to the
constituents which do interfere with POTW operation, or produce
unusable sludge, or subsequently dissolve to produce unacceptable
POTW effluent, TSS may be considered a toxic waste hazard.
REGULATION OF SPECIFIC POLLUTANTS
Discussions of individual pollutant parameters selected or not
selected for consideration for specific regulation are based on
data obtained by sampling and analyzing raw wastewater streams
from all discrete operations generating wastewater. From one to
five operations were sampled in each subcategory. For coating
operations, the streams sampled included ball mill room and
application; for metal preparation the streams sampled included
alkaline cleaning, acid etch, nickel flash, and neutralization
when applicable. Therefore, the number of data points for
concentrations could be more than one per day for metal
preparation or for coating.
The coating operation generates the largest quantity of
pollutants in porcelain enameling. Composition of the frit used
on different basis metals depends little on the metal. Color,
flow characteristics and service requirements have the greater
influence on frit composition. Therefore, data generated from
raw wastewaters from the coating operations in all four
subcategories are combined. Data on priority pollutant metals,
nonconventional and conventional pollutants are reviewed. The
selection for consideration for regulation is based on the
combined data and is applicable to all subcategories.
Concentrations of priority pollutants appearing in streams from
metal preparation processes are considered within each
subcategory. Selection for consideration for regulation is based
only on those data for metal preparation processes, and any final
150

-------
regulation must consider these selections and the selections
based on coating operations.
Coating Operations - A11 Subcategories
Pollutant Parameters Considered for Specific Regulation. Based
on verification sampling results and a careful examination of the
porcelain enameling coating processes and raw materials, twenty
pollutant parameters were selected for consideration for specific
regulation in effluent limitations and standards for all
subcategories. The twenty are: antimony, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium(total), copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc, aluminum,
barium, cobalt, fluoride, iron, manganese, phosphorus, titanium,
oil and grease, total suspended solids and pH.
Antimony concentrations appeared on 17 of 40 sampling days for
the coating process. The maximum concentration was 1,020 mg/1.
Antimony oxides are used as coloring agents in porcelain
enameling. Some of the concentrations are greater than the level
that can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
antimony is considered for specific regulation in coating
wastewater streams from all subcategories.
Arsenic concentrations appeared on 14 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 3.8 mg/1.
Arsenic compounds are used as coloring agents in enameling
slips. All of the arsenic concentrations are greater than the
level that can be achieved with specific treatment methods.
Therefore, arsenic is considered for specific regulation in
coating wastewater streams from all subcategories.
Cadmium concentrations appeared on 28 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 54.0 mg/1.
Cadmium compounds are used as coloring agents in enameling slip.
Most of the concentrations were greater than the level that can
be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, cadmium
is considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from
all subcategories.
Chromium(total) concentrations appeared on all 40 sampling days
for the coating process. The maximum concentration was 37.4
mg/1. Chromium compounds are used as coloring agents in enamel
slip. About one-third of the chromium concentrations were
greater than the level achievable with specific treatment
technology. Therefore, chromium(total) is considered for
specific regulation in coating wastewaters from all
subcategories.
151

-------
Copper concentrations appeared on 38 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 55.0 mg/1.
Copper oxide is used as a coloring agent in enamel slip. About
one-third of the concentrations were greater than the level that
can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
copper is considered for specific regulation in coating
wastewater from all subcategories.
Lead concentrations appeared on 38 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 876.3 mg/1. Lead
compounds are used in enamel slips. All of the lead
concentrations are greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment technology. Therefore, lead is
considered for specific regulation in coating wastewater from all
subcategories.
Nickel concentrations appeared on 32 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 358.0 mg/1. Most
of the nickel concentrations are greater than the level that can
be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, nickel
is considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from
all subcategories.
Selenium concentrations appeared on 29 of 40 sampling days for
the coating process. The maximum concentration was 161.2 mg/1.
Selenium is used in some enamel slips. Most of the selenium
concentrations were greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. Therefore, selenium is
considered for specific regulation in the coating wastewaters
from all subcategories.
Zinc concentrations appeared on 39 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 1,320 mg/1. Zinc
oxide is extensively used in enamel slip. Most of the zinc
concentrations were greater than the level achievable with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, zinc is considered for
specific regulation in coating wastewaters from all
subcategories.
Aluminum concentrations appeared on all 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 1,525 mg/1.
Aluminum is used in some enamel slips. More than half of the
concentrations were greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. Therefore, aluminum is
considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from
all subcategories.
Barium appeared on eight of nine sampling days for the coating
process. The maximum concentration was 90 mg/1. Barium is
152

-------
present in some enamel slips. Therefore, barium is considered
for specific regulation in coating wastewater from all
subcategories.
Cobalt concentrations appeared on 33 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 350.0 mg/1.
Cobalt compounds are used to color enamel slips. Most of the
cobalt concentrations were greater than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, cobalt is
considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters for all
subcategories.
Fluoride concentrations appeared on all 40 process sampling days
for the coating process. The maximum concentration was 115.0
mg/1. Fluoride in porcelain enameling raw wastewater results
from the use of fluorspar in the enamel slip. Many of the
fluoride concentrations were greater than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, fluoride is
considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from
all subcategories.
Iron concentrations appeared on 38 of 39 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 620.0 mg/1. Many
of the iron concentrations were greater than the level that can
be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, iron is
considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from
all subcategories.
Manganese concentrations appeared on 34 of 40 sampling days for
the coating process. The maximum concentration was 400.0 mg/1.
Manganese compounds are used to color enamel slips. Many of the
manganese concentrations were greater than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, manganese
is considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from
all subcategories.
Phosphorus concentrations appeared on 25 of 36 sampling days for
the coating process. The maximum concentration was 71.0 mg/1.
More than half of the concentrations are greater than the level
that can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore
phosphorus is considered for specific regulation in coating
wastewaters from all subcategories.
Titanium concentrations appeared on 37 of 40 sampling days for
the coating operation. The maximum concentration was 1,641.45
mg/1. Titanium oxide is used as a pigment in enamel slip. About
two-thirds of the concentrations are greater than the level that
can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
1 53

-------
titanium is considered for specific regulation in the coating
wastewater from all subcategories.
Oil and grease concentrations appeared on 24 of 29 sampling days
for the coating process. The maximum concentration was 98 mg/1.
This concentration is within the range found in domestic
wastewaters and therefore should be suitable for discharge to
POTW. Several of the concentrations are greater than the level
that can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
Oil and Grease is considered for specific regulation in coating
wastewaters from all subcategories for direct discharges only.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations appeared on all 39
sampling days for the coating process. The maximum concentration
was 319,600 mg/1. TSS from the coating process is essentially a
dilute enamel slip. It therefore contains many of the priority
pollutant metals which makes it unsuitable for discharge to POTW.
All concentrations were greater than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, TSS is
considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from
all subcategories for direct and indirect discharges.
pH ranged from 5.8 to 12.5 on the 30 sampling days for the
coating process. Specific treatment methods can readily bring pH
values within the prescribed limits of 7.5 to 10.0. Therefore,
pH is considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters
from all subcategories.
Pollutant Parameters Mot Considered for Specific Regulation. A
total of six pollutant parameters that were evaluated in
verification sampling and analysis were dropped from further
consideration for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from
all subcategories. The six are: bis (2-ethylhexy1)phthalate,
di-n-octyl phthalate, toluene, beryllium, chromium (hexavalent),
and phenols (total).
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate concentrations appeared on 2 of 10
sampling days for the coating process. The concentrations were
below the analytical quantification limit. Therefore, bis(2-
ethyl hexyl)phthalate is not considered for specific regulation
in coating wastewaters from any subcategory.
Di-n-octyl phthalate concentrations did not appear on any of 10
sample days for the coating process. Therefore, di-n-octyl
phthalate is not considered for specific regulation in coating
wastewaters from any subcategory.
Toluene concentrations appeared on 2 of 13 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 0.018 mg/1. Both
1 54

-------
concentrations are lower than the level treatable in this
industry. Therefore, toluene is not considered for specific
regulation in coating wastewaters from any subcategory.
Beryllium concentrations appeared on 15 of 40 sampling days for
the coating process. The maximum concentration was 0.12 mg/1.
Beryllium can not be removed by specific treatment methods from
raw wastewater at that level. Therefore, beryllium is not
considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters for any
subcategory.
Chromium (hexavalent) concentrations did not appear on any of 40
sample days for the coating process. Therefore, hexavalent
chromium is not considered for specific regulation in coating
wastewaters for any subcategory.
Phenols (Total) concentrations appeared on 27 of 38 sampling days
for the coating process. The maximum concentration was 0.07 mg/1
which is the same level found in influent water for some plants.
Therefore, total phenols is not considered for specific
regulation in coating wastewaters from any subcategory.
Metal Preparation Processes - B^ Subcategory
Steel Subcategory
Pollutant Parameters Considered for Specific Regulation. Based
on verification sampling results and a careful examination of the
steel subcategory manufacturing processes other than coating and
raw materials, fourteen pollutant parameters were selected for
consideration for specific regulation in effluent limitations and
standards for processes other than coating in this subcategory.
The fourteen are: cadmium, chromium (total), copper, lead,
nickel, zinc, aluminum, cobalt, iron, manganese, phosphorus, oil
and grease, total suspended solids and pH.
Cadmium concentrations appeared on 5 of 61 process sampling days
for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.084
mg/1. One of the concentrations is greater than the level than
can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
cadmium is considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Chromium concentrations appeared on 45 of 61 process sampling
days for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was
3.07 mg/1. Several of the concentrations are greater than the
level achievable with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
chromium is selected for specific regulation in this subcategory.
1 55

-------
Copper concentrations appeared on 54 of 61 process sampling days
for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.38
mg/1. Several of the concentrations exceeded the level
achievable with specific treatment methods. Therefore, copper is
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Lead concentrations appeared on 5 of 61 process sampling days.
The maximum concentration was 0.13 mg/1.. All the concentrations
exceeded the level that is achievable with specific treatment
methods. Therefore, lead is considered for specific regulation
in this subcategory.
Nickel concentrations appeared on 43 of 59 process sampling days
for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 281.0
mg/1. Nickel is used in a displacement coating process on steel
strip. Most of the nickel concentrations are greater than the
level achievable with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
nickel is considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Zinc concentrations appeared on 58 of 60 process sampling days
for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.31
mg/1. Several of the zinc concentrations are greater than the
level achievable with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
zinc is considered for*specific regulation in this subcategory.
Aluminum concentrations appeared on 39 of 61 process sampling
days for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was
3.15 mg/1. Some of the concentrations were greater than the
level achievable with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
aluminum is considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Cobalt concentrations appeared on 32 of 61 process sampling days.
The maximum concentration was 0.46 mg/1. Several of the cobalt
concentrations are greater than the level achievable with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, cobalt is considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Iron concentrations appeared on all 58 process sampling days for
the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 10,200
mg/1. 'Iron is removed from steel during acid dipping and nickel
flash operations. Most of the iron concentrations were greater
than the level that can be achieved with specific treatment
methods. Therefore, iron is considered for specific regulation
in this subcategory.
Manganese concentrations appeared on 53 of 59 process sampling
days for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was
53.0 mg/1. Some of the concentrations are greater than the level
1 56

-------
than can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
manganese is considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Phosphorus concentrations appeared on 39 of 41 sampling days in
the steel subcategory. The maximum was 92.4 mg/1. Phosphorus is
present in many compounds used for alkaline cleaning of metals.
Most of the concentrations were greater than the level that can
be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
phosphorus is considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Oil and Grease concentrations appeared on all 34 process sampling
days for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 63
mg/1. This pollutant parameter enters porcelain enameling
wastewater streams from steel cleaning operations and from
equipment washdown. Some of the concentrations are greater than
the level that can be achieved with specific treatment methods.
All concentrations are in the range that can be handled by POTW.
Therefore, the oil and grease parameter is considered for
specific regulation for direct dischargers only, in this
subcategory.
Total Suspended solids (TSS) concentrations appeared on 36 of 55
process sampling days for the steel subcategory. The maximum
concentration was 649.2 mg/1'. Nearly half of the concentrations
are greater than the level that can be achieved with specific
treatment methods. Therefore, total suspended solids is
considered for specific regulation for direct dischargers only in
this subcategory.
pH ranged from 2.0 to 11.7 on 61 process sampling days in the
steel subcategory. pH can be controlled within the limits of 7.5
to 10.0 with specific treatment methods. Therefore, pH is
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Pollutant Parameters Not Considered for Specific Regulation.
Based on verification sampling results and a careful examination
of the steel subcategory manufacturing processes other than
coating and raw materials six pollutant parameters were dropped
from further consideration for specific regulation in the steel
subcategory. These parameters were found to be present in raw
wastewaters infrequently or at levels below those usually
achieved by specific treatment methods. The five are: antimony,,
arsenic, selenium, fluoride, phenols (total), and titanium.
Arsenic concentrations did not appear on any of 61 process
sampling days for the steel subcategory. Therefore, arsenic is
not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
1 57

-------
Selenium concentrations appeared on 4 of 61 process sampling days
in the steel subcategory. The concentration was 0.21 mg/1 which
is lower than the level that can be achieved with specific
treatment methods. Therefore, selenium is not considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Fluoride concentrations appeared on all 61 process sampling days.
The maximum concentration was 1.8 mg/1 which was less than the
concentration in the inlet water at one plant. Therefore,
fluoride is not considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Phenols (Total) concentrations appeared on 48 of 54 process
sampling days for the steel subcategory. The maximum
concentration was 0.69 mg/1. Only two concentrations were
greater than those found in inlet water at two plants (about 0.05
mg/1). The maximum concentration was not considered to be
environmentally significant. Therefore, Total Phenols is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Titanium concentrations appeared on 1 of 61 process sampling days
for the steel subcategory. This concentration was 0.05 mg/1,
therefore, titanium is not considered for specific regulation in
this subcategory.
Cast Iron Subcategory
Coating process raw wastewater was the only stream sampled for
the cast iron subcategory. Therefore, all selections for
consideration for specific regulation of pollutant parameters are
based on those combined coating process concentrations discussed
at the beginning of this section.
Aluminum Subcategory
Pollutant Parameters Considered for Specific Regulation. Based
on verification sampling results and careful examination of the
aluminum subcategory alkaline cleaning process (the only process
sampled other than coating), seven pollutant parameters were
selected for consideration for specific regulation in effluent
limitations and standards for this subcategory. The seven are:
chromium (total), lead, zinc, aluminum, phosphorus, total
suspended solids and pH.
Chromium (total) concentrations appeared at low levels on 2 of 8
process sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. However, dcp
responses indicate that there are a few porcelain enamelers on
aluminum that use a chromate coating as a basis metal preparation
operation. This process operation was not included in the
1 58

-------
sampling program. Based on this dcp information total chromium
is considered for specific regulation in this .subcategory.
Lead concentrations appeared on 2 of 8 process sampling days for
the aluminum subcategory. The greater concentration was 4.31
mg/1. Both concentrations were greater than the level that can
be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, lead is
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Zinc concentrations appeared on 7 of 8 process sampling days for
the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.54
mg/1. Some of the concentrations were greater than the level
that can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
zinc is considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Aluminum concentrations appeared on 7 of 8 process sampling days
for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 25.9
mg/1. Most of the aluminum concentrations and greater than the
concentration level that can be achieved with specific treatment
methods. Therefore, aluminum is considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.
Phosphorus concentrations appeared on all 8 process sampling days
for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 24.3
mg/1. Phosphorus compounds are used in many alkaline cleaners.
Half of the phosphorus concentrations were greater than the level
that can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
phosphorus is considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations appeared on all 8
process sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum
concentration was 181.0 mg/1. Half of the concentrations were
greater than the level that can be achieved with specific
treatment methods. Therefore, TSS is considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.
pH ranged from 6.3 to 10.4 on 8 process sampling days for the
aluminum subcategory. pH can be controlled within the limits of
7.5 to 10.0 with specific treatment methods and is therefore
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Oil and Grease concentrations appeared on.4 of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was
11.0 mg/1. Dcp data and engineering analysis indicate that
treatable concentrations of oil and grease are present in metal
preparation wastewater as a result of aluminum forming oil
remaining on the basis metal. Therefore, oil and grease is
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
159

-------
Pollutant Parameters Not Considered for Specific Regulation.
Based on verification sampling results and careful examination of
the aluminum subcategory alkaline cleaning process (the only
process sampled other than coating), eighteen pollutant
parameters that were evaluated in verification sampling and
analysis were dropped from further consideration for specific
regulation in the aluminum subcategory. These parameters were
found to be present in raw wastewaters infrequently or at levels
below those usually achieved by specific treatment methods. The
eighteen are: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate,
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (hexavalent),
copper, nickel, selenium, barium, cobalt, fluoride, iron,
manganese, phenols (total), titanium, and oil and grease.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate concentrations appeared on 1 of 9
process sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. The
concentration was 0.022 mg/1 which is lower than the
concentration that is treatable for this industry Therefore,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is not considered for regulation in
this subcategory.
Di-n-octyl phthalate concentrations appeared on 1 of 9 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. The concentration
was 0.011 mg/1 which is lower than the concentration designated
as causing or likely to cause toxic effects in hymans.
Therefore, di-n-octyl phthalate is not considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.
Antimony concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, antimony
is not considered for specific regulation in metal preparation
wastewaters from this subcategory.
Arsenic concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, arsenic
is not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Beryllium concentration did not appear on any of 8 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, beryllium
is not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Cadmium concentrations appeared on 1 of 8 process sampling days
for the aluminum subcategory. The concentration was 0.003 mg/1
which is lower than the level that can be achieved with specific
treatment technology. Therefore, cadmium is not considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Chromium (hexavalent) concentrations did not appear on any of 8
process sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore,
1 60

-------
hexavalent chromium is
this subcategory.
not considered for specific regulation in
Copper concentrations appeared on 2 of 8 process sampling days
for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was
0.056 mg/1. Both concentrations were lower than the level that
can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
copper is not selected for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Nickel concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, nickel is not
considered for specific regulation in metal preparation
wastewaters from this subcategory.
Selenium concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, selenium
is not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Barium concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, barium is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Cobalt concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, cobalt is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Fluoride concentrations appeared on all 8 process sampling days
for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.98
mg/1. All concentrations were lower than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, fluoride is
not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Iron concentrations appeared on all 8 process sampling days for
the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.33
mg/1. This concentration was only slightly greater than the
level that can be achieved with specific treatment methods.
Therefore, iron is not considered for specific regulation in
metal preparation wastewaters from this subcategory.
Manganese concentrations appeared on 3 of 8 process sampling days
for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.18
mg/1. All concentrations were lower than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, manganese
is not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Phenols (total) concentrations appeared on 7 of 8 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum
concentration was 0.016 mg/1. This concentration is lower than
161

-------
the level that can be achieved for many specific phenols using
specific treatment methods. Therefore, total phenols is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Titanium concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, titanium
is not considered for specific regulation in the aluminum
subcategory.
Copper Subcategory
Pollutant Parameters Considered for Specific Regulation - Based
on verification sampling results and careful examination of the
copper subcategory acid etching process (the only process sampled
other than coating), six pollutant parameters were selected for
consideration for specific regulation in effluent limitations and
standards for this subcategory. The six are: copper, zinc, iron,
oil and grease, total suspended solids, and pH.
Copper concentrations appeared on 3 of 3 sampling days for the
acid etching process. The maximum concentration was 814.52 mg/1.
All of the copper concentrations are greater than the level that
can be achieved with specific treatment technology. Therefore,
copper is considered for specific regulation in the copper
subcategory.
Zinc concentrations appeared on 3 of 3 process sampling days for
the copper subcategory. The maximum concentrations was 2.40
mg/1. One of the concentrations was greater than the level that
can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, zinc
is considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Iron concentrations appeared on all 3 process sampling days for
the copper subcategory. The maximum concentration was 30.78
mg/1. Two of the iron concentrations were greater than the level
that can be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore,
iron is considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Oil and grease concentrations appeared on 1 of 3 process sampling
days for the copper subcategory. This concentration was 196.0
mg/1. This pollutant parameter enters porcelain enameling
wastewater streams from copper etching operations. This
concentration is greater than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. All concentrations are in the range
that can be handled by POTW. Therefore, the oil and grease
parameter is considered for specific regulation for direct
dischargers only, in this subcategory.
162

-------
Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations appeared on 2 of 2
process sampling days. The maximum concentration was 24.0 mg/1.
This concentration is greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. Therefore TSS is considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
pH ranged from 1.8 to 6.5 on 3 process sampling days for the
copper subcategory. pH can be controlled within the limits of
7.5 to 10.0 with specific treatment methods and is therefore
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Pollutant Parameters Not Considered for Specific Regulation.
Based on verification sampling results and careful examination of
the copper subcategory etching process (the only process sampled
other than coating) eighteen pollutant parameters that were
evaluated in verification sampling and analysis were dropped from
further consideration for specific regulation in the copper
subcategory. These parameters were found to be present in raw
wastewaters infrequently or at nonquanitifiable levels (i. e.
below 0.01 mg/1) levels below those usually achieved by specific
treatment methods. The eighteen are: 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
toluene, trichloroethylene, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, total
chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, aluminum, barium, cobalt,
fluoride, manganese, total phenols, phosphorus, and titanium.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane, toluene, trichloroethylene, antimony,
arsenic, selenium, cobalt, and titanium were not found above the
analytical quantification limit on any of the 3 sampling days for
this subcategory. Therefore, these parameters were dropped from
any further consideration as pollutant parameters within this
subcategory.
Cadmium concentrations appeared on 1 of 2 process sampling days
for the aluminum subcategory. The concentration was 0.02 mg/1
which is lower than the level that can be achieved with specific
treatment technology. Therefore, cadmium is not considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Chromiujm (total) concentrations appeared on 3 of 3 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. The concentrations
were lower than the level that can be achieved with specific
treatment methods. Therefore, total chromium is not considered
for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Nickel concentrations appeared on only 1 of 3 sampling days for
this subcategory. This concentration was 0.12 mg/1. This
concentration was lower than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, nickel is not considered
1 63

-------
for specific regulation in metal preparation wastewaters from
this subcategory.
Barium concentrations did not appear on any of 3 process sampling
days for the copper subcategory. Therefore, barium is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Fluoride concentrations appeared on 2 of 2 process sampling days
for the copper subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.11
mg/1. All concentrations were lower than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, fluoride is
not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Manganese concentrations appeared on 3 of 3 process sampling days
for the copper subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.26
mg/1. All concentrations were lower than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, manganese
is not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Phenols (total) concentrations appeared on 1 of 2 process
sampling days for the copper subcategory. The maximum
concentration was 0.006 mg/1. This concentration is lower than
the level that can be achieved for many specific phenols using
specific treatment methods. Therefore, total phenols is not
considered for regulation within this subcategory.
Lead concentrations appeared on only 1 of 3 process sampling days
for this subcategory. This concentration was 0.77 mg/1.
Concentrations which appeared on the other two sampling days were
less than the minimum detectable limit. Therefore, lead was
dropped from further consideration as a pollutant" parameter
within metal preparation wastewaters from this subcategory.
Aluminum concentrations appeared on 2 of 3 process sampling days.
The maximum concentration was 0.17 mg/1. This concentration is
lower than the level that can be achieved by many specific
treatment methods. Therefore, aluminum is not considered for
regulation within this subcategory.
Phosphorus concentrations appeared on 1 of 2 process sampling
days for the copper subcategory. This concentration was 0.52
mg/1. This concentration is lower than the level that can be
achieved by many specific treatment methods. Therefore,
phosphorus is not considered for regulation within the copper
subcategory.
1 64

-------
Summary
Table VI-1 (Page 165) presents the results of selection of
priority pollutant parameters for consideration for specific
regulation for the steel, cast iron, aluminum, and copper sub-
categories, respectively. The "Not Detected" symbol includes
pollutants not detected in raw wastewater streams during
screening and verification analysis, "Not Controlled" includes
unique parameters found in only one plant. "Not Treatable" means
that the concentrations were lower than the level achievable with
the specific treatment methods considered in Section VII. Table
VI-2 (Page 169) summarizes the selection of non-conventional and
conventional pollutant parameters for consideration for specific
regulation by subcategory.
165

-------
TABLE VI-1
PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
PORCELAIN ENAMELING
Subcategory
Steel Cast Iron Aluminum Copper
Pollutant
093
4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)
ND
ND
ND
ND
094
4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)
ND
ND
ND
ND
095
A1pha-endosulfan
ND
ND
ND
ND
096
Beta-endosulfan
ND
ND
ND
ND
097
Endosulfan sulfate
ND
ND
ND
ND
098
Endrin
ND
ND
ND
ND
099
Endrin aldehyde
ND
ND
ND
ND
100
Heptachlor
ND
ND
ND
ND
101
Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-





hexachlorocyclohexane)
ND
ND
ND
ND
102
A1pha-BHC
ND
ND
ND
ND
103
Beta-BHC
ND
ND
ND
ND
104
Gamma-BHC (lindane)
ND
ND
ND
ND
105
Delta-BHC (PCB-poly-





chlorinated biphenyls)
ND
ND
ND
ND
106
PCB-1242(Arochl or 1242)
ND
ND
ND
ND
107
PCB-1254(Arochlor 1254)
ND
ND
ND
ND
108
PCB-1221(Arochlor 1221)
ND
ND
ND
ND
109
PCB-1232(Arochl or 1232)
ND
ND
ND
ND
110
PCB-1248(Arochlor 1248)
ND
ND
ND
ND
111
PCB-1260(Arochlor 1260)
ND
ND
ND
ND
112
PCB-1016(Arochlor 1016)
ND
ND
ND
ND
113
Toxaphene
ND
ND
ND
ND
114
Antimony
REG
REG
REG
REG
115
Arsenic
REG
REG
REG
REG
116
Asbestos
ND
ND
ND
ND
117
Beryllium
NT
ND
NT
ND
118
Cadmi um
REG
REG
REG
REG
119
Chromiumm
REG
REG
REG
REG
120
Copper
REG
REG
REG
REG
121
Cyanide, Total
ND
ND
EI
ND
122
Lead
REG
REG
REG
REG
123
Mercury
ND
ND
ND
ND
124
Nickel
REG
REG
REG
REG
125
Selenium
REG
REG
REG
REG
126
Silver
REG
ND
ND
ND
127
Thai 1i um
ND
ND
ND
ND
128
Zinc
REG
REG
REG
REG

dibenzo-p-dioxin




129
(TCDD)
ND
ND
ND
ND
166

-------
TABLE VI-1
PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
Pollutant
PORCELAIN ENAMELING
Subcategory
Steel Cast Iron Aluminum Copper
062	N-nitrosodiphenyl amine	ND	ND	ND	ND
063	N-nitrosodi-n-propyl-
amine	ND	ND	ND	ND
064	Pentachlorophenol	ND	ND	ND	ND
065	Phenol	ND	ND	ND	ND
066	Bi s(2-ethylhexyl)
phthai ate)	ND	NQ	EI	ND
067	Butyl benzyl phthalate	ND	ND	ND	ND
068	Di-N-Butyl Phthalate	ND	ND	ND	ND
069	Di-n-octyl phthalate	ND	ND	EI	ND
070	Diethyl Phthalate	ND	ND	ND	ND
071	Dimethyl phthalate	ND	ND	ND	ND
072	1,2-benzanthracene
(benzo(a)anthracene)	ND	ND	ND	ND
073	Benzota)pyrene (3,4-
benzopyrene)	ND	ND	ND	ND
074	3,4-Benzofl uoranthene
(benzo(b)fl uoranthene)	ND	ND	ND	ND
075	11,12-benzofluoranthene
(benzo(b)fl uoranthene)	ND	ND	ND	ND
076	Chrysene	ND	ND	ND	ND
077	Acenaphthylene	ND	ND	ND	ND
078	Anthracene	ND	ND	ND	ND
079	1,12-benzoperylene
(benzo(ghi)perylene)	ND	ND	ND	ND
080	Fluorene	ND	ND	ND	NQ
081	Phenanthrene	ND	ND	ND	ND
082	1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
(dibenzo(,h)anthracene)	ND	ND	ND	ND
083	Indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene
(2,3-o-pheynylene
pyrene)	ND	ND	ND	ND
084	Pyrene	ND	ND	ND	ND
085	Tetrachloroethylene	ND	ND	ND	ND
086	Toluene	ND	ND	ND	NQ
087	Trichloroethylene	NQ	ND	ND	ND
088	Vinyl chloride (chloro-
ethyl ene)	ND	ND	ND	ND
089	Aldrin	ND	ND	ND	ND
090	Dieldrin	ND	ND	ND	ND
091	Chlordane (technical mixture
and metabolites)	ND	ND	ND	ND
092	4,4-DDT	ND	ND	ND	ND
167

-------
TABLE VI-1
PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
PORCELAIN ENAMELING
Subcategory
Steel Cast Iron Aluminum Copper
Pollutant
030 1,2-trans-dichloro-

ethylene
ND
ND
ND
ND
031
2,4-dichlorophenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
032
l,2-d1chloropropane
ND
ND
ND
ND
033
1,2-di c hioro propylene





(1,3-dichloropropene)
ND
ND
ND
ND
034
2,4-d1methylphenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
035
2,4-d1n1trotoluene
ND
ND
ND
ND
036
2,6-dinitrotoluene
ND
ND
ND
ND
037
1,2-d1phenylhydrazlne
ND
ND
ND
ND
038
Ethyl benzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
039
Fluoranthene
ND
ND
ND
ND
040
4-chlorophenyl phenyl





ether
ND
ND
ND
ND
041
4-bromophenyl phenyl





ether
ND
ND
ND
ND
042
B1s(2-chloroisopropyl)





ether
ND
ND
ND
ND
043
B1s(2-chloroethoxy)





methane
ND
ND
ND
ND
044
Methylene chloride





(dichloromethane)
ND
ND
ND
ND
045
Methyl chloride





(dichloromethane)
ND
ND
ND
ND
046
Methyl bromide





(bromomethane)
ND
ND
ND
ND
047
Bromoform (tribromo-





methane)
ND
ND
ND
ND
048
Dichlorobromomethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
049
Trichl orofl uoromethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
050
Dichlorodifluoromethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
051
Chiorodibromomethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
052
Hexachlorobutadiene
ND
ND
ND
ND
053
Hexachloromyclopenta-





diene
ND
ND
ND
ND
054
Isophorone
ND
ND
ND
ND
055
Naphthalene
ND
ND
ND
ND
056
Nitrobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
057
2-nitrophenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
058
4-nitrophenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
059
2,4-dinitrophenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
060
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
ND
ND
ND
ND
061
N-nitrosodimethylamine
ND
ND
ND
ND
165

-------
TABLE VI-1
PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
PORCELAIN ENAMELING
Subcategory
Steel Cast Iron Aluminam Copper
Pollutant




001
Acenaphthene
ND
ND
ND
ND
002
Acrolei n
ND
ND
ND
ND
003
Acrylonitrile
ND
ND
ND
ND
004
Benzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
005
Benzidine
ND
ND
ND
ND
006
Carbon tetrachloride





(tetrachloromethane)
ND
ND
ND
ND
007
Chiorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
008
1,2,4-trichl orobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
009
Hexachlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
010
1,2-dichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
Oil
1,1,1-trichlorethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
012
Hexachloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
013
1,1-dichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
014
1,1,2-tr ichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
NQ
015
1,1,2,2-tetra-





chl oroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
016
Chioroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
017
Bis (c hi orome thyl)





ether
ND
ND
ND
ND
018
Bi s (2-chloroethyl)





ether
ND
ND
ND
ND
019
2-chloroethyl vinyl





ether (mixed)
ND
ND
ND
ND
020
2-chloronaphthal ene
ND
ND
ND
ND
021
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
022
Parachlorometa cresol
ND
ND
ND
ND
023
Chloroform (trichl oro-





methane)
ND
ND
ND
ND
024
2-chlorophenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
025
1,2-dichl orobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
026
1,3-dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
027
1,4-dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
028
3,3-diehiorobenzidine
ND
ND
ND
ND
029
1,1-dichl oroethylene
ND
ND
ND
ND
LEGEND:
ND = NOT DETECTED
NQ = NOT QUANTIFIABLE
EI = ENVIRONMENTALLY INSIGNIFICANT
NT = NOT TREATABLE
REG = REGULATION CONSIDERED
169

-------
TABLE VI-2
NON-CONVENTIONAL AND CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
SELECTED FOR CONSIDERATION FOR SPECIFIC REGULATION IN
THE PORCELAIN ENAMELING CATEGORY
Pollutant
Parameter
Steel
Subcategory
Cast Iron	Aluminum
Copper
Aluminum	X
Barium	X
Cobalt	X
Fluoride	X
Iron	X
Manganese	X
Phosphorus	X
Titanium	X
Oil and Grease X
TSS	X
pH	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
170

-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
This section describes the treatment techniques currently used or
available to remove or recover wastewater pollutants normally
generated by the porcelain enameling industrial point source
category. Included are discussions of individual end-of-pipe
treatment technologies and in-plant technologies. These
treatment technologies are widely used in many industrial
categories and data and information to support their
effectiveness has been drawn from a similarly wide range of
sources and data bases.
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Individual recovery and treatment technologies are described
which are used or are suitable for use in treating wastewater
discharges from porcelain enameling facilities. Each description
includes a functional description and discussions of application
and performance, advantages and limitations, operational factors
(reliability, maintainability, solid waste aspects), and
demonstration status. The treatment processes described include
both technologies presently demonstrated within the porcelain
enameling category, and technologies demonstrated in treatment of
similar wastes in other industries.
Porcelain enameling wastewater streams characteristically contain
significant levels of toxic inorganics. Chromium, lead, nickel,
and zinc are found in porcelain enameling wastewater streams at
substantial concentrations. These toxic inorganic pollutants
constitute the most significant wastewater pollutants in this
category.
In general, these pollutants are removed by chemical
precipitation and sedimentation or filtration. Most of them may
be effectively removed by precipitation of metal hydroxides or
carbonates utilizing the reaction with lime, sodium hydroxide, or
sodium carbonate. For some, improved removals are provided by
the use of sodium sulfide or ferrous sulfide to precipitate the
pollutants as sulfide compounds with very low solubilities.
Discussion of end-of-pipe treatment technologies is divided into
three parts: the major technologies; the effectiveness of major
technologies; and minor end-of-pipe technologies.
171

-------
MAJOR TECHNOLOGIES
In Sections IX, X, XI and XII, the rationale for selecting
treatment systems is discussed. The individual technologies used
in the system are describ-a here. The major end-of-pipe
technologies are: chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium,
chemical precipitation of dissolved metals, cyanide
precipitation, granular bed filtration, pressure filtration,
settling of suspended solids, and skimming of oil. In practice,
precipitation of metals and settling of the resulting
precipitates is often a unified two-step operation. Suspended
solids originally present in raw wastewaters are not appreciably
affected by the precipitation operation and are removed with the
precipitated metals in the' settling operations. Settling
operations can be evaluated independently of hydroxide or other
chemical precipitation operations, but hydroxide and other
chemical precipitation operations can only be evaluated in
combination with a solids removal operation.
1. Chemical Reduction Of Chromium
Description of the Process. Reduction is a chemical reaction in
which electrons are transferred to the chemical being reduced
from the chemical initiating the transfer (the reducing agent).
Sulfur dioxide, sodium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and
ferrous sulfate form strong reducing agents in aqueous solution
and are often used in industrial waste treatment facilities for
the reduction of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form. The
reduction allows removal of chromium from solution in conjunction
with other metallic salts by alkaline precipitation. Hexavalent
chromium is not precipitated as the hydroxide.
Gaseous sulfur dioxide is a widely used reducing agent and
provides a good example of the chemical reduction process.
Reduction using other reagents is chemically similar. The
reactions involved may be illustrated as follows:
3 SO2 + 3 H20	> 3 H2S03
3 H2S03 + 2H2Cr04 	> Cr2(S04)3 + 5 H20
The above reaction is favored by low pH. A pH of from 2 to 3 is
normal for situations requiring complete reduction.. At pH levels
above 5, the reduction rate is slow. Oxidizing agents such as
dissolved oxygen and ferric iron interfere with the reduction
process by consuming the reducing agent.
A typical treatment consists of 45 minutes retention in a
reaction tank. The reaction tank has an electronic recorder-
172

-------
controller device to control process conditions with respect to
pH and oxidation reduction potential (ORP). Gaseous sulfur
dioxide is metered to the reaction tank to maintain the ORP
within the range of 250 to 300 millivolts. Sulfuric acid is
added to maintain a pH level of from 1.8 to 2.0. The reaction
tank is equipped with a propeller agitator designed to provide
approximately one turnover per minute. Figure VII-13 (page 279)
shows a continuous chromium reduction system.
Application and Performance. Chromium reduction is used in
porcelain enameling for treating chromating rinses for high-
magnesium aluminum basis materials. Electroplating rinse waters
and cooling tower blowdown are two major sources of chromium in
waste streams. A study of an operational waste treatment
facility chemically reducing hexavalent chromium has shown that a
99.7 percent reduction efficiency is easily achieved. Final
concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 are readily attained, and
concentrations of 0.01 mg/1 are considered to be attainable by
properly maintained and operated equipment.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of chemical
reduction to reduce hexavalent chromium is that it is a fully
proven technology based on many years of experience. Operation
at ambient conditions results in low energy consumption, and the
process, especially when using sulfur dioxide, is well suited to
automatic control. Furthermore, the equipment is readily
obtainable from many suppliers, and operation is straightforward.
One limitation of chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium is
that for high concentrations of chromium, the cost of treatment
chemicals may be prohibitive. When this situation occurs, other
treatment techniques are likely to be more economical. Chemical
interference by oxidizing agents is possible in the treatment of
mixed wastes, and the treatment itself may introduce pollutants
if not properly controlled. Storage and handling of sulfur
dioxide is somewhat hazardous.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Maintenance consists of
periodic removal of sludge, the frequency of which is a function
of the input concentrations of detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects: Pretreatment to eliminate substances which
will interfere with the process may often be necessary. This
process produces trivalent chromium which can be controlled by
further treatment. There may, however, be small amounts of
sludge collected due to minor shifts in the solubility of the
contaminants. This sludge can be processed by the main sludge
treatment equipment.
173

-------
Demonstration Status. The reduction of chromium waste by sulfur
dioxide or sodium bisulfite is a classic process and is used by
numerous plants which have hexavalent chromium compounds in
wastewaters from operations such as electroplating and noncontact
cooling.
2. Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anions may be chemically
precipitated for removal by physical means such as sedimentation,
filtration, or centrifugation. Several reagents are commonly
used to effect this precipitation.
1)	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.
2)	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.
3)	Ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate or both (as is required) may
be used to precipitate cyanide as a ' ferro or zinc
ferricyanide complex.
4)	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, to a presettling tank, or directly to a clarifier or
other settling device. Because metal hydroxides tend to be col-
loidal in nature, coagulating agents may also be added to faci-
litate settling. After the solids have been removed, 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 of at least two steps - pre-
cipitation of the unwanted metals and removal of the precipitate.
Some 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 and
related factors. The effectiveness of this method of removing
any specific metal depends on the fraction of the specific metal
1 74

-------
in the raw waste (and hence in the precipitate) and the
effectiveness of suspended solids removal. In specific
instances, a sacrifical ion such as iron or aluminum may be added
to aid in the precipitation process and reduce the fraction of a
specific metal in the precipitate.
Application and Performance. Chemical precipitation is used in
porcelain enameling for precipitation of dissolved metals. It
can be used to remove metal ions such as aluminum, antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron,
lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, 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. Because it is simple and effective, chemical
precipitation is extensively used for industrial waste treatment.
The performance of chemical
variables. The most important
effectiveness are:
precipitation depends on several
factors affecting precipitation
1.	Maintenance of an alkaline pH throughout the
precipitation reaction and subsequent settling;
2.	Addition of a sufficient excess of treatment ions to
drive the precipitation reaction to completion;
3.	Addition of an adequate supply of sacrifical ions (such
as iron or aluminum) to ensure precipitation and
removal of specific target ions; and
4.	Effective removal of precipitated solids (see
appropriate technologies discussed under "Solids
Removal").
Control of pH. Irrespective of the solids removal technology
employed, proper control of pH is absolutely essential for
favorable performance of	precipitation-sedimentation
technologies. This is clearly illustrated by solubility curves
for selected metals hydroxides and sulfides shown in Figure VII-1
(page 267), and by plotting effluent zinc concentrations against
pH as shown in Figure VII-3 (page 269). Figure VII-3 was
obtained from Development Document for the Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for
the Zinc Segment of Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source
Category, U.S. E.P.A., EPA 440/1-74/033, November, 1974. Figure
VII-3 was plotted from the sampling data from several facilities
with metal finishing operations. It is partially illustrated by
data obtained from 3 consecutive days of sampling at one metal
175

-------
processing plant (47432) as displayed in Table VII-1. Flow
through this system is approximately 49,263 1/h (13,000 gal/hr).
TABLE VII-1
pH CONTROL EFFECT ON METALS REMOVAL
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
In	Out	In	Out	In	Out
pH Range	2.4-3.4	8.5-8.7	1.0-3.0 5.0-6.0	2.0-5.0	6.5-8.1
(mg/1)
TSS 39	8	1 6	1 9	1 6	7
Copper 312	0.22	120 5.12	107	0.66
Zinc 250	0.31	32.5	25.0	43.8	0.66
This treatment system uses lime precipitation (pH adjustment)
followed by coagulant addition and sedimentation. Samples were
taken before (in) and after (out) the treatment system. The best
treatment for removal of copper and zinc was achieved on day one,
when the pH was maintained at a satisfactory level. The poorest
treatment was found on the second day, when the pH slipped to an
unacceptably low level and intermediate values were were achieved
on the third day when pH values were less than desirable but in
between the first and second days.
Sodium hydroxide is used by one facility (plant 439) for pH
adjustment and chemical precipitation, followed by settling
(sedimentation and a polishing lagoon) of precipitated solids.
Samples were taken prior to caustic addition and following the
polishing lagoon. Flow through the system is approximately
22,700 1/hr (6,000 gal/hr). Data are displayed in Table VII-2.
176

-------
TABLE VI1-2
Effectiveness of Sodium Hydroxide for Metals Removal

Day
In
1
Out
Day
In
2
Out
Day
In
3
Out
pH Range
2.1-2.9
9.0-9.3
2.0-2.4
8.7-9.1
2.0-2.4
8.6-9
(mg/1)






Cr
0.097
0.0
0.057
0.005
0.068
0.005
Cu
0.063
0.018
0.078
0.014
0.053
0.019
Fe
9.24
0.76
15.5
0. 92
9.41
0.95
Pb
1.0
0.11
1 .36
0.13
1 .45
0.1 1
Mn
0.1 1
0.06
0.12
0.044
0.1 1
0.044
Ni
0.077
0.011
0.036
0. 009
0.069
0.01 1
Zn
.054
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.19
0.037
TSS

13

1 1

1 1
These data indicate that the system was operated eff iciently.
Effluent pH was controlled within the range of 8.6-9.3, and,
while raw waste loadings were not unusually high, most toxic
metals were removed to very low concentrations.
Lime and sodium hydroxide are sometimes used to precipitate
metals. Data developed from plant 40063, a facility with a metal
bearing wastewater, exemplify efficient operation of a chemical
precipitation and settling system. Table VII-3 shows sampling
data from this system, which uses lime and sodium hydroxide for
pH adjustment, chemical precipitation, polyelectrolyte flocculant
addition, and sedimentation. Samples were taken of the raw waste
influent to the system and of the clarifier effluent. Flow
through the system is approximately 5,000 gal/hr.
177

-------
Effectiveness of
Lime and
TABLE VI1-3
Sodium Hydroxide for
Metals
Removal

Day
In
1
Out
In
Day
2
Out
In
Day 3
Out
pH Range
9.2-9.6
8.3-9.8
9.2

7.6-8.1
9.6
7.8-8
(mg/1)







A1
37.3
0.35
38.1

0.35
29. 9
0.35
Co
3.92
0.0
4.65

0.0
4.37
0.0
Cu
0.65
0.003
0.63

0.003
0.72
0. 003
Fe
1 37
0.49
1 1 0

0.57
208
0. 58
Mn
175
0.12
205

0.012
245
0.12
Ni
6.86
0.0
5.84

0.0
5. 63
0.0
Se
28.6
0.0
30. 2

0.0
27.4
0.0
Ti
143
0.0
1 25

0.0
1 15
0.0
Zn
18.5
0. 027
16.2

0.0044
17.0
0.01
TSS
4390
9
3595

1 3
2805
1 3
At this plant, effluent TSS levels were below 15 mg/1 on each
day, despite average raw waste TSS concentrations of over 3500
mg/1. Effluent pH was maintained at approximately 8, lime
addition was sufficient to precipitate the dissolved metal ions,
and the flocculant addition and clarifier retention served to
remove effectively the precipitated solids.
Sulfide precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals
resulting in improved metals removals. Most metal sulfides are
less soluble than hydroxides and the precipitates are frequently
more dependably removed from water. Solubilities for selected
metal hydroxide, carbonate and sulfide precipitates are shown in
Table VII-4 (Source: Lange's Handbook of Chemistry). Sulfide
precipitation is particularly effective in removing specific
metals such as silver and mercury. Sampling data from three
industrial plants using sulfide precipitation appear in Table
VI1-5.
1 78

-------
TABLE VI1-4
THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF HYDROXIDES AND SULFIDES
OF SELECTED METALS IN PURE WATER
Solubi1ity of metal ion, mq/1
Metal
As ;
Hydroxide
As i
Carbonate
As Sulfide
Cadmium (Cd++)
2.3
X
10-s
1 .0
X
10-4
6.7
X
1 o-»°
Chromium {Cr + + +)
8.4
X
10"4



No precipitate
Cobalt (Co++)
2.2
X
TO-i



1 .0
X
10-8
Copper (Cu++)
2.2
X
TO"2



5.8
X
10-18
Iron (Fe++)
8.9
X
1 0"1



3.4
X
10-5
Lead (Pb++)
2.1


.7.0
x
T0-3
3.8
X
10-9
Manganese (Mn++)
1 .2





2.1
X
10-3
Mercury (Hg++)
3.9
X
1 0~4
3.9
x
10-2
9.0
X
10-20
Nickel ( N i + + )
6.9
X
10-«
1 .9
X
10-1
6.9
X
10-8
Silver (Ag+)
13.3


2.1
X
1 o-»
7.4
X
10-12
Tin (Sn++)
1 . 1
X
10~«



3.8
X
10-8
Zinc (Zn++)
1 . 1


7.0
X
10-4
2.3
X
10-7
TABLE VI1-5
SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE
PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Treatment Settle, Filter
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
NaOH, Ferric
Chloride, NaaS
Clarify (1 stage)
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
pH
\0
1
o
in
, 8 8-9
7.7
7.38


(mg/1)






Cr+6
25.6
<0.014
0. 022
<0.020
11 .45
<.005
Cr
32.3
<0. 04
2.4
<0.1
18. 35
<.005
Cu
_
-
-
-
0. 029
0. 003
Fe
0. 52
0.1 0
108
0.6
_
-
Ni
_
-
0. 68
<0.1
_
—
Zn
39.5
<0. 07
33.9
<0.1
0.060
0. 009
These
data were
obtained
from three
sources:


179

-------
Summary Report, Control and Treatment Technology for the
Metal Finishing Industry: Sulfide Precipitation, USEPA, EPA
No. 625/8/80-003,. 1 979.
Industrial Finishing, Vol. 35, No. 11, November, 1979.
Electroplating sampling data from plant 27045.
In all cases except iron, effluent concentrations are below 0.1
mg/1 and in many cases below 0.01 mg/1 for the three plants
studied.
Sampling data from several chlorine-caustic manufacturing plants
using sulfide precipitation demonstrate effluent mercury
concentrations varying between 0.009 and 0.03 mg/1. As shown in
Figure VII-2, the solubilities of PbS and Ag2S are lower at
alkaline pH levels than either the corresponding hydroxides or
other sulfide compounds. This implies that removal performance
for lead and silver sulfides should be comparable to or better
than that for the heavy metal hydroxides. Bench scale tests on
several types of metal finishing and manufacturing wastewater
indicate that metals removal to levels of less than 0.05 mg/1 and
in some cases less than 0.01 mg/1 are common in systems using
sulfide precipitation followed by clarification. Some of the
bench scale data, particularly in the case of lead, do not
support such Jow effluent concentrations. However, lead is
consistently removed to very low levels (less than 0.02 mg/1) in
systems using hydroxide and carbonate precipitation and
sedimentation.
Of particular interest is the ability of sulfide to precipitate
hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) without prior reduction to the tri-
valent 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:
Cr03 + FeS + 3H20 	> Fe(0H)3 + Cr(0H)3 + S
The sludge produced in this reaction consists mainly of ferric
hydroxides, chromic hydroxides and various metallic sulfides.
Some excess hydroxyl ions are generated in this process, possibly
requiring a downward re-adjustment of pH.
Based on the available data, Table VII-6 shows the minimum
reliably attainable effluent concentrations for sulfide
precipitation-sedimentation systems. These values are used to
calculate performance predictions of sulfide precipitation-
sedimentation systems.
1 80

-------
TABLE VI1-6
SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter
Treated Effluent
(mg/1)
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
0.01
0. 05
0.05
0.01
0. 03
0.05
0.05
0.01
Table VI1-6 is based on two reports:
Summary Report, Control and Treatment Technology for the
Metal Finishing Industry: Sulfide Precipitation, USEPA, EPA
No. 625/8/80-003, 1979.
Addendum to Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Major
Inorganic products Segment of Inorganics Point Source
Category, USEPA., EPA Contract No. EPA=68-01-3281 (Task 7),
June, 1978.
Carbonate precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals,
especially where precipitated metals values are to be recovered.
The solubility of most metal carbonates is intermediate between
hydroxide and sulfide solubilities; in addition, carbonates form
easily filtered precipitates.
Carbonate ions appear to be particularly useful in precipitating
lead and antimony. Sodium carbonate has been observed being
added at treatment to improve lead precipitation and removal in
some industrial plants. The lead hydroxide and lead carbonate
solubility curves displayed in Figure VII-2 (page 268) ("Heavy
Metals	Removal,"	by	Kenneth Lanovette, Chemical
Engineerinq/Deskbook Issue, Oct. 17, 1977) explain this
phenomenon.
"Co-precipitation With Iron" - The presence of substantial
quantites of iron in metal bearing wastewaters before treatment
has been shown to improve the removal of toxic metals. In some
cases this iron is an integral part of the industrial wastewater;
in other cases iron is deliberately added as a pre or first step
181

-------
of treatment. The .iron functions to improve toxic metal removal
by three mechanisms: the iron co-precipitates with toxic metals
forming a stable precipitate which desolubi1izes the toxic metal;
the iron improves the settleability of the precipitate; and the
large amount of iron reduces the fraction of toxic metal in the
precipitate. Co-precipitation with iron has been practiced for
many years incidentally when iron was a substantial consitutent
of raw wastewater and intentionally when iron salts were added as
a coagulant aid. Aluminum or mixed iron-aluminum salt also have
been used.
Co-precipitation using large amounts of ferrous iron salts is
known as ferrite co-precipitation because magnetic iron oxide or
ferrite is formed. The addition of ferrous salts (sulfate) is
followed by alkali precipitation and air oxidation. The
resultant precipitate is easily removed by filtration and may be
removed magnetically. Data illustrating the performance of
ferrite co-precipitation is shown in Table VII-7.
Table VII-7
FERRITE CO-PRECIPITATION PERFORMANCE
Metal
Influent(mq/1)
Effluent(mq/1)
Mercury
7.4
0.001
Cadmium
240
0.008
Copper
1 0
0.010
Zinc
1 8
0.016
Chromium
1 0
<0.010
Manganese
1 2
0.007
Nickel
1 ,000
0. 200
Iron
600
0. 06
Bismuth
240
0. 100
Lead
475
0.010
NOTE: These data are from:
Sources and Treatment of Wastewater in the Nonferrous
Metals Industry, USEPA, EPA No. 600/2-80-074, 1980.
Advantages and Limitations
Chemical precipitation has proven to be an effective technique
for removing many pollutants from industrial wastewater. It
1 82

-------
operates at ambient conditions and is well suited to automatic
control. The use of chemical precipitation may be limited
because of interference by chelating agents, because of possible
chemical interference of mixed wastewaters and treatment
chemicals, or because of the potentially hazardous situation
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 kept well mixed and the
addition lines periodically checked to prevent blocking of the
lines, which may result from a buildup of solids. Also,
hydroxide precipitation usually makes recovery of the
precipitated metals difficult, because of the heterogeneous
nature of most hydroxide sludges.
The major advantage of the sulfide precipitation process is that
the extremely low solubility of most metal sulfides promotes very
high metal removal efficiencies; the sulfide process also has the
ability to remove chromates and dichromates without preliminary
reduction of the chromium to its trivalent state. In addition,
sulfide can precipitate metals complexed with most complexing
agents. The process demands care, however, in maintaining the pH
of the solution at approximately 10 in order to prevent the gen-
eration of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. For this reason,
ventilation of the treatment tanks may be a necessary precaution
in most installations. The use of insoluble sulfides reduces 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. At very high
excess sulfide levels and high pH, soluble mercury-sulfide
compounds may also be formed. Where excess sulfide is present,
aeration of the effluent stream can aid in oxidizing residual
sulfide to the less harmful sodium sulfate (Na^O*). 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.
1 83

-------
Sulfide precipitation may be used as a polishing treatment 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.	Reliability:	Alkaline chemical
precipitation is highly reliable, although proper monitoring and
control are required. Sulfide precipitation systems provide
similar reliability.
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 for efficient operation of precipitation-
sedimentation systems.
Solid Waste Aspects: Solids which precipitate out are removed in
a subsequent treatment step. Ultimately, these solids require
proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides
is a classic waste treatment technology used by most industrial
waste treatment systems. Chemical precipitation of metals in the
carbonate form alone has been found to be feasible and is
commercially used to permit metals recovery and water reuse.
Full scale commercial sulfide precipitation units are in
operation at numerous installations. As noted earlier,
sedimentation to remove precipitates is discussed separately.
Use in Porcelain Enamelinq Plants. Chemical precipitation is
used at 28 porcelain enameling plants. The quality of treatment
provided, however, is variable. A review of collected data and
on-site observations reveals that control of system parameters is
often poor. Where precipitates are removed by clarification,
retention times are likely to be short and cleaning and
maintenance questionable. Similarly, pH control is frequently
inadequate. As a result of these factors, effluent performance
at porcelain enameling plants nominally practicing the same
wastewater treatment is observed to vary widely.
3. Cyanide Precipitation
Cyanide precipitation, although a method for treating cyanide in
wastewaters, does not destroy cyanide. The cyanide is retained
in the sludge that is formed. Reports indicate that during
exposure to sunlight the cyanide complexes can break down and
1 84

-------
form free cyanide. For this reason the sludge from this
treatment method must be disposed of carefully.
Cyanide may be precipitated and settled out of wastewaters by the
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate. In the presence of
iron, cyanide will form extremely stable cyanide complexes. The
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate forms zinc
ferrocyanide or ferro and ferricyanide complexes.
Adequate removal of the precipitated cyanide requires that the pH
must be kept at 9.0 and an appropriate retention time be
maintained. A study has shown that the formation of the complex
is very dependent on pH. At pH's of 8 and 10 the residual
cyanide concentrations measured are twice those of the same
reaction carried out at a pH of 9. Removal efficiencies also
depend heavily on the retention time allowed. The formation of
the complexes takes place rather slowly. Depending upon the
excess amount of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate added, at least
a 30 minute retention time should be allowed for the formation of
the cyanide complex before continuing on to the clarification
stage;
One experiment with an initial concentration of 10 mg/1 of
cyanide showed that (98 percent) of the cyanide was complexed ten
minutes after the addition of ferrous sulfate at twice the
theoretical amount necessary. Interference from other metal
ions, such as cadmium, might result in the need for longer
retention times.
Table VII-8 presents data from three coil coating plants. A
fourth plant was visited for the purpose of observing plant
testing of the cyanide precipitation system. Specific data from
this facility are not included because: (1) the pH was usually
well below the optimum level of 9.0; (2) the historical treatment
data were not obtained using the standard cyanide analysis
procedure; and (3) matched input-output data were not made
available by the plant. Scanning the available data indicates
that the raw waste CN level was in the range of 25.0; the pH 7.5;
and treated CN level was from 0.1 to 0.2.
1 85

-------
TABLE VI1-8
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CYANIDE
(mg/1)
Plant
Method
In
Out
1057
FeS04
2. 57
2.42
3.28
0. 14
0.16
0. 46
0.12
0. 024
0.015
0.032
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.06
0.07
33056
FeS04
12052
ZnS04
Mean
The concentrations are those of the stream entering and leaving
the treatment system. Plant 1057 allowed a 27 minute retention
time for the formation of the complex. The retention time for
the other plants is not known. The data suggest that over a wide
range of cyanide concentration in the raw waste, the
concentration of cyanide can be reduced in the effluent stream to
under 0.15 mg/1.
Application and Performance. Cyanide precipitation can be used
when cyanide destruction is not feasible because of the presence
of cyanide complexes which are difficult to destroy. Effluent
concentrations of cyanide well below 0.15 mg/1 are possible.
Advantages and Limitations. Cyanide precipitation is an
inexpensive method of treating cyanide. Problems may occur when
metal ions interfere with the formation of the complexes.
Demonstration Status: Cyanide precipitation is not used in any
porcelain enameling plants.
4. Granular Bed Filtration
Filtration occurs in nature as the surface ground waters are-
cleansed by sand. Silica sand, anthracite coal, and garnet are
common filter media used in water treatment plants. These are
usually supported by gravel. The media may be used singly or in
combination. The multi-media filters may be arranged to maintain
relatively distinct layers by virtue of balancing the forces of
gravity, flow, and buoyancy on the individual particles. This is
accomplished by selecting appropriate filter flow rates (gpm/sq-
ft), media grain size, and density.
1 86

-------
Granular bed filters may be classified in terms of filtration
rate, filter media, flow pattern, or method of pressurization.
Traditional rate classifications are slow sand, rapid sand, and
high rate mixed media. In the slow sand filter, flux or
hydraulic loading is relatively low, and removal of collected
solids to clean the filter is therefore relatively infrequent.
The filter is often cleaned by scraping off the inlet face (top)
of the sand bed. In the higher rate filters, cleaning is
frequent and is accomplished by a periodic backwash, opposite to
the direction of normal flow.
A filter may use a single medium such as sand or diatomaceous
earth, but dual and mixed (multiple) media filters allow higher
flow rates and efficiencies. The dual media filter usually
consists of a fine bed of sand under a coarser bed of anthracite
coal. The coarse coal removes most of the influent solids, while
the fine sand performs a polishing function. At the end of the
backwash, the fine sand settles to the bottom because it is
denser than the coal, and the filter is ready for normal
operation. The mixed media filter operates on the same
principle, with the finer, denser media at the bottom and the
coarser, less dense media at the top. The usual arrangement is
garnet at the bottom (outlet end) of the bed, sand in the middle,
and anthracite coal at the top. Some mixing of these layers
occurs and is, in fact, desirable.
The flow pattern is usually top-to-bottom, but other patterns are
sometimes used. Upflow filters are sometimes used, and in a
horizontal filter the flow is horizontal. In a biflow filter,
the influent enters both- the top and the bottom and exits
laterally. The advantage of an upflow filter is that with an
upflow backwash the particles of a single filter medium are
distributed and maintained in the desired coarse-to-fine (bottom-
to-top) arrangement. The disadvantage is that the bed tends to
become fluidized, which ruins filtration efficiency. The biflow
design is an attempt to overcome this problem.
The classic granular bed filter operates by gravity flow;
however, pressure filters are fairly widely used. They permit
higher solids loadings before cleaning and are advantageous when
the filter effluent must be pressurized for further downstream
treatment. In addition, pressure filter systems are often less
costly for low to moderate flow rates.
Figure VII-19 (page 280) depicts a high rate, dual media, gravity
downflow granular bed filter, with self-stored backwash. Both
filtrate and backwash are piped around the bed in an arrangement
that permits gravity upflow of the backwash, with the stored
filtrate serving as backwash. Addition of the indicated
187

-------
coagulant and polyelectrolyte usually results in a substantial
improvement in filter performance.
Auxilliary filter cleaning is sometimes employed in the upper few
inches of filter beds. This is conventionally referred to as
surface wash and is accomplished by water jets just below the
surface of the expanded bed during the backwash cycle. These
jets enhance the scouring action in the bed by increasing the
agitation.
An important feature for successful filtration and backwashing is
the underdrain. This is the support structure for the bed. The
underdrain provides an area for collection of the filtered water
without clogging from either the filtered solids or the media
grains. In addition, the underdrain prevents loss of the media
with the water, and during the backwash cycle it provides even
flow distribution over the bed. Failure to dissipate the
velocity head during the filter or backwash cycle will result in
bed upset and the need for major repairs.
Several standard approaches are employed for filter underdrains.
The simplest one consists of a parallel porous pipe imbedded
under a layer of coarse gravel and manifolded to a header pipe
for effluent removal. Other approaches to the underdrain system
are known as the Leopold and Wheeler filter bottoms. Both of
these incorporate false concrete bottoms with specific porosity
configurations to provide drainage and velocity head dissipation.
Filter system operation may be manual or automatic. The filter
backwash cycle may be on a timed basis, a pressure drop_bas_is
with a terminal value which triggers backwash, or a solids carry-
over b'asis from turbidity monitoring of the outlet stream. All
of these schemes have been used successfully.
Application and Performance. Wastewater treatment plants often
use granular bed filters for polishing after clarification,
sedimentation, or other similar operations. Granular bed
filtration thus has potential application to 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
188

-------
bed. The porous bed formed by the granular media 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 bed passages.
Properly operated filters following some pretreatment to reduce
suspended solids below 200 mg/1 should produce water with less
than 10 mg/1 TSS. For example, multimedia filters produced the
effluent qualities shown in Table VII-9 below.
Table VII-9
Plant ID #
Multimedia Filter Performance
TSS Effluent Concentration, mq/1
06097
0.0,
0.0,
0.5
13924
1 .8,
2.2,
5.6

3.0,
2.0,
5.6
18538
1 .0


301 72
1.4,
7.0,
1 .0
36048
2.1,
2.6,
1 . 5
mean
2.61


4.0,
3.6,
4
2
0,
4,
3
3
0,
4
2.2, 2.8
Advantages and Limitations. The principal advantages of granular
bed filtration are its comparatively (to other filters) low
initial and operating costs, reduced land requirements over other
methods to achieve the same level of solids removal, and
elimination of chemical additions to the discharge stream.
However, the filter may require pretreatment if the solids level
is high (over 100 mg/1). Operator training must be somewhat
extensive due to the controls and periodic backwashing involved,
and backwash must be stored and dewatered for economical
disposal.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The recent improvements in
filter technology have, significantly improved filtration
reliability. Control systems, improved designs, and good
operating procedures have made filtration a highly reliable
method of water treatment.
Maintainability: Deep bed filters may be operated with either
manual or automatic backwash. In either case, they must be
periodically inspected for media attrition, partial plugging, and
leakage. Where backwashing is not used, collected solids must be
removed by shoveling, and filter media must be at least partially
replaced.
189

-------
Solid Waste Aspects: Filter backwash is generally recycled
within the wastewater treatment system, so that the solids
ultimately appear in the clarifier sludge stream for subsequent
dewatering. Alternatively, the backwash stream may be dewatered
directly or, if there is no backwash, the collected solids may be
disposed of in a suitable landfill. In either of these
situations there is a solids disposal problem similar to that of
clarifiers.
Demonstration Status. Deep bed filters are in common use in
municipal treatment plants. Their use in polishing industrial
clarifier effluent is increasing, and the technology is proven
and conventional. Granular bed filtration is used in many
manufacturing plants. As noted previously, however, little data
is available characterizing the effectiveness of filters
presently in use within the industry.
5. Pressure Filtration
Pressure filtration works by pumping the liquid through a filter
material which is impenetrable to the solid phase. The positive
pressure exerted by the feed pumps or other mechanical means
provides the pressure differential which is the principal driving
force. Figure VII-15 (page 281) represents the operation of one
type of pressure filter.
A typical pressure filtration unit consists of a number of plates
or trays which are held rigidly in a frame to ensure alignment
and which are pressed together between a fixed end and a
traveling end. On the surface of each plate is mounted a filter
made of cloth or a synthetic fiber. The feed stream is pumped
into the unit and passes through holes in the trays along the
length of the press until the cavities or chambers between the
trays are completely filled. The solids are then entrapped, and
a cake begins to form on the surface of the filter material. • The
water passes through the fibers, and the solids are retained.
At the bottom of the trays are drainage ports. The filtrate is
collected and discharged to a common drain. As the filter medium
becomes coated with sludge, the flow of filtrate through the
filter drops sharply, indicating that the capacity of the filter
has been exhausted. The unit must then be cleaned of the sludge.
After the cleaning or replacement of the filter media, the unit
is again ready for operation.
Application and Performance. Pressure filtration is used in
porcelain enameling for sludge dewatering and also for direct
removal of precipitated and other suspended solids from
wastewater.
1 90

-------
Because dewatering is such a common operation in treatment
systems, pressure filtration is a technique which can be found in
many industries concerned with removing solids from their waste
stream.
In a typical pressure filter, chemically preconditioned sludge
detained in the unit for one to three hours under pressures
varying from 5 to 13 atmospheres exhibited final solids content
between 25 and 50 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. The pressures which may be applied
to a sludge for removal of water by filter presses that are
currently available range from 5 to 13 atmospheres. As a result,
pressure filtration may reduce the amount of chemical
pretreatment required for sludge dewatering. Sludge retained in
the form of the filter cake has a higher percentage of solids
than that from centrifuge or vacuum filter. Thus, it can be
easily accommodated by materials handling systems.
As a primary solids removal technique, pressure filtration
requires less space than clarification and is well suited to
streams with high solids loadings. The sludge produced may be
disposed without further dewatering, but the amount of sludge is
increased by the use of filter precoat materials (usually
diatomaceous earth). Also, cloth pressure filters often do not
achieve as high a degree of effluent clarification as clarifiers
or granular media filters.
Two disadvantages associated with pressure filtration in the past
have been the short life of the filter cloths and lack of
automation. New synthetic fibers have largely offset the first
of these problems. Also, units with automatic feeding and
pressing cycles are now available.
For larger operations, the relatively high space requirements, as
compared to those of a centrifuge, could be prohibitive in some
situations.
Operational Factors. Reliability: With proper pretreatment,
design, and control, pressure filtration is a highly dependable
system.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic cleaning or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the system. If the removal of
the sludge cake is not automated, additional time is required for
this operation.
191

-------
Solid Waste Aspects: Because it is generally drier than other
types of sludges, the filter sludge cake can be handled with
relative ease. The accumulated sludge may be disposed by any of
the accepted procedures depending on its chemical composition.
The levels of toxic metals present in sludge from treating
porcelain enameling wastewater necessitate proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. Pressure filtration is a commonly used
technology in a great many commercial applications.
6. Settling
Settling is a process which removes solid particles from a liquid
matrix by gravitational force. This is done by reducing the
velocity of the feed stream in a large volume tank or lagoon so
that gravitational settling can occur. Figure VII-16 (page 282)
shows two typical settling devices.
Settling is often preceded by chemical precipitation which
converts dissolved pollutants to solid form and by coagulation
which enhances settling by coagulating suspended precipitates
into larger, faster settling particles.
If no chemical pretreatment is used, the wastewater is fed into a
tank or lagoon where it loses velocity and the suspended solids
are allowed to settle out. Long retention times are generally
required. Accumulated sludge can be collected either
periodically or continuously and either manually or mechanically.
Simple settling, however, may require excessively large
catchments, and long retention times (days as compared with
hours) to achieve high removal efficiencies. Because of this,
addition of settling aids such as alum or polymeric flocculants
is often economically attractive.
In practice, chemical precipitation often precedes settling, and
inorganic coagulants or polyelectrolytic flocculants are usually
added as well. Common coagulants include sodium sulfate, sodium
aluminate, ferrous or ferric sulfate, and ferric chloride.
Organic , polyelectrolytes vary in structure, but all usually form
larger floe particles than coagulants used alone.
Following this pretreatment, the wastewater can be fed into a
holding tank or lagoon for settling, but is more often piped into
a clarifier for the same purpose. A clarifier reduces space
requirements, reduces retention time, and increases solids
removal efficiency. Conventional clarifiers generally consist of
a circular or rectangular tank with a mechanical sludge
collecting device or with a sloping funnel-shaped bottom designed
for sludge collection. In advanced settling devices inclined
192

-------
plates, slanted tubes, or a lamellar network may be included
within the clarifier tank in order to increase the effective
settling area, increasing capacity. A fraction of the sludge
stream is often recirculated to the inlet, promoting formation of
a denser sludge.
Application and Performance. Settling and clarification are used
in the porcelain enameling category to remove precipitated
metals. Settling can be used to remove most suspended solids in
a particular waste stream; thus it is used extensively by many
different industrial waste treatment facilities. Because most
metal ion pollutants are readily converted to solid metal
hydroxide precipitates, settling is of particular use in those
industries associated with metal production, metal finishing,
metal working, and any other industry with high concentrations of
metal ions in their wastewaters. In addition to toxic metals,
suitably precipitated materials effectively removed by settling
include aluminum, iron, manganese, cobalt, antimony, beryllium,
molybdenum, fluoride, phosphate, and many others.
A properly operating settling system can efficiently remove
suspended solids, precipitated metal hydroxides, and other
impurities from wastewater. The performance of the process
depends on a variety of factors, including the density and
particle size of the solids, the effective charge on the
suspended particles, and the types of chemicals used in
pretreatment. The site of flocculant or coagulant addition also
may significantly influence the effectiveness of clarification.
If the flocculant is subjected to too much mixing before entering
the clarifier, the complexes may be sheared and the settling
effectiveness diminished. At the same time, the flocculant must
have sufficient mixing and reaction time in order for effective
set-up and settling to occur. Plant personnel have observed that
the line or trough leading into the clarifier is often the most
efficient site for flocculant addition. The performance of
simple settling is a function of the retention time, particle
size and density, and the surface area of the basin.
The data displayed in Table VII-10 indicate suspended solids
removal efficiencies in settling systems.
1 93

-------
TABLE VII-10
PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED SETTLING SYSTEMS
PLANT ID
SETTLING
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/1)


DEVICE
Dav 1

Dav 2

Dav 3



In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
01057
Lagoon
54
6
56
6
50
5
09025
Clarifier
11 00
9
1 900
1 2
1 620
5

Settling







Ponds






11058
Clarifier
451
1 7
-
-
-
-
12075
Settling
284
6
242
1 0
502
14

Pond






19019
Settling
170
1
50
1
-
-

Tank






33617
Clarifier
&
-
1 662
1 6
1 298
4

Lagoon






40063
Clarifier
4390
9
3595
1 2
2805
1 3
44062
Clarifier
182
1 3
1 1 8
1 4
1 74
23
46050
Settling
295
1 0
42
1 0
153
8

Tank






The mean effluent TSS concentration obtained by the plants shown
in Table VII-10 is 10.1 mg/1. Influent concentrations averaged
838 mg/1. The maximum effluent TSS value reported is 23 mg/1.
These plants all use alkaline pH adjustment to precipitate metal
hydroxides, and most add a coagulant or flocculant prior to
settling.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of simple
settling is its simplicity as demonstrated by the gravitational
settling of solid particulate waste in a holding tank or lagoon.
The major problem with simple settling is the long retention time
necessary to achieve complete settling, especially if the
specific gravity of the suspended matter is close to that of
water. Some materials cannot be practically removed by simple
settling alone.
Settling performed in a clarifier is effective in removing slow-
settling suspended matter in a shorter time and in less space
than a simple settling system. Also, effluent quality is often
better from a clarifier. The cost of installing and maintaining
a clarifier, however, is substantially greater than the costs
associated with simple settling.
Inclined plate, slant tube, and lamella settlers have even higher
removal efficiencies than conventional clarifiers, and greater
capacities per unit area are possible. Installed costs for these
1 94

-------
advanced clarification systems are claimed to be one half the
cost of conventional systems of similar capacity.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Settling can be 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. Proper
control of pH adjustment, chemical precipitation, and coagulant
or flocculant addition are additional factors affecting settling
efficiencies in systems (frequently clarifiers) where these
methods are used.
Those advanced settlers using slanted tubes, inclined plates, or
a lamellar network may require pre-screening of the waste in
order to eliminate any fibrous materials which could potentially
clog the system. Some installations are especially vulnerable to
shock loadings, as by storm water runoff, but proper system
design will prevent this.
Maintainability: When clarifiers or other advanced settling
devices are used, the associated system utilized for chemical
pretreatment and sludge dragout must be maintained on a regular
basis. Routine maintenance of mechanical parts is also
necessary. Lagoons require little maintenance ' other than
periodic sludge removal.
Demonstration Status
Settling represents the typical method of solids removal and is
employed extensively in industrial waste treatment. The advanced
clarifiers are just beginning to appear in significant numbers in
commercial applications. Sedimentation or clarification is used
in many porcelain enameling plants as shown below.
Settling Device	No. Plants
Settling Tanks	51
Clarifier	24
Tube or Plate Settler	4
Lagoon	11
Settling is used both as part of end-of-pipe treatment and within
the plant to allow recovery of process solutions and raw
materials.
7. Skimming
Pollutants with a specific gravity less than water will often
float unassisted to the surface of the wastewater. Skimming
195

-------
removes 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 non-emulsified oils from raw waste streams. Common
skimming mechanisms include the rotating drum type,, which picks
up oil from the surface of the water as it 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. Occasionally, an underflow baffle is
installed after the drum; this has the advantage of retaining any
floating oil which escapes the drum skimmer. The belt type
skimmer is pulled vertically through the water, collecting oil
which is scraped off from the surface and collected in a drum.
Gravity separators, such as the API type, utilize overflow and
underflow baffles to skim a floating oil layer 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 the majority 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. Oil cleaned from the strip is a
principal source of oil. Skimming is applicable to any waste
stream containing pollutants which float to the surface. It is
commonly used to remove free oil, grease, and soaps. Skimming is
often used in conjunction with air flotation or clarification in
order to increase its effectiveness.
The removal efficiency of a skimmer is partly a function of the
retention time of the water in the tank. Larger, more buoyant
particles require less retention time than smaller "particles.
Thus, the efficiency also depends on the composition of the waste
stream. The retention time required to allow phase separation
and subsequent skimming varies from 1 to 15 minutes, depending on
the 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
consistently significant. Drum and belt type skimmers are
applicable to waste streams which evidence smaller amounts of
floating oil and where surges of floating oil are not a problem.
Using an API separator system in conjunction with a drum type
skimmer would be a very effective method of removing floating
contaminants from non-emulsified oily waste streams. Sampling
196

-------
data shown in Table VII—11 illustrate the capabilities of the
technology with both extremely high and moderate oil influent
levels.
Table VII-11
SKIMMING PERFORMANCE
Oil & Grease
mg/1
Plant Skimmer Type
In
Out
06058
06058
API
Belt
224,669
19.4
17.9
8.3
This data is intended to be illustrative of the very high level
of oil and grease removals attainable in a simple two stage oil
removal system. Based on the performance of installations in a
variety of manufacturing plants and permit requirements that are
constantly achieved, it is determined that effluent oil levels
may be reliably reduced below 10 mg/1 with moderate influent
concentrations. Very high concentrations of oil such as the 22
percent shown above may require two step treatment to achieve
this level.
Skimming which removes oil may also be used to remove base levels
of organics. Plant sampling data show that many organic
compounds tend to be removed in standard wastewater treatment
equipment. Oil separation not only removes oil but also organics
that are more soluble in oil than in water. Clarification
removes organic solids directly and probably removes dissolved
organics by adsorption on inorganic solids.
The source of these organic pollutants is not always known with
certainty, although in metal forming operations they seem to
derive mainly from various process lubricants. They are also
sometimes present in the plant water supply, as additives to
proprietary formulations of cleaners, or due to leaching from
plastic lines and other materials.
High molecular weight organics in particular are much more
soluble in organic solvents than in water. Thus they are much
more concentrated in the oil phase that is skimmed than in the
wastewater. The ratio of solubilities of a compound in oil and
water phases is called the partition coefficient. The logarithm
of the partition coefficients for fifteen polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds in octanol and water are listed
below.
1 97

-------
PAH
Priority Pollutant
Log Octanol/Water
Partition Coefficient
1	Acenaphthene
39	Fluoranthene
72	Benzo(a)anthracene
73	Benzo(a)pyrene
74	3,4-benzofluoranthene
75	Benzo(k)fluoranthene
76	Chrysene
77	Acenaphthylene
78	Anthracene
79	Benzo(ghi)perylene
80	Fluorene
81	Phenanthrene
82	Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83	Indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene
84	Pyrene
4.	33
5.	33
5.61
6.	04
6.57
6.84
5.6-1
4.07
4.45
7.	23
4.18
4.46
5. 97
7. 66
5. 32
A study of priority organic compounds commonly found in metal
forming operations waste streams indicated that incidental
removal of these compounds often occurs as a result of oil
removal or clarification processes. When all organics analyses
from visited plants are considered, removal of organic compounds
by other waste treatment technologies appears to be marginal in
many cases. However, when only raw waste concentrations of
0.05 mg/1 or greater are considered incidental organics removal
becomes much more apparent. Lower values, those less than
0.05 mg/1, are much more subject to analytical variation, while
higher values indicate a significant presence of a given
compound. When these factors are taken into account, analysis
data indicate that most clarification and oil removal treatment
systems remove significant amounts of "the organic compounds
present in the raw waste. The API oil-water separation system
and the thermal emulsion breaker (TEB) performed notably in this
regard, as shown in Table VII-12 (all values in mg/1).
1 98

-------
TABLE VI1-12
TRACE ORGANIC REMOVAL BY SKIMMING
API PLUS BELT SKIMMERS
(From Plant 06058)
Inf.	Eff.
Oil & Grease	225,000	14.6
Chloroform	0.023	0.007
Methylene Chloride	0.013	0.012
Naphthalene	2.31	0.004
N-nitrosodiphenylamine	59.0	0.182
Bis-2-ethylhexylphthaiate	11.0	0.027
Diethyl phthalate
Buty1benzylphthaiate	0.005	0.002
Di-n-octyl phthalate	0.019	0.002
Anthracene - phenanthrene	16.4	0.014
Toluene	0.02	0.012
Data from five plant days demonstrate removal of organics by the
combined oil skimming and settling operations performed on coil
coating wastewaters. Days were chosen where treatment system
influent and effluent analyses provided paired data points for
oil and grease and the organics present. All organics found at
quantifiable levels on those days were included. Further, only
those days were chosen where oil and grease raw wastewater
concentrations exceeded 10 mg/1 and where there was reduction in
oi1 and grease going through the treatment system. All plant
sampling days which met the above criteria are included below.
The conclusion is that when oil and grease are removed, organics
are removed, also.
Percent Removal
Plant-Day
Oil & Grease
Organics
1054-3
13029-2
13029-3
38053-1
38053-2
Mean
95.9
98.3
95.1
96.8
98. 5
96.9
98.2
78.0
77.0
81 .3
86.3
84.2
The unit operation most applicable to removal of trace priority
organics is adsorption, and chemical oxidation is another
possibility. Biological degradation is not generally applicable
because the organics are not present in sufficient concentration
to sustain a biomass and because most of the organics are
resistant to biodegradation.
199

-------
Advantages and Limitations. Skimming as a 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 treatments. There-
fore, skimming alone may not remove all the pollutants capable of
being removed by air flotation or other more sophisticated
technologies.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Because of its simplicity,
skimming is a very reliable technique.
Maintainability: The skimming mechanism requires periodic
lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of worn parts.
Solid Waste Aspects: The collected layer of debris must be
disposed of by contractor removal, landfill, or incineration.
Because relatively large quantities of water are present in the
collected wastes, incineration is not always a viable disposal
method.
Demonstration Status. Skimming is a common operation utilized
extensively by industrial waste treatment systems. Oil skimming
is used in at least two porcelain enameling plants.
MAJOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS
The performance of individual treatment technologies was
presented above. Performance of operating systems is discussed
here. Two different systems are considered: L&S (hydroxide
precipitation and sedimentation or lime and settle) and LS&F
(hydroxide precipitation, sedimentation and filtration or lime,
settle, and filter). Subsequently, an analysis of effectiveness
of such systems is made to develop one-day maximum, and ten-day
and thirty-day average concentration levels to be used in
regulating pollutants. Evaluation of the L&S and the LS&F
systems is carried out on the assumption that chemical reduction
of chromium, cyanide precipitation, and oil skimming are
installed and operating properly where appropriate.
L&S Performance — Combined Metals Data Base
Before proposal, chemical analysis data were collected of raw
waste (treatment influent) and treated waste (treatment effluent)
from 55 plants (126 data days) sampled by EPA (or its contractor)
using EPA sampling and chemical analysis protocols. These data
are the data base for determining the effectiveness of L&S
200

-------
technology. Each of these plants belongs to at least one of the
following industry categories: aluminum forming, battery
manufacturing, coil coating, copper forming, electroplating and
porcelain enameling All of the plants employ pH adjustment and
hydroxide precipitation using lime or caustic, followed by
settling (tank, lagoon or clarifier) for solids removal. Most
also add a coagulant or flocculant prior to solids removal.
An analysis of this data was presented in the development
documents for the proposed regulations for coil coating and
porcelain enameling (January 1981). In response to the proposal,
some commenters claimed that it was inappropriate to use data
from some categories for regulation of other categories. In
response to these comments, the Agency reanalyzed the data. An
analysis of variance was applied to the data for the 126 days of
sampling to test the hypothesis of homogeneous plant mean raw and
treated effluent levels across categories by pollutant. This
analysis is described in the report "A Statistical Analysis of
the Combined Metals Industries Effluent Data" which is in the
administrative record supporting this rulemaking. The main
conclusion drawn from the analysis of variance is that, with the
exception of electroplating, the categories are generally
homogeneous with regard to mean pollutant concentrations in both
raw and treated effluent. That is, when data from electroplating
facilities are included in the analysis, the hypothesis of
homogeneity across categories is rejected. When the
electroplating data are removed from the analysis the conclusion
changes substantially and the hypothesis of homogeneity across
categories is not rejected. On the basis of this analysis, the
electroplating data were removed from the data base used to
determine limitations. Cases that appeared to be marginally
different were" not unexpected (such as copper in copper forming
and lead in lead battery manufacturing) were accommodated in
developing limitations by using the larger values obtained from
the marginally different category to characterize the entire data
set.
The statistical analysis provides support for the technical
engineering judgment that electroplating wastewaters are
different from most metal processing wastewaters. These
differences may be further explained by differences in the
constituents and relative amounts of pollutants in the raw
wastewaters. Therefore, the wastewater data derived from plants
that only electroplate are not used in developing limitations for
the porcelain enameling category.
After removing the electroplating data, data from 21 plants and
52 days of sampling remained. Eleven of these plants and 25 days
of sampling are from coil coating operations.
201

-------
For the purpose of developing treatment effectiveness, certain
data were deleted from the data base. Before examination for
homogeneity the first two data items below were removed; the
third data item was removed after the homogeneity examination.
These deletions were made to ensure that the data reflect
properly operated treatment systems and actual pollutant removal.
The following criteria were used in making these deletions:
o Plants where malfunctioning processes or treatment systems
at time of sampling were identified.
o Data days where pH was less than 7.0 or TSS was greater than
50 mg/1. (This is a prima facie indication of poor
operation).
o Data points where the raw waste value was too low to assure
actual pollutant removal occurred (i.e., less than 0.1 mg/1
of pollutant in raw waste).
Collectively, these selection criteria insure that the data are
from properly operating lime and settle treatment facilities.
The remaining data are displayed graphically in Figures VII-4 to
VII-12 (Pages 270-278). This common or combined metals data base
provide's a more sound and usable basis for estimating treatment
effectiveness and statistical variability of lime and settle
technology than the available data from any one category.
One-day Effluent Values
The basis assumption underlying the determination of treatment
effectiveness is that the data for a particular pollutant are
lognormally distributed by plant. The lognormal has been found
to provide a satisfactory fit to plant effluent data in a number
of effluent guidelines categories. In the case of the combined
metal categories data base, there are too few data from any one
plant to verify formally the lognormal assumption. Thus, we
assumed measurements of each pollutant from a particular plant,
denoted by X, followed a lognormal distribution with log mean »
and log variance az. The mean, variance and 99th percentile of X
are then:
mean of X = E(X) = exp (n + ez /2)
variance of X = V(X) = exp (2 » + az) [exp( az )-1]
99th percentile = X.99 = exp ( v + 2.33 a)
where exp is e, the base of the natural logarithm. The term
lognormal is used because the logarithm of X has a normal
202

-------
distribution with mean » and variance a2. Using the basic
assumption of lognormality the actual treatment effectiveness was
determined using a lognormal distribution that, in a sense,
approximates the distribution of an average of the plants in the
data base, i.e., an "average plant" distribution. The notion of
an "average plant" distribution is not a strict statistical
concept but is used here to determine limits that would represent
the performance capability of an average of the plants in the
data base.
This "average plant" distribution for a particular pollutant was
developed as follows: the log mean was determined by taking the
average of all the observations for the pollutant across plants.
The log variance was determined by the pooled within plant
variance. This is the weighted average of the plant variances.
Thus, the log mean represents the average of all the data for the
pollutant and the log variance represents the average of the
plant log variances or average plant variability for the
pollutant.
The one day effluent values were determined as follows:
Let
X
13
- the jth observation on a particular pollutant
at plant i
where
Then
where
Then
i = 1,, I
j
1	= total number of plants
Ji = number of observations at plant i
y-i = In X. .
2	1D	l j
In means the natural logarithm.
y = log mean over all plants
I Ji
= .E E Yi/n,
i=l j=l 13
where
n = total number of observations

and	V(y) — pooled log variance
203

-------
E (Ji - i)
i=l
where S^2 = log variance at plant i
Ji
= Z (Yi^ - yi)2/(Ji -*D
_ j=i 3	1
= log mean at plant i.
Thus, y and V(y) are the log mean and log variance, respectively,
of the lognormal distribution used to determine the treatment
effectiveness. The estimated mean and 99th percentile of this
distribution form the basis for the long term average and daily
maximum effluent limitations, respectively. The estimates are
mean = E?X) = exp(y)¥ n (0.5 V(y))
99th percentile = x 99 = exP ty + 2.33 sj V(y) ]
where	(.) is a Bessel function and exp is e, the base of the
natural logarithms (See Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown, The
Lognormal Distribution, Cambridge University Press, 1963). In
cases where zeros were present in the data, a generalized form of
the lognormal, known as the delta distribution was used (See
Aitchison and Brown, op. cit., Chapter 9).
For certain pollutants, this approach was modified slightly to
accommodate situations in which a category or categories stood
out as being marginally different from the others. For instance,
after excluding the electroplating data and other data that did
not reflect pollutant removal or proper treatment, the effluent
copper data from the copper forming plants were statistically
significantly greater than the copper data from the other plants.
Thus, copper effluent values shown in Table VI1-13 are based only
on the copper effluent data from the copper forming plants. That
is, the log mean for copper is the mean of the logs of all copper
values from the copper forming plants only and the log variance
is the pooled log variance of the copper forming plant data only.
In the case of cadmium, after excluding the electroplating data
and data that did not reflect removal or proper treatment, there
were insufficient data to estimate the log variance for cadmium.
The variance used to determine the values shown in Table VI1-13
for cadmium was estimated by pooling the within plant variances
for all the other metals. Thus, the cadmium variability is the
average of the plant variability averaged over all the other
metals. The log mean for cadmium is the mean of the logs of the
cadmium observations only. A complete discussion of the data and
204

-------
calculations for all the metals is contained in the
administrative record for this rulemaking.
Average Effluent Values
Average effluent values that form the basis for the monthly
limitations were developed in a manner consistent with the method
used to develop one day treatment effectiveness in that the
lognormal distribution used for the one-day effluent values was
also used as the basis for the average values. That is, we
assume a number of consecutive measurements are drawn from the
distribution of daily measurements. The approach used for the 10
measurements values was employed previously for the
electroplating category (see "Development document for Existing
Sources Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating Point
Source Category" EPA 440/1-79/003, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., August, 1979). That is, the
distribution of the average of 10 samples from a lognormal was
approximated by another lognormal distribution. Although the
approximation is not precise theoretically, there is empirical
evidence based on effluent data from a number of categories that
the lognormal is an adequate approximation for the distribution
of small samples. In the course of previous work the
approximation was verified in a computer simulation study. We
also note that the average values were developed assuming
independence of the observations although no particular sampling
scheme was assumed.
Ten-Sample average:
The formulas for the 10-sample limitations were derived on the
basis of simple relationships between the mean and variance of
the distributions of the daily pollutant measurements and the
average of 10 measurements. We assume the daily concentration
measurements for a particular pollutant, denoted by X, follow a
lognormal distribution with log mean and log variance denoted by
n and tf2, respectivey. Let X10 denote the mean of 10 consecutive
measurements. The following relationships then hold assuming the
daily measurements are independent:
mean of X^q = E(X^q) = E(X)
variance of X^g = V(X^q) = V(X) -r 10.
Where E(X) and V(X) are the mean and variance of X, respectively,
defined above. We then assume that X10 follows a lognormal
distribution with log mean u1G and log standard deviation ai0.
The mean and variance of X10 are then
205

-------
E(xl0) = exP( y 10 + 0.5 a*Q)
v(xl0) = exP(2 U 10 + a*Q)[exp( a^Q)-l]
2	2
Now, y and cr^g can be derived in terms of y and a as
1J 10 = P + oz/2 - 0,5 In [1+ (exp ( ct2)-1)/N]
= In[1+(exp( ct2)-1)/N]
Therefore, »ix0 and tf2x0 can be estimated using the above
relationships and the estimates of » and 
-------
30 Sample Average Calculation
The formulas for the 30 sample average were based on an
application of the Central Limit Theorem. According to the
Theorem, the average of 30 observations drawn from the
distribution of daily measurements, denoted by X30, is
approximately normally distributed. The mean and variance of X30
ares
mean of X^q = E(X^q) = E(X>
variance of X^q = V( X3Q) = V(X) * 30.
The 30 sample average value was determined by the estimate of the
approximate 99th percentile of the distribution of the 30 sample
average given by
X ~(.99) = E(X) + 2.33 VV(X) * 30
JU
where ^	_
E(X) = exp(y) 4in(0.5V(y))
and V(X) = exp(2y) [ i|»n(2V(y)) -	V(y)^].
The formulas for E(X) and V(X) are estimates ot E(X) and V(X)
respectively given in Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown, The
Loqnormal Distribution, Cambridge University Press, 1963, page
45.
Table VI1-13
COMBINED METALS DATA EFFLUENT VALUES (mg/1)


One Day
10 Day Avg.
30 Day

Mean
Max.
Max.
Max
Cd
0.079
0.32
0.15
0.13
Cr
0.08
0.42
0.17
0.12
Cu
0.58
1 .90
1 .00
0.73
Pb
0.12
0.15
0.13
0.12
Ni
0.57
1 .41
1 .00
0.75
Zn
0.30
1 .33
0.56
0.41
Fe
0.41
1 .23
0.63
0.51
Mn
0.21
0.43
0.34
0.27
TSS	12.0 41.0	20.0	15.5
207

-------
Application
In response to the proposed coil coating and porcelain enameling
regulations, the Agency received comments pointing out that
permits usually required less than 30 samples to be taken during
a month while the monthly average used as the basis for permits
and pretreatment requirements usually is based on the average of
30 samples.
In applying the treatment effectiveness values to regulations we
have considered the comments, examined the, sampling frequency
required by many permits and considered the change in values of
averages depending on the number of consecutive sampling days in
the averages. The most common frequency of sampling required in
permits is about ten samples per month or slightly greater than
twice weekly. The 99th percentiles of the distribution of
averages of ten consecutive sampling days are not substantially
different from the 99th percentile of the distribution's 30 day
average. (Compared to the one-day maximum, the ten-day average
is about 80 percent of the difference between one and 30 day
values). Hence the ten day average provides a reasonable basis
for a monthly average limitation and is typical of the sampling
frequency required by existing permits.
The monthly average limitation is to be achieved in all permits
and pretreatment standards regardless of the number of samples
required to be analyzed and averaged by the permit or the
pretreatment authority.
Additional Pollutants
A number of other pollutant parameters were considered with
regard to the performance of lime and settle treatment systems in
removing them from industrial wastewater. Performance data for
these parameters is not readily available, so data available to
the Agency in other categories has been selectively used to
determine the long term average. Performance of lime and settle
technology for each pollutant. These data indicate that the
concentrations shown in Table VII-14 are reliably attainable with
hydroxide precipitation and settling. The precipitation of
silver appears to be accomplished by alkaline chloride
precipitation and adequate chloride ions must be available for
this reaction to occur.
208

-------
TABLE VII-14
L&S PERFORMANCE
ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Average Performance (mq/1)
Sb
As
Be
Hg
Se
Ag
Th
A1
Co
F
0.7
0.51
0.30
0.06
0. 30
0.10
0.50
1.11
0.05
14.5
In establishing which data were suitable for use in Table VI1-14
two factors were heavily weighed; (1) the nature of the
wastewater; (2) and the range of pollutants or pollutant matrix
in the raw wastewater. These data have been selected from
processes that generate dissolved metals in the wastewater and
which are generally free from complexing agents. The pollutant
matrix was evaluated by comparing the concentrations of
pollutants found in the raw wastewaters with the range of
pollutants in the raw wastewaters of the combined metals data
set. These data are displayed in Tables VI1-15 and VI1-16 and
indicate that there is sufficient similarity in the raw wastes to
logically assume transferabi1ity of the treated pollutant
concentrations to the combined metals data base. The available
data on these added pollutants do not allow homogeneity analysis
as was performed on the combined metals data base. The data
source for each added pollutant is discussed separately.
209

-------
TABLE VI1-15
COMBINED METALS DATA SET - UNTREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Min. Cone (mq/1)
Max. Cone
Cd
<0. 1
3.83
Cr
<0. 1
1 1 6
Cu
<0. 1
108
Pb
<0. 1
29. 2
Ni
<0. 1
27.5
Zn
<0.1
337.
Fe
<0.1
263
Mn
<0.1
5.98
TSS
4.6
4390
(mq/1
TABLE VII-16
MAXIMUM POLLUTANT LEVEL IN UNTREATED WASTEWATER
ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
(mg/1)
Pollutant
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Ag
Zn
F
Fe
O&G
TSS
As & Se
4.2
<0.1
0.18
33.2
6.5
3 . 62
Be
16.9
352
10.24
8.60
1 .24
0.35
0.12
646
796
Ag_
<0. 1
0. 23
110.5
11.4
100
4.7
1 51 2
16
587.8
<0. 1
22.8
2.2
5.35
0.69
<0.1
760
2.8
5.6
210

-------
Antimony (Sb) - The achievable performance for antimony is based
on data from a battery and secondary lead plant. Both EPA
sampling data and recent permit data (1978-1982) confirm the
achievabi1ity of 0.7 mg/1 in the battery manufacturing wastewater
matrix included in the combined data set.
Arsenic (As) - The achievable performance of 0.5 mg/1 for arsenic
is based on permit data from two nonferrous metals manufacturing
plants. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-16 is
comparable with the combined data set matrix.
Beryl1ium (Be) - The treatability of beryllium is transferred
from the nonferrous metals manufacturing industry. The 0.3
performance is achieved at a beryllium plant with the comparable
untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-16.
Mercury (Hq) - The 0.06 mg/1 treatability of mercury is based on
data from four battery plants. The untreated wastewater matrix
at these plants was considered in the combined metals data set.
Selenium (Se) - The 0.30 mg/1 treatability of selenium is based
on recent permit data from one of the nonferrous metals
manufacturing plants also used for antimony performance. The
untreated wastewater matrix for this plant is shown in Table
VII-16.
Silver - The treatability of silver is based on a 0.1 mg/1
treatability estimate from the inorganic chemicals industry.
Additional data supporting a treatability as stringent or more
stringent than 0.1 mg/1 is also available from seven nonferrous
metals manufacturing plants. The untreated wastewater matrix for
these plants is comparable and summarized in Table VII-16.
Thallium (T1) - The 0.50 mg/1 treatability for thallium is
transferred from the inorganic chemicals industry. Although no
untreated wastewater data are available to verify comparability
with the combined metals data set plants, no other sources of
data for thallium treatability could be identified.
Aluminum (A1) The 1.11 mg/1 treatability of aluminum is based
on the mean performance of one aluminum forming plant and one
coil coating plant. Both of the plants are from categories
considered in the combined metals data set, assuring untreated
wastewater matrix comparability.
Cobalt (Co) - The 0.05 mg/1 treatability is based on nearly
complete removal of cobalt at a porcelain enameling plant with a
mean untreated wastewater cobalt concentration of 4.31 mg/1. In
this case, the analytical detection using aspiration techniques
211

-------
for this pollutant is used as the basis of the treatability.
Porcelain enameling was considered in the combined metals data
base, assuring untreated wastewater matrix comparability.
Fluoride (F) - The 14.5 mg/1 treatability of fluoride is based on
the mean performance of an electronics and electrical component
manufacturing plant. The untreated wastewater matrix for this
plant shown in Table VI1-16 is comparable to the combined metals
data set.
LS&F Performance
Tables VII-17 and VII-18 show long term data from two plants
which have well operated precipitation-settling treatment
followed by filtration. The wastewaters from both plants contain
pollutants from metals processing and finishing operations
(multi-category). Both plants reduce hexavalent chromium before
neutralizing and precipitating metals with lime. A clarifier is
used to remove much of the solids load and a filter is used to
"polish" or complete removal of suspended solids. Plant A uses a
pressure filter, while Plant B uses a rapid sand filter.
Raw waste data was collected only occasionally at each facility
and the raw waste data is presented as an indication of the
nature of the wastewater treated. Data from plant A was received
as a statistical summary and is presented as received. Raw
laboratory data was collected at plant B and reviewed for
spurious points and discrepancies. The method of treating the
data base is discussed below under lime, settle, and filter
treatment effectiveness.
Table VII-19 (Page 215) shows long-term data for zinc and cadmium
removal at Plant C, a primary zinc smelter, which operates a LS&F
system. This data represents about 4 months (103 data days)
taken immediately before the smelter was closed. It has been
arranged similarily to Plants A and B for comparison and use.
212

-------
TABLE VII-17
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
Plant A
Parameters
No Pts.
For 1979-Treated Wastewater
Range mq/1
Mean +
std. dev.
Mean + 2
std. dev.
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
47
1 2
47
47
0.015 - 0.13	0.045 +0.0.29	0.10
0.01	- 0.03	0.019 +0.006	0.03
0.08	- 0.64	0.22 +0.13	0.48
0.08	- 0.53	0.17 +0.09	0.35
For 1978-Treated Wastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
47
28
47
47
21
0.01
0.005
0.10
0.08
0.26
0.07
0.055
0.92
2.35
1 . 1
0.06 +0.10
0.016 +0,010
0.20
0.23
0.49
+ 0.14
+ 0.34
+ 0.18
0.26
0.04
0. 48
0.91
0.85
Raw Waste
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
5
5
5
5
5
32.0
0.08
1 .65
33.2
10.0
72.0
0.45
20.0
32.0
95.0
213

-------
TABLE VI1-18
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
Plant B
Parameters
No Pts.
For 1979-Treated Wastewater
Range rnq/1
Mean +
std. dev.
Mean + 2
std. dev.
Cr
175
0.0

0.40
0. 068
+0.075
0. 22
Cu
176
0.0

0.22
0.024
+0.021
0.07
Ni
175
0.01
-
1 .49
0.219
+0.234
0.69
Zn
175
0.01
-
0.66
0.054
+0.064
0.18
Fe
174
0.01
_
2.40
0.303
+0.398
1.10
TSS
2
1 .00
—
1 .00



For 1978-Treated Wastewater





Cr
144
0.0
—
0.70
0.059
+0.088
0.24
Cu
143
0.0
-
0.23
0.017
+0.020
0.06
Ni
143
0.0

1 .03
0. 147
+0.142
0.43
Zn
131
0.0
-
0.24
0.037
+0.034
0.1 1
Fe
144
0.0
—
1 .76
0.200
+0.223
0.47
Total 1974-
1979-Treated
Wastewater



Cr
1 288
0.0
	
0.56
0.038
+0.055
0.15
Cu
1 290
0.0
-
0.23
0.01 1
+0.016
0.04
Ni
1287
0.0
_
1 .88
0. 184
+0.211
0.60
Zn
1273
0.0
_
0.66
0. 035
+0.045
0.13
Fe
1 287
0.0
-
3. 15
0.401
+0.509
1 .42
Raw Waste
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
TSS
3
3
3
2
3
2
2.80
0.09
1 .61
2.35
3.13
177 •
-9.15
-	0.27
-	4.89
-	3.39
-35. 9
-466.
5.90
0.17
3.33
22.4
214

-------
TABLE VII-19
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
Plant C
For Treated Wastewater
Parameters No Pts. Range mq/1
For Treated Wastewater
Mean +
std. dev.
Mean + 2
std. dev.
Cd
Zn
TSS
PH
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
0.010	- 0.500	0.049	+0.049 0.147
0.039	- 0.899	0.290 +0.131	0.552
0.100	- 5.00	1.244	+1.043	3.33
7.1	- 7.9	9.2*
For Untreated Wastewater
Cd
Zn
Fe
TSS
PH
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
3
0.039 - 2.319 0.542 +0.381 1.304
0.949 -29.8 11.009 +6.933 24.956
0.107 - 0.46 0.255
0.80 -19.6 5.616 +2.896 11.408
6.8 - 8.2 7.6*
* pH value is median of 103 values.
These data are presented to demonstrate the performance of
precipitation-settling-filtration (LS&F) technology under actual
operating conditions and over a long period of time.
It should be noted that the iron content of the raw waste of
plants A and B is high while that for Plant C is low. This
results, for plants A and B, in co-precipitation of toxic metals
with iron. Precipitation using high-calcium lime for pH control
yields the results shown above. Plant operating personnel
indicate that this chemical treatment combination (sometimes with
polymer assisted coagulation) generally produces better and more
consistant metals removal than other combinations of sacrificial
metal ions and alkalis.
The LS&F performance data presented here are based on systems
that provide polishing filtration after effective L&S treatment.
We have previously shown that L&S treatment is equally applicable
to wastewaters from the five categories because of the
homogeneity of its raw and treated wastewaters, and other
factors. Because of the similarity of the wastewaters after L&S
treatment, the Agency believes these wastewaters are equally
amenable to treatment using polishing filters added to the L&S
treatment system. The Agency concludes that LS&F data based on
porcelain enameling and non-ferrous smelting and refining is
directly applicable to the aluminum forming, copper forming,
215

-------
battery manufacturing, coil coating, and metal molding and
casting categories, as well as to the porcelain enameling and
nonferrous melting and refining.
Analysis of Treatment System Effectiveness
Data are presented in Table VI1-13 showing the mean, one day, 10
day, and 30 day values for nine pollutants examined in the L&S
metals data base. The mean variability factor for eight
pollutants (excluding cadmium because of the small number of data
points) was determined and is used to estimate one day, 10 day
and 30 day values. (The variability factor is the ratio of the
value of concern to the mean: the average variability factors
are: one day maximum - 4.100; ten day average - 1.821; and 3 0 day
average - 1.618.) For values not calculated from the common data
base as previously discussed, the mean value for pollutants shown
in Table VII-14 were multiplied by the variability factors to
derive the value to obtain the one, ten and 30 day values. These
are tabulated in Table VII-20.
LS&F technology data are presented in Tables VI1-17 and VI1-18.
These data represent two operating plantsi(A and B) in which the
technology has been installed and operated for some years. Plant
A data was received as a statistical summary and is presented
without change. Plant B data was received as raw laboratory
analysis data. Discussions with plant personnel indicated that
operating experiments and changes in materials and reagents and
occasional operating errors had occurred during the data
collection period. No specific information was available on
those variables. To sort out high . values probably caused by
methodological factors from random statistical variability, or
data noise, the plant B data were analyzed. For each of four
pollutants (chromium, nickel, zinc, and iron), the mean and
standard deviation (sigma) were calculated for the entire data
set. A data day was removed from the complete data set when any
individual pollutant concentration for that day exceeded the sum
of the mean plus three sigma for that pollutant. Fifty-one data
days (from a total of about 1300) were eliminated by this method.
Another approach was also used as a check on the above method of
eliminating certain high values. The minimum values of raw
wastewater concentrations from Plant B for the same four
pollutants were compared to the total set of values for the
corresponding pollutants. Any day on which the pollutant
concentration exceeded the minimum value selected from raw
wastewater concentrations for that pollutant was discarded.
Forty-five days of data were eliminated by that procedure.
Forty-three days of data in common were eliminated by either
procedures. Since common engineering practice (mean plus 3
216

-------
sigma) and logic (treated waste should be less than raw waste)
seem to coincide, the data base with the 51 spurious data days
eliminated is the basis for all further analysis. Range, mean,
standard deviation and mean plus two standard deviations are
shown in Tables VII-17 and VII-18 for Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn and Fe.
The Plant B data was separated into 1979, 1978, and total data
base (six years) segments. With the statistical analysis from
Plant A for 1978 and 1979 this in effect created five data sets
in which there is some overlap between the individual years and
total data sets from Plant B. By comparing these five parts it
is apparent that they are quite similar and all appear to be from
the same family of numbers. The largest mean found among the
five data sets for each pollutant was selected as the long term
mean for LS&F technology and is used as the LS&F mean in Table
VI1-20.
Plant C data was used as a basis for cadmium removal performance
and as a check on the zinc values derived from Plants A and B.
The cadmium data is displayed in Table VII-17 (page 213) and is
incorporated into Table VII-20 for LS&F. The zinc data was
analyzed for compliance with the 1-day and 30-day values in Table
VII-20; no zinc value of the 103 data points exceeded the 1-day
zinc value of 1.02 mg/1. The 103 data points were separated into
blocks of 30 points and averaged. Each of the 3 full 30-day
averages was less than the Table VII-20 value of 0.31 mg/1.
Additionally the Plant C raw wastewater pollutant concentrations
(Table VII-19) are well within the range of raw wastewater
concentrations of the combined metals data base (Table VI1-15),
further supporting the conclusion that Plant C wastewater data is
compatible with similar data from Plants A and B.
Concentration values for regulatory use are displayed in Table
VII-20. Mean one day, ten day and 30 day values for L&S for nine
pollutants were taken from Table VII-12; the remaining L&S values
were developed using the mean values in Table VII-14 and the mean
varaiability factors discussed above.
LS&F mean values for Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn and Fe are derived from
plants A, B, and C as discussed above. One, ten and thirty day
values are derived by applying the variability factor developed
from the pooled data base for the specific pollutant to the mean
for that pollutant. Other LS&F values are calculated using the
long term average or mean and the appropriate variability
factors. Mean values for LS&F for pollutants not already
discussed are derived by reducing the L&S mean by one-third. The
one-third reduction was established after examining the percent
reduction in concentrations going from L&S to LS&F data for Cd,
217

-------
Cr, Ni, Zn, and Fe. The average reduction is 0.3338 or one
third.
Copper levels achieved at ?lants A and B may be lower than
generally achievable because oi' the high iron content and low
copper content of the raw wastewaters. Therefore, the mean
concentration value achieved is not used; LS&F mean used is
derived from the L&S technology.
L&S cyanide mean levels shown in Table VI1-8 are ratioed to one
day, ten day and 30 day values using mean variability factors.
LS&F mean cyanide is calculated by applying the ratios of
removals L&S and LS&F as discussed previously for LS&F metals
limitations. The cyanide performance was arrived at by using the
average metal variability factors. The treatment method used
here is cyanide precipitation. Because cyanide precipitation is
limited by the same physical processes as the metal
precipitation, it is expected that the variabilities will be
similar. Therefore, the average of the metal variability factors
has been used as a basis for calculating the cyanide one day, ten
day and thirty day average treatment effectiveness values.
The filter performance for removing TSS as shown in Table VII-9
yields a mean effluent concentration of 2.61 mg/1 and calculates
to a 10 day average of 4.33, 30 day average of 3.36 mg/1; a one
day maximum of 8.88. These calculated values more than amply
support the classic values of 10 and 15, respectively, which are
used for LS&F.
Although iron was reduced in some LS&F operations, some
facilities using that treatment introduce iron compounds to aid
settling. Therefore, the one day, ten day and 30 day values for
iron at LS&F were held at the L&S level so as to not unduly
penalize the operations which use the relatively less
objectionable iron compounds to enhance removals of toxic metals.
218

-------
TABLE VI1-20
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness
(mg/1)
Pollutant
Parameter

L&S
Technology
System


. LS&F
Technology
System



Mean
One
Day
Max.
Ten
Day
Avq.
Thirty
Day
Avq.
Mean
One
Day
Max.
Ten
Day
Avq.
Thirty
Day
Avq.
114
11 5
11 7
Sb
AS
Be
0.70
0.51
0.30
2.87
2.09
1 .23
1 .28
0.86
0.51
1.14
0.83
0.49
0.47
0.34
0.20
1 . 93
1 . 39
0. 82
0.86
0. 57
0.34
0.76
0. 55
0. 32
11 8
11 9
1 20
Cd
Cr
Cu
0. 079
0.080
0.58
0.32
0.42
1 .90
0.15
0.17
1 .00
0.13
0.12
0. 73
0.049
0.07
0.39
0. 20
0. 37
1 . 28
0.08
0.15
0.61
0. 08
0. 10
0. 49
121
1 22
1 23
CN
Pb
Hg
0.07
0. 12
0. 06
0.29
0.15
0. 25
0.12
0.13
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.10
0.047
0.08
0. 036
0.20
0.1 0
0.15
0.08
0.09
0. 06
0.08
0.08
0. 06
124
1 25
1 26
Ni
Se
Ag
0.57
0. 30
0.10
1 .41
1 . 23
0.41
1 .00
0.55
0.17
0.75
0. 49
0.16
0. 22
0. 20
0. 07
0. 55
0.82
0. 29
0. 37
0. 37
0.12
0. 29
0.33
0.10
1 27
1 28
T1
Zn
A1
0.50
0.30
1.11
2.05
1 .33
4.55
0.84
0.56
1 .86
0.81
0.41
1 .80
0. 34
0. 23
0.74
1 .40
1 . 02
3.03
0. 57
0.42
1 . 24
0. 55
0.31
1 . 20

Co
F
Fe
0.05
14.5
0.41
0.21
59.5
1 . 23
0.09
26.4
0.63
0. 08
23.5
0.51
0. 034
9. 67
0. 28
0. 14
39. 7
1 . 23
0.07
17.6
0.63
0.06
15.7
0.51

Mn
P
0.21
4. 08
0.43
16.7
0. 34
6.83
0.27
6. 60
0.14
2.72
0. 30
11.2
0. 23
4.6
0.19
4.4

O&G
TSS
12.0
20.0
41 .0
12.0
20.0
10.0
15.5
2.6
10.0
15.0
10.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
MINOR TECHNOLOGIES
Several other treatment technologies were considered for possible
application in BPT or BAT. These technologies are presented here
with a full discussion for most of them. A few are described
only briefly because of limited technical development.
219

-------
8. Carbon Adsorption
The use of activated carbon to remove dissolved organics from
water and wastewater is a long demonstrated technology. It is
one of the most efficient organic removal processes available.
This sorption process is reversible, allowing activated carbon to
be regenerated for reuse by the application of heat and steam or
solvent. Activated carbon has also proved to be an effective
adsorbent for many toxic metals, including mercury. 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 m2/gm resulting from a large number of
internal pores. Pore sizes generally range from 10-100 angstroms
in radius.
Activated carbon removes contaminants from water by the process
of adsorption, or 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 organic
compounds from aqueous solution.
Carbon adsorption requires pretreatment to remove excess
suspended solids, oils, and greases. Suspended solids in the
influent should be less than 50 mg/1 to minimize backwash
requirements; a downflow carbon bed can handle much higher levels
(up to 2000 mg/1), but requires frequent backwashing.
Backwashing more than two or three times a day is not desirable;
at 50 mg/1 suspended solids one backwash will suffice. Oil and
grease should be less than about 10 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.
An adsorption column packed with granular activated carbon is
shown in Figure VII-17 (page 283). Powdered carbon is less
220

-------
expensive per unit weight and may have slightly higher adsorption
capacity, but it is more difficult to handle and to regenerate.
Application and Performance. Carbon adsorption is used to remove
mercury from wastewaters. The removal rate is influenced by the
mercury level in the influent to the adsorption unit. Removal
levels found at three manufacturing facilities are shown in Table
VI1-21.
Table VII-21
ACTIVATED CARBON PERFORMANCE (MERCURY)
Mercury levels	- mq/1
Plant In. Out
A 28.0 0.9
B 0.36 0.015
C 0.008 0.0005
In the aggregate these data indicate that very low effluent
levels could be attained from any raw waste by use of multiple
adsorption stages. This is characteristic of adsorption
processes.
Isotherm tests have indicated that activated carbon is very
effective in adsorbing 65 percent of the organic priority
pollutants and is reasonably effective for another 22 percent.
Specifically, for the organics of particular interest, activated
carbon was very effective in removing 2,4-dimethylphenol,
fluoranthene, isophorone, naphthalene, all phthalates, and
phenanthrene.	It was reasonably effective on 1,1,1—
trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, phenol, and toluene. Table
VII-22 (page 265) summarizes the treatability effectiveness for
most of the organic priority pollutants by activated carbon as
compiled by EPA. Table VII-23 (page 266) summarizes classes of
organic compounds together with examples of organics that are
readily adsorbed on carbon.
Advantages and Limitations. The major benefits of carbon
treatment include applicability to a wide variety of organics,
and high removal efficiency. Inorganics such as cyanide,
chromium, and mercury are also removed effectively. Variations
in concentration and flow rate are well tolerated. The system is
compact, and recovery of adsorbed materials is sometimes
practical. However, 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. The capital and operating costs of thermal
221

-------
regeneration are relatively high. Cost surveys show that thermal
regeneration is generally economical when carbon usage exceeds
about 1,000 lb/day. Carbon cannot remove low molecular weight or
highly soluble organics. It also has a low tolerance for
suspended solids, which must be removed to at least 50 mg/1 in
the influent water.
Operational Factors. Reliability: This system should be very
reliable with upstream protection and proper operation and
maintenance procedures.
Maintainability: This system requires periodic regeneration or
replacement of spent carbon and is dependent upon raw waste load
and process efficiency.
Solid Waste Aspects: Solid waste from this process is
contaminated activated carbon that requires disposal. Carbon
undergoes regeneration, reduces the solid waste problem by
reducing the frequency of carbon replacement.
Demonstration Status. Carbon adsorption systems have been
demonstrated to be practical and economical in reducing COD, BOD
and related parameters in secondary municipal and industrial
wastewaters; in removing toxic or refractory organics from
isolated industrial wastewaters; in removing and recovering
certain organics from wastewaters; and in the removing and some
times recovering, of selected inorganic chemicals from aqueous
wastes. Carbon adsorption is a viable and economic process for
organic waste streams containing up to 1 to 5 percent of
refractory or toxic organics. Its applicability for removal of
inorganics such as metals has also been demonstrated.
9. Centrifuqation
Centrifugation is the application of centrifugal force to
separate solids and liquids in a liquid-solid mixture or to
effect .concentration of the solids. The application of
centrifugal force is effective because of the density
differential normally found between the insoluble solids and the
liquid in which they are contained. As a waste treatment
procedure, centrifugation is applied to dewatering of sludges.
One type of centrifuge is shown in Figure VI1-18 (page 284).
There are three common types of centrifuges: the disc, basket,
and conveyor type.- All three operate by removing solids under
the influence of centrifugal force. The fundamental difference
between the three types is the method by which solids are
collected in and discharged from the bowl.
222

-------
In the disc centrifuge, the sludge feed is distributed between
narrow channels that are present as spaces between stacked
conical discs. Suspended particles are collected and discharged
continuously through small orifices in the bowl wall. The
clarified effluent is discharged through an overflow weir.
A second type of centrifuge which is useful in dewatering sludges
is the basket centrifuge. In this type of centrifuge, sludge
feed is introduced at the bottom of the basket, and solids
collect at the bowl wall while clarified effluent overflows the
lip ring at the top. Since the basket centrifuge does not have
provision for continuous discharge of collected cake, operation
requires interruption of the feed for cake discharge for a minute
or two in a 10 to 30 minute overall cycle.
The third type of centrifuge commonly used in sludge dewatering
is the conveyor type. Sludge is fed through a stationary feed
pipe into a rotating bowl in which the solids are settled out
against the bowl wall by centrifugal force. From the bowl wall,
they are moved by a screw to the end of the machine, at which
point whey are discharged. The liquid effluent is discharged
through ports after passing the length of the bowl under
centrifugal force.
Application And Performance. Virtually all industrial waste
treatment systems producing sludge can use centrifugation to
dewater it. Centrifugation is currently being used by a wide
range of industrial concerns-.
The performance of sludge dewatering by centrifugation depends on
the feed rate, the rotational velocity of the drum, and the
sludge composition and concentration. Assuming proper design and
operation, the solids content of the sludge can be increased to
20-35 percent.
Advantages And Limitations. Sludge dewatering centrifuges have
minimal space requirements and show a high degree of effluent
clarification. The operation is simple, clean, and relatively
inexpensive. The area required for a centrifuge system
installation is less than that required for a filter system or
sludge drying bed of equal capacity, and the initial cost is
lower.
Centrifuges have a high power cost that partially offsets the low
initial cost. Special consideration must also be given to
providing sturdy foundations and soundproofing because of the
vibration and noise that result from . centrifuge operation.
Adequate electrical power must also be provided since large
motors are required. The major difficulty encountered in the
223

-------
operation of centrifuges has been the disposal of the concentrate
which is relatively high in suspended, non-settling solids.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Centrifugation is highly
reliable with proper control of factors such as sludge feed,
consistency, and temperature. Pretreatment such as grit removal
and coagulant addition may be necessary, depending on the
composition of the sludge and on the type of centrifuge employed.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic lubrication,
cleaning, and inspection. The frequency and degree of inspection
required varies depending on the type of sludge solids being
dewatered and the maintenance service conditions. If the sludge
is abrasive, it is recommended that the first inspection of the
rotating assembly be made after approximately 1,000 hours of
operation. If the sludge is not abrasive or corrosive, then the
initial inspection might be delayed. Centrifuges not equipped
with a continuous sludge discharge system require periodic
shutdowns for manual sludge cake removal.
Solid Waste Aspects: Sludge dewatered in the centrifugation
process may be disposed of by landfill. The clarified effluent
(centrate), if high in dissolved or suspended solids, may require
further treatment prior to discharge.
Demonstration Status. Centrifugation is currently used in a
great many commercial applications to dewater sludge. Work .... is
underway to improve the efficiency, increase the capacity, and
lower the costs associated with centrifugation.
10. Coalescing
The basic principle of coalescence involves the preferential
wetting of a coalescing medium by oil droplets which accumulate
on the medium and then rise to the surface of the solution as
they combine to form larger particles. The most important
requirements for coalescing media are wettability for oil and
large surface area. Monofilament line is sometimes used as a
coalescing medium.
Coalescing stages may be integrated with a wide variety of
gravity oil separation devices, and some systems may incorporate
several coalescing stages. In general a preliminary oil skimming
step is desirable to avoid overloading the coalescer.
One commercially marketed system for oily waste treatment
combines coalescing with inclined plate separation and
filtration. In this system, the oily wastes flow into an
inclined plate settler. This unit consists of a stack of
224

-------
inclined baffle plates in a cylindrical container with an oil
collection chamber at the top. The oil droplets rise and impinge
upon the undersides of the plates. They then migrate upward to a
guide rib which directs the oil to the oil collection chamber,
from which oil is discharged for reuse or disposal.
The oily water continues on through another cylinder containing
replaceable filter cartridges, which remove suspended particles
from the waste. From there the wastewater enters a final
cylinder in which the coalescing material is housed. As the oily
water passes through the many small, irregular, continuous
passages in the coalescing material, the oil droplets coalesce
and rise to an oil collection chamber.
Application and Performance. Coalescing is used to treat oily
wastes which do not separate readily in simple gravity systems.
The three stage system described above has achieved effluent
concentrations of 10-15 mg/1 oil and grease from raw waste
concentrations of 1000 mg/1 or more.
Advantages and Limitations. Coalescing allows removal of oil
droplets too finely dispersed for conventional gravity
separation-skimming technology. It also*can significantly reduce
the residence times (and therefore separator volumes) required to
achieve separation of oil from some wastes. Because of its
simplicity, coalescing provides generally high reliability and
low capital and operating costs. Coalescing is not generally
effective in removing soluble or chemically stabilized emulsified
oils. To avoid plugging, coalescers must be protected by
pretreatment from very high concentrations of free oil and grease
and suspended solids. Frequent replacement of prefilters may be
necessary when raw waste oil concentrations are high.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Coalescing is inherently
highly reliable since there are no moving parts, and the
coalescing substrate (monofilament, etc.) is inert in the
process and therefore not subject to frequent regeneration or
replacement requirements. Large loads or inadequate
pretreatment, however, may result in plugging or bypass of
coalescing stages.
Maintainability: Maintenance requirements are generally limited
to replacement of the coalescing medium on an infrequent basis.
Solid Waste Aspects: No appreciable solid waste is generated by
this process.
225

-------
Demonstration Status. Coalescing has been fully demonstrated in
industries generating oily wastewater, although none are
currently not in use at any porcelain enameling facility.
11. Cyanide Oxidation By Chlorine
Cyanide oxidation using chlorine is widely used in industrial
waste treatment to oxidize cyanide. Chlorine can be utilized in
either the elemental or hypochlorite forms. This classic
procedure can be illustrated by the following two step chemical
reaction:
1.	Cl2 + NaCN + 2NaOH —> NaCNO + 2NaCl + Hz0
2.	3C12 + 6NaOH + 2NaCN0 —> 2NaHC03 + Nz + 6NaCl + 2HZ0
The reaction presented as equation (2) for the oxidation of
cyanate is the final step in the oxidation of cyanide. A
complete system for the alkaline chlorination of cyanide is shown
in Figure VII-19 (page 285).
The alkaline chlorination process oxidizes cyanides to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen. The equipment often consists of an
equalization tank followed by two reaction tanks, although the
reaction can be carried out in a single tank. Each tank has an
electronic recorder-controller to maintain required conditions
with respect to pH and oxidation reduction potential (ORP). In
the first reaction tank, conditions are adjusted to oxidize
cyanides to cyanates. To effect the reaction, chlorine is
metered to the reaction tank as required to maintain the ORP in
the range of 350 to 400 millivolts, and 50 percent aqueous
caustic soda is added to maintain a pH range of 9.5 to 10. In
the second reaction tank, conditions are maintained to oxidize
cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The desirable ORP and pH
for this reaction are 600 millivolts and a pH of 8.0. Each of
the reaction tanks is equipped with a propeller agitator designed
to provide approximately one turnover per minute. Treatment by
the batch process is accomplished by using two tanks, one for
collection of water over a specified time period, and one tank
for the treatment of an accumulated batch. If dumps of
concentrated wastes are frequent, another tank may be required to
equalize the flow to the treatment tank. When the holding tank
is full, the liquid is transferred to the reaction tank for
treatment. After treatment, the supernatant is discharged and
the sludges are collected for removal and ultimate disposal.
Application and Performance. The oxidation of cyanide waste by
chlorine is a classic process and is found in most industrial
plants using cyanide. This process is capable of achieving
226

-------
effluent levels that are nondetectable. The process is
potentially applicable to coil coating facilities where cyanide
is a component in conversion coating formulations.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of chlorine
oxidation for handling process effluents are operation at ambient
temperature, suitability for automatic control, and low cost.
Disadvantages include the need for careful pH control, possible
chemical interference in the treatment of mixed wastes, and the
potential hazard of storing and handling chlorine gas.
Operational Factors.
reliable with proper
pretreatment to control
Reliability:
monitoring
interfering
Chlorine oxidation is highly
and control, and proper
substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists
sludge and recalibration of instruments.
of periodic removal of
Solid Waste Aspects: There is
with chlorine oxidation.
no solid waste problem associated
Demonstration Status. The oxidation of
chlorine is a widely used process in plants
cleaning and metal processing baths.
12. Cyanide Oxidation By Ozone
cyanide
using
wastes
cyanide
by
in
Ozone is a highly reactive oxidizing agent which is approximately
ten times more soluble than oxygen on a weight basis in water.
Ozone may be produced by several methods, but the silent
electrical discharge method is predominant in the field. The
silent electrical discharge process produces ozone by passing
oxygen or air between electrodes separated by an insulating
material. A complete ozonation system is represented in Figure
VI1-20 (page 286).
Application and Performance. Ozonation has been applied
commercially to oxidize cyanides, phenolic chemicals, and organo-
metal complexes. Its applicability to photographic wastewaters
has been studied in the laboratory with good results. Ozone is
used in industrial waste treatment primarily to oxidize cyanide
to cyanate and to oxidize phenols and dyes to a variety of
colorless nontoxic products.
Oxidation of cyanide to cyanate is illustrated below:
CN- + 03 —> CNO- + 03
227

-------
Continued exposure to ozone will convert the cyanate formed to
carbon dioxide and ammonia; however, this is not economically
practical.
Ozone oxidation of cyanide to cyanate requires 1.8 to 2.0 pounds
ozone per pound of CN-; complete oxidation requires 4.6 to 5.0
pounds ozone per pound of CN-. Zinc, copper, and nickel cyanides
are easily destroyed to a nondetectable level, but cobalt and
iron cyanides are more resistant to ozone treatment.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of ozone oxidation
for handling process effluents are its suitability to automatic
control and on-site generation and the fact that reaction
products are not chlorinated organics and no dissolved solids are
added in the treatment step. Ozone in the presence of activated
carbon, ultraviolet, and other promoters shows promise of
reducing reaction time and improving ozone utilization, but the
process at present is limited by high capital expense, possible
chemical interference in the treatment of mixed wastes, and an
energy requirement of 25 kwh/kg of ozone generated. Cyanide is
not economically oxidized beyond the cyanate form.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Ozone oxidation is highly
reliable with proper monitoring and control, and proper
pretreatment to control interfering substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic removal of
sludge, and periodic renewal of filters and desiccators required
for the input of clean dry air; filter life is a function of
input concentrations of detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects: Pretreatment to eliminate substances which
will interfere with the process may be necessary. Dewatering of
sludge generated in the ozone oxidation process or in an "in
line" process may be desirable prior to disposal.
13. Cyanide Oxidation By Ozone With UV Radiation
One of the modifications of the ozonation process is the
simultaneous application of ultraviolet light and ozone for the
treatment of wastewater, including treatment of halogenated
organics. The combined action of these two forms produces
reactions by photolysis, photosensitization, hydroxylation,
oxygenation and oxidation. The process is unique because several
reactions and reaction species are active simultaneously.
Ozonation is facilitated by ultraviolet absorption because both
the ozone and the reactant molecules are raised to a higher
energy state so that they react more rapidly. In addition, free
228

-------
X
radicals for use in the reaction are readily hydrolyzed by the
water present. The energy and reaction intermediates created by
the introduction of both ultraviolet and ozone greatly reduce the
amount of ozone required compared with a system using ozone
alone. Figure VII-21 (page 287) shows a three-stage UV-ozone
system. A system to treat mixed cyanides requires pretreatment
that involves chemical coagulation, sedimentation, clarification,
equalization, and pH adjustment.
Application and Performance. The ozone-UV radiation process was
developed primarily for cyanide treatment in the electroplating
and color photo-processing areas. It has been successfully
applied to mixed cyanides and organics from organic chemicals
manufacturing processes. The process is particularly useful for
treatment of complexed cyanides such as ferricyanide, copper
cyanide and nickel cyanide, which are resistant to ozone alone.
Ozone combined with UV radiation is a relatively new technology.
Four units are currently in operation and all four treat cyanide
bearing waste.
Ozone-UV treatment could be used in coil coating plants to
destroy cyanide present in waste streams from some conversion
coating operations.
1.4. Cyanide Oxidation By Hydrogen Peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide oxidation removes both cyanide and metals in
cyanide containing wastewaters. In this process, cyanide bearing
waters are heated to 49 - 54°C (120 - 130°F) and the pH is
adjusted to 10.5 - 11.8 Formalin (-3-7— percent formaldehyde) is
added while the tank is vigorously agitated. After 2-5 minutes,
a proprietary peroxygen compound (41 percent hydrogen peroxide
with a catalyst and additives) is added. After an hour of
mixing, the reaction is complete. The cyanide is converted to
cyanate and the metals are precipitated as oxides or hydroxides.
The metals are then removed from solution by either settling or
filtration.
The main equipment required for this process is two holding tanks
equipped with heaters and air spargers or mechanical stirrers.
These tanks may be used in a batch or continuous fashion, with
one tank being used for treatment while the other is being
filled. A settling tank or a filter is needed to concentrate the
precipitate.
229

-------
/
Application and Performance. The hydrogen peroxide oxidation
process is applicable to cyanidebearing wastewaters, especially
those containing metal-cyanide complexes. In terms of waste
reduction performance, this process can reduce total cyanide to
less than 0.1 mg/1 and the zinc or cadmium to less than 1.0 mg/1.
Advantages and Limitations. Chemical costs are similar to those
for alkaline chlorination using chlorine and lower than those for
treatment with hypochlorite. All free cyanide reacts and is
completely oxidized to the less toxic cyanate state. In
addition, the metals precipitate and settle quickly, and they may
be recoverable in many instances. However, the process requires
energy expenditures to heat the wastewater prior to treatment.
Demonstration Status. This treatment process was introduced in
1971 and is used in several facilities. No porcelain enameling
plants use oxidation by hydrogen peroxide.
15. 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, to be consistent with industry
terminology, evaporation is used in this report to describe both
processes. Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are commonly
used in industry today. Specific evaporation techniques are
shown in Figure VII-22 (page 288) and discussed below.
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
humidifies the air stream. The fan then blows the hot, humid air
to the outside atmosphere. A scrubber is often unnecessary
because the packed column itself acts as a scrubber.
Another form of atmospheric evaporator also works on the air
humidification principle, but the evaporated water is recovered
230

-------
for reuse by condensation. These air humidification techniques
operate well below the boiling point of water and can utilize
waste process heat to supply 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 cost in energy but with added capital
cost and complexity. The double effect technique is
thermodynamically possible because the second evaporator is
maintained at lower pressure (higher 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 submerged 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
eductor-type pump, which creates the required vacuum by the flow
of the condenser cooling water through a venturi. Waste water
accumulates in the bottom of the vessel, and it 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 removed from the bottom of the vessel.
The major elements of the climbing film evaporator are the
evaporator, separator, condenser, and vacuum pump. Waste water
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 so
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
231

-------
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 applied to recovery of phosphate metal cleaning solutions.
In theory, evaporation should yield a concentrate and a deionized
condensate. Actually, carry-over has resulted in condensate
metal concentrations as high as 10 mg/1, although the usual level
is less than 3 mg/1, pure enough for most final rinses. The
condensate may also contain organic brighteners and antifoaming
agents. These can be removed with an activated carbon bed, if
necessary. Samples from one plant showed 1,900 mg/1 zinc in the
feed, 4,570 mg/1 in the concentrate, and 0.4 mg/1 in the
condensate. Another plant had 416 mg/1 copper in the feed and
21,800 mg/1 in the concentrate. Chromium analysis for that plant
indicated 5,060 mg/1 in the feed and 27,500 mg/1 in the
concentrate. Evaporators are available in a range of capacities,
typically from 15 to 75 gph, and may be used in parallel
arrangements for processing of higher flow rates.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of the evaporation
process are that it permits recovery of a wide variety of process
chemicals, and it is often applicable to concentration or removal
of compounds which cannot be accomplished by any other means.
The major disadvantage is that the evaporation process consumes
relatively large amounts of energy for the evaporation of water.
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 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 maintaining a seed slurry which provides
preferential sites for precipitate deposition. In addition, low
temperature differences in the evaporator will eliminate nucleate
boiling and supersaturation effects. Steam distillable
232

-------
impurities in the process stream are carried over with the
product water and must be handled by pre or post treatment.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Proper maintenance will
ensure a high degree of reliability for the system. Without such
attention, rapid fouling or deterioration of vacuum seals may
occur, especially when handling corrosive liquids.
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.
Solid Waste Aspects: With only a few exceptions, the process
does not generate appreciable quantities of solid waste.
Demonstration Status. Evaporation is a fully developed,
commercially available wastewater treatment system. 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. Proven performance in silver recovery
indicates that evaporation could be a useful treatment operation
for the photographic industry, as well as for metal finishing.
No data have been reported showing the use of evaporation in
porcelain enameling plants.
16. Flotation
Flotation is the process of causing particles such as metal
hydroxides or oil to float to the surface of a tank where they
can be concentrated and removed. This is accomplished by
releasing gas bubbles which attach to the solid particles,
increasing their buoyancy and causing them to float. In
principle, this process is the opposite of sedimentation. Figure
VI1-23 (page 289) shows one type of flotation system.
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewater
streams that carry heavy loads of finely divided suspended solids
or oil. Solids having a specific gravity only slightly greater
than 1.0, which would require abnormally long sedimentation
times, may be removed in much less time 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.
The principal difference among types of flotation is the method
of generating the minute gas bubbles (usually air) in a
233

-------
suspension of water and small particles. Chemicals may be used
to improve the efficiency with any of the basic methods. The
following paragraphs describe the different flotation techniques
and the method of bubble generation for each process.
Froth Flotation - Froth flotation is based on differences in the
physiochemical properties in various particles. Wettability and
surface properties affect the particles' ability to attach
themselves to gas bubbles in an aqueous medium. In froth
flotation, air is blown through the solution containing flotation
reagents. The particles with water repellant surfaces stick to
air bubbles as they rise 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 means of 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 by releasing air from a supersaturated solution under
relatively high pressure. There are two types of contact between
the gas bubbles and particles. The first type is predominant in
the flotation of flocculated materials and 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. 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 waste
water with air either directly in an aeration tank, or by
permitting air to enter on the suction of a wastewater pump. A
partial vacuum is applied, which causes the dissolved air to come
out of solution as minute bubbles. The bubbles attach to solid
particles and rise to the surface to form a scum blanket, which
is normally removed by a skimming mechanism. Grit and other
heavy solids that 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.
234

-------
Auxilliary equipment includes an aeration tank for saturating the
wastewater with air, a tank with a short retention time for
removal of large bubbles, vacuum pumps, and sludge pumps.
Application and Performance. The primary variables for flotation
design are pressure, feed solids concentration, and retention
period. The suspended solids in the effluent decrease, and the
concentration of solids in the float increases with increasing
retention period. When the flotation process is used primarily
for clarification, a retention period of 20 to 30 minutes is
adequate for separation and concentration.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of the flotation
process are the high levels of solids separation achieved in many
applications, the relatively low energy requirements, and the
adaptability to meet the treatment requirements of different
waste types. Limitations of flotation are that it often requires
addition of chemicals to enhance process performance and that it
generates large quantities of solid waste.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Flotation systems normally
are very reliable with proper maintenance of the sludge collector
mechanism and the motors and pumps used for aeration.
Maintainability: 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.
Solid Waste Aspects: Chemicals are commonly used to aid the
flotation process by creating a surface or a structure that can
easily adsorb or entrap air bubbles. Inorganic chemicals, such
as the aluminum and ferric salts, and activated silica, can bind
the particulate matter together and create a structure that can
entrap air bubbles. Various organic chemicals can change the
nature of either the air-liquid interface or the solid-liquid
interface, or both. These compounds usually collect on the
interface to bring about the desired changes. The added
chemicals .plus the particles in solution combine to form a large
volume of sludge which must be further treated or properly
disposed.
Demonstration Status. Flotation is a fully developed process and
is readily available for the treatment of a wide variety of
industrial waste streams.
235

-------
17.
Gravity Sludge Thickening
In the gravity thickening process, dilute sludge is fed from a
primary settling tank or clarifier to a thickening tank where
rakes stir the sludge gently ';o density it and to push it to a
central collection well. The supernatant is returned to the
primary settling tank. The'thickened sludge that collects on the
bottom of the tank is pumped to dewatering equipment or hauled
away. Figure VII-24 (page 290) shows the construction of a
gravity thickener.
Application and Performance. Thickeners are generally used in
facilities where the sludge is to be further dewatered by a
compact mechanical device such as a vacuum filter or centrifuge.
Doubling the solids content in the thickener substantially
reduces capital and operating cost of the subsequent dewatering
device and also reduces cost for hauling. The process is
potentially applicable to almost any industrial plant.
Organic sludges from sedimentation units of one to two percent
solids concentration can usually be gravity thickened to six to
ten percent; chemical sludges can be thickened to four to six
percent.
Advantages and Limitations. The principal advantage of a gravity
sludge thickening process is that it facilitates further sludge
dewatering. Other advantages are high reliability and minimum
maintenance requirements.
Limitations of the sludge thickening process are its sensitivity
to the flow rate through the thickener _and the sludge removal
rate. These rates must be low enough not to disturb the
thickened sludge.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Reliability is high with
proper design and operation. A gravity thickener is designed on
the basis of square feet per pound of solids per day, in which
the required surface area is related to the solids entering and
leaving the unit. Thickener area requirements are also expressed
in terms of mass loading, grams of solids per square meter per
day (lbs/sq ft/day).
Maintainability: Twice a year, a thickener must be shut down for
lubrication of the drive mechanisms. Occasionally, water must be
pumped back through the system in order to clear sludge pipes.
Solid Waste Aspects: Thickened sludge from a gravity thickening
process will usually require further dewatering prior to
disposal, incineration, or drying. The clear effluent may be
236

-------
recirculated in part, or it may be subjected to further treatment
prior to discharge.
Demonstration Status. Gravity sludge thickeners are used
throughout industry to reduce water content to a level where the
sludge may be efficiently handled. Further dewatering is usually
practiced to minimize costs of hauling the sludge to approved
landfill areas. Sludge thickening is used in seven coil coating
plants.
18.	Insoluble Starch Xanthate
Insoluble starch xanthate is essentially an ion exchange medium
used to remove dissolved heavy metals from wastewater. The water
may then either be reused (recovery application) or discharged
(end-of-pipe application). In a commercial electroplating oper-
ation, starch xanthate is coated on a filter medium. Rinse water
containing dragged out heavy metals is circulated through the
filters and then reused for rinsing. The starch-heavy metal
complex is disposed of and replaced periodically. Laboratory
tests indicate that recovery of metals from the complex is
feasible, with regeneration of the starch xanthate. Besides
electroplating, starch xanthate is potentially applicable to coil
coating, porcelain enameling, copper fabrication, and any other
industrial plants where dilute metal wastewater streams are
generated. Its present use is limited to one electroplating
plant.
19.	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 a
sorption process 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 waste stream can be exchanged for the harmless ions of the
resin.
Although the precise technique may vary slightly according to the
application involved, a generalized process description follows.
The wastewater stream being treated passes through a filter to
remove any solids, then flows through a cation exchanger which
contains the ion exchange resin. Here, metallic impurities such
as copper, iron, and trivalent chromium are retained. The stream
then passes through the anion exchanger and its associated resin.
Hexavalent chromium, for example, is retained in this stage. If
one pass does not reduce the contaminant levels sufficiently, the
237

-------
stream may then enter 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 concerns the
regeneration of the resin, which now holds those impurities
retained from the waste stream. An ion exchange unit with in-
place regeneration is shown in Figure VII-25 (page 291). 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
employed by industry for regenerating the spent resin 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 has the
problem of treating and disposing of the spent regenerant.
B)	In-Place Regeneration: Some establishments may find it less
expensive to do their own 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 frequency of twice an hour is typical. This
very short cycle time 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, carrying out 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 concentration 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
238

-------
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 aluminum,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), copper,
cyanide, gold, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver,
tin, zinc, and more. Thus, it can be applied to a wide variety
of industrial concerns. Because of the heavy concentrations of
metals in their wastewater, the metal finishing industries uti-
lize ion exchange in several ways. 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. Some
electroplating facilities use ion exchange to concentrate and
purify plating baths. Also, many industrial concerns use ion
exchange to reduce salt concentrations in incoming water sources.
Ion exchange is highly efficient at recovering metal bearing
solutions. Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate solution, and
sulfuric acid from anodizing is commercial. A chromic acid
recovery efficiency of 99.5 percent has been demonstrated.
Typical data for purification of rinse water have been reported
and-are displayed in Table VII-24.
239

-------
Table VI1-24
Ion Exchange Performance
Parameter
Plant
A
Plant
B

Prior To
After
Prior To
After

Purifi-
Purifi-
Purifi-
Purifi
All Values mg/1
cation
cation
cation
cation
A1
5.6
0.20
_
—
Cd
5.7
0.00
- _
-
Cr+3
3.1
0.01
-
-
Cr+6
7.1
0.01
-
-
Cu
4.5
0.09
43.0
0.10
CN
9.8
0.04
3.40 "
0.09
Au
-
-
2.30
0.10
Fe
7.4
0.01
-
-
Pb
-
-
1 . 70
0.01
Mn
4.4
0.00
-
-
Ni
6.2
0. 00
1.60
0. 01
Ag
"1.5
0.00
9.10
0. 01
S04
-
-
210.00
2. 00
Sn
1.7
0.00
1.10
0.10
Zn
14. 8
0.40
-
-
Advantages and Limitations. Ion exchange is a versatile
technology applicable to a great many situations. This
flexibility, along with its compact nature and performance, makes
ion exchange a very effective method of waste water treatment.
However, the resins in these systems can prove to be a limiting
factor. The thermal limits of the anion resins, generally in the
vicinity of 60°C, could prevent its use in" certain 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 preferen-
tially removed. The regeneration of the resins presents its own
problems. The cost of the regenerative chemicals can be high.
In additibn, the waste streams originating from the regeneration
process are extremely high in pollutant concentrations, although
low in volume. These must be further processed for proper
disposal.
240

-------

Operational Factors. Reliability: With the exception of
occasional clogging or fouling of the resins, ion exchange has
proved to be a highly dependable technology.
Maintainability; Only the normal maintenance of pumps, valves,
piping and other hardware used in the regeneration process is
required.
Solid Waste Aspects: Few, if any, solids accumulate within the
ion exchangers, and those which do appear are removed by the re-
generation process. Proper prior treatment and planning can eli-
minate solid buildup problems altogether. The brine resulting
from regeneration of the ion exchange resin most usually must be
treated to remove metals before discharge. This can generate
solid waste.
Demonstration Status. All of the applications mentioned in this
document 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. Work is also being done on a continuous
regeneration process whereby the resins are contained on a fluid-
transfusible belt. The belt passes through a compartmented tank
with ion exchange, washing, and regeneration sections. The
resins are therefore continually used and regenerated. No such
system, however, has been reported beyond the pilot stage.
20. Membrane Filtration
Membrane filtration is a treatment system for removing
precipitated metals from a wastewater stream. It must therefore
be preceded by those treatment techniques which will properly
prepare the wastewater for solids removal. Typically, a membrane
filtration unit is preceded by pH adjustment or sulfide addition
for precipitation of the metals. These steps are followed by the
addition of a proprietary chemical reagent which causes the
precipitate to be non-gelatinous, easily dewatered, and highly
stable. The resulting mixture of pretreated wastewater and.
reagent is continuously recirculated through a filter module and
back into a recirculation tank. The filter module contains
tubular membranes. While the reagent-metal hydroxide precipitate
mixture flows through the inside of the tubes, the water and any
dissolved salts permeate the membrane. When the recirculating
slurry reaches a concentration of 10 to 15 percent solids, it is
pumped out of the system as sludge.
241

-------
Application and Performance. Membrane filtration appears to be
applicable to any wastewater or process water containing metal
ions which can be precipitated using hydroxide, sulfide or
carbonate precipitation. It could function as the primary
treatment system, but also might find application as a polishing
treatment (after precipitation and settling) to ensure continued
compliance with metals limitations. Membrane filtration systems
are being used in a number of industrial applications,
particularly in the metal finishing area. They have also been
used for heavy metals removal in the metal fabrication industry
and the paper industry.
The permeate is claimed by one manufacturer to contain less than
the effluent concentrations shown in the following table,
regardless of the influent concentrations. These claims have
been largely substantiated by the analysis of water samples at
various plants in various industries.
In the performance predictions for this technology, pollutant
concentrations are reduced to the levels shown below unless lower
levels are present in the influent stream.
Table VI1-25
MEMBRANE FILTRATION SYSTEM EFFLUENT
Specific
Manufacturers Plant
1 9066
Plant
31 022
Predicted
Metal
Guarantee
In
Out
In
Out
Performance
A1
0.5
	—
	
	
	

Cr, (+6)
0. 02
0.46
0.01
5.25
<0.005

Cr (T)
0. 03
4.13
0.018
98 . 4
0. 057
0. 05
Cu
0.1
18.8
0. 043
8.00
0. 222
0.20
Fe
0.1
288
0.3
21.1
0. 263
0.30
Pb
0.05
0. 652
0.01
0. 288
0.01
0.05
CN
0.02
<0.005
<0.005
' <0.005
<0.005
0.02
Ni
0.1
9.56
0.017
1 94
0.352
0. 40
Zn
0.1
2;09
0. 046
5.00
0.051
0.10
TSS
	
632
0. 1
13.0
8.0
1 . 0
Advantages and Limitations. A major advantage of the membrane
filtration system is that installations can use most of the
conventional end-of-pipe systems that may already be in place.
Removal efficiencies are claimed to be excellent, even with
sudden variation of pollutant input rates; however, the
effectiveness of the membrane filtration system can be limited by
clogging of the filters. Because pH changes in the waste stream
greatly intensify clogging problems, the pH must be carefully
monitored and controlled. Clogging can force the shutdown of the

-------
system and may interfere with production. In addition,
relatively high capital cost of this system may limit its use.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Membrane filtration has been
shown to be a very reliable system, provided that the pH is
strictly controlled. Improper pH can result in the clogging of
the membrane. Also, surges in the flow rate of the waste stream
must be controlled in order to prevent solids from passing
through the filter and into the effluent.
Maintainability: The membrane filters must be regularly
monitored, and cleaned or replaced as necessary. Depending on
the composition of the waste stream and its flow rate, frequent
cleaning of the filters may be required. Flushing with
hydrochloric acid for 6-24 hours will usually suffice. In
addition, the routine maintenance of pumps, valves, and other
plumbing is required.
Solid Waste Aspects: When the recirculating reagent-precipitate
slurry reaches 10 to 15 percent solids, it is pumped out of the
system. It can then be disposed of directly or it can undergo a
dewatering process. Because this sludge contains toxic metals,
it requires proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. There are more than 25 membrane filtration
systems presently in use on metal finishing and similar
wastewaters. Bench scale and pilot studies are being run in an
attempt to expand the list of pollutants for which this system is
known to be effective. Although there are no data on the use of
membrane filtration in porcelain enameling plants, the concept
has been successfully demonstrated using coil coating plant
wastewater. A unit has been installed at one coil coating plant
based on these tests.
21. Peat Adsorption
Peat moss is a complex natural organic material containing lignin
and cellulose as major constituents. These constituents,
particularly lignin, bear polar functional groups, such as
alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, acids, phenolic hydroxides, and
ethers, that can be involved in chemical bonding. Because of the
polar nature of the material, its adsorption of dissolved solids
such as transition metals and polar organic molecules is quite
high. These properties have led to the use of peat as an agent
for the purification of industrial wastewater.
Peat adsorption is a "polishing" process which can achieve very
low effluent concentrations for several pollutants. If the
concentrations of pollutants are above 10 mg/1, then peat
243

-------
adsorption must be preceded by pH adjustment for metals
precipitation and subsequent clarification. Pretreatment is also
required for chromium wastes using ferric chloride and sodium
sulfide. The wastewater is then pumped into a large metal
chamber called a kier which contains a layer of peat through
which the waste stream passes. The water flows to a second kier
for further adsorption. The wastewater is then ready for
discharge. This system may be automated or manually operated.
Application and Performance. Peat adsorption can be used in coil
coating for removal of residual dissolved metals from clarifier
effluent. Peat moss may be used to treat wastewaters containing
heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, zinc, copper, iron,
nickel, chromium, and lead, as well as organic matter such as
oil, detergents, and dyes. Peat adsorption is currently used
commercially at a textile plant, a newsprint facility, and a
metal reclamation operation.
The following table contains performance figures obtained from
pilot plant studies. Peat adsorption was preceded by pH
adjustment for precipitation and by clarification.
Table VII-26
PEAT ADSORPTION PERFORMANCE
Pollutant	In.	Out
(mg/1)
Cr+6	35,000	0.04
Cu	250	0.24
CN	36.0	0.7
Pb	20.0	0.025
Hg	1.0	0.02
Ni	2.5	0.07
Ag	1.0	0.05
Sb	2.5	0.9
Zn	1.5	0.25
In addition, pilot plant studies have shown that chelated metal
wastes, as well as the chelating agents themselves, are removed
by contact with peat moss.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantages of the system
include its ability to yield low pollutant concentrations, its
broad scope in terms of the pollutants eliminated, and its
capacity to accept wide variations of waste water composition.
244

-------
Limitations include the cost of purchasing, storing, and
disposing of the peat moss; the necessity for regular replacement
of the peat may lead to high operation and maintenance costs.
Also, the pH adjustment must be altered according to the
composition of the waste stream.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The question of long term
reliability is not yet fully answered. Although the manufacturer
reports it to be a highly reliable system, operating experience
is needed to verify the claim.
Maintainability: The peat moss used in this process soon
exhausts its capacity to adsorb pollutants. At that time, the
kiers must be opened, the peat removed, and fresh peat placed
inside. Although this procedure is easily and quickly
accomplished, it must be done at regular intervals, or the
system's efficiency drops drastically.
Solid Waste Aspects: After removal from the kier, the spent peat
must be eliminated. If incineration is used, precautions should
be taken to insure that those pollutants removed from the water
are not released again in the combustion process. Presence of
sulfides in the spent peat, for example, will give rise to sulfur
dioxide in the fumes from burning. The presence of significant
quantities of toxic heavy metals in coil coating manufacturing
wastewater will in general preclude incineration of peat used in
treating these wastes.
Demonstration Status. Only three facilities currently use
commercial adsorption systems in the United States - a textile
manufacturer, a newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation firm.
No data have been reported showing the use of peat adsorption in
porcelain enameling plants.
22. Reverse Osmosis
The process of osmosis involves the passage of a liquid through a
semipermeable membrane from a dilute to a more concentrated
solution. Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation in which pressure
is applied to the more concentrated solution, forcing the per-
meate to diffuse through the membrane and into the more dilute
solution. This filtering action produces a concentrate and a
permeate on opposite sides of the membrane. The concentrate can
then be further treated or returned to the original operation for
continued use, while the permeate water can be recycled for use
as clean water. Figure VI1-26 (page 292) depicts a reverse
osmosis system.
245

-------
As illustrated in Figure VII-27 (page 293), there are three basic
configurations used in commercially available RO modules:
tubular, spiral-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 uses a porpus 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 uses a
straight tube contained in a housing, under the same operating
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) with the spiral-wound module. When the system is
operating, the pressurized product water 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 facili-
ties.
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. 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 advan-
tage over the tubular system in that they are able to load a very
large membrane surface area into a relatively small volume.
However, these two membrane types are much more susceptible to
fouling than the tubular system, which has a larger flow channel.
246

-------
This characteristic also makes the tubular membrane much easier
to clean and regenerate than either the spiral-wound or hollow
fiber modules. One manufacturer claims that their helical
tubular module can be physically wiped clean by passing a soft
porous polyurethane plug under pressure through the module.
Application and Performance. In 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 vcxpor can be condensed and returned to the last rinse
tank or sent on for further treatment.
The largest application has been for the recovery of nickel solu-
tions. 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 here are the allowable pH range and
maximum operating pressure for each particular configuration.
Adequate prefi1tration is also essential. Only three membrane
types are readily available in commercial RO units, and their
overwhelming use has been for the recovery of various acid metal
"baths. For the purpose of calculating performance predictions of
this technology, a rejection ratio of 98 percent is assumed for
dissolved salts, with 95 percent permeate recovery.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of reverse
osmosis for handling process effluents is its 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. It requires relatively
little floor space for compact, high capacity units, and it
exhibits good recovery and rejection rates for a number of
typical process solutions. A limitation of the reverse osmosis
process for treatment of process effluents is its 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
247

-------
result in decreased fluxes with no damage to the membrane.
Another limitation is inability to handle certain solutions.
Strong oxidizing agents, strongly 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 slightly soluble components in solution or colloids
has caused failures, and fouling of membranes by feed waters with
high levels of suspended solids can be a problem. A final limi-
tation is inability to treat or achieve high concentration with
some solutions. Some concentrated solutions may have initial os-
motic pressures which are so high that they either exceed avail-
able operating pressures or are uneconomical to treat.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Very good reliability is
achieved so long as the proper precautions are taken to minimize
the chances of fouling or degrading the membrane. Sufficient
testing of the waste stream prior to application of an RO system
will provide the information needed to insure a successful
application.
Maintainability: Membrane life is estimated to range from six
months to three years, depending on the use of the system. Down
time for flushing or cleaning is on the order of 2 hours as often
as once each week; a substantial portion of maintenance time must
be spent on cleaning any prefilters installed ahead of the re-
verse osmosis unit.
Solid Waste Aspects: In a closed loop system utilizing RO there
is a constant recycle of concentrate and a minimal amount of
solid waste. Prefiltration eliminates many solids before they
reach the module and helps keep the buildup to a minimum. These
solids require proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. There are presently at least one hundred
reverse osmosis waste water applications in a variety of
industries. In addition to these, there are thirty to forty
units being 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.
23. Sludge Bed Drying
As a waste treatment procedure, sludge bed drying is employed to
reduce the water content of a variety of sludges to the point
where they are amenable to mechanical collection and removal to
landfill. These beds usually consist of 15 to 45 cm (6 to 18
in.) of sand over a 30 cm (12 in.) deep gravel drain system made
248

-------
up of 3 to 6 mm (1/8 to 1/4 in.) graded gravel overlying drain
tiles. Figure VII-28 (page 294) shows the construction of a
drying bed.
Drying beds are usually divided into sectional areas
approximately 7.5 meters (25 ft) wide x 30 to 60 meters (100 to
200 ft) long. The partitions may be earth embankments, but more
often are made of planks and supporting grooved posts.
To apply liquid sludge to the sand bed, a closed conduit or a
pressure pipeline with valved outlets at each sand bed section is
often employed. Another method of application is by means of an
open channel with appropriately placed side openings which are
controlled by slide gates. With either type of delivery system,
a concrete splash slab should be provided to receive the falling
sludge and prevent erosion of the sand surface.
Where it is necessary to dewater sludge continuously throughout
the year regardless of the weather, sludge beds may be covered
with a fiberglass reinforced plastic or other roof. Covered
drying beds permit a greater volume of sludge drying per year in
most climates because of the protection afforded from rain or
snow and because of more efficient control of temperature.
Depending on the climate, a combination of open and enclosed beds
will provide maximum utilization of the sludge bed drying
facilities.
Application and Performance. Sludge drying beds are a means of
dewatering sludge from clarifiers and thickeners. They are
widely used both in municipal and industrial treatment
facilities.
Dewatering of sludge on sand beds occurs by two mechanisms:
filtration of water through the bed and evaporation of water as a
result of radiation and convection. Filtration is generally
complete in one to two days and may result in solids
concentrations as high as 15 to 20 percent. The rate of
filtration depends on the drainability of the sludge.
The rate of air drying of sludge is related to temperature,
relative humidity, and air velocity. Evaporation will proceed at
a constant rate to a critical moisture content, then at a falling
rate to an equilibrium moisture content. The average evaporation
rate for a sludge is about 75 percent of that from a free water
surface.
249

-------
Advantages and Limitations. The main advantage of sludge drying
beds over other types of sludge dewatering is the relatively low
cost of construction, operation, and maintenance.
Its disadvantages are the large area of land required and long
drying times that depend, to a great extent, on climate and
weather.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Reliability is high with
favorable climatic conditions, proper bed design and care to
avoid excessive or unequal sludge application. If climatic
conditions in a given area are not favorable for adequate drying,
a cover may be necessary.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists basically of periodic
removal of the dried sludge. Sand removed from the drying bed
with the sludge must be replaced and the sand layer resurfaced.
The resurfacing of sludge beds is the major expense item in
sludge bed maintenance, but there are other areas which may
require attention. Underdrains occasionally become clogged and
have to be cleaned. Valves or sludge gates that control the flow
of sludge to the beds must be kept watertight. Provision for
drainage of lines in winter should be provided to prevent damage
from freezing. The partitions between beds should be tight so
that sludge will not flow from one compartment to another. The
outer walls or banks around the beds should also be watertight.
Solid Waste Aspects: The full sludge drying bed must either be
abandoned or the collected solids must be removed to a landfill.
These solids contain whatever metals or other materials were
settled in the clarifier. Metals will be present as hydroxides,
oxides, sulfides, or other salts. They have the potential for
leaching and contaminating ground water, whatever the location of
the semidried solids. Thus the abandoned bed or landfill should
include provision for runoff control and leachate monitoring.
Demonstration Status. Sludge	beds have been in common	use in
both municipal and industrial facilities for many	years.
However, protection of ground	water from contamination	is not
always adequate.
24. Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration (UF) is a process which uses semipermeable
polymeric membranes to separate emulsified or colloidal materials
suspended in a liquid phase by pressurizing the liquid so that it
permeates the membrane. The membrane of an ultrafilter forms a
molecular screen which retains molecular particles based on their
250

-------
differences in size, shape, and chemical structure. The membrane
permits passage of solvents and lower molecular weight molecules.
At present, an ultrafilter is capable of removing materials with
molecular weights in the range of 1,000 to 100,000 and particles
of comparable or larger sizes.
In an ultrafiltration process, the feed solution 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. Figure VII-29 (page 295) represents the ultrafiltration
process.
Application and Performance. Ultrafiltration has potential
application to porcelain enameling plants for separation of oils
and residual solids from a variety of waste streams. In treating
porcelain enameling wastewater its greatest applicability would
be as a polishing treatment to remove residual precipitated
metals after chemical precipitation and clarification.
Successful commercial use, however, has been primarily for
separation of emulsified oils from wastewater. Over one hundred
such units now operate in the United States, treating emulsified
oils from a variety of industrial processes. Capacities of
currently operating units range from a few hundred gallons a week
to 50,000 gallons per day. Concentration of oily emulsions to 60
percent oil or more are possible. Oil concentrates of 40 percent
or more are generally suitable for incineration, and the permeate
can be treated further and in some cases recycled back to the
process. In this way, it is possible to eliminate contractor
removal costs for oil from some oily waste streams.
The following test data indicate ultrafiltration performance
(note that UF is not intended to remove dissolved solids):
Table VI1-27
ULTRAFILTRATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter
Feed (mq/1)
Permeate (mq/1)
Oil (freon extractable)
COD
TSS
Total Solids
1230
8920
1380
2900
148
13
296
4
251

-------
The removal percentages shown are typical, but they can be
influenced by pH and other conditions. The high TSS level is
unusual for this technology and ultrafiltration is assumed to
reduce the TSS level by one-thrid after mixed media filtration.
The permeate or effluent . from the .ultrafiltration unit is
normally of a quality that can be reused in industrial
applications or discharged directly. The concentrate from the
ultrafiltration unit can be disposed of as any oily or solid
waste.
Advantages and Limitations. Ultrafiltration is sometimes an
attractive alternative to chemical treatment because of lower
capital equipment, installation, and operating costs, very 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. Alkaline values in alkaline cleaning solutions can be
recovered and reused in process.
A limitation of ultrafiltration for treatment of process
effluents is its narrow temperature range (18° to 30°C) for
satisfactory • operation. Membrane life decreases with higher
temperatures, but flux increases at elevated temperatures.
Therefore, surface area requirements are a function of
temperature and become a tradeoff between initial costs and
replacement costs for the membrane. In addition, ultrafiltration
cannot handle 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 can sometimes puncture the
membrane and must be removed by gravity settling or filtration
prior to the ultrafiltration unit.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The reliability of an
ultrafiltration system is dependent on the proper filtration,
settling or other treatment of incoming waste streams to prevent
damage to the membrane. Careful pilot studies should be done in
each instance to determine necessary pretreatment steps and the
exact membrane type to be used.
Maintainability: A limited amount of regular maintenance is re-
quired for the pumping system. In addition, membranes must be
periodically changed. Maintenance associated with membrane plug-
ging can be reduced by selection of a membrane with optimum phy-
sical characteristics and sufficient velocity of the waste
stream. It is often necessary to occasionally pass a detergent
252

-------
solution through the system to remove an oil and grease film
which accumulates on the membrane. With proper maintenance
membrane life can be greater than twelve months.
Solid Waste Aspects: Ultrafiltration is used primarily to
recover solids and liquids. It therefore eliminates solid waste
problems when the solids (e.g., paint solids) can be recycled to
the process. Otherwise, the stream containing solids must be
treated by end-of-pipe equipment. In the most probable
applications within the porcelain enameling category, the
ultrafilter would remove hydroxides or sulfides of metals which
have recovery value.
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.
25. Vacuum Filtration
In wastewater treatment plants, sludge dewatering by vacuum
filtration generally uses cylindrical drum filters. These drums
have a filter medium which may be cloth made of natural or
synthetic fibers or a wire-mesh fabric. The drum is suspended
above and dips into a vat of sludge. As the drum rotates slowly,
part of "its circumference is subject to an internal vacuum that
draws sludge to the filter medium. Water is drawn through the
porous filter cake to a discharge port, and the dewatered sludge,
loosened by compressed air, -i-s scraped from the filter mesh.
Because the dewatering of sludge on vacuum filters is relativley
expensive per kilogram of water removed, the liquid sludge is
frequently thickened prior to processing. A vacuum filter is
shown in Figure VII-30 (page 296).
Application and Performance. Vacuum filters are frequently used
both in municipal treatment plants and in a wide variety of
industries. They are most commonly used in larger facilities,
which may have a thickener to double the solids content of
clarifier sludge before vacuum filtering.
The function of vacuum filtration is to reduce the water content
of sludge, so that the solids content increases from about 5
percent to about 30 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. Although the initial cost and area
requirement of the vacuum filtration system are higher than those
of a centrifuge, the operating cost is lower, and no special
provisions for sound and vibration protection need be made. The
253

-------
dewatered sludge from this process is in the form of a moist cake
and can be conveniently handled.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Vacuum filter systems have
proven reliable at many industrial and municipal treatment
facilities. At present, the largest municipal installation is at
the West Southwest waste water treatment plant of Chicago,
Illinois, where 96 large filters were installed in 1925,
functioned approximately 25 years, and then were replaced with
larger units. Original vacuum filters at Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Minnesota now have over 28 years of continuous service, and
Chicago has some units with similar or greater service life.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of the cleaning or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the equipment. Experience in a
number of vacuum filter plants indicates that maintenance
consumes approximately 5 to 15 percent of the total time. If
carbonate buildup or other problems are unusually severe,
maintenance time may be as high as 20 percent. For this reason,
it is desirable to maintain one or more spare units.
If intermittent operation is used, the filter equipment should be
drained and washed each time it is taken out of service. An
allowance for this wash time must be made in filtering schedules.
Solid Waste Aspects: Vacuum filters generate a solid cake which
is usually trucked directly to landfill. All of the metals
extracted from the plant wastewater are concentrated in the
filter cake as hydroxides, oxides, sulfides, or other salts.
Demonstration Status. Vacuum filtration has been widely used for
many years. It is a fully proven, conventional technology for
sludge dewatering.
IN-PLANT TECHNOLOGY
The intent of in-plant technology for the porcelain enameling
industrial segment is to reduce or eliminate the waste load re-
quiring end-of-pipe treatment and thereby improve the quality of
the effluent discharge. In-plant technology involves water
reuse, process materials conservation, reclamation of waste
enamel, process modifications, material substitutions, improved
rinse techniques and good housekeeping practices. The sections
which follow detail each of these in-plant technologies
describing the applicability and overall effect of each in the
porcelain enameling category.
254

-------
Water Reuse
There are several plants in the porcelain enameling data base
that demonstrated the potential for water reuse in this category.
For example, water which is employed for non-contact cooling or
air conditioning can be reused for rinses in the base metal
preparation line and as washdown water in the ball milling area.
Plant 11045 utilized water from their air conditioning system as
washdown for improperly coated parts and spray coating equipment.
Plant 40053 utilized a recirculation of rinse water from the acid
pickling rinses to the alkaline cleaner rinses. The facility
also used cooling water from air compressors as make-up water for
the acid pickle rinses. Plant personnel reported an overall
water savings of 22 percent per year using these water reuse
schemes. Reuse of acid rinse water in alkaline rinses has been
demonstrated at many electroplating plants.
Another method for reusing rinse water is a closed loop de-
ionized rinse water system. Some plants, in order to remove any
traces of process solution from the surfaces of the workpieces
prior to enameling, rinse their workpieces in a deionized water
final rinse. This water can be recirculated through an ion
exchange unit to remove the impurities picked up in rinsing. The
purified water is then returned to the rinse tank for further
process work. This type of rinse is most commonly seen in the
porcelain enameling on aluminum subcategory wherfe the basis
material is relatively clean.
Process Materials Conservation Filtration of Nickel Baths -
During the nickel deposition process, a chemical reaction takes
place in which ions come out of the solution and displace iron
ions going into solution. It is good practice from a process
standpoint to filter the nickel bath to prevent the iron from
building up to a contaminating level. Several types of filters
are available for this purpose. Filter types can include:
filter leaf, filter bag, flat bed filter, and string wound
"cartridge" type filters. Many of these filters can incorporate
diatomaceous earth as a filtering aid by spraying it on the
filter substrate. Utilization of a filter extends the life of
the process solution. This is advantageous from a waste
treatment point of view since the bath will have to be dumped
less often, in some cases bath life can be increased as much as
six months to one year. This means a smaller pollutant load on
the waste treatment system that is directly attributable to the
nickel deposition process. A similar filtration scheme can be
utilized on neutralizer baths.
Dry Spray Booths - Plants which utilize spray coating as their
means of enamel application must contain the overspray. Most
255

-------
companies employ wet spray booths which use a curtain of water to
trap oversprayed enamel particles. Also available are dry spray
booths which use filter screens to remove the enamel particles
from the air that is forced through the booth. These dry booths
eliminate the entry of oversprayed enamel into a wastewater
stream. Plant 40053 which porcelain enamels both steel and cast
iron used dry spray booths for applying enamel to both basis
materials. Enamel overspray was allowed to dry on the floor and
was simply swept up at the end of the day. Plants 06031 and
13330 also use dry spray booths for the ground and cover coat
application on copper parts. After the overspray drys, it is
collected and reused.
Reclamation of Waste Enamel
Enamel slip which is oversprayed does not undergo chemical or
physical changes. This material can therefore be reused under
certain conditions. The frit which is recovered cannot include a
mixture of colors since it would be impossible to separate the
colors. Therefore, only a plant which consistently uses a
particular color can efficiently recover its frit. Plants 15712,
44031, and 33076, recover enamel from their spray booths and
associated settling sumps. The recovered enamel is then used in
the ground coat enamel mixtures (approximately 50 percent of the
mixture). Many other plants recover waste enamel for eventual
reclamation by suppliers. Plant 06031, which porcelain enamels
on copper, also recovers waste enamel. Waste dry powder enamel
is mixed in a ratio of 7:10 with new frit in the formulation of
new ground coat enamel. Plant 13330 currently has a working
enamel reclamation system for both ground and cover coat enamels.
The facility incorporates several dry spray booths to segregate
the application of ground and different colors of cover coat
enamel. Oversprayed enamel is allowed to dry on the walls and
floor area of the spray booths then scraped and swept up for
reuse. This reclamation system has allowed this facility to
significantly reduce water use in the ball milling and enamel
application areas. Experimental work is being done with reusing
multi-color waste enamel for ground coats in the porcelain
enameling on steel subcategory. However, colors of enamel vary
tremendously within this subcategory making it difficult to
produce a consistent ground coat color from waste enamel.
Process Modifications
Process modifications can reduce the amount of water required for
rinsing or even eliminate waste load sources. Significant water
savings can also be realized by proper scheduling of slip
preparation runs. If facilities do not have enough ball mills to
have one for each color, employing a pattern of milling light to
256

-------
dark colored enamels can preclude washing the mills between each
color change. This will significantly increase the time between
required ball mill cleanings. As another example, one plant has
reported finding a new basis material preparation process called
NPNN (No-Pickle, No-Nickel). This basis material preparation
process consists of seven steps: 1. solvent clean 2. detergent
clean 3. cold rinse 4. acid clean (50 percent phosphoric acid)
5.	acid clean (30 percent cleaner, 70 percent phosphoric acid)
6.	cold rinse 7. neutralizer (soda ash & borox). After this
treatment, enamel is applied in a normal fashion. Plant ID 13330
realized significant water use reductions through spray
application of basis material preparation chemicals instead of
the typical bath system. Basis material preparation operations
still include alkaline cleaning, acid etch, nickel flash and
neutralization. This facility also adds a hydrogen peroxide
solution to the sulfuric acid etch solution to control the ferric
ion concentration. Plant personnel report that the addition of
hydrogen peroxide both significantly extends the life of the etch
solution and results in a thirty-three percent increase in
etching capacity per amount of chemical used.
Another process line modification is the replacement of a wet
process with a dry one. For example, dry surface blasting can
sometimes be employed in place of chemical cleaning with its at-
tendant water use. This can only be employed with certain types
of steel since the highly abrasive blasting may damage light
gauge steel. Another water saving process modification involves
the method of enamel application. Electrostatic spray coating
achieves the same results as normal spray coating, but at a much
higher coverage efficiency. Consequently, electrostatic spray
coating has much less overspray to be caught in a water curtain,
so it generates only part of the waste load of normal spray
coating. Work is also being done using electrostatic dry powder
application; a system which generates no waste water for coating
or ball milling.
Electrostatic dry powder application operates on the same
principle as electrostatic wet spraying operations with the
enamel particles and workpiece having opposite electrical
charges.	Currently electrostatic dry powder porcelain
applications require only one coat of enamel which is fired at a
much lower temperature than conventional porcelain enamels.
Traditional preparation operations followed by electrostatic dry
powder application are currently being used at two porcelain
enameling facilities (ID#'s 12038,21060). Pilot operations are
functional at three other porcelain enameling facilities (ID's
33617, 47034, 33054). A basis material preparation option
associated with dry powder coating is electrophoretic application
of a thin coating of zinc to prevent oxidation and produce a
257

-------
tightened bond with the porcelain enamel. This system is
currently used by several porcelain enamelers in Europe. A
supplier of enamels has developed another basis metal preparation
option which incorporates an acid cleaning step followed by the
electrostatic application of a preparation compound followed by
electrostatic dry powder porcelain application. Suppliers of the
various dry powder systems claim they not only save significant
amounts of water, but also use of these systems can result in up
to a 50 percent savings in energy use.
A number of plants within the data base have omitted the nickel
deposition step. Deletion of this step, however, can require
changes in slip formulations and firing temperatures.
Changes in production schedule can also lighten the load on a
waste treatment system either directly or indirectly. Scheduling
a succession of the same color coatings can increase the time
between required ball mill washings. In addition, raw basis
material or parts to be porcelain enameled which are kept in
storage for any length of time can develop corrosion. This
corrosion and the presence of dried fabricating lubricants often
necessitates the use of an extra system. Another consideration
is the timing of batch dumps. If an alkaline bath can be dumped
safely with an acid bath, it reduces the consumption of treatment
chemicals relative to separate dumps. Holding tanks can be
installed to facilitate this concurrent dumping of acid and
alkaline baths to the waste treatment system.
Material Substitutions
The substitution of non-toxic or easily treatable materials for
toxic materials is another method of easing the load on and
increasing the effectiveness of an end-of-pipe treatment system.
The replacement of sulfuric acid with hydrochloric acid in the
pickling process is a possible material substitution. It has
been shown, however, that hydrochloric acid etchant can take 2 to
3 times longer than sulfuric acid. Although sulfuric acid is
cheaper to purchase, hydrochloric acid is easier to regenerate.
It has been shown however, that acid regeneration done on a small
scale i-s not economically feasible. Care should also be used in
the selection of alkaline cleaners. Cleaners should be
specifically tailored to the basis material being cleaned and the
nature of the soils and oils to be removed. Avoiding cleaners
with high concentrations of complexing agents or caustics can
preclude subsequent solids precipitation problems in waste
treatment. A few facilities report using alkaline cleaners
specifically tailored to remove a drawing compound which was
purchased from the same supplier as the alkaline cleaner.
258

-------
The potential for reuse of treated wastewater in coating
operations were examined. Only product formulation and ball mill
wash out require for high quality water. Both of these water
uses have direct contact with the product and impurities could
possible affect product quality. Ball mill cooling uses only the
thermal capacity of water to absorb heat and is not affected by
other treated wastewater characteristics. Water used for
overspray control need only be met and the various washdown and
flume or sewer flushing functions require only hydraulic flow.
Hence the quality of treated wastewater from other porcelain
enameling operations appears to be totally adequate for all
coating operations except possibly product formulation and ball
mall washout.
Rinse Techniques
Reductions in the amount of water used in porcelain enameling can
be realized through installation and use of efficient rinse
techniques. Cost savings associated with this water use
reduction result from lower cost for rinse water and reduced
chemical costs for wastewater treatment. An added benefit is
that the waste treatment efficiency is also improved. It is
estimated that rinse steps may consume over 90 percent of the
water used by a typical porcelain enameling facility.
Consequently, the greatest water use reductions can be
anticipated to come from modifications of rinse techniques.
Rinsing is essentially a dilution step which reduces the
concentration of contaminants on the workpiece. The design of
rinse systems for minimum water use depends on the maximum level
of contamination allowed to remain on the workpiece (without
reducing acceptable product quality or causing poisoning of a
subsequent bath) as well as on the efficiency or effectiveness of
each rinse stage.
A rinse system is considered efficient if the dissolved solids
concentration is reduced just to the point where no noticeable
effects occur either as a quality problem or as excessive drag-in
to the next process step. Operation of a rinse tank or tanks
which achieve a 10,000 to 1 reduction in concentrations where
only a 1,000 to 1 reduction is required represents inefficient
use of water. Operating rinse tanks at or near their maximum
acceptable level of contamination provides the most efficient and
economical form of rinsing. Inefficient operation manifests
itself in higher operating costs not only from the purchase cost
of water, but also from the treatment of it.
Since the purpose of rinsing is to remove process solution from
the surface of the workpiece, the best way to reduce the amount
2r n

-------
of rinsing required is to reduce the dragout. A reduction in
dragout results in a reduction of waste that has to be treated.
Dragout is a function of several factors including workpiece
geometry, viscosity and surface tension of the process solution,
withdrawal and drainage time and racking. These factors
affecting dragout are described below.
1.	Geometry of the Part - This partly determines the
amount of dragout contributed by a part and is one of
the principal determinants for the type of rinsing
arrangement selected. A flat sheet with holes is well
suited for an impact spray rinse rather than an
immersion rinse, but for parts with cups or recesses a
spray rinse is totally ineffective.
2.	Kinematic Viscosity of the Process Solution - Kinematic
viscosity is an important factor in determining process
bath dragout. The effect of increasing kinematic
viscosity is .that it increases the dragout volume in
the withdrawal phase and decreases the rate of draining
during the drainage phase. It is advantageous to
decrease the dragout and increase the drainage rate.
Consequently, the process solution kinematic viscosity
should be as low as possible. Increasing the
temperature of the solution decreases its viscosity,
thereby reducing the volume of process solution going
to the rinse tank. Care must be exercised in
increasing bath temperature since the rate of bath
decomposition may increase significantly with
temperature increases.
3.	"Surface Tension of the Process Solution - Surface
tension is a major factor that controls the removal of
dragout during the drainage phase. To remove a liquid
film from a solid surface, the gravitation force must
overcome the adhesive force between the liquid and the
surface. The amount of work required to remove the
film is a function of the surface tension of the liquid
and the contact angle. Lowering the surface tension
reduces the amount of work required to remove the
liquid and reduces the edge effect (the bead of liquid
adhering to the edges of the part). A secondary
benefit of lowering the surface tension is to increase
the metal uniformity. Surafce tension may be reduced
by increasing the temperature of the process solution
or more effectively, by use of a wetting agent.
4.	Time of Withdrawal and Drainage - The withdrawal
velocity of a part from a solution had an effect
260

-------
similar to that of kinematic viscosity. Increasing the
velocity or decreasing the time of withdrawal increases
the volume of solution that is retained by the part.
Since time is directly related to production rate, it
is more advantageous to reduce the dragout volume
initially adhering to the part rather than attempt to
drain a large volume from the part.
5. Racking - Proper racking of parts is the most effective
way to reduce dragout: Parts should be arranged so
that no cup-like recesses are formed, the longest
dimension should be horizontal, the major surface
vertical, and each part should drain freely without
dripping onto another part. The racks themselves
should be periodically inspected to insure the
integrity of the rack coating. Loose coatings can con-
tribute significantly to dragout. Physical or
geometrical design of racks is of primary concern for
the control of dragout both from the racks and the
parts themselves. Dragout from the rack can be
minimized by designing it to drain freely such that no
pockets of process solution can be retained.
The different types of rinsing commonly used within the metal
finishing industry are described below.
1.	Single Running Rinse - This arrangement requires a
large volume of water to effect a large degree of
contaminant removal. Although in widespread use,
single running rinse tanks should be modified or
replaced by a more effective rinsing arrangement to
reduce water use.
2.	Countercurrent Rinse - The countercurrent rinse pro-
vides for the most efficient water usage and thus,
where possible, the countercurrent rinse should be
used. There is only one fresh water feed for the
entire set of tanks, and it is introduced in the last
tank of . the arrang.ement. The overflow from each tank
becomes the feed for the tank preceding it. Thus, the
concentration of dissolved salts decreases rapidly from
the first to the last tank.
In a situation requiring a 1,000 to 1 concentration
reduction, the addition of a second rinse tank (with a
countercurrent flow arrangement) will reduce the
theoretical water demand by 97 percent.
261

-------
3.	Series Rinse - The major advantage of the series rinse
over the countercurrent system is that the tanks of the
series can be individually heated or level controlled
since each has a separate feed. Each tank reaches its
own equilibrium condition; the first rinse having the
lowest concentration. This system uses water more
efficiently than the single running rinse, and the
concentration of- dissolved salts decreases in each
successive tank.
4.	Spray Rinse - Spray rinsing is considered the most
efficient of the various rinse techniques in continuous
dilution rinsing. The main concern encountered in use
of this mode is the efficiency of the spray (i.e., the
volume of water contacting the part and removing
contamination compared to the volume of water
discharged). Spray rinsing is well suited for flat
sheets. The impact of the spray also provides an
effective mechanism for removing dragout from recesses
with a large width to depth ratio.
5.	Dead, Still, or Reclaim Rinses - This form of rinsing
is particularly applicable for initial rinsing after
metal plating because the dead rinse allows for easier
recovery of the metal and lower water usage. The
rinsing should then be continued in a countercurrent or
spray arrangement.
The use of different rinse types will result in wide variations
in water use. . Table VII-28 shows the theoretical flow
requirements for several different rinse types to maintain a
1,000 to 1 reduction in concentration.
TABLE VII-28
THEORETICAL RINSE WATER FLOWS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A
1,000 TO 1 CONCENTRATION REDUCTION
Type of Rinse	Single	Series	Countercurrent
Number of Rinses	12	3	2	3
Required Flow (gpm)	10	0.61	0.27 0.31	0.1
Another method of conserving water through efficient rinsing is
by controlling the flow of the feed water entering the rinse
tanks. Some flow control methods are listed below.
262

-------
1.	Conductivity Controllers - Conductivity controllers
provide for efficient use and good control of the rinse
process. This controller utilizes a conductivity cell
to measure the conductance of the solution which, for
an electrolyte, is dependent upon the ionic concentra-
tion. The conductivity cell, immersed in the rinse
tank or overflow line, is connected to a controller
which will open or close a solenoid on the makeup line.
As the rinse becomes more contaminated, its conductance
increases until the set point of the controller is
reached, causing the solenoid to open and allowing
makeup to enter. Makeup flow will continue until the
conductance drops below the set point. The advantage
of this method of control is that water is flowing only
when required. A major manufacturer of conductivity
controllers supplied to plants in the Metal Finishing
Category claims that water usage can be reduced by as
much as 50-8-5 percent when the controllers are used.
2.	Liquid Level Controllers - These controllers find their
greatest use on closed loop rinsing systems. A typical
arrangement uses a liquid level sensor in both the
rinse tank and the process tank, and a solenoid on the
rinse tank makeup water line. When the process
solution evaporates to below the level of the level
controller, the pump is activated, and solution is
transferred from the rinse tank to the process tank.
The pump will remain active until the process tank
level controller is satisfied. As the liquid level of
the rinse tank drops due to the pumpout, the rinse tank
controller will open the solenoid allowing makeup water
to enter.
3.	Manually Operated Valves - Manually operated valves are
susceptible to misuse and should, therefore, be
installed in conjunction only with other devices.
Orifices should be installed in addition to the valve
to limit the flow rate of rinse water. For rinse
stations that require manual movement of work and
require manual control of the rinse (possibly due to
low use), dead man valves should be installed in
addition to the orifice to limit the flow rate of rinse
water. They should be located so as to discourage
jamming them open.
4.	Orifices or Flow Restrictors - These devices are
usually installed for rinse tanks that have a constant
production rate, the newer restrictors can maintain a
263

-------
constant flow even if the water supply pressure
fluctuates. Orifices are not as efficient as
conductivity or liquid level controllers, but ar.e far
superior to manual valves.
Good Housekeeping
Good housekeeping and proper maintenance of coating equipment are
required to reduce wastewater loads to the treatment systems.
The ball milling and enamel application areas need constant
attention to maintain cleanliness and to avoid the waste of
clean-up water. Hoses should be shut off when not in use (it was
noticed that at several visited plants they were left running
constantly). It is also recommended that pressure' nozzles be
installed on the hoses to increase cleaning effectiveness and
reduce water use.
Periodic inspection of the biasis material preparation tank liner
and the tanks themselves reduces the chance of a catastrophic
failure which could overload the waste discharge. Periodic in-
spection should also be performed on all auxiliary porcelain
enameling equipment. This includes lead inspections of pumps,
filters, process piping, and immersion steam heating coils.
Neutralizer and nickel filter cleaning should be done in curbed
areas or in a manner such that solution retained by the filter is
dumped to the appropriate waste stream.
Good housekeeping is also applicable to chemical storage areas.
Storage areas should be isolated from high hazard fire areas and
arranged so that if a fire or explosion occurs in such areas,
loss of the stored chemicals due to deluged quantities of water
would not overwhelm the treatment facilities or cause excessive
ground water pollution. Good housekeeping practices also include
the use of drain boards between processing tanks. Bridging the
gap between adjacent tanks via drain boards allows for recovery
of dragout that drips off the parts while they are being
transferred from one tank to another. The board should be
mounted in a fashion that drains the dragout back into the tank
from which it originated.
264

-------
TABLE VII-22
TREATABILITY1 RATING OF PRIORITY PtXIOTANTS
UTILIZING CARBON ADSOHPTIOH
•Removal-	* Removal
Priority Pollutant	Rating Priority Pollutant	Rating
1.
acenaphthene
H
49.
trichlorofluoromethane
M
2.
acrolein
L
50.
dichlorodifluoromethane
L
3.
acrylonitrile
L
51.
chlorodibromomethane
M
4.
benzene
M
52.
hexachlorobutadiene
H
5.
bengj.di.na
B
53.
hexachloroeyclopentadiene
H
6.
carbon tetrachloride
H
54.
isophorone
H

(tetrachloromethane)

55.
naphthalene
H
7.
chlorobenzene
H
56.
nitrobenzene
H
a.
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene
H
57.
2-nitrophenol
H
9.
hexachlorobonzene
H
58.
4-nitrophenol
H
10.
1,2-dichloroethane
M
59.
2,4-dinitrophenol
H
11.
1,1,l-trichloroethane
M
60.
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
H
12.
hexachloroethane
a
61.
N-nitroaodimethylamina
H
13.
1,1-dichloroethane
M
62.
N-nitroBOdiphenylaaine
1
14.
1,1,2-txichloroethane
M
63.
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
M
IS.
1,1,2,2-tetrachlorethane
H
64.
pentachlorophenol
a
16.
chloroathanc
L
65.
phenol
H
17.
bis(chloromcthy1) ether
-
66.
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
a
18.
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
H
67.
butyl benryl phthalate
H
19.
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
L
68.
di-n-butyl phthalate
a

(mixed)

69.
di~n~octyl phthalate
R
20.
2-chloronaphthalene
H
70.
diethyl phthalate
a
21.
2,4,6-triohlorophenol
H
71.
dimethyl phthalate
H
22.
parachloroaota cresol
a
72.
1,2-benzanthracene
H
23.
chloroform (trichloromethane)
L

(benxo(a)anthracene)

24.
2-chlorophenol
a
73.
benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-
H
25.
1,2-dichlorobenxene
a

pyrene)

26.
1,3-dichlorobenzene
H
74.
3,4-benzofluoranthene
a
27,
1,4-Aichlorobenzene
a

(benzo(b)fluoranthene)

28.
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
H
75.
11,12-benzofluoranthene
H
29.
1,1-dichloroathylene
L

(benzo(k)fluoranthene)

30.
1,2-trans-dichloroethylane
L
76.
chrysene
H
31.
2,4-dichlorophenol
a
77.
acenaphthylene
H
32.
1,2-dichloropropane
M
78.
anthracene
H
33.
1,2-dichlorc.propylene
M
79.
1,12-benssoperylene (benso
a

(1,3-dichloropropene)


(ghi 5-perylene)

34.
2,4-dimethylphenol
H
80.
fluorene
8
35.
2,4-dinitrotoluene
H
81.
phenanthrene
R
36.
2,6-dinitsotoluene
H
82.
1,2,3,6-dibenzanthracene
H
37.
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
a

(d±benzo(a,h) anthracene)

38.
ethylbenzene
a
83.
indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
R
39.
fluoranthane
H

(2,3-o-phanylene pyrene)

40.
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
a
84.
pyrena
-
41.
4-bronophenyl phenyl ether
a
85.
tetrachloroethylene
M
42.
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
M
86.
toluene
H
43.
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
M
87.
trichloroethylene
L
44.
methylene chloride
L
88.
vinyl chloride
L

(dichlorosethase)


(chloroathylene)

45.
methyl chloride (chloromethane)
L
106.
PCS—1242 (Aroclor 1242)
H
46.
methyl bromide (brooomethane)
X.
107.
PCB-12S4 (Aroclor 1254)
H
47.
bromofozm (tribromomethane)
a
108.
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
H
48.
dichlorobro&omethane
M
' 109.
PCB—1332 (Aroclor 1232)
S
110.	PCS—1248	(Aroclor 1248)	H
111.	PCB-1260	{Aroclor 1260 5	H
112.	PCB-1016	(Aroclor 1016)	H
*Kote Explanation of Removal Ratings
Category H (high removal)
adsorbs at levels > 100 mg/g carbon at Cf » 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels >100 mg/g carbon at < 1.0 mg/1
Category M (moderate removal)
adsorbs at levels > 100 ng/g carbon' at » 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels 5100 mg/g carbon at < 1.0 mg/1
Category L (low removal)
adsorbs at levels < 100 mg/g carbon at C, " 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels < 10 mg/g carbon at C, <1.0 mg/1
Cf - final concentrations of priority pollutant at equilibrium


-------
TABLE VII - 23
CLASSES OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ADSORBED ON CARBON
Organic Chemical Class
Arcmatic Hydrocarbons
Polynuclear Arcmatics
Chlorinated Arcmatics
Phenolics
Chorinated Phenolics
~High Molecular Weight Aliphatic and
Branch Chain hydrocarbons
Chlorinated Aliphatic hydrocarbons
*High Molecular Weight Aliphatic
Acids and Aromatic Acids
*High Molecular Weight Aliphatic
Amines and Aromatic Amines
*High Molecular Weight Ketones,
Esters, Ethers and Alcohols
Surfactants
Soluble Organic Dyes
Examples of Chemical Class
benzene, toluene, xylene
naphthalene, anthracene
biphenyls
chlorobenzene, polychlorinated
biphenyls, aldrin, endrin,
toxaphene, DDT
phenol/ cresol, resorcenol
and polypheny Is
trichlorophenol, pentachloro-
phenol
gasoline, kerosine
carbcn tetrachloride,
perchloroethylene
tar acids, benzoic acid
aniline, toluene diamine
"hydrcquinone, polyethylene
glycol
alkyl benzene sulfonates
methylene blue, indigo carmine
* High Molecular Weight includes compounds in the broad range of from
4 to 20 carbon atoms
266

-------
to
to.1
10"
Zn(OH)
Cd(OH)
10"'
COS

1-0

PbS
10"'
10'
,0-10
10
12
13
pH
FIGURE VII-1. COMPARATIVE SOLUBILITIES OF METAL HYDROXIDES
AND SULFIDE AS A FUNCTION OF pH
267

-------
0.40
0.30
CAUSTIC SODA,
SODA ASH AND
CAUSTIC SODA
0.10
8.S
10.5
9.0
10.0
PH
FIGURE VII-2. LEAD SOLUBILITY IN THREE ALKALIES
268

-------
(|o>
OOO"
at
o
o
o
-Q IS
c
o
» z
a
H
Z
u
o
_i
u.
 u,
ill
I s
3
2
X
a
I—
Z
LU
3
-J
U.
U.
LU
2
3
5
Z
I
*/>
>
z
o
I—
<
as
t-
z
LU
U
z
0
u
u
z
N
H
z
LU
3
-J
U.
u.
u
on
1
>
U
QL
3
0
(Z
(-H/OW) NOIXVHXN33NOO ONIZ J.N3D1JJ3
269

-------
t.o
1^0,
I
o
o
s
r o.i
z
o
h
<
K
H
Z
U
u
z
0
u
H
Z
u
3
J
k.
h.
Ill
Q
U
I-
<
u
o:
i-
2
3
1
Q
<
U
O.Of
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I 1 1 1





















NUMBER OP OBSERVATIONS: 38
NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
- O OBSERVATIONS: 2




































































































































































*



























































































































r



































~






































































>































































































3
C
1
D


























(
o
9
0 <
5
)
0


0









1
c
i
0





















o































o



































r









o







1

















o o


r\
































o
n
r>n



r






















•






o















































































































































0.01
0.1	1.0
CADMIUM RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
10.0
100.0
FIGURE VII-4. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS - CADMIUM

-------
10.0
roi
'—1 :
0
2
Z
0
p
4
B
H-
Z
U
0
z
0
0
H-
Z
u
3
J
U.
U.
U
a
u
H-
<
U
oc
H-
2
3
1
0
05
X
a
1.0
o.i
o.oi
1 1 1 1 1 1 1II 1 1 1 1 1





















~~ NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 64
NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
q OBSERVATIONS: 3
~ Jf PORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA










































































































































o


































0
<
5
r















o
o













c
3
\


0
o


































































0
c































r
1





j



























o
C







J


























o
rO



































\Jr




1
c
>
•/






















D




<0






r
J
1

















o


I





o



c
)





















o


j
t
1
i






3

o





u

















o












































































































°c

o
































































D






1




























(
>


(
>

u























C
>





:







\


o




















O





c
8
>

J

i
;











o








/ //'
CHROMIUM RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VI1—5. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS - CHROMIUM

-------
10.0
ro
ro
(3
2
z
0
p
<
K
H
Z
U
u
z
0
u
H
Z
u
3
U.
u.
u
Q
U
H
<
U
DC
H
K
U
0.
0.
0
u
t.o
0.1
1 1 1 1 1 I 111 1 1 1 1 1





















-	NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 74
~ NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
~~ OBSERVATIONS: 6
—	O PORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA




























































































o



































0



































o





c
>




















0
0
0



0

*

0

c
b































r1








u






















.)



V







c
i



















D
D










U

























































o
















<
)























ri










j





















0


c
n
3





c
¦
J

















0

¦




0

u
C



0

r


X
)















0


m






S


O



0<


c
















c
)














































































n



N


























n







i
J


























u


































<
)



































C



































° o




























o



c


0


























00,0^	KJOVAJ
rwr-
0	10.0	100.0
COPPER RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VII-6. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS -COPPER
1000.0

-------
10.0
ro
OJ
0
s
z
g
H
<
£
h
Z
u
o
z
0
o
I"
z
111
3
J
u.
u.
Ul
a
u
H
<
Ul
K
I"
Z
o
a
1.0
o.t
0.01
1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 till



















—	NUMBER OP OBSERVATIONS: 88
—	NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
—	OBSERVATIONS: 6,
—	J"* PORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA















































































































































a





O

























O
x





O


o

























J



0













1



























p






















J

























CO









i




(
>
/ c
k
















A



n
i
5
PS
A







p
















u



u
()

V
u





~









<
lO





JJJ
0v
J
"J
0


n

O








o











i
(
1






0
c
j
i
!
3




/
ff
1


	o







1






iO
3D °
<8
0
3
9
o
(5

i ^
¦

0

o
1

JL


o
0
o



















1

































C,


























o

O


































0




























0


























































c






/
)
























/




{
')
r















































-









0.1
1,0	to.o
IRON RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
100.0
1000.0
FIGURE VII—7. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS - IRON

-------
t.o
0.1
1 1 1 1 1 1II1 1 1 1 1 1




















—	NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 83
NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
—	Q OBSERVATIONS: 31
—	PORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA































































































-

































































































f
O
n
O



c

¦s
2

C
)






























H
J



























(


























(







r
»





























0



c

f
r>


























r\






























J

H


Q5P
O

n


























O
0




SSv1
GD O
3


C
)























(
i

D

D
(
)
0
c
1


























O

C




<9































L



























































































































































































































































































cr-1
Cr

rz



UUAA/l.


¦jr
w

~v!
T

JUL/ -xy
^1 I. J



I
r-1











0.01
0.001
0.01
1.0
10.0
100.0
LEAD RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VI1-8. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS - LEAD

-------
i.o
ro
cni
J
0
s
z
0
p
<
K
I-
z
111
u
z
o
o
i-
z
111
3
J
U,
u.
u
Q
LI
I-
<
111
K
I-
U
(A
111
Z
<
0
z
<
2
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1





















~ NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 20
NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING


































































- OBSERVATIONS'. 6
~ P PORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA

























/
ft



































\

11



































*



























I
}
1
»¦



















A









?>('

























V 1




































\



















































































0










































































































































(
)


























\



























































































































































JC
1














































































































































































100.0
1000.0
MANGANESE RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VI1-9. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS - MANGANESE

-------
10.0
ro
-j
cr>
O
s
z
0
i-
<
K
z
u
u
z
0
u
z
111
3
J
U.
U.
U
Q
u
<
111
K
J
U
*
u
1.0
0.1
0.01
1 1 1 1 1 1111 I 1 1 I 1





















~ NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 61
NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
Q OBSERVATIONS: 6 '
"" JT PORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA





























<
























1











































































































(
)



























O
A
c
0

0

1
I
1
)
*
>






*
:
o
o


























v






































	




(
u °






















c
>





o





o














c




o




































u







0





z
o





















0
c





o

'6

f
i

o


















0

<











c
1












u















o








u














D


0
u
c
1






0




c
c
1


























































































T



































O






























































--
-








o




























O

























•














































































0.1
1.0
100.0
1000.0
NICKEL RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VII-10. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS - NICKEL

-------
100.0
ro
-«j
0
2
z
0
i-
<
tt
f-
Z
u
u
z
0
u
f-
z
u
3
J
|L
IL
U
a
u
f-
<
u
a.
f-
(0
3
a
0
1
a.
(0
0
1
a.
i o.o
1.0
0.1.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1






















NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 44
I NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
- OBSERVATIONS: 4
~yj PORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA






































































<
>






























































































3





























a
)


































V











































































o



































































































c
\



































t




0
.


























6





A





























&





°o
/6

o

f





























































o
3




o
_


































v
0




































I
>



























c







nF


























C




i
?U





























J
0




->0CD

D


c





















0



0




U






























































10,000.0
PHOSPHORUS RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE Vll-n. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS -PHOSPHORUS

-------
10.0 l
ro
oo
u
s
z
0
P '-0
<
K
H
Z
14
u
z
0
u
H
Z
Id
D
J
U.
U.
14
Q
U
H
<
U
c
H
U
z
0.1
0.01
1 III 1 Mill II II 1 1




















— NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 69
~ NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
"" OBSERVATIONS: 7
~~ PORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA



































































































































(
>


























o


































¦
3 °,







<
)




















0





, (¦
>







vy

























c
) *¦



































o


C
i




O



















































£
\


















O


























D n

0








u













<
>
<











C
<2
)
»





















11
/
>

•j





(.
1
























O
n
r
0






O
~

























t


u



































r



























o




A




























o





*
u








O























<
J






























c






f

f






o



















oc






o 1
r
\
j
6
>




/




















(
>
5
i
3




3






o
J
D

















o
0



C
>
J
CD

\






0
y
















1000.0
ZINC RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VI1-12. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS - ZINC

-------
SULFURIC,
ACID
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
LIME OR CAUSTIC
pH CONTROLLER
r\3
UD
RAW WASTE _______
(HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
ORP CONTROLLER
(TRIVALENT CHROMIUM)
pH CONTROLLER
REACTION TANK
PRECIPITATION TANK
TO CLARIFlER
(CHROMIUM
HYDROXIDE)
FIGURE VII -13. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REDUCTION WITH SULFUR DIOXIDE

-------
INFLUENT
ALUM
EFFLUENT
WATER
LEVEL
POLYMER
STORED
BACKWASH
WATER
-*-tFILTER
BACKWASH-
THREE WAY VALVE
a	<
u	3
w	X
-»	u
FILTER
COMPARTMENT
COAL
SAND
COLLECTION CHAMBER
SUMP
CP
DRAIN
FIGURE VII—14. GRANULAR BED FILTRATION
280

-------
PERFORATED
BACKING PLATE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
SOLID
RECTANGULAR
END PLATE	
Ivvff


' INLET
SLUDGE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
ENTRAPPED SOLIDS
PLATES AND FRAMES ARE
PRESSED TOGETHER DURING
FILTRATION CYCLE
RECTANGULAR
METAL PLATE
FILTERED LIQUID OUTLET
\
RECTANGULAR FRAME
FIGURE VI1 — 15. PRESSURE FILTRATION
281

-------
SEDIMENTATION BASIN
INLET ZONE
INLET LIQUID
BAFFLES TO MAINTAIN
SETTLING PARTl$Lf
* TRAJECTORY
OUTLET ZONE
OUTLET LIQUID
BELT-TYPE SOLIDS COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SETTLED PARTICLES COLLECTED
AND PERIODICALLY REMOVED
CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
SETTLING ZONE.
INLET LIQUID
CIRCULAR BAFFLE
ANNULAR OVERFLOW WEIR
• • «
INLET ZONE
••'•Vv'/
r._>*
.	. -h-
. * vfv
• •/« •
• •«* * • •
* • */T LIQUID "
*	FLOW .*
•	/a. •	"» • «
OUTLET LIQUID
•SETTLING PARTICLES
REVOLVING COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SETTLED PARTICLES
COLLECTED AND PERIODICALLY
: REMOVED
SLUDGE DRAWOFF
FIGURE VI1-16. REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION
282

-------
WASTE WATER
WASH WATER
SURFACE WASH
MANIFOLD
BACKWASH
INFLUENT
DISTRIBUTOR
BACKWASH
REPLACEMENT CARBON
CARBON REMOVAL PORT
TREATED WATER
SUPPORT PLATE
FIGURE VII-17. ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION COLUMN
283

-------
CONVEYOR DRIVE
LIQUID
OUTLET
DRYING
LIQUID ZONE
SLUDGE
INLET
IP
VJ VI VI \1 M VI
CYCLOGEAR
BOWL
REGULATING
RING
IMPELLER
FIGURE VII-18. CENTRIFUGATION
284

-------
RAW WASTE
CAUSTIC
SODA
pH
CONTROLLER
OR* CONTROLLERS
CAUSTIC
SODA
j»H
CONTROLLER
WATER
CONTAINING
CYANATE
TREATED
WttSTE
CD
	*1+
CHLORINE-
CIRCULATING
PUMP ~~7
CD
REACTION TANK
REACTION TANK
CHLORINATOR
FIGURE VlI-19. TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTE BY ALKALINE CHLORINATION

-------
Oz
TREATED
—IX
WASTE
OZONE
REACTION
TANK
CONTROLS
OZONE
GENERATOR
DRY AIR
RAW WASTE
FIGURE VlI-20. TYPICAL OZONE PLANT FOR WASTE TREATMENT
286

-------
MIXER
EXHAUST
GAS
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL.
FIRST
STAGE
PH MONITORING
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
SECOND
STAGE
PH MONITORING .
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
THIRD
STAGE
WASTEWATER
FEED TANK
PH MONITORING
PUMP
OZONE
GENERATOR
OZONE
TREATED WATER
FIGURE VII-21. UV/OZONATION
287

-------
EXHAUST
CONDENSER
WATER VAPOR
PACKED TOWER
EVAPORATOR
WASTEWATER
FAN


PUMP
HEAT
EXCHANGER
STEAM
CONDENSATE
CONCENTRATE
ATMOSPHERIC EVAPORATOR
VACUUM LINE
CONDENSATE
WASTEWATER
CONCENTRATE
VACUUM
PUMP

yyr/TT. steam
COOLING
WATER
STEAM
WASTE
WATER
FEED
STEAM
CONDENSATE
EVAPORATOR
STEAM'
VAPOR-LIQUID
MIXTURE	/SEPARATOR
STEAM
CONDENSATE
WASTEWATER

LIQUID
RETURN
WATER VAPOR
1
:ool
YATE
i
COOLING
WATER
_____ I i
lj r
VACUUM PUMP
• CONDENSATE
-CONCENTRATE
CLIMBING FILM EVAPORATOR
VAPOR
HOT VAPOR
COOLING
WATER
STEAM
CONDENSATE
CONDEN-
CONCENTRATE
ICONDENSATE
VACUUM PUMP
EXHAUST
ACCUMULATOR
CONDENSATE
FOR REUSE
SUBMERGED TUBE EVAPORATOR
CONCENTRATE FOR REUSE
DOUBLE-EFFECT EVAPORATOR
FIGURE VH-22. TYPES OF EVAPORATION EQUIPMENT

-------
OILY WATER
INFLUENT
WATER
DISCMARGE
MOTOR
DRIVEN
RAKE
OVERFLOW
SHUTOFF
VALVE
L_LJ
AIR IN
BACK PRESS
VALVE
FINES St OIL
OUT
HOLDING
TANK
EXCESS
AIR OUT
LEVEL
CONTROLLER
TO SLUDGE
TANK
T	l
-*—4 f	nL I
FIGURE VH-23.
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
289

-------
CONDUIT
TO MOTOR
INFLUENT
CONDUIT TO
OVERLOAD
ALARM
RAKE ARM
COUNTERFLOW
INFLUENT WELL
DRIVE UNIT
WALKWAY
OVERLOAD ALARM
EFFLUENT WEIR
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
EFFLUENT PIPE
EFFLUENT CHANNEL
PLAN
INFLUENT
HANDRAIL
TURNTABLE
BASE
WATER LEVEL
CENTER COLUMN
CENTER CAGE
FEED WELL

STILTS
CENTER SCRAPER
WEIR
SQUEEGEE
SLUDGE PIPE
FIGURE VII-24. GRAVITY THICKENING
290

-------
WASTE WATER CONTAINING
DISSOLVED METALS OR
OTHER IONS
RESENERANT
SOLUTION
DIVKRTER VALVE
DISTRIBUTOR
; EXCHANGE
J RESIN
•SUPPORT
D1VERTER VALVE
METAL-FREE WATER
FOR REUSE OR DISCHARGE
RESENERANT TO REUSE,
TREATMENT, OR DISPOSAL
FIGURE VI1-25. ION EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION

-------

# MACROMOLECULES
k	• AND SOLIDS
•	•	M
• MOST	•
• ^SALTSJP ##
• • • •
• • •
MEMBRANE
dp » 450 PS1
WATER
MEMBRANE CROSS SECTION,
IN TUBULAR, HOLLOW FIBER,
OR SPIRAL-WOUND CONFIGURATION
PERMEATE (WATER)
CONCENTRATE
(SALTS)
FEED*
SALTS OR SOLIDS
• WATER MOLECULES
FIGURE VII-26. SIMPLIFIED REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC
292

-------
PERMEATE
TUBE
pCED FL.OW
O-RING
ADHESIVE BOUND
SPIRAL MODULE
PERMEATE FI.OW — "	||
FEED FLOW
CONCENTRATE
PLOW
BACKING MATERIAL
¦MESH SPACER
' MlEMBRANE
SPIRAL MEMBRANE! MODULE
POROUS SUPPORT TUBE
WITH MEMBRANE
O O 0
O ° _
o •»
BRACKISH
WATER
FEED FLOW
PRODUCT WATER
PERMEATE FLOW

a°?
p 8 ~ On ~ Q©n a> o _ Mo"o
L«noW»n no Boo rjoVt1 .a D f,0 .
BRINE
CONCENTRATE
FLOW
PRODUCT WATER
TUBULAR REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULE
OPEN ENDS
OF FIBERS
EPOXY
TUBE SHEET
SNAP
RING
"O" RING
SEAL
POROUS
BACK-UP DISC
SNAP
RING
FIBER
FLOW SCREEN
O" RING
SEAL
END PLATE
POROUS FEED
DISTRIBUTOR TUBE •
PERMEATE
END PLATE
HOLLOW FIBER MODULE
FIGURE VII-27, REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE CONFIGURATIONS

-------
A
t
p—d=

TT
5=t
?=&

=u W l>


TP
L°J
LOJ
	rJL-	
n
:<
*_i
u
£ w
H
ii
ii
v
i
LOJ
—^r*
O-IN. VITRIFIED PIPE
WITH PLASTIC JOINTS
	jl	
-"\fr~v-
UAID>-^
M
u 011
l21!
ES|I
>o,|
z h||
Sill
	JL_.
LOJ

LOJ
^-•SPLASH BOX
•rh* !
~

o
B'
¦r^e—

L°J
EL
6-IN. FLANGED
SHEAR GATE
II
f
==^iif=====
Q
SJI
IA
J
PLAN
6-IN. FINE SAND
3-IN. COARSE SAND
3-IN. FINE GRAVEL
3-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
3 TO 6 IN. COARSE GRAVEL
6-IN. CI PIPE
PLANK
WALK
PIPE COLUMN FOR
GLASS-OVER
3-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
6-IN. UNDERDRAIN LAID-
WITH OPEN JOINTS
SECTION A-A
FIGURE VII-28. SLUDGE DRYING BED
294

-------
ULTRAFILTRATION
MACROMOLECULES
P = 10-80 PSI
t
MEMBRANE
z
M
WATER
M
.SALTS
"MEMBRANE
PERMEATE
• * . * f * / * • • ~ .
• • • • T / •• • T ••
o® • • V> • o • «
°. . * • °
FEED q O # # «
* ® • • • o •
o O * O • ° • ®
		!_ - « • *
•O
• o •• O.
• ~	O CONCENTRATE
° • o*	• o •
• • ° O • . O.o

• •
O OIL PARTICLES
» DISSOLVED SALTS AND LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT ORGANICS
FIGURE Vll-29. SIMPLIFIED ULTRAFILTRATION FLOW SCHEMATIC
295

-------
FABRIC OR WIRE
FILTER MEDIA
STRETCHED OVER
REVOLVING DRUM*
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
SOLIDS SCRAPED
OFF FILTER MEDIA
VACUUM
SOURCE
STEEL
CYLINDRICAL
FRAME
TRUNNION
LIQUID FORCE
THROUGH
MEDIA BY
MEANS OF
VACUUM
SrMIIfJ#
mmm

$83*8
WMtiMI
SOL.1DS COLLECTION
HOPPER
INLET LIQUID
TO BE
FILTERED
-TROUGH
FILTERED LIQUID
FIGURE VIl-30. VACUUM FILTRATION
296

-------
SECTION VIII
COST OF WASTE WATER CONTROL AND TREATMENT
This section presents estimates of the cost of implementation of
the major wastewater treatment and control technologies described
in Section VII. These cost estimates, together with the
pollutant reduction performance for each treatment and control
option presented in Sections IX, X, XI, XII and XIII provide a
basis for evaluation of the options presented and identification
of the best practicable control technology currently available
(BPT), best available technology economically achievable (BAT),
best demonstrated technology (BDT), the appropriate technology
for pretreatment. Cost estimates are included in this Section
for technology that the Agency may later designate as best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The cost
estimates also provide the basis for the determination of the
probable economic impact of regulation at different pollutant
discharge levels on the porcelain enameling industrial segment.
In addition, this section addresses non-water quality
environmental impacts of wastewater treatment and control
alternatives including air pollution, noise pollution, solid
wastes, and energy requirements.
To arrive at the cost estimates presented in this section,
specific wastewater treatment technologies and in-process control
techniques were selected from among those discussed in Section
VII and combined in wastewater treatment and control systems
appropriate for each subcategory. Investment and annual costs
for each system were estimated based on wastewater flows and raw
wastewater characteristics for each subcategory as presented in
Section V.
COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Cost estimation is accomplished using a computer program which
accepts inputs specifying the treatment system to be estimated,
chemical characteristics of the raw wastewater streams treated,
flow rates and operating schedules. The program accesses models
for specific treatment components which relate component
investment and operating costs, materials and energy
requirements, and effluent stream characteristics to influent
flow rates and stream characteristics. Component models are
exercised sequentially as the components are encountered in the
system to determine chemical characteristics and flow rates at
each point. Component investment and annual costs are also
determined and used in the computation of total system costs.
297

-------
Mass balance calculations are used to determine the
characteristics of combined streams resulting from mixing two or
more streams and to determine the volume of sludges or liquid
wastes resulting from treatment operations such as chemical
precipitation and settling and filtration.
Cost estimates are broken down into several distinct elements in
addition to total investment and annual;costs: operation and
maintenance costs, energy costs, depreciation, and annual costs
of capital. The cost estimation program incorporates provisions
for adjustment of all costs to a common dollar base on the basis
of economic indices appropriate to capital equipment and
operating supplies. Labor and electrical power costs are input
variables appropriate to the dollar base year for cost estimates.
These cost breakdown and adjustment factors as well as other
aspects of the cost estimation process are discussed in greater
detail in the following paragraphs.
Cost Estimation Input Data
The wastewater treatment system descriptions input to the
computer cost estimation program include both a specification of
the wastewater treatment components included and a definition of
their interconnections. For some components, retention times or
other operating parameters are specified in the input, while for
others, such as reagent mix tanks and clarifiers, these
parameters are specified within the program based on prevailing
design practice in industrial wastewater treatment. The
wastewater treatment system descriptions may include multiple raw
wastewater stream inputs and multiple treatment trains. For
example, chromium-bearing wastewater streams are segregated and
treated by chemical reduction prior to mixing with other metal
preparation and coating wastewaters for subsequent chemical
precipitation treatment.
The specific treatment systems selected for cost estimation for
each subcategory were based on an examination of raw wastewater
characteristics, consideration of manufacturing processes, and an
evaluation of available treatment technologies discussed in
Section VII. The rationale for selection of these systems is
presented in Sections IX through XII.
The input data set also includes chemical characteristics for
each raw wastewater stream specified as input to the treatment
systems for which costs are to be estimated. These
characteristics are derived from the raw wastewater sampling data
presented in Section V. The pollutant parameters which are
presently accepted as input by the cost estimation program are
shown in Table VIII-1. The values of these parameters are used
298

-------
in determining materials consumption, sludge volumes, treatment
component sizes, and effluent characteristics. The list of input
parameters is expanded periodically as additional pollutants are
found to be significant in wastewater streams from industries
under study and as additional treatment technology cost and
performance data become available. For the porcelain enameling
industrial segment, individual subcategories commonly encompass a
number of different wastewater streams which are present to
varying degrees at different facilities. The raw wastewater
characteristics shown as input to wastewater treatment represent
a mix of these streams including all significant pollutants
generated in the subcategory and will not in general correspond
precisely to process wastewater at any existing facility. The
process by which these raw wastewaters were defined is explained
in Section V.
TABLE VIII-1
COST PROGRAM
Parameter, Units
Flow, MGD
pH, pH units
Turbidity, Jackson Units
Temperature, degree C
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
Residual Chlorine, mg/1
Acidity, mg/1 CaC03
Alkalinity, mg/1 CaC03
Ammonia, mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/1
Color, Chloroplatinate units
Sulfide, mg/1
Cyanides, mg/1
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Conductance, micromhos/cm
Total Solids, mg/1
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1
Settleable Solids, mg/1
Aluminum, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chromium, Total, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, Total, mg/1
T PARAMETERS
Parameter, Units
Oil, Grease, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1 CaC03
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/1
Algicides, mg/1
Total Phosphates, mg/1
Polychlorobiphenyls, mg/1
Potassium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Sulfite, mg/1
Titanium, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Boron, mg/1
Iron, Dissolved, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Strontium, mg/1
Surfactants, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Plasticizers, mg/1
Antimony, mg/1
Bromide, mg/1
299

-------
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Molybdenum, mg/1
Total Volatile Solids, mg/1
Cobalt, mg/1
Thallium, mg/1
Tin, mg/1
Chromium, Hexavalent, mg/1
The final input data set comprises raw wastewater flow rates for
each input stream for a "normal" plant in each subcategory. The
normal plant is defined as a plant having the mean production
level, mean production normalized water use, and mean production
normalized pollutant concentrations for the subcategory. The
normal plant is used to indicate the flows encountered at
existing facilities, for each porcelain enameling subcategory and
to indicate the treatment costs which would be incurred in the
implementation of each control and treatment option considered.
In addition, data corresponding to the flow rates and equipment
in place reported by each plant in the category were used to
provide cost estimates for use in economic impact analysis.
System Cost Computation
In the estimate of wastewater treatment and control costs raw
wastewater characteristics and flow rates for the first case are
used as input to the model for the first treatment technology
specified in the system definition. This model is used to
determine the size and cost of the component, materials and
energy consumed in its operation, and the volume and
characteristics of the stream(s) discharged from it. These
stream characteristics are then used as input to the next
component(s) encountered in the system definition. This
procedure is continued until the complete system costs and the
volume and characteristics of the final effluent stream(s) arid
sludge wastes have been determined. In addition to treatment
components, the system may include mixers in which two streams
are combined, and splitters in which part of a stream is directed
to another destination. These elements are handled by mass
balance calculations and allow cost estimation for specific
treatment of segregated process wastewaters prior to combination
with other process wastewaters for further treatment, and
representation of partial recycle of wastewater.
As an example of this computation process, the sequence of
calculations involved in the development of cost estimates for
the simple treatment system shown in Figure VIII-1 (Page 332) is
described. Initially, input specifications for the treatment
system are read to set up the sequence of computations. The
subroutine addressing chemical precipitation and clarification is
then accessed. The sizes of the mixing tank and clarification
basin are calculated based on the raw wastewater flow rate to
provide 45 minute retention in the mix tank and a 15.0 gal/hr/ft2
300

-------
surface loading in the clarifier. Based on these sizes,
investment and annual costs for labor, supplies for the mixing
tank and clarifier including mixers, clarifier rakes and other
directly related equipment are determined. Fixed investment
costs are then added to account for sludge pumps, controls,
piping, and reagent feed systems-
Based on the input raw wastewater concentrations and flow rates,
the reagent additions (lime, alum, and polyelectrolyte) are
calculated to provide fixed concentrations of alum and
polyelectrolyte and 10 percent excess lime over that required for
stoichiometric reaction with the acidity and metals present in
the wastewater stream. Costs are calculated for these materials,
and the suspended solids and flow leaving the mixing tank and
entering the clarifier are increased to reflect the lime solids
added and precipitates formed. These modified stream
characteristics are then used with performance algorithms for the
clarifier (as discussed in Section VII) to determine
concentrations of each pollutant in the clarifier effluent
stream. By mass balance, the amount of each pollutant in the
clarifier sludge may be determined. The volume of the sludge
stream is determined by the concentration of TSS which is fixed
at 4.5 percent based on general operating experience, and
concentrations of other pollutants in the sludge stream are
determined from their masses and the volume of the stream.
The subroutine describing vacuum filtration is then called, and
the mass of suspended solids in the clarifier sludge stream is
used to determine the size and investment cost of the vacuum
filtration unit. To determine manhours required for operation,
operating hours for the filter are calculated from the flow rate
and TSS concentration. Maintenance labor requirements are added
as a fixed additional cost.
The sludge flow rate and TSS content are then used to determine
costs of materials and supplies for vacuum filter operation
including iron and alum added as filter aids, and the electrical
power costs for operation. Finally, the vacuum filter
performance algorithms are used to determine the volume and
characteristics of the vacuum filter sludge and filtrate, and the
costs of contract disposal of the sludge are calculated. The
recycle of vacuum filter filtrate to the chemical precipitation
and settling system is not reflected in the calculations due to
the difficulty of iterative solution of such loops and the
general observation that the contributions of such streams to the
total flow and pollutant levels are, in practice, negligibly
small. Allowance for such minor contributions is made in the 20
percent excess capacity provided in most components, and 40
301

-------
percent excess capacity of the flocculator, settling tank, and
slu'dge pumps of the clarifier.
The costs determined for all components of the system are summed
and subsidiary costs (piping, buildings, instrumentation,
contingency) are added to provide output specifying total
investment and annual costs for the system and annual costs for
capital, depreciation, operation and maintenance, and energy.
Costs for specific system components and the characteristics of
all streams in the system may also be specified as output from
the program.
After proposal numerous public comments were received about the
Agency's cost estimates. Review of data and consideration of
information provided in comments resulted in a number of changes
that increased substantially the Agency's cost estimates.
These changes are summarized here, as well as being incorporated
in the following discussion.
1.	The hydraulic surface loading of clarifier was reduced from
33.3 to 15.0 gal/hr/ft2.
2.	The TSS concentration in clarifier sludge stream was
corrected to read 4.5 percent.
3.	The excess capacity factor for flocculator, settling tank,
and sludge pumps of clarifier was increased from 1.2 to 1.4.
4.	Intercomponent piping, instrumentation, and contingency
costs were added to list of subsidiary costs.	~
5.	The wastewater sampling frequency chart was corrected to
show weekly rather than monthly sampling at the third size
level (189, 251-378, 500 lb/day).
6.	Intrumentation costs are now assigned fixed value of $25,000
for continuous treatment, zero cost for batch treatment.
7.	Engineering costs were increased and now range from 10.6
percent of total investment for a $650,000 plant to 22
percent for a $55,000 plant.
8.	Legal, fiscal, and administrative costs were increased and
now range from 1.6 percent of total plant investment cost
for a $650,000 plant, to 3.7 percent for a $55,000 plant.
9.	Interest for construction costs was increased from 10
percent to 16 percent.
302

-------
Treatment Component Models
The cost estimation program presently incorporates subroutines
providing cost and performance calculations for the treatment
technologies identified in Table VIII-2. These subroutines have
been developed over a period of years from the best available
information including on-site observations of treatment system
performance, costs, construction practices at a large number of
industrial facilities, published data, and information obtained
from suppliers of wastewater treatment equipment. The
subroutines are modified and new subroutines added as additional
data allow improvements in treatment technologies presently
available, and as additional treatment technologies are required
for the industrial wastewater streams under study. Specific
discussion of each of the treatment component models used in
costing wastewater treatment and control systems for the
porcelain enameling industrial segment is presented later in this
section where cost estimation is addressed, and in Section VII
where performance aspects were developed.
TABLE VIII-2
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUBROUTINES
Treatment Process Subroutines
Spray/Fog Rinse
Countercurrent Rinse
Vacuum Filtration
Gravity Thickening
Sludge Drying Beds
Holding Tanks
Centrifugation
Equalization
Contractor Removal
Reverse Osmosis
Landfill
Chemical Reduction of Chrom.
Chemical Oxidaton of Cyanide
Neutralization
Clarification (Settling Tank/Tube Settler)
API Oil Skimming
Emulsion Breaking (Chem/Thermal)
Membrane Filtration
Filtration (Diatomaceous Earth)
Ion Exchange - w/Plant Regeneration
Ion Exchange - Service Regeneration
Flash Evaporation
Climbing Film Evaporation
Sanitary Sewer Discharge Fe<
Ultrafiltration
Submerged Tube Evaporation
Flotation/Separation
Wiped Film Evaporation
Trickling Filter
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Nickel Filter
Sulfide Precipitation
Sand Filter
Chromium Regeneration
Pressure Filter
Multimedia Granular Filter
Sump
Cooling Tower
Ozonation
Activated Sludge
Coalescing Oil Separator
Non Contact Cooling Basin
Raw Wastewater Pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Preliminary Sedimentation
303

-------
Atmospheric Evaporation
Cyclic Ion Exchange
Post Aeration
Sludge Pumping
Copper Cementation
Aerator - Final Settler
Chlorination
Flotation Thickening
Multiple Hearth Incineratio:
Aerobic Digestion
In general terms, cost estimation is provided by mathematical
relationships in each subroutine approximating observed correla-
tions between component costs and the most significant
operational parameters such as water flow rate, retention times,
and pollutant concentrations. In general, flow rate is the
primary determinant of investment costs and of most annual costs
with the exception of materials costs. In some cases, however,
as discussed for the vacuum filter, pollutant concentrations may
also significantly influence costs.
Cost Factors and Adjustments
As previously indicated, costs are adjusted to a common dollar
base and are generally influenced by a number of factors
including: Cost of Labor, Cost of Energy, Capital Recovery Costs
and Debt-Equity Ratio. These cost adjustments and factors are
discussed below.
Dollar Base - A dollar base of January 1978 was used for all
costs.
Investment Cost Adjustment - Investment costs were adjusted to
the aforementioned dollar base by use of the Sewage Treatment
Plant Construction Cost Index. This cost is published quarterly
(formerly monthly) by the EPA Division of Facilities Construction
and Operation. The national average of the Construction Cost
Index for January 1978 was 288.0.
Supply Cost Adjustment - Costs of supplies such as chemicals were
related to the dollar base by the Producer Price Index (formerly
known as the Wholesale Price Index). This figure was obtained
from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
"Monthly Labor Review". For January 1978 the • "Industrial
Commodities" Wholesale Price Index was 201.6. Process supply and
replacement costs were included in the estimate of the total
process operating and maintenance cost.
Cost of Labor - To relate the operating and maintenance labor
costs, the hourly wage rate for non-supervisory workers in water,
stream, and sanitary systems was used from the U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Monthly publication,
"Employment and Earnings". For January 1978, this wage rate was
$6.00 per hour. This wage rate was then applied to estimates of
304

-------
operation and maintenance man-hours within each process to obtain
process direct labor charges. To account for indirect labor
charges, 15 percent of the direct labor costs was added to the
direct labor charge to yield estimated total labor costs. Such
items as Social . Security, employer contributions to pension or
retirement funds, and employer-paid premiums to various forms of
insurance programs were considered indirect labor costs.
Cost of Energy - Energy requirements were calculated directly
within each process. Estimated costs were then determined by
applying an electrical rate of 3.4 cents per kilowatt hour.
The electrical charge for January 1978 was corroborated through
consultation with the Energy Consulting Services Department of
the Connecticut Light and Power Company. This electrical charge
was determined by assuming that any electrical needs of a waste
treatment facility or in-process technology would be satisfied by
an existing electrical distribution system; i.e., no new meter
would be required. This eliminated the formation of any new
demand load base for the electrical charge.
Capital Recovery Costs - Capital recovery costs were divided into
straight line ten-year depreciation and cost of capital at a ten
percent annual interest rate for a period of ten years. The ten
year depreciation period was consistent with the faster write-off
(financial life) allowed for these facilities even though the
equipment life is in the range of 20 to 25 years.
The annual cost of capital was calculated by using the capital
recovery factor approach.
The capital recovery factor is normally used in industry to help
allocate the initial investment and the interest to the total
operating cost of the facility. It is equal to:
CRF = i +	i
(1+i) n-1
where i is the annual interest rate and n is the number of years
over which the capital is to be recovered. The annual capital
recovery was obtained by multiplying the initial investment by
the capital recovery factor. The annual depreciation of the
capital investment was calculated by dividing the initial
investment by the depreciation period N, which was assumed to be
ten years. The annual cost of capital was then equal to the
annual capital recovery minus the depreciation.
305

-------
Debt-Equity Ratio - Limitations on new borrowings assume that
debt may not exceed a set percentage of the shareholders equity.
This defines the breakdown of the capital investment between debt
and equity charges. However, due to the lack of information
about the financial status of various plants, it was not feasible
to estimate typical shareholders equity to obtain debt financing
limitations. For these reasons, capital cost was not broken into
debt and equity charges. Rather, the annual cost of capital was
calculated via the procedure outlined in the Capital Recovery
Costs section above.
Subsidiary Costs
The wastewater treatment and control system costs presented in
Figures VIII-2 through VIII-20 (pages 333-351) for end-of-pipe
and in-process wastewater control and treatment systems include
subsidiary costs associated with system construction and
operation. These subsidiary costs include:
•	administration and laboratory facilities
•	garage and shop facilities
•	line segregation
•	yardwork
•	piping (including intercomponent and return piping)
•	instrumentation
•	land
•	engineering
•	legal, fiscal, and administrative
•	interest during construction
•	contingency
Administrative and laboratory facility treatment investment is
the cost of constructing space for administration and laboratory
functions for the wastewater treatment system. For these cost
computations, it was assumed that new building space would be
required to house the waste treatment system control components
(metering and instrumentation as applicable), laboratory
facilities (if desired) and any other supportive functions
requiring building space. A fixed investment cost for the
306

-------
construction of a nine hundred square foot (900 ft2) one story
building was included in the capital cost estimation.
For laboratory operations, an analytical fee of $90 (January 1978
dollars) was allowed for each wastewater sample, regardless of
whether the laboratory work was done on or off site. This analy-
tical fee is typical of the charges experienced by the EPA
contractor during the past several years of sampling programs.
The frequency of wastewater sampling is a function of wastewater
discharge flow and is presented in Table VIII-3. This frequency
was suggested by the Water Compliance Division of the USEPA.
For industrial wastewater treatment facilities being costed, no
garage and shop investment cost was included. This cost item was
assumed to be part of the normal plant costs and was not
allocated to the wastewater treatment system.
Line segregation investment costs account for plant modifications
to segregate wastewater streams. The investment costs for 1ine
segregation included placing a trench in the existing plant floor
and installing the 1ines in this trench. The same trench was
used for all pipes. The pipes were assumed to run from the
center of the floor to a corner. A rate of 2.04 liters per hour
of wastewater discharge per square meter of area (0.05 gal/hr-
ft2) was used to estimate floor and trench dimensions from
wastewater flow rates for use in this cost estimation process.
It was assumed that a transfer pump would be required for each
segregated process 1ine in order to transfer the wastewater to
the treatment system.
TABLE VIII-3
WASTEWATER SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Waste Water Discharge
(liters per day)
Sampling Frequency
once per month
twice per month
once per week
0 - 37,850
37,851- - 1 89, 250
189,251 - 378,500
378,501 - 946,250
twice per week
946,250+
thrice per week
307

-------
The yardwork investment cost item includes the cost of general
site clearing, lighting, manholes, tunnels, conduits, and general
site items outside the structural confines of particular
individual plant components. This cost is typically 9 to 18
percent of the installed components investment costs. For these
cost estimates, an average of 14 percent was utilized. Annual
yardwork operation and maintenance costs are considered a part of
normal plant maintenance and were not included in these cost
estimates.
The piping investment cost item includes the cost of
intercomponent piping, valves, and piping required to transfer
the wastewater to the wastewater treatment system. This cost is
estimated to be equal to 20 percent of installed component
investment costs.
The instrumentation investment cost item includes the cost of
metering equipment, electrical wiring, cable, treatment component
operational controls, and motor control centers as required for
each of the waste treatment systems described in Sections IX
through XII of the document. A fixed cost of $25,000 was allowed
for instrumentation investment for plants where the least cost
treatment was the continuous mode. No cost was allocated for
instrumentation investment where batch treatment was determined
to be the least cost mode.
No new land purchases were required. It was assumed that the
land required for the end-of-pipe treatment system was already
available at the plant.
Engineering costs include both basic and special services. Basic
services include preliminary design reports, detailed design, and
certain office and field engineering services during construction
of projects. Special services include improvement studies, resi-
dent engineering, soils investigations, land surveys, operation
and maintenance manuals, and other miscellaneous services.
Engineering cost is a function of investment in treatment process
installed and yardwork. Engineering cost ranges from 10.6
percent of total plant investment cost for a $650,000 plant, to
22 percent for a $55,000 plant.
Legal, fiscal and administrative costs relate to planning and
construction of waste water treatment facilities and include such
items as preparation of legal documents, preparation of construc-
tion contracts, acquisition of land,- etc. These costs are a
function of process installed, yardwork, engineering, and land
investment costs, and range from 1.6 percent of total plant
investment cost for a $650,000 plant to 3.7 percent for a $55,000
plant.
308

-------
Interest cost during construction is the interest cost accrued on
funds from the time payment is made to the contractor, to the end
of the construction period. The total of all other project
investment costs (process installed; yardwork; land; engineering;
and legal, fiscal, and administrative) and the applied interest
affect this cost. An interest rate of 16 percent was used to
determine the interest cost for these estimates.
A contingency allowance was included equal to ten percent of the
sum of the cost of individual treatment technologies; piping,
line segregation, and yardwork.
COST ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Table VII1-4 lists those technologies which are incorporated in
the wastewater treatment and control options offered for the
porcelain enameling industrial segment and for which cost
estimates have been developed. These treatment technologies have
been selected from among the larger set of available alternatives
discussed in Section VII on the basis of an evaluation of raw
wastewater characteristics, typical plant characteristics (e.g.
location, production schedules, product mix, and land
availability), and present treatment practices within the
subcategories addressed. Specific rationale for selection is
addressed in Sections IX, X, XI and XII. Cost estimates for each
technology addressed in this section include investment costs and
annual costs for depreciation, capital, operation and
maintenance, and energy.
Investment - Investment is the capital expenditure required to
bring the technology into operation. If the installation is a
package contract, the investment is the purchase price of the
installed equipment. Otherwise, it includes the equipment cost,
cost of freight, insurance and taxes, and installation costs.
Total Annual Cost - Total annual cost is the sum of annual costs
for depreciation, capital, operation and maintenance (less
energy), and energy (as a separate function).
Depreciation - Depreciation is an allowance, based on tax
regulations, for the recovery of fixed capital from an in-
vestment to be considered as a non-cash annual expense. It
may be regarded as the decline in value of a capital asset
due to wearout and obsolescence.
Capital - The annual cost of capital is the cost, to the
plant, of obtaining capital expressed as an interest rate.
It is equal to the capital recovery cost (as previously dis-
cussed on cost factors) less depreciation.
309

-------
Operation and Maintenance - Operation and maintenance cost
is the annual cost of running the wastewater treatment
equipment. It includes labor and materials such as
wastewater treatment chemicals. As presented in the tables,
operation and maintenance cost does not include energy
(power or fuel) costs because these costs are shown
separately.
Energy - The annual cost of energy is shown separately,
although it is commonly included as part of operation and
maintenance cost. Energy cost has been shown separately
because of its importance to the nation's economy and
natural resources.
TABLE VII1-4
INDEX TO TECHNOLOGY COST FIGURES
Figures	Wastewater Treatment Technology	Page
VIII-2 through	Holding Tanks 333
VIII-8	339
VIII-9 through	Chromium Reduction 340
VIII-11	342
VIII-12 through	Chemical Precipitation and Settling; 343
VIII-14	345
VIII-15	Multimedia Filtration 346
VIII-16 through	"In-line" Filtration 347
VIII-17	348
VIII-18 through	Vacuum Filtration 349
VIII-20	351
Holding Tanks
Tanks serving a variety of purposes in wastewater treatment and
control systems are fundamentally similar in design and construc-
tion and in cost. They may include equalization tanks, solution
holding tanks, slurry or sludge holding tanks, mixing tanks, and
settling tanks from which sludge is intermittently removed
manually or by sludge pumps. Tanks for all of these purposes are
addressed in a single cost estimation subroutine with additional
costs for auxilliary equipment such as sludge pumps added as
appropriate.
Capital Costs. Costs are estimated for lined concrete or steel
tanks. Tank construction may be specified as input data, or
determined on a least cost basis. Retention time is specified as
input data and, together with stream flow rate, determines tank
310

-------
size. Capital costs for steel tanks sized for 20 percent excess
capacity are shown as functions of stream flow rate in Figures
VII1-2 through VIII-4 (Pages 333-335). These costs include
mixers, pumps and installation.
Operation and Maintenance Costs. For all holding tanks operation
and maintenance costs are minimal in comparison to other system
O&M costs Figure VI11-5, page 336. Energy costs for pump and
mixer operation are presented in Figures VIII-6 through VIII-8
(Pages 337-339).
Where tanks are used for settling as in lime precipitation and
clarification batch treatment, additional operation and
maintenance costs are calculated as discussed specifically for
each technology.
Chromium Reduction
This technology provides chemical reduction of hexavalent
chromium under acid conditions to allow subsequent removal of the
trivalent form by precipitation as the hydroxide. Treatment may
be provided in either continuous or batch mode, and cost
estimates are developed for both. Operating mode for system cost
estimates is selected on a least cost basis.
Capital Cost. Cost estimates include all required equipment for
performing this treatment technology including reagent dosage,
reaction tanks, mixers and controls. Different reagents are
provided for batch and continuous treatment resulting in
different system design considerations as discussed below.
For both continuous and batch treatment, sulfuric acid is added
for pH control. If more than two 55-gallon drums per day are
required, a 5 day supply is stored in an above-ground, fiberglass
reinforced plastic tank.
For continuous chromium reduction the single chromium reduction
tank is sized in an above-ground cylindrical rubber lined steel
tank with a a one hour retention time, and an excess capacity
factor of 1.2. Sulfur dioxide is added to convert the influent
hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form. The control system
for continuous chromium reduction consists of:
1	immersion pH probe and transmitter
2	immersion ORP probe and transmitter
1	pH and ORP monitor
2	slow process controllers
1	pen recorder
1	sulfonator and associated pressure regulator
31 1

-------
3 pump stands
2 sulfuric acid pumps
1	transfer pump
2	mixers
1 maintenance kits for pH probe and miscellaneous
electrical equipment and piping
For batch chromium reduction, the dual chromium reduction tanks
are sized as above-ground cylindrical rubber-lined steel tanks,
with a 4 hour, 1 day, or 5 day retention time selected to
minimize total annual cost, and an excess capacity factor of 1.2.
Sodium bisulfite is added to reduce the hexavalent chromium.
A completely manual system is provided for batch operation. Sub-
sidiary equipment includes:
1	wall mounted mixer
1	sulfuric acid pump
1	sulfuric acid mixer with disconnects
2	immersion pH probes
1	pH'meter, and miscellaneous piping
3	ORP probes
1	pH probe maintenance kit
Capital costs for batch and continuous treatment systems are pre-
sented in Figure VIII-9 (Page 340).
Operation and Maintenance. Costs for operating and maintaining
chromium reduction systems include labor, chemical addition,
liner replacement and energy requirements and are presented in
Figure VIII-10 (Page 341). These factors are determined as
follows:
LABOR
The labor requirements are plotted in Figure VI11-11 (Page 342).
CHEMICAL ADDITION
For the continuous system, sulfur dioxide is added according to
the following:
(lbs S02/day) = (8.34) flow to unit in MGD) (1.85 x mg/1 Cr+6
+ 4 x mg/1 dissolved 02) (1.1 excess capacity
factor)
In the batch mode, sodium meta bisulfite is added in place of
sulfur dioxide according to the following:
312

-------
(lbs Na2S205/day = (8.34) (flow to unit in MGD) (-2.74 x mg/1
Cr+6 + 5.94 mg/1 dissolved 02) (1.1
excess capacity factor)
• ENERGY
For both systems, horsepower of the tank mixers and the transfer
pump are a function of the tank volume and stream flow,
respectively. The acid feed pump requires 0.2 horsepower. The
mixers are assumed to operate continuously over the operation
time of the treatment system.
Given the above requirements, operation and maintenance costs
presented in Figure VIII-12 (Page 343) are calculated based on
the following:
•	$6.00 per manhour + 15 percent indirect labor charge
•	$354/ton of sulfur dioxide
•	$280/ton of sodium meta bisulfite
•	$0.034/kilowatt hour of required electricity
•	$112/ton of sulfuric acid
Chemical Precipitation and Settling
This technology removes dissolved pollutants by the formation of
precipitates by reaction with added lime and subsequent removal
of the precipitated solids by gravity settling in a clarifier.
Several distinct operating modes and construction techniques are
costed to provide least cost treatment over a broad range of flow
rates. Because of their interrelationships and integration in
common equipment in some installations, both the chemical
addition and solids removal equipment are addressed in a single
subroutine. The chemical precipitation and sedimentation
subroutine also incorporates an oil skimming device on the
clarifier for removal of floating oils.
Investment Costs. Investment costs are determined for this tech-
nology for both batch and continuous treatment systems using
steel tank or concrete tank construction. The system selected is
based upon least cost on an annual basis as discussed previously
in this - Section. Continuous treatment systems include a mix
tank for reagent feed addition (flocculation basin) and a
clarification basin with associated sludge rakes and pumps.
Batch treatment systems include only reaction settling tanks and
sludge pumps.
The flocculator included in the continuous chemcial precipitation
and sedimentation system can be either a steel tank or concrete
tank unit. The concrete flocculator is an in-ground unit based
313

-------
on a 45 minute retention time, a length to width ratio of 5, a
depth of 8 feet, a wall thickness of 1 foot, and a 40 percent
excess capacity factor. The steel unit size is based on a 45
minute retention time, and a 40 percent excess capacity factor.
Capital costs for both the concrete and steel units include
excavation (as required) and a mixer.
The concrete settling tank included in the continuous chemical
precipitation and clarification system is an in-ground unit sized
for a hydraulic loading of 15.0 gph/ft2, a wall thickness of 1
foot, and an excess capacity factor of 40 percent. The steel
settling tank included in the continuous chemical precipitation
and clarification system is a circular above-ground unit sized
for a hydraulic loading of 15.0 gph/ft2, and an excess capacity
factor of 40 percent. The depth of the circular steel tank is
assumed to increase linearly with the diameter between six and
fifteen feet for tanks with diameters between eight and twenty-
four feet respectively. For tanks greater than twenty-four feet
in diameter, the depth is assumed to be a constant fifteen feet.
An allowance for field fabrication for the larger volume steel
sett]ing tanks is included in the capital cost estimation.
For batch treatment systems, dual above ground cylindrical steel
tanks sized for an eight hour retention period and a 40 percent
excess capacity factor are employed. The batch treatment system
does not include a flocculation unit.
The cost of sludge rakes, motors, skimmer, and weirs was based on
the size of the unit and was included in the clarifier capital
cost. The selection of steel or concrete tank clarifier for the
continuous mode is determined by a comparison of the capital
costs of the two units.
A fixed cost of $3,202 is included in the clarifier capital cost
estimates for sludge pumps regardless of whether above-ground
steel tanks (in the batch or continuous operation modes) or the
in-ground concrete settling tank are used. This cost covers the
expense of two centrifugal sludge pumps. Costs of polymer feed
systems for the -batch and continuous operation modes are based on
tank volume and flow. The system includes a dilution tank,
transfer pump, and a small mixer.
Lime addition for chemical precipitation in the batch mode is
assumed to be performed manually. A variable cost allowance for
lime addition equipment is included in the continuous operation
mode. This cost allowance covers the expense associated with a
lime storage hopper, feeding equipntent, slurry formation and
mixing and slurry feed pumps. The cost allowance increases as
clarifier tank size increases.
314

-------
Figure VII1-13 (Page 344) shows a comparison of capital
(investment)' cost curves for batch and continuous chemical
precipitation and clarification systems. The continuous
treatment system investment cost is based on a steel flocculation
unit followed by a steel clarification basin. This combination
of treatment components was found to be less expensive than the
concrete flocculation basin, concrete clarification basin
combination, or any combination of steel and concrete
flocculation and clarification units. The batch treatment
investment curve is based upon two above-ground cylindrical steel
tank clarifier units. Both the continuous and batch system
investment curves include allowances for the sludge pump, polymer
feed systems, and lime addition equipment (continuous system
only).
All costs presented above include motors, starters, alternators,
and piping specifically associated with each treatment component.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The operation and maintenance costs for the clarifier routine are
presented in Figure VIII-14 (Page 345) included:
1)	Cost of chemicals added (lime, alum, and polymer
2)	Labor (operation and maintenance)
3)	Energy
Each of these contributing factors are discussed below.
•	CHEMICAL COST
Lime is added for metals and solids removal. The amount of
chemical required is based on equivalent amounts of various
pollutant parameters present in the stream entering the
treatment unit. The methods used in determining the lime
requirements are shown in Table VII1-5.
•	LABOR
Figure VII1-15 (Page 346) presents the man-hour requirements
for the continuous clarifier system. For the batch system,
maintenance labor is assumed negligible and operation labor
is calculated from:
(man-hours for operation) = 390 + (.975) (lbs. lime added
per day)
•	ENERGY
315

-------
The energy costs are calculated from the treatment and
sludge pump horsepower requirements.
Continuous Mode
The treatment horsepower requirement is assumed constant
over the hours of operation of the treatment system at a
level of 0.0000265 horsepower per 1 gph of flow influent to
the clarifier. The sludge pumps are assumed operational for
5 minutes of each operational hour at a level of 0.00212
horsepower per 1 gph of sludge stream flow.
Batch Mode
The treatment horsepower requirement is assumed to occur for
7.5 minutes per operational hour at the following level:
influent flow <1042 gph; 0.0048 hp/gph
influent flow >1042 gph; 0.0096 hp/gph
The power required for the sludge pumps in the batch system
is the same as that required for the sludge pumps in the
continuous mode.
Figure 16, page 347, presents a comparison of energy costs
for batch and continues modes.
316

-------
TABLE VII1-5
CLARIFIER CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS
LIME REQUIREMENT1
POLLUTANT
A(Lime)
Chromium, Total
0.000470
Copper
0.000256
Acidity
0.000162
Iron, Dissolved
0.000438
Zinc
0.000250
Cadmium
0.000146
Cobalt
0.000276
Manganese
0.000296
Aluminum
0.000907
1) (Lime Demand Per Pollutant, lbs/day) = A{Lime) x Flow Rate
(GPH) x Pollutant Concentration (mg/1)
Given the above requirements, operation and maintenance costs
are calculated based on the following:
•	$6.00 per man-hour + 15 percent indirect labor charge
•	$41.26/ton of lime
•	$0.034/kilowatt-hour of required electricity
Granular Bed Multimedia Filtration
This technology provides removal of suspended solids by
filtration through a bed of particles of several distinct size
ranges. As a polishing treatment after chemical precipitation
and clarification processes, multimedia filtration provides
improved removal of precipitates and thereby improved removal of
the original dissolved pollutants.
Capital Costs. The size of the granular bed multimedia
filtration unit is based on 20 percent excess flow capacity and a
hydraulic loading of 0.5 ft2/gpm. Capital cost is presented in
Figure VIII-17 {Page 348) as a function of flow to the
installation.
Operation and Maintenance. The costs for operation and
maintenance include contributions of materials, electricity and
labor. These curves result from correlations made with data
obtained by a major manufacturer. Energy costs are estimated to
be 3 percent of total O&M.
317

-------
In-Line Filtration
In-line filtration for removal of suspended solids is
accomplished by using one of several types of filtration
apparatuses. The various types of filters available include
filter leaf, filter bag, flat bed filters and string-wound
"cartridge" type filters. Many of these filters can incorporate
diatomaceous earth as a filtering aid by spraying it on the
filter substrate.
Capital Cost. Unit cost estimates for in-line filtration
apparatuses are based on one filter station comprised of one
filter unit, one pump and associated valving. Capital costs for
the in-line filtration unit are displayed in Figure VIII-18 (Page
349).
Operation and Maintenance Cost. The operation and maintenance
costs for in-line filtration shown in Figure VIII-19, page 350,
include labor, materials and energy. Each of these costs is
discussed below.
• LABOR
A labor rate of $6.00 per hour plus 15 percent indirect
labor charge is used in determining labor costs. Operation
and maintenance hours are based on 20 hours per year
maintenance, 10 minutes per backwash cycle and 30 seconds
per cartridge per replacement.
MATERIALS
Material costs for operation and maintenance of the in-line
filtration unit are shown in Figure VIII-20 (Page 351) and
are based on use of 5 micron filter and 65 day replacement
cycle.
ENERGY
Electrical energy requirements for the in-line filtration
unit are shown in Figure VIII-21 (Page 352). Electrical
cost is calculated based on a charge of $0,034 per kilowatt
hour.
Power requirements, filter flux rate and manpower require-
ments are based on manufacturers data.
318

-------
Vacuum Filtration
Vacuum filtration is widely used to reduce the water content of
high solids streams. In the porcelain enameling industrial seg-
ment, this technology is applied to dewatering sludge from clari-
fiers, membrane filters and other wastewater treatment units.
Capital Costs. The vacuum filter is siz.ed based on a typical
loading of 14.6 kg of influent solids per hr per m2 of filter
area (3 ibs/ft2-hr). The curves of cost versus flow rate at TSS
concentrations of 3 percent and 5 percent are shown in Figure
VIII-22 (Page 353). The capital costs obtained from this curve
include installation costs.
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Operation and maintenance costs for vacuum filtration are shown
in Figure VIII-23, page 354.
•	LABOR
The vacuum filtration subroutine calculates operating hours per
year based on flow rate and the total suspended solids
concentration in the influent stream.
Maintenance labor for vacuum filtration is fixed at 24 manhours
per year.
MATERIALS
The cost of materials and supplies needed for operation and
maintenance includes belts, oil, grease, seals, and chemicals
required to raise the total suspended solids to the vacuum
filter. The amount of chemicals required (iron and alum) is
based on raising the TSS concentration to the filter by 1 mg/1.
•	ENERGY
Electrical costs needed to supply power for pumps and controls is
presented in Figure VIII-24 (Page 355). As the required
horsepower of the pumps is dependent on the influent TSS level,
the costs are presented as a function of flow rate and TSS level.
Contract Removal
Sludge, waste oils, and in some cases concentrated waste
solutions frequently result from wastewater treatment processes.
'These may be disposed of on-site by incineration, landfill or
reclamation, but are most often removed on a contract basis for
319

-------
off-site disposal. System cost estimates presented in this
report are based on contract removal of sludges and waste oils.
In addition, where only small volumes of concentrated wastewater
are produced, contract-removal of off-site treatment may
represent the most cost-effective approach to water pollution
abatement. Estimates of solution contract haul costs are also
provided by this subroutine and may be selected in place of on-
site treatment on a least-cost basis.
Capital Costs. Capital investment for contract removal is zero.
Operating Costs. . Annual costs are estimated for contract removal
of total waste streams, or sludge and oil streams as specified in
input data. Sludge and oil removal costs are further divided
into wet and dry haulage depending upon whether or not upstream
sludge dewatering is provided. The use of wet haulage or of
sludge dewatering and dry haulage is based on least cost as
determined by annualized system costs over a ten year period.
Wet haulage costs are always used in batch treatment systems and
when the volume of the sludge stream is less than 100 gallons per
day.
Both wet sludge haulage and total waste haulage differ in cost
depending on the chemical composition of the waste removed.
Wastes are classified as cyanide bearing, hexavalent chromium
bearing, or oily, and are assigned different haulage costs as
shown below.
Waste Composition
Haulage Cost
0.05 mg/1 CN~
>0.1 mg/1 Cr+«
Oil & grease-TSS
All others
$0.45/gallon
$0.20/gallon
$0.12/gallon
$0.16/gallon
Dry sludge (40 percent dry solids in the sludge) haul costs are
estimated at $0.12 gallon.
+
In-process Treatment and. Control Components
Several major in-process control techniques have been identified
for use in reducing wastewater pollutant discharges from porce-
lain enameling facilities.
Recycle Pump
In order to recycle the treated wastewater back to the coating
process operations, construction of a small pump station will be
required. Due to engineering considerations, it was assumed that
320

-------
the pump station would be constructed next to the holding tank in
the end-of-pipe treatment system.
Capital Cost. Cost estimates for the pump station are based on a
one-pump station comprised of an in-ground concrete dry well, one
pump, piping, valving and control instrumenation. Construction
cost estimates also included such vairiables as excavation,
concrete and reinforcing steel.
Operation and Maintenance Cost. The operation and maintenance
costs for the pump station include labor, materials and energy.
Each of these costs is discussed below.
•	LABOR
Labor requirements for operation and maintenance of the pump
station are based upon one hour of maintenance per week of
operation. A rate of $6.00 per hour plus a 15 percent
indirect labor charge (to cover the cost of employee fringe
benefits) is used in determining labor costs.
•	MATERIALS
Annual material costs for operation and maintenance of the
pump station are assummed to be equal to 3 percent of the
initial capital cost.
•	ENERGY
Electrical energy requirements for .. the pump station are-
based upon pump motor horsepower requirements. Electrical
cost is calculated based upon a charge of $0,033 per
kilowatt-hour.
Countercurrent Rinsing
Countercurrent rinsing is included in the model technology train
to reduce the volume of the surface preparation wastewater
streams to levels necessary to allow LS&F end-of-pipe technology
to be applied. Countercurrent rinsing requires additional rinse
tanks or spray equipment and plumbing as compared to single-stage
rinses, and extension of materials handling equipment or
provision of additional manpower for rinse operation.
Capital Cost. Cost estimates for countercurrent rinsing are
based upon installation of a three stage system on each of the
individual waste streams associated with surface preparation..
The installation cost is small for a new source. Cost estimates
321

-------
included such variables as tank costs, recycle pump and motor
costs, piping, valving, and control instrumentation costs.
The investment cost curve used is the equalization tank curve
(Figure VIII-25, page 356). These costs include mixers, pumps,
and installation. The motor costs needed for countercurrent
rinse are estimated equal to the mixer costs.
Operation and Maintenance Cost. The operation and maintenance
costs associated with countercurrent rinsing include labor,
materials and energy. Each of these costs is discussed below.
•	LABOR
Labor requirements for operation and maintenance of the pump
station are based upon one hour of maintenance per week of
operation for each process line associated with surface pre-
paration. A rate of $6.00 per hour plus a 15 percent
indirect labor charge (to cover the cost of employee fringe
benefits) is used in determining labor costs.
•	MATERIALS
Annual material costs for operation and maintenance of each
countercurrent rinsing system are assumed to be 3 percent of
the initial system capital cost.
•	ENERGY
The energy requirement curve used is the equalization tank
curve (Figure VIII-26 page 357). Electrical energy
requirements for each countercurrent rinsing system are
based upon recirculation pump motor horsepower requirements.
Electrical cost is calculated based upon a charge of $0,034
per kilowatt-hour.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES
This section presents estimates of the total cost of wastewater
treatment and control systems for porcelain enameling process
wastewater incorporating the treatment and control components
discussed above. Cost estimates for the normal plant (defined
earlier in this section) flow rate in the subcategory addressed
are presented for BPT, BAT and BDT systems in order to provide an
indication of the costs to be incurred in implementing each level
of treatment. Raw wastewater characteristics were determined
based on sampling data as discussed in Section V.
322

-------
The system costs presented include component costs as discussed
above and subsidiary costs including engineering, line
segregation, piping, yardwork, administration, contingency and
interest expenses during construction. In developing cost
estimates, it is assumed that none of the specified treatment and
control measures are in place so that the presented costs
represent total costs for the systems.
System Cost Estimates (BPT)
This section presents the system cost estimates for the BPT end-
of-pipe treatment systems for a normal plant in each subcategory.
The representative end-of-pipe treatment systems for the steel,
aluminum, and cast iron subcategories are depicted in Section IX
of the document. The chemical reduction of chromium is shown as
an optional treatment process. The use of this treatment
component is determined by the production processes being
employed at the plant. All subcategories have chemical (lime)
precipitation and settling (clarifier) followed by vacuum
filtration.
The costing assumptions for each component of the BPT system were
discussed above under Technology Costs and Assumptions. In
addition to these components, contractor sludge removal was
included in all cost estimates.
Table VII1-6 (page 327) presents costs for the three
subcategories, steel, cast iron, and aluminum. The basic cost
elements used in preparing these tables are: investment, annual
capital costs, annual depreciation, annual operations and
maintenance cost (less energy cost), energy cost, and total
annual cost. These elements were discussed in detail earlier in
this section.
For the cost computations, a least cost treatment system
selection was performed. This procedure calculated the costs for
a batch tretment system, a continuous treatment system, and
haulaway of the complete wastewater flow over a 10 year
comparison period, and the least expensive system was -selected
for presentation in the system cost tables. The various
investment costs assume that the treatment system must be
especially constructed and include all subsidiary costs discussed
under the Cost Breakdown Factors segment of this section.
Operation and maintenance costs assume continuous operation, 24
hours a day, 5 days per week, for 52 weeks per year.
System Cost Estimates (BAT)
323

-------
The BAT system calls for reduction of the plant discharge flow
rate by reuse of water equivalent to all coating water
requirements except ball mill wash out. Total flow through the
treatment system remains the same as for the BPT system.
The representative treatment system for the steel, cast iron, and
aluminum subcategories are shown in Section X. The chemical
reduction of chromium is shown as an optional treatment process.
For a portion of the treated wastewater can,be recycled back to
the ball milling process. This will result in a reduction of the
total plant discharge flow.
Table VII1-7 presents the BAT treatment system costs for
construction of the entire system. These costs would be
representative of expenditures to be expected for a plant with no
treatment in place to attain the BAT level of treatment.
System Cost Estimates - (New Sources)
The treatment system for NSPS is based on the BAT system with the
addition of three stage countercurrent rinsing for each metal
preparation rinsing operation, and a filter added to the end-of-
pipe system after the holding tank.
Table VIII-8 presents treatment system costs for construction of
the NSPS system for each subcategory, including copper.
Use of Cost Estimation Results
Cost estimates presented in the tables in this section are re-
presentative of costs typically incurred in implementing
treatment and control equivalent to the specified levels. They
will not, in general, correspond precisely to cost experience at
any individual plant. Specific plant conditions such as age,
location, plant layout, or present production and treatment
practices may yield costs which are either higher or lower than
the presented costs. Because the BPT costs shown are total
system costs and do not assume any treatment in place, it is
probable that most plants will require smaller expenditures to
reach the specified levels of control from their present status.
The actual costs of installing and operating a BPT system at a
particular plant may be substantially lower than the tabulated
values. Reductions in investment and operating costs are
possible in several areas. Design and installation costs may be
reduced by using plant workers. Equipment costs may be reduced
by using or modifying existing equipment instead of purchasing
all new equipment. Application of an excess capacity factor,
which increases the size of most equipment foundation costs could
324

-------
be reduced if an existing concrete pad or floor can be utilized.
Equipment size requirements may be reduced by the ease of
treatment {for example, shorter retention time) of particular
wastewater streams. Substantial reduction in both investment and
operating cost may be achieved if a plant reduces its water use
rate below that assumed in costing.
ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Energy and non-water quality aspects of the wastewater treatment
technologies described in Section VII are summarized in Tables
VII1-9 and VIII-10 {Pages 330-331). Energy requirements are
listed, the impact on environmental air and noise pollution is
noted, and solid waste generation characteristics are summarized.
The treatment processes are divided into two groups, wastewater
treatment processes on Table VII1-9, and sludge and solids
handling processes on Table VIII-10.
Energy Aspects
Energy aspects of ' the wastewater treatment processes are
important because of the impact of energy use on our natural
resources and on the economy. Electrical power and fuel
requirements (coal, oil, or gas) are listed in units of kilowatt
hours per ton of dry solids for sludge and solids handling.
Specific energy uses are noted in the "Remarks" column.
Non-Water Quality Aspects
The Agency has considered the non-water quality impacts of each
treatment process on air, noise, and radiation pollution of the
environment to preclude the development of a more "adverse
environmental impact.
In general, none of the liquid handling processes causes air pol-
lution. With sulfide precipitation, however, the potential
exists for evolution of hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas. Proper
control of pH in treatment eliminates this problem. Alkaline
chlorination for cyanide destruction and chromium reduction using
sulfur dioxide also have potential atmospheric emissions. With
proper design and operation, however, air pollution impacts are
eliminated. None of the wastewater treatment processes causes
objectionable noise and none of the treatment processes has any
potential for radioactive radiation hazards.
The solid waste impact of each wastewater treatment process is
indicated in two columns on Table VIII-10. The first column
shows whether effluent solids are to be expected and, if so, the
325

-------
solids content in qualitative terms. The second column 1ists
typical values of percent solids of sludge or residue.
The processes for treating the wastewaters from this category
produce considerable volumes of sludges. In order to ensure
long-term protection of the environment from harmful sludge
constituents, special consideration of disposal sites should be
made by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
municipal authorities where applicable.
326

-------
TABLE VII1-6
BPT COSTS
NORMAL PLANT
Steel
Cast Iron
Aluminum
Flow Rate (1iters/hour}
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance Costs
(excluding energy and power
costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
16,465
Batch
$412,807
25,902
41,281
102,923
2, 280
$172,386
149
Batch
$70,007
4,393
7,001
9,666
10
$21,070
3, 563
Batch
$225,321
14,138
22,532
29,990
1 ,010
$67,670
327

-------
TABLE VII1-7
BAT COSTS
NORMAL PLANT
Steel
Cast Iron
Aluminum
Flow Rate (liters/hour)	13,625
Least Cost Operation Mode	Batch
Investment	$431,717
Annual Costs
Capital Costs	27,088
Depreciation	43,172
Operation and Maintenance Costs	103,061
(excluding energy and power
costs)
Energy and Power Costs	2,340
Total Annual Costs	$175,661
1 39
Batch
$70,007
4, 393
7,001
9,666
10
$21,070
2753
Batch
$239,958
15,057
23,996
32,682
1 , 154
$72,889
328

-------
TABLE VII1-8
NSPS COSTS
NORMAL PLANT
Steel
Cast Iron
Aluminum Copper
Flow Rate (liters/hour)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
4,276
Batch
$259,830
Annual Costs
Capital Costs	16,3 03
Depreciation	25,983
Operation and Maintenance Costs 30,950
(excluding energy and power
costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
807
74,043
149
Batch
195,012
12,236
19,501
24,156
975
56,868
1,089	154
Batch Batch
81,978 83,978
5,144
8,198
9,978
5,269
8,398
9,978
10	10
23,330 23,655
329

-------
TABLE VIII-9
NCKWATER QUALITY ASPECTS OP WASTE WATER TREMHENf
u>
u>
o
PfiOCESS
Chemical Reduction
Skimming
Clarification
Flotation
Chemical
Oxidation by Chlorine
Oxidation By Ozone
Chemical Precipitation
Sedimentation
Deep Bed
Ion Exchange
Adsorption
Chromium Regeneration
* 106BTO/1000 liters
Rwer
kwh
1000 liters
1.0
0.01-.3
0.1-3.2
1.0
0.3
0.5-5.0
1.02
0.1-3.2
0.10
0.5
0.1
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Fuel
NOfKATER QUALITY IMPACT
Qiergy
Use
Air
Rolluticn
Impact
Mixing	Nora
Skimmer Drive None
Sludge Collec- None
tor Drive
Recirculation None
ftjmp, Gonpressor,
Skim
Mixing	None
Mixing	None
Ozone Generation
Blocculation Itone
l&ddles
Sludge Collector Itone
drive
Head, Backwash Itone
Pumps
Punfxs	None
Pumps, Evaporate Itone
During Regenera-
tion
Noise
Rollution
ttpact
None
None
None
None
Dane
None
None
None
None
Not
Objectionable
None
Carbon
Solid
teste
None
Concentrated
Concentrated
Concentrated
None
Itone
Concentrated
Concentrated
Concentrated
None
None/Waste
Punp
Solid teste
Concentration
t Dry Solids
5-50 (oil)
1-10
3-5
3-10
1-3
Variable
N\
40
Evaporation
——
*2.5
Evaporate Water
None
None
Concentrated/
Dewatered
50-100
Reverse' Osmosis
3.0
—
High Pressure
Haip
None"
- Not
Objectionable
Dilute
Concentrate
1-40
Ultrafiltration
1.25-3.0
—
High Pressure
Pump
None
Not
Objectionable
Dilute
Concentrate
1-40
Membrane Filtration
1.25-3.0

High Pressure
Rimp
None
Not
Objectionable
Dilute
Concentrate
1-40
Electrochemical
0.2-0.8

Reactifier,
ftnp
None
None
Concentrate
1-3
Chromium Reduction







Electrochemical
2.0
—
Regeneration,
None
None
None
	

-------
TABLE VIII—30
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS OF SLUDGE AND SOLIDS HANDLING
PROCESS
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT
u>
Sludge
Thickening
Pressure
Filtration
Sand Bed
Drying
Vacuum
Filter
Centri fugation
Landfill
Lagooning
Power	Fuel
kwh	kwh
ton dry solids	ton dry solids
29-920
21
16.7-
66.8
0.2-
98.5
35
20-980
36
Energy
Use
Skimmer,
Sludge Rake
Drive
High Pressure
Pumps
Removal
Equipment
Vacuum Pump,
Rotation
Rotation
Haul, Land-
fill 1-10
Mile Trip
Removal
Equipment
Air	Noise
Pollution Pollution
Solid
Waste
Impact
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Impact
None
None
None
Not
Objectionable
Solid Waste
Concentration
% Dry Solids
Concentrated 4-27
Dewatered
Dewatered
Dewatered
Not	Dewatered
Obj ectionable
None	Dewatered
None
Dewatered
25-50
15-40
20-40
15-50
N/A
3-5

-------
SIMPLIFIED LOGIC DIAGRAM
SYSTEM COST ESTIMATION PROGRAM
NON-RECYCLE
SYSTEMS

INPUT ;
A)	RAW WASTE DESCRIPTION
B)	SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
C)	"DECISION" PARAMETERS
D)	COST FACTORS







PROCESS CALCULATIONS
Aj PERFORMANCE - POLLUTANT
PARAMETER EFFECTS
B) EQUIPMENT SIZE
Cj PROCESS COST


{RECYCLE SYSTEMS)



CONVERGENCE
A) POLLUTANT PARAMETER
TOLERANCE CHECK


(WITHIN TOLERANCE LIMITS)
'
1

COST CALCULATIONS
A)	SUM INDIVIDUAL PROCESS
COSTS
B)	ADD SUBSIDIARY COSTS
C)	ADJUST TO DESIRED DOLLAR BASE





OUTPUT
A) STREAM DESCRIPTIONS-
COMPLETE SYSTEM
BJ INDIVIDUAL PROCESS SIZE AND
COSTS'
C) OVERALL SYSTEM INVESTMENT
AND ANNUAL COSTS

(NOT WITHIN
TOLERANCE LIMITS)
FIGURE VIII-!. COST ESTIMATION PROGRAM
332

-------
10-
co
r-
•
c
to
to .
, 104
M
U
a
o
a
u>
LO
M
4J
10
GJ O
o
gio3
S
M
4)
>
C


































i—
































—
—

































—























































•









-
-
G
F
ie (
olc
1)
ir
SI
«3
uc
Te
ge
ink
Ti
Includ<
ransfer
as
Puth
>






4,



i ^
0






















-


r"















—
i
































—
-


































































—
-































—































—





































































































































































rr
Tj





i
























let
?ii
ii
t
on
Line: 0.
1
167
Da^
'S






































100
10
100
Plow Ratte To Holding Tank - (LPH)
FIGURE VIII-2
HOLDING TANK INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
Holding Tank Includes
Tank Liner
00
i 10
Q
C/>
Retention Timet 20.0 Days
100
Flow Rate To Holding Tank - (LPH)
10
10
10
FIGURE VIII—3
HOLDING TANK INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
10'
eo
r-
e
M 5
, 105
n
£
n
¦p
n
w 0
u> t>
t_n
V
c
0)
e
•p
n
a>
>
c
10
10'

-------
10'
CO
r*s
ro
'"D
i
to
s- 4
*10*
o
Q
in
4->
(/)
o
o
(D
U
c
fO
c
(D
4J
C





































































































































•






He
)]dir
T«
q 1
ank
Par
L
ik
.rv
It
er
1C
udes

















•


























































— .



.













-
--


















—-























































































•




















































.





































%














i
~






















i







1
)	



























































































































































































R
>te
nt
ic
n
rin
net 2(
.0 C
ays
























•














03 11
"O
C
fO
4J
fO
S-

-------
10
CO
c
(O 
(/)
Co o
U> <->
-J
V-
I5
iio5
LU
<0
c
c
<
10
Retention Time: 0.167 Days
i 11
10J ,	10*	10
Flow Rate To Holding Tank - (LP1I)
10
100
10'
Operation: 24 hours/day
260 days/year
FIGURE VIII-6
HOLDING TANK ENERGY COSTS

-------
Holding Tank Includes
Tank Liner
Retention Timet 20.0 Days
100	10J
Flow Rate To Holding Tank - (LPH)
Operation: 24 hours/day
260 days/year
FIGURE VIII-7
HOLDING TANK ENERGY COSTS

-------
10-

CO



•

c

<0



1

m

u 10

«

H

H
0

o
w

a

4J

n

0
w
o
CO


>»

CP

u

ai

c
w 10"
H
«
3
C
C
«<
ioo

-------
Pour Hour
Retention
One Day
Retention
100
10'	10"
Flow Rate To Chromium Reduction - (LPH)
FIGURE VIII-9
CHROMIUM REDUCTION INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
09 10
h
C
<0
(0
u
o
o
wl0(
•U
10
x>
o
4>
O
c
m
c
4>
C
•r4
<0
£
clOb
m
c
o
-ri
n
u
a
a
o
L



































































—






































































































































































/

































-/
>-
































j
'/

































V'
































m























'










A
V

































/












































*
























































































it


































/

































/!















































\


















































-


w
r






i













100
10'
10'
10-
Plow Rate To Chromium Reduction - (LPH)
10°	10
Operation: 24 hours/day
260 days/year
FIGURE VIII-10
CHROMIUM J:EDU:TION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

-------
10"
V)
tt
D
0
X
1
tt
0
o
<
W -J
J
NJ <
o
z
z
<
10-
10'
10'
































	—;
/






































-
/






































~~7







































/






































/




























3/
T
c
H
OPERA
notv
)-



j




































/





































/
/
J
/




































i





































/













-
¦ -
























r





































/

































/
f











































































/
~
C
lONTINl
IOUS
(o
PE
Ri
ft-
•i
o
M)	^


























4
/


















~

Ml
4IMI
M
:o
N
ri
N
u<
3US PRC
CES
: M
A!
Nil
"E
Nj
Ms
ICE
\
>
/
















1



















—

















/







































/





















/










Lun l inuuua
(MAINTENANCE)
/





--
















t





























>
, *




































4
4
f
r




































/
r














E
A"
rc
:h
1 F
AAINTEI1
JANC
:e =
0
H
*










>
/
t
/





























10
100	1,000
FLOW RATE - GPH
10,000
100,000
FIGURE VIII-11. CHEMICAL REDUCTION OF CHROMIUM ANNUAL LABOR REQUIREMENTS

-------
10"
c
«
lio'
M
o
a
00
00
n
•M
0J
>1
o»
Hio3
w
<0
3
C
C
100
100

-------
M
100
Flow Rate To Chemical Precipitation - Sedimentation - (LPH)
FIGURE VIII-13
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION - SEDIMENTATION INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
CO 10'
100
10J	10'	10J	10'
Flow Rate To chemical Precipitation - Sedimentation - (LPH)
Operation: 24 hours/day
260 days/year
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION -
FIG'JIIE VIII- 14
SEDIMENTATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

-------
<
u
>•
»T
IE
3
O
z
z
<
2
• 00
700
eoo
500
400
300
200
too

































/






































MAir
4TENAN
CE







0	10	20	30	40	30	60	70	80	90 100
FLOW RATE TO CLARIF1ER
(THOUSAND GALLONS/HOUR)
FIGURE VI11—15. CLARIFICATION MAN HOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUOUS
OPERATION
346

-------
103	104	10b	10b
Flow Rate To Chemical Precipitation - Sedimentation - (LPH)
Operation: 24 hours/day
260 days/year
FIGURE VI11-16
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION - SEDIMENTATION ENERGY COSTS

-------











l-T
1

•


-V-'—












•
L





-
-






























-
-






































1












































1
.tim
clud
stem
33 T
2di
ed
3 F
lan
a
In
or
4
Fi
W
W
54
11
a:
a:
2
:e
3t
3t
L
r
.e
.e
¦PI
Not
Treatme
Flows
I (1200
nt
mi



















«•
•v





-




















—













.










































































































































i






















-










































-

























*•




-

























pr
p






-







J






























—






















m

















-
















» • *












-




















«



















...





¦


# •
•


















-








"W







-
1
























—








•


•












i













10
10'
10J	10"
Flow Rate To Multimedia Filter - (LPll)
10'
10'
FIGURE VIIT-17
MULTIMEDIA FILTER INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
nov
00
r*
c
*
10
I
w
•M


























































































i






























































































/





































































- -














































































*
>


























































-
•


































y































/

















































































































































0
u> 3
10
O
O
c104
41 XU
B
•P
m
v
>
c
M
100
10'
10*	103
Flow Rate To Cartridge Filter - (LPH)
10'
10'
FIGURE VIII-18
CARTRIDGE FILTER INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
;ios
r-
c
rt
*¦>
n
M
rt
o
Sio4
4Jt
(0
o
o




























-

































































































i
































































































































































































l
1




















































































































































































































i



















4
























1
»
-{
t
1

















f




















%
































































































































































































































¦












































!

























































































!












































i


































































at
o
c
rt
c
«
4J
LO C
ui r*
o 10
S
"8 m3
C
o
ffl
M
«
O.
O
<0
9
C
<100
100
10
Flow Rate To Cartridge Filter - (LPH)
Operation: 24 fours/day
260 days/year
FIGURE VIII-19

-------
i(r
10'
U>'
<-n;
00
<
¦"D
to
Q£
<
O
Q
I/)
h-
I/)
O
C_>
10




























































































































































































/
/
/ — -
/
/

































~~

















y






















































/'


























/


























/

























—- /
/
/
,/

























/-

























/






















































/






































































































10'	10°	10"
FLOW RATE (GPD) OF COATING WASTEWATER STREAM
FIGURE VIII-20. CARTRIDGE FILTER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

-------
1,000
CO
r^s
<
•"D
I
00
QC
<
O
o
100
U)
cn
Nj
c/>
I—
uo
o
o
10











































































































































/






















-/	
/	






















t






















/
T ~ *





















y





















/
/





















/
/






















\s
/






















/






















/
/






















/
/





















,A
/








_












,/]






















/J

















100	1,000	10,000
FLOW RATE (GPD) OF COATING WASTEWATER STREAM
FIGURE VIII-21. CARTRIDGE FILTER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

-------
	Vacuum Filter Not
Included In Waste
	Treatment Systems With,
Waste Plows Less Than
15.67 LPH (100 GPD)
oo
rH
M
100	10J
Flow Rate To Vacuum Filter - (LPH)
FIGURE VI11-22
VACUUM FILTER INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
_ Vacuum Filter Not
Included In Waste
— Treatment Systems With
Waste Flews Less Than
15.67 LPH (100GPD)
clO
<10
100	10J
Flow Rate To Vacuum Filter - (LPH)
Operation: 24 hours/day
260 days/year
FIGURE VIII-23
VACUUM FILTER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

-------





































J
I
J







































I.




































/

/


















































'




























































































































TOTA
L SU
SPE
:n
)E
D
£
;o
LIDS = 5
2
i ®
1 e
) M
S /
L-

\














































































/






































/






















TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
= 3
0.
000 MS/
L-A

/


/



































V

/





































/ «
~




































y
'y
/











-

























//
/



































*
r






































































































































--






















































































































1	10	100	103	104	10s
FLOW RATE (GPH)
FIGURE VIII-24. VACUUM FILTRATION ELECTRICAL COST

-------


























































1








































-


—













































































•



















•






.
Bqu
1
ali
'art
za
c I
t;
»i
or
iei
T
r A
ank Inc
nd Hixe
ude
r
3




- •










•

r
/































>
/y







—

























/



























/
























•








/













































—























































m



















...

















































•































































































*

m













%




























Ri
it<
tn
:ic
>r.
Time:
J.33
Da
ys

































I



100
10
Plow Rate To Equalization Tank - (LPH)
FIGURE VIIJ-25
EQUALIZATION TANK INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
Equalization Tan); Includes
Tank Liner And Mixer
Flow Rate To Equalization Tank - (LPII)
FIGURE VIII- 26
EQUALIZATION TANK ENERGY COSTS

-------

-------
SECTION IX
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The factors considered in defining BPT include the total cost of
application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits from such application, the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements) and other
factors the Administrator considers appropriate. In general, the
BPT technology level represents the average of the best existing
performances of plants of various ages, sizes, processes or other
common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a different subcategory
or category. Limitations based on transfer technology must be
supported by a conclusion that the technology is,- indeed,
transferable and a reasonable prediction that it will be capable
of achieving the prescribed effluent limits. See Tanners'
Council of America v. Train, supra. BPT focuses on end-of-pipe
treatment rather than process changes or internal controls,
except where such are common industry practice.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT
This category was studied and previous work examined to identify
the processes used and the wastewaters generated during porcelain
enameling operations. After subcategorization and additional
information collection using dcp forms and results from specific
plant sampling and analysis, the total information about the
industrial segment was examined to determine what constituted an
appropriate BPT. Some of the salient considerations were:
Basis metal preparation generates acidic and alkaline wastewaters
containing oils, dissolved metals, and suspended solids in the
steel, aluminum, and copper subcategories.
Coating, which includes ball milling and enamel application,
generates wastewaters in all four subcategories containing a high
level of toxic metals from frit and color oxides, plus solids
from clays in the enamel slip.
Of the 116 porcelain enameling plants, 28 have chemical
precipitation equipment, 11 haye sedimentation lagoons, 28 have
clarifiers or tube or plate settlers, and 19 have sludge
dewatering to assist in sludge disposal. Seventy-two percent of
the plants have no treatment in place.
359

-------
Some of the factors outlined above which must be considered in
establishing effluent limitations based on BPT have already been
considered by this document. The age of equipment and facilities
involved and the processes employed were taken into account in
subcategorization and are discussed fully in Section IV. Non-
water quality impacts and energy requirements are considered in
Section VIII.
Porcelain enameling consists of two sets of processes - metal
preparation and coating - that generate different wastewater
streams in each subcategory. In both wastewater streams for each
subcategory, as discussed in Section III and IV, the volume of
wastewater is related to the area of material processed.
The bases for establishing mass-based BPT limitations are (1) the
ability of a model treatment system to reduce the concentration
of pollutants in effluent and (2) an expected amount of water use
(or flow).
EPA based BPT limitations on average flows from plants EPA
sampled. In the porcelain enameling category, in contrast to
some other categories, a general lack of attention to water
consumption was noted at visited plants. Because water use was
not a significant criterion in selecting plants for sampling, the
mass limitations were based on carefully evaluated visited plant
water use data. Several plant sampling days of flow data judged
to be excessively high because of observed water use practices
were excluded from the data base before calculating average
production normalized water use. Several of the comments
received after proposal urged that the dcp data base with its
greater number of data points be used to calculate mass based
limitations.
A review of the visited plant and dcp data was made. Seven
plants in the steel and aluminum subcategories which EPA sampled
also were listed in Tables V-8 or V-9 which give production
normalized flows derived from dcps. Many dcps had insufficient
data to allow the production of normalized flows to be
calculated. The dcp data together wi.

-------
practices. Dcps do not contain enough information for the Agency
to carry out such an evaluation.
Therefore, for each porcelain enameling subcategory the mean
visited plant water usage, adjusted by eliminating certain data
points, is the basis for mass limitations. The specific reason
for eliminating the points in each subcategory is given with the
discussion for that subcategory. Out of 58 plants for which
production normalized water use could be calculated in the Steel
and Aluminum Subcategories (Tables V-8 and V-9), 24 meet the
water use numbers used for those subcategories.
As a general approach to developing a model BPT treatment system
for this industrial segment, treatment of wastewaters from the
two processes in each subcategory in a single (combined)
treatment system is provided. Although a substantial part of the
metals in the coating wastewater stream may be present as
undissolved metal oxides or other compounds, the metals in those
compounds can be released by the dissolving action of acidic
wastewater from the metal preparation operations. Certain toxic
metals, such as beryllium and selenium, which are present as
undissolved compounds in slip, cannot be removed as effectively
if they are dissolved and then precipitated. For this reason the
BPT treatment strategy requires introduction of coating
wastewaters into the lime rapid mix unit, to avoid mixing these
wastewaters with the acidic metal preparation wastewaters. In
some cases, plants that use a chromating process prior to
porcelain enameling on aluminum must reduce hexavalent chromium
to the trivalent state so that it can be precipitated and removed
along with other metals. In all subcategories the dissolved
metals must be precipitated and suspended solids, including the
metal precipitate, removed.
At proposal the BPT model treatment system was: introduce metal
preparation wastewaters into an equalization tank; presettle
coating wastewater; combine the two streams and apply oil
skimming if required, followed by lime and settle technology for
the combined streams. Oil skimming may be required to meet the
oil and grease limitations. The ability of oil skimming to
remove oil and grease to the levels required at BPT is
established in Section VII of this Development Document (see
Table VII — 11). The model BPT technology for the final regulation
eliminates the presettling of the coating wastewater stream and
by eliminating the equalization tanks. The settling sump found
in many plants is not considered to be part of the treatment
systems. (The sump did not contribute to nor enhance the
treatment attributed to that train.) However, the cost of a sump
is included in the estimated cost of the BPT treatment system.
361

-------
All other parts of the model technology remain the same as at
proposal.
The water use numbers were changed as noted in Section V (Table
V-24) for the steel and aluminum subcategories in response to
public comments. Changes are discussed below.
The pollutants selected for regulation are fewer than were
selected at proposal. Regulation of fewer pollutants reduces the
monitoring cost of the regulation to industry. The effectiveness
of the effluent removal is not reduced because the unregulated
pollutants are removed to the desired level by the treatment
system if the system is operated in such a way as to remove
regulated pollutants ' to the required level. (i.e., If the
regulated metal pollutants are present in the raw wastewater and
are removed to the regulated levels by lime and settle
technology, the unregulated metal pollutants will be removed to
the desired levels.)
Therefore, the model BPT treatment system includes reducing
hexavalent chromium in the metal preparation stream where
necessary, oil skimming, combining the wastewater streams, and
applying lime and settle technology to remove metals and solids
(see Figure IX-1 at Page 380). The overall treatment strategy is
applicable throughout the category. The BPT approach for this
subcategory is therefore chemical precipitation and settling of
coating wastewater (see Figure IX-2 at Page 381).
An examination of the wastewater treatment systems used by
visited porcelain enameling plants shows that all of the elements
of the proposed end-of-pipe BPT system are in place at two
sampled plants in the steel and aluminum subcategories (40063,
33077). Lime and settle treatment is part of the overall system
at three other visited plants, but the effectiveness of the lime
and settle portion alone could not be evaluated because of
additional treatment technology (filters) at two plants, and the
use of countercurrent rinsing at plant ID 33617. The copper and
cast iron subcategories have universally inadequate treatment,
and therefore the BPT technology must be transferred to these
subcategories. The plants sampled were initially selected as the
best plants with BPT systems; however, not all of the sampled
plants proved to be the best, as only two sampled plants in the
steel subcategory and one sampled plant in the aluminum
subcategory demonstrated proper operation of BPT systems.
Therefore, the performance data presented in Table VII-16 are
derived from porcelain enameling and other industrial categories
that treat wastewaters bearing toxic metal pollutants. At
proposal, electroplating facilities were included in the data
base. After proposal, the data were subjected to a new
362

-------
statistical analysis as described in Section VII, and the
electroplating data points were excluded from the data base upon
which limitation were based for porcelain enameling. One sampled
BPT plant (40063) shows performance equal to or better than that
indicated by the Table VII-16 data and therefore justifies the
transfer of performance data.
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Pollutant parameters to be regulated by BPT in the porcelain
enameling industrial segment were selected because of their
presence at treatable concentrations in wastewaters from each of
the four subcategories. When pH and TSS are controlled within
specified limits, metals can be removed adequately. Table VII-20
summarizes the treatment effectiveness of lime and settle
technology (L&S) for all pollutant parameters regulated in the
porcelain enameling category.
At proposal, we proposed to regulate 18 toxic, conventional and
non-conventional pollutants found in the porcelain enameling raw
wastewater. Comments on the proposal objected to the number of
pollutants regulated, and EPA reconsidered the list in response
to the comments. The pollutants selected for the final
regulation are the ones which, if present in- raw wastewaters,
will assure proper operation of the lime and settle system and
the oil skimming technology.
The importance of pH control is stressed in Section VII and its
importance for metals removal cannot be over-emphasized. Even
small variations from the optimum" pH level can result in less
than optimum functioning of the system. A study of plant
effluent data presented for each subcategory shows the importance
of pH. The optimum level may shift slightly from the normal 8.8
to 9.3 level depending upon wastewater composition. Therefore,
the regulated pH is specified to be within a range of 7.5-10.0
(instead of the more common 6.0-9.0) to accommodate optimum
efficiency without the necessity for a final pH adjustment.
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
The BPT model technology train for steel subcategory wastewater
treatment consists of combining wastewaters from both wastewater
streams, oil skimming if required, chemical precipitation and
sedimentation. Lime and settle technology will achieve the BPT
limits for the pollutants listed in Table IX-1. In some cases an
aeration step may be required to oxidize ferrous iron to ferric
iron so that lime precipitation will be effective for iron.
363

-------
The mean water usage from eight sampled plants (Table V-24) was
used to calculate allowable mass discharges for the TOO steel
subcategory plants because these data were verified by on-site
measurement. The sampled plants were initially believed to have
good wastewater treatment technology and representative water
use; however, some of the sampled plants proved to have unusually
high water use. At proposal flow data from Plant ID 47033 were
excluded from the calculation of the average normalized flow for
the metal preparation stream. This plant had significantly
higher water use in the metal preparation area than the other
sampled plants. Examination of the information obtained during
this visit revealed that rinse tanks on the pickle line were
corroded and leaking severely. The plant had nearly three times
the production normalized water use of other sampled plants and
is clearly not among the best plants. After proposal, as the
result of several comments, flows from plant ID #33617 (which
uses countercurrent rinsing and rinse water recycle) were also
deleted from the BPT flow data base. Excluding Plant ID 47033
and 33617, in determining production related flow for metal
preparation, and recalculating water usage for Plant ID 40053 in
response to comments, the average discharge flows per unit of
production at sampled plants are (see Section V and Table V-24):
Metal Preparation: 40.042 1/m2 (6 plants)
Coating: 8.102 1/m2 (8 plants)
These values are used as the flow basis for calculating mass
based limitations for BPT for reasons discussed at the beginning
of this section. Production related discharge flows were also
calculated from flow and production data reported in the dcp's
(Table V-8). Average discharge flows per unit of production
reported on dcps for porcelain enameling on steel are:
Metal Preparation: 57.04 1/m2
Coating: 25.98 1/m2
These flows are significantly higher than the average production
normalized flow measured at sampled plants.
However, the flows reported in the dcp's are comparable to the
measured flows at sampled plants when those plants which appear
to be excessive water users are eliminated from the dcp average
calculations. For the metal preparation stream, the elimination
of the five plants (IDs 11105, 15194, 20059, 33098 and 47033)
with production normalized flows greater than the mean measured
flow (161.636 1/m2) at sampled Plant ID 47033 (identified as a
user of excessive water because of leaking tanks), reduces the
average discharge flow for dcp plants. Likewise, the elimination
of ten plants (IDs 11105, 15194, 15949, 20059, 20091, 33054,
364

-------
33098, 36030, 47033 and 47034) reporting flow rates from, coating
greater than the highest water use (35.137 1/m2) for any sampled
plant day reduces the dcp average for the coating stream. This
plant water use was judged to be excessive because of high water
use in cleaning parts for recoating. Average of discharge flows
per unit of production reported for the remaining plants are:
Metal Preparation: 28.46 1/m2 (43 plants)
Coating:	10.16 1/m2 (38 plants)
These adjusted average flows, though not used in determining mass
discharge limitations, are close to the adjusted average water
usages at sampled plants. This suggests that if a usable
criterion could be found for eliminating dcp plants with
excessive water usage, a dcp average would be close to the
adjusted visited plant average which is used. The metal
preparation water usage based on visited plants is 41 percent
greater than that which would be derived from dcp data.
Plants whose present production normalized flows are
significantly above the average flows used in calculating the BPT
limitations for metal preparation and coating will need to reduce
these flows to meet the BPT limitations. Based on the dcp data
in Table V-8, approximately 28 of 48 plants will need to reduce
water usage. This can usually be done at no significant cost by
correcting obvious excessive water using practices (such as
leaking rinse tanks) or by shutting off flows to rinses when they
are not in use and installing flow control valves on rinse tanks.
Specific water conservation practices applicable are detailed in
Section VII.
The typical characteristics of wastewaters from the metal
preparation operations in the steel subcategory and coating
operations in all subcategories as shown in Tables V-21 and V-10
respectively. Tables VI-1 and VI-2 list the pollutants that were
considered when setting effluent limitations for this
subcategory. The Agency proposed BPT limitations for eighteen
pollutants and pollutant parameters. In response to comments,
the list of pollutants was reevaluated. The pollutants selected
for regulation at BPT are chromium, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum,
iron, oil and grease, total suspended solids and pH. The
pollutants selected for regulation are fewer than were selected
at proposal. Regulation of fewer pollutants reduces the
monitoring cost of the regulations to industry. The
effectiveness of the effluent removal is not reduced because the
unregulated pollutants are removed to the desired level by the
treatment system if the system is operated in such a way as to
remove regulated pollutants to the required level. Using lime
and settle technology, the concentration of regulated pollutants
365

-------
would be reduced to the levels shown on Table VII-16. When those
concentrations are applied to the wastewater flow described
above, the mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged per unit
area prepared and coated can be calculated. Table IX-1 on page
375 presents the limitations derived from this calculation.
BPT limitations are based on the assumption that metal
preparation and coating wastewaters will be combined and treated
in a single treatment system. The permitted discharge of
pollutants from this treatment system is equal to the sum of the
allowable pollutant discharge from metal preparation operations
and coating operations.
To determine the reasonableness of these limitations, data from
the sampled plants were examined to determine how many plants met
this limitation. Table IX-2 (Page 376) presents a comparison of
the sampled plant mass discharges and the discharge limitations
for the one sampled plant (ID 40063) which used lime and settle
(BPT) technology. It met all limitations on all three sampling
days.
A review of dcp data showed that of the 28 plants identified in
Section III as having treatment in-place,, 27 were in the steel
subcategory. Seven of these had lime, i settle, and filter
technology. The remaining twenty all had settling devices with
overflow and underflow (i.e., clarifiers, tube settlers, or
settling tanks, but not sedimentation lagoons). Of the twenty:
three reported no effluent data, two did not lime and settle the
combined wastewaters from metal preparation and coating, and one
used anhydrous ammonia, a metal ion complexing agent, to
precipitate the metals. The remaining fourteen plants, including
one plant with countercurrent rinsing, were judged from dcp
descriptions to have satisfactory BPT end-of-pipe treatment in
place, but six plants reported analyses after dilution with other
wastewater ot after lagooning.
Because production normalized flows matched to individual
effluent analysis results were not available, a comparison of
effluent concentrations to the one-day maximum L&S numbers was
made. Effluent data from eight wastewater treatment facilities
using lime and settle technology on combined metal preparation
and coating wastewaters is presented in Table IX-3 (page 367) for
the regulated pollutants included in the dcp data. No plant
reported effluent values for all nine regulated pollutants. By
plant ID number, the pollutants meeting or exceeding the lime and
settle one-day maximum concentrations (Table VII-20) are
tabulated.
366

-------
TABLE IX-3
Comparison of Effluent Concentrations
and One-Day Maximum L&S Numbers
Plant ID
Concentrations Regulated Pollutants
Meeting L&S
1 Day Max
Exceeding L&S
1 Day Max
1 51 94
33097
36052
40032
40035
40041
40043
40063
Cr,Ni,Fe,SS
N i,TSS,pH
Cr,Zn,0&G,TSS
Cr,Ni,Zn,Fe,TSS
Cr,Pb,Ni,Zn,pH
Cr,Pb,Zn,O&G
Cr,Pb,Ni,Zn,Fe
Ni,Fe,SS,pH
Ni 3.0, Fe 7
Fe 9•3,SS 44.0
Ni 1.7, TSS 36
pH 7.0
It is seen that four plants meet the one day maximum
concentrations for all of the regulated pollutants they reported.
Two plants reported suspended solids or total suspended solids
greater than the one-day maximum for lime and settle, but
collectively they met the limits for seven of nine regulated
metals. One plant reported pH slightly lower than the regulated
value, but all other regulated pollutants for the plant were
within the one-day maximum for lime and settle concentrations.
One plant reported results only in terms of meeting its permit
limits and specific values were not available for nickel or iron.
These listed plants force the conclusion that L&S technology in
porcelain enameling can be and is being operated to meet the
treatment effectiveness concentrations tabulated in Section VII.
The data presented above and in Section VII indicate that the
lime and settle treatment system is capable of producing effluent
within the limitations proposed when the system is operated
properly. Therefore, the limitations on the selected pollutant
parameters in Table IX-1 for the steel subcategory are reasonable
and achievable.
367'

-------
Pollutant reduction benefits are presented for BPT and each BAT
option in Section X. In cases where the technology is to be
applied to combined metal preparation and coating streams,
pollutant reduction benefits were calculated by considering the
streams as one stream. Thus, for the steel subcategory, the lime
and settle system is considered to be acting on a raw wastewater
stream composed of the metal preparation and coating raw
wastewater streams for the steel subcategory.
The production-normalized flow and pollutant concentrations for
the combined stream for each subcategory were obtained as
follows:
•	To obtain production normalized flow for the combined
stream the yearly flows for each process stream were
calculated from production normalized water use (Table
V-24) and annual subcategory production (by operation)
from Section III. The sum of these process water
usages for metal preparation and coating was divided by
the sum of yearly production for metal preparation and
for coating.
•	Combined raw wastewater concentrations for each
pollutant parameter were obtained from the following
calculation:
where:	C, Ft + C, F, = C3
Fj + F4
C, = pollutant concentration for the metal preparation raw
wastewater stream (mg/1)
C2 = pollutant concentration for the coating raw wastewater
stream (mg/1)
C3 « pollutant concentration for the combined stream (mg/1)
Ft * normal plant raw wastewater flow for metal preparation
(1/yr)
Fj = normal plant raw wastewater flow for coating (1/yr)
F3 = normal plant treated flow for metal preparation (1/yr)
F4 * normal plant treated flow for coating (1/yr)
In the establishment of BPT, the cost of application of
technology must be considered in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits from such application. The quantity of
368

-------
pollutants removed by BPT and the total cost of application of
BPT are displayed in Tables X-15 and X-20 (Pages 403-408). The
capital cost of BPT (in January 1978 dollars) as in increment
above the cost of in-place treatment equipment is estimated to be
$5.18 million for the steel subcategory. Annual cost of BPT for
the steel subcategory is estimated to be $2,692 million. The
quantity of pollutants removed by the BPT system for this
subcategory is estimated to be 9,340 kkg/yr (10,290 tons/yr)
including 117.3 kkg/yr (129.2 tons/yr) of toxic pollutants. The
effluent reduction benefit is worth the dollar cost of required
BPT.
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
The BPT model technology train for the cast iron subcategory
wastewater treatment consists of chemical precipitation and
settling. None of the cast iron subcategory plants reported
treatment in-place on their dcps. The metal preparation
operations in the cast iron subcategory are generally dry and dry
application technology appears to be applicable to all cast iron
production. Porcelain enamelers on cast iron often reuse the
settled slip in a 1:1 ratio with new slip in the formulation of
enamel ground coat.
All three visited plants were included in the subcategory average
flow used to calculate BPT mass discharge limitations for the 13
cast iron subcategory plants. The average production related
wastewater flow is (Table V-24):
Coating: 0.693 1/m2 (3 plants)
Production normalized water use for dcp plants was not developed
for cast iron subcategory plants. The typical characteristics of
wastewaters from the ball milling and enamel application
operations in the cast iron subcategory are presented in Table V-
10. Tables VI-2 and VI-3 list the pollutants that were
considered in setting effluent limitations for this subcategory.
Chromium, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum, iron, oil and grease,
total suspended solids, and pH are selected for regulation at
BPT. Using lime and settle technology,- the concentration of
regulated pollutants would be reduced to the levels shown on
Table VII-16.
When those concentrations are applied to the sampled plant mean
wastewater flow described above, the mass of pollutant allowed to
be discharged per unit area coated can be calculated. Table IX-4
on page 377 presents the limitations derived from this
calculation.
369

-------
To determine the reasonableness of these limitations, the cast
iron subcategory data base was examined to determine if any
plants meet the requirements for BPT. The cast iron subcategory
was found to have universally inadequate treatment based on the
absence of BPT or equivalent treatment system in place at any
cast iron plant in the dcp data base. Therefore, BPT must be
transferred to the cast iron subcategory from the other
subcategories such as the steel subcategory in the porcelain
enameling industry and from treatment found in other industries
which generate similar wastewaters. The coating wastewaters in
the cast iron subcategory are the same as the coating wastewater
in the other subcategories.
The data indicate that the technology being transferred is
capable of producing effluent that meets the expected BPT
performance levels. The treatment system is capable of producing
effluent within the limitations proposed for the cast iron
subcategory when the system is operated properly and when
wastewater generation is carefully controlled. Therefore, the
limitations in Table IX-4 for the cast iron subcategory are
reasonable and achievable.
In the establishment of BPT, the cost of application of
technology must be considered in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits from such application. The quantity of
pollutants removed by BPT and the total cost of application of
BPT are displayed in Tables X-16 and X-20 (Pages 407 & 411). The
capital cost of BPT (in January 1978 dollars) as an increment
above the cost of in-place treatment equipment is estimated to be
$0,135 million for the cast iron subcategory. Total annual cost
of BPT for the cast iron subcategory is estimated to be $0,057
million. The quantity of pollutants removed by the BPT system
for this subcategory is estimated to be 65,000 kg/yr (71.6
tons/yr) including 752 kg/yr (0.83 tons/yr) of toxic pollutants.
The effluent reduction benefit is worth the dollar cost of
required BPT.
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
The BPT model treatment technology train for aluminum subcategory
wastewater consists of chromium reduction where chromating
wastewater is generated, combining wastewaters from the metal
preparation and coating wastewater streams, oil skimming where
required and chemical precipitation and sedimentation. Lime
addition and settling are the model technology suggested for
solids removal.
Flow data from three sampled plants were used to calculate
allowable mass discharges for the 16 plants in the aluminum
370

-------
subcategory. At proposal flow data from Plant ID 33077 were
excluded from the subcategory average flow calculation for the
metal preparation stream. Observation of the metal preparation
operation at this plant revealed excessive water use, including
the discharge of rinse water during off-hours of production. The
plant used more than four times the average quantity of metal
preparation water used by other visited plants. Similarly, water
use data from Plant ID 11045 were excluded from the subcategory
average flow calculation for the coating stream. During the
sampling period, this plant used excessive quantities of water in
washing off improperly enameled parts. The additional water used
for this purpose increased the total coating discharge to nearly
5 1/2 times the average water use at other visited plants. At
proposal, water usage for one sampling day at Plant ID 33077 was
excluded. As a result of comments reexamination of the trip
report revealed that all three days of coating water usage data
should be used. A typographical error and a calculation error in
metal preparation water usage were also corrected. The latter
correction resulted in an increase in mean water usage. The
typographical error had not been incorporated into the
calculation of the mean and resulted in no additional change to
the mean.
Excluding Plant ID 33077 from the metal preparation flow calcula-
tions and Plant ID 11045 from the coating flow calculations, the
adjusted average discharge flow rates per unit of production at
the three sampled plants are:
Metal Preparation: 38.896 1/m2 (6 sampling days at 2
plants)
Coating: 15.041 1/m2 (6 sampling days at 2 plants)
These production normalized flows are used for BPT mass
limitation calculations. Production related discharge flow rates
were also calculated from flow rate and production data reported
in dcp's. Average discharge flows per unit of production
reported by 10 plants are:
Metal Preparation: 68.63 1/m2
Coating: 21.95 1/m2
The flows reported in the dcp's (Table V-9) are comparable to the
measured flow rates at sampled plants when those plants which
appear to use excessive quantities of water are eliminated from
the dcp average calculations. For the metal preparation stream,
the elimination of two plants reporting flows equal to or greater
than the flow at Plant ID 33077 (identified as a user of
excessive water because of water flow during off hours of
production) reduces the average discharge flow rate for dcp
371

-------
plants. Likewise, the elimination of the one plant reporting a
flow from coating greater than or equal to the flow at Plant ID
11045 (identified as a user of excessive water for reworking
parts) also reduces the average. These adjusted dcp flows are
consistent with the average measured flows for visited plants.
Adjusted average discharge flows per unit of production at dcp
plants are:
Metal Preparation: 45.00 1/m2 (8 plants)
Coating: 17.33 1/m2 (9 plants)
The typical characteristics of wastewaters from the metal
preparation operations in the aluminum subcategory and coating
operations in all subcategories are presented in Tables V-22 and
V-10 respectively. Tables VI-1 and VI-2 list the pollutants that
were considered in setting effluent limitations for this
subcategory. Chromium, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum, iron, oil
and grease, total suspended solids, and pH are selected for
regulation at BPT. Using lime and settle technology, the
concentration of regulated pollutants would be reduced to the
levels described in Table VII-16.
When those concentrations are applied to the sampled plant mean
wastewater flow described above, the mass of pollutant allowed to
be discharged per unit area prepared and coated can be cal-
culated. Table IX-5 at page 378 presents the limitations derived
from this calculation.
At BPT it is presumed that metal preparation and coating waste-
waters will be combined and treated in a single treatment system.
The permitted discharge of pollutants from this treatment system
is equal to the sum of the allowable pollutant discharge from
metal preparation operations and coating operations.
To determine the reasonableness of these limitations, data from
the one sampled plant having BPT technology (33077) were examined
to determine whether the plant meets these limitations. Table
IX-6 (Page 379) presents a comparison of the sampled plant mass
discharges and the discharge limitations for the aluminum
subcategory. Plant 33077 meets seven of the twelve limitations
for regulated pollutants shown on the table for three sampling
days where non-zero values were reported. The plant failed to
meet some of the limitations because water use for both the metal
preparation and coating wastewater streams exceeds the sampled
plant averages by a significant amount. As explained earlier in
this section, Plant 33077 was observed to use more than four
times the average water used by the other sampled plants in its
metal preparation operations. In this subcategory treatment is
considered to be universally inadequate, because the only plant
372

-------
with BPT technology installed and operated properly (ID 33077)
has uncharacteristically high water usage. The water usage
exceeds the adjusted average BPT usage by about the same factor
(more than four) as the largest factor by which an actual mass
discharge exceeded the limitation for any of the twelve values
reported.
Dcp's submitted by plants in the aluminum subcategory were
carefully scrutinized to determine which plants employ a
wastewater treatment system. With the exception of one of the
sampled plants, none of the aluminum subcategory plants submit-
ting dcp's has an operating BPT treatment system.
The data indicate that the treatment system is capable of produc-
ing effluent within the limitations proposed when the system is
operated properly and when wastewater generation is carefully
controlled. Therefore, the limitations set forth in Table IX-5
for the aluminum subcategory are reasonable and achievable.
In the establishment of BPT, the cost of application of
technology must be considered in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits from such application. The quantity of
pollutants removed by BPT and the total cost of application of
BPT are displayed in Tables X-17 and X-20. The capital cost of
BPT (in January 1978 dollars) as an increment above the cost of
in-place treatment equipment is estimated to be $0,091 million
for the aluminum subcategory. Total annual cost of BPT for the
aluminum subcategory is estimated to be $0,044 million. The
quantity of pollutants removed by the BPT system for this
subcategory is estimated to be 368.9 kkg/yr (406.5 tons/yr)
including 4.260 kkg/yr (4.695 tons/yr) of toxic pollutants. The
effluent reduction benefit is worth the dollar cost of required
BPT.
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
Both copper subcategory plants submitting dcp's were sampled. Of
the two sampled plants, Plant ID 06031 had an essentially dry
coating process and was therefore excluded from the subcategory
average for the coating wastewater stream. The average
production normalized flow for the copper subcategory for metal
preparation is 67.29 1/m2. The coating flow for the one plant
in the subcategory generating coating wastewater is 4.74 1/m2.
The typical characteristics of wastewaters from the metal
preparation operations in the copper subcategory and coating
operations in all subcategories are presented in Tables V-23 and
V-10 respectively. Tables VI-1 and VI-2 list the pollutants that
were considered in setting effluent limitatons for this
373

-------
subcategory. BPT effluent limitations are not established
because no active direct dischargers were found in the copper
subcategory.
374

-------
TffiBLE IX - 1
SEEEL SUBCAOTDOFOr
BET iit iljUHNT UMEranCNS
MAXIMUM TOR	MAXIMUM FOR
AN5T CUE my	MfTJmry AVERAGE
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
Preparation Chelations Preparation Operations
Metric Units wg/a? of area processed or coated
mmctnr
8.409
1.701
3.604
0.729
ARSENIC
83.688
16.933
34.436
6.968
CWMCCM
12.813
2.593
6.006
1.215
*CHKKHM
16.818
3.403
6.807
1.377

76.080
15.394
40.042
8.102
*rran
6.006
1.215
5.205
1.053
*NICKEL
56.459
11.424
40.042
8.102
SELENICM
1.602
0.324
0.801
0.162
*ZTNC
53.256
10.776
22.424
4.537
*AEIMNCM
182.191
36.864
74.478
15.070
CCBAUT
11.612
2.350
4.805
0.972
FUJOREDE
2330.444
471.536
953.000
192.828
*HCM
49.252
9.965
25.226
5.104
MAN3ANESE
17.218
3.484
13.614
2.755
*QTT. & OWKflgE
800.840
162.040
480.504
97.224
*ESS
1641.722
332.182
800.840
162.040
*pH
WITHIN
THE RANGE CF 7.
5 TO 10.0 AT ALL
TIMES
English
Units - li/1,000,000 ft^ of area processed or coated
AHCTQW
1.722
0.348
0.738
0.14?
ARSENIC
17.141
3.468
7.053
1.427
CfiEMTLM
2.624
0.531
1.230
0.249

3.445
0.697
1.394
0.282
CCPEER
15.582
3.153
8.201
1.659

1.230
0.249
1.066
0.216
~NICKEL
11.564
2.340
8.201
1.659
SEUENILM
0.328
0.066
0.164
0.033
*ZINC
10.908
2.207
4.593
0.929
~ALUMINUM
37.316
7.550
15.254
3.087
OCBfiUT
2.378
0.481
0.984
0.199
mUDRIEE
477.313
96.578
195.190
39.494
*ifcn
10.088
2.041
5.167
1.045
MANGANESE
3.527
0.714
2.788
0.564
*0IL & GREASE
164.025
33.188
98.415
19.913
*TSS
336.251
68.036
164.025
33.188
*pH
wnmN
THE RANGE CF 7.
5 TO 10.0 AT ALL
TIMES
* THIS PHnUTANT IS REGULATED AT PRCM3DGATICN
PCT.Tf.naOT OR
PCCUKROT
PK3EEKTY
375

-------
TffllE IX-2
COMPARISON OF BPT MASS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS AND
ACTUAL DISCHARGES OF STEEL SUBCATEGORY
SAILED PLANTS WITH BPT
PLANT 40063
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
DAY 1 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
DAY 2 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
DAY 3 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
114
Antimony
0
0.096
0
0.102
0
0.092
115
Arsenic
0
0.955
0
1.012
0
0.913
118
Cadmium
0.002
0.146
0.002
0.154
0.002
0.140
119
Chromium, Total
0
0.192

0.203
-	-
0.183
120
Copper
0.001
0.868
0.001
0.919
0.001
0.830
122
Lead
0
0.069
	
0.072
	
0.065
124
Nickel
0
0.644
0
0.683
0
0.615
125
Selenium
0
0.018
0
0.019
0
0.018
128
Zinc
0.007
0.608
0.017
0.644
0.004
0.581

Aluminum
0.091
2.079
0.137
2.202
0.144
1.987

Cobalt
0
0.133
0
0.140
0
0.127

Fluoride
6.78
26.591
8.59
28.169
8.86
25.725

Iron
0.128
0.562
0.222
0.595
0.239
0.537

Manganese
0.031
0.196
0.005
0.208
0.049
0.188

Oil and Grease
2.08
9.138
0.781
9.681
0.989
8.735

Total Suspended Solids
2.35
18.732
5.08
19.844
5.36
17.905
- Indicates no data available.
0 Indicates less than minimum detectable limit
or not detected at all.

-------
TABLE IX - 4
CAST IFCN SUBCKTH30FSr
BET EULUENT UMTEAnONS
KIZUEANT OH
KXUZffiOT	MAXMM R3R	MMfTMTM for
FfOrEKIY	ANY CNE DRY	MTMIW.V AVEEW2E
mg/n? (lly'1,000,000 ft2) of area crated
AMEDCNY
0.146
(0.030)
0.062
(0.013)
ARSENIC
1.448
(0.297)
0.596
(0.122)
CAEMUM
0.222
(0.045)
0.104
(0.021)
*CHRMECM
0.291
(0.060)
0.118
(0.024)
OOEEER
1.317
(0.270)
0.693
(0.142)
*rran
0.104
(0.021)
0.090
(0.018)
*NICKBL
0.977
(0.200)
0.693
(0.142)
*ZDC
0.922
(0.1S9)
0.388
(0.079)
*AUMMM
3.153
(0.646)
1.289
(0.264)
axnrir
0.201
(0.041)
0.083
(0.017)
EUUDRKE
40.333
(8.261)
16.493
(3.378)
*UCN
0.852
(0.175)
0.437
(0.090)
MBN3RNESE
0.298
(0.061)
0.236
(0.048)
*OTT. 5 <3WafiE
13.860
(2.839)
8.316
(1.703)
*ISS
28.413
(5.819)
13.860
(2.839)

WEHN
THE RANGE CST 7.
5 TO 10.0 AT AIL TIMES
* mis prrunaNT is fegulaihd at pkmigation
377

-------
TABLE IX - 5
AEIMQTCM SUBCKCEQOKy
SET h:hm JTPTTT T.nVii'fflTTfTJS
KUJOTANT CR
PcmxraOT	maxmm kk	maximum tor
ERCKEKW	WW ONE DRY	MrwrHTV AVERftSE
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
Prgparaticn C£eratians Preparation Operations
Metric Units - wg/n? of area processed or coated.
memox
8.168
3.159
3.501
1.354
ARSENIC
81.293
31.436
33.451
12.935
CATMXM
12.447
4.813
5.834
2.256
*CHHCMHJM
16.336
6.317
6.612
2.557
OCKER
73.902
28.578
38.896
15.041
CffiNHE
11.280
4.362
4.668
1.805
*rran
5.834
2.256
5.056
1.955
*NICXEL
54.843
21.208
38.896
15.041
*ZIN2
51.732
20.005
21.782
8.423

176.977
68.437
72.347
27.976
CCBfiKT
11.280
4.362
4.668
1.805
HJUUKILE
2263.747
875.386
925.725
357.976
*XECN
47.842
18.500
24.504
9.476
MAN3SNESE
16.725
6.468
13.225
5.114
•OIL & GREASE
777.920
300.820
466.752
180.492
*TSS
1594.736
616.681
777.920
300.820
*pH
WETHIN
THE KVNGE OF 7.5 TO 10.0 AT ALL TIMES
Ehglish Units - 11/1,000,000 ft? of area processed or coated
ANTOENY
1.673
0.647
0.717
0.277
ARSENIC
16.650
6.439
6.851
2.649
CAEMIIM
2.549
0.986
1.195
0.462
~CHRCMILM
3.346
1.294
1.354
0.524
OUfcHiR
15.136
5.853
7.967
3.081
CXANIEE
2.310
0.893
0.956
0.370
*rran
1.195
0.462
1.036
0.400
*NICKEL
11.233
4.344
7.967
3.081
*znc
10.596
4.097
4.461
1.725

36.248
14.017
14.818
5.730
OCBAUT
2.310
0.893
0.956
0.370
rajoRUE
463.652
179.293
189.603
73.319
*XECN
9.799
3.789
5.019
1.941
MANGANESE
3.426
1.325
2.709
1.047
*OlL S GFEBSE
159.331
61.613
95.598
36.968
*TSS
326.628
126.306
159.331
61.613

WEMIN
BE RAN3E CP 7.5 TO 10.0 AT ALL TIMES
* mis PnrifTEANT IS FEEUIATBD at prcmxgaticn
378

-------
TABLE IX-6
COMPARISON OF BPT MASS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
AND ACTUAL DISCHARGES OF ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
SAMPLED PLANT WITH BPT
PLANT 33077
POLT/UTANT PARAMETER
DAY 1 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
DAY 2 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
DAY 3 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
114	Antimony
115	Arsenic
118 Cadmium
0
0
0.01
0.004
0.044
0.007
0
0
0.061
0.012
0.115
0.018
0
0
0.018
0.016
0.158
0.024
119	Chromium, Total
120	Copper
122 Lead
0
0
0
0.008
0.040
0.003
0.0004
0
0.034
0.023
0.105
0.008
0
0
0.026
0.032
0.144
0.011
.1.24
128
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
0
0.0969
0
0.030
0.028
0.096
0
0.0048
0.0136
0.078
0.073
0.251
0
0.124
0.006
0.107
0.101
0.345
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
0
0.359
0.007
0.006
1.224
0.026
0
0.102
0
0.134
3.205
0.068
0
0.391
0.007
0.022
4.411
0.033
Manganese	0
Oil and Grease	0
Total Suspended Solids 0
0.009
0.421
0.862
0
0
0.341
0.024
1.101
2.258
0
0
7.169
0.033
1.516
3.107
0 Indicates less than minimum detectable limit
or not detected at all.

-------
COATING
WASTEWATER
ALL OTHER
PORCELAIN
ENAMELING
WASTEWATER
US
00
O
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHROMIUM
BEARING
WASTEWATER
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
o£» -
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
,4^
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENTATION
O & G REMOVAL
AS NECESSARY
DISCHARGE
RECYCLE
SLUDGE
DEWATERING

SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
(IF APPLICABLE!
FIGURE IX-1. BPT TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR STEEL AND ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORIES

-------
COATING
WASTEWATER
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
DISCHARGE
SEDIMENTATION
O & G REMOVAL
AS NECESSARY
cj
03
RECYCLE
SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
FIGURE IX-2.
BPT TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR THE CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY

-------

-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The factors considered in assessing best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, process changes, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy require-
ments) and the costs of application of such technology (Section
304(b)(2)(B)). In general, the BAT technology level represents,
at a minimum, the best existing economically achievable per-
formance of plants of various ages, sizes, processes or other
shared characteristics. As with BPT, in those categories where
existing performance is universally inadequate BAT may be
transferred from a different subcategory or category BAT may
include process changes or internal controls, even when not
common industry practice.
Several changes were made in the model BAT technology and in the
calculation of BAT limitations after proposal. These changes are
discussed below.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT
In developing this regulation, the Agency evaluated several BAT
technology options, which would reduce the discharge of toxic
pollutants beyond the reduction achieved by BPT.
The proposed BAT model technology was:
Coating wastewaters
~ settling sump
Settled coating wastewater plus metal preparation
wastewaters
-	chromium reduction (where necessary in aluminum
subcategory)
-	equalization tank
-	oil skimming
-	chemical precipitation
-	settling (clarifier)
-	polishing filtration
The Agency
technology.
f iltration
received many
A number of
in the model
comments on the proposed BAT model
comments objected to polishing
BAT technology because of its cost.
383

-------
Other comments asserted that the discharge allowance for ball
mill washout was inadequate.
After reviewing the comments received from proposal, the Agency
considered possible modification to the proposed BAT and
developed the following options. These options are now
designated by letter to minimize confusion
Option A (see Figure X-l, page 415} consists of the following
treatment technology:
o chromium reduction (where necessary)
o combined treatment of coating and metal preparation
wastewater	i•
o	Chemical precipitation (lime)
o	settling (clarifier)
o	reuse of water in most coating operations
o	sludge densification
Option B	(see Figure X-2, page 416) consists of;
o	chromium reduction (where necessary)
o	combined treatment of coating arid metal prepration
wastewaters
o	chemical precipitation (lime)
o	settling (clarifier)
o	polishing filtration
o	sludge densification
Option C	(see Figure X-3, page 417) consists of:
o	chromium reduction (where necessary)
o	combined treatment of coating and metal preparation
wastewaters
o chemical precipitation (lime)
o settling (clarif ier)
384

-------
o
reuse of water in most coating operations
o polishing filtration,
o sludge densification
Option D (see Figure X-4, page 418) consists of separate
treatments
o For coating wastewaters
-	chemical precipitation (lime)
-	settling (clarifier)
-	recycle of al1 coating water needs except ball mill
washout
-	paper element pressure filter for discharged water
-	sludge densification
o For metal preparation wastewaters
-	chromium reduction (where necessary 5
-	chemical precipitation (lime)
-	settling (clarifier)
-	polishing filtration
-	sludge densif ication
Option E (see Figure X-5, page 419) consists of separate
treatment:
o For coating wastewaters
-	chemical precipitation (lime)
-	settling (clarifier)
-	recycle of all coating water needs except ball mill
washout
-	paper element pressure filter for discharged water
o For metal preparation wastewaters
-	chromium reduction (where necessary)
-	chemical precipitation (lime)
-	settling (clarifier)
-	polishing filtration
-	three-stage counter current rinsing after alkaline
cleaning, acid etch, (and nickel flash in steel
subcategory).
385

-------
The Agency reconsidered the need for settling sumps and
equalization tanks after proposal. All options were modified by
eliminating specific technologies from consideration: settling
sumps and equalization tanks. The reasons for excluding settling
sumps and equalization tanks from BAT technology are ones given
in Section IX where their deletion from proposed BPT technology
was discussed.
SELECTION OF BAT MODEL TECHNOLOGY
Option A was selected as the model technology for BAT after all
five final BAT options were considered. Although Options D and E
would remove more toxic metal pollutants than the other three
options, they are more complex to operate because each requires
two separate lime, settle and filter systems. The incremental
removals achieved are considered not to be sufficient to justify
the greater complexity.
Options B and C both require polishing filters. The polishing
filter (multimedia or cartridge type) following settling was
eliminated from the proposed BAT model technology after proposal
for two reasons: (1) filtration would cost approximately $1.9
million (capital) and $0.45 million annually;, and (2) about half
of the porcelain enameling facilities are part of larger
manufacturing operations where combined wastewater treatment may
be most appropriate, and the other categories may not require
filtration in their model treatment technology.
The selected model BAT treatment technology includes the reuse of
treated wastewaters for purposes such as cooling ball mills,
washing unfired enamel off parts for rework, washing down floors
in ball mill rooms, water curtain spray booths, and certain flow
enhancement purposes to keep lines clear. None of these uses
requires a high quality water. Therefore, the water reuse
technology is considered to be appropriate. One dcp wastewater
treatment diagram (ID 15194) included a holding tank and return
of treated wastewater to process. The specific processes were
not specified and a note indicated that the reuse technology was
being installed - not in use at the time the dcp was completed.
Because the end-of-pipe treatment technology for BAT is identical
to that for BPT, the same discussion of achievability of
concentration limits by porcelain enameling plants with lime and
settle systems applies here as in BPT. The reduction in
pollutant discharge between BPT and BAT is achieved entirely by
reduced water usage. Flow estimates used to calculate mass-based
limitations for each subcategory are discussed below.
386

-------
Because comments complained that the wastewater allowance for
ball mill wastewater was too small, we reevaluated the existing
data for this operation. This reconsideration is detailed in
Section V and is the basis for the ball mill washout allowance of
0.0636 1/m2 costed. This value is the same for all
subcategories.
The BAT technology is applied as described to steel, cast iron,
and aluminum subcategories. The copper subcategory is not
regulated at BAT because there are no active direct dischargers.
INDUSTRY COST AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS OF TREATMENT
OPTIONS
An estimate of capital and annual costs for BAT Options A, B, C,
D, and E was prepared for each subcategory (Table X-20). The
capital cost of treatment technology in place was also estimated
for each subcategory using the methodology in Section VIII.
«
The capital and operating costs of treatment were estimated for
each existing plant and summed to develop estimates for each
subcategory using production and treatment equipment information
provided on dcp's. The cost for a "normal plant" was determined
by dividing each total subcategory cost by the number of
regulated plants having operations in that subcategory. "Capital
in-place" in Table X-20 is the difference in capital costs
calculated first presuming no treatment in-place and second
costing only additional equipment needed to meet the specific
option.
Pollutant reduction benefits were calculated for each subcategory
based on all porcelain enameling plants (direct and indirect
dischargers) and were derived by ; (a) characterizing raw
wastewater and effluent from each proposed treatment system in
terms of concentrations produced and production normalized
discharges (Tables X-l through X-4) (Pages 392-395) for each sig-
nificant pollutant found; (b) calculating the quantities removed
and discharged in one year by a normal plant (Tables X-5 through
X-8 (Pages 396-399); and (c) calculating the quantities removed
and discharged in one year by subcategory and for the category
(Tables X-9 through X-l3) (Pages 400-404). Table X-l4 (Page 405)
summarizes treatment performances by subcategory for all
porcelain enameling plants BPT technology and each BAT option
showing the mass of pollutants removed and discharged by each
option. The capital and annual costs for BPT and BAT are
presented by subcategory in the cost Table X-20, (Page 411).
Four sets of costs are given in Table X-20: (a) "normal plant" -
average of estimated treatment costs for all non-excluded plants
in subcategory or category (direct and indirect) derived from
387

-------
(d), below, and the total number of non-excluded plants used for
(b) and (c), below; (b) "direct dischargers" - sum of estimated
treatment costs for direct dischargers; (c) "indirect
dischargers" - sum of estimated treatment costs for non-excluded
indirect dischargers and (d) the sum of (b) and (c). In Tables
X-9 through X-14 and X-20 all plants in the category are included
as if they were direct dischargers. These tables can also be
compared with those presented in the proposal development
document. Both sets are based on all plants (direct and
indirect) in the industry. In each case only regulated plants
are included (i.e. at proposal, all plants; at promulgation,
non-excluded plants). All pollutant parameter calculations were
based on mean raw wastewater concentrations for visited plants,
production normalized water use by subcategory from visited
plants Table (V-24) and dcp production data presented in Section
III. The quantities of pollutants were summed into workable
groupings; total toxic metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc),
conventional (oil and grease, TSS) and total pollutants (total
toxic metals, conventional, aluminum, barium, cobalt, fluoride,
iron, manganese and phosphorus).
A further set of tables, X-15 through X-19 gives total treatment
performance for each subcategory and the total category for
direct dischargers only. These tables may be used with the
appropriate line on table X-20 to compare actual BAT performance
with BAT costs.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The raw wastewater concentrations from individual operations and
from the subcategory total were examined to select toxic and
other pollutant parameters found at treatable levels. In each
subcategory at proposal, several toxic metals were selected for
regulation. Comments on the proposal criticized the number of
pollutants to be specifically regulated because of the high cost
of monitoring. In response to these comments, the number of
metals specifically regulated has been reduced to six in the
final regulation. Control of the specifically regulated
pollutants will ensure removal of non-regulated toxic pollutants
when the BAT mass limitations are met. The achievable effluent
concentrations of the regulated pollutants using the BAT model
technology are listed in Table VII-20.
The metals selected for specific regulation are discussed under
each subcategory. The effluent limitations achievable by
application of the BAT model technology are also presented by
subcategory.
388

-------
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
The effluent limitations based on BAT for the steel subcategory
are based on: the achievable concentration of regulated
pollutants (mg/1) using L&S in Table VI1-20; the subcategory mean
water usage for the metal preparation stream (1/m2 area prepared)
identical to corresponding BPT subcategory usage; and coating
stream water use (usage 1/m2 coating area) equal to the category
mean water use for ball mill washout the same in each subcategory
and derived in Section V. The water use values used as the flow
basis for BAT mass discharge limitation for the steel subcategory
are:
Metal preparation: 40.042 1/m2
Coating:	0.636 1/m2
These flows are used to calculate limitations based on BAT for
the metal preparation and the coating wastewater streams for the
steel subcategory.
Pollutant parameters selected for specific regulation for the
steel subcategory at BAT are: chromium, lead, nickel, zinc,
aluminum and iron. In Section VI nine toxic pollutants were
selected for consideration for regulation in this section. In
response to comments on the cost of monitoring the fourteen
pollutants as proposed, a review was made of this listing and
also nonconventional pollutants found in large quantities. The
Agency has concluded that regulation of the six pollutants listed
will provide adequate control of all of the toxic pollutants.
When the flows presented above are applied to the achievable
effluent concentrations for L&S technology listed in Table VII-
20, the mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged area of metal
prepared or per unit coated can be calculated. Table X-21 on
page 412 shows the limitations derived from this calculation.
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
The BAT effluent limitations for the cast iron subcategory are
based- on the concentrations of regulated pollutants (mg/1)
achievable by L&S technology Table VII-20 and on the mean water
usage for coating equal to the category mean water usage for ball
mill washout (1/m2 area coated). Metal preparation in the cast
iron subcategory is dry, and therefore metal preparation is set
at zero discharge. The water use for coating on which mass
discharge limitations are based is 0.636 1/m2. If more than one
wet coats are applied to the same area, the mass limitation
applies to each coat.
389

-------
Pollutant parameters selected for regulation.for the cast iron
subcategory are: chromium, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum, and
iron. In Section VI nine toxic pollutants were selected, as
proposed, for consideration for regulation in this section.
Comments were received on the cost of monitoring the large number
of pollutants. After reviewing this listing and also
nonconventional pollutants found in large quantities the Agency
has concluded that regulation of the six pollutants listed will
provide adequate control for all of the toxic pollutants.
When the flow of 0.636 1/m2 is applied to the achievable effluent
concentrations for L&S technology listed in Table VI1-20 the mass
of pollutant allowed to be discharged per unit area coated can be
calculated. Table X-22 on page 413 shows the limitations derived
from this calculation.
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
The effluent limitations based on BAT for the aluminum
subcategory are based on: the achievable concentrations of
regulated pollutants (mg/1) using L&S technology Table VI1-20;
the subcategory mean water usage for the metal preparation stream
(1/m2 of the metal prepared, identical to BPT water usage for
metal preparation), the water use for coating equal to the
category mean water use for ball mill washout (1/m2 coating
area). The mean water use for the metal preparation stream' set
forth in Section IX is 38.896 1/m2. The average water use for
coating used as the basis for BAT effluent limitation is 0.636
1/m3.
Parameters selected for regulation for the aluminum subcategory
at BAT are: chromium, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum, and iron. In
Section VI nine toxic pollutants were selected, as proposed, for
consideration for regulation in this section. Comments were
received on the cost of monitoring the large number of
pollutants.	After reviewing this listing and also
nonconventional pollutants found in large quantities the Agency
has concluded that regulation of the six pollutants listed will
provide adequate control of all of the toxic pollutants.
When the flows for the metal preparation stream and for the
coating stream are applied to the effluent concentrations
achievable by application of L&S technology listed in Table VII-
20, the mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged per unit area
prepared or unit are coated can be calculated. Table X-23 on
page 414 shows the limitations derived from this calculation.
390

-------
DEMONSTRATION STATUS
Reuse of treated wastewater for most coatings operations water
uses - all except ball mill washout - is the technology basis for
the improved BAT performance above BPT. This technology was
proposed and we received no adverse comments on it. Before
proposal we examined the uses of water in coating operations and
found that high quality water was not required for any of these
uses except possibly for ball mill washout. Even though water
reuse in the coatings operation is now minimal, we believe the
applicability of this technology is fully supported by our
technical analysis and the lack of any adverse comment.
391

-------
OASZ X-l
so-MAiar or ieekmnt eztic
.IHTVT. CTTffTVM^t'-t^Wy
XMMCZXR
M33\L PFCTMaroy
BXj/1
n&fa.
mg/1 mg/k
mg/1 wgM
BET (PSS 0)
QJdMTTJH)
ing/l wq/m"
BAT A (PSES A)
OCynTNUi
ID9/I
ngfa
BAT B (PSES B)
{TWRTMWt
mg/1
mg/ta
II£W 1/a2
40.042
8.102
23.039*
23.039*
19.065*
23.039*
114	ANTZKW
115	AHSBCC
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
68.154
1.220
552.184
9.884
12.758
0.228
293.932
5.253
0.050
0.228
1.152
5.253
0.050
0.276
0.953
5.253
0.034
0.228
0.783
5.253
117	WPYTT.TTM
118	OUHBM
119	CffiOOTM
0.000
0.009
0*109
0.000
0.360
4.365
0.043
8.259
1.370
0.348
66.914
11.100
0.008
1.553
0.345
0.184
35.780
7.948
0.008
0.079
0.080
0.184
1.820
1*843
0.010
0.079
0.080
0.184
1.506
1.525
0.008
0.049
0.070
0.184
1.129
1.613
120 OMa
122 X£AD
124 moax.
0.057
0.024
14.510
2.282
0.961
5ai.009
3.492
42.814
28.334
28.292
346.879
229.562
0.700
8.034
17.098
16.127
185.095
393.921
0.580
0.120
0.570
13.363
2.765
13.132
0.580
0.120
0.570
11.058
2.288
10.867
0.390
0.080
0.220
8.965
1.843
5.069
12s sazmm
128 ZBC
rxnmm
0.096
o.ioo
0.345
3.844
4.004
13.814
10.047
98.034
162.808
81*401
794.271
1319.070
1.959
18.432
30.757
45.133
424.655
708.611
0.010
0.300
1.110
0.230
6.912
25.573
0.010
0.300
1.110
0.191
5.720
21.162
0.007
0.230
0.740
0.161
5.299
17.049
QJMJT
SCN
0.052
0*696
535.000
2.062
27.869
21422*470
29.622
24.133
36.922
239.997
195.526
299.142
5.587 128.719
5.083 117.107
441.764 10177.801
0.070
5.063
0.410
1.613
117.107
9.446
0.070
6.143
0.410
1.335
117.107
7.817
0.050
5.083
0.280
1.152
117.107
6.451
MUaOESE 1.336 77.601 44.094 357.250 9.829 226.450 0.210 4.838 0.210 4.004 0.140 3.225
HDSREKS 5.430 217.428 4.249 34.425 5.209 120.010 4.080 93.999 4.080 77.785 2.720 62.666
CHL £ GRASS 12.350 494.519 16*107 130.499 13.053 300.728 10.000 230.390 10*000 190.650 10.000 230.390
TSS
84.000 3363*528 21918.167 177580.989 4171.182 96099.862 12.000 276*468 12*000 228.780
2.600
59.901
AAHSSR
new x/ti1
wr c (F9S c)
CQBBB?
wj/l jng/ta?
19.065*
BP? D CESE5 D)
MS*L EFEERRmTN
zwj/1
40.042
OQKEZ2G
rag/ia
0.636
HAT E (PSS E)
M2RL PI^TAKKHCN
CCKEDG

mg/ta
aq/1
mg/ta
3*575
0.636
1X4 wony
115 MSKin
0.034
0.276
0*648
5*253
0*000
0*000
0*000
0.000
0*034
0*340
0*022
0*216
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.034
0.340
0.022
0.216
117	KKXUXM
118	CttHTtM
119	OBOGtM
0.010
0*049
0*070
0*184
0.934
1*335
0.000
0.009
0.070
0.000
0.360
2.803
0*200
0.049
0*070
0.127
0*031
0.045
0.000
0.049
0*070
0.000
0*175
0*250
0*200
0.049
0*070
0.127
0.031
0.045
120 CCPPSR
122 UN)
124 Kzaaz.
0.390
0.080
0.220
7.435
1.52S
4*194
0*057
0*024
0.220
2*282
0.961
8.809
0.390
0.060
0*220
0*248
0*051
0*140
0.390
0.080
0.220
1.394
0.286
0.786
0.390
0.080
0.220
0*248
0.051
0.140
12S SZ23QXM
128 ZDC
juhmm
0.007
0*230
0*740
0.133
4.385
14*108
0.007
0*100
0*345
0*280
4.004
13.814
0*007
0*230
0*740
0*004
0.146
0.471
0*007
0.230
0*740
0*025
0.822
2*646
0*007
0*230
0*740
0.004
0.146
0*471
COBNUT
wit'in IK
3TCN
0*050
6.143
0*280
0*953
117*107
5.338
0.050
0.696
0.280
2.002
27.869
11.212
0.050
9*460
0*280
0*032
6.017
0*178
0*050
7*796
0.280
0.179
27.869
1.001
0*050
9*460
0*280
0.032
6.017
0.178
MSNStttSC 0*140 2*669
XKSSKXS 2.720 51.857
CHL & GEEASS 10.000 190.650
0.140 5*606
2*720 108*914
10*000 400*420
0*140
2*720
10*000
0*069
1.730
6.360
0.140
2.720
10.000
0*500
9.724
35.750
0*140
2*720
10*000
0.089
1.730
6.360
2.600 49.569
2.600 104.109
2.600
1.654
2.600
9.295 2.600
1.654
*2hi r*t±o c£ coating ^rodaceicn to metal preparation production is 1.14.
392

-------
TOHLE X-2
SUMMABY OF TREATMENT EETH2TIVENESS
CAST IBCN SUBCAIEQORf
RAW WASTE	BFT (PSES 0) BAT A (PSES A)	BAT B (PSES B) BAT C (PSES C) BAT D (PEES D) BAT E (PSES E)
PARAMETER	CCMTN3	OQKHN3	OQATIN3	OOATIM3	OQAHNS	OQAITOE	OQA33N3
2	2	2	2	2	2	2
mg/1 mgM mg/1 mg/in mg/1 rcq/m rag/1 rng/hi mg/1 mgAn irg/1 mg/in mg/1 ing/fo
now
lA'i2
0.693
0.693
0.636
0.693
0.636
0.636
0.636
114	ANITtENY
115	AJSEMIC
68.154
1.220
47.231
0.845
0.050
0.510
0.035
0.353
0.050
0.510
0.032
0.324
0.034
0.340
0.024
0.236
0.034
0.340
0.022
0.216
0.034
0.340
0.022
0.216
0.034
0.340
0.022
0.216
117	BEKMJXW
118	CAEMILM
119	OfKMtM
0.043
8.259
1.370
0.030
5.723
0.949
0.043
0.079
0.080
0.030
0.055
0.055
0.046
0.079
0.080
0.029
0.050
0.051
0.043
0.049
0.070
0.030
0.034
0.049
0.046
0.049
0.070
0.029
0.031
0.045
0.047
0.049
0.070
0.030
0.031
0.045
0.047
0.049
0.070
0.030
0.031
0.045
120 COPPER
122 I£AD
124 NICKEL
3.492
42.814
28.334
2.420
29.670
19.635
0.580
0.120
0.570
0.402
0.083
0.395
0.580
0.120
0.570
0.369
0.076
0.363
0.390
0.080
0.220
0.270
0.055
0.152
0.390
0.080
0.220
0.248
0.051
0.140
0.390
0.080
0.220
0.248
0.051
0.140
0.390
0.080
0.220
0.248
0.051
0.140
125 SELENKM
128 ZUC
ALlMENtM
10.047
98.034
162.808
6.963
67.938
112.826
0.010
0.300
1.110
0.007
0.208
0.769
0.010
0.300
1.110
0.006
0.191
0.706
0.007
0.230
0.740
0.005
0.159
0.513
0.007
0.230
0.740
0.004
0.146
0.471
0.007
0.230
0.740
0.004
0.146
0.471
0.006
0.230
0.740
0.004
0.146
0.471
OQBAnr
EUUORIDE
IRCN
29.622
24.133
36.922
20.528
16.724
25.587
0.070
14.200
0.410
0.049
9.841
0.284
0.070
14.200
0.410
0.045
9.031
0.261
0.050
9.460
0.280
0.035
6.556
0.194
0.050
9.460
0.280
0.032
6.017
0.178
0.050
9.460
0.280
0.032
6.017
0.178
0.050
9.460
0.280
0.032
6.017
0.178
MANSANESE 44.094 30.557 0.210 0.146 0.210 0.134 0.140 0.097 0.140 0.089 0.140 0.089 0.140 0.089
FHGSPHQfUS 4.249 2.945 4.080 2.827 4.080 2.595 2.720 1.885 2.720 1.730 2.720 1.730 2.720 1.730
OIL & GREASE 16.107 11.162 10.000 6.930 10.000 6.360 10.000 6.930 10.000 6.360 10.000 6.360 10.000 6.360
TSS
21918.167 15189.290 12.000 8.316 12.000
7.632
2.600
1.802
2.600
1.654
2.600
1.654 2.600
1.654

-------
TABLE X-3
SCMMARf CF TOEMMNT EZTtCTZVEKESS
AIIMNLM SJBCKSS30R£
IWWnEl
raw wssz
frESL PFEPAKSJCN
CCKEQG
ffig/1
tag/fei
mg/1
ing/b»
mg/1
mg/b
BET (PSES 0)
frMHTNT-T)
mg/1
BAT A (PSES A)
GCMBmED
mg/in mg/1
yng/frn
BAT B (PSES B)
CCMBINED
mg/1 rag/tof
n£W lyfc?
38*896
15.041
28.254*
28.254*
21.827*
28.254*
114	ANnKK£
115	AFSEKXC
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
68.154
1.220
1025.104
18.350
16.186
0.290
457.319
8.194
0.050
0.290
1.413
8.194
0.050
0.375
1.091
6.185
0.034
0.290
0.961
8.194
117 ffiPYTr.TtM
iis cmmim
119 arotrm
o.ooo
0*003
0.013
0.000
0.117
0.506
0.043
8.259
1.370
0.647
124.224
20.606
0.010
1.964
0.335
0.283
55.491
9.465
0.010
0.079
0.080
0.283
2.232
2.260
0.013
0.079
0.080
0.283
1.724
1.746
0.010
0.049
0.070
0.283
1.384
1.978
120 CCPPER
122 I£AD
134 KIOXX*
0.039
2.175
0.000
1.517
84.599
0.000
3.492
42.814
28.334
52.523
643.965
426.172
0.859
11.827
6.729
24.270
334.160
190.121
0.580
0.120
0.570
16.387 0.580
3.390 0.120
16.105 0.570
12.660
2.619
12.441
0.390
0.080
0.220
11.019
2.260
6.216
125 SELENIUM
123 ZQC
AXXHXNM
0.000
0.210
6.640
0.000
8.168
258.269
10.047
96.034
162.806
151.117
1474.529
2448.795
2.386
23.443
43.729
67.414
662.359
1235.519
0.010
0.300
1.110
0.283
8.476
31.362
0.010
0.300
1.110
0.218
6.548
24.228
0.007
0.230
0.740
0.196
6.496
20.906
CCEKff
FLUCKHE
IKK
0.000
0.890
0.097
0.000
34.228
3.773
29.622
24.133
36.922
445.545
362.964
555.344
7.035
6.402
8.843
196.767
180.882
249.850
0.070
6.402
0.410
1.978
160.882
11.584
0.070
8.287
0.410
1.528
1S0.880
8.949
0.050
6.402
0.280
1.413
180.882
7.911
MtOU&SS 0.1H 4317 44.094 663.213 10.557 296.277 0.210 5.933 0.210 4.584 0.140 3.956
n)QSft£HB 8.487 330.110 4.249 63.909 7.481 211.368 4.080 115.276 4.080 89.054 2.720 76.851
COL £ CSBIS5 6.850 266.438 16.107 242.265 9.048 255.642 9.048 255.642 10.000 218.270 9.048 255.642
¦xss
39.880 1551.172 21918.167 329671.150 5235.838 147933.367 12.000 339.048 12.000 261.924 2.600 73.460
«r c (ibes c) 	bat d (pgs d)	 	bat e (pas e)
SAFMETER	(Tfrmreu	PKEPRRKPCN	GQKERG	ME3&L PFCTABAUEU	C
2	2	2	2	2
tnj/1	mg/1	mg/1	nyj/1	TT*jAn	mg/1
IUCW I/O1
114 MMIX
US AJSZJCC
117 HEHOIJZM
llaCKMOM
119	CHSCHUM
120	COPPER
122 ZJ9D
124	HIQ5X,
125	szxanuM
128 zac
XUMXHH
rTTOT.T
nucRirE
IPCN
mnsusse:
HCGHStS
OZL & GREASE
TSS
21.827*
0.034	0*742
0.340	7.421
0.013	.0.283
0.049	1.070
0.070	1.528
0.390	8.513
0.060	1.746
0.220	4.802
0.007	0.153
0.230	5.020
0.740	16.152
0.050	1.091
8.287	180.880
0.280	6.112
0.140	3.056
2.720	59.369
10.000	218.270
2.600	56.750
38.896
0.000	0.000
0.000	0.000
0.000	0.000
0.003	0.117
0.013	0.506
0.039	1.517
0.060	3.112
0.000	0.000
0.000	0.000
0.210	8.168
0.740	28.783
0.000	0.000
0.880	34.228
0.097	3.773
0.111	4.317
2.720	105.797
6.850	266.438
2.600	101.130
0.636
0.034	0.022
0.340	0.216
0.200	0.127
0.049	0.031
0.070	0.045
0.390	0.248
0.060	0.051
0.220	0.140
0.007	0.004
0.230	0.146
0.740	0.471
0.050	0.032
9.460	6.017
0.280	0.178
0.140	0.089
2.720	1.730
10.000	6.360
2.600	1.654
3.473
0.000	0.000
0.000	0.000
0.000	0.000
0.034	0.117
0.070 : 0.243
0.390	1.354
0.080	0.278
0.000	0.000
0.000	0.000
0.230	0.799
0.740	2.570
0.000	0.000
9.460	32.855
0.280	0.972
0.140	0.486
2.720	9.447
10.000	34.730
2.600	9.030
0.636
0.034	0.022
0.340	0.216
0.200	0.127
0.049	0.031
0.070	0.045
0.390.	0.248
0.060	0.051
0.220	0.140
0.007	0.004
0.230	0.146
0.740	0.471
0.050	0.032
9.460	6.017
0.280	0.178
0.140	0.089
2.720	1.730
10.000	6.360
2.600	1.654
*ZhQ zstio aC coating production to metal preparation prodocticn is 0.81.
394

-------
TABI£ X-4
SUMARf CF THSAaMQZT EFETCHVENESS
CCPEER SUBCA3H30HT
EMMEER
RAW HASTE
fEIBL PREPARATION
axmc
mg/l
og/fa
rag/1

09/I
mg/ta
BPT (PSES 0)
(JLM&LNED
rag/1

SAT A (PSES A)
qyRTMsn
09/I
EAT B (PSS B)
flyRTMm
Taj/a mj/l
rarjfm
PICW X/ti2
67*290
4.740
35.420*
35.420*
33.330*
35.420*
114	Marata:
115	ARSENIC
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
68.154
1.220
323.050
5.783
4.646
0.083
164.561
2.940
0.050
0.083
1.771
2.940
0.050
0.088
1.667
2.933
0.034
0.083
1.204
2.940
117	BERrrr.Tw
118	CTEMIIK
119	CHKHflM
0.000
0.022
0.026
0.000
1.480
1.750
0.043
8.259
1.370
0.204
39.148
6.494
0.003
0.583
0.11S
0.106
20*650
4*180
0.003
0.079
0.080
0.106
2.798
2.834
0.003
0.079
0.080
0.100
2.633
2.666
0.003
0.049
0.070
0.106
1.736
2.479
120 CCFPER
122 Tran
124 NICKEL
278.700 18753.723
0.770 51.813
0.120" 8.075
3.492
42.814
28.334
16.552
.202.938
134*303
259.941
3.636
2.043
9207.110
128.787
72.363
0.580
0.120
0.570
20.544
4.250
20.189
0.580
0.120
0.570
19.331
4.000
18.998
0*390
0.080
0.220
13.814
2.834
7.792
125 sz&am
128 ZEN?
ALLMDtK
0.000
0.890
0.073
0.000
59.888
4.912
10.047
98.034
162.808
47.623
464.681
771.710
0.685
7.512
11.166
24.263
266.075
395.500
0.010
0.300
1.110
0.354
10.626
39.316
0.010
0.300
1.110
0.333
9.999
36.996
0.007
0.230
0.740
0.248
8.147
26.211
(TBtTfT
mrxare
HCM
0.000 0.000
0.115 7.738
27.410 1844.419
29.622
24.133
36.922
140.408
114.390
175.010
2.019
1.752
28.058
71.513
62.056
993.814
0.070
1.752
0.410
2.479
62.056
14.522
0.070
1.862
0.410
2.333
62.056
13.665
0.050
1.752
0.280
1.771
62.056
9*918
WttGANES:
BCGEKHE
rrrr. & (jajct!
0.096 6.460
0*520 34.991
196.000 13188.840
44.094
4.249
16.107
209.006
20.140
76.347
3.095
0.774
183.738
109.625
27.415
6503.000
0.210
0.774
10.000
7.438
27.415
354.200
0.210
0.623
10.000
6.999
27.415
333.300
0.140
0.774
10.000
4.959
27.415
354.200
TSS
19.000 1278.510 21918.167 103892.112 1511.743 53545.937 12.000 425*040
12.000 399.960
2.600 92.092
EAT C (PSES C)
aCMBITCZ)
09/I

EBT D (PgS D)
1GSL PIEPAFKEICN
09/I
vaq/m.
ag/1 zogM
BAT E (PSS E)
frECAL PKEEARAECN
09/I
ngM
OCKEDG
rag/1
xn^n
HCW l/a?
33.330*
67.290
0.636
6.010
0.636
114	ranKOT
115	ARSENIC
0.034
0.088
1.133
2.933
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.034
0.340
0.022
0.216
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.034
0.340
0.022
0.216
117 gyyrr.Ttw
lis arartM
119 antraiM
0.003
0.049
0.070
0.100
1.633
2.333
0.000
0.022
0.026
0.000
1.480
1.750
0.200
0.049
0.070
0.127
0.031
0.045
0.000
0.049
0.070
0.000
0.294
0.421
0.200
0.049
0.070
0.127
0.031
0.045
120 OFFER
122 Tran
124 NICKEL
0.390
0.080
0.220
12.999
2.666
7.333
0.390
0.080
0.120
26.243
5.383
8.075
0.390
0.080
0.220
0.248
0.051
0.140
0.390
0.080
0.220
2.344
0.481
1.322
0.390
0.060
0.220
0.248
0.051
0.140
125 SUNUM
128 zat
AIXMINtti
0.007
0.230
0.740
0.233
7.666
24.664
0.000
0.230
0.073
0.000
15.477
4.912
0.007
0.230
0.740
0.004
0.146
0.471
0.000
0.230
0.740
0.000
1.382
4.447
0.007
0.230
0.740
0.004
0.146
0.471
CCBAUT
fLUCRICE
0.050
1.862
0.280
1.667
62.056
9.332
0.000
0.115
0.280
0.000
7.738
18.841
0.050
9.460
0.280
0.032
6.017
0.178
0.000
1.288
0.280
0.000
7.738
1.683
0.050
9.460
0.280
0.032
6.017
0.178
MAN3NESE
HCSHEKJS
0.140
0.823
10.000
4.666
27.415
333*300
0.096
0.520
ID.000
6*460
34.991
672.900
0.140
2.720
10.000
0.089
1.730
6.360
0.140
2.720
10.000
0.841
16.347
60.100
0.140
2.720
10.000
0.089
1.730
6.360
2*600
86.658
2.600 174.954
2.600
1.654
2.600
15.626
2.600
1*654
*3he ratio of coating production to metal preparation production is 1.04.
395

-------
OMIZ X-5
PCZZUDWr KEECLTILK BENEET3S CF GCNUCL SYSTEMS
arm. agggBaowf - ngfwvl plant
JW WRSGE
V*JMTTR MEM. PKgftPKTZCN OOKEENS CCKBDC3
k®/yr
kg^r
II» J/yr CIO6) 49*25 11.34
yg/yr
60.59
ST (FSES 0)
OMENED
Jtocved
k®/yr
60.59
SAT A (FSES A)
CCMHINED
Discharged
Jog/Vr
Ranged
Discharged
kg/yr
50.14
BAT B (FSES B)
OCMBDED
Itooved
kgfrr
Discharged
kg/yr
60.59
BAT C (FSES C)
CCMRINtD
Removed
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
50.14
114	AKDHOa
115	Arenac
o.oo
o.oo
772.87
13.83
772.87
13.83
769.84
0.00
3.03
13.83
770.36
0.00
2.51
13.83
770.81
0.00
2.06
13.83
771.17
0.00
1.70
13.83
117 KULUCH
U8 oaavH
119 asaaiM
o.oo
0.44
5.37
0.49
93.66
15.54
0.49
94.10
20.91
0.00
89.31
16.06
0.49
4.79
4.85
0.00
90.14
16.90
0.49
3.96
4.01
0.00
91.13
16.67
0.49
2.97
4.24
0.00
91.64
17.40
0.49
2.46
3.SI
120 CCRER
122 IAD
la* man.
2.01
1.18
714.62
39.60
485.51
321.31
42.41
486.69
1035.93
7.27
479.42
1001.39
35.14
7.27
34.54
13.33
480.67
1007.35
29.08
6.02
28.58
18.78
481.84
1022.60
23.63
4.85
13.33
22.86
482.68
1024.90
19.55
4.01
11.03
125 nxnmH
128 znc
AIDflMM
4.73
4.93
16.99
113.93
1111.71
1846.24
118.66
1116.64
1863.23
118.05
1098.46
1795.98
0.61
18.18
67.25
118.16
1101.60
1807.57
0.50
15.04
55.66
118.24
1102.70
1818.39
0.42
13.94
44.84
118.31
1105.11
1826.13
0.35
11.53
37.10
axnur
runaiE
not
2.56
34.28
36348.75
335.91
273.67
41B.70
338.47
307.95
26767.45
334.23
0.00
26742.61
4.24
307.95
24.84
334.96
0.00
26746.89
3.51
307.95
20.56
335.44
0.00
26750.48
3.03
307.95
16.97
335.96
0.00
26753.41
2.51
307.95
14.04
MSGNEE 95.45 500.03 595.48 582.76	12.72 584.95	10.53	587.00	8.48 588.46	7.02
BCERXHB 267.43	48.18 315.61	68.40 247.21 111.04 204-57	150.81 164.80 179.23 136.38
an. £ G3BISC 60G.24 182.65 790.89 184.99 605.90 289.49 501.40	184.99 605.90 289.49 501.40
m
4137.00 248552.01 252689.01 251961.93
727.08 252087.33
601.68
252531.48
157.53 252558.65
130.36
TOaC HCEKLS 734.08 2968.45 3702.53 3579.80 122.73 3598.51 104.02 3622.77
ccmaaxaxs 4745.24 248734.66 253479.90 252146.92 1332.98 252376.82 1103.08 252716.47
TOM, SCOX). 32244.78 2S5125.84 2S7370.62 285250.70 2119.92 285560.74 1809.88 , 285961.36
79.76 3634.07
763.43 252848.14
1389.26 286165.40
68.46
631.76
1205.22
SZZXZCB)
1673293.65
1676269.12
.1679990.40
1681811.25
MfHSSt
BUT D (TBS D)
M3AL HEFMM3H}
axons
Rnouad
nat l/yr (106)
rx i- > ^ ijy ^
h3^r
tamd
Jcg/^r
49.25
Riwrtvirgud
h3^r
0.89
EST E (PSSS E)
*EBL ERffiftRKdjCW
Itemed
Jog^r
Discharged
kgfrr
4.40
Ranared
kgfrr
0*89
nsps eras)
C0M5INHD
nisrharged
kgSyr
Renewed
kgfrr
Discharged
kg/yr
5.29
114	xazxra
115	ARSENIC
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
772.84
13.53
0.03
0*30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
772.84
13.53
0.03
0.30
772.69
12.03
0.18
1.80
117 KROULM
110 CMHUM
119 CBFCMUM
0.00
0.00
1*92
0.00
0.44
3.45
0.31
93.62
15.48
0.18
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.22
5.06
0.00
0.22
0.31
0.31
93.62
15.48
0.18
0.04
0.06
0.00
93.84
20.54
0.49
0.26
0.37
120 COPPER
122 mo
124 KiaaZi
0.00
0*00
703.78
2.81
1.18
10.84
39.25
485.44
321.11
0.35
0.07
0.20
1.09
0.83
713.65
1.72
0.35
0.97
39.25
485*44
321.11
0.35
0.07
0.20
40.35
486.27
1034.77
2.06
0.42
1.16
125 SCUKUM
120 ZINC
JZXMXHM
4.39
0.00
0.00
0*34
4.93
16.99
113.92
1111.51
1845.58
0.01
0.20
0.66
4.70
3.92
13.73
0.03
1.01
3.26
113.92
1111.51
1845.58
0.01
0.20
0.66
118.62
1115.42
1859.32
0.04
1.22
3.91
Cesar
manrE
ZPQf
0.10
0.00
26334.96
2*46
34.28
13.79
335.87
265.25
418.45
0.04
8.42
0.25
2.34
0.00
26347.52
0.22
34.28
1.23
335.87
265.25
418.45
0.04
8.42
0.25
338.21
257.93
26765.97
0.26
50.02
1.48
HKGMESB 88*55	6.90 499.91	0.12	94.83	0.62 499.91	0.12 594.74	0.74
B£GR£RJ5 133.47 133.96	45.76	2.42 255.46	11.97	45.76	2.42 301.23	14.38
OIL 6 aaSE US*74 492.50 173.75	8.90 564.24	44*00 173*75	8.90 738.02	52.87
4006.95
128.05 248549.70
2.31
4125.56
11.44 248549.70
2.31 252675.26
13.75
raac*«aj\is
crcvzNnaaiJS
7cckl pccm.
710.09
4124.69
31391.86
23.99 2967.01
620.55 248723.45
852.92 255101.28
1.44
11.21
24.56
729.47
4689*80
32133.15
4.61 2967.01
55.44 248723.45
111.63 255101.28
1.44
11.21
24*56
3644.53
253413.28
287175.21
8.00
66.62
145.41
SUCGC GEN
328558.25
1358332.73
335562.03
1358332.73
1693027.41
396

-------
TABLE X-6
pciHTONr rarucncN beheeits cf cjgntrx sxsems
casr HtN SUB30B33ro - NOTBL PIANT
EASN4EZZR
I1CW l/yr CIO6)
OSKTZNG
kgt^yr
0.55
BPT (PSES O)
CQftTING
fesroed
kg/yr
nisctazged
kg/yr
0.55
BHT (PSES A)
crranc
Racm^d
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
0.51
BAT B (PSES B)
CQKEINS	
Discharged
kg/yr
kg/yr
0.55
BAT C (PSES C)
COATING
Ranged
kg/yr
r>igrrwrcy*d
kg/yr
0.51
114	AJTIMCOT
115	AFS20C
37*48
0.67
37.45
0.39
0.03
0.28
37.45
0.41
0.03
0.26
37.46
0.48
0.02
0.19
37.46
0.50
0.02
0.17
117	BEFttZJIM
118	CfiEMECM
119	
-------
TABLE X-7
KZZUON7 umi'l'IfTJ HNEETES CF CamCL SYS3EMS
HIKMM SBatnECRf - NCRRL ELAKT
TW VMIE
INKC&t HEM/ PBEBABaiCW OCKrPG OCKglKED
114	jNrma.Tf
115	AR39HE
117	BEROUtN
118	CMKHJM
119	ancKUM
120	CCPTER
122 IE®
124	KK33X
125	SELEimM
128 ZQC
MIMNIK
mmiT
mauxE
IPDK
KXtKaSE
RICSaJCFOS
an.« cms
TSS
TCDOCHEHLS
OCKVnClQMS
TOM. ram;.
aizxzast
kg/Vr
new Wr (106) 10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.13
0.39
21.75
0.00
0.00
2.10
66.40
0.00
8.80
0.97
1.11
84.87
68.50
24.40
467.30
653.85
hj/yr fej/yr
3.11
211.96
3.79
0.13
25.69
4.26
10.86
133.15
88.12
31.25
304.89
506.33
92.12
75.05
114.83
137.13
13.21
50.09
13.11
211.96
3.79
0.13
25.72
4.39
11.25
154.90
88.12
31.25
306.99
572.73
92.12
83.85
115.80
138.24
98.08
118.59
814.10
68215.59
69968.36
838.50
68682.89
70622.21
SET (PSES O)
	OPBINED
amoved Discharged
kg/yr	kg/yr
ESC A (PSES A)
CHEINED
BKT B (PSES B)
CCWEIKEC
EST C (PSES C)
COCIMH3
211.30
0.00
0.00
24.68
3.34
3.65
153.33
80.65
31.12
303.06
558.18
91.20
0.00
110.42
135.49
44.59
0.00
398.80 68165.50 68S64.30 68406.98
811.13
68406.96
70157.99
374388.94
13.11
0.66
3.79
0.13
1.04
1.05
7.60
1.57
7.47
0.13
3.93
14.55
0.92
83.85
5.38
2.75
53.49
118.59
Removed
kg/Vr
211.45
0.00
0.00
24.92
3.58
5.37
153.68
82.35
31.15
303.95
561.49
91.41
0.00
111.65
136.11
56.75
17.29
157.32 68442.74
27.37
275.91
464.22
816.45
68460.03
70233.89
375174.95
Disdiarged
yg/yr
10.13
0.51
3.79
0.13
0.80
0.81
5.88
1.22
5.77
0.10
3.04
11.24
0.71
83.85
4.15
2.13
41.33
101.30
121.56
22.05
222.86
388.32
Retcved
hj/yz
211.51
0.00
0.00
25.06
3.47
6.14
153.85
85.24
31.16
303.97
563*03
91.46
0.00
112.13
136.40
62.42
0.00
68530.21
820.42
68530.21
70316.07
375837.76
Discharged
kg/yz
13.11
0.45
3.79
0.13
0.64
0.92
5.11
1.05
2.88
0.09
3.02
9.70
0.66
83.85
3.67
1.B4
35*66
118.59
Rsnoved
tag/yr
18.08
152.68
306.14
211*62
0.35
0.00
25.22
3.68
7.30
154.09
85.89
31.18
304.66
565.23
91.61
0.00
112.96
136.82
70.53
17.29
34.09 68537.96
823.99
68555.25
70356.39
376297.26
Discharged
kg/yz
10.13
0.34
3.44
0.13
0.50
0.71
3.95
0.81
2.23
0.07
2.33
7.50
0.51
83.85
2.84
1.42
27.55
101.30
26.34
14.51
127.64
265.82
gCD D (ESES D)
EHT E (PSES E)


icsal ppEEarancu
OCKEDG
ISPS (PSNS)
COMBINED
feCET/Qd
kg/Vr
ITXW 1/yr (10s)
114	anonoc
115	KPSEtUC
117 BERVTMTH
US OXMHM
119 CUXMIDi
ISO OWK
122 mo
124	man.
125	SELBOtH
128 ZQC
HXMQUt
rrrarr
TUXXCJE
IPCN
HCCTCHE
002* 6 GFGtSC
TSS
TCKXC METiS
QOtVEKTZaALS
iczAL ram.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
59.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
57.67
0.00
372.80
20.95
372.80
510.42
ninrharged
Jtg/yr
Roasved
kg/yr
rHadvtiged
kg/yr
10*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.13
0.39
0.80
0.00
0.00
2.10
7.40
0.00
8.80
0.97
1.11
27.20
68.50
211*96
3*75
0.10
25.68
4.25
10.81
133.14
88.09
31.25
304.86
506.23
92.11
73.82
114.79
137.11
12.86
48.79
26.00 68165.16
3.45
94.50
143.43
813.89
68213.95
69964.76
0.13
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.10
0.01
1.23
0.04
0.02
0.35
1.30
0.34
0.21
1.64
3.60
Aacocwed
feg/Vr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.04
21.68
0.00
0.00
1.90
65.74
0.00
0.38
0.72
0.99
82.45
59.60
396.49
23.69
456.09
630.06
Discharged
kg/yr
Removed
kg/yr
0.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.35
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.66
0.00
8.42
0.25
0.12
2.42
8.90
211.96
3.75
0.10
25.68
4.25
10.81
133*14
88.09
31-25
304.86
506.23
92.11
73.82
114.79
137.11
12.86
48.79
2.31 68165.16
Discharged
0.71
11.21
23.79
813.89
68213.95
69964.76
0*13
0.00
0.04
0*03
0.01
0*01
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.10
0.01
1.23
0.04
0.02
0.35
1.30
0.34
0.21
1.64
3.60
RESOved
Discharged
kg/yz
211.93
3.44
0.00
25.67
4.32
10.85
154.82
87.89
31.24
306.75
571.97
92.07
74.15
115.51
138.10
95.29
108.34
68561.63
836.91
68669.98
70593.98
1.03
0.03
0.35
0.13
0.05
0.07
0.40
0.08
0.23
0.01
0.24
0.76
0.05
9.70
0.29
0.14
2.79
10.25
2.67
1.59
12.92
28.24
SUEGEGE*
5235.86
372560.46
6523.34
372560.46
379068.51
398

-------
TABLE X-8
vawma pmrrrcK nassiis cf cenikl systems
umtk SUBOttEGCfUr - NCML PLANT
RAW WRSI£
BUMEEER
ME33L FFEESARKTZCK CCKEEN3
Jog/V*
new 1/yr (I06) 3.50
Wyz
0.26
ocHansc
Wyr
3.76
BET (PSES O)
nrwui me?}
Amoved
3.76
BAT A (PSES A)
OdCDED
tllflcfaarged
Wyc
Ronoved
kg^yr
Discharged
tart*
3*53
BAT B (PSES B)
{TMRTTJETt
Rsioved
Ys}/yx
3.76
BAT C (PSES C)
CCMBD3ED
Discharged
ka^yr
fHroved
kg/yr
discharged
kg/yr
3.53
114 KEBBiK
1X5 MSEjnC
0.00
0.00
17.72
0.32
17.72
0.32
17.53
0.00
0.19
0.32
17.54
0.00
0.18
0.32
17.59
0.00
0.13
0.32
17.60
0.00
0.12
0.32
117	btt.ttm
118	aaaai
119	aStMRM
0.00
0.08
0.09
o.ai
2.15
0.36
0.01
2.23
0.45
0.00
1.93
0.15
0.01
0.30
0.30
0.00
1.95
0.17
0.01
0.28
0.28
0.00
2.05
0.19
0.01
0.18
0.26
0.00
2.06
0.20
0.01
0.17
0.25
120 CCPPER
122 I£WD
124 KDCXEL
975.45
2.70
0.42
0.91
11.13
7.37
976.36
13.83
7.79
974.18
13.38
5.65
2.18
0.45
2.14
974.31
13.41
5.78
2.05
0.42
2.01
974.89
13.53
6.96
1.47
0.30
0.83
974.98
13.55
7.01
1.38
0.28
0.78
125 SEXBOCM
128 ZDC
AUMHXM
0.00
3.12
0.26
2.61
25.49
42.33
2.61
28.61
42.59
2.57
27.48
38.42
0.04
1.13
4.17
2.57
27.55
38.67
0.04
1.06
3.92
2.58
27.75
39.81
0.03
0.86
2.78
2.59
27.80
39.98
0.02
0.81
2.61
b)se
0.34
1.82
686.00
11.46
1.10
4.19
11.80
2.92
690.19
11.01
0.00
652.59
0.79
2.92
37.60
11.06
0.00
654.89
0.74
2.92
35.30
11.27
0.00
652.59
0.53
2.92
37.60
11.31
0.00
654.89
0.49
2.92
35.30
66.50
5696.72 5765.22
5720.10
45.12
5722.86
42.36
5755.44
9.78
5756.04
9.18
raac teras
aawbnTonis
TOOK. PtUU.
981.86
752.50
1833.12
68.07
5702.91
5849.44
1049.93
6455.41
7682.56
1042.87
6372.69
7576.43
7.06
82.72
106.13
1043.28
6377.75
7582.30
6.65
77.66
100.26
1045.54
6408.03
7616.65
4.39
47.38
65.91
1045.79
6410.93
7620.08
4.14
44.48
62.48
SIEGE GEN
43437.45
43479.02
43723.86
43748.26
BST D (PEES D)	 	BUT E (tgS E)		USPS (P3S)
EUWEIH?

CCKEZNS

ESAIKCICN
OCKEBG
QOGBNED
fiEDDVGd
Discharged
kgfrr
Rscwed Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
Renewed
*g/yr
Discharged
yq/yr
Renooed
)03/yr
Discharged
*g/yr
Renewed
*g/yr
Discharged
*g/yr
HOW 1/yr (106)

3.50

0.03

0.31

0.03

0.35
114 xamas
0.00
0.00
17.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.72
0.00
17.71
0.01
115 ARSENIC
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.01
0.20
0.12
117 tt.ttm
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
118 aanm
0.00
0*08
2.15
0.00
0.06
0.02
2.15
0.00
2.21
0.02
119 oaoatH
0.00
0.09
0.36
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.36
0.00
0.43
0.02
12a ana
974.08
1.37
0.90
0.01
975.33
0.12
0.90
0.01
976.23
0.13
122 I&kD
2.42
0.28
11.13
0.00
2.68
0.02
11.13
0.00
13-80
0.03
124 NICKEL
0.00
0.42
7.36
0.01
0.35
0.07
7.36
0.01
7.71
0.08
125 sexqtcm
0.00
0.00
2.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.61
0.00
2.61
0.00
128 ZDC
2.32
0.80
25.48
0.01
3.05
0.07
25.48
0.01
28.53
0.08
KXHXNU4
0.00
0.26
42.31
0.02
0.03
0.23
42.31
0*02
42.33
0.26
nrwatfp
0.00
0.00
7.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.70
0.00
7.68
0.02
flXXKEEE
0.00
0.40
5.99
0.28
0.00
0.40
5.99
0.28
3.40
3.27
new
94.96
0.98
9.59
0.01
95.85
0.09
9.59
0*01
105.44
0*10
MIN3IMES
0.00
0.34
11.46
0.00
0.30
0.04
11.46
0.00
11.75
0.05
EHCBEHOU5
0.00
1.82
1.02
0.08
0.98
0.84
1.02
0.08
1.98
0.94
COL & G3SUE
651.00
35.00
3.89
0.30
682.90
3.10
3.89
0.30
666.73
3.46
T5S
57.40
9.10
5696.64
0.08
65.69
0.81
5698.64
0.08
5765.32
0.90
TCBQC KE2I3I5
978.82
3.04
68.02
0.05
981.54
0.32
68.02
0.05
1039*43
0.50
crNVEtznaais
706.40
44.10
5702.53
0.38
748.59
3.91
5702.53
0.38
6452.05
4.36
TCHSL. KXZXJ.
1782*18
50.94
5848.62
0.82
1827.29
5.83
5848.62
0.82
7674.06
9.5
CTTfrR GEM
12817.27

31X40.19

13092.22

31140.19

11194.194

399

-------
BIBLE X-9
3KEEMIZC KEET3HRNCE
TKi KASTE
ujt^gei
MZDkL PKEfftPXnCN CCKEIN3
1TCM 1/yr (ID6)
114	XCDOCC
115	wszxrc

4926.77
0.00
0.00
1<>3/yr
1134.69
77333.66
1384.32

kg/Vr
6061.46
77333.66
1384.32
EOT & PSES 0
CQfiQED
'REBDOBd
kg^r
77030.59
0.00
tUacharged
6061*46
303.07
1384.32
BAT A & PSES A
(T>HTWM)
kg/yr
77082.87
0.00
rtisdiarged
kg/yr
5015.84
250.79
1384.32
BAT 6 & PSES B
fTMKTTJPD
Bsnoved
kg/yr
77127.57
0.00
Discharged
kg/yr
6061.46
206.09
1384.32
117 BEFYIT.TTM
US GUKW
119 anamn
o.oo
44.34
537.02
48.79
9371.40
1554.53
48.79
9415.74
2091.55
0.00
8936.88
1606.63
48.79
478.86
484.92
0.00
9019.49
1690.28
48.79
396.25
401.27
0.00
9118.73
1667.25
48.79
297.01
424.30
120 COVER
122 XXAD
124 KB33X.
280.83
118.34
71487.43
3962.34
48580.62
32150.31
4243.17
48698.86
103637.74
727.52
47971.48
100182.71
3515.65
727.38
3455.03
1333.96
48096.96
100778.71
2909.19
601.90
2859.03
1879.20
48213.94
102304.22
2363.97
484.92
1333.52
125 snnum
12a znc
xuamtm
472.97
492.68
1699.74
11400.23
111238.20
1B4736.61
11873.20
111730.88
186436.35
11812.59
109912.44
179708.13
60.61
1818.44
6728.22
11823.04
110226.13
180868.77
50.16
1504.75
5567.58
11830.77
110336.74
181950.87
42.43
1394.14
4485.48
casus
njuuuiK
not
256.19
3429.03
2635821.95
33611.79
27383.47
41895.02
33867.98
30812.50
2677716.97
33443.68
0.00
2675231.77
424.30
30812.50
2485.20
33516.87
0.00
2675660.48
351.11
30812.50
2056.49
33564.91
0.00
2676019.76
303.07
30812.50
1697.21
xxonx
BKSfflORS
col £ Gins:
9548.08
26752.36
60845.61
50033.02
4821.30
18276.45
59581.10
31573.66
79122.06
58308.19
6842.90
18507.46
1272.91
24730.76
60614.60
58527.77
11109.03
28963.66
1053.33
20464.63
50158.40
58732.50
15086.49
18507.46
848.60
16487.17
60614.60
413848.68 24870324.91 25284173.59 25211436.07
72737.52 25223983.51
60190.08 25268413.79 15759.80
3CKXCHCBILS
OCNVBCSONS
icbjx. raw.
budge cat
73433.51
474694.29
3225635.15
297024.40
24888601.36
25528106.97
370457.91
25363295.65
28753742.12
358180.84
25229943.53
28541659.04
167423124.64
12277.07
133352.12
212083.08
360051.46
25252947.17
28572681.55
167720859.21
10406.45 362478.42
110348.48 25286921.25
7979.49
76374.40
181060.57 28614754.20 138987.92
168093065.83
INfMSSa
£KT C L PSES C
oocnss
Dnmd
ka^yr
new l/ir (lo6)
Discharged
5015*84
EAT D fi D
W3RL PfEPWWHEN
ftULWttl
kg/fcr
Edfldergod
Jogt^r
Jogt^r
4926.77
rrfwrhnrged
kg/yr
89.07
BgEi PSES E
teUAL ETEEMMITCS
0CKEZN5

DinriviTijed
J&fe - ...
Benoved
Wy*.
439.89
Dischaxgod
89.07
1X4 XZOOCf
115 AFGDCC
77163.12
0.00
17034
1384.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
77330.63
1354.04
3.03
30.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
77330.63
1354.04
3.03
30.28
117 BBttXmM
11A CftEMIXJH
119 asoom
o.oo
9169.96
1740*44
48*79
245.78
351*11
0.00
0.00
192*15
0.00
44*34
344*87
30*98
9367.04
1548.30
17*81
4.36
6*23
0.00
22.79
506.23
0.00
21.55
30*79
30*98
9367.04
1548.30
17.81
4.36
6.23
130 OUVTH
122 UOD
124 NX0X&
2286*99
48297*59
102534*26
1956.18
401.27
U03.48
0.00
0.00
70403.54
280*83
118*24
1083.89
3927*60
48573.49
32130*71
34*74
7*13
19*60
109*27
83*05
71390*65
171.56
35.19
96.78
3927.60
48573.49
32130.71
34.74
7.13
19.60
125 mumm
120 ZZ2C
xux-axN
11838.09
110577*24
182734*63
35*11
1153.64
3711*72
438.48
0*00
0.00
34.49
492*68
1699*74
11399.61
111217*71
184670*70
0*62
20*49
65*90.
469.89
391*51
1374.22
3*08 11399.61
101*17 111217.71
325*52 184670*70
0*62
20.49
65.91
nnnr-i-
hjuuuik
HCN
33617.19
0.00
2676312.53
250.79
30612.50
1404.44
9.85
0.00
2634442.45
246.34
3429.03
1379.50
33607.34
26540.87
41870.08
4.45
842.60
24.94
234.20
0.00
2635698.78
21.99
3429.03
123.17'
33607.34
26540.87
41870.08
4.45
842.60
24.94
MM3KESS 58878.88 702.22 8858.33 689.75 50020.55	12.47	9486.50
unaam 17930.58 la&o.os 13351.55 13400.ai 4579.03 242.27	25555.86
OIL fi CrCASE 28963.66 50158.40 11577.91 49267.70 17385.75 890.70	56446.71
61.58 50020.55	12.47
1196.50 4579.03 242.27
4398.90 17385.75 890.70
703
25271132.41 13041.18 401039.08 12809.60 24870093.33
231.58
412704.97
1143.71 24870093.33
231.58
mac HC7LS 363607.69
axvmnaxs 25300096.07
5CCXL KX2JU.
SUZXZCQI
28633167.57
168275233.63
6850.22
63199.58
120574.55
71034.17
412616.99
3140313.34
32867630.37
2399.34 296880.11	144.29	72973.39
62077.30 24887479.08	1122.28	469151.68
85321.81 25525647.76	2459.21	3214474.63
135915905.97	33568317.77
460.12 296880.11	144.29
5542.61 24887479.08	1122.28
11160.52 25525647.76	2459.21
135915905.97
400

-------
TOTE X-10
H03WENT PBSC5MANCE
CAST BCN SDBCMB30W
3iERMECE3?
HOW l/yr (I06)
HVW WR3TE
OQRZDG
Jog^yr
6.62
HPT & PSES 0
CCKEQC
Jtenrved
)cg/"yr
Discharged
kg^yr
6.62
BAT A & PSS A
CGfiTING
Bamored
ksgyyr
BAT B & PSES B
-OCKONS
DLsaiarged
kg/yr
Removed
yg/yx
Discharged
tyyr
6.62
114	aOHMCN*
115	AFSNIC
451.18
8*08
450.85
4.70
0.33
3*38
450.88
4.98
0.30
3.10
450.95
5.83
0.23
2.25
117	kzbcxhh
118	CHMEM
119	IHUMIIM
0.2B
54.67
9.07
0.00
54.15
8.54
0.28
0.52
0.53
0.00
54.19
8.58
0.28
0.48
0.49
0.00
54.35
8.61
0.28
0.32
0.46
120 CCHER
122 LSD
124 KICKEI,
23.12
283.43
187.57
19.28
282.64
183.80
3.84
0.79
3.77
19.59
282.70
184.10
3.53
0.73
3.47
20.54
282.90
186.11
2.58
0.53
1.46
125 az&mM
128 ZDC
MXMDJCH
66.51
648.99
1077.79
66.44
647.00
1070.44
0.07
1.99
7.35
66.45
647.17
1071.04
0.06
1.82
6.75
66.46
647.47
1072.89
0.05
1.52
4.90
rrrarn'
SLDCRUE
XFCK
196.10
159.76
244.42
195.64
65.76
241.71
0.46
94.00
2.71
195.67
73*42
241.93
0.43
86.34
2.49
195.77
97.13
242.57
0.33
62.63
1.85
MIERIES
an. g Grots
291.90
28.13
106.63
290.51
1.12
40.43
1.39
27.01
66.20
290.62
3.32
45.83
1.28
24.81
60.80
290.97
10.12
40.43
0.93
18.01
66.20
TSS
14509B.27
145018.83
79.44 145025.31
72.96
145081.06
17.21
mac lems
OOKHJEEOMS
•rami vain.
1732.90
145204.90
148935.90
1717.40
145059.26
148641.84
15.SO
145.64
294.06
17LB.64
145071.14
148665.78
14.26
133.76
270.12
1723.22
145121.49
148754.16
9.68
83.41
181.74
SUES 
-------
TRH£ X-ll
COMMENT HSECR4MO)
JfflMENUM SUBCKHEOIY
IW WSIE
EN9MQXR
MIKL jraraHPfllCK ODKIDG CQ-BIHED

nat 1/yr (106) 159.94
k^tyr kg/Vr
49.82
209*76
BET & FSES 0
fmmim
BAT A & FSES A
ftaicved
kg/yr
Discharged
kq^yr
209.76
tazoved
kg/Vr
162.05
BAT B & FSES B
COdNET
Discharged
kg/yr
fisnoved
kg/Vr
209.76
BAT C & FSES C
QCMVUNHj
Etlsdiarged
Ranoved
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
162.05
114	mnxw
115	ARSECE
0.00
0.00
3395.43
60.78
3395.43
60.78
3384.94
0.00
10.49
60.78
3387.33
0.00
8.10
60.78
3388.30
0.00
7.13
60.78
3389.92
5.68
5.51
55.10
117	MKOZJXn
118	OXKTUrt
119	aacMUM
0.00
0.48
2.08
2.14
411.46
68.25
2.14
411.94
70.33
0.00
395.37
53.55
2.14
16.57
16.78
0.00
399.14
57.37
2.14
12.80
12.96
0.00
401.66
55.65
2.14
10.28
14.68
0.00
404.00
58.99
2.14
7.94
11.34
120 OCKSR
122 mD
124 raaaL
6.24
347.87
0.00
173.97
2132.99
1411.60
180.21
2480.86
1411.60
58.55
2455.69
1292.04
121.66
25.17
119.56
86.22
2461.41
1319.23
93.99
19.45
92.37
98.40
2464.08
1365.45
81.81
16.78
46.15
117.01
2467.90
1375.95
63.20
12.96
35.65
125 sstra
12B sue
AUKMM
0.00
33.59
1062.00
500.54
4884.05
8111.09
500.54
4917.64
9173.09
496.44
4854.71
8940.26
2.10
62.93
232.83
496.92
4869.02
8993.21
1.62
48.62
179.88
499.07
4869.40
9017.87
1.47
48.24
155.22
499.41
4880.37
9053.17
1.13
37.27
119.92
cans
JIXUU1X
2CN
0.00
140.75
15.51
1475.77
1202.31
1839.45
147S.77
1343.06
1854.96
1461.09
0.00
1768.96
14.68
1343.06
86.00
1464.43
0.00
1788.52
11.34
1343.06
66.44
1465.28
0.00
1796.23
10.49
1343.06
58.73
1467.67
0.00
1809.59
8.10
1343.06
45.37
mBNEX 17.75 2196.76 2214.51 2170.46	44.05 2180.48 34.03	2185.14	29.37 2191.82	22.69
WtHUm 1357.41 211.69 1569.10 713.28 855.82 907.94 661.16	996.55 570.55 1128.32 440.78
an, & GsasE 1095.59 002.45 is96.04 0.00 1898.04 277.54 1620.50	0.00 is9e.cw 277.54 IS20.50
TDK
6378.41 1091963.06 1098341.49 1095824.37
2517.12 1096396.89 1944.60
1097796.11
545.38 1097920.16
421.33
laac HEffll8	390.26 13041.21 13431.47 12993.29 438.1B 13078.64 352.83 13142.01 289.46 13199.23 232.24
CQWIKnCNKLS 7474.00 1092765.53 1100239.53 1095824.37 4415.16 1096674.43 3565.10 1097796.11 2443.42 1098197.70 2041.83
aaOLtCUU. 10457.68 1120643.81 1131301.49 1123871.71 7429.78 1125087.65 6213.84 1126401.19 4900.30 1127047.50 4253.99
EiraCCBI
5997345.56
6009932.64
6020528.84
6027891.10
EKT D & FSES D

raw x/yr do6)
fEK. HQMWatN
159.94
2.11
BKT E & KES E
whsl frhwsohen
CCKEDG
-Roncvod rriwrhaxged Rxcraed Discharged
kq/yr	Jo^o:	kg/yr kg/yr
ftULMXl
kg/yz
Discharged
kg/yr
ZfeSDoed
kg/yr
14.28
Discharged
kg/yr
2.11
114	/KTBOOf
115	ARSENIC
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3395.36
60.06
0.07
0.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3395.36
60.06
0.07
0.72
117	KROX21H
118	OOHXH
119	GflOfiXM
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48
2.08
1.72
411.36
68.10
0.42
0.10
0.15
0.00
0.00
1.08
0.00
0.48
1.00
1.72
411.36
68.10
0.42
0.10
0.15
120 GCKCR
122 LEX)
124 KSQQX
0.00
335.07
0.00
6.24
12.80
0.00
173.15
2132.82
1411.14
0.82
0.17
0.46
0.67
346.73
0.00
5.57
1.14
0.00
173.15
2132.82
1411.14
0.82
0.17
0.46
125 sarxra
128 ZBC
KlimUA
0.00
0.00
943.64
0.00
33.59
118.36
500.53
4883.56
8109.53
0.01
0.49
1.56
0.00
30.31
1051.43
0.00
3.28
10.57
500.53
4883.56
8109.53
0.01
0.49
1.56
GCBRXff
ntXKUE
BOt
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
140.75
15.51
1475.66
1182.35
1838.86
0.11
19.96
0.59
0.00
5.66
11.51
0.00
135.09
4.00
1475.66
1182.35
1838.86
0.11
19.96
0.59
MUQUESE
HEGHCRJS
GQL6 GRASS
0.00
922.37
0.00
17.75
435.04
1095.59
2196.46
205.95
781.35
0.30
5.74
21.10
15.75
1318.57
952.79
2.00
38.84
142.80
2196*46
205.95
781.35
0.30
5.74
21.10
5962.57
415.84 1091957.59
5.49
6341.28
37.13 1091957.59
5.49
1DOC MZALS	33S.07	55.15 13037.80	3.41	378.79
cmromaais 5962.57 1511.43 1092738.94 26.59	7294.07
TODkL FOCIXJ.	8163.65 2294.03 1120785.55 ¦ 58.26	10075.78
11.47 13037.80
179.93 1092738.94
381.90 1120785.55
3.41
26.59
58.26
SUZSCGQI
83742.02
5968154.23
104316.11
5968154.23
402

-------
TSHEX-12
TSE3QMQO IBn2WBNCE
am suaaaBxxef
WW Msg		BPT & PSES 0	£W A & PSES A	BAT B S PSES B
TaraMETTFR frETHL PREPAKKdCN 0QKHN5	Cty^TNED 	QCymMfcD	 	QCMHTNg)		CEMBINHD




Ranoved
Discharged
Raucwed
Discharged
Rawed
Discterged


loct^r
Joct^r
kg/yr
kg^r
Jog^r
kg^r
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr

EICW l/yr (106)
7.00
0.51
7.51

7.51

7.07

7.51

114 »nma«r
0.00
34.76
34.76
34.38
0.38
34.41
0.35
34.50
0.26

lis hsboc
0.00
0.62
0*62
0.00
0*62
0.00
0.62
0.00
0.62

117 BETCOUm
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0*02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0*02

iib axKUM
0.15
4.21
4.36
3.77
0.59
3.80
0.56
3.99
0.37

119 CHPCMItM
0.18
0.70
0*88
0.28
0.60
0.31
0.57
0.35
0.53

120 IIHHI
1950.90
1.78
1952.68
1948.32
4.36
1948.58
4.10
1948*75
2*93

122 is®
5.39
21.84
27*23
26.33
0.90
26*38
0.85
26.63
0.60

124 man.
0.84
14.45
15*29
11.01
4*28
11*26
4.03
13.64
' 1.65

125 szfiam
0.00
5.12
5.12
5.04
0.08
5.05
0.07
5.07
0*05

128 znc
6.23
50.00
56*23
53.98
2*25
54*11
2.12
54.50
1.73

AUMNCH
0.51
83.03
83*54
75.20
8*34
75*69
7.85
77*98
5.56

CCBMJT
0.00
15.11
15.11
14.58
0*53
14*62
0*49
14.73
0.38

FUUCKHE
0.81
12*31
13*12
0.00
13*12
0.00
13*12
0.00
13*12

ZKM
191.87
18.83
210*70
207.62
3*08
207.80
2*90
208.60
2.10

MBN3WESE
0.67
22*49
23.16
21.58
1.58
21.68
1.48
22.11
1.05

fflOSHOBS
3.64
2.17
5.81
0.00
5.81
0.00
5.S1
0.00
5.81


1372.00
8.21
1380.21
1305.11
75.10
1309*51
70.70
1305.11
75.10

rss
133.00
11178.27
11311*27
11221.15
90.12
11226.43
84.84
11291*74
19.53

TCBQC METftLS
1963.69
133.50
2097.19
2083.11
14.08
2083.90
13.29
2088.43
8*76

ocKvmna«Ls
1505.00
11186.48
12691.48
12526.26
165.22
12535.94
155.54
12596.85
94.63

TOTAL FCXIXJ.
3666.19
11473*92
15140*11
14928.35
211.76
14939*63
200.48
15008.70
131.41

SUES) GO?



85682.01

85762.37

86254.80



ERT C & PSES C

BKT D & PSES D


SAT E & PSES E

BtfBMEQER
0CM3BSX)
PFEERFKHKN
ccremc
MEBkL PPEEARATICK
CTftTTNS

Ranorod
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
ftsnoved
Discharged
Roncrpad
Discharged
Rmoved Discharged

hg^yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg^r
loj/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
EICW l/yr (ID6)

7*07

7.00

0*07

0.63

0.07
114 AfrZKXS'
34.52
0.24
0.00
0.00
34.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
34.76
0.00
1X5 ABESKZC
0.00
0*62
0.00
0.00
0*60
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.02
117 BSRyrr.nM
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0*01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
118 CAEKEM
4.01
0.35
0.00
0.15
4.21
0.00
0.12
0*03
4.21
0.00
119 CHKHUM
0.39
0*49
0.00
0.13
0.70
0.00
0*14
0.04
0.70
0.00
120 OH$R
1949.92
2.76
1948.17
2.73
1.75
0.03
1950.65
0.25
1.75
0.03
122 IS©
26.66
0.57
4.83
0.56
21*83
0*01
5.34
0.05
21.83
0.01
124 NZOCEL
13.73
1.56
0.00
0*84
14*43
0*02
0.70
0*14
14.43
0.02
125 SEHBUXM
5.07
0.05
0.00
0.00
5*12
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.12
0.00
128 znc
54.60
1.63
4.62
1*61
49.98
0.02
6.09
0.14
49.98
0.02
AUKQUl
78.31
5.23
0.00
0*51
82*96
0.05
0.04
0.47
82.96
0.05
mMur fp
14.76
0.35
0.00
0.00
15.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.11
0.00
EIXJCKHE
0.00
13.12
0.00
0.81
11.65
0.66
0.00
0.81
11.65
0.66
ZKN
208.72
1.98
189.91
1.96
18.81
0.02
191.69
0*18
18.81
0.02
MSN3NESE
22.17
0.99
0.00
0.67
22.48
0.01
0.58
0.09
22.48
0.01
EHCSfflCHJS
0.00
5.81
0.00
3.64
1.98
0.19
1.93
1.71
1.98
0.19
Cdi 6 GREAS
1309.51
70.70
1302.00
70.00
7.51
0.70
1365.70
6.30
7.51
0.70
TEE
11292.89
18.38
114.80
18.20
11178.09
0.18
131.36
1.64 11178.09
0.18
TOXIC MEEKLS
2088.90
8.29
1957.62
6.07
133.39
0.11
1963.04
0.65
133.39
0.11
CCNVENTICNALS
12602.40
89.08
1416.80
88.20
11185.60
0.88
1497.06
7.94 11185.60
0.88
TOtflL PTTJJI.
15015.26
124.85
3564.33
101.86
11472.00
1.92
3654.34
11.85 11472.00
1.92
SUTGE <3U
86301.27

25634.23

61079.34

26181.64
61079.34

403

-------
OAELE X-13
03!EKMNT m$CE«MCE
TCUSL CMBQCRf
FfiW WSSE
IlUftMEER ME3AL PFEPAFKHCU 0QRHN3 OMINED
BET & PSES 0
rrvPTMTD
yg/yr
Jcj/yr Jcj/yr
114	xtmaa
115	ABSBOC
117 BEIUIUIM
110 OEMZUH
119	anomn
120	coram
122 UN)
134 motc.
125 HIZNILH
iaa zdc
AIOQIUi
CGBMX
momx
ncri
Mt«£E
0.00
0.00
0.00
44.97
539.28
2237.97
471.50
71468.27
472.97
rtCCTEFUS
CSL 6 BOS
SB
31215.03
1453.80
51.23
9641.74
1632.55
4161.21
51018.88
33763.93
11972.40
532.50 116821.24
2762.25 194008.52
256.19 35298.77
3570.59
2636029.33
9566.50
28113.41
63313.20
23757.85
43997.72
52544.17
5063.29
19193.74
H A & PSES A
rrypTVET^
TBS FEES B
i1 V
BAT C & PSES C
COBINED
Renewed
kg^r
n£H 1/yr (106) 5093.71 1191.64 6285.35
81215.03
1453.80
51.23
9886.71
2171.83
6399.18
51190.38
105252.20
12445.37
80900.76
4.70
0.00
9390.17
1669.00
2753.67
50736.14
101669.56
12382.51
117353.74	115468.13
196770.77	189794.03
35554.96	35114.99
32328.44	65.76
2680027.05	2677450.06
62110.67	60790.74
33176.70
82506.94
7557.30
19853.00
Discharged
kg^r
BanOTBd
kg^r
6285.35
314.27
1449.10
51.23
496.54
502.83
3645.51
80955.49
4.98
0.00
9476.62
1756.54
3388.37
754.24	50867.45
3582.64	102293.30
62.86	12393.46
1885.61	115796.43
6976.74	191008.71
439.97	35191.59
32262.68
420360.09 26118564.53 26538924.62 26463500-12
2576.99 2677898.73
1319.93 61020.55
25619.40 12020.29
62653.94 30596.54
75424.20 26476632.14
Discharged
kg^r
73.42
5191.04
259.54
1448.82
51.23
410.09
415.29
3010.SL
622.93
2958.90
51.91
1557.31
5762.06
363.37
32255.02
2128.32
1090.12
21156.41
51910.40
62292.48
Beccwed
kgtyr
Discharged
kgtyr
81001.32
5.83
0.00
9578.73
1731.86
3947.89
50987.55
103869.42
12401.37
115908.11
192119.61
35240.69
97.13
2678267.16
61230.72
16095.16
19853.00
26522582.70
naorovsd
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
6285.35
213.71
1447.97
51.23
307.98
439.97
2451.29
81038.53
11.69
0.00
9632.34
1808.46
4374.67.
502.83	51075.09
1382.78	104110.17
44.00	12409.04
1445.63	116159.80
4651.16	192929.40
314.27	35295.42
32231.31	102.24
1759.89	2678573.56
879.95	61383.92
17081.54	19070.49
62653.94	30596.54
16341.92	26525427.92
5191.04
176.50
1442.11
51.23
254.37
363.37
2024.51
415.29
1142.03
36.33
1193.94
3841.37
259.54
32226.20
1453.49
726.75
14106.21
51910.40
13496.70
rrrrr yafdJS	75787.46 311932.01 387719.47 374974.64
catvzxaaxS	483673.29 26137758.27 26621431.56 26483353.42
TOM, KXTO.	3239759.02 26809360.60 30049119.62 29829100.94
arrsp ON	174295893.41
12744.83 376932.64	10786.83
138078.14 26507228.68	1X4202.88
220018.68 29861374.61	187745.01
174606570.77
379432.08	S287.39 380619.79	7099.68
26542435.70	78995.86 26556024.46	65407.10
29904918.25	144201.37 29923999.28	125120.34
174990821.76	175180573.79
nyr D a pkbs n
TOT* L PEES E
BUAMESR
nat 1/yr (10s)
114 AHSKSSr
lis Arenac
117	nromtM
118	CMMEM
119	antiotM
120	COVER
122 WD
134 taotzz.
125 suiam
128 ZDC
XUHMH
marip
RUCRUE
3JCN
tKOSSE
nCSHERJS
COL £ GFEKSE
TSS
MCZAL PSEEMttEEN
CO&CDG
2C3AL PEEEARKHCN
aCKEQG
Itaoued
Ysj/yr
Discharged
Jegftr
Rzoved
kg^r
Ettadaazged
Wyr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
192.15
1948.17
339.90
70403.54
438.48
4.62
943.64
9.85
0.00
2634632.36
8858.33
14273.92
12879.91
407116.45
5093.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
44.97
347.13
289.80
131.60
1084.73
34.49
527.88
1818.61
246.34
3570.59
1396.97
708.17
81211.72
1420.71
32.71
9836.98
1625.74
4123.25
51011.08
33742.51
11971.73
116798.84
193936.50
35293.91
27837.11
43970.47
52530.54
13839.49 4798.55
50433.29 18220.44
13243.64 26118311.47
97.33
X3T
33.09
18.52
4.76
6.81
37.96
7.80
21.42
0.67
22.40
72.02
4.86
920.74
27.25
13.63
264.74
973.30
253.06
DBBcwed Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
Jtenraed Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.91
507.45
2060.59
435.12
71391.35
469.89
427.91
2425.69
234.20
5.66
2635901.98
9502.83
26876.36
58765.20
419177.61
453.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.06
31.83
177.38
36.38
96.92
3.08
104.59
336.56
21.99
3564.93
127.35
63.67
1237.05
4548.00
81211.72
1420.71
32.71
9836.98
1625.74
4123.25
51011.08
33742.51
11971.73
116798.84
193936.50
35293.91
27837.11
43970.47
52530.54
4798.55
18220.44
1182.48 26118311.47
97.33
3.31
33.09
1S.S2
4.76
6.81
37.96
7.80
21.42
0.67
22.40
72.02
4.86
920.74
27.25
13.63
264.74
973.30
253.06
laac mcms
CCHVDOTQMS
TOEM. PCCZtt.
73326.86 2460.60 311775.27 156.74
419996.36 63676.93 26136531.91 1226.36
3152041.32 87717.70 26806674.26 2683.34
75315.22 472.24 311775.27 156.74
477942.81 5730.48 26136531.91 1226.36
3228204.75 11554.27 26806674.26 2686.34
SLUDGE GEM
32977006.62
142736287.33
33698817.52
142736287.33
404

-------
UIBTE X-14
SM®TO TBBLE
pctuOTNr imnnaa benefits
103M, Cfl2S3DRy
nw waste	BET S PSES o	bat a & PSES a	®t B & PSES B
ERTWdER	lOL HgBBBKnEN OTOTtC CTMB1NEI)	rrMHIwm	OMBINEX1	CCMBINH3
HanowS Diaiiarged	Rsnoved Discharged	-Kenrrol Discharged
kg/yr	krf/vr	kr^yr	kg/yr	kg/yr	kg/yr	kg/yr	kg/yr	kg/yr
Steel Subcategory
TOOC MC3SI5
0DM9UXQTOS
TOOK, KXXZJ.
trmy rjw
Cast Iran Subcategory.
tooc XTKLE
dNViNHCNBLS
TOBtti PCCZD.
siege <2*
Altmima f>,il i.bLhj u.y
mac mis
cawEwnamLs
loiH. pauo.
Bm» GEN
Subcategory
TOUE tCDItfi
0CtM3U3£KK£
'lUISL tmn.
smxxcz*
Tbtal Category
TCKtC KOHLS
ccNVHTnawis
'luixL icczn.
SUIXZGEN
73433.51
474694.29
3225635.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
390.26
7474.00
10457.68
1963.69
1505.00
3666.19
75787.46
483673.29
3239759.02
297024.40
24888601.36
25528106.97
1732.90
145204.90
148935.90
13041.21
1092765.53
1120643.81
133.50
111S6.48
11473.92
311932.01
26137758.27
26809360.60
370457.91
25363295.65
28753742.12
1732.90
145204.90
148935.90
13431.47
1100239.53
1131301.49
2097.19
12691.48
15140.11
387719.47
26621431.56
30049119.62
358180.84
25229943.53
28541659.04
167423124.64
1717.40
145059.26
148641.84
789741.20
12993.29
1095824.37
1123871.71
5997345.56
2083.11
12526.26
14928.35
85682.01
374974.64
26483353.42
29829100.94
174295893.41
12277.07
133352.12
212083.08
15.50
145.64
294.06
438. IB
4415.16
7429.78
14.08
165.22
211.76
12744.83
138078.14
220018.68
360051.46
25252947.17
28572681.55
167720859.21
1718.64
145071.14
148665.78
790016.55
13078.64
1096674.43
1125087.65
6009932.64
2083.90
12535.94
14939.63
85762.37
376932.64
26507228.68
29861374.61
174606570.77
10406.45
110348.48
IB1060.57
14.26
133.76
270.12
352.83
3565.10
6213.84
13.29
155.54
200.48
10786.83
114202.88
187745.01
362478.42
25286921.25
28614754.20
168093065.83
1723.22
145121.49
148754.16
790972.29
13142.01
1097796.11
1126401.19
6020528.84
2088.43
12596.85
15008.70
86254.80
379432.08
26542435.70
29904918.25
174990821.76
7979.49
76374.40
138987.92
9.68
83.41
181.74
289.46
2443.42
4900.30
8.76
94.63
131.41
8287.39
78995.86
144201.37
Stt C S PS2S C
BSC D & PSS D
BKT E & PSES E
BlRMEZBl
CO
HfWHI
ICAL BSXABKEECN
axroB
fEBI, PHEPWmnCN
ccKmc

tacmd
Discharged
RbdwI
Discharged Raujwd
Discharged Rsncwad
Discharged
RanuwJ
Discharged

fa^r
faa^r
Vsjfa
Joa^ir
te/yr

VyVr
tyyr
**3/yr
kg/yr
Steel ftthesbsfjary










1GKXC icsas
363607.69
6850.22
71034.17
2399.34
296880.11
144.29
72973.39
460.12
296880.11
144.29
aarcsHnawcs
25300096.07
63199.58
412616*99
62077.30
24887479.08
1122.28
469151.68
5542.61
24887479.08
1122.28
TOTAL P0CID*
28633167.57
120574.55
3140313*34
85321.81
25525647.76
2459.21
3214474.63
11160.52
25525647.76
2459.21
SL0DX <2N
168275233.63

32867630.37

135915905.97

33568317.77

135915905.97

Gut Iran Subcategory









tckbc ternIS
1723.97
8.93
0.00
0.00
1723.97
8.93
0.00
0.00
1723.97
8.93
ccNvn^ncrois
145128.29
76.61
0.00
0.00
145128.29
76.61
0.00
0.00
145128.29
76.61
TQBSL fOUT*
148768.95
166.95
0.00
0.00
148768.95
166.95
0.00
0.00
148768.95
166.95
SUXXX GEN
791147.79



791147.79



791147.79

AIiiitItiih Sbbcateg
ary









1CBQC MSAIS
13199.23
232.24
335.07
55.19
13037.80
3.41
378.79
11.47
13037.80
3.41
OOfvroriuRLS
1098197.70
2041.83
5962.57
1511.43
1092738.94
26.59
7294.07
179.93
1092738.94
26.59
TOOL PCCZO.
1127047.50
4253.99
8163.65
2294.03
1120785.55
58.26
10075.78
381.90
1120785.55
58.26
SLCCGE QEN
6027891.10

83742.02

5968154.23

104318.11

5968154.23

Cfcjper SUbcategoey









TCKEC MSALS
2088.90
8.29
1957.62
6.07
133.39
0.11
1963.04
0.65
133.39
0.11
crNvnTnrrois
12602.40
89.08
1416.80
88.20
11185.60
0.88
1497.06
7.94
11185.60
0.88
TOKL KXH7.
15015.26
124.85
3564.33
101.86
11472.00
1.92
3654.34
11.85
11472.00
1.92
SLCCGE (XS
86301.27

25634.23

61079.34

26181.64

61079.34

Total Category










TCOCCC «ERLS
380619.79
7099.68
73326.86
2460.60
311775.27
156.74
75315.22
472.24
311775.27
156.74
CCNVaTITCNftlS
26556024.46
65407.10
419996.36
63676.93
26136531.91
1226.36
477942.81
5730.48
26136531.91
1226.36
TCSAL hi Ifl»
29923999.28
125120.34
3152041.32
87717.70
26806674.26
2686.34
3228204.75
11554.27
26806674.26
2686.34
SUEZ GO?
175180573.79

32977006.62

142736287.33

33698817.52

142736287.33

405

-------
TABLE X-15
TFCCMENT AXtOMViXX - DIKEX7T DISCHAK3ERS
S1HL SUBMEECfff
BET
BAT A
PHWESR
METZAL PFETM5CTICN
awmc
CQ-JBINED
oo-eined
CCMBINED
OaffllNED
OJffilNED




Renewed
Discharged
Ranoved
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged

kg/Vr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/Vr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
ITCH 1/yr <1(£) 1625.71
370.83
1996.54

1996.54

1654.82

1996.54

1654.82
114 jntmwc
0.00
25273.55
2S273.55
25173.72
99.83
25190.81
82.74 ,
25205.67
67.88
25217.29
56.26
us ABseac
0.00
452.41
452.41
0.00
452.41
0.00
452.41
0.00
452.41
0.00
452.41
117 khuiih
0.00
15.95
15.95
0.00
15.95
0.00
15.95
0.00
15.95
0.00
15.95
ujs osteon
14.63
3062.68
3077.31
2919.58
157.73
2946.58
130.73
2979.48
97.83
2996.22
81.09
119 a&CMUM
177.20
508.04
685.24
525.52
159.72
552.85
132.39 ,
545.48
139.76
569.40
115.84
120 oareoi
92.67
1294.94
1387.61
229.62
1157.99
427.81
959.80
608.96
778.65
742.23
645.38
122 IM
39.02
15876.72
15915.74
15676.16
239.58
15717.16
198.58
15756.02
159.72
15783.35
132.39
124 Kicxn.
23589.05
10507.10
34096.15
32958.12
1138.03
33152.90
943.25
33656.91
439.24
33732.09
364.06
125 SXEJOLH
156.07
3725.73
3881.80
3861.83
19.97
3865.25
16.55
3867.82
13.98
3870.22
11.58
128 ZBC
162.57
36353.95
36516.52
35917.56
598.96
36020.07
496.45
36057.32
459.20
36135.91
380.61
ALCKDtM
560.87
60374.09
60934.96
58718.80
2216.16
59098.11
1836.85 ^
59457.52
1477.44
59710.39
1224.57
COOMff
84.54
10984.73
11069.27
10929.51
139.76
10953.43
115.84
10969.44
99.83
10986.53
82.74
mawx
1131.49
8949.24
10000.73
0.00
10080.73
0.00
10080.73
0.00
10080.73
0.00
10080.73
Dai
8697S4.8S
13691.79
883446.64
882628.06
818.58
882768.16
678.48 '
882887.61
559.03
882983.29
463.35
HJOiCS 3150.63	16351.38 19502.01 19082.74 419.27 19154.50 347.51 19222.49 279.52 19270.34 231.67
neSHCRE 8327.61	1575.66 10403.27 2257.39 8145.88 3651.60 6751.67 4972.68 5430.59 5902.16 4501.11
OH. 6 GPDl£Z 20077.52	5972.96 26050.48 6085.08 19965.40 9502.28 16548.20 6085.08 19965.40 9502.28 16548.20
136559.64
8127913.87 8264473.51 8240515.03 23958.48 8244615.67 19857.84 8259282.51
5191.00 8260170.98
4302.53
TOOCHEKJS 24231.21	97071.07 121302.28 117262.11 4040.17 117873.43 3428.85 118677.66 2624.62 119046.71 2255.57
CCNVBffiaaiS 156637.16 8133886.83 8290523.99 8246600.11 43923.88 8254117.95 36406.04 8265367.59 25156.40 8269673.26 20850.73
roiM.lCUD. 1064378.36 8342884.79 9407263.15 9337478.72 69784.43 9347617.18 59645.97 9361554.99 45708.16 9367572.68 39690.47
EUXXZ CEM
54817825.08
54915127.54
55038491.86
55098026.36
BAT D
INWCTR
not 1/yr (10s)
FTEFWKCTCN
QCKEIN3
taovtd
Discharged
kg/yr
1625.71
Raipved
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
29.21
BAT E
MES3X PI®PARAT3EN
Renewed Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
Banned Discharged
kg/yr kgtor
145.15
29.11
114
115	AK2K3E
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25272.56
442.51
0.99
9.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25272.56
442.51
0.99
9.90
117	KFttLLHH
118	CACHHM
119	QQOfttM
0.00
0.00
63.40
0.00
14.63
113.80
10.13
3061.25
506.00
5.82
1.43
2.04
0.00
7.52
0.00
7.11
167.04 10.16
10.13
3061.25
506.00
5.82
1.43
2.04
120 OCFFER
122 izao
124 KXOXL
0.00
0.00
23231.39
92.67
39.02
357.66
1283.59
15874.39
10500.70
11.35
2.33
6.40
36.06
27.41
23557.12
56.61
11.61
31.93
1283.59
15874.39
10500.70
11.35
2.33
6.40
125 SELENKjM
12a ZZKC
XUMXKM
144.69
0.00
0.00
11.38
162.57
560.87
3725.53 0.20
36347.25 6.70
60352.55 21.54
155.05
129.19
453.46
1.02 3725.53
33.38 36347.25
107.41 60352.55
0.20
6.70
21.54
GCBM2
nimrc
xpcm
3.25
0*00
869299*65
81.29
1131.49
4S5.20
10963.27 1.46
8673.86 275.38
13683.64 8.15
77.28
0.00
869714.21
7.26
1131.49
40.64
10983.27
8673.86
13683.64
1.46
275.38
8.15
BCG3CRJS
GZL £ QdS
2923.03
4405.68
3820.42
227.60
4421.93
16257.10
16347.30 4.08
1496.48 79.18
5681.86 291.10
3130.31
8432.80
18626.02
.20.32
394.81
1451.50
16347.30
1496.48 i
5681.86
4.08
79.18
291.10
TSS
132332.79
4226.85
8127838.18 75.69
136182.25 377.39 8127838.18
75.69
TOOC HE3ttS
ccwmnaais
ot& pan;.
23439.48
136153.21
1036224.30
791.73
20483.95
28154.05
97023.91
8133520.04
8342081.05
47.16
366.79
803.74
24079.39
154808.27
1060695.72
151.82
1828.89
3682.64
97023.91.
8133520.04
8342081.05
47.16
366.79
803.74
SXJUDGS GQ4
10845490.10
4441S912.33
11076700.08
44418912.33
406

-------
TABLE X—16
TFEMMENT PERTOJMfcJCE - DEEST DIS3ftFGERS
CAST ITCH S0ECMH33SY
PARAMETER
FI£W I/yr (ID6)
RAW WASIE
CQftTUC
kg'yr
2.90
HPT
OQATIN3
Ranpved
kg/yr
BAT A
CCRTIM3
Discharged
kg/Vr
Itemoved
kg/yr
Discharged
ta^yr
2.66
BAT B
CCftTINS
Haooved
kg/yr
Disdiazgad
Jcg/yr
2.90
BAT C
COATIN3
Ranoved
kg/yr
2.66
BAT D
OCKTXN3
Discharged
Renoved
kgAr
Discharged
kg/yr
2.66
114	ANCTOW
115	ARSENIC
197.65
3.54
197.51
2.06
0.14
1.48
197.52
2.IB
0.13
1.36
197.55
2.55
0.10
0.99
197.56
2.64
0.09
0.90
197.56
2.64
0.09
0.90
117	BERcmra
118	CAEMEOM
119	03CMXXM
0.12
23.95
3.97
0.00
23.72
3.74
0.12
0.23
0.23
0.00
23.74
3.76
0.12
0.21
0.21
0.00
23.81
3.77
0.12
0.14
0.20
0.00
23.82
3.78
0.12
0.13
0.19
0.00
23.82
3.78
0.12
0.13
0.19
120 COPPER
122 IfflD
124 NKXEL
10.13
124.16
82.17
8.45
123.81
80.52
1.68
0.35
1.65
8.59
123.34
80.65
1.54
0.32
1.52
9.00
123.93
81.53
1.13
0.23
0.64
9.09
123.95
81.58
1.04
0.21
0.59
9.09
123.95
81.58
1.04
0.21
0.59
125 saaatM
128 ZQC
AUKEHM
29.14
284.30
472.14
29.11
283.43
468.92
0.03
0.87
3.22
29.11
283.50
469.19
0.03
0.80
2.95
29.12
283.63
469.99
0.02
0.67
2.15
29.12
283.69
470.17
0.02
0.61
1.97
29.12
283.69
470.17
0.02
0.61
1.97
i-rnnTm
EUXKIEE
HCN
85.90
69.99
107.07
85.70
28.81
105.88
0.20
41.18
1.19
85.71
32.22
105.98
0.19
37.77
1.09
85.76
42.56
106.26
0.14
27.43
0.81
85.77
44.83
106.33
0.13
25.16
0.74
85.77
44.83
106.33
0.13
25.16
0.74
MK3NESB
PHtMKfe
cul & asnsB
127.87
12.32
46.71
127.26
0.49
17.71
0.61
11.83
29.00
127.31
1.47
20.11
0.56
10.85
26.60
127.46
4.43
17.71
0.41
7.89
29.00
127.50
5.08
20.11
0.37
7.24
26.60
127.50
5.08
20.11
0.37
7.24
26.60
63562.68 63527.88
34.80 63530.76
31.92
63555.14
7.54 63555.76
6.92 63555.76
6.92
TCcac IffiBSLS
ccNvoinaBis
TOOL FCWI.
759.13
63609.39
65243.81
752.35
63545.59
65115.00
6.78
63.80
128.81
752.89
63550.87
65125.64
6.24
58.52
118.17
754.89
63572.85
65164.20
4.24
36.54
79.61
755.23
63575.87
65170.78
3.90
33.52
73.03
755.23
63575.87
65170.78
3.90
33.52
73.03
SUJDX GEU
345959.13
346081.56
346498.29
346576.29
346576.29
BAT E
ERRAKEEER	CXKTI1C
Ranovod Diachargod
Jcg/yr kg/yr
1/yr (106)	2.66
114	ANTOCNY	197.56	0.09
115	ARSENIC	2.64	0.90
117	sEHrriiTm	o.oo	0.12
118	OUMCCH	23.82	0.13
119	CHRQKKM	3.78	0.19
120	COPPER	9.09	1.04
122 LBtD	123.95	0.21
124 NICKEL	81.58	0.59
125 SEZamH	29.12	0.02
128 ZDC	283.69	0.61
AUJMJHM	470.17	1.97
OCBAITT	85.77	0.13
FUXXOEE	44.83 25.16
ITON	106.33	0.74
MAN3WESE	127.50	0.37
EB35EHDRJ5	5.08	7.24
CE£L & GROSE	20.11	26.60
TSS	63555.76	6.92
TOXIC FdSLS	755.23	3.90
OaWStCXCNftIS	63575.87	33.52
IDEAL FCXUO.	65170.78	73.03
SIX3D3E GEN	346576.29
407

-------
qaaz x-17
nSMWNT IERECB©NCE - DUETT DISCHARGES
AZXKQW S3ECX2EBOFX
RAWWS1E
JW9HEER
ffiU PFOW*nCN CEKEDC CMHED
BE?
CCHBZNO)
BJC A
COMBINED
BAT B
QCM3INED
BAT C
CCM3INED
y^/yr
y^/yr kg/y^"
RboawJ
kgftr
Discharged
kg/|yr
ftamoved Discharged
kg/yr kg/Vr
Bemoved
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
Removed
kg^r
Discharged
kg/yr
rxw Vyr (xo6)
30.34
16.39
46.73

46.73

31.03

46.73

31.03
114 XHUBK
lis Asacnc
0.00
0.00
1117.04
20.00
1117.04
20.00
1114.70
0.00
2.34
20.00
1115.49
4.17
1.55
15.83
1115.45
4.11
1.59
15.89
1115.98
9.45
1.06
10.55
U7 senium
iia oaaat
119 CSRMKM
0.00
0.09
0.39
0.70
135.37
22*45
0.70
135.46
22.84
0.00
131.77
19.10
0.70
3.69
3.74
0.00
133.01
20.36
0.70
2.45
2.48
0.00
133.17
, 19*57
0.70
2.29
3.27
0.00
133.94
20.67
0.70
1.52
2.17
120 mm
122 LEW
lMiacm.
1.1B
65.99
0.00
57.23
701.72
464.39
58.41
767.71
464.39
31.31
762.10
437.75
27.10
5.61
26.64
40.41
763.99
446.70
18.00
3.72
17.69
40.19
763.97
454.11
18.22
3.74
10.28
46.31
765.23
457.56
12.10
2.48
6.83
125 8EXHHM
128 ZDC
XUKDXM
0.00
6.37
201.46
164.67
1606.78
2668.42
164.67
1613.15
2869.88
164.20
1599.13
2818.01
0.47
14.02
51.87
164.36
1603.84
2835.44
0.31
9.31
34.44
164.34
1602.40
2835.30
0.33
10.75
34.58
164.45
1606.01
2846.92
0.22
7.14
22.96
GCENUT
niTRirc
sot
0.00
26.70
2.94
48S.50
395.54
605.15
485.50
422.24
608.09
482.23
0.00
£88.93
3.27
422.24
19.16
483.33
0.00
595.37
2.17
422.24
12.72
,483.16
0.00
595.01
2.34
422.24
13.08
483.95
128.70
599.40
1.55
293.54
8.69
mcKxsc
HCGRCTUS
GIL G OOSE
3.37
257.50
207*83
722.70
69.64
263.99
726.07
327.14
471.82
716.26
136.48
4.52
9.81
190.66
467.30
719.55
200.54
161.52
6.52
126.60
310.30
719.53
200.03
4.52
6.54
127.11
467.30
721.73
242.74
161.52
4.34
84.40
310.30
TB
1209.96
359238.76
360448.72
359887.96
560.76
360076.36
372.36
360327.22
121.50
360368.04
80.68
roacMruLS
awvcciaais
idem. Fairr.
74.02
1417.79
1983.78
4290.35
359502.75
368740.05
4364.37
360920.54
370723.83
4260.06
359892.48
368894*45
104.31
1028.06
1829.38
4292.33
360237.88
369364.44
72.04
682.66
1359.39
4297.31
360331.74
369462.08
67.06
588.80
1261.75
4319.60
360529.56
369872.60
44.77
390.98
851.23
eaxzaot


1964201.35

1968707.32

1969400.96

1974192.90

BKT E
nuvmsi
>cjl prarwKncN
OCKCDG
M3AL HWRKriON
CCRTING
RaawoJ Discharged
kg^r	kg^r
RshlmbJ Discharged
kg*pr	kg/yr
Rmcwd Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
Bstciwed Discharged
kg^r kg/fyr
run i/rr (id6)

30.34

0.69

2.71

0.69
U4 jwEonor
0.00
0.00
1117.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
1117.02
0.02
115 MGBOC
0.00
0.00
19.77
0.23
0.00
0.00
19.77
0.23
117 ummrM
0*00
0.00
0*56
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.14
118 CHMXM
0.00
0.09
135.34
0.03
0.00
0.09
135.34
0.03
119 OBOatM
0.00
0.39
22.40
0.05
0.20
0.19
22.40
0.05
120 GCKBt
0.00
1.1B
56.96
0.27
0.12
1.06
56.96
0.27
122 IXW
63.56
2.43
701.66
0.06
65.77
0.22
701.66
0.06
124 man.
0.00
0.00
464.24
0.15
0.00
0.00
464.24
0.15
125 SEU20IK
0.00
0.00
164.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
164.67
0.00
128 znc
0.00
6.37
1606.62
0.16
5.75
0.62
1606.62
0.16

179.01
22.45
2667.91
0.51
199.45
2.01
2667.91
0.51
oamzx
0.00
0.00
485.47
0.03
0.00
0.00
485.47
0.03
IXDCP3DE
0.00
26.70
389.01
6.53
1.06
25.64
389.01
6.53
not
0.00
2.94
604.96
0.19
2.IB
0.76
604.96
0.19
mmwsB
0.00
3.37
722.60
0.10
2.99
0.38
722.60
0.10
TOGtttCS
174.98
82.52
67.76
1.88
250.13
7.37
67.76
1.88
OIL ft QCU5C
0.00
207.83
257.09
6.90
180.73
27.10
257.09
6.90
TBS
1131*08
78.88
359236.97
1.79
1202.91
7.05
359236.97
1.79
raaCMcaLs
63.56
10.46
4289.24
1.11
71.84
2.18
4289.24
1.11
OCNVEKrxa&LS
1131.08
286.71
359494.06
8.69
1383.64
34.15
359494.06
8.69
TOTAL KXXX7*
1540.63
435.15
360721.01
19.04
1911.29
72.49
368721.01
19.04
SIXXXCZH
15885.93

1963430.20.

19788.29

1963430.20

408

-------
TABLE X-18
TREHMatT FERETX*WCE - DIRECT DIS3CVH2SRS
"XTCR1. CKS3D5C


raw HASIE


BPT
BA? A

BAT B

BAT C
IWMEER tEEAL PrePSRRTICN 03RTIN3
OMBINED
(XMSD3ED
031BDJED
OSXNEZ)
COMBINED

tyyr
tyy*
kg/yr
Banned
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
tenoved
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
Ranoved
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
ftemsved
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
EUW I/yr (It)6)
1656.05
390.12
2046.17

2046.17

1688.51

2046.17

1688.51
114	ANTnow
115	AHSEHIC
117 BERyTJiTTM
0.00
0.00
0.00
26588.24
475.95
16.77
26588.24
475.95
16.77
26485.93
2.06
0.00
102.31
473.89
16.77
26503.82
6.35
0.00
84.42
469.60
16.77
26518.67
6.66
0.00
69.57
469.29
16.77
26530.83
12.09
0.00
57.41
463.86
16.77
US CMMEM
119	(3KMECM
120	OCPPER
14.72
177.59
93.85
3222.00
534.46
1362.30
3236.72
712.05
1456.15
3075.07
548.36
269.38
161.65
163.69
1186.77
3103.33
576.97
476.81
133.39
135.08
979.34
3136.46
568.82
658.15
100.26
143.23
798.00
3153.96
593.85
797.63
82.74
11B .20
658.52
122 l£AD
124	mem.
125	SEZQirtH
105.01
23589.05
156.07
16702.60
11053.66
3919.54
16807.61
34642.71
4075.61
16562.07
33476.39
4055.14
245.54
1166.32
20.47
16604.99
33680.25
4058.72
202.62
962.46
16.89
16643.92
34192.55
4061.28
163*69
450.16
14.33
16672.53
34271.23
4063.79
135.08
371.48
11.82
128 ZCC
HUMEOM
OCBAZIT
168.94
762.33
84.54
38245.03
63514.65
11556.13
38413.97
64276.96
11640.67
37800.12
62005.73
11497.44
613.85
2271.25
143.23
37907.41
62402.74
11522.47
506.56
1874.24
118.20
37943.35
62762.81
11538.36
470.62
1514.17
102.31
38025.61
63027.48
11556.25
388.36
1249.50
84.42
raunim
BCN
WW3WESE
1158.19
869757.79
3154.00
9414.77
14404.01
17201.95
10572.96
884161.80
20355.95
28.81
883322.87
19926.26
10544.15
838.93
429.69
32.22
883469.51
20001.36
10540.74
692.29 :
354.59
42.56
883588.88
20069.48
10530.40
572.92
286.47
173.53
883689.02
20119.57
10399.43
472.78
236.38
HOWUKlS
OIL & GTE&SE
TSS
9085.11 1657.62 10742.73 2394.36 8348.37 3853.61 6889.12 5177.14 5565.59 6149.98 4592.75
20285.35 6283.66 26569.01 6107.31 20461.70 9683.91 16885.10 6107.31 20461.70 9683.91 16885.10
137769.60 8550715.31 8688484.91 8663930.87 24554.04 8668222.79 .20262.12 8683154.97 5320.04 8684094.78 4390.13
TOCTC METSLS	24305.23 102120.55 126425.78 122274.52 4151.26 122918.65
aaNEtHCtBIS 158054.95 8S5G998.97 8715053.92 8670038.1B 45015.74 8677906.70
rami. VOID. 1066362.14 8776868.65 9843230.79 9771/188.17 71742.62 9782107.26
3507.13 123729.86 2695.92 124121.54 2304.24
37147.22 8689272.IB 25781.74 8693778.69 21275.23
61123.53 9796181.27 47049.52 9802616.06 40614.73
SLui itts G2UJ
57127985.56
57229916.42
57354391.11
57418795.55
BftTD		BAT E
PARAMETER
MEEftL PTEPAEAHCN
QuKTdS
KBmL PJSSRHKEKH
COKTOG

Raroved
Jcg/yr
E&sdiarged
hcqfa
SsiDQQd
Wyr
Disshargi
kg/yr
sd Ranoved
kg/yr
I Discharged Receded Discharged
kg/Vr kg/yr kg/yr
JUM I/yr (106)

1656.05

32.46

147.86

32.46
114	AMEUCNX-
115	AFSENIC
117 BEErrrjm
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26587.14
464.92
10.69
1.10
11.03
6.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26587.14
464.92
10.69
1.10
11.03
6.08
US CMHKM
119	GHHCMEIM
120	COVER
0.00
63.40
0.00
14.72
114.19
93.85
3220.41
532.18
1349.64
1.59
• 2.28
12.66
7.52
167.24
36.IB
7.20
10.35
57.67
3220.41
532.18
1349.64
1.59
2.28
12.66
122 IOD
124	NICKEL
125	SffiENUM
63.56
23231.39
144.69
41.45
357.66
11.38
16700.00
11046.52
3919.32
2.60
7.14
0.22
93.18
23557.12
155.05
11.83
31.93
1.02
16700.00
11046.52
3919.32
2.60
7.14.
0.22
128 ZDC
AUKCMUf
OCBffU?
0.00
179.01
3.25
168.94
583.32
81.29
38237.56
63490.63
11554.51
7.47
24.02
1.62
134.94
652.91
77.28
34.00
109.42
7.26
38237.56
63490.63
11554.51
7.47
24.02
1.62
EICDRIEE
HCN
MN3MESE
0.00
869299.65
2923.03
1158.19
458.14
230.97
9107.70
14394.93
17197.40
307.07
9.08
4.55
1.06
869716.39
3133.30
1157.13
41.40
20.70
9107.70
14394.93
17197.40
307.07
9.08
4.55
OTT. £ GREWE
TSS
4580.66
3820.42
133463.87
4504.45
16464.93
4305.73
1569.32
5959.05
8550630.91
88.30
324.60
84.40
8682.93
18806.75
137385.16
402.18 1569.32
1478.60 5959.06
384.44 8550630.91
88.30
324.60
84.40
TT3CLC MEIBLS
OCNVENXXCNRLS
TUEflL PCtHJ.
23503.04
137284.29
1037772.93
802.19
20770.66
28589.21
102066.38
8556589.97
8775972.84
52.17 24151.23
409.00 156191.91
895.81 1062607.01
154.00 102068*38
1863.04 8556589.97
3755.13 8775972.84
52.17
409.00
895.81
SLUDSS GEN 10861376.03

46728918.82
11096488.37
46728918.82

409

-------
TRBIE X-19



pctmraNT rsnrrncN beueetts
DIRECT DXSCHAH25S



KAW W&SIE

BPT BAT A
BAT B
BAT C

MEW* FFEPABMTICN CCPlTDC
CCMBINED
Q"MftTMrrn 0O4BINED
CTtBINED
CCMBINED

kq/yz kg/yr
kg/yr
Bsxcrved Discharged Recoved Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
Removed Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
Ramoved Discryirged
kg/yr kg/yr
ScmI Sobcatajsry
TOOC FOI£
oawxsinaais
TOM, PCTLD.
24231.21
156637.16
1064378.36
97071.07
8133886.83
8342984.79
121302.28
8290523.99
9407263.15
117262.11
3246600.11
9337478.72
4040.17
43923.88
69784.43
117873.43
8254117.95
9347617. IB
3428.85
36406.04
59645.97
118677.66
3265367.59
9361554.99
2624.62
25156.40
45708.16
119046.71
8269673.26
9367572.68
2255.57
20850.73
39690.47
SUDGEQOf
CMt Iron Sutaatagacy
TOOC MENS
CQW&mOAtB
TOTH, PCTLD.
54817825.08
54915127.54
55038491.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
759.13
63609.39
65243.81
759.13
63609.39
65243.81
752.35
63545.59
65115.00
6.78
63.80
128.81
752.89
63550.87
65125.64
6.24
58.52
118.17
754.89
63572.85
65164.20
55098026.36
4.24 755.23
36.54 63575.87
79.61 65170.78
3.90
33.52
73.03
SJ00GBOM
345959.13
346081.56
346498.29
346576.29
Alaalnxa Subcatogocy
TOCCC HBEUfi 74.02	4290.35	4364.37	4260.06	104.31	4292.33
CCNVEma»LS 1417.79	359502.7S	360920.54	359892.48	1028.06	360237.88
TOOL PCTLD. 1S83.78	368740.05	370723.83	368894.45	1829.38	369364.44
72.04 4297.31
682.66 360331.74
1359.39 369462.08
67.06 4319.60
588.80 360529.56
1261.75 369872.60
44.77
390.98
851.23
&XZ2Z CM
¦total Citogocy
OTCEHQMS
CQWBffilQKS
tooh kjun.
24305.23
158054.95
1066362.14
102120.55
8556996.97
8776868.65
126425.78
8715053.92
9643230.79
1964201.35
122274.52
3670038.IB
9771488.17
4151.26
45015.74
71742.62
1968707.32
122913.65
8677906.70
9782107.26
1969400.96
1974192.90
3507.13
37147.22
61123.53
123729.86
8689272.13
9796181.27
2695.92
25781.74
47049.52
124121.54
8603778.69
9802616.06
2304.24
21275.23
40614.73
aUX&EGSN
57127985.56
57229916.42
S7354391.ll
57418795.55
Btt D
MKCSl
KmI aufccat»gpry
Tcrrc wents
caNttmaxus
TOTO, PCUXJ.
ME3SL PFEPftKWICN
axnnG
Sasvad
Discharged
kg/hc
BaiLWttl
kg/yr
Discharged
kg^r
23439.48
136153.21
1036224.30
791.73
20483.95
28154.06
97023.91
8133520.04
8342081.05
47.16
366.79
803.74
BUT E
IGAL PFEEAHXnCN
aOKEQG
Rasrood Discharged
toqfoc kg/yr
amoved Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
24079.39
154806.27
1060695.72
151.82
1328*89
3682.64
97023.91
8133520.04
8342081.05
47.16
366.79
803.74
SUXXZ <2M	10845490.10
CMMt Iran Subcategory
44418912.33
OTOE MOMS
cawiwnaws
TOOMi KXIIJ.
SITT?! GEM
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
755.23
63575.87
65170.78
346576.29
3.90
33.52
73.03
11076700.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
44418912.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
755.23
63575.87
65170.78
346576.29
3.90
33.52
73.03
Minima Subattagacy
TOC3C MXKLS 63.56	10.46	4289.24	1.11	71.84	2.18	4289.24	1.11
CCMVQinaaLS 1131.08	286.71	359494.06	8.69	1383.64	34.15	359494.06	8.69
icrai* FOCXO. 1548.63	435.15	368721.01	19*04	1911.29	72.49	368721.01	19.04
SUXGS. GZM
Ibfcftl Cfctoqoey
iaac mxs
CCNVCTTiaaLS
total paua.
15885.93
23503.04
137294.29
1037772.93
802.19
20770.66
28589*21
1963430*20
102068.38
8556589.97
8775972.84
52*17
409*00
895.81
19788.29
24151.23
156191.91
1062607.01
154.00
1863.04
3755.13
1963430.20
102068*38
8356589*97
8775972.84
52.17
409.00
895.81
sense cz3
10861376.03
46728918.82
11096488.37
46728918.82
410

-------
TRHLE X-20
P0R3LAIN ENAMELING SUBCRTEECfGr COSTS
($ THOUSANDS)
BET*	RAT A*	BAT B*	BAT C*	BAT D*	BAT E*
CAPITAL
CAPEffiL
ANNUAL
CAPITAL

CAPITOL
ANNUAL
CAPITAL
AMWAL
CAPITAL
ANNUAL
CAPITAL
AisNUAI
IN HCA3B
O0KR3
O0KR3
COSTS
ooecs
oases
oases
aosis
OOSIS
GOSIB
COSTS
aosis
GOSIB
teel Subcategory













Normal Plant
101
237
126
250
128
315
144
329
168
741
259
614
211
Direct Dischargers
2933
5177
2692
5444
2740
7031
3130
7297
4728
13472
4716
11169
3840
Indirect Dischargers
4164
11397
6115
12047
6229
15015
6949
15762
7063
38390
13440
31828
10942
Total
7097
16574
8807
17491
8969
22046
10079
23059
11791
51862
18156
42997
14782
Cast Iron Subcategory
Nornal Plant
4
56
21
56
21
59
22
59
22
165
44
197
41
Direct Dischargers
9
135
57
135
57
142
59
142
59
355
95
424
88
Indirect Dischargers
18
751
91
257
93
270
95
270
95
801
214
957
199
Tbtal
27
392
148
392
150
412
154
412
154
1156
309
1381
287
Aluninun Subcategory
Normal Plant
41
150
38
159
40
193
48
203
50
438
132
298
116
Direct Dischargers
225
91
44
106
47
117
50
132
52
991
299
674
262
Indirect Dischargers
106
1105
262
1169
273
1428
336
1491
346
2516
760
1712
666
Total
331
1196
306
1275
320
1545
386
1623
398
3507
1059
2386
928
Category
Direct Dischargers 3167 5403 2793 5685 2844 7290 3239 7571 4839 14818 5110 12267 4190
Indirect Dischargers 4288 12759 6468 13473 6595 16713 7380 17523 7504 41707 14414 34497 11807
Tbtal	7455 18162 9261 19158 9439 24003 10619 25094 12343 56525 19524 46764 15997
* For indirect dischargers/ costs apply to PSES options.

-------
TABLE X - 21
STEEL S0BCKIE30F&r
BAT EEEIXJENT LBHTATICNS
KmJEfiNT CR
P0CIZ7EHOT	MftXMM FDR	MAXIMUM FUR
PBCEEFTY	ANY CNE DRY	MfTJTOT V AVEKK3E

Metal
Coating
Metal
Coating

Preparation
Operations
Preparation
Qperaticr

Metric Units - of area processed or coated

ANTDCNZ
8.409
0.134
3.604
0.057
ARSENIC
83.688
1.329
34.436
0.547
CMMUM
12.813
0.204
6.006
0.095
*CHKMUjM
16.818
0.267
6.807
0.108
OCtfcfcR
76.080
1.208
40.042
0.636
*I£AD
6.006
0.095
5.205
0.083
~NICKEL
56.459
0.897
40.042
0.636
SELENIUM
1.602
0.025
0.801
0.013
*20ttC
53.256
0.846
22.424
0.356
*ALIMCNCM
182.191
2.894
74.478
1.183
OCEAUT
11.612
0.184
4.805
0.076
ELUOKtEE
2330.444
37.015
953.000
15.137
*UCN
49.252
0.782
25.226
0.401
MANGANESE
17.218
0.273
13.614
0.216
English Units - 11/1,000,000 ft? of area processed or coated
ANTIMUY
1.722
0.027
0.738
0.012
ARSENIC
17.141
0.272
7.053
0.112
CAEMUM
2.624
0.042
1.230
0.019
*CHKMIjM
3.445
0.055
1.394
0.022
OLfcHKR
15.582
0.247
8.201
0.130
*T.ran
1.230
0.019
1.066
0.017
~NICKEL
11.564
0.184
8.201
0.130
SEUMTtM
0.328
0.005
0.164
0.003
*23NC
10.908
0.173
4.593
0.073
*AEiMNCM
37.316
0.593
15.254
0.242
nmaT.T
2.378
0.038
0.984
0.016
EUEKIIE
477.313
7.581
195.190
3.100
*UCN
10.088
0.160
5.167
0.082
MAN3RNESE
3.527
0.056
2.788
0.044
* THIS BXEIUBNT IS FEECOCAIEE AT PRCMXGATICN
412

-------
TOBUB X - 22
cast hoj soBcaiBaoror
BAT EEHJJENT LIMTEKTICNS
RXMUHOT GR
KUirraNT	MftXMM R3R	MSX2MJM BCR
PROPERTY	WW CUE DAY	MCNXHLY AVERAGE
ntg/in? (lfc/1,000,000 ft^) of area coated
MTMNY
0.134
(0.027)
0.057
(0.012)
ARSENIC
1.329
(0.272)
0.547
(0.112)
CAEMKM
0.204
(0.042)
0.095
(0.019)
~CHBCMnW
0.267
(0.055)
0.108
(0.022)
COPPER
1.208
(0.247)
0.636
(0.130)
*I£BD
0.095
(0.019)
0.083
(0.017)
*NICKEL
0.897
(0.184)
0.636
(0.130)
*ZINC
0.846
(0.173)
0.356
(0.073)
~ALLMINCM
2.894
(0.593)
1.183
(0.242)
eraser
0.184
(0.038)
0.076
(0.016)
FLUORIDE
37.015
(7.581)
15.137
(3.100)
*IKW
0.782
(0.160)
0.401
(0.082)
MANGANESE
0.273
(0.056)
0.216
(0.044)
* THIS KUinaOT IS I3X3ULMSD AT PRMJD3ffiTCN
413

-------
TBBEE X - 23
AUMENCM SDB3UH3O0RX-
BAT EETUUEST T.TM i11'A'IMrap
Kmrean? cr
KXUOTANT
HEtSERPSr
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
Psqaaraticn Operations Preparation Operations
MVXMM ECR	MAXXMJM FOR
CNE DRY	MOmSX AVEE2GE
Metric Chits - mg/n? of area processed or coated
ANEKMf
8.168
0.134
3.501
0.057
ABSENIC
81.293
1.329
33.451
0.547
CREMXM
12.447
0.204
5.834
0.095
*CHRCMHM
16.336
0.267
6.612
0.108

73.902
1.208
38.896
0.636
CXSNHE
11.280
0.184
4.668
0.076
*Tran
5.834
0.095
5.056
0.083
•NHJXfcL
54.843
0.897
38.896
0.636
*znc
51.732
0.846
21.782
0.356
*AUMQ*M
176.977
2.894
72.347
1.183
cebrct
11.280
0.184
4.668
0.076
PUUDKHE
2263.747
37.015
925.725
15.137
~HCN
47.842
0.782
24.504
0.401
MMCfiNESE
16.725
0.273
13.225
0.216
English Units - 11/1,000,000 ft? of area processed car ocated
ANITM3NY
1.673
0.027
0.717
0.012
ARSENIC
16.650
0.272
6.851
0.112
CREKUM
2.549
0.042
1.195
0.019
"CHHMTM
3.346
0.055
1.354
0.022
OUKfcK
15.136
0.247
7.967
0.130
CXANUE
2.310
0.038
0.956
0.016
*IERD
1.195
0.019
1.036
0.017
*NICKEL
11.233
0.184
7.967
0.130
*zmc
10.596
0.173
4.461
0.073
*AULMINCM
36.248
0.593
14.818
0.242
oceaia?
2.310
0.038
0.956
0.016
ELUCKEE
463.652
7.581
189.603
3.100
*HCN
9.799
0.160
5.019
0.082
MAN3RNESE
3.426
0.056
2.709
0.044
i
* this pcmnawr is regutatfi) at pkmigaticn
414

-------
RETURN TO PROCESS
COATING
WASTEWATER
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
DISCHARGE
METAL PREPARATION
SEDIMENTATION
O Be G REMOVAL
AS NECESSARY
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
d J »
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
RECYCLE
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
(IF APPLICABLE)
CHEMICAL
ADDITION,
CHROMIUM
BEARING
WASTEWATER
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION

NOTE: CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY GENERATES NO METAL PREPARATION WASTEWATER
FIGURE X-l. EXISTING SOURCES BAT OPTION A

-------
COATING
WASTEWATER
METAL PREPARATION
WASTEWATER
•P»
H
01
CHEMICAL
ADDITION,
CHROMIUM
BEARING
WASTEWATER
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
<=>£>
BACKWASH
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENTATION
O & G REMOVAL
AS NECESSARY
POLISHING >j
^FILTRATION*
gBaaasiMBKw
DISCHARGE
RECYCLE
SLUDGE

SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
(IF APPLICABLE)
NOTE: CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY GENERATES NO METAL PREPARATION WASTEWATER
FIGURE X-2. EXISTING SOURCES BAT OPTION B

-------
RETURN TO PROCESS
COATING
WASTEWATER
BACKWASH
METAL PREPARATION
WASTEWATER
its.
t—1
»J
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHROMIUM
BEARING
WASTEWATER
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENTATION
O a G REMOVAL
AS NECESSARY
-"wssssssp—
" £ POLISHING »{
WFILTRATIONt
DISCHARGE
RECYCLE

SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
(IF applicable!
NOTE: CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY GENERATES NO METAL PREPARATION WASTEWATER
EQUALIZATION TANK IS UNNECESSARY FOR CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY.
FIGURE X-3. EXISTING SOURCES BAT OPTION C

-------
RETURN TO
PROCESS
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
COATING
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGE
FILTRATION:
SEDIMENTATION
O 8t G REMOVAL
AS NECESSARY
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
HOLDING TANK
SLUDGE
SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
RECYCLE
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
BACKWASH
4^
H
CO
METAL PREPARATION
WASTEWATER
CHEMICAL
ADDITION i
CHROMIUM
BEARING
WASTEWATER
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
*" ^ %
SEDIMENTATION
O St G REMOVAL
AS NECESSARY
*v POLISHING s|
^filtration!

DISCHARGE
RECYCLE

SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
(IF NECESSARY)
NOTE: CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY GENERATES
NO METAL PREPARATION WASTEWATER
FIGURE X-4, EXISTING SOURCES BAT OPTION D

-------
IpARTSI
11
METAL
PREPARATION
OPERATIONS
	r
i | li i
FARTSPARTS f*MPARTSl—
mum mmm «¦¦.«*¦!	|m«» mm	Iim* mm
COUNTER CURRENT RINSES
	I	I	
PARTS TO COATING
PROCESS
BATCH
DUMPS
BACKWASH
METAL PREPARATION
WASTEWATER
V0
CHEMICAL
ADDITION j
CHROMIUM
BEARING
WASTEWATER
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENTATION
O a G REMOVAL
AS NECESSARY
* POLISHING |(
nil
DISCHARGE
RECYCLE
SLUDGE
DEWATERiNG

SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
(IF NECESSARY)
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
RETURN TO
PROCESS
COATING
WASTEWATER
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENTATION
O & G REMOVAL
AS NECESSARY
~EST*
HOLDING TANK
FILTRATION
NO I t: C AST IKON SUBCATEGORY GENERATES
MO METAL PREPARATION WASTEWATER
SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL

SLUDGE
DEWATERING
FIGURE X-5. EXISTING SOURCES BAT OPTION E

-------

-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
This section presents effluent characteristics attainable by new
sources through the application of the best available
demonstrated control technology (BDT), processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives, including where practicable, a
standard permitting no discharge of pollutants. The treatment
system capable of achieving the NSPS is discussed, and the
rationale for selecting it is outlined. The selection of
pollutant parameters for specific regulation is discussed, and
discharge limitations for the regulated pollutants are presented
for each subcategory.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO NSPS
Proposed NSPS Technology
The proposed NSPS model technology required use of dry
electrostatic powder coating to achieve zero discharge from
coating operations, and treatment of metal preparation
wastewaters by: reduction of hexavalent chromium in segregated
chromium-bearing wastewaters where necessary; oil skimming,
equalization; lime, settle and filter end-of-pipe treatment; in-
process water use reduction by use of three-stage countercurrent
rinsing in metal preparation and rinse flow controls.
Industry comments on the proposed new source performance
standards indicated that the dry powder enameling process is not
appropriate for all products. Several commenters pointed out
that a wide variety of colors are not available in powder
coatings. Most commenters stated that powder cannot be applied
to some steel product shapes or any aluminum products.
Final NSPS Technology
After careful consideration and review of public comment on the
proposed model technology the Agency decided to modify the
proposed NSPS model treatment system by not requiring
electrostatic dry powder coating. Instead, in the BAT model
technology for coating wastewaters is used for NSPS. Coating
wastewaters are combined with metal preparation wastewaters and
some of the treated water is reused for all coating operations
except for ball mill wash out. After further consideration of
the reduced flow from metal preparation wastewater, it was
decided to eliminate the equalization tank prior to the rapid mix
421

-------
tank. The NSPS model treatment technology is equivalent to the
promulgated BAT model . treatment technology plus the use of
three-stage countercurrent rinsing for metal preparation
wastewaters and the addition of a polishing filter. The BAT
technologies used in the selected NSPS treatment system have been
discussed in Section X.
In summary form, the' final NSPS model treatment technology is
(see Figure XI, Page 431):
-	hexavalent chromium reduction where necessary
in-process wastewater flow reduction technology
using three-stage countercurrent rinsing
-	oil skimming
-	chemical precipitation
settling (clarifier)
-	holding tank
reuse of water for all coating needs
except ball mill wash out
-	polishing filter
-	sludge densification
Polishing Filtration
Polishing filtration is included in the NSPS model technology and
is well demonstrated within (as well as outside of) the category.
Seven existing porcelain enameling plants report the use of
polishing filtration and data from two of these are used in
determining the treatment effectiveness of lime, settle and
filter technology. The treatment effectiveness values now uses
for lime, settle and filter technology are slighlty different
from the proposal values because of reevaluation of the
variability factors used to'calculate one day and monthly average
values as is described in Section VII.
The use of a filter as part of the treatment technology for new
sources is not prevented by considerations of combined treatment
of wastewaters. A new source can readily design wastewater
collection systems to serve different categories with different
treatment requirements.
NSPS Flow
We proposed NSPS based on the abnormal flow reduction achieved at
plant no. 33617 which reportedly achieved a metal preparation
wastewater flow of 1.44 1/m2 using two-stage countercurrent
rinsing. This was approximately 1/23 of the mean wastewater flow
422

-------
from metal preparation in the steel subcategory. Comments
suggested that the metal preparation wastewater value for plant
33617 must be in error. We reevaluated the data from this plant
and found that batch dumps of solutions had not been taken into
account and that one of the rinses was in fact a 3-stage
countercurrent cascade rinse. The recalculated wastewater flow
for metal preparation in plant 33617 is 3.564 1/m2 or 1/11.2 the
steel subcategory sampled plant mean production normalized water
use for metal preparation. No aluminum or copper subcategory
plants currently employs three stage countercurrent rinsing,
although one plant uses two stage countercurrent rinse; but the
model technology for the steel subcategory can be used in the
other two subcategories. The reduction in wastewater discharge
from metal preparation is applicable in all three subcategories
because the technology is independent of the basis metal being
processed. Plant 18538 and 13330, used in Section VII to
establish performance data for lime, settle and filter technology
are porcelain enameling plants and provide the basis for the LS&F
effluent concentrations listed in Table VII-20.
In the NSPS model technology we have used three stage
countercurrent cascade rinsing to assure that the wastewater flow
levels achieved by plant no^33617 can be reliably achieved by
other plants. Since plant no. 33617 used three stage rinse for
only some of its rinsing their model technology assumption
appears to be quite conservative.
COST OF NSPS
An estimate of capital and annual costs for NSPS was prepared for
each subcategory. Results are presented in Table XI-1 which is
based on January 1978 dollars.
TABLE XI-1
NSPS CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS
Subcategory
Normal Plant	Capital Annual
Treatment System Costs $ Costs $
Flow (liters/hr)
Steel
Cast Iron
Aluminum
Copper
4,276.4
1 50. 0
1 ,088.6
1 54.4
259,830
61 ,978
195,012
83,978
72,090
20,364
54,915
20,364
For calculating NSPS system costs the "normal plant" flow as
derived in Section X was used. An
subcategory production
by operation
average dcp plant
was multiplied
annual
by a
423

-------
production normalized flow (with countercurrent.rinse turndown
for metal preparation) for each operation in each subcategory to
obtain normal plant annual flow. Hourly flow was calculated by
assuming plant operation for sixteen hours per day and 230 days
per year. Control technology was sized for the "normal plant."
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The raw wastewater concentrations from individual operations and
from the subcategory total were examined to select pollutant
parameters found most frequently and at the highest levels. In
each subcategory, chromium, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum, iron,
oil and grease, TSS and pH were selected for regulation. This is
a reduced list of pollutants for regulation from that proposed
because maintaining pH of effluents within a narrow range at the
optimum pH level, and then fixing a low TSS concentration assures
removal of those toxic metals not selected for specific
regulation.
Table VII-20 presents the achievable effluent concentrations of
the regulated pollutants using the lime, settle, and filter
technology. The mass-based discharge performance standards to be
achieved by new direct dischargers are discussed by subcategory.
Steel Subcategory
New source performance standards for the steel subcategory metal
preparation waste stream are based on the lowest flow achieved
among the sampled plants. As explained above, Plant 33617
discharged an average metal preparation flow of 3.564 1/m2 using
a three-stage and a two-stage countercurrent rinse. This value
is used as the metal preparation production normalized water use
for steel. The coating water use is equal to the water use for
ball mill wash out, 0.636 1/m2, as discussed in Sections V and X.
When the achievable effluent concentrations for LS&F listed in
Table VII-20 above for all pollutant parameters listed above are
applied to the flows given above, the mass of pollutant allowed
to be discharged per unit area of metal prepared and unit area of
coating.can be calculated. Table XI-2 on page 427 shows the NSPS
derived from this calculation.
Cast Iron Subcategory
New source performance standards for the cast iron subcategory
are based on the concentrations of regulated pollutants (mg/1)
achievable by lime, settle, and filter technology (Table VII-20)
and on the mean production normalized water use for coating,
424

-------
(i.e. ball mill wash out), 0.636 1/m2, as discussed in Sections V
and X when the achievable effluent concentrations for LS&F (Table
VII-20) for all pollutant parameters listed above are applied to
the flow given above, the mass of pollutant allowed to be
discharged per unit area of coating can be calculated. Table
XI-3 on page 428 shows the performance standards derived from
this calculation.
Aluminum Subcategory
New source performance standards for the aluminum subcategory
metal preparation wastewater stream are based on BPT flows
reduced by the percent flow reduction achievable with the use of
countercurrent rinses. As explained above, the achievable water
usage is 1/11.2 of the mean usage of the sampled plants in the
aluminum subcategory, or 3.473 1/m2 (i.e. 38.896. 1/m2 from
Section IX, divided by 11.2 equals 3.473 1/m2). This flow will
be used to calculate new source performance standards for the
metal preparation waste stream. The coating water use is equal
to the water used to wash out ball mills, 0.636 1/m2.
When the achievable effluent concentrations for LS&F, table
VII-20 for all pollutant parameters listed above are applied to
the flows given above, the mass of pollutant allowed to be
discharged per unit area of metal prepared and unit area of metal
coated can be calculated. Tabie XI-4 on page 429 shows the
performance standards derived from this calculation.
Copper Subcategory
New source performance standards for the copper subcategory metal
preparation wastewater stream are based on the percent flow
reduction achievable with the use of countercurrent rinses. As
explained above, the achievable flow is 1/11.2 the mean for
sampled plants in the copper subcategory, or 6.01 1/m2 (i.e.
67.29 1/m2, from Section V, Table V-24 divided by 11.2 equals
6.01 1/m2). This flow will be used to calculate new source
performance standards for the metal preparation wastewater
streams. The •coating water usage is equal to the water used to
wash out ball mills, 0.636 1/m2, as discussed in Sections V and
X.
When the achievable effluent concentrations for LS&F, (Table
VII-20) for all pollutant parameters listed above are applied to
the flow given above, the mass of pollutant allowed to be
discharged per unit area of metal prepared and unit area coated
can be calculated. Table XI-5 on page 430 shows the performance
standards derived from this calculation.
425

-------
SUMMARY
NSPS standards may be achieved by use of the model technology,
all parts of which have been demonstrated in porcelain enameling
plants. Seven porcelain enameling plants have lime, settle and
filter technology in place. Countercurrent rinsing is
demonstrated at plant 33617. By transferring flow reduction
technologies the NSPS limitations are achievable for all
subcategories.
426

-------
TRBtE XL - 2
SHEL SUB30B3CRy
NEW SOURCE EBETORfflNCE SEANDAFDS
ramnaw or
VaOJJWNT	MRXJMXf POR	MMOMJM FOR
EH3EERTY	ANY CNE DPY	MCNEHLY fiVERKE
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
Preparation Operations Preparation Operations
Metric Units - mgAr? of area processed or coated
ANTHONY
0.500
0.089
0.214
0.038
ARSENIC
4.969
0.884
2.038
0.363
CAEMILM
0.715
0.127
0.286
0.051
*chrcmhm
1.323
0.235
0.536
0.095
OCKER
4.576
0.814
2.181
0.388

0.358
0.064
0.322
0.057
"NICKEL
1.966
0.350
1.323
0.235
SEI£NHM
0.107
0.019
0.036
0.006
*ZINC
3.647
0.649
1.502
0.267
~AIU'IINLM
10.832
1.927
4.433
0.789
crEAur
0.751
0.134
0.322
0.057
EIUCKEDE
138.710
24.677
56.485
10.049
*ncw
4.397
0.782
2.252
0.401
MRN3BNESE
1.073
0.191
0.822
0.146
*QTT. & GEEJkSE
35.750
6.360
35.750
6.360
*ISS
53.625
9.540
39.325
6.996
*pH
wranN
TOE RANGE CF 7.
.5 TO 10.0 AT ALL TIMES
Ehglish Units - 11/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed car coated
ANT3MMY
0.102
0.018
0.044
0.008
ARSENIC
1.018
0.181
0.417
0.074
CACMTCM
0.146
0.026
0.059
0.010
*CHKM3XM
0.271
0.048
0.110
0.019
OCKER
0.937
0.167
0.447
0.079
~LEAD
0.073
0.013
0.066
0.012
*NICKEL
0.403
0.072
0.271
0.048
SEIiNILM
0.022
0.004
0.007
0.001
*ZINC
0.747
0.133
0.308
0.055
*ALLMHCM
2.219
0.395
0.908
0.162
CCBAUT
0.154
0.027
0.066
0.012
FUJDPIEE
28.410
5.054
11.569
2.058
*HCN
0.901
0.160
0.461
0.082
MBN3RNESE
0.220
0.039
0.168
0.030
*CHL & GREASE
7.322
1.303
7.322
1.303
*TSS
10.983
1.954
8.054
1.433
*pH
wnmN
TOE RANGE CF 7.
,5 TO 10.0 AT ALL TIMES
* THIS PQLEUCfiNT IS PECULATED AT HCMIGRTICN
427

-------
aastE xi - 3
rmcfri TCTfJ CfWraTOTSJV
NEW SODBCE EEETOPMBNCE SISNDREDS
MRXDCM ECR	MAXIMUM TOR
ANS" ONE DRY	MNtHLY AVEEK3E
mgAi? (1±/1,000,000 ft2) c£ area coated
stmacuY
0.089
(0.018)
0.038
(0.008)
ABSHN1C
0.884
(0.181)
0.363
(0.074)
CAEMKM
0.227
(0.026)
0.051
(0.010)
*orocMEM
0.235
(0.048)
0.095
(0.019)
OCEEER
0.814
(0.167)
0.388
(0.079)
*LEfiD
0.064
(0.013)
0.057
(0.012)
*NICKEL
0.350
(0.072)
0.235
(0.048)
*ZTNC
0.649
(0.133)
0.267
(0.055)

1.927
(0.395)
0.789
(0.162)
nrrwff
0.134
(0.027)
0.057
(0.012)
EEUOKECE
24.677
(5.054)
10.049
(2.058)
*H*N
0.782
(0.160)
0.401
(0.082)
HBNGfiNESE
0.191
(0.039)
0.146
(0.030)
*OEL S GREZiSE
6.360
(1.303)
6.360
(1.303)
*rss
9.540
(1.954)
6.996
(1.433)
*pH
WITHIN
TOE RHNE32 OF 7.
5 ID 10.0 ST ML TIMES
* nns pcmraOT is seeuwihd ar sramaiicN
KniME OR
Kxiimm
KkCKHlY
428

-------
TRBtE XI - 4
AUMMJM SUBCATEGORY
MEW SOURCE IEF®3H®NCE STANDARDS
HzzznaOT cr
PCEUTffiNr	MAXIMUM K®	MUCMjM FOR
PKEEEny	ANY CNE DAY	Mrwrnrv AVERSE
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
Preparation Operations Preparation Operations
Metric Units - wg/tc? of area processed or coated
AMTOCNY
0.486
0.089
0.208
0.038
ARSENIC
4.827
0.884
1.980
0.363
caemicm
0.695
0.127
0.278
0.051
*CHBCMnM
1.285
0.235
0.521
0.095

-------
TSBLE XI - 5
OTHER SUBCMBXfRy
NEW SOQRCE EERKJRMfiNCE sraNDMES
KTunawr ck
KMOTaNT	MfiXIMM TOR	MfiXMM ICR
EKXEKBr	ANY ONE DRY	Mrwrnrv AVERBGE
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
Efcepaxaticn Operaticns Preparation C^eraticns
Metric Units - mgAt? of area processed or coated
mnmm
0.841
0.089
0.361
0.038
arsenic
8.354
0.884
3.426
0.363
camnn
1.202
0.127
0.481
0.051

2.224
0.235
0.901
0.095
CCKER
7.693
0.814
3.666
0.388
*OSBD
0.601
0.064
0.541
0.057
*HECKEL
3.306
0.350
2.224
0.235
*Z1NC
6.130
0.649
2.524
0.267
~ATXMNtM
18.210
1.927
7.452
0.789
rrraTir
1.262
0.134
0.541
0.057
lUDCGSEE
233.188
24.677
94.958
10.049
*3SCN
7.392
0.782
3.786
0.401
MSJESiffiSE
1.803
0.191
1.382
0.146
*QUj s grehse
60.100
6.360
60.100
6.360
*XSS
90.150
9.540
66.110
6.996
•gjH
WHHM
SHE RBKGE OP 7,
,5 TO 10.0 AT ALL
TTMKB
Ehglish Uhits - 11/1,000,000 ft? of area processed car ooated
AOTBCNY
0.172
0.018
0.074
0.008
ARSENIC
1.711
0.181
0.702
0.074
CMMEIM
0.246
0.026
0.099
0.010
~CHRCMUM
0.456
0.048
0.185
0.019
OOEEER
1.576
0.167
0.751
0.079
*rian
0.123
0.013
0.111
0.012
~NICKEL
0.677
0.072
0.456
0.048
*zmc
1.256
0.133
, 0.517
0.055
*AIIMINasi
3.730
0.395
1.526
0.162
ocBom
0.258
0.027
0.111
0.012
rrrnDTTC1
JC ¦ L*m
47.761
5.054
19.449
2.058
*hcn
1.514
0.160
0.775
0.082
MHJ3NESE
0.369
0.039
0.283
0.030
*0Ht S GREASE
12.309
1.303
12.309
1.303
*TSS
18.464
1.954
13.540
1.433
*£*¦
WEffllN
THE R»EE CF 7.
5 TO 10.0 AT
ALL TOMES
* rars pcxiherot is mxn/krm m wavt&cnast
430

-------
PARTS
.0.
|| I i I
PARTS PARTS |-*w4PARTSj—
J I	J I	I
I I I
PARTS TO COATING
METAL
PREPARATION
OPERATIONS
	r
c
PROCESS
BATCH
DUMPS
COUNTER CURRENT RINSES
	I	I	
FRESH
WATER
	
COATING WASTEWATER
RETURN TO PROCESS
METAL PREPARATION
BACKWASH
WASTEWATER
U)
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHROMIUM
BEARING
WASTEWATER
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENTATION
O & G REMOVAL
AS NECESSARY
-nafesaw'
HOLDING TANK
POLISHING %
FILTRATION*
DISCHARGE
SLUDGE
RECYCLE
SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
(IF NECESSARY)
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
NOTE; CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY SENERATES NO METAL PREPARATION WASTEWATER,
FIGURE XI-1. NEW SOURCES SELECTED OPTION

-------

-------
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT
This section applies to existing or new indirect dischargers
only. An indirect discharger is a facility which introduces
pollutants into publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The model
control technologies for pretreatment of process wastewaters from
existing sources and new sources are described.
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that
pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with
the operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTW). They
must be achieved within three years of promulgation. The Clean
Water Act of 1977 requires pretreatment for toxic pollutants that
pass through the POTW in amounts that would violate direct
discharger effluent limitations or limit POTW sludge management
alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges on
agricultural lands. The legislative history of the 1977 Act
indicates that pretreatment standards are to be technology-based,
analogous to the best available technology for removal of toxic
pollutants. The general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part
403,), which serve as the framework for pretreatment regulations
were published in 46 FR 9104 (January 28,1981).
Like PSES, PSNS are to prevent the discharge of pollutants which
pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with
the operation of the POTW. PSNS are to be issued at the same
time EPA promulgates NSPS. New indirect dischargers, like new
direct dischargers, have the opportunity to incorporate the best
available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the
same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating
PSES.
Most POTW consist of primary or secondary treatment systems which
are designed to treat domestic wastewaters. Many of the
pollutants contained in porcelain enameling wastewaters are not
biodegradable and are therefore ineffectively treated by such
systems. Furthermore, these pollutants have been known to
interfere with the normal operations of these systems. Problems
associated with the uncontrolled release of pollutant parameters
identified in porcelain enameling process wastewaters to POTW
were discussed in the first part of Section VI. The pollutant-
by-pollutant discussion covered pass through, interference, and
sludge usability.
EPA has generally determined there is pass through of pollutants
if the percent of pollutants removed by a well operated POTW
433

-------
achieving secondary treatment is less than the percent removed by
the BAT model treatment technology. POTW removals of the major
toxic pollutants found in porcelain enameling wastewater are
presented in Table XII-1. The average removal of toxic metals is
about 31 percent. The BAT treatment technology removes more than
99 percent of toxic metals (See Table X-14, page 405). This
difference in removal effectiveness clearly indicates pass
through of toxic metals will occur unless porcelain enameling
wastewaters are adequately pretreated.
PSES
The proposed PSES model technology was identical to the proposed
BAT model technology.
Many of the comments applicable to BAT also applied to PSES.
Some commenters questioned the necessity for any PSES. A number
of comments objected to mass-based standards for PSES. Other
comments suggested that a sump settling technology, which is less
expensive than the model technology, be used as the basis for
PSES to reduce the economic impact of the regulation.
For the final regulation, the Agency considered PSES options
equivalent to those considered for BAT. Options PSES-0 is
equivalent to BPT; Options A through E are identical to BAT
Options A through E, descrbied iji Section X.
Several changes were made in PSES in response to comments. The
Agency has removed filtration from the model PSES technology for
the reasons set forth in Section X. The Agency is promulgating
concentration-based PSES rather than mass-based PSES. The Agency
recognizes that mass-based standards are somewhat more difficult
for a POTW to administer and believes that, for this regulation,
mass-based standards are unnecessary because concentration based
standards may be more easily implemented and in this specific
case the resulting additional pollutant discharge will not be
substantive.
The Agency has determined that there is no less stringent
technology that could be the basis of pretreatment standards for
small plants. EPA evaluated a less expensive, sump settling
technology suggested by public comments for small indirect
dischargers. The comments did not provide data for evaluation of
the performance of settling sump technology and such data is not
believed to exist. The few data about sump settlingg technology
seem to confirm the suspicion that it is highly variable in its
performance and not suitable for use as a reliable pollution
control treatment system. Reduction of hexavalient chromium is
not included and this would allow hexavalent chromium to pass
434

-------
through without removal. Additionally a typical sump would
"channel or short circuit" so that effective removal would not be
achieved. As a sump fills with solids this tendency to channel
would be expected to increase, progressively reducing any benefit
from ths sump.
On this basis, the Agency determined that this technology has not
been adequately demonstrated in the industry and probably would
not appreciably reduce the discharge of toxic pollutants.
The Agency's conclusion that the suggested sump settling
technology would not reliably reduce the discharge of pollutants
resulted in an exclusion from categorical PSES for small indirect
dischargers.
Application of PSES to all indirect dischargers would have
resulted in eight plant closures predominately among plants which
produce less than 1600 m2/day product and discharge less than
60,000 1/day. EPA determined that this would present a
disproportionate impact on this segment of the category. The
exclusion point is reasonable since the next projected plant
closure is about twice the cutoff level. This cut-off exempts
from the categorical PSES regulation 38 small indirect
dischargers which represent about 5 percent of the total industry
production and 7 percent of the production by indirect
dischargers. Further details of the small plant analysis are
presented in the economic analysis document. The elements of the
control technology which formed the basis for PSES are identical
to the elements of control technology upon which BAT is based.
The BAT treatment system is required to limit the toxic
pollutants which otherwise would pass through, interfere with, or
prevent utilization of sludge from POTW.
This model technology requires combined treatment of wastewater
with lime and settle, use of a holding tank, and reuse of all
coating water needs except for ball mill wash out. Hexavalent
chromium reduction may be required when necessary to allow
chromium removal by lime and settle treatment. As with BAT,
wastewater flows generated by metal preparation operations should
meet the industry average as explained in Section IX of this
document to achieve mass discharge limitations in those cases
where a POTW desires to use mass based effluent limitations.
Tables XI1-2, 3, and 4 present technology treatment performance
for indirect dischargers in the steel, cast iron, and aluminum
subcategories, respectively. Flows and pollutant mass discharges
for small (exempt) plants are included as untreated (equal to raw
wastewater values). The copper subcategory is not shown
435

-------
separately because the two existing plants are exempt from
regulation as small dischargers.
Table XI1-5 presents a summation of treatment performance data
for all indirect dischargers in the Porcelain Enameling category.
Table XI1-6 presents a summary of treatment performance in terms
of total toxic metals, total conventionals, and total pollutants
for the steel, cast iron, and aluminum subcategories. A
comparison of costs and pollutant removal benefits for indirect
discharges can be made by comparing values from Tables XI1-2
through XII-4 (pages 439-441) with those in table X-20 (page
411).
The Agency has considered the time for compliance for PSES. Few
if any of the porcelain enameling plants have installed and are
properly operating the treatment technology for PSES.
Additionally, the readjustment of internal processing conditions
to achieve reduced wastewater flows may require more time than
for only the installation of end-of-pipe treatment equipment.
Additionally, many plants in this and other industries will be
installing the treatment equipment suggested as model
technologies for this regulation and this may result in delays in
engineering, ordering, installing, and operating this equipment.
For all these reasons, the Agency has decided to set the PSES
compliance date at three years after promulgation of this
regulation.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The Agency reviewed the porcelain enameling wastewater
concentrations, the BAT model treatment technology removals; and
the POTW removals of major toxic pollutants found in porcelain
enameling wastewaters to select' the pollutants for regulation.
The pollutants to be regulated are the same for each subcategory
as were selected for BAT except that the nonconventional
pollutants (aluminum and iron) are not regulated. Aluminum and
iron compounds are frequently used as flocculation aids in POTW.
Toxic metals are regulated to prevent pass through.
Conventionals are not regulated because POTW remove these
pollutant parameters. Table XII-7 on page 444 shows the
concentration based pretreatment standards for existing sources
in the steel, cast iron and aluminum subcategories.
In cases where POTW find it necessary to implement mass effluent
pretreatment standards, they are derived by multiplying the
concentration standards by the wastewater flow for the PSES A
technology option. Tables XI1-8 through XII-10 (pages 445-447 5
present the mass-based standards for the steel, cast iron, and
aluminum subcategories.
436

-------
e
PSNS
PSNS uses the same treatment system as NSPS and establishes mass-
based effluent standards for all subcategories and therefore
prescribes that wastewater flows from metal preparation
operations in the steel, aluminum and copper subcategories meet
the flows achievable with the use of three-stage countercurrent
rinsing. The reasons for selecting added technology in the form
of polishing filter and countercurrent rinsing are described in
Section XI; NSPS. The achievable flow with three-stage
countercurrent rinsing for each subcategory has been shown to be
1/11.2 the mean metal preparation flow at sampled plants in each
subcategory (reference Section XI).
PSNS also requires that all water needed for coating operations
except for ball mill wash out for all subcategories be recycled
from the holding tank following liming and settling of the
combined wastewaters. A polishing filter follows the holding
tank. The toxic pollutants selected for regulation at PSNS are
chromium, lead, nickel and zinc. Nonconventional pollutants,
iron and aluminum, are not regulated at PSNS although the control
technology recommended will remove these pollutants. Tables XII-
11 through XII-14 (pages 448-451) present pretreatment mass
discharge limitations for new sources.
PSNS pollutant reduction benefits for each subcategory were based
on a normal plant production. The pollutant reduction benefits
for each subcategory are presented in Tables XI-2 through XI-5.
All pollutant parameter calculations were based on median raw
wastewater concentrations for visited plants (Table V-24, page
108) .
437

-------
TABLE XII-1
POTW Removals of the Major
Toxic Pollutants Found in
Porcelain Enameling Wastewater
Pollutant
Percent Removal By
Secondary POTW
118
119
120
122
124
128
cadmium
chromium,
chromium,
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
hexavalent
trivalent
38
18
NA
58
48
19
65
Note: This data compiled from Fate of Priority Pollutants
in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, USEPA, EPA No. 440/
1-80-301, October 1980.
438

-------
ttsle xrr-2
TFEKMENT PEKTOITONCE - INJlWdLTI' DISCHAH3ERS
b'SMvl, SUBCXEXXHCf


PAW HASIE
PSES O
PSES A
PSES B

SftRWdER MESAL PJEPARRIICN CDRTING CCMBINED CCMBINED
CCMBINED
CCMBINED


toj/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
Rarcved
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
Renewed
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
Ranoved
kq/yr
Discharged
kg/yr

KB 1/^r (106)
3301.06
763.85
4064.91

4064.91

3405.29

4064.91

114	3WTDOW
115	aSSHOC
117 agpyi-T.Trw
0.00
o.oo
0.00
52059.43
931.90
32.85
52059.43
931.90
32.85
48593.68
0.00
0.00
3465.75
931.90
32.85
48626.66
0.00
0.00
3432.77
931.90
32.85
48655.00
0.00
0.00
3404.43
931.90
32.85

IIS CWMM4
119	CHRCKHM
120	CTEIER
29.71
359.82
188.16
6308.63
1046.47
2667.37
6338.34
1406.29
2855.53
5637.14
1013.79
454.32
701.20
392.50
2401.21
5689*25
1066.56
836.90
649.09
339.73
2018.63
5752.12
1052.11
1182.52
586.22
354.18
1673.01

122 IS®
124	NKXEL
125	SXHODM
79.22
47898.38
316.90
32703.47
21642.93
7674.40
32782.69
69541.31
7991.30
30261.57
63322.91
7452.63
2521.12
6218.40
538.67
30340.72
63698.90
7459.23
2441.97
5842.41
532.07
30414.88
64664.35
7464.13
2367.81
4876.96
527.17

128 ZQC
HXMUBM
rrwanr
330.11
1138.87
171.66
74883.27
124360.89
22626.76
75213.38
125499.76
22798.42
69335.61
113360.64
21J097.51
5877*77
12139.12
1700.91
69533.49
114092.81
21143.69
5679.89
11406.95
1654.73
69603.89
114778.73
21174.17
5609.49
10721.03
1624.25

IXZEEUEE
HCN
MWSWESE
2297.54
1766067.10
6397.45
1B433.99
28202.87
33681.21
20731.53
1794269.97
40078.66
0.00
1692383.19
36798.56
20731.53
101886.78
3280.10
0.00
1692653.64
36937.08
20731.53
101616.33
3141.58
0.00
1692881.44
37066.84
20731.53
101388.53
3011.82

KUBOU!
rrrr. & GREASE
TSS
17924.75
40768.09
277289.04
3245.60
12303.33
16742191.86
21170.35
53071.42
17019480.90
4328.75
11696.09
15905068.04
16841.60
41375*33
1114412.86
7020.00
18292.29
15912983.48
14150*35
34779*13
1106497.42
9541.19
11696.09
15941095.23
11629.16
41375.33
1078385.67

ICKIC MEERLS
XNV5NTXO©LS
tamii pazu.
49202.30
318057.13
2161256.80
199950.72
16754495.19
17184997.23
249153.02
17072552.32
19346254.03
226071.65
15916764.13
18010804.43
23081.37
1155788.19
1335449*60
227251.71
15931275.77
18030374.70
21901.31
1141276.55
1315879.33
228789.00
15952791.32
18057022.69
20364.02
1119761.00
1289231.34

SIEGE dN



105675484.94
105863308*17
106099090*33



P
SES C


PSES D


PffiS E

BAKAM2IER
otbineo
MZHL PREAHXnCN

CQM3N3
MEffiL HSEABKTICN
COftTUG

Beaded
kg/yr
Discharged
tyyr
Wrr
Cdsdiarged
tyyr
kg/yr
1 discharged Renewed
kg^yr kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
FITV Vyr (106)

3405.29

3301.06

104*23

462.48

104.23
U4 flwmtm-
115 assnic
117 EE3S3XIOM
48677.43
0.00
0.00
3382.00
931.90
32.85
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48783.40
854.19
19*54
3276*03
77.71
13.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48783.40
854.19
19.54
3276.03
77.71
13.31
118	CACKHM
119	CHKMUM
120	dHTO
5784.44
1098.29
1439.78
553.90
308.00
1415.75
0.00
121*56
0.00
29.71
238.26
188.16
5909.12
976.73
2477.70
399.51
69.74
189.67
14.41
320.26
69.13
15.30
39.56
119.03
5909*12
976.73
2477.70
399.51
69.74
189.57
122 LfflD
124	NICKEL
125	gazHirM
30467.65
64809.47
7468.75
2315.04
4731.84
522.55
0.00
44540.07
277.40
79.22
3358.31
39.50
30642.19
20269.40
7191.35
2061.28
1373.53
483*05
52.54
45164*56
297.27
26.68
2733.82
15.63
30642.19
20269.40
7191.35
2061.28
1373.53
483.05
128 ZINC
flUMENtW
CCBKLT
69755.61
115266.85
21207.15
5457.77
10232.91
1591.27
0.00
0.00
6.24
330.11
1138.87
165.42
70160.80
116498.01
21200.91
4722.47
7862.88
1425*85
247.68
869.39
148.17
82.43
269.48
23.49
70160.80
116498.01
21200.91
4722.47
7862.88
1425.85
EXDCKIEE
DCK
JftNSBNESE
0.00
1693066.13
37159.19
20731.53
101203*84
2919.47
0.00
1666652.73
5604.13
2297.54
99414.37
793.32
16743.08
26413.41
31555.06
1690.91
1789.46
2126.15
0.00
1667447.53
6001.53
2297.54
98619.57
395.92
16743.08
26413.41
31555.06
1690.91
1789.46
2126.15
ptmmcs
iiiL £ QQS£
TSS
11335.36
18292.29
15912810.24
9334.99
34779.13
1076670.66
8446.71
7324.64
253713.22
9478.04
33443.45
23575.82
2888.64
10967.65
15689097.03
356.96
1335.68
1053094.83
16167.65
35710.44
261093.53
1757.10
5057.65
16195.51
2888.64
10967.65
15689097.03
356.96
1335.68
1053094.83
roar «rot.s
OCNVENXTOttlS
mat pcxui.
229501.42
15961102.53
18068638.63
19651.60
1111449.79
1277615.40
44939.03
261037.86
1906686.70
4263.27
57019.27
174570.10
187284.42
15700064.68
16102648.21
12666.30
1054430.51
1082349.02
46165.85
296803.97
2033604.09
3036.45
21253.16
127652.71
187284.42
15700064.68
16102648.21
12666.30
1054430.51
1082349.02
SCDGE (2X 106214009.71
20793365.71

85741448.42

21236648.73

85741448.42

439

-------
2AHLE m-3
thekmr: mem&mx - mcmrr disch&bsb®
CAST UCK S0333B3W
PfiKRKESS?
KAtf WASTE
CCKSHg
kg/yr
HQ? 1/yr CIO6) 3.72
pas o
C0KTCN3
3.72
FEES A
ccktihs
Bsnwed Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
Baeerved Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
PSES B
CQKTIN3
Seracwed-
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
3.72
114 mraax
253.53
251.31
2.22
251.32
2.21
251.36
2.17
us assanc
4.54
2.62
1.92
2.77
1.77
3.25
1.29
H7 sssxam
0.16
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.16
IIS CHHtDH
30.73
30.19
0.54
30.21
' 0.52
30.30
0.43
119 CHKHEW
5.10
4.76
0.34
4.79
0.31
4.80
0.30
120 OTSER
12.99
10.75
2.24
10,92
2.07
11.45
1.54
122 IZSD
159.26
157.54
1.72
157.57
1.69
157.68
1.58
124 KK3SX,
105.40
102.45
2.95
102.62
2.78
103.74
1.66
125 saaaai
37.37
37.03
0.34
37.04
0.33
37.04
0.33
128 znc
364.69
360.64
4.05
360.73
3.96
360.90
3.79
ALUMINUM
SB .64
596.66
8.98
597.00
8.64
598.03
7.61
rrfaftf
110.20
109.05
1.15
109.07
1.13
109.13
1.07
nccEirE
89.77
36.65
53.12
40.91
48.86
54.14
35.63
IH3J
337.35
134.73
2.62
134.85
2.50
135.21
2.14
MWESNEffi
164.03
161.94
2.09
162.00
2.03
162.19
1.84
HBSHOOS
15.81
0.62
15.19
1.85
13.96
5.64
10.17
rETT. & f'M'Aff!
59.91
22.53
37.38
25.53
34.38
22.53
37.38
TES
81535.59
80833.76
701.83
80837.36
696.23
80868.45
667.14
TaacisaKS
973.77
957.29
16.48
957.97
15.80
960.52
13.25
CCNVEOTIQSLS
81595.50
80856.29
739.21
80862.89
732.61
80890.98
704.52
TOM. KXZU.
83692.07
82853.23
838.84
82966.54
825.53
82915.84
776.23
StOOGE CZH

440203.05

440356.46

440889.43

EKWEES
HOI 3^r (I06)
PSES C
CCKCDC
Ttacmad
kgfyr
3.42
PfiPR D
CTftCTG
Discharged
kg/yr
BaujwtL
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
3.42
PS5S E
GCRTIN3
Rarcved
kg/tyr
Discharged
kg/yr
3.42
114 Kmam
lis aesjoe
21? SERHXHM
251.37
3.35
0.00
2.16
1.19
0.16
251.37
3,35
0.00
2.16
1.19
o.ie
251.37
3.35
0.00
2.16
1.19
0.16
UBCHHEM
119 OSOODH
130 QOESER
30.31
4.82
11.57
0.42
0.%
1.42
30.31
4.82
11.57
0.42
0.28
1.42
30.31
4.82
11,57
0.42
0.28
1.42
122 IEAD
124 KB3CEX,
225 .TTfmiH
157.71
103.80
37.05
1.55
1.60
0.32
157.71
103.80
37.05
1.SS
1.60
0.32
157.71
103.80
37.05
1.55
1.60
0.32
128 ZBE
KUKMtM
abob
360.97
590.25
109.14
3.72
7.39
1.06
360.97
596.25
109.14
3.72
7.39
1.06
360.97
598.25
109.14
3.72
7.39
1.0S
tlDCKHE
not
mxsrnss
Kao
•90
135.29
162.24
32.79
2.06
1.79
56.98
135.29
162.24
32.79
2.06
1,79
56.98
135.29
152.24
32.79
2.06
1.79
HESHXUS
as. s grerse
TSS
6.46
25.53
80869.23
9.35
34.38
666.36
6.46
25.53
80869.23
9.35
34.38
666.36
6.46
25.53
80869.23
9.35
34.38
666.38
1CK2S2 M2BSLS
CaNHCTdRLS
•rcmi. pa10.
960.95
80894.76
82924.07
12.82
700.74
768.00
960.95
80694.76
82924.07
12.82
700.74
768.00
960.95
80894.76
82924.07
12.82
700.74
768.00
SICOGE mi
440986.93
440906.93
440966.93
440

-------
1ABLZ 303-4
PEFE03MANCE - 2MQSS3C7 DISCHARGES
AUMNCM SUBCKZESCStf
HBWWRSIE	PSES O	PSES A	PSES B
aratci&R
M2AL PICRFR330J
OSOINS
fYyPINM \
n WBywyTi

CCMBJNEX)

COMBINED

kg^r
tyyr
)oj/yr
Roncrved
tyyr
Discharged
Wrc
Rsnovec
)oj/yr
i Discharged
Wye
Rancraed Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
FI£W O^r (106)
129.91
33.39
163.30

163.30

148.47

163.30
114 jHnmff
125 ARSENIC
117 mSUJOM
0.00
0.00
0.00
2275.67
40.74
1.44
2275.67
40.74
1.44
1050.07
0.00
0.00
1225.60
40.74
1.44
1050.81
0.00
0.00
1224.86
40.74
1.44

1051.88 1223.79
0.00 40.74
0.00 1.44
US C3UMCD1
119	cancHm
120	cat IER
0.39
1.68
5.06
275.77
45.74
116.60
276.16
47.42
121.66
119.31
13.46
0.00
156.85
33.96
121.66
120.49
14.65
1.10
155.67
32.77
120.56

122.70 153.46
14.59 32.83
13.92 107.74
122 IBID
124	NKXEX, '
125	.TTBTOM
282.56
0.00
0.00
1429.56
946.07
335.47
1712.12
946.07
335.47
861.16
374.63
154.50
850.96
571.44
180.97
862.94
383.09
154.65
849.18
562.98
180.82

865.67 846.45
414.09 531.96
154.84 180.63
128 ZDC
xuhuxm
COBKEff
27.28
862.60
0.00
3273.36
5436.16
909*07
3300.64
6298.76
989.07
1505.15
3042.44
450.95
1795.49
3256.32
538.12
1509.60
3058.90
451.99
1791.04
3239.86
537.08

1513.04 1787.60
3084.15 3214.61
453.20 535.87
mjcRzce
IRK
MRN3NESE
114.32
12.60
14.42
805.80
1232.82
1472.30
920.12
1245.42
1486.72
0.00
535.13
670.14
920.12
710.29
816.58
0.00
541.21
673.25
920.12
704.21
813.47

0.00 920.12
549.79 695.63
678.03 808.69
HUMftJKJB
OZL 6 QCASE
TSS
1102.55 141.88
889.88 537.82
5180.81 731847.60
1244.43
1427.70
737028.41
431.16
0.00
342037.58
813.27
1427.70
394990.83
491.67
0.00
342215.54
752.76
1427.70
394812.87
584.47 659.96
0.00 1427.70
343097.24 393931.17
TCflTC ICHS
aowiNaawLs
ioisl Rxizj*
316.97 8740.42
6070.69 732385.42
8494.15 751203.87
9057.39
738456.11
759698.02
4078.28
342037.58
351245.68
4979.11
396418.53
408452.34
4097.33
342215.54
351529.89
4960.06
396240.57
408168.13
4150.73 4906.66
343097.24 395358.87
352597.61 407100.41
SIEGE (2N



1883635.56

1887053.83

1896031.94

pas c


PSES D


PSES E

EMWdER
09UMQ)
leni* HssfiFsncK

OKE3N3
M2TAL HSHWKHKS
CQKETN3

Baa-MBJ CtLscharged Sencmad
kgtyr kg/yr kg^r
Discharged
tyyr
ItalUVQC
ygfar
1 OiBcharged
\gfar
Rmrwed
tyyr
Discharged
kg/yr
Renewed Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
PLCW 1/yr (ID6)
148.47

129.91

18.56

41.35

18.56
114	mntDnr
115	ARSENIC
117 asamiM
1052.38 1223.29
0.00 40.74
0.00 1.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1055.69
18.68
0.54
1219.98
22.06
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1055.69
18.68
0.54
1219.98
22.06
0.90
US CMMEM
119	CHRMDM
120	am
123.42 152.74
15.63 31.79
19.70 101.96
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.39
1.68
5.06
127.90
21.17
53.83
147.87
24.57
62.77
0.00
0.65
0.40
0.39
1.03
4.66
127.90
21.17
53.83
147.87
24.57
62.77
122 X231D
124	ND3CEL
125	SHCB3ZXM
866.86 845.26
417.35 528.72
154.94 180.53
203*72
0.00
0.00
78.84
0.00
0.00
663.14
438.74
155.63
766.42
507.33
179.84
210.81
0.00
0.00
71.75
0.00
0.00
663.14
438.74
155.63
766.42
507.33
179.84
128 ZQC
AUMXMM
aznur
1516.45 1784.19
3095.12 3203.64
453.94 535.13
0*00
573.71
0.00
27.28
288.89
0.00
1518.40
2521.41
458.81
1754.96
2914.75
530.26
18*42
639.25
0.00
8.86
223.35
0.00
1518*40
2521.41
458.81
1754.96
2914.75
530.26
IXJXKXEE
hcn
maNESE
0.00 920.12
553.94 691.48
680.10 806.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
114.32
12.60
14.42
367.58
571.74
682.93
438.22
661.08
789.37
3.46
7.00
9.57
110.86
5.60
4.85
367.58
571.74
682.93
438.22
661.08
789.37
MSRtHK
OIL & GFEftSE
¦ESS
624.81 619.62
0.00 1427.70
343135.80 393892.61
560.79
0.00
3625.11
541.76
889.88
1555.70
64.02
242.90
339510.69
77.86
294.92
392336.91
801.67
579.29
3855.36
300.88 64.02
310.59 242.90
1325.45 339510.69
77.86
294.92
392336.91
'1UJCLC MEBttS
catmrna&LS
ions* fcezu.
4166.73 4890.66
343135.80 395320.31
352710.44 406987.58
203.72
3625.11
4963.33
113.25
2445.58
3530.82
4053.72
339753.59
348473.80
4686.70
392631.83
402730.07
230.28
4434.65
6125.88
86.69 4053.72
1636.04 339753.59
2368.27 348473.80
4686.70
392631.83
402730.07
*—i j h i ..>¦ (5M 1897873*71
50913.53

1855613.42

63423.60
1855613.42

441

-------
max xn-5
TFETOCOT FBTCBreNCE - DClMdLT DISCHRH3ERS
TOTAL C3flE30RSf
iwwisn:
IRRN-CXER
HHM/ nCRFAIlCt) COMING
hj/yr
FLOW 1/yr (10s) 3437.97
hj/yr
801.47
nrMiTKsn
hj/yr
4239.44
PSES o
Ranoved
kc^yr
4239.44
PSES A
OCMB3NED
Discharged
kg/yr
Ranoved
kg/yr
3564.69
PSES B
(XMBINEE
Discharged
kg/yr
Fsrcved
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
4239.44
114	ttsnoa
115	ABSEHIC
U7 BSUJW
0.00
0.00
0.00
54623.39
977.80
34.47
54623.39
977.80
34.47
49695.06
2.62
0.00
4728.33
975.18
34.47
49928.79
2.77
0.00
4694.60
975.03
34.47
49958.24
3.25
0.00
4665.15
974.55
34.47
118	OUXOH
119	chkmxh
120	OTTER
30.25
361.68
2144.12
6619.34
1098.01
2796.74
6649.59
1459.69
4942.86
5786.64
1032.01
465.07
862.95
427.68
4477.79
5839.95
1086.00
848.92
809.64
373.69
4093.94
5905.12
1071.50
1207.89
744.47
388.19
3734.97
122 inn
124	mm
125	SLBtKH
367.17
47899.22
316.90
34314.13
22708.85
8052.36
34681.30
70608.07
8369.26
31280.27
63799.99
7644.16
3401.03
6808.08
725.10
31361.23
64184.61
7650.92
3320.07
6423.46
718.34
31438.23
65182.IB
7656.01
3243.07
5425.89
713.25
128 ZDC
ALLMBXM
OOEKff
363.62
2001.98
171.66
78571.32
130485.72
23741.14
78934.94
132487.70
23912.80
71201.40
116999.74
21657.51
7733.54
15487.96
2255.29
71403.82
117748.71
21704.75
7531.12
14738.99
2208.05
71477.83
118460.91
21736.50
7457.11
14026.79
2176.30
RJUOKHE
BON
MMX3MSB
2412.67
1766271.57
6412.54
19341.87
29591.87
35340.03
21754.54
1795863.44
41752.57
36.65
1693053.05
37630.64
21717.89
102810.39
4121.93
40.91
1693329.70
37772.33
21713.63
102533.74
3980.24
54.14
1693566.44
37907.06
21700.40
102297.00
3845.51
HDjiiUUj
an. s qzasb
7SS
19030.94
43029.97
282602.85
3405.46
12909.27
17566753.32
22436.40
55939.24
17849356.17
4760.53
11718.62
16327939.38
17675.87
44220.62
1521416.79
7513.52
19317.82
16336036.38
14922.88
37621.42
1513319.79
10131.30
11718.62
16365060.92
12305.10
44220.62
1484295.25
nxrcieats
carmmaKs
otm. fcud.
51482.96
32S632.82
2173417.14
209796.41
17579662.59
18031367.09
261281.37
17905295.41
20204784.23
231107.22
16339658.00
18444903.34
30174.15
1565637.41
1759680.89
232307.01
16354354.20
18464771.13
28974.36
1550941.21
1740013.10
233900.25
16376779.54
18492536.14
27381.12
1528515.87
1712248.09
SUIXZGEH
107999323.55
1081907UB.46
108436011.70
PS5 C		PSES D		PSES E

nTMPfTWT>
tEDUL EraTARKTICN
axnm
hEEAL PFEPAKATICN

omtins

Rsond
Discharged Reno^d
Jcgtyr kg/^r
Discharged
Razored
Yqfyr
Discharged
Wye
Ranoued
Wy*
Discharged
kg/yr
Ranoved
kg/yr
Discharged
kg/yr
TOW 1/yr (10s)

3564.69

126.72

126.72

510.83

126.72
114	NS2X1K
115	AHSBGC
117 mrpyrr.TTM
49961.IB
3.35
0.00
4642.21
974.45
34.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50090.46
876.22
20.08
4532.93
101.56
14.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50090.46
876.22
20.08
4532.93
101.58
14.39
IIS CKMUM
119	cekkkm
120	OJHtH
5938.17
1118.74
1471.05
711.42
340.95
3471.81
0.00
121.56
0.00
30.25
240.12
2144.12
6067.33
1002.72
2543.10
552.01
95.29
255.64
14.41
320.91
69.53
13.84
40.77
2074.59
6067.33
1002.72
2543.10
552.01
95.29
255.64
122	IDD
124 raaax.
123	SEX2X0M
31492.22
65330.62
7660.74
31B9.08
5277.45
708.52
203.72
44540.07
277.40
163.45
3359.15
39.50
31463.04
20811.94
7384.03
2851.09
1896.91
668.33
263.35
45164.56
297.27
103.82
2734.66
19.63
31463.04
20811.94
7384.03
2851.09
1896.91
668.33
128 ZDC
ALtKDiM
CCBHff
71633.03
11B960.22
21770.23
7301.91
13527.48
2142.57
0.00
573.71
6.24
363.62
1428.27
165.42
72040.17
119617.67
21768.86
6531.15
10868.05
1972.28
266.1J0
1506.64
148.17
97.52
493.34
23.49
"72040.17
119617.67 '
21768.86
6531.15
10868.05
1972.28
mmm-:
UQI
mnsssss
56.98
1693755.36
38001.53
21697.56
102106.08
3751.04
0.00
1666652.73
5604.13
2412.67
99618.84
808.41
17167.64
27120.44
32400.23
2174.23
2471.43
2939.80
3.46
1667454.53
6011.10
2409.21
96817.04
401.44
17167.64
27120.44
32400.23
2174.23
2471.43
2939.80
RSHK5
OIL i (3SXSE
TSS
11966.63
1S317.82
16366815.27
10469.77
37621.42
1482540.90
9007.50
7324.64
257338.33
10023.44
35705.33
25264.52
2959.12
11236.08
16109476.95
446.34
1673.19
1457276.37
16969.32
36289.73
264948.89
2061.62
6740.24
17653.96
2959.12
11236.08
16109476.95
446.34
1673.19
1457276.37
TCtac wmts
ocnvcnaawrs
TOOT. FCTXU.
234629.10
16385133.09
1SS04273.14
26652.27
1520162.32
1700511.09
45142.75
264662-97
1991650.03
6340.21
60969.85
181767.11
192299.09
16120713.03
16534046.08
17499.32
1458949.56
1497321.01
46396.13
301238.62
2039729.97
5086.83
24394.20
133687.17
192299.09
16120713.03
16534046.08
17499.32
1458949.56
1497321.01
KUEGE GEM 108552870.35

20644279.24

88038048.77

21300072.33

88038048.77

442

-------
TTiBLE XU-6
St»BH
KIISXRH? fMJUam ®3HT3S
INQEREDT IHSSHRfGERS
RAW VASZE
PRTOKEIER
MEfflL KSHWJCTXaH CERTOG
CCMB2NED
PSES O
COCXNEE
: a
aasxHED

kg/yr
Wyz

X^EECTvCSu
Wy
Discharged Barorod
k®fyr kq/yr
Discharged Baaswad
kg'yr kg/yr
Disdiaroed
Isg^yr
Steel Subcategory









TOOC urns
OTWEM2CN&LS
153330. KIID.
49202.30
318057.13
2161256.80
199950.72
16754495.19
17184997.23
249153.02
17072552.32
19346254,03
226071.65
15916764.13
18010804,43
23081.37
1155788.19
1335449.60
227251.71
15931275.77
18030374.70
21901.31
1141276.55
1315879.33
228789.00
15952791.32
18057022.69
20364.02
1119761.00
1289231.34
smsarn



105675484.94

105863308.17

106099090.33

Cast Iron Subcategory








toce mom
CCKVaJTCCNALS
¦rami, bcub.
8 88
© o ©
973.77
81595.50
83892.07
973.77
81595.50
83692.07
957.29
80856.29
82853.23
16.48
739.21
338.84
957.97
80862.89
82866.54
15,80
732.61
825.53
960.52
80890.98
82915.84
13.25
704,52
776.23
SUJ0GES8



440203.05

440356.46

440889.43

AlimLrun subcategory








TCKTC KBttS
ccNvmnrwiLE
10330, KXZO.
316.97
6070.69
8494.15
3740.42
732385.42
751203.87
9057.39
738456,11
759698.02
4078.20
342037.58
351245.68
4979.11
396418.53
408452.34
4097.33
342215.54
351529.89
4960.06
396240,57
408168.13
4150.73
343037.24
352597,61
4906.66
395358.87
407100.41
smias



1883635.56

1867053.83

1396031.94

¦total Otegcey









OTK tBKS
oowajnnais
TOHL KIID.
51482.96
325632.®
2173417.14
209798.41
17579662.59
18031367.09
261281.37
17905295.41
20204784.23
2311B7.22
16339658.00
18444903.34
30174.15
1565637.41
1759880.89
232307.01
16354354.20
38464771.13
28974.36
1550941.21
1740013.10
233900.25
1S376779.54
18492536.14
27381.12
1528515.87
1712248.09
firms: 
-------
TABLE XI1-7
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
(mg/1)

Maximum for
Maximum

Any One Day
Monthly
Antimony
0.21
0.09
Arsenic
2.09
0.86
Cadmium
0.32
0.15
Chromium*
0.42
: 0.17
Copper
1 .90
1 .00
Lead*
0.15
, 0.13
Nickel*
1 .41
1 .00
Selenium
0.04
0.02
Zinc*
1 .33
0.56
Aluminum
4.55
1 .86
Cobalt
0.29
0.12
Fluoride
58.2
23.8
Iron
1 .23
0.63
Manganese
0.43
0.34
*These pollutants are regulated at promulgation.
444

-------
TABLE XXX - 8
¦-.'ivm ¦ SQBCMHSCKf
PFETFEAHMENT SESNDAFES FDR E0CSITN3 SOURCES
PCEUJIANT OR
PCEJUERNT
PRJPKRLY
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
Preparation Cfceraticns Preparation Operations
MMCMM BOR	MUOMM BQR
AN3f CNE DRY	vrurHrv AVERfGE
Metric Units - wg/a? of area processed or ooated
MTEDCNy
8.409
0.134
3.604
0.057
ARSENIC
83.688
1.329
34.436
0.547
auxmM
12.813
0.204
6.006
0.095
*CHRCMHW
16.818
0.267
6.807
0.108
CDE5ER
76.080
1.208
40.042
0.636
*IEAD
6.006
0.095
5.205
0.083
~NICKEL
56.459
0.897
40.042
0.636
SELENIUM
1.602
0.025
0.801
0.013
*ZCNC
53.256
0.846
22.424
0.356
ALLMNUM
182.191
2.894
74.478
1.183
CJCBKLT
11.612
0.184
4.805
0.076
FLUDRIEE
2330.444
37.015
953.000
15.137
IRCN
49.252
0.782
25.226
0.401
MRN3PNESE
17.218
0.273
13.614
0.216
English Units - 11/1,000,000 ft? of area processed or ooated
ANTZMXJY
1.722
0.027
0.738
0.012
ARSENIC
17.141
0.272
7.053
0.112
CWMEM
2.624
0.042
1.230
0.019
~CHKMrtM
3.445
0.055
1.394
0.022
CDEEER
15.582
0.247
8.201
0.130
*IfBD
1.230
0.019
1.066
0.017
~NICKEL
11.564
0.184
8.201
0.130
SEX2NILM
0.328
0.005
0.164
0.003
*ZCNC
10.908
0.173
4.593
0.073
AUMNIM
37.316
0.593
15.254
0.242
CDBKUr
2.378
0.038
0.964
0.016
FLUORIDE
477.313
7.581
195.190
3.100
IRCN
10.088
0.160
5.167
0.082
MANGANESE
3.527
0.056
2.788
0.044
* THIS HmMr IS REEULOTED AT FKMIGKTICN
445

-------
TOHIE xtt — 9
CAST HEN SUKMESOFDr
PREEREMMENT SBSNDAEDS EUR EXISTING 9CUKCES
vouimm cr
KLUUBNT	MMQCMH KK	JftXMM PCR
EFCPERIY	ANY ONE DftY	fffTJrw.Y AVEKCE
mg/to? (11/1,000,000 ft?) of area coated
fflmmw
0.134
(0.027)
0.057
(0.012)
ARSENIC
1.329
(0.272)
0.547
(0.112)
QEMUM
0.204
(0.042)
0.095
(0.019)
~CHHCMUM
0.267
(0.055)
0.108
(0.022)
couxh.
1.208
(0.247)
0.636
(0.130)
*rran
0.095
(0.019)
0.083
(0.017)
*N3CKECi
0.897
(0.184)
0.636
(0.130)
SFTfTdM
0.025
(0.005)
0.013
(0.003)
~ZINC
0.846
(0.173)
0.356
(0.073)
WXMINCM
2.894
(0.593)
1.183
(0.242)
OCBflKT
0.184
(0.038)
0.076
(0.016)
EIIXRECE
37.015
(7.581)
15.137
(3.100)
HtN
0.782
(0.160)
0.401
(0.082)
r®NGBNESE
0.273
(0.056)
0.216
(0.044)
* THIS KJUGOTRNT IS E$BUUO$D AT PFCMJU3iTICN
446

-------
TABUS XH - 10
MXM3NUM SUBCATEGORY
PRETREJOMENr SEANDATOS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
KTIinaNT OR
PaCEITffiNT	MAXMM EOR	MMCMM FOR
PFtmay	any cne day	vrumr.v aveebge
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
Preparaticn Operations Preparation (derations
Metric Units - mg/in2 of area processed or coated
jarnncNy
8.168
0.134
3.501
0.057
ARSENIC
81.293
1.329
33.451
0.547
CMMCtM
12.447
0.204
5.834
0.095
*aOCMKM
16.336
0.267
6.612
0.108
CUtKfcK
73.902
1.208
38.896
0.636
CTRNIDE
11.280
0.184
4.668
0.076

5.834
0.095
5.056
0.083
*NICKEL
54.843
0.897
38.896
0.636
SEXfNICM
1.556
0.025
0.778
0.013
*ZQC
51.732
0.846
21.782
0.356
AHMNCM
176.977
2.894
72.347
1.183
OCEAIXT
11.280
0.184
4.668
0.076
EIXJQRIDE
2263.747
37.015
925.725
15.137
HOT
47.842
0.782
24.504
0.401
MANGANESE
16.725
0.273
13.225
0.216
Oiglish Units - li/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed car coated
ANTINCNY
1.673
0.027
0.717
0.012
ARSENIC
16.650
0.272
6.851
0.112
CAEMHM
2.549
0.042
1.195
0.019
~CHFCMKM
3.346
0.055
1.354
0.022

-------
TABT£ XH - 11
SHEL SPBCATTDORy
EFETFER3MENT SEANDRBDS FOR NEW SOUFCES
KHI7EROT CR
PCCUnaNT	MBXEMM K3R	MRX3MJM EUR
EECEEKIY	ANY CNE DftY	MTJTW.v AVEKBGE

Metal
Coating
Metal
Coating

Preparation
Operations
Preparation
Qaeraticr

Metric Units - mg/fo? of area processed car coated

ANEHOW
0.500
0.089
0.214
0.038
ARSENIC
4.969
0.884
2.038
0.363
cmmum
0.715
0.127
0.286
0.051

1.323
0.235
0.536
0.095
OCEEER
4.576
0.814
2.181
0.388
*r.rar>
0.358
0.064
0.322
0.057
~NICKEL
1.966
0.350
1.323
0.235
SEUNIUM
0.107
0.019
0.036
0.006
*znc
3.647
0.649
1.502
0.267
MXMINUM
10.832
1.927
4.433
0.789
CCBHKF
0.751
0.134
0.322
0.057
EUEKHE
138.710
24.677
56.485
10.049
XTCN
4.397
0.782
2.252
0.401
M&NCTNESE
1.073
0.191
0.822
0.146
English Units - lt/1,000,000 ft? of area processed or coated
3NTOENY
0.102
0.018
0.044
0.008
ARSENIC
1.018
0.181
0.417
0.074
CMMECM
0.146
0.026
0.059
0.010
*CHKMHM
0.271
0.048
0.110
0.019
OJfcW^R
0.937
0.167
0.447
0.079
*LESD
0.073
0.013
0.066
0.012
~NICKEL
0.403
0.072
0.271
0.048
SEHNItM
0.022
0.004
0.007
0.001
*ZINC
0.747
0.133
0.308
0.055
AHKQCM
2.219
0.395
0.908
0.162
COBALT
0.154
0.027
0.066
0.012
EUUDFOXE
28.410
5.054
11.569
2.058
HtN
0.901
0.160
0.461
0.082
MBN3BNESE
0.220
0.039
0.168
0.030
* HHS TTiTXTTTWr IS FH3IAIED AT PHMJICRTTCN
448

-------
THBLE XH - 12
crst hcn suacaaiGcirar
PEETREMMENr STSM3AFDS FOR NEW SOURCES
pomjraNT cm
V&UJEWE	MRXIMM K3R	ISOOMW K®
PRCEERIY	ANY CNE DAY	mrwrar.v AVERSE
mg/n? (lh/1,000,000 ft?) a£ area cicietted
smvcm
0.089
(0.018)
0.038
(0.008)
ARSENIC
0.884
(0.181)
0.363
(0.074)
CAKMHM
0.127
(0.026)
0.051
(0.010)
•CHHMTCM
0.235
(0.048)
0.095
(0.019)
COPPER
0.814
(0.167)
0.388
(0.079)
*rran
0.064
(0.013)
0.057
(0.012)
*NTCXEL
0.350
(0.072)
0.235
(0.048)
SH^NUM
0.019
(0.004)
0.006
(0.001)
*znt
0.649
(0.133)
0.267
(0.055)
MIMNCM
1.927
(0.395)
0.789
(0.162)
accfiur
0.134
(0.027)
0.057
(0.012)
EUJCKEE
24.677
(5.054)
10.049
(2.058)
hcn
0.782
(0.160)
0.401
(0.082)
manganese:
0.191
(0.039)
0.146
(0.030)
* uns Ksiumrr is rosEMED at pkmiooticn
449

-------
TABLE m - 13
flEIMNtM SDBCA3E30R3f
PFETFEKMENT SIBNDABDS FOR NEW SOURCES
KUUIHNT OR
pnrrrrmNT	maxtmm idr	maximum for
PJCEEKTY	ANY CNE Dffif	MCNIHtY AVERSE
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
Preparation Qperaticns Preparation C^eraticns
Metric Units - mgfy? of area processed or coated
MTHtOW
0.486
0.089
0.208
0.038
ARSENIC
4.827
0.884
1.980
0.363
CMMCCM
0.695
0.127
0.278
0.051
*CKCMHM
1.285
0.235
0.521
0.095
OCtHSR
4.445
0.814
2.119
0.388
OffiNUE
0.695
0.127
0.278
0.051
*rran
0.347
0.064
0.313
0.057

1.910
0.350
1.285
0.235
SECENHW
0.104
0.019
0.035
0.006
+ZJXK
3.542
0.649
1.459
0.267
mxasui
10.523
1.927
4.307
0.789
CEBHJT
0.729
0.134
0.313
0.057
FUrtOTE
134.752
24.677
54.873
10.049
iron
4.272
0.782
2.188
0.401
MANSfiNEHE
1.042
0.191
0.799
0.146
Brtglish Units
- "li/1,000
,000 ft? of area processed car coated
mCJMXK
0.100
0.018
0.043
0.008
ARSENIC
0.969
0.181
0.406
0.074
CRCMUM
0.142
0.026
0.057
0.010
*CHKMILM
0.263
0.048
0.107
0.019
COSIER
0.910
0.167
0.434
0.079
CffiKDCE
0.142
0.026
0.057
0.010
*rran
0.071
0.013
0.064
0.012
¦nncxHL
0.391
0.072
0.263
0.048
SELENIUM
0.021
0.004
0.007
0.001
*ZJNC
0.725
0.133
0.299
0.055
MLMINUM
2.155
0.395
0.882
0.162
creanp
0.149
0.027
0.064
0.012
mUCKEEE
27.599
5.054
11.239
2.058
IRON
0.875
0.160
0.448
0.082
MAH3NESE
0.213
0.039
0.164
0.030
* THIS PCIIIJDW IS BH3IA3HD AT PRCMJIT^mjCM
450

-------
TABUS m - 14
COPPER SUBCMEEORy
PFEH5ER3MENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SURGES
PCIIUEBNT OR
pnrrrrmNT	maximm for	mhomlm for
HOTEKW	ANY CKE DAY	mtjtwv AVEH^SE
Metal	Coating	Metal	Coating
Preparation C^eraticns Preparation Operations
Metric Units - mg/fa? of area processed or coated
ANEDENY
0.841
0.089
0.361
0.038
ARSENIC
8.354
0.884
3.426
0.363
CREMKM
1.202
0.127
0.481
0.051

2.224
0.235
0.901
0.095
OCKEER
7.693
0.814
3.666
0.388
*rran
0.601
0.064
0.541
0.057
*tOCKEL
3.306
0.350
2.224
0.235
SFTfNUM
0.180
0.019
0.060
0.006
*ZINC
6.130
0.649
2.524
0.267
MXMQCM
18.210
1.927
7.452
0.789
OCBHCT
1.262
0.134
0.541
0.057
EIDQRIDE
233.188
24.677
94.958
10.049
H€N
7.392
0.782
3.786
0.401
MANffiNESE
1.803
0.191
1.382
0.146
English Units - ltyl,000,000 ft? of area processed or coated
ANTIMCNY
0.172
0.018
0.074
0.008
ARSENIC
1.711
0.181
0.702
0.074
CAEMHM
0.246
0.026
0.099
0.010
*CHFCMICM
0.456
0.048
0.185
0.019
CX2EEER
1.576
0.167
0.751
0.079
*IfBD
0.123
0.013
0.111
0.012
*NICKEL
0.677
0.072
0.456
0.048
SEXSNILM
0.037
0.004
0.012
0.001
*ZDC
1.256
0.133
0.517
0.055
AEIMENUM
3.730
0.395
1.526
0.162
CEBALT
0.258
0.027
0.111
0.012
EIUdRIDE
47.761
5.054
19.449
2.058
HCN
1.514
0.160
0.775
0.082
MANSANESE
0.369
0.039
0.283
0.030
* THIS POUXttANr IS REGDMTED at pkmickticn
451

-------

-------
SECTION XIII
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) [biological oxygen demanding
pollutants (800%), 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 to 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 limitation are
"reasonable" under both tests before establishing them as BCT.
In no case may BCT be less stringent than BPT.
EPA published its methodology for carrying out the BCT analysis
on August 29, 1979 (44 FR 50732). In the case mentioned above,
the Court of Appeals ordered EPA to correct data errors
underlying EPA's calculation of the first test, and to apply the
second cost test. (EPA had argued that a second cost test was
not required.)
EPA has determined that the BAT technology is capable of removing
significant amounts of conventional pollutants. However, EPA has
not yet proposed or promulgated a revised BCT methodology in
response to the American Paper Institute v. EPA decision
mentioned earlier. Thus, it is not now possible to apply the BCT
cost test to this technology option. Accordingly, EPA is
defferring a decision on the appropriate BCT limitations until
EPA finalizes the revised BCT methodology.
453

-------

-------
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document has been prepared by the staff of the Effluent
Guidelines Division with assistance from technical contractors,
other EPA Offices and other persons outside of EPA. This Section
is intended to acknowledge the contribution of the several
persons who have contributed to the development of this report.
The collection and organization of information for use in this
report were performed by Hamilton Standard, Division of United
Technologies Corporation under Contract No. 68-01-5827. Some
sections of this report are edited versions of the proposed
development document and supplemental information prepared by
Hamilton Standard. Hamilton Standard's effort was managed by
Daniel J. Lizdas and Robert Blaser and included significant
contributions by Messer. Paul Barnett, Peter Formica, Remy Helm,
Richard Kearns, Jack Nash, Ms Vivian Sandland, Ms Gail Kitchin,
John Vounats, Mark Hellstein, Armand Ruby, Robert Patulak, Don
Smith, Jeffrey Wehner, Peter Wilk, and Peter Williams.
Ellen Seigler • of the Office of General Counsel provided legal
advise to the project. Debra Maness was economic project officer
for the project. Henry Kahn provided statistical analysis and
assistance for the project. Alexandra Tarnay provided
environmental evaluations and word processing was provided by
Pearl Smith, Carol Swann and Glenda Nesby.
Technical direction and supervision of the project have been
provided by Ernst Hall. Technical project officers are Ben
Honaker, Catherine Campbell, James Berlow and John Whitescarver
and Robert Hardy performed specific technical assignments.
(Where more than one EPA employee is listed for a specific
function the most recent is listed first).
In preparation of this final document, the Agency has been
assisted by Versar Inc., under contract 68-01-6469. Under
specific direction from Agency personnel, Versar rechecked
calculations and tabulations, made technical and editorial
revisions to specific parts of sections and prepared camera ready
copy of tables and figures. Versars effort was managed by Lee
McCandless, Jerome Strauss and Jean Moore with contributions from
John Maier, Martin Bondy, Nathan Graves and John Whitescarver,
Robert Hardy and Jon Clarke of Whitescarver Associates (a
subcontractor on this contract). Manuscript preparation was
performed by Nan Dewey, Lucy Gentry and Sally Gravely of Versar
Inc,
455

-------

-------
SECTION XV
REFERENCES
1.	"The Surface Treatment and Finishing of Aluminum and Its
Alloys" by S. Werrick, PhD, Metal Finishing Abstracts, Third
Edition, Robert Draper Ltd., Teddington, 1964.
2.	Guidebook & Directory, Metal Finishing, 1974, 1975, 1977 and
1978. American Metals and Plastics Publications Inc., One
University Plaza Hackensack, New Jersey 90601.
3.	The Science of Surface Coatings, edited by Dr. H. W.
Chatf ield, 1962.
4.	Metals Handbook, Volume 2 8th Edition, American Society for
Metals, Metals Park, Ohio.
5.	Journal of Metal Finishing: "Pretreatment for Water-Borne
Coatings" - April, 1977
"Guidelines for Wastewater Treatment" - September, 1977
"Guidelines for Wastewater Treatment" - October, 1977
"Technical Developments in 1977 for Organic (Paint)
Coatings, Processes and Equipment" - February, 1978
"Technical Developments in 1977, Inorganic (Metallic)
Finishes, Processes and Equipment" - February, 1978
"The Organic Corner" by Joseph Mazia, - April, 1978
"The Organic Corner" by Joseph Mazia, - May, 1978
"The Economical Use of Pretreatment Solutions" - May, 1978
"The Organic Corner" by Joseph Mazia, - June, 1978
"Selection of a Paint Pretreatment System, Part I" - June,
1978 "The Organic Corner," by Joseph Mazia - September, 1978
6.	How Do Phosphate Coatings Reduce Wear on Movings Parts, W.
R. Cavanagh.
7.	Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Second
Edition, 1963, Interscience Publishers, New York
8.	Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, Second
Edition, 1963, Interscience Publishers, New York
9.	Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals,
Verschueren, Karel, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York 1977
10.	Handbook of Chemistry, Lange, Norbert, Adolph, McGraw Hili,
New York 1973
457

-------
11.	Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Sax N. Irving,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. New York
12.	Environmental Control in the Organic and Petrochemical
Industries, Jones, H. R, Noyes Data Corp. 1971
13.	Hazardous Chemicals Handling and Disposal, Howes, Robert and
Kent, Robert, Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, New Jersey 1970
14.	Industrial Pollution, Sax, N. Irving, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York 1974
15.	"Treatability of 65 Chemicals - Part A - Biochemical
Oxidation of Organic Compounds", June 24, 1977, Memorandum,
Murray P. Strier to Robert B. Schaffer
16.	"Treatability of Chemicals - Part B - Adsorption of Organic
Compounds on Activated Carbon," December 8, 1977,
Memorandum, Murray P. Strier to Robert B. Schaffer
17.	"Treatability of the Organic Priority Pollutants - Part C
Their Estimated (30 day avg) Treated Effluents Concentration
A Molecular Engineering Approach", June 1978, Memorandum,
Murray P. Strier to Robert B. Schaffer
18.	Water Quality Criteria Second Edition, edited by'Jack Edward
McKee and Harold W. Wolf, 1963 The Resources Agency of
California, State Water Quality Control Board, Publication
No. 3-A
19.	The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Ninth Edition, Revised by
Gessner G. Hawley, 1977
20.	Wastewater Treatment Technology, James W. Patterson
21.	Unit Operations for Treatment of Hazardous Industrial
Wastes, Edited by D. J. Denyo, 1978
22.	"Development Document For Proposed Existing Source
Pretreatment Standards For The Electroplating Point Source
Category", February 1978, EPA440/1-78/085
23.	"Industrial Waste and Pretreatment in the Buffalo Municipal
System", EPA contract #R803005, Oklahoma, 1977
24.	"Pretreatment of Industrial Wastes", Seminar Handout, U.S.
EPA, 1978
458

-------
25.	"Sources of Metals in Municipal Sludge and Industrial
Pretreatment as a Control Option", ORD Task Force on
Assessment of Sources of Metals in Sludges and Pretreatment
as a Control Option, U.S., EPA 1977
26.	"Effects of Copper on Aerobic Biological Sewage Treatment",
Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, February 1963 p
227-241
27.	Wastewater Engineering, 2nd edition, Metcalf and Eddy
28.	Chemical Technology, L.W. Codd, et. al., Barnes and Noble,
New York, 1972
29.	"Factors Influencing the Condensation of 4-aminoantipyrene
with derivatives of Hydroxybenzene - II. Influence of
Hydronium Ion Concentration on Absorbtivity," Samuel D.
Faust and Edward W. Mikulewicz, Water Research, 1967,
Pergannon Press, Great Britain
30.	"Factors Influencing the Condensation of 4-aminoantipyrene
with derivatives of Hydroxylbenzene - I. a Critique," Samuel
D. Faust and Edward W. Mikulewicz, Water Research, 1967,
Pergannon Press, Great Britain 30. Scott,	Murray C.,
"SulfexV - A New Process Technology for Removal of Heavy
Metals from Waste Streams, " presented at 1977 Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, May 10, 11, and 12, 1977.
31.	"Sulfext Heavy Metals Waste Treatment Process," Technical
Bulletin, Vol. XII, code 4413". 2002 (Permutit®) July, 1 977.
32.	Scott, Murray C., "Treatment of Plating Effluent by Sulfide
Process," Products Finishing, August, 1978.
33.	Lonouette, Kenneth H., "Heavy Metals Removal," Chemical
Engineering, October 17, pp. 73-80.
34.	Curry, Nolan A., "Philogophy and Methodology of Metallic
Waste Treatment," 27th Industrial Waste Conference.
35.	Patterson, James W., Allen, Herbert E. and Scala, John J.,
"Carbonate Precipitation for Heavy Metals Pollutants,"
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, December,
1977 pp. 2397-2410.
36.	Bellack, Ervin, "Arsenic Removal from Potable Water,"
Journal American Water Works Association, July, 1971.
459

-------
37.	Robinson, A. K. "Sulfide -vs- Hydroxide Precipitation of
Heavy Metals from Industrial Wastewater," Presented at
EPA/AES First Annual conference on Advanced Pollution
Control for the Metal Finishing Industry, January 17-19,
1 978.
38.	Sorg, Thomas J., "Treatment Technology to meet the Interim
Primary Drinking Water regulations for Inorganics," Journal
American Water Works Association, February, 1978, pp. 105—
112.
39.	Strier, Murray P., "Suggestions for Setting Pretreatment
Limits for Heavy Metals and Further Studies of POTW's
memorandum to Carl J. Schafer, Office of Quality Review,
U.S. E.P.A., April 21, 1977.
40.	Rohrer, Kenneth L., "Chemical Precipitants for Lead Bearing
Wastewaters," Industrial Water Engineering, June/July, 1975.
41.	Jenkins, S. H., Keight, D.G. and Humphreys, R.E., "The
Solubilities of Heavy Metal Hydroxides in Water, Sewage and
Sewage Sludge-I. The Solubilities of Some Metal
Hydroxides," International Journal of Air and Water
Pollution, Vol. 8, 1964,pp. 537-556.
42.	Bhattacharyya, 0., Jumawan, Jr., A.B., and Grieves, R.B.,
"Separation of Toxic Heavy Metals by Sulfide Precipitation,"
Separation Science and Technology, 14(5), 1979, pp. 441-452.
43.	Patterson, James W., "Carbonate Precipitation Treatment for
Cadmium and Lead," presented at WWEMA Industrial Pollutant
conference, April 13, 1978.
44.. "An Investigation of Techniques for Removal of Cyanide from
Electroplating Wastes," Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Industrial Pollution Control Section, November, 1971.
45.	Patterson, James W. and Minear, Roger A., "Wastewater
Treatment Technology," 2nd edition (State of Illinois,
Institute for Environmental Quality) January, 1973.
46.	Chamberlin, N.S. and Snyder, Jr., H.B., "Technology of
Treating Plating Waste," 10th Industrial Waste Conference.
47.	Hayes, Thomas D. and Theis, Thomas L., "The Distribution of
Heavy Metals in Anaerobic Digestion," Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation, January, 1978. pp. 61-72.
460

-------
48.	Chen, K.Y., Young, C.S., Jan, T.K. and Rohatgi, N., "Trace
Metals in Wastewater Effluent," Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 46, No. 12, December, 1974, pp.
2663-2675.
49.	Neufeld, Ronald D., Gutierrez, Jorge and Novak, Richard A.,
A Kinetic Model and Equilibrium Relationship for Metal
Accumulation," Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation, March, 1977, pp. 489-498.
50.	Stover, R.C., Sommers, L.E. and Silviera, D.J., "Evaluation
of Metals in Wastewater Sludge," Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 48, No. 9, September, 1976, pp.
2165-2175.
51.	Neufeld, Howard D. and Hermann, Edward R., "Heavy Metal
Removal by Activated Sludge," Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 47, No. 2, February, 1975, pp.
310-329.
52.	Schroder, Henry A. and Mitchener, Marian, "Toxic Effects of
Trace Elements on the Reproduction of Mice and Rats,"
Archieves of Environmental Health, Vol. 23, August, 1971,
pp. 102-106.
53.	Venugopal, B. and Luckey, T.D., "Metal Toxicity in Mannals
.2," (Plenum Press, New York, N.Y.), 1978.
54.	Poison, C.J. and Tattergall, R.N., "Clinical Toxicology,"
(J.B. Lipincott Company), 1976.
55.	Hall, Ernst P. and Barnes, Deveraeaux, "Treatment of
Electroplating Rinse Waters and Effluent Solutions,"
presented to the American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
Miami Beach, F1., November 12, 1978.
56.	Mytelka, Alan I., Czachor, Joseph S., Guggino, William B.
and Golub, Howard, "Heavy Metals in Wastewater and Treatment
Plant Effluents," Journal of Water Pollution control
Federation, Vol. 45, No. 9, September, 1973, pp. 1859-1884.
57.	Davis, III, James A., and Jacknow, Joel, "Heavy Metals in
Wastewater in Three Urban Areas, "Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation^ September, 1975, pp. 2292-2297.
58.	Klein, Larry A., Lang, Martin, Nash, Norman and Kirschner,
Seymour L., "Sources of Metals in New York City Wastewater,"
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 46, No.
12, December, 1974, pp. 2653-2662.
461

-------
59.	Brown, H.G., Hensley, C.P., McKinney, G.L. and Robinson,
J.L., "Efficiency of Heavy Metals Removal in Municipal
Sewage Treatment Plants," Environmental Letters, 5 (2),
1973, pp. 103-114.
60.	Ghosh, Mriganka M. and Zugger, Paul D., "Toxic Effects of
Mercury on the Activated Sludge Process," Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 45, No. 3, March, 1973,
pp. 424-433.	j
61.	Mowat, Anne, "Measurement of Metal Toxicity by Biochemical
Oxygen Demand," Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 48, No. 5, May, 1976, pp. 853-866.
62.	Oliver, Barry G. and Cosgrove, Ernest G., "The Efficiency of
Heavy Metal Removal by a Conventional Activated Sludge
Treatment Plant," Water Re-search, Vol. 8, 1074, pp. 869-
874. 63. Porcelain Enamels, Second Edition, 1961, by Andrew
I. Andrews, PhD, The Garrard Press.
63.	Porcelain Enamels, Second Edition, 1961, by Andrew I.
Andrews, Ph. D., The Garrard Press.
64.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Antimony, PB-117319,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
65.	Ambinet Water Quality Criteria for Arsenic, PB-117327,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of WAter Regulations
and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
66.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Beryllium, PB-117814,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
67 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium, PB117368,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards (45 FR 78318-79379, November 28, 1980).
68.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorinated Ethanes,
PB117400, and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28,
1980).
69.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chromium, PB117467,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
462

-------
70.	Ambient WAter Quality Criteria for Copper, PB117475,
Criteria and Standards Division Office of Water Regulations
and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
71.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Lead, PB117681, Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
72.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Nickel, PB117715,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of WAter Regulations
and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
73.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorinated Ethanes,
PB117400, and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28,
1980).
74.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Selenium, PB-117814,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards (45 FR .7931 8-79379, November 28, 1 980).
75.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Toluene, PB117855,
Criteria and Standards Division, office of Water Regulations
and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
76.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Trichloroethylene,
PB117871, Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28,
1980).
77.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Zinc, PB117897, Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
463

-------

-------
SECTION XVI
GLOSSARY
Abrasive Blasting - Cleaning process utilizing a mixture of grit
and air forced under pressure against a surface, prior to
enameling.
Accumulation - In reference to biological systems, the
concentration of a substance which collects in a tissue or
organism and which does not disappear over time.
Acidity - The quantitative capacity of aqueous solutions to react
with hydroxyl ions. It is measured by titration with a standard
solution of a base to a specified end point. Usually expressed
as milligrams per liter of calcium carbonate.
Act - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217).
Adsorption - The adhesion of an extremely thin layer of molecules
of a gas or liquid to the surfaces of solids (e.g., granular
activated carbon) or liquids.
Alqicide - Chemicals used in bodies of water for the control of
phytoplankton (algae).
Alkaline Cleaning - A process for cleaning basis materials in
which m.ineral__deposits, animal fats and--oils—are removed from the
surface. Solutions at high temperatures containing caustic soda
ash, alkaline silicates, alkaline phosphates and ionic and
nonionic detergents are commonly used.
Alkalinity - The capacity of water to neutralize acids, a
property imparted by the water's content of carbonates,
bicarbonates, hydroxides, and occasionally borates, silicates,
and phosphates. It is expressed in milligrams per liter of
equivalent calcium carbonate.
Annealing - Heating operation following the shaping of metal
parts to normalize the crystalline structure. Annealing may also
moderately burn off surface oil to prepare the surface for
porcelain enameling.
Backwashing - The process of cleaning a filter or ion exchange
column by reversing the flow of water.
465

-------
Baffles - Deflector vanes, guides, grids, grating, or similar
devices constructed or placed in flowing water or sewage to (1)
check or effect a more uniform distribution of velocities; (2)
absorb energy; (3) divert, guide, or agitate the liquids; and (4)
check eddy currents.
Baking - A heating/drying process carried out in an enclosure
where the temperature is maintained in excess of 150°C.
Ball Millinq - Process for grinding enamels utilizing vitreous
china balls in a rotating cylindrical mill.
Basis Material or Metal - That substance of which the workpieces
are made and that receives the coating and the treatments in
preparation for coating.
BAT - Best Available Technology Economically Achievable under The
Clean Water Act, Section 304(b)(2)(B).
BCT - Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology under the
Clean Water Act, Section 304(b)(4) of the Act.
BDT - Best demonstrated control technology processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives, including where practicable, a
standard permitting no discharge of pollutants under Section
306(a)(1) of the Act.
Bentonites - Highly colloidal clay materials that are added to
enamel slips to improve their susceptibility to the action of
electrolytes.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - (1) The quantity of oxygen used
in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a specified
time, at a specified temperature, and under specified conditions.
(2) Standard test used in assessing wastewater strength.
Biodegradable - The part of organic matter that can be oxidized
by bioprocesses; e.g., biodegradable detergents, food wastes,
animal manure, etc.
Biological Wastewater Treatment - Forms of wastewater treatment
in which bacterial or biochemical action is intensified to
stabilize, oxidize, and nitrify the unstable organic matter
present.
BPT - Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available.
Buffer - Any of certain combinations of chemicals used to
stabilize the pH values or alkalinities of solutions.
466

-------
Cake, Sludge - The material resulting from air drying or
dewatering sludge (usually forkable or spadable).
Calibration - The determination, checking, or correction of the
graduation of any instrument giving quantitative measurements.
Captive Operation - A manufacturing operation carried out in a
facility to support other manufacturing, fabrication, or assembly
operations.
Carcinogenic - Referring to the ability of a substance to cause
cancer.
Central Treatment Faci1ity - Treatment plant which co-treats
process wastewaters from more than one manufacturing operation or
co-treats process wastewaters with noncontact cooling water, or
with nonprocess wastewaters (e.g., utility blowdown,
miscellaneous runoff, etc).
Centrifuqation - The removal of water from a sludge and water
slurry by introducing the water and sludge slurry into a
centrifuge. The sludge is driven outward with the water
remaining near the center.
Charge - The dry components of slip which are loaded into a ball
mill for grinding.
Chemical Coagulation - The destabilization and initial
aggregation of colloidal and finely divided suspended matter by
the addition of a floc-forming chemical.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) - (1) A test based on the principle
that all organic compounds, with few exceptions, can be oxidized
to carbon dioxide and water by the action of strong oxidizing
agents under acid conditions. Organic matter is converted to
carbon dioxide and water regardless of the biological
assimilability of the substances. One of the chief limitations
of this test is its inability to differentiate between
biologically oxidizable and biologically inert organic matter.
The major advantage of this test is the short time required for
evaluation (2 hrs). (2) The amount of oxygen required for the
chemical oxidization of organics in a liquid.
Chemical Oxidation (Including Cyanide) - The addition of chemical
agents to wastewater for the purpose of oxidizing pollutant
material.
467

-------
Chemical Precipitation - (1) Precipitation induced by addition of
chemicals. (2) The process of softening water by the addition of
lime and soda ash as the precipitants.
Chlorination - The application of chlorine to water or wastewater
generally for the purpose of disinfection, but frequently for
accomplishing other biological or chemical results.
Chromate Conversion Coating - A process whereby a metal is either
sprayed with or immersed in an aqueous acidified chromate
solution consisting mostly of chromic acid and water soluble
salts of chromic acid together with various catalysts or
activators (such as cyanide).
Clarifier - A unit which provides for removing undissolved
materials from a liquid, specifically by sedimentation.
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 (Public Law 95-217)
Colloids - A finely divided dispersion of one material called the
"dispersed phase" in another material which is called the
"dispersion medium". Colloids are not separated.by gravity, thus
a solid in liquid colloid cannot be separated by sedimentation.
Compatible Pollutant - A specific substance in a waste stream
which alone can create a potential pollution problem, yet is used
to the advantage of a certain treatment process when combined
with other wastes.
Composite Wastewater Sample - A combination of individual samples
of water or wastewater taken at selected intervals and mixed in
proportion to flow or time to minimize the effect of the
variability of an individual sample.
Concentration Factor - Refers
factor which is the ratio of the
or organism to the concentration
to the biological concentration
concentration within the tissue
outside the tissue or organism.
Concentration, Hydrogen Ion - The weight of hydrogen ions in
grams per liter of solution. Commonly expressed as the pH value
that equals the logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion
concentration.
Contamination - A general term signifiying the introduction into
water of microorganisms, chemicals, wastes or sewage which render
the water unfit for its intended use.
468

-------
Contractor Removal - The disposal of oils, spent solutions, or
sludge by means of a scavenger service.
Conversion Coating - A chemical treatment or electrochemical
modification of the metal surface so that the coating formed is
an integral part of the parent metal.
Coolinq Tower - A device used to cool water used in manufacturing
processes before returning the water for reuse.
Cover Coat - The final coat of porcelain enamel.
Deqreasinq - The process of removing greases and oils from the
surface of the base material.
Dewaterinq - A process whereby water is removed from sludge.
Dip Coating - Method of enamel application in which a part is
submerged in a tank of enamel siip, withdrawn, and drained or
centrifuged to remove excess slip.
Dissolved Sol ids - Theoretically the anhydrous residues of the
dissolved constituents in water. Actually the term is defined by
the method' used in determination; In water and wastewater
treatment, the Standard Methods tests are used.
Draqout - The solution that adheres to the part or workpiece and
is carried past the edge of the tank.
Drawing Compound - Oils, waxes, or greases added to facilitate
stamping and forming of metal.
Drying Beds - Areas for dewatering of sludge by evaporation and
seepage.
Dump - The intermittent discharge of process wastes for purposes
of replenishment of chemicals or maintenance.
Effluent - The quantities, rates, and chemical, physical,
biological, and other constituents of waters which are discharged
from point sources.
Emergency Procedures - The various special procedures necessary
to protect the environment from wastewater treatment plant
failures caused by power outages, chemical spills, equipment
failures, major storms, floods,' etc. ' ¦
Emulsion Breaking - Decreasing the stability of dispersion of 'one
liquid in another.
469

-------
Enamel - Combination of frit, inorganic pigments, clays and other
ingredients which are blended, in a ball mill, applied to ware
surface, and fused at high temperatures to produce a glass-like
coating.
Enamelinq Iron - Type of steel made especially for application of
porcelain enamel coatings.
End-of-Pipe Treatment - The reduction |and/or removal of
pollutants from wastewaters by treatment just prior to actual
discharge, from wastewater
Equalization - The process whereby waste streams from different
sources varying in pH, chemical constituents, and flow rates are
collected in a common container for metering into the waste
treatment system. The effluent stream from this equalization
tank will have a fairly constant flow and pH level, and will
contain a homogenous chemical mixture which prevents an
unnecessary shock to the waste treatment system.
Feeder, Chemical, Dry - A mechanical device for applying dry
chemicals to water and sewage at a rate controlled manually or
automatically by the rate of flow.
Feeder, Chemical, Solution -
chemicals in liquid to water and
manually or automatically by the
A mechanical device for applying
sewage at a rate controlled
rate of flow.
Filter - A barrier through which solid particles cannot pass,
used for the separation of undissolved solids from a liquid.
Filter, Intermittent - A natural or artificial bed of sand or
other granular medium to which sewage is added in intermittent
flooding doses. As the sewage passes through the bed, solids are
retained in the bed.
Filter, Rapid Sand - A filter for the purification of water which
has been previously treated (usually by coagulation and
sedimentation). Wastewater passes through a filtering medium
consisting of a layer of sand or prepared anthracite coal or
other suitable material, usually from 24 to 30 inches thick and
resting on a supporting bed of gravel or a porous medium such as
carborundum. The filtrate is removed by a drain system. The
filter is cleaned periodically by reversing the flow of the water
through the filtering medium. Sometimes supplemented by
mechanical or air agitation during backwashing to remove mud and
other solids that are lodged in the sand.
470

-------
Fi1ter, Tricklinq - A filter consisting of an artificial bed of
coarse material, such as broken stone, clinkers, slats, or brush.
Sewage is applied to the bed in drops, films, or spray, from
troughs, drippers, moving distributors or fixed nozzles.
Wastewater trickles through the medium, forming bacterial slimes
which clarify and oxidize the sewage.
Filter, Vacuum - A filter consisting of a cylindrical drum
mounted on a horizontal axis. The drum is covered with a filter
cloth and revolves with a partial submergence in liquid. A
vacuum is maintained under the cloth for the larger part of a
revolution to extract moisture, and the cake is scraped off
continuously.
Filtration - The process of separating undissolved solids from a
liquid using a barrier through which solid particles cannot pass.
Flash - See Nickel Flash
Float Gauge - A device for measuring the elevation of the surface
of a liquid, the actuating element of which is a buoyant float
that rests on the surface of the liquid and rises or falls with
it. The elevation of the surface is measured by a chain or tape
attached to the float.
Floe - A very fine, fluffy mass formed by the aggregation of fihe
suspended particles.
Flocculator - An apparatus designed for the formation of floe in
water or sewage.
Flocculation - In water and wastewater treatment, the agglomera-
tion of colloidal and finely divided suspended matter after
coagulation by gentle stirring by either mechanical or hydraulic
means. In biological wastewater treatment where coagulation is
not used, agglomeration may be accomplished biologically.
Flow Coat - Method of enamel application during which enamel is
pumped through nozzles to flood the item with coating material
(slip).
Flow-Proportioned Sample - A sample taken in proportion to flow.
Frit - Specially formulated glass in granular or flake form.
Fusion - The heating of an enamel-coated item to a continuous,
uniform glass film.
471

-------
Grab Sample - A single sample of wastewater taken at neither set
time nor flow.
Grease - In wastewater, a group 
-------
of which ions may be interchanged from one substance to another.
The superficial physical structure of the solid is not affected.
Lagoon - A man-made pond or lake for holding wastewater to allow
for settling of suspended solids. Lagoons are also used as
retention ponds after chemical clarification to polish the
effluent and to safeguard against upsets in the clarifier; for
stabilization of organic matter by biological oxidation; for
storage of sludge; and for cooling of water.
Landfill - The disposal of waste solids by dumping at an approved
site and covering with earth.
Lime - Any of a family of chemicals consisting essentially of
calcium hydroxide made from limestone (calcite) which is composed
almost wholly of calcium carbonates or a mixture of calcium and
magnesium carbonates.
Lime, Settle - Precipitation of dissolved solids in wastewater
using lime and the subsequent gravity-induced deposition of the
suspended matter.
Lime, Settle, Fi1ter - Lime, settle treatment of wastewater
followed by additional suspended solids removal using a filter.
Limiting Orifice - A device that limits flow by constriction to a
relatively small area.
Make-Up Water - Total amount of water used by a process on
process step, not including recycled water.
Mi 1 - A unit of thickness. 0.001 inch.
Milligrams Per 1iter (mq/1) - A weight per unit volume designa-
tion used in water and wastewater analysis.
Mixed Media Granular Bed Filtration - A filter which uses two or
more filter materials of differing specific gravities selected to
produce a. filter uniformly graded from coarse to fine.
Mutagenic - The ability of a substance to increase the frequency
or extent of mutation.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - The
Federal mechanism for requlating point source discharge to waters
of the United States by means of permits.
Neutralization - (1) Chemical addition of either acid or base to
a solution such that the pH is adjusted to approximately 7. (2)
473

-------
Pretreatment operation used on steei to neutralize in an alkaline
bath any traces of acid left from pickling.
Nickel Flash - A chemical preparation process in which nickel
compounds are reduced to metallic nickel and deposited on the
surface of the treated item, while iron is oxidized to the
ferrous ion.
Noncontact Coolinq Water - Water, used for cooling, which does
not come into direct contact with any raw material, intermediate
product, waste product, or finished product.
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NSPS - New Source Performance Standards.
Orthophosphate - An acid or salt containing phosphorus as PO3.
Outfall - The point or location where sewage or drainage dis-
charges from a sewer, drain, or conduit.
Parshall Flume - A calibrated device developed by Parshall for
measuring the flow of liquid in an open conduit. It consists
essentially of a contracting length, a throat, and an expanding
length. At the throat is a sill over which the flow passes at
critical depth. The upper and lower heads are each measured at a
definite distance from the sill. The lower head cannot be
measured unless the sill is submerged more than about 67 percent.
pH - The negative of the logarithm of the hydrogen ion concen-
tration. The concentration is the weight of hydrogen ions, in
grams per liter of solution. Neutral water, for example, has a
pH val.ue of 7. At pH lower than 7, a solution is acidic. At pH
higher than 7, a solution is alkaline.
pH Adjustment - A means of maintaining the optimum pH through the
use of chemical additives.
Pickling - Chemical preparation operation which etches the
surface of the treated item, removing rust, scale and some basis
metal.
Pollutant - Dredged spoil, solid wastes, incinerator residue,
sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded
equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal and
agricultural waste discharged into water.
474

-------
Pollutant Parameters - Those constituents of wastewater
determined to be detrimental to public health or the environment
and, therefore, requiring control.
Pollution Load - A measure of the unit mass of a wastewater in
terms of its solids or oxygen-demanding characteristics or in
terms of harm to receiving waters.
Polyelectrolytes - Substances used as a coagulants or coagulant
aids in water and wastewater treatment. They are synthetic or
natural polymers containing ionic constituents, and may be
cationic, anionic, or nonionic.
POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
Powder Coating - Coating application method in which a heated
part is dusted with enamel in powder form. Upon striking the
workpiece, the powder melts and adheres to the part; the part is
subsequently fired.	j
I
Prechlorination - (1) Chlorination of water prior to filtration.
(2) Chlorination of sewage prior to treatment.	/
Precipitate - The discrete particles of material rejected from a
liquid solution.	I
Precipitation - The rejection of discrete particles of material
from a liquid solution by chemical or physical changes.	i
Precipitation, Chemical - (1) Precipitation induced by addition
of chemicals. (2) The process of softening water by the addition
of lime and soda ash as the precipitants.
Pressure Fi1tration - The process of solid/liquid phase
separation effected by passing the more permeable liquid phase
through a mesh which is impenetrable to the solid phase.
Pretreatment - Any wastewater treatment process used to reduce
pollution load partially before the wastewater is introduced into
a main sewer system or delivered to a treatment plant for sub-
stantial reduction of the pollution load.
Primary Treatment - A process to remove substantially all
floating and settleable solids in wastewater and partially reduce
the concentration of suspended solids.
Priority Pollutants - The 129 specific pollutants established by
the EPA from the 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as
outlined in the consent decree of June 8, 1976.
475

-------
Processed Area - The dimensional area directly involved in a
particular processing step (expressed in terms of square feet and
square meters).
Process Wastewater - Any water which, during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the
production or use of any raw materials, intermediate product,
finished product, by-product, or waste product.
Process Water - Water prior to its direct contact use in a
process or operation. (This water may be any combination of raw
water, service water, or either process wastewater or treatment
facility effluent to be recycled or reused).
PSES - Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources.
PSNS - Pretreatment Standards for New Sources.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works - A central treatment works
serving a municipality.
Raw Water - Plant intake water prior to any treatment or use.
Reaction Cell - A chamber in which the chemical reactant is
rapidly recirculated to prevent chemical depletion, facilitate
sludge removal and automatically provide chemical replenishment
control.
Rectangular Weir - A weir having a notch that is rectangular in
shape.
Recycled Water - 'Process wastewater or treatment facility
effluent which is recirculated to the same process.
Reduction Practices - (1) Reduction of water use to lower the
volume of wastemean the reduction of water use to lower the
volume of wastewater requiring treatment or (2) the use of
chemical reductant materials to lower the valence state of a
specific wastewater pollutant.	. •
Reduction Treatment - The opposite of oxidation treatment wherein
a reductant (chemical) is used to lower the valence state of a
pollutant to a less toxic form e.g.; the use of S02 to "reduce"
chromium +6 to chromium +3 in an acidic solution.
Retention	Time - The time allowed for solids to collect in a
settling	tank. Theoretically retention time is equal to the
volume of	the tank divided by the flow rate. The actual
retention	time, is determined by the purpose of the tank and is
476

-------
designed to allow time for completion of a chemical reaction such
as reduction of hexavalent chromium or the destruction of
cyanide.
Reused ,Water - Process wastewater.or treatment facility effluent
which is further used in a manufacturing process.
Sanitary Sewer - A sewer that carries liquid and water borne
wastes from residences, commercial buildings, industrial plants,
and institutions together with minor quantities of ground, storm,
and surface waters that are not admitted intentionally to a
municipal treatment plant.
Sanitary Wastes - Wastewater generated by non-industrial
processes; e.g., showers, toilets, food preparation operations.
Scrubber - General term used in reference to a "Wet" Air
Pollution Control Device.
Secondary Settlinq Tank - A tank through which effluent from some
prior treatment process flows for the purpose of removing settle-
able sol ids.
Secondary Wastewater Treatment - The treatment of wastewater by
biological methods after primary treatment by sedimentation.
Sedimentation - The gravity-induced deposition of suspended
matter carried by water, wastewater, or other liquids. It is
usually accomplished by reducing the velocity of the liquid below
the point at which it can transport the suspended material. Also
called settling.
Service Water - Raw water which has been treated prior to its use
in a process or operation; i.e., make-up water.
Settlinq - See Sedimentation.
Sewage, Storm - Liquid flowing in sewers during or following a
period of heavy rainfall.
Sewer - A pipe or conduit, generally closed, but normally not
flowing full, for carrying sewage and other waste liquids.
Settleable Sol ids - (1) That matter in wastewater which will not
stay in suspension during a preselected settling period, such as
one hour, but settles to the bottom. (2) In the Imhoff cone
test, the volume of matter that settles to the bottom of the cone
in one hour.
477

-------
Silk Screening - Coating method in which an enamel is spread onto
a workpiece through a stencil screen.
Single Coat - The application of only one coat of porcelain
enamel. This may be a finish coat in the "Direct-on" process.
Skimming Tank - A tank so designed that floating matter will rise
and remain on the surface of the wastewater until removed, while
the liquid discharges continuously under certain walls or scum
boards.
Slip - A suspension of ceramic material in either water or oil.
Sludge - A suspension slurry or solid matter produced in a
wastewater treatment process.
Sludge Conditioning - A process employed to prepare sludge for
final disposal. Can be thickening, digesting, heat treatment,
etc.
Sludge Disposal - The final disposal of solid wastes.
Sludge Thickening - The increase in solids concentration of
sludge in a sedimentation or digestion tank,
i
Solvent - A liquid' capable of dissolving one or more other
substances.
Spills - A chemical or material spill is an unintentional dis-
charge of more than 10 percent of the daily use of a reqularly
used substance. In the case of a rarely used (one per year or
less) chemical or substance, a spill is that amount that would
result in 10 percent added loading to the normal air, water or
solid waste loadings measured as the closest equivalent
pollutant.
Spray Booth - Structure used to contain airborne particles of
enamel which do not adhere to ware.
Stabilization Lagoon - A shallow pond for storage of wastewater
before discharge. Such lagoons may serve only to detain and
equalize wastewater composition before regulated discharge to a
stream, but often they are used for biological oxidation.
Stabilization Pond - A type of oxidation pond in which biological
oxidation of organic matter is effected by natural or
artificially accelerated transfer of oxygen to the water from
air.
478

-------
Suspended Sol ids - (1) Solids that are in suspension in water,
wastewater, or other liquids, and which are largely removable by
laboratory filtering. (2) The quantity of material removed from
wastewater in a laboratory test, as prescribed in "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" and referred
to as non-filterable residue.
Total Cyanide - The total content of cyanide including simple
and/or complex ions. In analytical terminology, total cyanide is
the sum of cyanide amenable to chlorination and that which is
not, according to standard analytical methods.
Total Sol ids - The total amount of solids in a wastewater in both
solution and suspension.
Toxicity - A measure of the ability of a substance to cause
injury to an organism through chemical activity.
Treatment Efficiency - Usually refers to the removal from
wastewater of a specific pollutant or group of pollutants by a
specific wastewater treatment step or treatment plant.
Treatment Faci1ity Effluent - Treated process wastewater.
Turbidity - (1) A condition in water or wastewater caused by the
presence of suspended matter, resulting in the scattering and
absorption of light rays. (2) A measure of fine suspended matter
in liquids. (3) An analytical quantity usually reported in
arbitrary turbidity units determined by measurements of light
diffraction.
Turbulent Flow - (1) The flow of a liquid past an object such
that the velocity at any fixed point in the fluid varies
irregularly. (2) A type of liquid flow in which there is an
unsteady motion of the particles and the motion at a fixed point
varies in no definite manner. Sometimes called eddy flow,
sinuous flow.
Uverite - Trade name for an antimony titanium fluorine complex
used in white cover enamels.
Vacuum Filtration - See Filter, Vacuum.
Water Balance - An accounting of all water entering and leaving a
unit process or operation in either a liquid or vapor form or via
raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product,
waste product, or via process leaks, so that the difference in
flow between all entering and leaving streams is zero.
479

-------
Weir - (1) A diversion dam. (2) A device that has a crest and
some containment of known geometric shape, such as a V,
trapezoid, or rectangle and is used to measure flow of liquid.
The liquid surface is exposed to the atmosphere. Flow is related
to upstream height of water above the crest, to position of crest
with respect to downstream water surface, and to geometry of the
weir opening.
480

-------
METRIC UNITS
CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)	by	TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT
ABBREVIATION CONVERSION
ABBREVIATION
METRIC UNIT
acre
ac
0.405
ha
hectares
acre - feet
ac ft
1233.5
cu m
cubic meters
British Thermal




Unit
BTU
0.252
kg cal
kilogram - calories
British Thermal




Unit/pound
BTU/lb
0.555
kg cal/kg
kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic feet/minute
cfm
0.028
cu m/mi n
cubic meters/minute
cubic feet/second
cfs
1.7
cu m/min
cubic meters/minute
cubic feet
cu ft
0.028
cu m
cubic meters
cubic feet
cu ft
28.32
1
1 iters
cubic inches
cu in
16.39
cu cm
cubic centimeters
degree Fahrenheit
[F
0.555([F-32)
* [C
degree Centigrade
feet
ft
0.3048
m
meters
gallon
gal
3.785
1
liters
gallon/minute
gpm
0.0631
1/sec
1iters/second
horsepower
hp
0.7457
kw
killowatts
i nches
in
2.54
cm
centimeters
inches of mercury
in Hg
0.03342
atm
atmospheres
pounds
lb
0.454
kg
kilograms
million gallons/day
mgd
3,785
cu m/day
cubic meters/day
mil e
mi
1.609
km
kilometer
pound/square




inch (gauge)
psig
(0.06805 psig +1)
* atm
atmospheres (absolute)
square feet
sq ft
0.0929
sq m
square meters
square inches
sq in
6.452
sq cm
square centimeters
ton (short)
ton
0.907
kkg
metric ton (1000 kilograms
yard
yd
0.9144
m
meter
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
481
»U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1983 0-381-545/3802

-------